Something that caught me by surprise, was the Bataclan Massacre in Paris, November 2015. Particularly the choice of venue, and also the Ariana Grande Massacre in Manchester, England. Why were Islamic Radical Terrorists targeting liberal concert goers?
It is true that The Holy Prophet Muhammad, may the peace and blessings of God be upon him, urged that music be viewed as a powerful intoxicant that competes with religiosity, though it's unlikely this alone is behind the attacks like the Pulse nightclub shooting.
Here in the US it is difficult for the populace to imagine that the liberal to conservative spectrum here is entirely liberal compared to other, particularly Islamic, conservative nations. The most conservative people in the US are vastly liberal in their eyes, because their cultures are significantly more conservative. The most liberal people of the west are viewed as culture vultures, and the source of western aggression. This is erroneously misplaced resistance, and so these attacks initially seemed inexplicable. So the US domestic policy has a liberal and conservative spectrum, however our foreign policy is entirely liberal, and is called liberal hegemony (see below for more). It may seem counterintuitive. However this is definitely the case.
For example, The Bush Doctrine is fundamentally premised on liberal ideology. Emerging from the Cold War as the leader of a unipolar world, the US did what all nations, not just superpowers, want, which is to aim to establish hegemony. Hegemony is a state where a nation has essentially deactivated all potential adversaries. Particularly, what nations want is liberal hegemony. The proponents of liberal hegemony believe that peace can emerge from spreading liberal values globally, and this is wrong. What probably actually works is a deterrent strategy. For example, when Ukraine decided to give up their nuclear option, soon thereafter Russia was in their backyard.
When Facebook rolled out, it was marketed as a unifying platform that will allow a new openness. In reality it, as we later learned, it polarized people.
Many however, drank the Kool Aid of Facebook's promise as it dosed everyone with radicalizing fake news. Similarly, liberal hegemony is based on some idealistic notions, that later turned out to be wrong turns, such as the notion that democracy is good for all groups, democracy leads to peace, and that other nations find liberal values such as individualism as a "good." We now obviously know that these ideas may not be as true as "The Bush Doctrine" originally suggested that they would be.
Still we must recognize when elections do happen, and democracy has it's occasional shining moment. Realistically though, it's not always the case. People vote in Hitlers, Fascists, deceptively worded referendums, and all kinds of stupid taxes all the time.
Furthermore, to egg populations to revolt against their government on the other hand, is clearly unethical, because we would not feel comfortable with other nations meddling in our domestic issues.
Recently I heard Sam Harris describe Muslim females as wearing "bags," in a derisive manner. He says this with such an air of moral superiority that he must be hallucinating, or incapable of understanding modesty and self awareness. The idea he seems to be peddling is that females only have rights, and somehow don't have any responsibility. The whole premise of the #MeToo movement suggests that gender issues are a part of western society as well.
Trump attempted to egg on protestors in Iran, and news media glamorized stories of females protesting the burqa. These are the very stupid liberal ideas that have us running for cover. So Trump is capable of doing it too, on some days.
Trump ought to know it's immoral to go into someone else's country and tell them how to live, and the other country is taking the moral high ground actually, by chasing out every damn liberal within a hundred miles. Pakistan stopped cooperating with the US after enough of their innocent citizens were killed, and Trump tried to malign the contributions Pakistan has made in the war on terrorism. Trump must comport himself in those moments when he has a stupid liberal idea in the face of vociferous conservatives. Liberalicide is the natural product of liberals attempting arrogant moral superiority moves. The US has been forcefully humbled into becoming, potentially, a less than superpower level nation of obese softies.
While some believe that the concept of planting the seeds of democracy in the Islamic world is a desirable goal, there are many in the region that do not agree. For example, some from the alternative right "Steve Bannon"~esque school of thought, readily point out that democracy has only really originally taken root in those areas where governments have first banned cousin marriages.
Democracy has to be imported and transported into the more inbred and incestuous areas where it doesn't always take, they argue. It's another, potentially arrogant, and possibly erroneous idea yet coming from the fringes of the American non-conservative right. Americans are beginning to let go of American exceptionalism. It was probably a good idea Trump let Bannon go, because he was perhaps a bit beyond the pale. However, what if he is onto something? Perhaps some tribes of people actually are less capable of pulling off a democracy? It is a possibility isn't it? If it's true, it may explain why it is so difficult to make "The Bush Doctrine" stick. The US struggles to get the New Iraqi government's troops to even feel like fighting insurgents for this democracy idea, that they feel ambivalent towards, at best. Meanwhile, their enemy is fighting with gung-ho zeal, because they believe in what they do. Democracy isn't convincing enough to get people to stick their neck out for. Not having your country occupied by a foreign country is. When they feel like their way of life is under threat, people naturally and voluntarily go to war, not the military, but the people themselves.
The alt-right counter argument to the liberal hegemony argument is that democracy is simply not in the DNA of certain populations. For one, having a higher rate of consanguinuity, some groups, like the UAE, are finding that Monarchy is an easier solution for them, whereas on the other side of the spectrum, a supposedly multicultural and diverse society like here in the US, may find that a democratic republic is a more suitable way to establish an acceptable form of governance over our states. I'm not saying this out moral relativism, or post modernism, rather as a patriotic American who cares about the self preservation of my friends and I. For an American, I'm a bit conservative, though from the view of a Muslim nation, I'm a bit liberal, because I believe in American ideas, like freedom of religion. Pakistan does not have this freedom, and they have outlawed the Ahmadi Community's religion. Still, personally, I recommend democracy to Muslim nations because the Islamic religion has the institution of Shura which is basically a Congress like establishment which exists to create democracy through group discussions and advising kings, or caliphs. They must use it more. Furthermore, Islamic society does not have the degree of inequality that exists in other nations. I recommend democracy because ultimately people want autonomy, which motivates a strong economy, and no good king can govern well and be oblivious of the will of the people.
Terrorists, acting on an erroneous understanding of the political situation, are going after liberals, because these stupid liberal ideas, like liberal hegemony, based on self valorizing individualism, will actually have you running for cover faster than Henry Kissinger. The truth is that many liberal beliefs plant discord in other nations, and many governments are working diligently to establish liberalism globally. This plan is starting to backfire.
The good news is that with the coming of the Trump administration this problem is quickly being solved. Interestingly, coinciding with Trump's victory, were very trumped up stories of Chinese and Russian interference. Overnight, the narrative of a one world unipolar world super power was dropped, and a tripolar narrative was injected into the legacy media. This was the idea that now power is balanced between the US, China, and Russia. For example, there are stories suggesting that Russia conspired to rig the election in Trump's direction. Similarly, recent stories have urged Americans to avoid certain brands of Chinese phones to prevent Chinese spying on US interests. Particularly the phone brands Huawei and LTE, were called out as brands that are anti-American, and infiltrated by interests favorable to the Chinese.
This may sound disconcerting or deterrent, though we may actually be heading to a more peaceful world. The world's anxiety regarding the nuclear ambitions of North Korea, and Iran, may be well placed. However, there is a silver lining to this dark situation. The inception of the Trump administration's coinciding stories of a multipolar world, is a sign that neither the "new" US, nor Trump, bother to view the US as the world's only super power now. Trump clearly does not believe in liberal hegemony, like Bush foolishly did. His lack of gullibility will help keep liberals safe. Bush drank the Kool Aid of liberalism, where Trump does not. Trump is more of a tariffs and middle fingers to all other countries type of guy, maybe not entirely an isolationist, though counterintuitively more safe and effective, because deterrents trump democracy. They really do. No joke. The reason Islamic terrorists are attacking liberals worldwide is because stupid liberal ideas, like liberal hegemony, are used to invade nations, and wreck the beautiful Islamic culture. The lives of actual liberals are being savagely taken, as they are taking the brunt of what was done in the name of their ideas. The Pulse nightclub nightmare of an attack is another attack that is in concordance with the idea that liberal hegemony breeds vehemence toward liberals. It's the perfect example of the old saying, the road to hell is paved with "good" intentions.
Obviously there are now over 2 million innocent people dead, bodies littered through the Islamic world due to highly erroneous western countries going in, meddling around, and trying to make Islamic countries some kind of European enclave they don't feel like being. Muslims are right to oppose liberals wherever they find them, because surely Islam is conservative to its very core. You will find liberal Muslims here and there, though for the most part, Muslims prefer the company of Christians to liberals, who they consider just some disrespectful and useless Pagans, or non-believers. Liberal ideas have actually wrecked the Islamic world, which must fight back to survive. This is a dark truth. However, the use of violence is bad, because terrorists obviously give the good, well intentioned Muslims a bad reputation. Muslims can stop liberals around the world using peaceful means.
This quarantining of liberalism can be accomplished electorally, using social ostracism, writing, and other peaceful means. It is true that the liberal world lead to the death of over 2 million plus Muslims, though Muhammad reminds us that it is better to forgive, and not seek vengeance. God does not like anger. Anti-Liberal Islamic Vehemence can and must be expressed through simply drawing attention to liberal ideas that are wrong, and allowing our own electoral processes to work their magic.
We are definitely in a religious war. It's not a war between Muslims and Christians, who are actually allies believing in the same God. Rather, the real religious war is Muslims against the liberal world, which is secular and warlike, and arrogant enough to wander into other people's places and try and tell them how to live.
Learn more about liberal hegemony via Yale University: 