US Policymakers know but Choose to Ignore the Real Islam

Calisse Cansime

I refer to the post by Terrence Robertson on the anger of Americans on Sep 11:
http://main.faithfreedom.org/oped/TRobertson21210.htm

Before I go about, let me say that Sep 11 is not just a US tragedy. Innocent human lives - whether American or not - were lost, so it is a world tragedy. So are the deaths of Israeli and Palestinian infants who never had a moment to realise what killed them. I was glad to read Ali Sina's reply to Terrence wherein he stated that an educative means of exposing the true Islam ought to be given a chance, which would win us more friends:
http://main.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina21210.htm

In the same light, I must add my vote to the fact that Islam is a destructive expansionist cult. But the vengeance expressed in Terrence's mail will simply form another force which will fuel the already existent hatred among some peoples in this world.

I hear a very familiar tone in Terrence's post: "We Americans do everything for the world and the world is ungrateful; now if we're attacked we damn well have every right to 'nuke' that nation". With reservations on the word 'nuke', I consider that a military solution is sometimes effective in stemming an aggressor although peace initiatives must be brought in as soon as possible. So, while I wouldn't think America has a cleaner record than others in the light of only fighting "just" wars, if you're attacked, by all means, go ahead and hunt down the prepetrators. The point is, has America really been doing that?

Let's see now. Saudi Arabia is the nation that heavily funds organisations all over the world who work to promote Islam - whether through terrorism or through apologetic propaganda. The 19 hijackers who caused Sep 11 were all Saudi citizens, headed by Osama bin Laden, a Saudi, who had fallen out of favour with the Al Saud ruling family. Most of Al Qaeda and indeed quite a fraction of the Taliban are Saudis, as acknowledged by the CIA. Among the non-Saudis in the Taliban, the vast majority are Pakistanis. Where were the Taliban conceived? In the 'madrassa's of Pakistan of course. So much for the involvement of Afghanistan! Every act of Islamic terrorism eventually boils down to Saudi financers. But the US decided to attack Afghanistan instead. Has anyone noticed how the focus has stealthily shifted from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein now?

I'd ask Terrence, has he not smelt a rat yet? If not, the following link may be useful:

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759

This is where I say, if the US (and "allies" and other countries) don't act to prevent Islam now, we will face a very bleak future in the long run. By comparison, communism is hardly any threat, even if American English dictionaries (such as Random House) have even added a new meaning for "communism" to mean "subversion to the state"!

My point is, not only is present US foreign policy short-sighted, it is dangerous to America's own good, even if it 'nukes' the rest of the world into extinction. Instead of acting to plug this movement called Islam, the US seems to be pursuing its own short-term greed-driven wants. This has had a powerful effect. American history till the mid-twentieth century had little to do with either Arab history or Islam's trail of destruction since the 7th century AD. Although Islamists have sought to make the whole planet a 'Dar-al-Islam', their focus so far had been to Islamise Europe and Asia first. Think of the invasions on Persia all the way to India and of the Ottoman invasions of Greece. But thanks to a greed-only short-sighted foreign policy, the flames were suddenly fanned towards the USA, so much so that today most Mullahs hardly mention Islam's old enemies - Hindu Indians, patriotic Persians, christian Europeans, etc - but go cursing the US in their Khutbah's (Friday mosque sermons). Ever wondered why?

While we ponder on that, we can only consider it fair that the sole fund-provider of all this terror and bloodshed be punished, whether by way of sanctions or otherwise, if not more harshly. Which brings us to US-Saudi relations. Have a look at this one:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,849670,00.html

As for Iraq, while Saddam Hussein is not a saint, the Iraq affair isn't negatively skewed solely towards Iraq. If I may point out one non-fault against a million faults of Saddam's, his autocratic Ba'ath regime is a secularist one. Osama is happily waiting for it to topple and be taken over by Ismalists, so that a Khomeini phenomenon repeats here too. Do the US policy makers know this? Ah, they are not fools. So long as the regime is a controllable puppet and the oil can be robbed at cheap rates, they do not care. Someday the puppet regime will revolt and then the US will simply use another excuse to cause another regime change. But by then, Osama and his likes will have made inroads and the real enemy, Islam, will have grown all the more powerful. History will show, Saddam's regime was helped into power through Amro-British efforts in the first place. More info here:

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/123925

And, if the reader will allow me a slight digression, here's an illustration of hypocrisy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2560617.stm

Back to Islam. I wish to stress that for the sake of beauty in diversity of the peoples of the world, we ought to unite in our efforts to demystify Islam and expose the real evil it preaches. And with its short-sighted, greed-driven acts of hypocrisy, the United States is certainly not helping. Nor are many European nations which seem consumed by this fashionable fad of political correctness.

As for Terrence, while his anger due to Sep 11 is no less than my own, he ought wake up from the fantasy that the US has always made humanitarian contributions to the world. This is how it will always look if underlying intentions go unread (obviously politicians do their best to hide them). Now with the accusation that they are even happy to allow Saudi Arabia fund the propagation of Islam in exchange of oil, this makes the situation all the more pathetic. On another note, we all know the only country to actually use a nuclear device in real war, that too against civilian populations of two cities vaporising 250,000 people, which Terence mentions rather proudly in his post. There could have been better ways to stop World War II. Now let us work towards an effective way to thwart Islam.