Ever since 9/11, a big problem dividing our free society and confusing our debate about the threats we face has to do with definitions and labels we use to explain our enemy. So far, we have failed to unite in defense of America because Americans have never been clear about what to name that enemy. If we cannot agree on what to name them, we cannot agree on identifying who they are, let alone understand what their motives might be, or how they might plot or attack next.
In national defense, the first requirement is to make an accurate threat assessment. That is possible only if we can identify the enemy as a threat, before he attacks. Without correct identification of the enemy, our national defense can never be proactive. Instead, it can only be reactive, after we have been attacked.
To simplify this task, let’s constrain the topic here to just the deadly enemy threat that we can follow easily enough as the “Islamic Movement.” We can justify that narrow focus most evidently if we merely use the body count of its victims as a primary consideration.
In the 9/11 attacks, that enemy killed almost 3,000 of our non-combatant people inside America. Additionally, over the past several decades, that same ideological movement is responsible for many more thousands of deaths, including many more Americans. In the defensive wars following 9/11, that same Islamic Movement has claimed the lives of more thousands of Americans in military service and left many thousands more gravely maimed and wounded. So altogether, the umbrella of the Islamic Movement is an enemy threat force which, in our most recent era, has violently claimed and severely damaged the lives of tens of thousands of Americans, and of countless more non-American innocents. On the body count criteria, no other ideological threat force can even come close to matching that toll of violence against Americans.
But it raises some questions: Can we accurately identify the Islamic Movement as the umbrella enemy posing that threat? And if we can, then why are our leaders consistently failing to do so? In an attempt to prove the case that the Islamic Movement is the threat, and to end that failure to identify it, we must work from a shared understanding. We can call it our “Common Ground.”
After an unexpected attack, we can usually identify an enemy by tracing back the evidence path leading into the attack. For example, on December 7, 1941, we suffered a surprise attack on our naval fleet at Pearl Harbor. The evidence trail identified the Japanese empire as the culprits, and strategists developed a working plan of how to defend against and counter their next likely moves. Likewise, after the surprise attack on September 11, 2001, we could also easily uncover the evidence trail, down to the identities and prior preparations of the 19 Muslim hijackers on the destroyed airliners.
Points of evidence led 9/11 investigators to find other evidence. In any proper investigation, it is not really a chain of evidence which forms. A chain will be broken with one bad link. Rather, a good investigation creates a best working model that is more like a network of evidence. Each point of evidence can form a node, rather than a single link. Each node can have multiple connection paths to other evidence points and nodes. A competent investigation analysis will compile those nodes and paths into a clear pattern. The enemy thus becomes identifiable, and tts plots and tendencies will become predictable, to establish defense and counter moves.
However, that professional investigation is not the only source which forms our Common Ground understanding of who attacked us and why. Two other major sources are at work. One is an intentional disinformation campaign, orchestrated by a coalition of 1) the Islamic enemy within, which is advising our people in power (think of CAIR); 2) the Leftist enemy within, which shares the same destructive goal as the Islamic enemy (think of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)); 3) the wishful thinking and willful ignorance of our softer leaders, who, despite the professionally compiled evidence trail to the contrary, readily accept the propaganda message put out by the first two on face value (think of George W. Bush and his rhetorical invention, “Religion of Peace”).
A further faulty narrative source comes from the non-professionals, with fringe ideas. As they contribute in the mass media environment, their alternative theories will attract their wishful thinking followers. But a professional evidence model will easily discard those as faulty. Some such narratives are rooted in outright fakes. But they will always be pieces that fail to fit in the large network of evidence. That fact is simply self-evident. You cannot connect a thing that will not connect.
So in the competent investigation, a clear threat assessment model will form, which can be reasoned from the assembled network of well-tied evidence nodes. Non-fitting junk will get debunked and discarded.
So now we run into the main problem in our search for Common Ground understanding of the threat which defines the enemy who attacked us on 9/11. We can form a rational network model of evidence, professionally well-constructed. But, the true narrative from that comes up against competition from other forces in our society who do not want our model to be the narrative.
Our success will require us to keep bringing our factual network of evidence nodes into the Common Ground narrative. We cannot persuade everybody. But we must out-compete parts of those other narratives, which are faulty.
We do have a large baseline in our favor. These are the people who want America to survive. They don’t want to be violently attacked, nor to see other Americans be violently attacked. These are all people who are inherently on our side. But they do not all know or understand our solid network of evidence. Many have been fooled by the false narratives. But these in the baseline are all people we can potentially reach. And we can probably assume that they are the majority of Americans. Preservation of America and of Americans is our baseline Common Ground goal with them.
Let’s not waste much time fighting with the remaining minority who persist outside of that shared baseline. They will never be relevant to our purpose of coming to Common Ground terms to identify, defend against, and counter the Islamic Movement enemy that seeks to defeat and conquer us.
So our Common Ground baseline of societal self-preservationists will naturally include a wide political range of both conservatives and progressives / liberals, Republicans and Democrats. By definition, they will all accept that we were attacked on 9/11 by an outside group of enemy agents. But our terms of how to label that enemy is where we clash. Our goal must be to persuade more of them, by evidence, that the threatening entity is an identifiable ideology of supremacist conquest — the Islamic Movement.
So then, how can we encourage wider usage of our more accurate, evidence-based terms to define this enemy and its motives and goals? After the 9/11 attack, the biggest voices have come to label them “terrorists,” or “killers.” President Bush awkwardly named our national defense operation against this enemy as the “War on Terror.” And to really confuse us all, his invented “Terror” name for the enemy promoted the odd fantasy that there are some non-Islamic terror operatives who we must also be at war with, just to keep it politically correct, perhaps. But even the mass murderous drug cartels to our southern border never quite rated as “Terror” in this war or earlier.
Clearly, it was named to mislead, to exclude the word “Islam.” We can only conclude that the Islamic Movement enemy close to the president was partly responsible for creating that deception.
Using an inadequate label of “terrorist” gives us no predictive ability to prevent attacks. “Terror” fails to explain any motive or ideology or belief or goal behind the attack. We need more clearly defined terms that actually match the attackers’ ideology.
Usage of the term “Islamic Movement” is a step toward more clear labels. We are sometimes more precise, and will just say “Islam,” because then we are speaking true to terms that Muslims use. But sometimes clarity like that comes at risk of losing the attention of many people within our Common Ground. They remain trapped in misguided tolerance indoctrination, and politically correct resistance to what they will perceive as harsh and a turnoff. While we can still logically define the threat as a “Movement,” which connotes an ideology of societal, political, and militaristic aims.
Previous attempts to resolve this dilemma of labels have invented terms for these killers, such as, “Radical Islamic Terrorist” or “Islamist.” These labels are fictional. They do not exist internally inside any Islamic context, among any followers of Islam. But to be clear, Islam does in fact define fighters for Islam as mujahideen.
For example, Quran 4:95 tells Muslims, “Not equal are those believers remaining [at home] – other than the disabled – and the mujahideen, [who strive and fight] in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred the mujahideen through their wealth and their lives over those who remain [behind], by degrees. And to both Allah has promised the best [reward]. But Allah has preferred the mujahideen over those who remain [behind] with a great reward.”
Mujahideen are those who wage jihad — jihadists. But it is enough to simply point to this and other verses of violence commanded in Quran, to account for the motive of the attackers.
And then, having clearly established ideological identity and motive, we can ask, “Where is this verse taught, as an attack doctrine upon random clusters of Americans? Who are the teachers, and where do their students come from? Who funds the salaries, and the tuition?
Those questions take us off the defensive, and instead shift the burden of defense to where it belongs — onto the proponents of the Islamic Movement in our midst. Their task must first be to perceptibly reduce and then eliminate such teachings of violence among Muslims. It is not acceptable that they will instead deny the terrorist meaning of the verse, as a further tactic against us. Rather, they must actually pursue the funding trail to the mass teachings of Quran-based terror motivation, and cut it off, if they have any authority.
If they lack that authority, then their excuses toward us are just noise. They would fail our Common Ground goal of life and societal preservation in America. They will have proven that they simply cannot promote Quran as a book of peace and tolerance toward non-Muslims, as they come up against more credible voices of violence inherent in the Islamic Movement.
As established above, our Common Ground is always based in American security as a prime goal. We must not leave our fate in the hands of ineffective Islamic leaders among us, who simply say things that we like to hear. Those leaders, if they are to be part of our Common Ground, must be competent to effect life-saving change within the Islamic training system that propagates terror and slaughter out of Quran and other source texts. If that change proves to be improbable, by the weight of modern Islamic scholarship and authority, then the evidence revealed by the failed attempt will simply establish that Quran and other source texts of Islam are in fact the enemy threat doctrine.
Old Fat Bald Socially Inept Ron says
“Islam is peace”
-GWB
“Ha ha ha”
-Those who recognized the Grand Lie when they heard it.
mortimer says
Agree. The ‘Islam is peace’ canard is no more than ‘GASLIGHTING’. They are trying to convince mentally healthy and morally fine people that to doubt their own perceptions and believe they are insane and evil.
The reverse is true: it is those doing the Gaslighting who are delusional and immoral. They are horrible liars.
The Islam-promoting liars are promoting their political agenda through lying about the meaning, motive and method of Islam.
Useful Vidiots says
As Clint Eastwood said, too many people are intellectualizing away their instincts.
mortimer says
Dr. Johnson said: ‘Many errors may be prevented by counting.’ The percentage of actual jihad terrorists ready and willing to kill is less than 1% of all Muslims. The percentage of those who will give financial aid to terrorists is about 15% and up to 45% of Muslims will do little to stop the jihadists. The remaining 35% of Muslims are ‘cultural Muslims’ who don’t believe much or any of it. That means that 2/3 of Muslims are somewhat or enthusiastically in favor of jihad terrorism. They dislike terrorism only if Muslims are being killed. So 2/3 of Muslims think it is OK to kill dirty kafirs, but just don’t kill one Muslim or 65% of Muslims will disapprove somewhat.
The ‘enemy’ is 65% of Muslims who think it is OK to kill kafirs, but won’t honestly admit that.
elee says
I applaud and concur.
“The people are the sea in which the guerrilla swims.”—–Mao Tse-Tsung
Any “moderate Muslim” who wouldn’t inform on a jihadi is an aider and abettor of the jihadi’s crimes. Every Muslim who contributes to covert funding for these crimes has bought into them.
All of the above should be held responsible, even if Muslim votes have elected them to Congress.
Brian hoff says
You sound alot like the person who run the death camp in ww2. That all muslum are terrorist.
gravenimage says
“Brian hoff”–really, “DefenderofIslam”–is pretending that noting that few Muslims will report Jihad terror to Infidel authorities; a proven fact, and one that is taught in the texts of Islam–is the same as committing genocide against peaceful people. What calumny.
Note that “DefenderofIslam” has openly said that he wants to impose brutal Shari’ah law on us–which is *exactly* the same goal as Jihadists have.
Jule Bacal says
I take what I have hear Muslims say…Islam is Islam. Its by the book Qur’an and the Hadiths. READ IT. Then you see what Muslim means. Muslims who don’t want to be violent can Jihad in other ways like Political, converting, sending money(thats a big one for those you think are moderate), population majorities, keeping loyal and quiet, etc but all Must BELIEVE in every word of the Qur’an. They must believe that Allah proclaimed Islam as the Only True Religion that Mohammed is the last profit Allah sent to clean out improper religions and to follow his example. After you find out what his life was like, you know that people following that example today belong in a psych ward or jail. I feel so sorry for everyone born into this way because they are not ALLOWED to leave without huge punishment or Death. Its like the Mafia, no joke. Some say the Mafia learned their style in Italy from their Muslims. But ALL gangs have these rules. Its Gangland. Who WANTs a Gang in the country, neighborhood, Congress, business demanding that they Rule and proving it, even if they Call it a ‘religion’ as a cover.
James Lincoln says
What a fantastic article by Aynaz Anni Cyrus !
100% accurate, totally on point.
What is most troubling, however, is that articles like these are still required more than 17 years after 9/11…
Useful Vidiots says
This is my ‘Irrational Enemy’ theory I’ve had for 10+ years. We could unite around an enemy we could name. Hitler. Stalin. etc. But with terrorism, “they’re nowhere, they’re everywhere, who is it, where are they?”
Like Jello, we can’t get our hands around it and in lieu of having that clear enemy, we end up feeding on each other. That is at the core of the divide and vitriol today in the USA.
That combined with my other theory around “Politics is the new religion”. I was please to see Dennis Prager wrote three articles that explained it much better than I could state it.
Walter Sieruk says
It’s a strange but common phenomena in America’s and Europe’s modern PC culture that when it comes to Islamic terrorism there are many people who are afraid to call it what it is. That’s odd because no one is afraid to call a person who engages in violence for anarchy and “anarchist terrorist”. Nor are people afraid to call a Marxist who engages in violence for the ideology of communism a “Communist terrorist.” Likewise, a person who commits violence for Environmentalism an “Environmentalist terrorists. “Nevertheless, when it comes to a Muslim terrorist who engages in deadly violence because of the theology and ideology of Islam, many people fear to call that person an “Islamic terrorists.” Strange but true.
Aussie Infidel says
The common ground is the Islamic scriptures calling for jihad against non-Muslims.(Q2:190-193, 2:216, 3:157-158, 4:74, 4:89, 4:95, 7:4, 8:16, 8:24, 8:39, 8:60, 9:5, 9:14-15, 9:29, 9:36-44, 9:73, 9:111, 9:123, 33:23, 47:4, etc, etc). These verses provide the primary motivation for the psychopaths who perpetrate jihadist attacks – and those who help them There are over a hundred such verses in the Quran refering to jihad or holy war.
Furthermore, the Sharia defines Jihad as “A communal obligation for all Muslims”, and “a war to establish the religion.” (Reliance of the Traveller O9.0-9.8).
Clearly therefore, our common ground is the ISLAMIC SCRIPTURES which contain the tenets of Islam. And our common enemy is the ISLAMIC IDEOLOGY, and specifically the DOCTRINE OF JIHAD within that ideology.
Those verses of violence send a clear message to the mujahideen, that all kuffar are enemies of Allah and must be subjugated or killed, and their religions and culture replaced with Islam and its iniquitous Sharia. Muslims have been at war with all non-Muslims since the inception of Islam 1,400 years ago – that’s why the Islamic jihad is called the ‘longest war’. And the scriptures indicate that the jihad will continue until Islam alone remains.
Jule Bacal says
Yes I agree. The hard part is that the early Warlords knew this would always happen so they put in the messages to members of “beware of satan in the others trying to make you doubt. They are Enemies of Allah so Do Not Listen to them or be tricked by them’
And especially they put in that the Jews will be the WORST enemy and that is why Allah cursed them and said they are o longer followers of Abraham. Abraham belongs ONLY to ISLAM. Abraham and all his history and sites…..so even Jews are afraid to speak up because then they fall right into the trap & they are afraid that will make it worse. They KNOW what could happen when Mobs rule with propaganda & lies, now rampant over the World. All they can do is try to defend themselves and their one State. Islam HATES that because it ruins their SUPREMACY or Islam as the ONLY TRUE Religion. That is why they try to ‘wipe Israel off the map and out of History/memory.” Sunni and Shia with their million little splits all have the same Qur’an and all agree that Israel/Judaism blocks their Supremacy and that Abraham now Belongs to them because Allah said so.
gravenimage says
Muslims claim that Abraham and all the rest of the Jewish prophets and Jesus were actually Muslim.
Elizabeth Thorne says
The first time I read the Qur’an I was looking for some peace, some kindness, some meaning and I was absolutely horrified.
The second I read the Qur’an I took notes and was not so shocked at the number of times kill was mentioned–all in the name of Allah.
The third time I read the Qur’an I had a very hard time trying to come up with a reason any sane person would call Islam a religion.
It is all about control, power, oppression, It is one of the most disgraceful book I have ever read.
Do I hate Islam, you betcha I do. East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet. It has taken me a long time Grandma but yes, you were so right, Islam is filth.
Jule Bacal says
The reason is: 1) fear of death or punishment publicly or in prison by friends, family or government. So they feel its either Muslims or All others have to go. Like its really their self or Them. Its ‘me & Allah against all the satans in others.’ 2) fear of eternal punishment by Allah after death instead of the reward they will get for BELIEVING. And its deeply rooted in generations. 3) warlord leaders make us heroes if we Obey and do what the Qur’an says. And everyone wants to be a hero. Everyone wants to have the celebrate when they kill an enemy or take over Politically. Omar is the latest Hero at present. Everyone wants to be a Hero and Jihad is Islam’s way…political, violent, conversions, colonizing.
Jule Bacal says
Good for for reading their Book! Now you know. Spencers book is great too but there is something about reading the Source of the problem with your own eyes and mind. Because it is intended to be followed word for word even Today & tomorrow until Judgement day. Its not just an old history book.
gravenimage says
I’ve read the vicious Qur’an five times now myself. Ugly, ugly stuff.
KWJ says
Call it Islamic Movement, Islamic Revivalism, or simply what it is: The spreading of Islam. Terrorists aren’t even the biggest part of it…the funders are, the Islamic organizations, mosques, and our own coddlers.
I’d rather say the spread of Islam is a threat; that spreading is called jihad (the struggle to bring the world under Allah’s law aka the sharia) Hijra (deliberate immigration into non-Muslims’ lands so that by demography and numbers they can become more powerful by getting into every institution of our society) and da’wa (preaching, proselytizing).
The Spreading Of Islam = threat
Economic jihad already showed it’s ugly face regarding Delta Airlines and Qatari and UAE airlines. Education jihad: Qatar and Saudi Arabia spending millions infiltrating our schools and ridiculous “Islamic law centers” and Muslim Students Association. Media jihad. Government positions jihad. “Outreach” jihad. All parts of the “struggle” for Islamic domination per Muhammad and the spoils of war they get by doing so which really sucks for non-Muslims.
The word jihad must be used in the Qur’anic context that Muhammad made clear was NOT some kind of inner struggle…that fighting in the way of Allah until all say Allah is the only God and Muhammad is his Messenger, and that “oppression” to him means people not living under Allah’s law; that those Muslims who are not living under sharia law are oppressed, in their warped logic. Human rights to us is not the same kind of thing as the Muslim Brotherhood’s idea of human rights like my saying a gay person should be able to marry a fellow gay person while a Muslim should not have to live with such an affront to Allah. It goes like that…like one is oppressed because they can’t marry four wives in the US.
Obviously this is the main threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This non-Muslim enablers are also a threat like the Tories/Loyalists during the Revolutionary War who supported being under the monarchy of England…
Rant.
Jule Bacal says
Yep. That is why I as a liberal, will never vote Dem again. Never Again means never Again (unless Dems read the Qur’an/Hadiths and figure Political Jihad out and Remove it. Oh gee, Multinationals might lose MidEast profits. Dems are SUPPOSED to be PEOPLE OVER PROFIT. Supporting Islam is only for monetary profit but EU/Multinationals are doing the same. Looking the other way for Private money. DISGUSTING.
gravenimage says
Good post, KWJ.