Share |

Who Is The Enemy?

-OR- Why We Shouldn't Get Sucked Into The Clash Of Civilisations

Following the events in Woolwich last week, we are revisiting an article originally written for the UK Column newspaper in 2010.

While we deplore anyone's killing, it is important to look at the historical context, and ask the question, if our government is inciting terrorism through direct support of al-Qaida in Iraq and Syria when it suits their purposes, is Britain not responsible when events such as those which took place last week occur?

Bernard Lewis

A Very British Operation

The entire Islamic fundamentalist movement is British foreign policy. The "fifth column" which has been inhabiting our "establishment" (as well as that of the USA) since the end of the second world war, financed by international monied interests in the City of London and Wall Street, is the true source.

Godfather of this policy is Bernard Lewis. Born in 1916 to middle-class Jewish parents in Stoke Newington, Lewis gained a doctorate in the history of Islam from the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies. During the second world war, he was a military intelligence officer, and later seconded to the Foreign Office. He refuses to give further details. After the war, he worked as a lecturer at the School of Oriental and African Studies, and in 1949, at the age of 33, he was appointed to the new chair in Near and Middle Eastern History.

In 1974, he was posted to Princeton University's Center for Advanced Studies. It can be demonstrated that since his arrival at Princeton, Lewis has been responsible for every piece of strategic folly into which the USA has been drawn in the middle east.

For example, he was the architect of Zbigniew Brzezinski's "Arc of Crisis" policy of fomenting Muslim Brotherhood fundamentalist insurrections all along the southern borders of the Soviet Union. The planned fostering of radical Islamist war provocations was known, at the time, as "the Bernard Lewis Plan."

Some of the results of this Lewis-Brzezinski collusion:

  • the February 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini "Islamic Revolution" in Iran, which overthrew the Shah, and sent the once-proud center of the Islamic Renaissance back into a dark age
  • the 1979-1988 Afghanistan War, provoked by Brzezinski's July 1979 launching of covert support for Afghan mujahideenn, six months prior to the Red Army's Christmas Eve invasion.

As early as 1960, in a book-length study he had prepared for the Royal Institute for International Affairs, under the title "The Emergence of Modern Turkey," Lewis argued against the modernising, nation-building legacy of Turkey's Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He argued instead for the revival of an Ottoman Empire that could be used as a British geopolitical battering ram against Russia and against the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, in alliance with Israel.

But it is for the hoax of the "Clash of Civilisations" that Lewis is most famous, and it is in recognition of this policy that the alarm bells of us all should be ringing, for it is this policy which is being stoked by those who foment anti-Islamic feeling today. And it is the trap set by this policy which those who send the round robin emails fall into.

Clash Of Civilisations

The term "Clash of Civilisations" first appeared in an Atlantic Monthly article written by Lewis called "The Roots of Muslim Rage," published in September 1990. Samuel Huntingdon's subsequent diatribe, originally published in the Council on Foreign Relations' Foreign Affairs magazine, was a poor caricature of this more sophisticated historical fraud, which painted Islam as being engaged in a fourteen century long war against Christianity.

In 1992, Lewis continued the hoax in Foreign Affairs magazine. He postulated that the era of the nation-state in the Middle East had come to an inglorious end.

"The eclipse of pan-Arabism," Lewis wrote, "has left Islamic fundamentalism as the most attractive alternative to all those who feel that there has to be something better, truer, and more hopeful than the inept tyrannies of their rulers and the bankrupt ideologies foisted on them from outside." The Islamists represent "a network outside the control of the state ... The more oppressive the regime, the greater the help it gives to fundamentalists by eliminating competing oppositionists."

He concluded the Foreign Affairs piece by forecasting the "Lebanonisation" of the entire region (degeneration into fratricidal violence and chaos), with the exception of Israel: "Most of the states of the Middle East ... are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common national identity or overriding allegiance to the nation-state. The state then disintegrates—as happened in Lebanon—into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties."

In 1998, Lewis wrote another article for Foreign Affairs magazine, entitled "License To Kill: Osama bin Laden's Declaration Of Jihad." In it, he heaped praise on bin Laden's "Declaration of Jihad Versus Jews and Crusaders," saying it was "a magnificent piece of eloquent, at times even poetic Arabic prose ... which reveals a version of history that most Westerners will find unfamiliar."

Lewis has passed his views on to his son, Michael, who is director of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee's super-secret "opposition research section." This is one of the most important wellsprings of propaganda and disinformation, which continues to saturate the U.S. Congress and American media with war-cries for precisely the Clash of Civilizations Bernard Lewis has been promoting for decades.

So the next time you receive an email showing images of Islamic demonstrators with plaquards demanding "the real holocaust," whenever you hear of a mosque being built in a location intended to cause offense, or whenever "Baghdad style violence" comes to the streets of Britain, ask yourself, whose is the policy which caused it? Who is the enemy?



This report is worth reading after the above article.

Woolwich attack suspect attended meetings of banned Islamist group - and were known by security services.


Former leader of banned group confirmed that he had known the man who was seen on video in the immediate aftermath of horrific killing.



This goes some way to explain their thought process, it would not take very much for some one to suggest they should carry out this vile act.


A worrying new face of the terror threat to the UK.


Islamists had for a while been uploading video footage on the internet of prisoners being beheaded by their captors. It was most prevalent in Iraq and has spread to other parts of the world where ferocious jihad was being waged.

The murder outside Woolwich barracks was the first time that beheading had been used as a tool of terror in the West and it has, understandably, spread shock and revulsion. The appearance of footage of one of the suspects, with bloody meat cleavers in his hands, speaking calmly about what he has apparently done in an English accent, will add to the sense of foreboding.

This was also the first time that a soldier had been targeted back home by Islamists; although off-duty soldiers had been targeted by Irish republicans in the past. The Ministry of Defence now has a major problem on how to react to this in the raising of security measures which was already under way tonight. The questions being asked were ‘is there a danger of copycat attacks?’ And, at the same time, ‘What would be effect on the morale of service personnel and their families if they were forced to live under siege conditions?’

Kidnapping and killing, beheading in particular, of military personnel had, in fact, been a recurring theme among would-be Islamist terrorists in this country. Six years ago a group of British Pakistanis based in Birmingham were convicted of plotting such an attack and their leader, Parviz Khan, received a life sentence with the recommendation that he serves a minimum of 14 years.

But there appears to have been no indication for the security agencies that such an attempt was in the horizon, according to sources, leading to possibility that this was the work of a very small group, possibly just the two suspects who were shot by the police at the scene.

There was initial speculation that the attack may have been the result of ‘road rage’ following a car crash. However, counter-terrorist officers also appear to have information that the killers had staged an accident after waiting for an opportunity to present itself and were intent on finding a victim.

The behavior of the two men after the death, the video recording of their jihadist statements, the refusal to run away and then charge at the police – which could be taken as a desire to become ‘shaheeds’, or martyrs - all point away from this being a random, spur of the moment, incident.

The fact that the two men are alive after apparently being shot will be of huge help to piecing together what led up to the attack. According to security officials the behavior of the suspects in the aftermath of the killing suggested they were proud of what they had done, and, experience shows, that they may be only too happy to talk about their actions.

One official said : “We are not talking about your veteran PIRA (Provisional IRA) guy who during interrogation will not even make eye contact but stare at a fixed point on the wall either saying nothing or saying ‘no comment’. Some of the Islamists, especially those who want to be martyrs, want to describe what they had done, their motivations, and who motivated them. That’s why you get so many martyrdom videos which are of great help to investigators.”m


Quran 3:120 translation
If good befalls you, it grieves them, and if an evil afflicts you, they rejoice at it; and if you are patient and guard yourselves, their scheme will not injure you in any way; surely God comprehends what they do.