A Home-grown Conspiracy to Bring Down the West?
07 Feb, 2009
The Islamic threat to our civilization is real; the Muslim terrorists have, time and again, proved their extraordinary capabilities to take terrorism to previously unknown heights and frontiers. As a former Muslim living in the West, I can explain Muslims’ motivations to destroy our civilization, because I know their mindset and how Islam stunts its followers’ ability of rational reasoning. However, I find it difficult to understand the endless Western apathy towards such an obvious menace. Normally, I am not a fan of conspiracy theories. But my inability to explain the West's determination to cave in to Islam, I am afraid, is pushing me to ask some inevitable questions, which may sound somewhat conspiratorial:
How is it conceivable that the West, who lead the world in science and technology, can miss such an obvious danger to all that their society stands for?
How is it possible that the West has reached such a level of wisdom and still cannot separate the right from wrong in simple matters?
Or is there a well-planned policy to subjugate Europe and the rest of the West to Islamic domination?
Muslims in Western Countries
A recent report from the British government says that one in eleven British Muslims proactively support terrorism.
It is ridiculous that Western governments still believe in such surveys about Muslims' allegiance, despite the well-known and thoroughly discussed Islamic principle of taqiya. When Muslims are asked a question about an issue as sensitive as the above, the majority of them simply do not express their real feelings; they are worried of the negative impacts if they tell their minds, when they are such a minority. Only those, the most radical and tactless ones, who do not give a damn, somewhat surprising, show their honesty and admit to their support for terrorism. This also reflects that Muslims are rising in confidence, thanks to the protection and support they receive from many Western groups and laws.
Dozens of millions of Muslims now live in Western countries, with some 20 million in Europe. The more radical they are, the more likely that they are unemployed; therefore, they live on West's social benefits. This allows them to dedicate all their time and energy to plot against their host countries to bring them down. The real number of Muslims, who support terrorism—particularly those, who would support violence to bring down the decadent West—must be much higher than such surveys suggest.
But let us assume that the survey is correct and that the vast majority of Muslims are good and decent people. The Westerners believe that it is unfair and uncivilised to condemn all Muslims because of the actions of a few. Let us put this logical problem in a different way:
A dozen of people are visiting your house, but you realise that one of them—you are not sure which one—plans to kill some members of your family. Would you let them stay in your house?
The obvious answer is "no", but Western countries cannot make out
this simple reasoning. They believe that they should let them all
in, because the majority of them are innocent.
In what appears to me like an incentive to Islamic terror industry, Barak Obama’s first priority in office was to shutdown the Guantanamo detention camp. At the same time, Obama signed another executive order designed to increase the rights of enemy combatants, and made plans to strengthen federal hate crime legislation and to expand hate crime protection. When measures like these become the head of state’s top priority, one cannot help wondering if this is really a war on terror or invitation to terror.
None of the inmates in Guantanamo was captured while on a holiday in Afghanistan. They were all armed, dangerous and dedicated extremists fighting alongside the Taliban. They are the kind of people who, given the chance, would carry out atrocities like those in Beslan, Madrid or London or worse. They are not at all innocent. It is difficult to understand international criticisms and pressure in defence of those terrorists’ ‘rights’, whose sole mission is to take away the rights and lives of innocent children, men and women.
Many of the low-risk and reformed terrorists, released from Guantanamo, have rejoined terror groups to continue their divine career of violence and killing.
The uproar about the Guantanamo is too insane to be just a
mistake. It is disgraceful that people, who campaign for the
release of those terrorists, will do absolutely nothing about the
tens of thousands of totally innocent political prisoners in
Muslim countries, who, if empowered, can do good to their people
and humanity. Releasing the terrorists from their detention camps is
simply too wrong; it is like arming your enemy with lethal weapons!
Muslims made no contributions, whatsoever, to the development of satellite technology, electronics and computers. These are all scientific achievements of the infidels. Muslims’ only contribution is to use, rather abuse, them. One would expect that these technological tools would be effectively used by Western nations, who invented them, to protect their civilization. Just imagine the situation that it is the Gulf Arabs, not America, who are at the top of the world in all scientific and industrial fields. Had the Gulf Arabs been in charge of all this technology, they would never allow the infidels to have good access it. They already do not allow any foreigners, even other Arabs, to settle and become citizens in their countries for fear of sharing their wealth.
The Middle Eastern countries banned all Websites that criticise Islam; they use the Western technology to kill freedom of expression: a treasured Western value. The Islamists, however, have taken this a step too far; they terrorise the Internet community by hacking Websites that dare criticise Islam. This war against terrorism and Islam is increasingly becoming an information war. Why doesn't the infidel world, that introduced and run the technology, restrict access of this valuable tool to terrorists?
Osama Bin Laden and his followers are on the run, they live in
caves or mud-huts with little access to technology. However,
whenever Bin Laden releases a video through Aljazeera, that video
makes the headlines in all news channels around the world. When a
terrorist speaks, the whole world listens! No head of state enjoys
such a privilege in the Media as does bin Laden and his deputies.
During the recent conflict in Gaza, the entire leadership of Hamas,
guilty of igniting the war, went underground. The Hamas Radio was
on air most of the time, with only temporarily interruption.
Immediately after the ceasefire, Hamas leaders declared victory
through the Aljazeera TV. If Aljazeera can find those most wanted
leaders of terror, why can’t the Americans and Israelis, with
all that technology at their disposal?
The Mainstream Media
The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers."
Obviously, this is about ‘controversial speech’. All the free speech laws were introduced to protect controversial and offensive speech.
It is generally accepted that the principle of freedom of
expression is one of the most treasured human achievements. The Western
press gained a reputation of fiercely guarding its right of freedom
of expression and to have no hesitation to confront whoever dares to
censor this treasured right.
If Western media is so obsessed with freedom of expression, what
makes them accept what is virtually an Islamic censorship on any
open discussion of Islam? With all the Islamic terrorism around us,
why are we not allowed to see in Islam anything other than peace and
tolerance? Reuters openly admitted that, when reporting on Islam,
their main concern is to protect their reporters, which,
unfortunately, means that terror pays. This makes one wonder if
Reuters is in the right job. CNN, on
the other hand, admitted that, during Saddam’s rule, it has
systematically covered up stories of Iraqi atrocities and suppressed
reports of murder, torture, and assassinations in order to maintain
its Baghdad bureau.
A substantial proportion of the difficulties and setbacks of the war on terror were cause by the Western media, which seems to function as a self-destructive weapon of Western civilization. The media have worked hard to cast doubt about the existence of violence and terrorism in Islam in the first place; they have even joined the conspiratorial fantasy world in claiming that the 9/11 attacks were an insider job. They deliberately misinformed their audience by covering up the grave atrocities of Saddam’s regime. While the American soldiers were risking their lives in Iraq, their national media were not interested in reporting their courage and military successes, but rather busy looking for their every shortcomings. The disgraceful Abu Ghraib scandal, which brought shame to all Americans and greatly underlined the 'war on terror' efforts, were the handiwork of a few soldiers; they were all put on trial and punished. The Western media projected the scandal, as if, it was a standard American policy. They dug deep into details and the sexual nature of the scandal, eagerly broken by the media, hit a chord among the generally conservative Arabs. Even those, who initially considered the war to be a liberation war, later lost faith in the professionalism of the American military. Many supporters lost faith and trust in the war of terror efforts.
The media still insist that all Muslims must not be blamed for terrorism because of the actions of a few misguided radicals amongst them. They even refuse to agree that we should blame Islam, the faith of Muslims, which most glaringly inspires them into committing acts of terrorism.
On the other hand, the same media was most eager to blame the
entire American Army and government for the actions of some corrupt
personnel concerning Abu Ghraib. In the UK, the British media were not fortunate enough to
be able to report a real British Army scandal similar to Abu Ghraib,
so they made up one! The Mirror newspaper, which opposed the war,
was not ashamed of reporting in May 2004 a fake scandal about the
British army to support its agenda.
The Unfair Justice
A few weeks ago, the Dutch government decided to prosecute Geert Wilders for producing his film ‘Fitna’, which, the court claimed, spreads hate. I watched the film; it contians quotations from the Quran that are echoed in speeches made by Muslim clerics and radicals, plus some scenes of practical applications of those verses. The film depicts Islam in its truest; indeed, some true and honest Muslims, like cleric Omar Bakri, praised the film and said it could be used by their organizations to advance their Islamist agenda. However, the Dutch government doesn’t want its people to see what true Islam has in store for them. Like other governments in the West, it practices ‘taqiya’ by covering up the problem, fearing that people may wake up early and do something about it to protect their life and society.
In a similar incident, Britain's Channel 4 produced a programme called ‘Undercover Mosque’ that included secret video recordings of some hateful speeches made by leading Muslim clerics in the UK. Muslims, who appeared in the video, did not deny the authenticity of what was shown on television, neither did they apologize for it. The speeches made by Muslim clerics were hateful and profoundly shocking to an extent that the British police had to interfere, however, not by arresting those Muslims, but by taking Channel 4 to court for airing the programme!
Incidents like these are becoming a normal pattern; the
top priority of authorities is to appease Muslims. Muslim
communities do not need to put any more pressure on Western
governments for them to cave in to their demands. The West has
reached a stage where the authorities think ahead and take cowardly
action not to antagonize Muslims, even before the latter notice it!
1. One in 11 British Muslims backs suicide bombers, says Brown aide, Daily Mail'
2. “My goal is to protect our reporters and protect our editorial integrity,” said Reuters global managing editor in The New York Times.
3. CNN: In a shocking New York Times opinion piece, CNN's chief news executive Eason Jordan has admitted that for the past decade the network has systematically covered up stories of Iraqi atrocities. Reports of murder, torture, and planned assassinations were suppressed in order to maintain CNN's Baghdad bureau.
4. “Doubts were cast over the weekend about photos published in Saturday's Mirror”, BBC on 03 May 2004.
Mumin Salih is a Middle Eastern Arab ex-Muslim.