Leaders in the U.S. are loathe to admit that America is at war with Islam; however, many in Islam have no reservation in defining the current struggle as a war upon Islam by the West, and, in particular, the USA.

“The war is fundamentally religious . . . under no circumstances should we forget this enmity between us and the infidels. For, the enmity is based on creed.” (“Statement by Usama Bin Ladin,” AJSCT, 3 November 2001).

I pondered how this struggle, this “War on Terror,” this war against the crusader invaders, etcetera, could be framed with clarity, and without bias--frankly speaking, it's impossible; for there are simply too many interpretive variables in the current alignment of protagonists. However, since numerous historians and pundits lay claim to what’s driving this conflict—we must give appraisal to those whose interpretations mirror reality, while eschewing those blandishments which enhance the ever-present agendum designed to serve a selfish purpose.

OSAMA THE MAD-BOMBER or THE SPIRITUAL BAROMETER OF ISLAM?

First of all, Osama bin Laden has, more than any other antagonist facing the armies of the West, led by the USA, encapsulated all that the Western leadership—especially President Bush—loathes, abhors, and despises.

It is Osama who makes for Western jokes, while an ever-intensifying propaganda for the soul of Islam is waged by the jokesters who know full-well that we’re not dealing with Burt but the makings of Saladin who ga

The West’s fascination with the Holy Land—the “Beautiful Land” or “Glorious Land” (Daniel 11:41)—be it for “hidden/material” or “prophetic/spiritual” treasures, has climaxed at the apex of the modern era in America’s most recent intrusion into Iraq.

The last Caliphate, the Ottoman Turks, collapsed at the close of World War I. On December 11, 1917, British Field Marshal, Edmund Allenby, dismounted, and walked through Jerusalem’s Jaffa Gate, in honor of the three great religions as the Allies eventually wrested control of the Levant from the decrepit Ottomans—thusly, was this member of the Axis Powers dismembered.

“By December, 1917, Allenby had moved upwards from Egypt and captured Jerusalem. As the first Christian conqueror of the Holy City since the Crusades, Allenby ordered his troops to dismount as a mark of respect when they entered the city.” (PBS, Lawrence of Arabia).

“Jerusalem – The Endless Crusade” is a perennial struggle between Jews and Gentile World Powers—as well as a spiritual tussle amongst three of the world’s great religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

The ascendancy of the West in the modern era commenced in earnest with the discovery of the New World. “Guns, Germs, and Steel” (PBS Special, 2005) converged to give the West world dominance, which it owns to this day—that now includes the Middle East!

It can be further stated that “The Coming of the West” into the Beautiful Land in the Modern Era began many centuries prior to the British Empire’s “flying machines” over the skies of Jerusalem—causing the astonished Turks to drop their weapons and flee—Allenby capturing the Holy City without frying a shot!

“The process of European penetration was gradual and complex (the Venetian traders in the early Thirteenth Century; Vasco da Gama et al.); but there were, nevertheless, clearly identifiable turning points. In the sixteenth century, for example, the Ottoman Empire voluntarily granted a series of concessions called the ‘Capitulations’ to European powers - concessions which gave the Europeans decided advantages in foreign trade in the empire. Another turning point was the invasion of Egypt in 1798 by Napoleon Bonaparte. Hoping to cut Britain's lines to India and cripple its maritime and economic power, Napoleon crushed the Mamluks (who governed Egypt under Ottoman suzerainty) and briefly occupied the country. By defeating Egypt, then still part of the Ottoman Empire, Napoleon exposed the inner weaknesses, both military and administrative, of the sultans, shattered the myth of Ottoman power, and inaugurated more than 150 years of direct political intervention by the West.

“Europe's worldwide nineteenth-century search for raw materials, markets, military bases, and colonies eventually touched most of what had been the Arab empire. In 1820 Great Britain imposed a pact on Arab tribes on the coast of the Arabian Gulf; in the 1830s France occupied Algeria; in 1839 Britain occupied Aden, at the strategic entrance to the Red Sea; and in 1869 Ferdinand de Lesseps, with the backing of the French emperor, completed what would become, and still is, one of the key shipping arteries of the world, the Suez Canal.” (The Coming of the West, Islamic City)

The British and French occupied a growing sphere of influence—colonialism—of the region under the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 until the end of World War

Part II of the U.S.-Israel Strategic Alliance designates the leadership of the West shifting from its Eurocentric colonial base in the Middle East, to its present aegis under what has become the military and ideological arm of the West: The United States of America. The projection of commercial, socio-political, and military power throughout the region by the USA—working in concert with allies in the area (viz., Israel) since the Suez War of 1957—clearly places America as the force de jure in the Glorious Land. This preeminent posture is driven by America’s insatiable quest for below-market oil prices which enables the West under its American leadership to sustain its extraordinary consumptive economy.

Securing the region’s treasures enabled the West to win the Cold War. Now, frustrating American dominance—politically and geographically—is a resurgent Islam determined to expunge the West from these Holy Lands through Fatwa and Jihad.

We will continue to elaborate upon the West’s leadership vis-?-vis America, in the context of her catalyst for the present incursion into the Beautiful Land. Juxtaposed to the European colonial model, the West’s intrusion is led by the ever-present and anticipated hand of her Executive: The Presidency of the USA. Part II of this series demonstrated that the “personification” of the West’s leadership is domiciled in its President.

Policy and ideology—especially as it pertains to the Middle East—is specifically relegated to the office of the Chief Executive. No other nation on the planet can claim such sweeping political prejudice committed to such a singular position. In particular, as Commander-in-Chief of her Armed Forces, and their/his arsenals of destructive capacity, the President of the United States of America leads this most powerful military manifestation ever amassed upon the face of the earth; and, projects that might faster and with more lethal force than any other person upon the globe.

Furthermore, it is the Presidency of George Walker Bush, more than any other Presidency, who has made the issue of MILITARY VICTORY the definitive expression of his administration—HE WILL SETTLE FOR NOTHING BUT COMPLETE VICTORY!

“We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity . . . We will not tire, or rest . . . we will see freedom’s victory . . . we must stop them . . . we will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory . . . there is no peace without victory . . . we will keep our nerve and we will win that victory!

"The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia . . . they are fanatical and extreme . . . utterly committed . . . As Zarqawi has vowed, ‘We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life’ . . . we must stop them before their crimes can multiply!" (Excerpts from Bush’s speech at the National Endowment for Democracy, Washington, D.C.) (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051006-3.html )

WHAT’S DRIVING THIS MADNESS?

So, who says who is mad? Ultimately—cutting to the chase here—“Me thinks the whole world’s gone mad, except thee and me, and sometimes I think thee!” (Famous Quaker quote).

Bush and Osama—and let me disabuse you of their ignorance—know perfectly well what drives the West and Islam in this clash of cultures. Each is a master of propaganda where half-truths prejudice their audiences—yet, oddly enough, the “truth is out there.”

Leaders in the U.S. are loathe to admit that America is at war with Islam; however, many in Islam have no reservation in defining the current struggle as a war upon Islam by the West, and, in particular, the USA.

“The war is fundamentally religious . . . under no circumstances should we forget this enmity between us and the infidels. For, the enmity is based on creed.” (“Statement by Usama Bin Ladin,” AJSCT, 3 November 2001).

I pondered how this struggle, this “War on Terror,” this war against the crusader invaders, etcetera, could be framed with clarity, and without bias--frankly speaking, it's impossible; for there are simply too many interpretive variables in the current alignment of protagonists. However, since numerous historians and pundits lay claim to what’s driving this conflict—we must give appraisal to those whose interpretations mirror reality, while eschewing those blandishments which enhance the ever-present agendum designed to serve a selfish purpose.

OSAMA THE MAD-BOMBER or THE SPIRITUAL BAROMETER OF ISLAM?

First of all, Osama bin Laden has, more than any other antagonist facing the armies of the West, led by the USA, encapsulated all that the Western leadership—especially President Bush—loathes, abhors, and despises.

It is Osama who makes for Western jokes, while an ever-intensifying propaganda for the soul of Islam is waged by the jokesters who know full-well that we’re not dealing with Burt but the makings of Saladin who gal

“The process of European penetration was gradual and complex (the Venetian traders in the early Thirteenth Century; Vasco da Gama et al.); but there were, nevertheless, clearly identifiable turning points. In the sixteenth century, for example, the Ottoman Empire voluntarily granted a series of concessions called the ‘Capitulations’ to European powers - concessions which gave the Europeans decided advantages in foreign trade in the empire. Another turning point was the invasion of Egypt in 1798 by Napoleon Bonaparte. Hoping to cut Britain's lines to India and cripple its maritime and economic power, Napoleon crushed the Mamluks (who governed Egypt under Ottoman suzerainty) and briefly occupied the country. By defeating Egypt, then still part of the Ottoman Empire, Napoleon exposed the inner weaknesses, both military and administrative, of the sultans, shattered the myth of Ottoman power, and inaugurated more than 150 years of direct political intervention by the West.

“Europe's worldwide nineteenth-century search for raw materials, markets, military bases, and colonies eventually touched most of what had been the Arab empire. In 1820 Great Britain imposed a pact on Arab tribes on the coast of the Arabian Gulf; in the 1830s France occupied Algeria; in 1839 Britain occupied Aden, at the strategic entrance to the Red Sea; and in 1869 Ferdinand de Lesseps, with the backing of the French emperor, completed what would become, and still is, one of the key shipping arteries of the world, the Suez Canal.” (The Coming of the West, Islamic City)

The British and French occupied a growing sphere of influence—colonialism—of the region under the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 until the end of World War

Part II of the U.S.-Israel Strategic Alliance designates the leadership of the West shifting from its Eurocentric colonial base in the Middle East, to its present aegis under what has become the military and ideological arm of the West: The United States of America. The projection of commercial, socio-political, and military power throughout the region by the USA—working in concert with allies in the area (viz., Israel) since the Suez War of 1957—clearly places America as the force de jure in the Glorious Land. This preeminent posture is driven by America’s insatiable quest for below-market oil prices which enables the West under its American leadership to sustain its extraordinary consumptive economy.

Securing the region’s treasures enabled the West to win the Cold War. Now, frustrating American dominance—politically and geographically—is a resurgent Islam determined to expunge the West from these Holy Lands through Fatwa and Jihad.

We will continue to elaborate upon the West’s leadership vis-?-vis America, in the context of her catalyst for the present incursion into the Beautiful Land. Juxtaposed to the European colonial model, the West’s intrusion is led by the ever-present and anticipated hand of her Executive: The Presidency of the USA. Part II of this series demonstrated that the “personification” of the West’s leadership is domiciled in its President.

Policy and ideology—especially as it pertains to the Middle East—is specifically relegated to the office of the Chief Executive. No other nation on the planet can claim such sweeping political prejudice committed to such a singular position. In particular, as Commander-in-Chief of her Armed Forces, and their/his arsenals of destructive capacity, the President of the United States of America leads this most powerful military manifestation ever amassed upon the face of the earth; and, projects that might faster and with more lethal force than any other person upon the globe.

Furthermore, it is the Presidency of George Walker Bush, more than any other Presidency, who has made the issue of MILITARY VICTORY the definitive expression of his administration—HE WILL SETTLE FOR NOTHING BUT COMPLETE VICTORY!

“We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity . . . We will not tire, or rest . . . we will see freedom’s victory . . . we must stop them . . . we will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory . . . there is no peace without victory . . . we will keep our nerve and we will win that victory!

"The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia . . . they are fanatical and extreme . . . utterly committed . . . As Zarqawi has vowed, ‘We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life’ . . . we must stop them before their crimes can multiply!" (Excerpts from Bush’s speech at the National Endowment for Democracy, Washington, D.C.) (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051006-3.html )

WHAT’S DRIVING THIS MADNESS?

So, who says who is mad? Ultimately—cutting to the chase here—“Me thinks the whole world’s gone mad, except thee and me, and sometimes I think thee!” (Famous Quaker quote).

Bush and Osama—and let me disabuse you of their ignorance—know perfectly well what drives the West and Islam in this clash of cultures. Each is a master of propaganda where half-truths prejudice their audiences—yet, oddly enough, the “truth is out there.”

Leaders in the U.S. are loathe to admit that America is at war with Islam; however, many in Islam have no reservation in defining the current struggle as a war upon Islam by the West, and, in particular, the USA.

“The war is fundamentally religious . . . under no circumstances should we forget this enmity between us and the infidels. For, the enmity is based on creed.” (“Statement by Usama Bin Ladin,” AJSCT, 3 November 2001).

I pondered how this struggle, this “War on Terror,” this war against the crusader invaders, etcetera, could be framed with clarity, and without bias--frankly speaking, it's impossible; for there are simply too many interpretive variables in the current alignment of protagonists. However, since numerous historians and pundits lay claim to what’s driving this conflict—we must give appraisal to those whose interpretations mirror reality, while eschewing those blandishments which enhance the ever-present agendum designed to serve a selfish purpose.

OSAMA THE MAD-BOMBER or THE SPIRITUAL BAROMETER OF ISLAM?

First of all, Osama bin Laden has, more than any other antagonist facing the armies of the West, led by the USA, encapsulated all that the Western leadership—especially President Bush—loathes, abhors, and despises.

It is Osama who makes for Western jokes, while an ever-intensifying propaganda for the soul of Islam is waged by the jokesters who know full-well that we’re not dealing with Burt but the makings of Saladin who ga

Part II of the U.S.-Israel Strategic Alliance designates the leadership of the West shifting from its Eurocentric colonial base in the Middle East, to its present aegis under what has become the military and ideological arm of the West: The United States of America. The projection of commercial, socio-political, and military power throughout the region by the USA—working in concert with allies in the area (viz., Israel) since the Suez War of 1957—clearly places America as the force de jure in the Glorious Land. This preeminent posture is driven by America’s insatiable quest for below-market oil prices which enables the West under its American leadership to sustain its extraordinary consumptive economy.

Securing the region’s treasures enabled the West to win the Cold War. Now, frustrating American dominance—politically and geographically—is a resurgent Islam determined to expunge the West from these Holy Lands through Fatwa and Jihad.

We will continue to elaborate upon the West’s leadership vis-?-vis America, in the context of her catalyst for the present incursion into the Beautiful Land. Juxtaposed to the European colonial model, the West’s intrusion is led by the ever-present and anticipated hand of her Executive: The Presidency of the USA. Part II of this series demonstrated that the “personification” of the West’s leadership is domiciled in its President.

Policy and ideology—especially as it pertains to the Middle East—is specifically relegated to the office of the Chief Executive. No other nation on the planet can claim such sweeping political prejudice committed to such a singular position. In particular, as Commander-in-Chief of her Armed Forces, and their/his arsenals of destructive capacity, the President of the United States of America leads this most powerful military manifestation ever amassed upon the face of the earth; and, projects that might faster and with more lethal force than any other person upon the globe.

Furthermore, it is the Presidency of George Walker Bush, more than any other Presidency, who has made the issue of MILITARY VICTORY the definitive expression of his administration—HE WILL SETTLE FOR NOTHING BUT COMPLETE VICTORY!

“We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity . . . We will not tire, or rest . . . we will see freedom’s victory . . . we must stop them . . . we will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory . . . there is no peace without victory . . . we will keep our nerve and we will win that victory!

"The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia . . . they are fanatical and extreme . . . utterly committed . . . As Zarqawi has vowed, ‘We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life’ . . . we must stop them before their crimes can multiply!" (Excerpts from Bush’s speech at the National Endowment for Democracy, Washington, D.C.) (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051006-3.html )

WHAT’S DRIVING THIS MADNESS?

So, who says who is mad? Ultimately—cutting to the chase here—“Me thinks the whole world’s gone mad, except thee and me, and sometimes I think thee!” (Famous Quaker quote).

Bush and Osama—and let me disabuse you of their ignorance—know perfectly well what drives the West and Islam in this clash of cultures. Each is a master of propaganda where half-truths prejudice their audiences—yet, oddly enough, the “truth is out there.”

Leaders in the U.S. are loathe to admit that America is at war with Islam; however, many in Islam have no reservation in defining the current struggle as a war upon Islam by the West, and, in particular, the USA.

“The war is fundamentally religious . . . under no circumstances should we forget this enmity between us and the infidels. For, the enmity is based on creed.” (“Statement by Usama Bin Ladin,” AJSCT, 3 November 2001).

I pondered how this struggle, this “War on Terror,” this war against the crusader invaders, etcetera, could be framed with clarity, and without bias--frankly speaking, it's impossible; for there are simply too many interpretive variables in the current alignment of protagonists. However, since numerous historians and pundits lay claim to what’s driving this conflict—we must give appraisal to those whose interpretations mirror reality, while eschewing those blandishments which enhance the ever-present agendum designed to serve a selfish purpose.

OSAMA THE MAD-BOMBER or THE SPIRITUAL BAROMETER OF ISLAM?

First of all, Osama bin Laden has, more than any other antagonist facing the armies of the West, led by the USA, encapsulated all that the Western leadership—especially President Bush—loathes, abhors, and despises.

It is Osama who makes for Western jokes, while an ever-intensifying propaganda for the soul of Islam is waged by the jokesters who know full-well that we’re not dealing with Burt but the makings of Saladin who ga

Furthermore, it is the Presidency of George Walker Bush, more than any other Presidency, who has made the issue of MILITARY VICTORY the definitive expression of his administration—HE WILL SETTLE FOR NOTHING BUT COMPLETE VICTORY!

“We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity . . . We will not tire, or rest . . . we will see freedom’s victory . . . we must stop them . . . we will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory . . . there is no peace without victory . . . we will keep our nerve and we will win that victory!

"The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia . . . they are fanatical and extreme . . . utterly committed . . . As Zarqawi has vowed, ‘We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life’ . . . we must stop them before their crimes can multiply!" (Excerpts from Bush’s speech at the National Endowment for Democracy, Washington, D.C.) (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051006-3.html )

WHAT’S DRIVING THIS MADNESS?

So, who says who is mad? Ultimately—cutting to the chase here—“Me thinks the whole world’s gone mad, except thee and me, and sometimes I think thee!” (Famous Quaker quote).

Bush and Osama—and let me disabuse you of their ignorance—know perfectly well what drives the West and Islam in this clash of cultures. Each is a master of propaganda where half-truths prejudice their audiences—yet, oddly enough, the “truth is out there.”

Leaders in the U.S. are loathe to admit that America is at war with Islam; however, many in Islam have no reservation in defining the current struggle as a war upon Islam by the West, and, in particular, the USA.

“The war is fundamentally religious . . . under no circumstances should we forget this enmity between us and the infidels. For, the enmity is based on creed.” (“Statement by Usama Bin Ladin,” AJSCT, 3 November 2001).

I pondered how this struggle, this “War on Terror,” this war against the crusader invaders, etcetera, could be framed with clarity, and without bias--frankly speaking, it's impossible; for there are simply too many interpretive variables in the current alignment of protagonists. However, since numerous historians and pundits lay claim to what’s driving this conflict—we must give appraisal to those whose interpretations mirror reality, while eschewing those blandishments which enhance the ever-present agendum designed to serve a selfish purpose.

OSAMA THE MAD-BOMBER or THE SPIRITUAL BAROMETER OF ISLAM?

First of all, Osama bin Laden has, more than any other antagonist facing the armies of the West, led by the USA, encapsulated all that the Western leadership—especially President Bush—loathes, abhors, and despises.

It is Osama who makes for Western jokes, while an ever-intensifying propaganda for the soul of Islam is waged by the jokesters who know full-well that we’re not dealing with Burt but the makings of Saladin who ga

Leaders in the U.S. are loathe to admit that America is at war with Islam; however, many in Islam have no reservation in defining the current struggle as a war upon Islam by the West, and, in particular, the USA.

“The war is fundamentally religious . . . under no circumstances should we forget this enmity between us and the infidels. For, the enmity is based on creed.” (“Statement by Usama Bin Ladin,” AJSCT, 3 November 2001).

I pondered how this struggle, this “War on Terror,” this war against the crusader invaders, etcetera, could be framed with clarity, and without bias--frankly speaking, it's impossible; for there are simply too many interpretive variables in the current alignment of protagonists. However, since numerous historians and pundits lay claim to what’s driving this conflict—we must give appraisal to those whose interpretations mirror reality, while eschewing those blandishments which enhance the ever-present agendum designed to serve a selfish purpose.

OSAMA THE MAD-BOMBER or THE SPIRITUAL BAROMETER OF ISLAM?

First of all, Osama bin Laden has, more than any other antagonist facing the armies of the West, led by the USA, encapsulated all that the Western leadership—especially President Bush—loathes, abhors, and despises.

It is Osama who makes for Western jokes, while an ever-intensifying propaganda for the soul of Islam is waged by the jokesters who know full-well that we’re not dealing with Burt but the makings of Saladin who galvanized the disparate Moslem tribes under one banner and defeated the original Crusaders. Indeed, if the West can split Islam—making Osama into the caricature of a mad-bomber; caring not for life and limb—then, our discrediting will pay off in bigger dividends for the same “Merchants of the Earth” who are growing rich from this incessant struggle.

Osama has proclaimed that Jihad (a Holy “defensive” War against the USA and the Jews) is the SIXTH PILLAR (de facto) of Islam—and, consequently, any Moslem who does not take up arms against the infidel (the decadent Western invaders) is disobedient to Allah, a heretic, and is “Moslem” in name only—in point of spiritual fact, WORSE THAN AN INFIDEL!

“I must say that my duty is just to awaken the Muslims; to tell them as to what is good for them and what is not. What does Islam say and what do the enemies of Islam want. Al-Qa'idah was set up to wage a jihad against infidelity, particularly to counter the onslaught of the infidel countries against the Islamic states. Jihad is the sixth undeclared pillar of Islam. [The first five being the basic holy words of Islam ("There is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God"), prayers, fasting (in Ramadan), pilgrimage to Mecca and giving alms (zakat).] Every anti-Islamic person is afraid of jihad. Al-Qa'idah wants to keep jihad alive and active and make it a part of the daily life of the Muslims. It wants to give it the status of worship.” (Interview with Osama bin Laden published in newspaper Ummat Karachi, 28th September, 2001)

Even so—there are six Osamanic pillars kept before all Moslems for them to hear, see, experience and ever-hate the policies of the USA:

• U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis’ thrall.
• U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
• U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
• U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants.
• U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low.
• U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments. (“Imperial Hubris, Why the West is Losing the War on Terror,” Anonymous, Brassey’s, Inc., Washington, D.C., p. 241).

The above six axioms of Osama bin Laden makes him the charg?s des affaires of Islamic Fundamentalism. Osama overtly defines Islam’s present Jihad as the cause c?l?bre against the Crusaders of the West—and, in particular, against the King of the West: The President of the United States of America, George Walker Bush. Osama has, due to the propaganda of the West, become the focalpoint of frustration and the Stalin-Hitler-Tojo-Mao-Mussolini archfiend of elite and redneck, of preacher and politician, of media pundit and military strategist—all united in their wrath upon the absolutist whose weapons are terror and whose cause is evil.

Probing the depths of Osama’s psyche—and reading a score of writings* relative to his discovery—confirms one solitary fact: Here is no simpleton, baffoon, nor madman plagued either by schizophrenic demonic hosts or obsessed with an overweening sense of his own propriety—no, no, no! If ever a more genuine, committed, ardent follower of Islam—whose submission to Allah is beyond reproach and whose steps follow those of the Prophet Mohammed—could be found, it would most definitely find its vessel of choice in this singular figure: Osama bin Laden!

Shocked? Don’t be—OBL, in point of fact, is NOT on Islam’s fringe as many in the West would have you believe. OBL is smack dab in the mainstream of Islamic tradition, thought, word, and deed!

In his book, Imperial Hubris, the author—Anonymous—encapsulates OBL’s hatred toward the West, the USA, in stark terms:

“Leaving aside political-correctness concerns will allow us to recognize and candidly discuss the genuine and growing substantive, not just visceral, hatred for America among the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims. Because Muslim leaders—with bin Laden in the van—repeatedly have told us that they hate Americans for what we do and not for what we think, look like, or talk about, there can be no valid charge of racism or Islamophobia in such a discussion. ‘We regret to tell you that you are the worst civilization in the history of mankind,’ bin Laden explained in his October 2002 letter to Americans. ‘You ransack our lands, stealing our treasures and oil . . . . Your forces occupy our lands . . . You have starved the Muslims of Iraq . . . . So what is left on the list of the most heinous, evil and unjust acts that you have not done?” (Ibid. Page 256)

DEFINING THE ENEMY—BY PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

Without equivocation, there is but one person in all the West who has definitively defined our implacable foe and placed upon him a most outrageous face. This one has described without compromise—with, if you would, unmitigated gall—the dastardly characteristics of a fiendish enemy who must be stopped!

To do this—he has embarked upon a calculated strategy and plan for total VICTORY over “The Bastard of Islam”—for this is no child of Mohammed, but the evil distortion of a peaceful religion! No one—absolutely no voice in the West—has had such a calculated impact in announcing the parameters of the battle . . . the Commander-in-Chief leads the charge!

“Yet while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane.

“Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it’s called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus -- and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics.

“Many militants are part of global, borderless terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda -- paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, and the Philippines, and Pakistan, and Chechnya, and Kashmir, and Algeria. Still others spring up in local cells, inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed. Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command. Yet these operatives, fighting on scattered battlefields, share a similar ideology and vision for our world.” (NED, October, 2005)