www.islam-watch.org

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

Refusal to Name the Enemy

E-mail Print PDF
On September 11, 2001, extremists hijacked four American airliners, crashing them into New York City's World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. The tragedy resulted in 3,000 Americans dying.

Does the above paragraph sound strange, deliberately vague, misleading (i.e., "politically correct") -- like a misrepresentation of what actually happened on that fateful Tuesday morning? If so, then for the last nine years, America -- from presidents and other politicians to Pentagon officials -- has been engaged in an exercise of obfuscation and verbal gymnastics. And, of course, the leftist establishment media (aka the "mainstream media") have willingly gone along with the above deception. Now consider the politically incorrect truth:

On September 11, 2001, nineteen Islamist terrorists from the Middle East -- fifteen from Saudi Arabia -- hijacked four American airliners, crashing them into New York City's World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. This atrocity resulted in 3,000 innocent Americans being deliberately murdered. Many Muslims wildly erupted in joy in Arab and other Muslim countries, carrying pictures of Osama bin Laden, whose terrorist group, al-Qaeda, took credit for the attacks.

To any person with a modicum of intelligence and reasoning skill, the italicizing and boldfacing of certain words, phrases, and sentences are not needed to realize just how different the narrative -- and truth -- sound from each other. For most Americans, the latter paragraph explains concisely what happened on that horrible day, but due to political correctness, such explicit statements have hardly been written or uttered. Indeed, to speak or write of anything with the words "Islam," "Muslim," or "Middle Eastern" in the same sentence with the word "terrorism" was -- and still is -- verboten. Sad to say, the muzzling of the truth comes not only from liberals and Democrats, but from some conservatives and Republicans as well.

Tragically, the cue for the Orwellian doublespeak came from none other than President George W. Bush himself. Just six days after the most deadly attacks ever on American soil, Mr. Bush appeared on September 17, 2001 -- flanked by members of the "moderate" Muslim group CAIR -- at the Washington Islamic Center, where he boldly proclaimed for the first (but certainly not the last) time that Islam is a "religion of peace." President Bush had already been vilified and excoriated by the media and the Muslim world when he borrowed a word from General Eisenhower's speech to his troops on the eve of D-Day. The unforgivable word, and therefore the unforgivable sin, on the part of the president? He used the word "crusade." The fact that General Eisenhower had used the word in regard to the war against Nazi Germany had no effect on Bush's critics. "Islamophiliacs" came out of the woodwork to condemn Bush's "insensitivity." How, pondered these "experts" on Islam, could he use such a word when it had such negative connotations in the Muslim world?

A humbled Bush never again uttered the word, and except for one or two occasions, never uttered the terms "Islamic" (or "Islamist") and "terrorism" in the same sentence. When he did use the former term, he was immediately slapped down by CAIR and other Muslim groups. Anyone referring to "Islamist terrorism" was immediately labeled an "Islamophobe" and "racist," which raises the question: How can one be a racist in regard to a religion that encompasses all different races and nationalities? Even in the heart of the Middle East, there are very light-skinned Arab (and non-Arab) Muslims with fair hair and light eyes. However, labeling one a "racist" is enough to put most people on the defensive, or worse, to silence them.

As time passed, President Bush gave annual Ramadan dinners, ignorantly befriended Muslim organizations which fronted for terrorist groups, and continued to heap praise on "the religion of peace." The continuing obfuscation of the Islamist terror attacks was not limited to the White House. Intelligence organizations, the military establishment, and, of course, the media joined in on the chorus. When America, in response to the attacks, invaded Afghanistan, and then Iraq, soldiers were given sensitivity training courses on how to deal with Muslim men and women, as well as on the culture and religion of the area. It seemed that every official entity of the government went out of its way to show that this was not a war against Islam (or even "radical" Islam), but a war against "terror," "terrorists," and "terrorism." It came to such a revolting and humiliating point that one began to wonder if some country named "Terror" existed, with its citizenry called "Terrorists."

As many people have pointed out, terrorism is not an ideology, but a tactic. However, "radical Islam" -- or the more recent term being used, "Islamism" -- is an ideology. It probably would be best-left to Muslim theologians and experts on Islamic jurisprudence to define just what the distinctions are between "moderate Islam" and "radical Islam." (It is highly doubtful that Charles Martel convened a council of non-Muslims before the Battle of Tours in 732 A.D. to debate "moderate" vs. "radical" Islam while engaged in a war with a Muslim army on the verge of conquering France.)

Nevertheless, can one imagine during World War II if the American government and military had never used the term "Nazism" or "kamikaze" to describe the enemy? It is unthinkable. Indeed, at present, it is unforgivable that American officialdom has covered up who our present-day enemy is, what it stands for, and what its ultimate goals are.

Now that the United States has a different president in power -- one apparently obsessed with "repairing" relations with the Muslim world and apologizing for perceived American injustices to Muslims -- the term "terrorist" has been all but abolished from the government lexicon. The deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security, John Brennan, in a May 19th speech before the Center of International and Strategic Studies, stated that the concept of "jihad" was a "legitimate tenet of Islam" and that the term should not be used to define America's enemies, as that would be "counterproductive." While Brennan's asinine remarks could be waved off, he is indeed correct that jihad is a "legitimate tenet of Islam."...but not in the way that he and other apologists perceive it. Whenever political and religious figures in the Islamic world have used the term, it has always meant "holy war" against the "infidel." Does anyone in his or her right mind truly believe that when terror groups such as al-Qaeda, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas invoke the term, they are referring to anything but war?

The sad facts remain. America has refused to call out the enemy for what it truly is: a murderous ideology based on religion and religious texts that seeks to dominate the world by any and all means. One can call it "Islamism" or "radical Islam," but facts do not change. While America blithely refuses to face the truth, handcuffs its military with "rules of engagement" that could have been written by the Taliban themselves, and courts a fifth column that has already infiltrated and penetrated our government and other institutions, her enemy freely, openly, and proudly acknowledges that this is a war between religions and civilizations that will ultimately end with a worldwide Islamic caliphate.

Will it take another 9/11-type attack, resulting in thousands more Americans dead in the streets of New York, Washington, or elsewhere, before America finally awakes from its slumber and admits to whom and what we are up against? If not, then perhaps we should withdraw our troops from the Middle East and begin taking lessons in Arabic and Islam.

 


 

This article first appeared in American Thinker.

Comments (22)Add Comment
0
its has nothing to do about islam at all
written by Rocky , August 16, 2010
I dont really see what is the problem of the writer. So Bush shouldnt have went to that islamic centre on the 17th of september, 2001? Or, american soldiers should shoot everyone on sight in Iraq? Theres no point in this article, its simply bullocks.

Let me ask, who benefited from these attacks? the usa. Who were the attackers? Saudi arabians. Was saudi arabia invaded than, as a rational answer? no. Iraq was attacked, where saddam used to be an ally of the usa, and there werent any WMDs, as turned out later. And afghanistan was attacked, where there was/is a so-called osama, who has never been seen in real life, but his "videos" were a perfect casus belli for a war in afghanistan. Who benefited from that war? the usa, couse now it controls 80 % of the drug-supplies of the world. Well Thats a lot of money!

Realise this, you poor child. This is not about islam! It has never been about that. Iraq could have been hindu since its existence. Its about money(drugs), resources(oil, gas), power(divide and conquer).
0
Rocky
written by duh_swami , August 16, 2010
Realise this, you poor child.

(RealiZe) is spelled with a Z...

You lost your credibility by making your argument personal...Facts are facts, personal insults are not facts...

'This is not about islam!'

You are either a bold faced liar, uniformed and ignorant about Islam, or are a Muslim yourself...Either way, the article is far more credible than you are...
0
a different kind of war
written by dead or alive , August 16, 2010
The muslims who killed the 10 christens in Afghanistan told the world how proud they were of themselfs that they in cold blood kill the christens.Yet in u.s.a. media the christens died because they were robed.The 501c3 church who held a memorial service for one of the christens never said a word that he was killed because of his faith.'I saw this on the local news,because he is from this area.The Bible tells me to ; Come out from among THEM.I call out the leaders of these so called masonic state run gold mines that is called church,to turn from their evil ways and tell the flock the truth instead of fleecing the flock. The word crusade used in u.s,a, is used for propaganda purposes.Any christen who reads the Bible knows that joining a secret society is an abomination to the God of Israel. So the word crusader is put in the account of the christens because the secert muslims who were masons cloaked in christianity killed in the name of christ....clever plan,used by u.s.a. u.k. France Russia and the modern abomination of desolation state of Israel.To invade countries with minority christens populations to incite the muslims to kill the spies, or the crusaders.Iraq had 3 million christens before the war. Now half million left.If i could, all u.s. troops would be back home,including Germany who u.s. fire bombed 600,000 christens to death in ww2.Not to mention how those same people where driven to Dresden from east germany by muslim troops in ussr combat army who raped and dismembered on the way to Berlin.And what can the u.s. do for an encore?By dropping a nuke on Japan largest christen city,Nagasaki.So you mulims will get your moquse on ground zero is because its planed that way.After all,u.s.a. is a christen country because poor people here pay taxes.
0
mr.
written by jack , August 16, 2010
rocky---"should have went?" please write in english.
BTW, it is "should have GONE"
0
duhswami
written by Rocky , August 17, 2010
Okay pal, please write any of my sentences from my earlier comment, which has "personal insults" in it. And you are still unable to answer me regarding what ive commented. You consider me a Muslim, just because i dont stand in the line and say "islam is bullshit, sucks ass" and all that kind of bullocks you write here all the time. Thats is the jewish style. Even though i dont consider you a jew, just someone uneducated.

"Facts are facts, personal insults are not facts.."

It is me who wrote facts in my comment, it is you who attacks me personally. A bit ironic, isnt it.

My questions are still there, unanswered: You really believe, that this war in Iraq and Afghanistan is about punishing islam and bringing democracy? You really believe that the USA never benefited from the 911 attacks? Answer that.
0
2 Rocky
written by Machmoed , August 17, 2010
Rocky,

The question you asked is very simple: USA had no right t invade Iraq. Furthermore, in that time when USA invaded Iraq many big oilships left Iraq on their home to USA (full of oil ofcourse). War in Iraq is wrong and will be this for ever, that's not the issue here. The issue here is the ideology of islam, not politics and not west vs east. on't be bothered by Middle East. Let's be honoust Saddam was a bad person, no doubt about that but the way the US acted in those days with all the evidence (NOT) to invade Iraq was almost crap on the level of quran. Happy now. Now let's focus on the ideology called islam.
0
September 11,2001
written by Walter Sieruk , August 17, 2010
Simpson wrote that after the affront of what happened on September 11, 2001 "many Muslims wildy erupted with joy." That is interesting, for it is written"he that is glad at calamities shall n ot go unpunished."
[Proverbs 17:5. King James Bible]
0
...
written by vixi , August 17, 2010
No one saw any airline crash to the pentagon or any field, but AMERICAN witnesses did see a misslile attack the pentagon, also the CCtV of a near Hotel which filmed every thing has been confescated and staff told to mind their own ... Notice NONE of the Hijackers were Iraqis , but mostley Saudis, so why did cross eyed Bush attack Iraq not Saudi ????cause it is his buddy LADEN'Ss country.smilies/wink.gif
0
...
written by antimod , August 17, 2010
What GeorgeBush JR. did during his tenure as the president is laudable. Many american boys have laid their life for the whole world to save it from theis nefarious cult called islam. I wish he is elected back for another three terma.
0
Vixi the 'truther'...
written by duh_swami , August 17, 2010
No one saw any airline crash to the pentagon or any field, but AMERICAN witnesses did see a misslile attack the pentagon...

You will have to verify that for credibility, and don't post some weird web site...It just so happens that a well known American female journalist on the plane, was on the cell phone with her husband when the plane crashed into the Pentagon...She told him, what they were aimed at...
0
...
written by duh_swami , August 17, 2010
Not only that Vixi, but if the 3rd plane did not crash into the Pentagon, where did it go? Just up and vanished huh...
0
duh_swami comment below
written by jaytee , August 18, 2010
Realize is spelt with an s in certain English speaking countries like New Zealand, England and Australia but others choose to spell it the American way.

Personally I prefer the english English spelling with an s.
0
jaytee
written by duh_swami , August 18, 2010
I think you are right about that..defense/defence...it's odd that my spell check shows defence to be misspelled, but it's not, they are both in the dictionary...thanks for reminding me...smilies/smiley.gif
0
Refusing to name the enemy
written by lw1 , August 18, 2010
Cameron's statement in India accusing Pakistan of terrorism is the first tiny step.
Let us rememeber just one line from the Pope's courageous speech a few years ago, '...Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by sword the faith he preached.'
Muslims also use lies in different forms to spread Islam.
0
...
written by vbv , August 18, 2010
Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!! That is a big laugh : "many american soldiers have laid their lives for the whole world to save it from a nefarious cult called islam - according to antimod.

This is plain bullshit. American soldiers are carrying out the bidding of their politicians and their business corporations who perceive their interests there not because they are morally bound by anything. If so ,why attack Iraq??? Why not Saudi Arabia from where most of the terrorists have come and Pakistan from wher they got the training and logistics.? This farcical charade about war on terrorism has already lost its sheen and worn out. Let us not fool ourselves about american principles ,of which there is none but just greed and avarice to usurp others wealth by hook or crook. Why,even Obama justified the building of a grand mosque on ground Zero.The americans are the only ones who used the atomic bomb,the first to use chemical bombs ,napalm bombs,etc on Vietnam,prop up dictators and despots ,while hypocritically mouthing freedom and democracy ..... Enough of this hypocrisy and fraud - the american have outdone the muslims in the art of taqiya by many a mile.
0
...
written by duh_swami , August 18, 2010
If so ,why attack Iraq??? Why not Saudi Arabia from where most of the terrorists have come and Pakistan from wher they got the training and logistics.?

VBV...The US government is not interested in following your military strategy...When the US military want's your opinion, they will ask for it...
0
Attack on Iraq
written by proudest kafir , August 19, 2010
was about the weapons of moss destruction! Iraq had only a few dud missiles and the fountain head of terrorism is the sodi barbaria. Are american policy makers too stupid to understand that? Is there an ulterior motive behind not attacking Sodis,pakis and Iranians? Simple minds can not fathom the depths of american policy quagmire, that willingly slaughters it's own people at the altar of islam
0
Attack on Iraq
written by proudest kafir , August 19, 2010
was about the weapons of moss destruction! Iraq had only a few dud missiles and the fountain head of terrorism is the sodi barbaria. Are american policy makers too stupid to understand that? Is there an ulterior motive behind not attacking Sodis,pakis and Iranians? Simple minds can not fathom the depths of american policy quagmire, that willingly slaughters it's own people at the altar of islam
0
sorry
written by proudest kafir , August 19, 2010
for the duplication!smilies/cool.gif
0
Misguided posts.
written by Marbran , August 19, 2010
Islamic, fascist, socialist, or corporate greed.....the reality of everything in life is that you will always find individuals that want to control other individuals.

Its tribal in nature - in fact, its why tribes formed to begin with.

Small, human clans formed thousands of years ago, once we became sentient (self-aware), with the sole purpose of protecting our own. Maybe it was just 20-30 individuals, hunting on the same lands as 20-30 others in another clan. War was created.

Now we do it on national levels, and have for the at least the last 40,000+ years.

It went like this:

"I have what I have. Someone else wants to take it from me. I will stop them from taking it from me, any way I can. If I win, I will then take what they had"

Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal man lost that battle early on, and here we are today. Maybe they were early philosophers, because certainly communication, even rudimentary, existed.

And our sentient brains allowed us to fabricate all manners of subterfuge, misdirection, lies, and whatever it took to defeat our supposed 'enemies.' And in 40,000+ years, we still engage in the same petty undertakings, except now we are dressed in designer suits. And walking around naked in most 'civilized' communities is a sin and legally challenged.

If viewed from a common sense approach, and ignoring the Man-created 'religion' of a super being (God) calling the shots, how ridiculous does this story sound?

Quick example: I have stink bugs attacking my office, since the fabricators failed to properly seal a window in my office. I counted 15 this morning buzzing around. Did God send those bugs to my office because of my beliefs? (Some would say yes.) Or did the bugs just do what they naturally do and follow the scent trail of their predecessors into the failed cracks and crevices of construction?

I sided with the bugs. I don't kill them, corral them, whatever. As long as they don't crawl on me, I'm fine. But I am taking steps to keep them in their natural habitat. I don't like bugs. The windows will be re-sealed, and all will be good in my world.

Humans are no different. They follow the natural scent of life. Some succeed, and create new religions, or create prosperity and benevolence; others fail and die an ignoble death like the stink bugs on my window shelf.

My point is that nothing is ordained. Life happens...it just does. Its when a few people apply some sort of misguided meaning to it that life for all starts to go wrong. Christianity; Judaism; Islam; they all have their faults, in an organized way to control the weak.

We human animals always have protected the weaker ones. Its how we got to where we are today. Its the basis of any altruistic religion. Yet we use, and abuse, the weaker members of our human race. We try to convince, cajole, influence, and when subtle attempts fail, we use force and strength and fear.

By the way, I deplore the term 'racist.' As I have intimated, we are all humans. That is our 'species.' We have no qualms about using any method to eradicate or control other species, such as insects, chickens, or bovines. "Race' does not exist; we are all humans. Its time we all start treating each other that way.

We are all humans. With emotions, critical thinking at various levels, and a universal desire to protect our offspring, to perpetuate the species (kids). Its how we do that that defines us today.

Counter-points welcome:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


0
...
written by duh_swami , August 20, 2010
No counter points, just one observation...Gross materialism...
0
To Marbran
written by lw1 , August 20, 2010
Islam is the only religion that orders its followers to convert or kill non-muslims,and only in certain cases to let them practice their religion but impose Jizya. Where-ever Muslims feel strong enough they do it. When Muslims accept everyone as equal and not forcefully try to impose what Quran says can other people accept and trust them.Quran does not give them the choice.Just because you say that we are all humans is not enough.

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.

busy
 

About the book || Reviews by: Steven Simpson | Abul Kasem | Prof Sami Alrabaa | Ibn Kammuna

islamic-jihad-cover


'Islamic Jihad' in Bangla
islamic-jihad-bangla
Aasma Riaz: "Thank you so much for your book "Islamic Jihad" and showing me the "Big Picture". For 7-8 days, I was glued to your book, absorbing so much information that I did not know existed. You have crisply covered so much in your book and quoted historical references extensively. I am just overwhelmed with different emotions after reading your book..., a priceless tome."

Editor: M A Khan | Site design: Dan Zaremba
Founded on 20 November 2005


Announcements

Proxy Server: To view blocked websites, use this: iwebproxy

Syndication