Nonie Darwish is a self manifested liar to the very people she is trying to ideologically or intellectually defend from “Islamists” thought. A little background of Nonie Darwish is that she is a Palestinian born to a Muslim family and raised Muslim but of whom she became an orphan due to her father who died in jihad in the Jewish illegal occupation of Palestine after which she had found her way to Egypt within one of the last surviving western schools left in the region and taken under by British Nuns.
So what is her lie? This is the lie she fabricated to the American people on this program which can be viewed here
Starting from 1 minute and 55 seconds into her interview she begins her lie by stating
“This is something that every American must understand, after 9/11 especially, that there is nothing that America has or has not done that causes terrorism. Terrorism is violent Jihad and is the duty of every Muslim and that’s why many Muslims are silent because they feel that if they speak against terrorism, then they must be speaking against jihad, that’s why they have a conflict to speak out and that’s why Americans should never doubt their own value system, or their own country, or even their own foreign policy.”
Nonie Darwish is one of the worst exaggerated and filthy poor excuse of liars to have entered into the islamaphobic scene and this entire 7 minute and 38 second fiasco on her own accord will hopefully render her illogical rhetoric coupled with outright fabrications into the dumpster it popped its head out of, sorry for the lessening of professionalism in speech here but her outright deception exempts her from such a formal address. I will dissect this entire part of her interview to expose the fraudulent nature of this poor excuse of a liar.
In the above quote by Nonie it can be extracted the following claims
1. America has not done anything or the lack thereof to warrant terrorism
2. Terrorism is violent jihad (synonymous)
3. She blames the imaginary silence of Muslims on terrorism on her fabricated idea that Muslims feel that they would be speaking out against Jihad.
The first and in fact the greatest atrocities to the American people on a political and ideological level that this alleged defender of American values has done was to preposterously claim that America has done nothing to warrant the act of terrorism on itself.
The initial refutation of this point is that it is affirmed by unanimous agreement of the world community that within the regions of where Muslims abide in, the pinnacle cause for aggression committed by such Muslims are due to foreign policies colonial or imperial hegemonic nations. This fact is not hidden from common sense and reason.
Mark Weisbrot who is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington states the following.
In the aftermath of the tragedy of September 11, General Charles Horner, the retired Air Force commander of the Gulf War, was one of the few to raise the question of why anyone would be motivated to attack the United States.
The answer is not that they “hate our freedoms,” as President Bush argued in his speech to Congress. Nor is it envy or resentment of America’s wealth and economic success, as the media has suggested. The opposite is much more the case: American movies, TV, music, and sports are readily devoured by billions.
And many people throughout the world have friends or relatives who have lived in the United States. There was a tremendous outpouring of sympathy for Americans in the wake of the attack.
But unfortunately we also have a terrible history of our political leaders imposing their will, often through force and violence, throughout the globe. This is what will have to change, if we are to prevent further terrorism against Americans.
When I was in Nicaragua in the late 1980s, the United States was financing a dirty war—which, like the terrorism we are now fighting, targeted mostly civilians—in order to overthrow the elected government of that country. Most of the people I met there had lost family members who would still be alive if not for the intervention of the United States. If anyone in the world had reason to hate America, they did.
Yet I never encountered any resentment against Americans. Nicaraguans, from illiterate poor people to university graduates, had learned to distinguish between the Americans that they encountered and the American government that was destroying their country.
There have been many Nicaraguans, and many millions who have lost their lives because they were unfortunate enough to live in countries whose governments chose political or economic paths not approved by Washington. Outside the United States, these facts are well known. In the Middle East, there is much hatred for our government’s support for Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. We are also seen as the major force behind various corrupt, dictatorial Arab governments, such as the feudal monarchy of Saudi Arabia. And the US-led sanctions and bombing in Iraq have also aroused deep resentments.
The statement in bold is nothing less of a juggernaut tidal wave in the view of those whose socio/political views are filtered by western propagandist media by such figures as this liar, Nonie Darwish. This statement in bold signifies the obvious and apparent reality that those within the states are unfortunate to be enlightened with. Not only is this reality a fact, it is well known throughout the entire world save those within the states. It is through this ignorance that Nonie Darwish can play her fabricated web of deception to the people she claims to care for their welfare by playing on their ignorance of the greater picture which has not past the filter of western media for it to be spoon fed to its recipients.
Her second claim is that terrorism is violent jihad. Firstly, anyone who understands the concept of war cannot be manipulated by these terminologies employed by western propagandist media outlets when they employ the term “terrorism” because terrorism, if it is analytically studied within the objectives of its advocates, fit to be nothing more than a political plot which is implemented militarily. In other words, the base rule for those who initiate acts that harm society is to affect the political or social environment i.e. the status quo.
Secondly, Jihad is not terrorism. Jihad in its most accurate translated form in current day western terminology is nothing short of “foreign policy”. In other words jihaad in Islam is an entire concept of what is viewed in western military law as foreign policy. The reality of jihad has been dealt with throughout our publications here.
As for her third claim that Muslims are silent, this is another monstrous lie in the face of those she is “informing”. Muslims from across the globe have been voicing their knowledge regarding the fact of the demarcation between jihad and terrorism. The problem that Muslims have in this regard is the Media’s intentional denial of this reality due to higher objectives aimed at by political propagandists. I remember personally when we had brought over a Scholar of Kuwait to speak concerning the topic in a seminar about the invalidity of terrorism in Islam, the event never met press coverage at all in spite of the fact that the local media were informed and encouraged to come. We all know the obvious reason why they selectively chose to refrain from coming to an event that inherently would increase the overall journalism of its members and the honor of its existence.
So the silence of Muslims as part of her claim that she is parroting around is nothing short of her delusional or intentional fabrications she invented for herself when she decided to enter in this game of Islamaphobia.
Later on in this video, about 2 minutes and 55 seconds she responds to a question about the fact that Americans were questioning why would anyone wish to implement terrorism on them, so she responded with the following
“We have an open system and they have a closed system, their existence here is their right to Islamize us, that’s how they view us. They are here because they feel they want to Islamize us and they give us no access into their countries. “
We have already highlighted the fallacy of this fear mongering tactic of the radical Islamaphobes which can be accessed here Get It Straight Islamic Experts! We Don’t Intend to Convert America to Shariah Law.
Then she attempts to deceive her audience about the express intentions of the U.S. going into Somalia by stating the following.
“They consider non Muslims as filth on their lands, it’s called negus. And that’s why when our soldiers, our American soldiers went to feed the hungry in Somalia, instead of being appreciated, these people instead of being appreciated, these people were starving by their own governments, Muslim against Muslim brutality. America was in Somalia not because they want to occupy Somalia, they wanted to feed the hungry, and what did we get for this, we didn’t get a thank you from the Islamic world or from the Arab street, but our soldiers were dragged and tortured and killed.”
Actually the Arabic pronunciation is “najis” and non muslims are not viewed as filth on “Muslim land” rather it is a religious filth that is between them and their Lord and not what she opines to.
Secondly, again she herself is a victim of western propagandist distortions. Here is a much more thorough reflection of the purpose of the event and the U.S. intervention in this conflict.
The importance of this inglorious episode in American military history lies not only in the as-yet-undocumented carnage among the residents of Somalia’s capital city, but in what it tells us about U.S. military doctrine. It also casts light on some of the reasons behind the U.S. Administration’s efforts to block the creation of an independent International Criminal Court with universal jurisdiction to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity. The U.S.’s stated objection, voiced in the negotiations leading up to the vote in Rome to create the Court on 17 July this year, was that universal jurisdiction would open the door to malicious prosecutions against American peacekeepers. An analysis of the evidence from the Mogadishu war suggests that the reasons may be rather deeper.
Operation Restore Hope was launched in December 1992 amid shocking—and carefully orchestrated—images of anarchy and starvation in Somalia, with the mandate of ‘creating a secure environment for the delivery of humanitarian relief’. Eight months later it turned into the greatest U.S. military humiliation since Vietnam. In three months of urban counter-guerilla warfare against the unpaid, irregular but resourceful militia of General Mohamed Farah Aidid in Mogadishu city, U.S. military doctrines of overwhelming force and near-zero American casualties came unstuck. The culmination was the 3 October battle, after which pictures of a dead U.S. pilot being dragged through the streets by a jeering crowd and the plight of another taken prisoner of war—‘hostage’ in the White House’s preferred terminology—forced a truce and U.S. withdrawal.
The humanitarian garb of Operation Restore Hope was superficial from the start. Launched in December 1992 just as the famine was waning, the dispatch of troops had more to do with testing the newly emerging doctrine of ‘humanitarian intervention’ than saving Somalis. An independent review by the U.S. Refugee Policy Group concluded that the operation saved between 10,000 and 25,000 lives rather than the two million initially advertised.3 This sober reality was noted at the time, though few chose to listen amidst the hype generated among the media, the UN and the Pentagon. Much more modest forms of relief aid could have achieved exactly the same result.
The relief specialist, Fred Cuny, had proposed a smaller, more flexible and better targeted operation in the ‘famine triangle’ which would have avoided the perilous vortex of Mogadishu. The plan was the subject of serious discussion in Washington. But, in the words of the then assistant deputy secretary for defence for African Affairs, this option ‘died because it failed to meet the U.S. military’s new insistence on the application of massive, overwhelming force’.4 So a huge logistical operation was mounted through Mogadishu, and the U.S. had to grapple with the political ambitions of General Aidid, the faction leader who controlled the airport, the main routes out of the city, and most of the heavy weapons.
Around 5 minutes into the interview, the interviewer began on a tangent that the Muslim Mosques are breeding grounds for terrorism. Here is where Nonie comments
“It’s true, a lot of people think that Islam is just a religion. There is a major part in Islamic education or even the main part is conquering the world to Islam. It is the utmost honor for every Muslim to believe in Jihad, and it is done through jihad, through the sword actually. And if you look at the Saudi flag, it has a sword on it and it’s the symbol of opening countries through the sword.”
I will not even entertain a response for this preposterousness. I will merely address a formal question to Ms. Darwish here and that is
Can you explain for us Ms. Darwish why do you narrate this fact about the Saudi flag and in turn do not relate that Saudi Arabia itself does not have a standing army?
Here theory does not logically make sense if we contrast it with the situation on the ground and the political climate of the east. If Islamic radicals are indeed at war with America and if there is in fact a real life existence of pocket groups who do have weapons and who are engaged in conflicts with America, then what prevents an actual nation state like Saudi who does have the economic strength and power to form a military power and fulfill the objectives that you are deceitfully assuming on a nation due to the symbols of its flag, then why have they not fulfilled these objectives that Nonie is claiming upon the Muslims in these lands.