First American war against jihadism

Sep 2019
486
Slovenia
First Barbary war (1801–1805) was in fact first fight between young USA and jihadism. Pirates supported from the Barbary States in North Africa were seizing American merchant ships and holding the crews for ransom. They demanded young American republic had to pay tribute to Barbary rulers. This kind of piracy had a very long history but this time affected USA for the first time. Richer European states like France or England were able to pay tributes and saw this even as a way to get rid of their not so rich competition. Already on 11 October 1784, Moroccan pirates seized first USA ship. A year later pirates from Algeria started to capture American ships. 115 sailors were set free but USA had to pay over $1 million. This amount totaled about one-sixth of the entire U.S. budget and was demanded as tribute by the Barbary States to prevent further piracy. Some captured sailors were used as slave labour force in North Africa.

In March 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. When they enquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, (that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise). He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

When USA built stronger navy under president Thomas Jefferson USA felt strong enough to decline to pay tribute to Barbary rulers and war was declared on American republic. In October 1803, Tripoli's fleet captured USS warship Philadelphia. But later Philadelphia now in the enemy hands was destroyed by American marines. The turning point in the war was the battle of Derna (April–May 1805). Small force of U.S. Marines and five hundred mercenaries—Greeks from Crete, Arabs ( supporters of a deposed ruler in Tripoli ), and Berbers on a march across the desert from Egypt to capture the Tripolitan city of Derna. This was the first time the United States flag was raised in victory on foreign soil. The capturing of the city gave American negotiators leverage in securing the return of hostages and the end of the war.

The First Barbary War was beneficial to the reputation of the United States' military command and war mechanism. But soon Barbary states again started to size American ships and taking hostages. That led to second Barbary war which ened all the tributes paid by USA to North African rulers.






 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tammuz
Sep 2019
486
Slovenia
Because of this.

In March 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. When they enquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, (that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise). He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.
 
Feb 2017
526
Latin America
I don't think we should take seriously what US sources narrate to us. We should see what the Barbary sources about the incident say. Europeans were the foremost pirates of the day (to the point we see Europeans leading Muslim pirates, such as in a well-known raid of Iceland that was actually led by a Dutch) yet no one said they were pirates because of their Protestantism or Catholicism. The US sources are ill-willed and try to justify an attack on Barbary States despite this being the equivalent of the US going all the way into Europe to bomb Spanish coasts because of pirate Robert Cofresí.

It's also ill-willed to see this as some kind of continuous war between the US and Muslims. The US barely had any war with Muslims in the 19th century, and no Muslim ever attacked US soil in that century either. Indeed, the first major attack on US soil by an outside Muslim force was the WTC bombings of the 1990s, in response to the US-led coalition that was bombing Iraq into rubble in 1991. It also did not involve a state but rather a non-state actor. Nor can we compare the raiding of ships, which was nothing unique to Muslims since, again, we see European pirates like Roberto Cofresí also raiding US ships, to tragedies like the WTC bombings or the later 9/11. The scale of bloodshed and destruction is incomparable, and they were done on US soil, not outside of it.

(I've also always found this right-wing hatred of Muslims ironic, as anti-Communists should be thankful to Muslim "jihadists". The Muslim muhajeddin armed and financed by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan played a major role in destroying Communism in Central Asia during the 1980s, and Suharto's genocides in Indonesia was crucial in keeping Communists from obtaining power. The Pakistanis also were crucial in destroying Communism in Bangladesh and weakening if not breaking the Soviet-Indian alliance when they committed the Bangladesh genocide of the early 1970s with US support. The same with Turkey and Communist Kurds. Though I suspect people will say that, except the muhajeddin, the Muslims killing Communists and preventing Communism from getting power are not "religious" or "jihadi", kind of like the Syria correspondents and scholars like Charles Lister who insisted in the existence of "moderate rebels" against Assad.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashoka maurya

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
36,311
T'Republic of Yorkshire
This thread is a hotbed of agenda.

Thread moved to the Chamber. I will be watching this carefully. If it goes off the rails, there will be sanctions with NO warnings.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,766
Yes, they were only attacking Christian ships. Muslims also took European and black African slaves, but not Muslim slaves. Similarly, Christians would not enslave Christians.

Europeans did engage in piracy and other Europeans, particularly privateering in time of war. Most famously, English privateering against the Spanish treasure fleets.

The issue was the Barbary pirates were demanding extremely high protection money from the US, because they viewed it as weak and far away. That is why the US sent an expedition against them. The result was that they were not able to get as much from any power, as the weakness for the pirate states was shown.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashoka maurya
Sep 2019
486
Slovenia
I will keep with the topic... Barbary states piracy was going on for centuries, young USA was just an easy target for it. In his 2003 book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500–1800, Ohio state university history professor Robert Davis estimates that slave traders from Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli alone enslaved 1 million to 1.25 million Europeans in North Africa, from the beginning of the 16th century to the middle of the 18th.


Paying tributes to muslim rulers and attacking non-belivers was in accordance with main islamic schools of jurisprudence. Well respected islamic scholar Syed Abdul A'la Maududi put it on this way: ''The purpose for which the Muslims are required to fight is not as one might to think, to compel unbelievers into embracing islam. It's purpose is to put an end to the suzerainty of unbelivers so that the latter are unable to rule over the people. The authorithy to rule should only be vested in those who follow the true faith.''

And he wrote also:

Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. Islam requires the earth—not just a portion, but the whole planet.... because the entire mankind should benefit from the ideology and welfare programme ( of islam ).




 
Feb 2017
526
Latin America
Yes, I bet Maududi inspired the Barbary pirates to attack US ships breaking into Barbary waters. He must have had a time travelling machine. I'm also sure the Bush dynasty inspired by the US to go invade Muslim lands in the name of Christianity with their time travelling powers given by God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashoka maurya
Feb 2017
526
Latin America
Yes, Maududi is an accurate representation of the mode of thought of Muslim pirates in the 18th and 19th century, just like the Bush family is an accurate representation of Christian and Western mode of thought in the 18th and 19th centuries.

And you haven't given the source I asked either. You keep dodging that.