What the Jewish-controlled media won’t tell you about 9/11

Instapundit points to this extraordinary article in the Weekly Standard about the Nazi roots of Al Qaeda, by a German analyst:

What ideas propelled [9/11 plotter Mohammed] Atta and the others to act? . . . . One participant in the Koran circle meetings, Shahid Nickels, said Atta’s Weltanschauung was based on a “National Socialist way of thinking.” Atta was convinced that the Jews were striving for world domination and considered New York City the center of world Jewry, which was, in his opinion, Enemy No. 1. Fellow students who lived in Motassedeq’s dormitory testified that he shared these views and waxed enthusiastic about a forthcoming “big action.” One student quoted Motassedeq as saying, “The Jews will burn and in the end we will dance on their graves.”. . .

Amazingly, neither the American media nor the international press took much notice of this testimony, largely refusing to report on Atta’s and Motassedeq’s explicit Jew-hatred. [I]n this case, involving attackers of Arab background, journalists apparently found the issue irrelevant. . . .

[Similarly,] the 9/11 Commission Report is a case in point. Instead of discussing the fact that Jew-hatred had reached epidemic proportions in the Islamic world well before September 11, the report gives the impression that Islamism originally arose in response to recent American and Western policies. . . .

A struggle against Islamism waged in ignorance of Islamist ideology weakens the West. The attribution of guilt to Israel and the United States adds fuel to the flames of Islamist propaganda and drives the wedge deeper into the Western camp rather than where it belongs–in the Muslim world.

Such blindness is especially hazardous in the case of the Iranian nuclear program, whose danger arises from the unique ideological stew surrounding it: the mish-mash of Jew-hatred, Holocaust denial, and Shiite death-cult messianism that is the context for Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and advanced missiles.

What’s the explanation for this? I would posit a few possible ones:

  • A completely misplaced desire to avoid offending Muslims, who of course should not be offended, if they are indeed moderate, by accurate descriptions of their extremist brethren
  • A similarly misplaced, though relatively benign, desire to avoid, ironically, “blaming” the Jews for “bringing” this attack “on” America — as if to report this twisted, and objectively preposterous rationale would be to vindicate it
  • A left-wing desire to urge as “root causes” of extremist violence Western policies that are conveniently the opposite of their preferred policy prescriptions, coupled with the fact that describing deep-seated Arab antisemitism as a motivation would undermine those very preferred policies (e.g., more pressure to produce Israeli “concessions” from their friendly neighbors who supposedly desire only to live in peace with the their Jew neighbors)

Mix and match, or suggest your own. But don’t expect to read about this in the New York Times.

UPDATE:  Meanwhile, across the Pond

No Responses to “What the Jewish-controlled media won’t tell you about 9/11”

  1. Bob Miller Says:

    Küntzel has been one of the best, most thorough writers about the roots, recent history, and current direction of Islamic radicalism. This article is only one example.

    More of his writings, including pieces on Iran, can be found at http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/kategorie/english/


  2. Jonathan Says:

    I agree that it is an excellent piece. Too few Americans realize that the political structure of modern Islamic fascism, far from being a response to some sin we committed in the past few decades, is a mixture of various forms of modern Islamic fundamentalism and European ideology imported into the Middle East in the early-20th Century. Having triumphed over secular Arab nationalists, the Islamists are now taking on the rest of the world. Our flaws and mistakes, real and imagined, have little to do with this political dynamic, except to the extent we have encouraged the Islamists by appearing weak and irresolute.


  3. soccer dad Says:

    Not exactly surprising:

    The Nazis moved in, made a tremendous propaganda effort, and were even able to move from Syria eastwards into Iraq and for a while set up a pro-Nazi, fascist regime. It was in this period that political parties were formed that were the nucleus of what later became the Baath Party. The Western Allies eventually drove the Nazis out of the Middle East and suppressed these organizations. But the war ended in 1945, and the Allies left. A few years later the Soviets moved in, established an immensely powerful presence in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and various other countries, and introduced Soviet-style political practice. The adaptation from the Nazi model to the communist model was very simple and easy, requiring only a few minor adjustments, and it proceeded pretty well. That is the origin of the Baath Party and of the kind of governments that we have been confronting in the Middle East in recent years. That, as I would again repeat and emphasize, has nothing whatever to do with the traditional Arab or Islamic past.

    I realize that people will say Osama was no Baathist. But still isn’t it likely that there’s something within political Islam that makes it susceptible to Nazi influence?


  4. Ara Rubyan Says:

    But still isn’t it likely that there’s something within political Islam that makes it susceptible to Nazi influence?

    Of course — hatred of Jews. I’m surprised you asked the question.


  5. Zalman Says:

    Quite obvious 9-11 was a 100% Mossad “false flag” operation supported by the Bush puppets….


  • View Ron Coleman's profile on LinkedIn


  • RSS LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® blog

    • Tens years of Overlawyering
      Overlawyered turns 10.  Congratulations!  There was really blogging ten years ago? I didn’t miss the anniversary.  I just didn’t want to be accused of cadging for a link. […]
    • Holding Caulfield (corrected)
      I could have linked to a million stories on this, but Publishers Weekly seems appropriate: Finding that author J.D. Salinger is “likely to succeed on the merits of its copyright case,” a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction late on Wednesday afternoon, barring the publication of what Salinger’s attorneys called an unauthorized sequel to The Catcher […]
    • He just bought it like that
      Impulse buying, King of Pop style: Branca had a surprise for Jackson. The attorney said casually, ‘By the way, the ATV catalogue is available.’ Jackson looked puzzled. Branca added teasingly, ‘It includes a few things you might be interested in.’ ‘Like what?’ Jackson asked. ‘Northern Songs,’ Branca replied. Jackson recognized that name. ‘You mean the Norther […]
    • Royal mess
      Burger King’s trademark place is kind of funny.   If you Google His Majesty’s Monicker along with the word TRADEMARK, you get this link, which not only asserts, naturally, his royal BURGER KING® registered mark, but the far more dubious BK® mark down at the bottom, yet not at all (on that page) the ancient [...] […]
    • When you’re a hammer
      The whole world is a nail. Now Marty Schwimmer isn’t a hammer, because he does trademarks and not patents, see.  So this post connecting Michael Jackson and intellectual property is not proof that Michael Jackson’s death is a nail! (Single-glove-tip on the actual patent to Andie Schwartz!) […]
  • Likelihood of Exposure

    Evening alight

    Storming over from Jersey

    The assault

    After the deluge

    Calm in the west

    Another picture of 34th Street

    Snatch of convergence

    Rolex Building

    More Photos
  • eXTReMe Tracker