(ANTIMEDIA) In the wake of several suspected terror attacks over the weekend, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have renewed their vows to create more terrorists if elected president. Sure, each of them said they were the only true candidate who could effectively take on terrorism, but their proposed solutions have proven to be the very recipes needed to create it.
Let me explain.
Donald Trump, the candidate most likely to benefit from terror attacks waged in the U.S. between now and election day, has repeatedly promised to be tough on Islam in America. His famously incendiary rhetoric has earned him the anti-terror candidate badge, a popular branding in a post-9/11 age of fear and paranoia over Muslims and the Middle Eastern refugee crisis.
Trump said he would ban Muslims from certain countries from entering the United States. He said he would add Muslims to a database to keep track of them. He said police should profile Muslims and should have an openly stronger presence in Muslim neighborhoods. He said Islam hates us.
Donald Trump, whether directly or indirectly, repeatedly claims Islam is our enemy — and a lot of people think he’s right.
But what he won’t tell you is that his “tough on Islam” approach, which America has actively pursued since 9/11, actually inspires homegrown extremism. As Dan Sanchez perfectly pointed out in the days following the Paris terror attacks:
“Since the attack, tribal animus toward Muslims has spiked in both France and the US. Frightened and angered by the attack, ever more people are perceiving all of Islam, a religion of one billion people, as one big undifferentiated menacing herd or enemy camp. And this induces them to become more herd-like themselves, and more like a radicalized ‘crusader camp.’ Such herd-minded indiscriminate hatred is what undergirds the beastly policies ISIS is hoping for. And those policies in turn will drive more Muslims into the extreme Islamist camp, whose future attacks will start the polarizing cycle all over again.”
Trump’s rhetoric, as Hillary Clinton rightly claims, plays right into the hands of ISIS and other terror groups because the sentiment and policies he is endorsing will marginalize Muslims — the overwhelming majority of whom are moderate — and drive them into the hands of radicals. Trump’s policies are a dream come true for terror groups hoping to inspire homegrown attacks in the United States.
In fact, Ahmad Khan Rahami, the suspected terrorist allegedly responsible for bombings in New Jersey and New York over the weekend, may have been radicalized in part by Islamophobia and police mistreatment. According to the Washington Post:
“In 2011, the Rahami family sued the city of Elizabeth and several police officers, alleging they had been inappropriately cited for keeping their business open past 10 p.m. and harassed by police.
“They alleged that a man in the neighborhood told them ‘you are Muslims’ and ‘Muslims make too much trouble in this country’ and complained unfairly to law enforcement, who singled them out ‘solely on animus against [their] religion, creed, race and national origin.’
“In one instance, they alleged, two Rahami family members were arrested for attempting to record a conversation with officers.”
Though we don’t know the motive for the attacks over the weekend yet, the alleged bomber Ahmad Khan Rahami may very well have been radicalized in part by policies and ideas Trump is promising to expand.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has condemned Trump’s tough-on-Islam domestic policies as outrageous and dangerous, and she is actually right in that regard. Trump’s rhetoric and policies are likely to create homegrown terrorism, however, Hillary’s policies are likely to create more terrorism overseas, exacerbate the refugee crisis, and in turn, spur Islamophobia in the United States (see above for why that will create more terrorism).
Clinton claims she will be tough and smart on terrorism, rooting it out from its home in the Middle East. But what Hillary won’t tell you is that it was policies she directly supported that helped create ISIS and much of the instability in the Middle East — instability radical Islamic groups use to their advantage. Hillary Clinton voted for and supported the Iraq War. There is now a consensus that ISIS was only able to grow into the threat it has because of the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton supported the attempted overthrow of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, a strategy that failed and has led to the brutal Syrian Civil War. In the early days of the Syrian uprising, ISIS was actually considered an asset in the U.S. mission against Assad because, as the saying goes, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” It wasn’t until ISIS crossed back into Iraq, taking over vast swaths of territory, that the Obama administration decided it was a problem.
According to recently released State Departments emails, Hillary Clinton’s Syria strategy was simple. “The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad,” one of her aides wrote. Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state when the Syrian civil war began, directly helped create the vacuum in Syria for ISIS to fill. Hillary has floated the idea of a “no-fly zone” in Syria should she be elected, which is the precursor to regime change in Syria. This is a recipe for disaster that would create even more instability in the region and, you guessed it, more terrorism.
Though it started as a no-fly zone, “Hillary’s war” in Libya saw the overthrow of Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi — a catastrophic blow to stability in North Africa. Previously the country with the highest standard of living on the continent, Libya is now a failed state in the midst of a civil war and a breeding ground for radical Islamic groups, including ISIS.
State Department emails reveal Obama was reluctant to overthrow Gaddafi out of fear of repeating the Iraq quagmire, but Hillary successfully lobbied the issue and convinced him to go through with regime change — even though there was no plan to replace his regime, and the U.S.-backed opposition was rife with extremists. One U.S.-backed group committed ethnic cleansing against black Libyans. Hillary was made aware of this fact but looked the other way while still supplying them with arms to fight Gaddafi.
You see, Hillary’s anti-terror policies actually complement Trump’s. Whereas Trump’s policies will increase terrorism by promoting a society that encourages radicalism, Clinton’s creates more terrorism by fueling instability in the Middle East. This instability creates a breeding ground for terrorists to recruit new fighters against perceived U.S. imperialism. It provides home bases for terrorists to plan and execute terror attacks against American targets overseas and at home. The global War on Terror has cost U.S. taxpayers nearly $5 trillion dollars and has ‘accomplished’ an increase of terrorism by 6,500%. Clinton’s policies also helped create the current Middle Eastern refugee crisis, which, as explained above, helps people like Trump create homegrown terrorists out of moderate Muslims.
Both candidates have vowed to get tough on terrorism following the suspected terror attacks over the weekend, but what they really mean to say is that they promise to create more of it. Don’t worry, they claim — they’re here to keep you safe.
This article (Following Weekend Terror Attacks, Trump and Clinton Vow to Increase Terrorism) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Nick Bernabe and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: Gage Skidmore. If you spot a typo, email email@example.com.
Since you’re here…
…We have a small favor to ask. Fewer and fewer people are seeing Anti-Media articles as social media sites crack down on us, and advertising revenues across the board are quickly declining. However, unlike many news organizations, we haven’t put up a paywall because we value open and accessible journalism over profit — but at this point, we’re barely even breaking even. Hopefully, you can see why we need to ask for your help. Anti-Media’s independent journalism and analysis takes substantial time, resources, and effort to produce, but we do it because we believe in our message and hope you do, too.
If everyone who reads our reporting and finds value in it helps fund it, our future can be much more secure. For as little as $1 and a minute of your time, you can support Anti-Media. Thank you. Click here to support us