Home | About | Donate

Defeating Islamic Terrorism. Here’s How…


Defeating Islamic Terrorism. Here’s How…

Peter Van Buren

As terrorism struck again in Nice and Germany and… Donald Trump outlined his policy against Islamic State: as president, he will seek a full declaration of war from Congress, the first such formal invocation since Pearl Harbor.


I view Peter Van Buren as an insufferable spokesperson for American Exceptionalism. Like others taught by the State Department, he drops just enough tidbits of truth into Propaganda sandwiches to make the false go down with the true.

Let's take this, almost halfway into this article:

"The west must be willing to understand Islamic terror beyond scary search engine terms and decide if we wish to tackle the problem at its core, or simply choose to live with a new normal where incidents like Nice will just happen. Here is what might be considered. It will be hard, and will be unpopular."

The "West" is subliminally defined as "the good guys" and entirely faultless because the PROBLEM is "Islamic Terrorism."

There is ZERO mention of the contrived (on false evidence, cases "fixed" for war) wars of aggression that stirred up a Middle East hornet's nest.

The quintessential crime was war of aggression. The blowback is described as "Islamic Terrorism."

This is similar to the argument that pushes U.S/NATO bases right up to Russia's borders, provokes Putin by engineering a coup in Ukraine, and then BLAMES "Putin's Aggression" for the mess.

It's the psychology of the False Flag event... now expanded into the universal theaters of war.

In each of these instances, the precipitating event and its authors are left entirely out of the equation (and discussion). It's what happens as a RESULT that's chastised or framed in a way that turns the Arab world into the unstable maniacs... and the West into the reasoned intellectuals who always operate on the basis of groomed civility in all of their (deadly) deeds.

C.D.? Why do you feature so many military men and state department analysts in this forum? To my way of thinking, that edifies them when it's largely the mindset OF the military and its various "intelligence" brokers that has made this world the mess that it is.

By this logic, why not ask Monsanto for dietary advice?


I typically comment before reading others since I get incensed by certain articles and can't contain my reaction... easily.

I see that you essentially related what I did... beating me "to the punch" by 20 minutes.

Fine minds think alike?

This, from the article, is powerful stuff. However, my "read" on the way Mr. Van Buren presented it is that he's suggesting that what's stated here are PERCEPTIONS of events rather than ACTUAL things:

"At the same time, both sides of the divide recruit well off of horror stories of CIA torture, the continued existence of Guantanamo, the fits of Islamophobia played out in western refugee policy, French and American militarization of Islamic Africa, and a core belief that the actual goal of the western powers is not to “defeat Islamic State,” but to create a permanent state of war against Muslims while garrisoning the Middle East (it used to be more about taking Arab oil, but the point is the same.) More war, more troops, and more draconian security measures are just gas on those fires."

In other words, it's not THAT a perpetual war IS underway; it's that there is a "core belief" that this is the case.

Astute readers will read through the subliminal suggestions to recognize how deep Van Buren's spook training (in the art of dis-information) goes.



Here he goes again, pure Van Buren Bull-shit in action, a/k/a inverting Truth to suit the Official Story:

"Much of radical jihadism is less about destroying the west than it is about changing the Middle East; even 9/11, the worst of the terror attacks, had as its extended purpose pulling the United States into Afghanistan in hopes of triggering a broader Muslim uprising across the region."

The opening sentence is a complete inversion of TRUTH ON THE GROUND.

Apart from the likelihood that 911 was a False Flag/Inside Job (which many thinkers now fully understand), by positing the idea that it is Radical Jihadism that is intent upon destroying the West when the West (principally, the U.S. & its NATO subjects cum allies) HAS destroyed upwards of 6 Arab nations is either the conclusion of am imbecile or one trained to invert Truth.

And for all the fine talk about the U.S. not working with tyrants who oppress their own people, not ONE word is uttered about:

  1. The fact that U.S. special interests led by the MIC and its war profiteers/weapons producers LIKE to do business with these nations.

  2. That the U.S. and its special interests require Arab subservience in order to maintain the global status of the U.S. petro-dollar.

  3. That U.S. special interests would like to see the entire citizenry of the world controlled in the manner that reflexively results from strongmen leadership.

(Remember how Bush made a comment of that nature to the head of the Saudi family... but it was passed off as a joke?)

And this... about 14 years too late:

"Because you can’t stop the next truck. You do have a chance at making it so a man won’t choose to get behind the wheel."


Why is it that nowhere in this article. The author fails to mention. The U.S. is supporting Islamic Terrorist in places like Syria and Libya. Total war dead in Syria alone is now well over 400.000 dead. The US and
Nato have destroyed both Syria and Libya using Islamic Terrorist. So why wouldn't they also being using them in Europe and perhaps the U.S. to further there agenda.


Good points.
As Chomsky wrote "The way to stop attacks on us is to stop our attacks on Muslim lands". Commonsense, but since "9/11" or before, never suggested by "our leaders".

Of course, the little poodle, with reference to a Tunisian-Frenchman living in Nice, " President Francois Hollande, declared “We will continue striking those who attack us on our own soil.” As if the Syrians and Iraqis are somehow responsible for this tragedy.


Hang on there. Wasn't the "terrorism" in Germany some nutcase attacking some mentally deficient people or is the news where I live different from that in the USA?

The event in Nice. Some idiot cracked and drove a truck into 84 people.

Now about all those terrorists running massacres in the USA, just about every second week, those "lone gunmen" of yours.......you know, those terrorist teenagers shooting-up schools etc etc etc?


Fallujah fell

Yes, Mr van Buren. But which fall? Do you mean the one where as a result of four thugs from Blackwater getting murdered in Fallujah, you know, shortly after the US invasion of Iraq, the US Marines or some similar outfit attacked Fallujah and having taken it over proceeded to shoot any civilian and ambulance happening to be on the streets at the time? It went on for around a month, I seem to recall. It was fully documented on a daily basis by a reporter living there at the time, and he produced a blog describing the events as they happened.


The question of what to do with Islamic terrorism must be divided into two parts: Before erasing the geographical entity that is ISIS, and after. An organization that owns oil income property, that holds civilian populations as hostage, and that controls national borders must be wiped out utterly, and soon, using broad, military strokes.

After that,multi-pronged efforts should be instituted to encourage civil society, democracy and economic well being of the region. This will be agonizingly slow, will not be one-size-fit-all, and will take really smart and dedicated people to plan and implement.

As to western nations' security in the short term, the background of each and every immigrant applicant must be scrutinized, in the same manner that government workers undergo security clearance background checks. The wife of the San Bernardino shooter would never have passed such scrutiny. Expensive yes, but cheaper than lives. Those that pass muster will be grateful for the clean bill of health awarded them, mitigating an ugly stereotype that they cannot avoid otherwise.


I wonder what the outcome of this simpler suggestion ...
Encourage leaders of the “moderate” Muslim community in the US (and abroad) to publicly denounce the perpetrators of the recent attacks - something to the effect that this isn’t what Islam is about and that those who murder the innocent do not end up in paradise, but somewhere else.
(Imagine if the extremists were Catholic ... and a public denouncing was done by the Pope ...)