I have been taking an online course entitled "Terrorism and Counterterrorism," given by the Director of the Centre for Terrorism and Counterterrorism (CTC) at Leiden University in The Hague, Edwin Bakker ( email@example.com). This week's lectures have attempted to show that terrorism is not "predominantly anti-Western." Indeed, less than 17 lives were lost to terrorism in Western Europe in 2012. Bakker thus concludes that fear of terrorism is unwarranted in the West.
From a culturist perspective (in which civilizations differ and clash), the West (Christendom) is the historic heart of Christianity. Thus all attacks on Christianity are ultimately aimed at us. Using the pan-Christian measure, the anti-West terrorism total rises to 20 attacks, claiming 64 lives in just December of 2012. But even then, counting isolated incidents does not allow us to understand the nature of Islamic conquest as seen in the pending Muslim genocides of Christians in Egypt, Sudan, Nigeria, Iraq, and Syria.
Terrorism is just a technique. The aim of terrorism, which we should fear, is Islamic domination. Mr Bakker should note that his own Netherlands has 40 no-go zones. In fact, his city, The Hague, has one known as the Sharia Triangle. If Bakker gets beaten in the Triangle, he will not count it as terrorism because no bombs were used, it is only an isolated incident, and has no stated political aims. From a culturist perspective, even the threat of violence for going into such an area has a political end: Islamic domination – it too is terrorism.
Bakker and his professional counterterrorists find the assumption that "terrorists are successful" only "partly true." But, even then, we learned, terrorism being successful is only "partly true" if you count getting media attention and generating fear as "success." (Again, he says this is an irrational fear because so few people are actually killed by terrorists in the West.) In reality, experts attest, only seven percent of terrorists achieve their political goal. Ask the Copts about terrorist success. Consider the role of rapes in establishing no-go zones, Mr Bakker.
As the head of the CTC, Bakker endangers us when he minimizes Islamic danger (even calling the Boston Marathon bombing "minor"). But it is worse. The course forum has 'hate speech' guidelines. My post with the title "Culturism" was disallowed, (I believe) because it was deemed 'racism.' Mr Bakker is part of the clique that tried his compatriot, Geert Wilders (an anti-jihad Dutch politician), for racism, when he dared discuss the reality of cultural diversity and Islamic expansion goals. Geert's concerns are not irrational racism, Mr Bakker, they are rational culturism.
In our course, Bakker considers America's Unabomber and 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed equal as terrorists. The Unabomber was a loner in a remote cabin; he had no civilization behind him. Without a culturist perspective, Mr Bakker cannot begin to understand Islamic terror. Yes, to return to his original question, it may be the case that Islamic terror is notpredominantly anti-Western.
But to minimize it via concise and constricting definitions, to mock those who worry about it (while you work near a no-go zone), to censor those who bring in historical perspectives and discuss cultural diversity, aids the terrorists. I hope The Hague does not have to get completely encircled in violent Islamic intolerance for you to recognize the true definition of terrorism.