Islam is the enemy 26

This is from Bruce Bawer’s column at Front Page on 9/11/2013, the twelfth anniversary of the Muslim terrorist attacks on America that killed close on 3,000 people. The writer deplores the lies that have been officially disseminated about the name and nature of the enemy, which was and is Islam with its jihadist ideology. He expresses the indignation that too few others have expressed.

 … 9/11 was a moment of utter moral clarity that has been succeeded by twelve years of moral chaos. Twelve years of duplicity, flim-flam, double-dealing, humbug. Twelve years of timorousness, incompetence, impotence.

Thousands of lives have been sacrificed in vain; inconceivable amounts of money have gone to waste. America’s financial security and its international standing have been imperiled. And all for one simple reason: because, from the very beginning, the powers that be, in both political parties, chose to lie about the nature of the enemy we were up against.

In the years before World War II began, Winston Churchill spoke up again and again in the House of Commons about the danger that the Nazis represented. His colleagues responded to his eloquent, passionate warnings with ridicule. He was considered a bore, a nag. Some of his fellow Tories viewed his preoccupation with Hitler as an embarrassment. But he didn’t waver. He knew whereof he spoke, he saw what was coming, and he did what he saw as his duty. …

In his TV address immediately after the attacks …

Bush asked everyone to join him in a moment of silence. But it was not a time to bow one’s head in silence. It was a time to be enraged, to speak the facts firmly and clearly, and to plan appropriate retributive action. It was time for a moment of truth.

But nobody wanted to speak the truth.

Three days later, Bush was at the National Cathedral for an “interfaith service of prayer and remembrance” that had been jointly planned by the Cathedral and the White House. An account of the service at the Cathedral’s website recalls that the participants … “stood side by side — Jew, Muslim, Christian”. … Muzammil H. Siddiqi of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) said a prayer. “Today,” pronounced Bush, in his comments at the service, “we feel what Franklin Roosevelt called the warm courage of national unity. This is a unity of every faith, and every background.”

And there, in that service, just a few days after 9/11, you can see it all – the seeds of everything that has been so terribly, tragically wrong about the last twelve years. I remember watching Siddiqi pray on TV that day and thinking: “OK, who is this guy?” The Investigative Project on Terrorism has since answered that question at length. Siddiqi’s group, the ISNA, is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, and his mosque hosted a lecture by Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the man behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In a 2000 speech, Siddiqi said that “America has to learn that because if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come.” In 1996, he told followers that “Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.” He’s also praised jihad as “the path” to “honor” and expressed support for the death penalty for gays in Muslim countries.

And yet there he was, in that pulpit, at that service. His presence there was an obscenity; to invite his participation was an act of either utter ignorance or sheer dhimmitude. But it was only the first of many such acts. It was the template for the post-9/11 era, the new American order, during which we were told by everyone, from our president on down, that the 9/11 terrorists had hijacked not only airplanes but their religion as well, which, of course, was a religion of peace. That, we were told, was what Islam means: peace. Those of us who knew better and who dared to say so were vilified as bigots, even as the likes of Saddaqi were celebrated as noble bridge builders. 

Before too long, the all-important goal of seeking out and destroying the people who had carried out the 9/11 attacks – and sending a lesson to any others who might be tempted to mount similar operations – morphed into a dubious effort to democratize the Muslim world. For a time, Osama bin Laden himself got lost in the shuffle. In the immediate wake of 9/11, Bush committed the U.S. to capturing him “dead or alive”; just a year later he said offhandedly that getting bin Laden really wasn’t a priority.

Meanwhile much of the political left, driven not by a reasoned critique of the administration’s arguments for war but by a fierce partisan animus that in some cases seemed to border on psychosis, made fools like Cindy Sheehan their spokespeople and equated Bush with Saddam Hussein himself.

The brief interlude of national unity on 9/11 soon became a distant memory. When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad spoke at Columbia University in 2007, the audience of PC students and professors cheered him, a bloodthirsty tyrant – partly to prove that they weren’t Islamophobes, and partly because he was the enemy of their enemy, Bush, and thus, presumably, their friend. Many antiwar groups were little more than fronts for jihadist organizations.

In the name of wartime security, a massive national surveillance apparatus was put in place, and airports were staffed with TSA screeners whose solemn task it was to make sure we weren’t carrying fingernail clippers or overly large tubes of toothpaste. Yet while these clowns were busy patting down wheelchair-bound octogenarians from rural Vermont and babies in diapers, Army officials were issuing commendations to a major at Fort Hood who’d made clear his jihadist sympathies and who, in 2009, ended up slaughtering 13 people in a clear-cut act of Islamic terrorism. Major Hasan explicitly affirmed that he was a jihadist – but his superiors, the media, politicians, and ultimately the judge and lawyers at his trial refused to treat him as one, insisting instead on characterizing his massacre as workplace violence. …

The antiwar movement was ardent, vehement, cutthroat – and evaporated almost instantly the moment Obama succeeded Bush.

The level of disinformation about Islam intensified. Bush, while seeking to strengthen America’s ties to its allies, had massaged the Muslim world with insipid rhetoric about our shared heritage as “people of faith”.

Very bad. But far worse was to come:

Obama, while kicking our allies in the teeth, spun outrageous fantasies about Islam, transforming, in his famous 2009 Cairo speech, fourteen centuries of primitive brutality into a glittering parade of moral, cultural, intellectual, and spiritual triumphs.

From that moment on, everyone should have known that the newly-elected president of the United States was emotionally and consciously on the side of Islam. If the American Left knew it as a body and didn’t care, or positively approved, it covered itself in lasting ignominy, whether it understands that to be the case or not.

As the years after 9/11 went by, other major acts of jihadist terrorism occurred around the world. Each time, the mantra from on high was the same: these crimes had nothing to do with Islam. Government officials, military leaders, authors, filmmakers, journalists, teachers, professors – all played their part in obscuring the truth about Islam. …

Most disgraceful of all is the fact that even American servicemen and women were lied to. Many of those who were sent to Afghanistan and Iraq thought they were going there to protect good Muslims, who embodied the innate peacefulness of Islam, from bad Muslims, who had betrayed the faith of their fathers by claiming to kill in Allah’s name. These soldiers thought they were going to bring freedom, equality, and secular government to people who truly wanted those things and who would be grateful for them. These soldiers went into harm’s way unaware of the vast gulf between their own Western mental world and the Islamic mental world …  That was the greatest crime of all: keeping the soldiers on the ground in the dark about the true nature of the enemy.

Too many Americans today, alas, … are driven by a concept of morality that isn’t about making tough decisions in the name of what’s right but is, rather, about doing whatever makes them feel non-racist, non-judgmental, non-prejudiced. It’s all about image – the way they appear to others, and the way they appear to themselves.

9/11 was a day of heroes and of villains, of stark contrasts between good and evil. Yet how quickly the politicians, journalists, and others in positions of power managed to make a muddle of it all. Instead of witnessing a democratization of the Middle East, we experienced a steady Islamization of the West. Instead of seeing freedom bloom in the Islamic world, we saw a rise in Western censorship and self-censorship on the subject of Islam. Some high-profile figures in the West have been put on trial for speaking the truth about Islam, while others have made sophisticated arguments for limiting freedom of expression and for introducing sharia law into Western courts. …

The last twelve years have underscored the vital importance of real leadership. It’s impossible not to compare the leaders we have had during these years to Churchill – and impossible not to dream of what might have been. Even now, Americans in positions of authority are still telling lies about Islam. As a result, millions of Americans still don’t understand the meaning of what happened that day. For many of them, a mere ten-minute lesson in the basics would make a huge difference. But they’ve never had that ten-minute lesson. Instead they’ve been inundated with untold thousands of hours of disinformation. It doesn’t just hamper their understanding of 9/11; it renders them incapable of fully comprehending, and intelligently addressing, every new challenge that comes along in the Muslim world, such as the question of whether the U.S. should bomb Syrian government installations – thus effectively allying itself with some of the very people who attacked us on 9/11 – or should, rather, focus its energies on trying to protect what is left of the free West from the ever-spreading toxin of Islamic rage.

  • Hi Jillian, I must admit you are smart in choosing a thought-provoking title, but I understand that’s part of journalism. I wonder why you are so focused with matters related to Islam? Did you ever have a painful personal experience with Muslim?
    Greetings from Indonesia.

    • Jillian Becker

      Hi Tikno. We consider Islam to be the greatest threat to liberty since the defeat of the USSR in the Cold War. That is why we post so much about it.

      We are against the cruel, primitive, murderous, tyrannical ideology of Islam. But not against individual Muslims (such as yourself?). On the contrary, we welcome them into our discussions.

      • My last question NOT yet got an answer from YOU!

        As of your first paragraph,
        You said: “We consider Islam to be the greatest threat to liberty”.
        I’m not yet get enough understanding of what “liberty” means from YOUR SELF.
        I can see you use “we” instead of “I” even though this writings was yours, but that’s not my point.

        As of your second paragraph,
        I’m intrigued you had put a “question mark” on “such as yourself?”
        Did you SINCERELY, MERELY against of what is called the cruel, primitive, murderous, tyrannical ideology??? NO?

        • Jillian Becker

          Tikno, here is an extract from an article by a Muslim, highly critical of Islam. It may be of interest to you. To read the whole thing, click on the link at the bottom of it.

          We Muslims make the mistake of thinking Europeans really
          care about us, especially the Palestinians. We are wrong: Europeans simply hate
          the Jews more than they hate and fear us. The bitter truth is that the
          Europeans usually intervene in a crisis only if it gives them the opportunity
          for Jew-bashing. When hundreds of thousands, even millions, of Muslims are
          slaughtered – by other Muslims, such as the massacre in Syria and the recent
          upsurge of violence in Darfur – the apathetic European leadership does not lift
          a finger. At the same time, the European Union is obsessed with its need to
          condemn, sanction and boycott the Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank.
          It does not even mention Syria, with its hundred thousand civilians murdered by
          the government and its millions of refugees, or the atrocities being committed
          in the Arab-Muslim world, the rapes of women and children, the beheadings and
          the wanton cruelty and murder, to say nothing of exploitation, discrimination,
          slavery and other crimes against humanity. To my great sorrow, everywhere in
          the world where there are Muslims there is murder, mass bloodshed and terrorist
          attacks. We should leave the Jews alone, they are not responsible for our
          tragedies and hating them will not cure the Nation of Islam or bring it
          successfully into the 21st century.

          We do not generally answer personal questions. We do not base our opinions on emotions.

          • Jillian, you said: “We do not generally answer personal questions. We do not base our opinions on emotions”.
            I reiterate, I did not ask your personal things. I think my comments above are still relevant and using polite words. Let readers to judge.

            I’m not interested the way we make discussion by (each other) MERELY QUOTING from the other person’s thoughts / writings. OR, you undirectly directed me to respond to the other person’s thoughts.
            If I want… I can just browsing and then citing strewn articles of others on the internet which it shown the dark side of world religions and ideologies other than Islam, and then simply present it here as the opposite article to yours. BUT I DO NOT WANT TO.

            Let start discussion from our own voices, NOT by TOO MUCH quoting the paper of others. Use the subject with “I” or “my”. That’s the essence of discussion. Btw, I like Liz’s style.

            As a start to our discussion is my comments above, followed by, if you don’t mind, allow me to share my own principle and viewpoint as the counterbalance to yours here (sorry if just the link, not intended to promote my own blog, just too long to re-write it here):




            • Jillian Becker

              Tikno – what point do you want to make? Please state it plainly.

              I gather from the third link you gave us that you do not like sharia law. Is it possible to be a Muslim and reject sharia law?

              Are you defending Islam, and if so on what grounds?

            • I’m Indonesian Christian, living in the country with the largest Muslim population in the world. I’ve shared my daily life (all my life) with them like the water flows naturally. There are still many good Muslim, even much more than you could imagined. Don’t you want to make the distinction between them and extremist / hard-line? So, DO NOT generalizing a group of hard-line (no matter Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist) with their religion (see the title of this post).

              I quote the point in the first link that I’ve shared above as follow (but for the rest, I let you to find it):
              “Any negative actions will produce another negative reactions as opposed to you. If we really want to give a small contribution for peace and harmony, at least at around you, I think the best way that we can do is to calm the opposite reaction using a very simple way called “restrain ourselves to react negatively”. Indeed just a little things but it will create an extraordinary effect if more and more people realize it.”

              You might think the title of this post as a representation of Freedom of Speech, but let me share my own principle here as the counterbalance, that is:

              That is my point. WILL YOU JOINT ME?

            • WmarkW

              Attacks on free speech are the the #1 concern I have about Muslims and Islam in the West. Western Civilization is the greatest in the history of mankind, because we’ve built a culture around the continuous search and testing of ideas. Capitalism, democratic-republican government, the scientific method, and separation of church and state, are all tools for testing ideas against evidence, so that the best can take hold. They made Western Civ the best on earth, and empowered non-Western countries to live like us to the extent they practice the same values.

              Western man cannot be himself, if he’s required to limit free inquiry to that which does not offend dogmatism, whether from religious or secular sources. Europe has already started prosecuting people for telling the truth or expressing responsible opinions about Islam, by equating one religion’s blasphemy with secular hate speech.

            • Hello Wmark, sorry for the late reply because of my job.

              Sometimes eastern people think that the free speech which it brought from the west was means you can say anything you want. The eastern cultural values ​​tend to appreciate the feelings of others. That’s why we have a proverb “The tongue is sharper than a knife”. As for the civilization (and culture)… I think the eastern civilization has its own virtuous values​​ (such as free sex, have children outside of marriage, was considered taboo here). Western civilization also has its own value. I like to think of the diversity that has made our live so exciting.

              At least I do not want my mind influenced by Jillian’s words, because I do not want my harmonious life with my Muslim friends here over the years cracked. They came to my house at Christmas, and I went to their house during Eid al-Fitr. We never debating our faith.
              Btw, each person have his/her own skill and insight to understand his/her religion wisely, NOT verbatim.

              As for your last paragraph…. I think Europe has been doing the right thing, at least Europe is less targeted by Islamic hardline than America. As I said above “Any negative actions will produce another negative reactions as opposed to you…..”

            • Jillian Becker

              Tikno, please tell me. Have you read the Koran? And do you know what sharia law prescribes for adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, apostates? If you do, and you know how cruel and barbaric it is, why do you not condemn it? And please do not excuse it by saying that equally cruel punishments are also prescribed in the Bible. You know that no country on earth enforces biblical law. You know that sharia law is enforced in Muslim-majority countries (if maybe here a little more and there a little less scrupulously). Among the five pillars of Islam is zakat – the giving of “charity”. It can go only to Muslim causes. And much of the Muslim world’s alms go to the cause of jihad. So whether every obedient Muslim is actually fighting jihad or only contributing money so others can fight it, all are involved in it. The religion itself – I prefer to call it an ideology – is hostile to the rest of mankind. It is a religion of conquest, subjugation, and death. This does not mean that an individual Muslim should be treated with less respect than anyone else (unless he or she has personally done something to destroy that respect). But the ideology of Islam is evil. It declares itself to be the enemy of the rest of us. You as a Christian may want to overlook that fact, not resist its evil, forgive its cruelty, tolerate its intolerance, endure its belligerence. But I think that is wrong. If evil is not resisted it will triumph. You are delivering a gentle Christian sermon to us. But we know Christianity. We know its morality. We have considered it and rejected it. We do not understand why you like it. And you will not change our minds.

            • Jillian, that’s not fair if you steered me just to look for the ugliness of certain religion, while in the Bible also have the verses that we need to digest further. Maybe you know more about Christianity than I am. But the only one that I know about Christianity is to make peace, do not vilify others. That’s what I have been practicing here, therefore I have many Muslim friends here, and we live in harmony. SORRY, I DO NOT WANT TO EAT YOUR HATRED WORDS.

              Read my reply to ​​Wmark, that’s also for you

        • Jillian Becker

          Following on my reply to you of a few hours ago, here is another article that I think you might want to read. It very carefully explains, at some length, what is wrong with islam.

    • liz

      Everyone in the USA over the age of 20 has had a painful personal experience with “Muslim”. It’s called 9/11.

      • Hi Liz, I like your frankly-comment, not quoting other’s writings. Hopefully my replies to Jillian can bring another story to you (also my replies to you). Of course I condemn the perpetrator of 9/11.

  • Ralph

    Islam is a threat to our liberty, but the difference between Islam and Christianity
    is the Renaissance.

    • Jillian Becker

      Oh yes. The Renaissance was the beginning – the dawn. The full Enlightenment – day at last after the long, long night that Christianity brought down on Europe – came a bit later.

      And yes again: there has been no dawn, no enlightenment in Islam. It remains in the mental darkness of the age when it was conceived.

  • Frank

    Tell the truth about Islam

  • rogerinflorida

    To understand this you have to acknowledge the extent to which Western politics, by which I mean particularly the US, but Britain and France also, has been penetrated and corrupted by Saudi influence. During the 21 year tenure, or should I say reign, of “prince” Bandar Sultan as the Saudi ambassador to the US he carried out a masterful campaign of seduction against US govt. institutions and the people who make up the US political elite. by investing billions of $ into various business ventures, academic institutions (Harvard, and now both Princeton and Yale), think tanks and mostly of course political campaigns he was able to institute a chokehold on the US political system. Forget AIPAC, they are very much the poor cousins in this setup. Saudi leadership of OPEC has generated trillions of “petrodollars” that finance the world trade in oil. This at far higher prices than would otherwise have been by the simple measure of monopolistic supply management.
    Saudi Arabia is the font of wahhabism, the treasurer of almost all the jihadist terror groups and the sponsor of multiple wars against target govts. For instance there should have been no Western objection to the Najibullah govt. of Afghanistan that the Russians installed, but the Sauds hated it and so the west got it’s marching orders. The Egyptian mess is another Saudi project, this misery in Syria is Saudi inspired, planned and financed, assisted of course by their whores in Washington DC, to the point where it would not surprise me in the slightest to discover that the CIA had fired those chemical weapons.
    It is at least somewhat amusing to hear the Jew haters refer to the Jews as “the tribe that must not be named”, well here is Islamic terrorism in full view but it clearly cannot be named, it must be ass-kissed, labeled the “religion of peace”, feted, and it’s ridiculous and dangerous pathologies excused and even welcomed.
    We won’t change this until we are prepared to vote into power someone like David Duke, who will call it out and who would destroy this monster.

    • Jillian Becker

      David Duke is a Nazi. Though it is redundant to say so, he is anti-Semitic. A KKK leader, he hates blacks. He is as vicious as any Islamofascist. We want no advocacy for him on our pages. Much of what you say here makes sense, but not your last sentence.

      Islam is an ideology. It is a set of ideas, including savage commandments. Its ideas, like all ideas, must be critically examined. In the the case of Nazism and Islam – which are very alike – they must be opposed. That is an entirely different thing from being against people because of their descent, ethnicity, color, race, nationality, or class.

      • rogerinflorida

        Perhaps I should not be so provocative. What I meant by “someone like David duke” is a political figure who actually articulates what he stands for, love him or hate him you will have no doubt what DD believes. What really motivates Barack Obama? Hilary Clinton? John Boehner? or any other of our political elite? The US electorate is the classic definition of the mushroom farm, kept in the dark and fed on BS.
        Incidentally the whole Islamic structure of terrorism, Islamic “cultural centers” and political influence rides on one leg and one leg only; the inflated price of oil. Bring down the price of oil and its products and you defeat Iran, break Saudi Arabia and render Islamic proselytizing meaningless, even their most zealous followers would rather not starve.
        What we have is the international equivalent of the local politicians bought by the public service unions, who then, when in office, ransack the finances for the benefit of their members.

        • liz

          I like the “mushroom farm” analogy!
          I wouldn’t vote for David Duke unless he was the only alternative to Obama. I would vote for Satan if he ran against Obama, I think.
          I would definitely vote for, say, Sarah Palin, born-again Christian to the max, because I really think she meant it when she said, “Drill, baby, drill”.

  • WmarkW

    This is actually one of the primary things that turned me rightward. Islam is against the very things liberals hold most dear — women’s equality, free speech, freedom of conscience, sexual individualism, and a human rights element in foreign policy. Islam (along with domestic race policies) changed the focus of liberalism from protecting the rights of the least of us, to defending the least of entrenched cultures.


      In mankind’s near future, for the sake of it’s longevity, there must be a fundamental “turning of the corner,” which leaves this “religious” dogmatic fallacy of dependency on an unseen deity in the dust of the past.

      This idea of a “Christian god” against a “Muslim god” is using up all the mental efforts of these believer’s, to the point that sound reasoning is pushed aside by raw, hateful emotion.
      All of the great thinkers of the past if asked would readily tell you that there is no such thing as genuine “personal security” in a belief system which comes from a superstition.

      This means that it is most important that mankind learn to rely primarily upon himself in the beginning of his life, and throughout his life… his own abilities, learning to lay his fate upon the altar of temporal reason, and not on the altar of the contrived “psuedo science” of superstition.

      We also must learn that the more that we focus on our similarities, the less we see of our differences.

    • Jillian Becker

      You think liberals are FOR freedom of speech and conscience? You mean American liberals now? No way. (Or do you mean liberals in the old sense – Adam Smith type liberals? They were completely different.)

      American liberals now are socialists. Socialists are against individual freedom of any sort (except sexual). Haven’t you noticed that they prevent speakers saying anything they don’t like if they possible can?
      Think IRS. The universities. …

      • WmarkW

        I meant the kind of liberals my parents were — strong ACLU supporters, who defended equally the right of students to protest Viet Nam in schools, and the KKK to march in Skokie. For the first half of my life, I had associated freedom of ideas with liberalism, in contrast to Jerry Falwell types. This is the kind of change that turned me away from present-day liberalism.

  • liz

    Excellent article. The backlash to all this has been a long time coming – but that should make it all the greater – against the Muslims and their slimy leftist toadies.