It’s inconceivable that Osama Bin Laden could have known the far reaching effects of the reprehensible events he masterminded on 9-11. He and his henchmen sought to ‘terrorize’ and take revenge on the United States, in the name of his god, Allah, for what they perceived to be our military mingling in the Middle East for years prior.¹ But the result of that horrible day in 2001 has been the embracing of a portion of Bin Laden’s ideology by many in our society. Muslims are now looked upon as a “protected minority” in a land where the minority rule the majority. Bin Laden would be shocked to know that a sympathetic position of his worldview has emerged in the West. This leads me to rhetorically ask, “did he win?”

Except for Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X and Hakeem Olajuwon, the majority of Americans had no true knowledge of anyone of Islam, in all its various forms, prior to September 2001. Before that time, Radical-Islam = terrorism = Islam = Mohammad = headscarfs & robes = the-desert-religion-of-oil-fields. It was always “over there,” on the other side of the world. But 9-11 brought Islam up close and personal for so many of us.

After the shock of that day turned to anger, it then turned to an internal search for many in our nation, begging the question “what are we doing to make them so mad?” And there was a political party in our midst that took up this cause, echoing the calls for Western nations to stop meddling in their area of the globe. The Democratic Party also slowly began to swoop in and defend nearly anything Islam related.

The free speech defenders who cut their teeth on Vietnam War protests in the 1960s-70s, suddenly began to condone the Muslim backlash against published cartoons depicting Mohammad.² “Radical Islam” became a swear word to the extreme Left. This all cumulated, mixed with several other factors, in the election of an American as U.S. President who had polarizing ideas and sympathy toward traditions of the Middle East. Barack Hussein Obama’s ascendance, whether right or wrong, would not have been possible a generation before given the bias in the public’s mind of his middle name alone, much less his extreme liberal views. But 9-11 forced our society to deal with Muslim related names, phrases and issues like never before. The public had become accustomed to Islam and somewhat comfortable with thousands of Muslims immigrating here in unprecedented numbers, especially from war-torn nations.

Today, in the 2010’s, when terrorist acts and crimes are committed in the name of Islam, the motivation is largely suppressed by major news outlets sympathetic to anything non-traditional.³ When Executive Orders are issued to temporarily ban individuals from specific Muslim countries that have an antagonistic history with the U.S., Left leaning activists here, known as judges in many cases, put the kibosh on the Orders, believing that the individuals effected are “simply trying to flee oppression and find a safe haven” in the Shangri-La known as the USA. These judicial decisions, which ignore the law and appeal to emotion, are cheered by the far Left media personalities, journalists and politicians. They Tweet and head to the closest microphone, proclaiming that “banning people from Muslim countries is not in line with our values,” forgetting reality or simply not knowing anything about ‘the values’ that brought us to this point in history.⁴

Culturally, half the U.S.A. has become the proverbial frog being slowly boiled in a pot of water. The heat is so subtle that the frog will die before it jumps out. The frog here represents those sympathetic to oddball, ‘progressive’ personal behavior, in addition to any & all immigration, no matter the time, place, circumstances or numbers. My ignorant assumption is that these same advocates do not know that there was virtually no legal immigration in the U.S. from the 1920’s to the 1960’s — there was some but merely a trickle. And this was done purposefully.⁵

There is no way Bin Laden could have known that the Dem Party of the early 21st century would become sympathetic to his claims when he orchestrated the atrocious attacks of September 11, 2001. Had he been more astute in converting others to his cause, he would have penned emotional missives in English or paid for Hollywood-produced documentaries to be made that played to the misplaced, godless sympathies of the liberal West. While no one with any sense of decency would condone what he wickedly conjured up and carried out, many would have gravitated to his cause much faster had he appealed to raw human emotions, casting himself as a David vs the US-Goliath.

While I have never personally traveled to the Middle East, I have worked with Muslims on a daily basis, two different individuals in fact. Both were female (and for the record, neither wrestled with no gender identity issues [wink]). Both were smart, kind, gracious, hard-working, reliable, and trust-worthy. These are individuals who I would employee if I owned by own business. One of them had even adopted the Christian term “church” when discussing services at her Mosque. I think this was smart on her behalf because it softened the foreignness or oddity of the over there religion for the Judeo-Christian descendants in the office.

Speaking of emotions, few things have been so moving to me as when I visited the Flight 93 National Memorial in Pennsylvania last year. Even though videos of the planes slamming into the World Trade Center towers still moves me to tears, then stirs a quiet anger deep inside, I realize that the vast majority of Muslim Americans would never plan or carry out such brutality on innocent people. But I also realize that the events of that day have helped to pave the way of acceptance for a religion that many think rightly deserves a place next to the other two monotheistic religions of the world. And to this I wonder whether Bin Laden and his lieutenants might have won the war with the West despite the numerous battles they lost in the immediate aftermath of 9-11.
jrw
.
.
.FOOTNOTES:
1. Many also argue it’s because of the U.S.’s/West’s cultural mingling.

2. Supposedly, any sketched rendering of Mohammad is a serious no-no in Islam. And the radical, crazy followers of his (not all but those who are truly radical and crazy), who believe the modern world should revert back to the “proper way of life” as lived in the 7th century, take this very seriously.
Reference 1: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30710883
Reference 2: http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/09/europe/charlie-hebdo-paris-shooting/index.html
Reference 3: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2-gunmen-killed-at-prophet-muhammad-art-contest-in-texas/

3. Boston Marathon; Fort Hood, TX; Chattanooga, TN; San Bernadino, CA; Orlando, FL; others.

4. The ironic point about the Democrat Party embracing Muslims as an “oppressed minority” is that if they (the leaders of Islam) had their way, all the sympathetic voices toward them in the USA would be silenced under the guise of “sharia law,” or because of the fact that half of those embracing them are women. Females, in the deep Middle East, should seldom be seen and never heard unless a male approves of what is being said. This goes to the point that today’s Democrat Party is a true motley crew, with the only bond among groups being the goal of defeating the “mean ol’Republicans,” no matter the name, face, gender, or ideas being discussed. If they ever had their way with no opposition from political opponents, the groups that gingerly make-up the Democrat Party would cannibalize one another.

5. See https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act

and http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/chapter-1-the-nations-immigration-laws-1920-to-today/