Islamic elements contributing to terrorist acts

Islamic Extremists

An Analysis of Islamic Extremism and Its Role in 9/11

Islamic Extremists are represented by the United States government as being the perpetrators behind 9/11. Yet, many independent researchers do not accept such a simplistic representation. This paper will look at the elements within Islam that are said to have led to the acts of 9/11 and show how Americans view Islam as a shield for terrorism. In other words, it will consider Islamic Extremism as it is both represented in politics and media and as it actually exists in the chronicles of historians and the independent research of journalists.

Even though ordinary Muslims do not accept the view that Islamic radicals were responsible for the terrorist attacks on 9/11 (Kull 129), few can actually say who is to be held responsible. Indeed, the deeper one digs into the events surrounding 9/11, the more one sees a world occupied and manipulated by CIA and Mossad Intelligence. To say that al Qaeda is directly responsible for bringing down three buildings with two planes in NY, while in Washington a pilot who couldn't handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000-foot descending 270 degree corkscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced 'missing' from the Pentagon's coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001" (Corbett)

may seem simplistic. Indeed, it is this official story that compels many to search for themselves the true factors behind the terrorist attacks of 2001. The first place to look, as the White House and press suggest, is, of course, the Taliban. So, then, let us examine the Taliban and see what story their history relates.

As Robert Dreyfuss states, "There is an unwritten chapter in the history of the Cold War and the New World Order that followed. It is the story of how the United States -- sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly -- funded and encouraged right-wing Islamist activism" (1). Indeed, that is the tale of the Taliban -- but Robert Dreyfuss puts it more eloquently: "The United States spent decades cultivating Islamists, manipulating and double-crossing them, cynically using and misusing them as Cold War allies, only to find that it spawned a force that turned against its sponsor" (1). Groomed and cultivated much in the same manner that Lee Harvey Oswald was groomed and cultivated by CIA operatives, or in the same manner that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was embellished to conflate grounds for invading Vietnam, or in the same manner that public sentiment was turned against Spain for the Maine, or the European powers for the Lusitania -- so, too, was all of America's energy focused on one small group of extremists, nursed and encouraged by America's very own operatives.

Nonetheless, the United States of America Congressional Record states clearly: "Make no mistake about it, the Taliban's ascent to power as well as their ability to stay in power was a Clinton administration policy decision promoted by the know-it-alls at the State Department. Again, put on the list of those whom to blame for 9/11 those people in the State Department that supported and advocated this policy. The policy…was to create and support the Taliban control of Afghanistan" (16168). This bit of information, although it is recorded in the annals of Congress, hardly makes its way into the mainstream media. Instead, what one hears or reads in the press is how dangerous Islam is. What one does not hear is how American foreign policy plays a part in it. Instead, there are those like Heather MacDonald who writes for City Journal (in an attempt to support police-state measures like the Patriot Act):

Let's say that the FBI wants to plumb Mohamed Atta's hard-drive for evidence of a nascent terror attack. If a federal agent shows up at Atta's door and says: 'Mr. Atta, we have a search warrant for your hard drive, which we suspect contains information about the structure and purpose of your cell,' guess what happens next. Atta tells his cronies back in Hamburg and Afghanistan: 'They're on to us; destroy your files -- and the infidel who sold us out.' The government's ability to plot out that branch of Al Qaeda is finished. (MacDonald)

The narrative pretends to be rational -- but it is not and only exposes a terrible ignorance as to the motive behind the Fourth Amendment. Instead, MacDonald calls on 9/11 suspected terrorist Atta to justify essentially revoking the Constitution -- and the rhetoric used to condemn 9/11 suspects is given another boost. Essentially, the media is dealing with stereotypes and archetypical versions of Evil -- and that Evil is represented by Islam.

The fact is that Islamic extremism has existed for centuries -- and the Middle Eastern region has seen civil wars compounded by external forces -- other world powers who seek to exploit tensions in the Middle Eastern states to their own advantage.

Islam, however, actually incorporated Roman-Greco-Judeo-Christian values into its culture: for example, Islam built on the foundations of science that the Greeks and Romans had established (and, like Byzantium, made records of many works of antiquity that would otherwise have been lost); its religion was an offshoot from Christianity; and many Christian architects from the West found employment under Islamic leaders like Harun-al-Rashid (Aaron the Just), whose fondness for culture rivaled that of the leaders of Byzantium. This is not to gloss over the fact that Muhammed was chased from Mecca and only found followers in Medina -- with whom we made an army, compelling other regions to either convert of die. Certainly there is a violent strain in the history of Islam. But, if we are to understand the link between Islam and 9/11 we must be very clear: American forces play a crucial role in that story.

It is, of course, perhaps unnecessary to go so far back in the history of the Middle East to recount that the religions of Islam and of Christian Byzantium were diametrically opposed to one another, and wars over Holy Lands raged throughout the era of the Crusades. But we might find it worthwhile to note that the key beliefs of Islam are that there is one God -- Allah -- and that Muhammad was his final prophet. The heroes of Christianity -- according to the Korna -- are considered nothing more than prophets.

Nor may it seem necessary to observe that the Islamic States were already at a disadvantage before the Mongols invaded in the 13th century to forever change the Islamic world. At that time, the Islamic caliphate had neglected to keep the military in proper condition so that it was of virtually no account when the Mongols invaded.

But by illustrating these points, we are brought to a much larger piece of the puzzle -- the fact that the Islamic States were not, and have not been, united in belief. The Sunni and the Shi'ite Muslims had been warring for centuries, and while the caliphate -- going as far back as the Mongol invasions -- was of the former type, there existed in the States a serious minority dedicated to the Shi'ite type -- and it was this latter type who saw the Mongol invasion as a way to rid themselves of the their Sunni leader. In fact, these Muslims joined with the invaders in some parts of the Islam world to help fight the Sunni. Therefore, there is some speculation that the Mongols were aided by dissent within the in Islamic States.

The Mongols were likewise aided by some Christians, who saw them as a way to rid themselves of Islam rule. Islam, it must be understand, had enemies both outside and inside that wanted to see an end to its rule. And it is no different today.

In the modern era, the Islamic states have been occupied by nearly every Western power looking to make a land grab in order to facilitate its need for oil. Thus, disputes between Islamic factions have been aided by Western powers seeking to control one side or another. However, to leave the story at that, in reference to 9/11 is to only tell half the narrative. For, as Ryan Dawson shows in War by Deception -- the Israeli Mossad played a significant role in the events surrounding 9/11 -- but to analyze that role may be beyond the scope of this paper. Let us confine ourselves to the elements within Islam that have allowed it to be portrayed as the one single agent responsible for the terrorist attacks.

As Philip Knightley reports, the role of Islam has been written to a great extent by the United States: "Keen to see Afghanistan under strong central rule to allow a U.S.-led group to build a mult-billion-dollar oil and gas pipeline, Washington urged key allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to back the militia's bid for power in 1996, analysts said. But it was soon forced to abandon…the Islamic purists, who U.S. officials now say are unfit to rule, as the militia began imposing its brutal version of Islamic law." The fact is, the U.S. abandoned the Taliban when it no longer served their interests to support them. Ryan Dawson observes that the "U.S. actively supported the Mujaheddin, of which Bin Laden and his foreign fighters were a sub-group, in a war against the Soviets. The Afghans were purchasing American weapons with Saudi oil money and receiving training from the CIA and ISI. Tim Osman as the CIA called Bin Laden, had full support of the U.S. And met with the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski." Here was the beginning of a relationship that the U.S. hoped to be a thorn in the side of Russia. To state that the U.S. only dropped its friendship with the Taliban once it saw some of the brutal aspects of Islam is a blatant misrepresentation. As Dawson states, "In spite of their human rights violations and barbaric treatment of women, the U.S. willingly fostered the Taliban…In fact as late as May 17, 2001 Colin Powell, then the Secretary of State, announced that a $43 million aid package to the Taliban coupled with other recent aid made the U.S. The main sponsor of the Taliban." Why would the Taliban bite the hand that fed it? That is a relevant question -- but a better question might be: what did the U.S. have to stand by invading Afghanistan and, essentially, the whole of the Middle East?