Is There a Conspiracy?

Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionBy Mumin Salih Although conspiracies exist in all societies, but the conspiracy theories are often convenient inventions by those people who do not have the courage to admit their mistakes or face their failure where all the blame is thrown on the others. The conspiracy theories are usually comfortable retreats for the minds of those people who are unhappy about their misfortunes, or those who cannot come to terms with their own under achievements. This world of conspiracies is the favourite resort for the tired minds of the Muslims who are never happy in the real world and would rather be in a world of fantasy which they shape in their own imagination and to their own satisfaction. The Islamic threat to our civilization is real; the Muslim terrorists proved many times their extraordinary capabilities to take terrorism to previously unknown frontiers. As a former Muslim I can explain the Muslims’ motivations to destroy our civilization, because I know the Muslims’ mindset and how Islam halts its followers’ abilities of rational reasoning. However, I find it difficult to understand the endless western apathy towards such an obvious menace. I am not normally a fan of the conspiracy theories, but I am afraid that my inability to explain the western determination to cave in to Islam is pushing me to ask some inevitable questions: Is it conceivable that the western nations, who lead the world in science and technology, can miss such an obvious danger to all what they stand for? Is it conceivable that the western nations have reached a stage where they cannot tell the right from the wrong on simple matters? Or is there a well planned policy to subjugate Europe and the rest of the western world? Muslims in Western Countries A recent report from the British government says that 1 in 11 British Muslims proactively support terrorism (1). It is ridiculous that the western governments still believe in such surveys about the Muslims allegiance despite the well known and thoroughly discussed principle of taqiya. When Muslims are asked a question about an issue as sensitive as the above, they simply do not express their real feelings. I am also surprised that some Muslims have the courage to admit their support to terrorism, which reflects the Muslims’ rising confidence, thanks to the protection and support of some western groups and laws. There are dozens of millions of Muslims who live in the western countries. The more radical they are, the more likely they are unemployed and live on the system’s benefits, which gives them a much needed time to dedicate all their energy to plan for and carry out the destruction of their host countries. The real number of the Muslims who support terrorism must be many times higher than the above survey suggests. But let us assume that the survey is correct and that the vast majority of Muslims are good and innocent 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. Q. would you let them stay in your house? The obvious answer is NO, but this is not so obvious to the western countries who believe they should let them all in because they are mostly innocents! Guantanamo In what appears to me like an incentive to Muslim terrorists, Barak Obama’s first priority in office was to order the shutdown of 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 crimes legislation and expand hate crimes 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 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 similar or worse to the ones that took place in Beslan, Madrid or London. They are not innocents and it is difficult to understand the international criticism and pressure in defence of those terrorists’ ‘rights’, whose mission is to take away the innocents’ rights and lives. Some of the Guantanamo terrorists were released and over half of them rejoined their terror groups to continue their divine career of terrorising and killing. The uproar about the Guantanamo is too insane to be just a mistake. It is disgraceful that the people who campaign for the release of those terrorists are doing absolutely nothing about the tens of thousands of political prisoners in the Muslims’ countries. Releasing the terrorists from their detention camps is simply too wrong, it is like arming your enemy with lethal weapons! The Internet Muslims made no contributions whatsoever to the development of satellite technology, electronics and computers. These are all scientific achievements of the infidels; the Muslims’ only contribution is to use, or rather abuse, them. One would expect that these technological tools would be effectively used by the western nations, who invented them, to protect their civilization. Just imagine that it is the Gulf Arabs, not America, who are at the top of the world in all the 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 for the 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, which is a treasured western value. The Islamists, however, have taken this a step too far; they terrorise the internet community by hacking any website that dares to criticise Islam. This war against terrorism and Islam is increasingly becoming an information war. Why the infidels, who introduced and run anything to do with technology, do not restrict the terrorists’ access to this valuable tool? Osama Bin Laden and his followers are on the run, they live in caves or mud huts with primitive 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 the terrorist speaks the whole world listens! No other head of state enjoys such a privilege. During the last conflict in Gaza, the entire guilty leadership of Hamas went underground. The Hamas radio was only temporarily silenced and was on the air most of the time. Immediately after the cease fire, Hamas leaders declared victory through Aljazeera TV. If Aljazeera can find those most wanted leaders of terror, why can’t the Americans and the Israelis, with all that technology at their disposal? The Main Stream Media The 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. Straight forward speech or views are not at risk and need no protection. It is generally accepted that the principle of freedom of expression is one of the most treasured human values. 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 influence that treasured right. If the main stream 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 but 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 and makes us wonder if Reuters is in the right job (2). 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(3). A substantial proportion of the difficulties and setbacks of the war on terror were cause by the western media which seems to function as the self destruct button of the western civilization. The western media worked hard to cast doubt about the existence of Islamic terrorism in the first place, they even joined the fantasy world in claiming that 9/11 attacks were an insiders’ work. 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 shortcomings. The disgraceful Abu Ghraib scandal brought shame to all the personnel who were involved in it who were all put on trial. The western media projected the scandal as if it was a standard American strategy. The sexual nature of the scandal hit a chord among the Arabs, even those who initially considered the war to be a liberation war, but later lost faith completely in the professionalism of the American military. The western media still insist that we cannot blame the Muslims in general because of the actions of a few terrorists. On the other hand the same media was happy to blame the entire American Army and government for the actions of some corrupt personnel. 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 to report in May 2004 a fake scandal about the British army to support its agenda (4). The Unfair Justice A few weeks ago, the Dutch government decided to prosecute Geert Wilders for producing his film ‘Fitna’ which is claimed to spread hate. I watched the twelve minutes film; it is about quotations from the Quran that are echoed in speeches made by some Muslims and some scenes of practical applications of those verses. The film depicts the true Islam, indeed some true and honest Muslims, like ‘Omar Bakri’, praised the film and said it could be used by their organizations. However, the Dutch government doesn’t want its people to see what the true Islam has in store for them. The Dutch government, like other western governments, practices ‘taqiya’ by covering up the problem for fear that their people wake up early and do something about it. In a similar incident, channel 4, the British television channel, produced a programme called ‘undercover mosque’ that included video recordings of some hateful speeches made by leading Muslim clerics in the UK. The Muslims who appeared in the video recordings did not deny the authenticity of what was shown on television and did not apologise for it. The speeches made by the Muslim clerics were hateful and profoundly shocking that the British police had to interfere, not to arrest those who made them but to take channel 4 to court for showing the programme! Incidents like the above are becoming a normal pattern where the authorities’ top priority is to appease Muslims. The Muslims’ communities do not need to put any more pressure on the western governments to cave in to their demands. The west has reached a stage where the authorities think ahead and take action before the Muslims even notice it!

References:

1. One in 11 British Muslims backs suicide bombers, says Brown aide http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-472791/One-11-British-Muslims-backs-suicide-bombers-says-Brown-aide.html

2. “ My goal is to protect our reporters and protect our editorial integrity” Reuters' global managing editor said. 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. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html

4. “Doubts were cast over the weekend about photos published in Saturday's Mirror” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3679633.stm