Up to now the Rupert Murdoch empire had restricted itself to
using only the audio-visual outlets of its publishing division to advocate the
eruption of a war of religions between Christianity and Islam. But this is
changing with the entry of the Wall Street Journal into the fray. An example of
the new regime is the editorial piece that came under the title: “The Next
Islamist Rampage” and the subtitle: “The West has to reinforce its terror
defenses, including surveillance.” It was published in the Journal on January
10, 2015.
Before anything, let it be said that no government or
recognized institution in the Arab or Muslim Worlds is advocating what the word
jihad has come to mean. In fact, jihad was called upon to perform only once in
the modern era, and the caller was none other than the highly esteem American
President Ronald Reagan. He called for a Muslim jihad to be unleashed against a
Soviet Union that had invaded Afghanistan, and he personally saw to it that the
practitioners of Jihad (Mujahedeen in Arabic) were well equipped and well
financed in their fight to liberate the Asian nation.
What happened after the successful liberation of Afghanistan
was that the Mujahedeen felt betrayed by the Americans who broke their promise
to help modernize the country but abandoned it, leaving the inhabitants in a
state that looked as primitive as ever. Feeling scorned and dejected, the
Mujahedeen and their supporters decided to get back at America, relying in
their struggle on the lessons that the Americans had taught them, and in some
cases the weapons that the Americans had given them. They went after American
interests anywhere in the world they could find them, causing as much damage as
they could – not because of religion but because they wanted the sweet taste of
revenge to replace the bitter taste that America had created in their mouths.
Rejoicing at this turn of the events, the ever opportunistic
Jews did not watch from the sidelines and salivate for long. They jumped into
the fray in the blink of an eye, and geared their formidable propaganda machine
to make the new battle seem like a war between a Christian establishment and a
Muslim one. But despite a non-stop effort by the likes of Fox News and National
Review Online to inflame the passions, neither of the religious establishments
was motivated to view the battle as anything but a nuisance caused by Muslim
kids having nothing better to do. In the interim, however, they gave the
contributors to those publications something to talk and write about, thus look
useful and get paid. Still, the publications insisted that this was a war
between the two religions, therefore advocated responses that would, in effect,
turn the nuisance into a religious war.
And now that the Wall Street Journal has joined the fray,
you see the same trend emerge in its editorial. For example, you see in the
opening paragraph how the editors advise Europe to reinforce its “moral and
military” defenses. Next, they argue that despite the differences between
Europe and America, the latter is just as prone to being attacked, therefore
must reinforce its own defenses. But they don't stop here because what the Jews
really want is to plant the American military permanently into the Middle East.
To this end, the editors of Murdoch's Journal accuse Obama's
America of having abdicated the Syrian civil war, and so they counsel that the
country “accelerate and intensify the campaign against Islamic State.” But
because this will not be sufficient to give the war a religious overtone, they
advocate that the West – which includes America – must play a harder game. Here
is how they put it: “The West also needs to cease its political campaign
against the most effective antiterror tools. This means surveillance in
particular.” The editors wish to go even further than that, so they advocate
the playing of the trump car: “The West will have to consider more aggressive
interventions, including arrest or exile for citizens.” Thus, you have a Rupert
Murdoch who is an Australian Jew, telling America it must consider arresting
its citizens, even send them into exile.
To close the argument the editors get back to the business
of accusing Obama of failure to provide leadership and of being naïve, which is
why they call on members of the Congress and the pool of presidential
candidates to intervene if not by legislative means, by speaking “clearly about
how they define the Islamist threat and how the West can defeat it.”