HOME Mau-Jun.2005 Featured Stories Background Information News On The Web



by Yashiko Sagamori


My army is assembled for inspection.
The war is on, but I have lost connection,
distracted like Napoleon with the flu.

My land is getting smaller by the hour.
My saddleboy is pretty like a flower.
My senators, they don't have a clue.

From now, every little aberration
contributes to the fall of this great nation,
but we will not be blamed for defeat.

The enemies will slither through the border.
They will establish their law and order
and snatch the land from under our feet.

-- Alex Taller

Among the many unexpected results of our ongoing War on Terror is the apparent increase in the number of observant Muslims among the population of the United States. As far as I know, no official statistics exists reflecting this trend, so I can't tell you whether this is because 9/11 inspired more observant Muslims to move to the United States in the anticipation of its inevitable defeat or because it inspired more US citizens to convert to the religion of their enemies. I believe both factors are at work here. Whatever the reason, I see more and more of them everywhere I go. And, trust me, I don't go to mosques. How do I recognize them? Their men rarely sport beards a la Mullah Omar or display other telltale signs allowing an infidel like myself to easily identify them as faithful followers of their false prophet. Their women, however, are instantly recognizable by their obligatory headscarves. A look at their faces often reveals makeup boldly applied in layers thick enough to make me suspect its primary purpose is to hide the face like every decent woman should do, instead of trying to make it look more attractive as is the decadent custom of sinful Western females.

Every time I complain about the inexplicable popularity in this country of fashions that came straight from Ramallah and Tikrit, someone is bound to ask me why it bothers me. Sixty-something years ago, good French citizens used to address a similar question to those in their midst who didn't like the persistent sight of SS uniforms on Champs-Elysées and weren't smart enough to keep it to themselves. Immediately after the liberation, the French began complaining about the depressing presence of American military uniforms. Since those complaints, unlike expressing anti-Nazi sentiments, were 100% safe, they became instantly fashionable in all the 20 arrondissements and 22 departaments. From this, you can easily deduct that dislike for foreign uniforms in one's own country is natural and to be expected. You may point out, of course, that the Muslim headscarf is not a uniform but just a traditional item of female attire. Technically, you are right, of course, but we are too deep in it to pay attention to technicalities. You see, there are two kinds of Muslim immigrants in this country: those who left their homeland hoping to escape their native Islamic tyrannies, and those who came here to abuse our freedoms in order to replace the profane rule of the Constitution with the sacred rule of the Sharia. The same distinction can be expressed more succinctly: unobservant and observant. Those who come here in pursuit of happiness rather than jihad have no more reason to carry symbols of Islamic oppression with them than the Soviet immigrants to emblazon their hats and coats with hammer and sickle.

There were plenty of German refugees in the United States during World War II. If any of them had proudly displayed the swastika, he or she would have immediately become a focus of very close, unfriendly attention of the FBI. But that was before the era of political correctness. The newest interpretation of the First Amendment practically guarantees the enemies in our midst safety from prosecution while they are working to bring this country down.

We all, including even the Department of Homeland Security, know that 9/11 wasn't the last battle of jihad we have lost without a fight on our own soil. We all, including even the FBI, know that the next atrocity will be committed by Muslims who are either already among us or soon will be. They are brothers, fathers, husbands, and sons of women in headscarves. Or it could be headscarf wearers themselves. I used to ridicule the Arabs' inability to invent; they put me to shame by inventing the explosive bra, similar in function to the suicide belt, but dramatically different from it in shape. Welcome to Zulfiya Secrets. If only I knew how to say dildo in Arabic, I would gladly suggest to West Bank couturiers some novel ways of sneaking explosives into target areas.

If you argue that the absolute majority of even the most fervently observant Muslims residing within our borders or elsewhere will never attempt to commit an act of terror, you will be absolutely right. That's how it usually works. During World War II, the absolute majority of Germans never fired a shot. Does it mean they did not contribute to Germany's war effort? Does it make Nazism a political doctrine of peace and love? Did this consideration stop the allies from obliterating Dresden? Or Hamburg? Would we have won that war if our hearts had bled for the innocent German civilians?

Let us take a look at it from a different angle. Suppose the 19 9/11 highjackers somehow survived the attack, were arrested, tried, received death penalty, and were executed. Would it mean that justice was served? More importantly, would the United States be any safer than it is now that they are all dead anyway?

So, please, don't tell me that my worries are groundless. Better, take a look at what our government does to alleviate them. Mostly, it lies. Usually, it's not difficult, since we tend to quickly forget unpleasant news that does not affect us immediately.

For example, do you remember the recent murder of the Armanious family in New Jersey? They were Copts, members of a ruthlessly persecuted, mostly Christian ethnic minority in Egypt. The Copts are descendents of the ancient Egyptians, who had created one of the oldest civilizations on Earth, built the pyramids, kept us in bondage for a few centuries, and eventually lost their land to Arab occupiers who now call themselves Egyptians with about as much right to that name as Arabs occupying Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have to call themselves "Palestinian". Hossam Armanious and his wife Amal had a dangerous hobby. They were trying to convert Arab immigrants from Egypt to Christianity. They received several death threats. In January 2005, the entire family, including two daughters, 15 and 8 years old, was brutally murdered in their home. The absence of any signs of forced entry indicated that the victims knew the murderers and let them in suspecting nothing wrong. Burglary was ruled out since nothing was missing. The method of killing was consistent with the method of Islamic ritual slaughter. This led the Coptic community to suggest that the victims were killed by Muslims they were trying to convert. The authorities were unwilling to investigate such a possibility. Instead, they arrested two Christians and accused them of burglary and murder. One of them was the Armanious' tenant, which was supposed to explain why there were no signs of forced entry; the victims knew the visitor and let him in. The official version stated that the murderers were wearing masks. Initially, they weren't going to kill the family, and changed their minds only after the youngest girl accidentally saw the face of one of the burglars. This may explain why nothing was missing. This also implies that the victims voluntarily allowed inside their home two people wearing masks. In other words, the official version is total bull. Does the government cover Muslim crimes?

On November 5, 1990, in the conference room of the Mariott East Side Hotel, an Egyptian immigrant fatally shot Rabbi Meir Kahane in front of dozens of witnesses. He was arrested, tried, and acquitted of murder, but convicted for illegal gun possession. The government refused to treat it as a terrorist act.

On March 1, 1994, near the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City, a Lebanese immigrant opened fire on a minibus carrying Lubavicher yeshiva students, killing one of them and injuring three others. He was charged and convicted of murder, attempted murder, and illegal possession of weapons. The government refused to treat it as a terrorist act.

On October 21, 1999, after taking off at JFK, an Egyptian pilot deliberately crashed his 767 into the Atlantic, killing all 203 passengers and 14 crew members. The government refused to treat it as a terrorist act. q

On July 5, 2003, an Egyptian immigrant opened fire at the crowd near the El Al counter in the Los Angeles International Airport, killing two and injuring six. The shooter was killed by an El Al security officer. The government refused to treat it as a terrorist act.

These are only a few cases reported by the media. God only knows how many were swept under the rug. According to media reports, every member of the US Armed Forces who committed a treacherous act during the War on Terror, was Muslim. Feel free to insert the word allegedly anywhere you feel like in the paragraphs above, but, please, don't ask me why the growing percentage of Muslims among the US population makes me feel uncomfortable.

To be fair, the government is not the only culprit here. The public, from the average ignoramus in the street to so-called "experts", hypnotized by the word religion, refuses to believe in the innate evil of Islam. An ounce of common sense could do the trick. Instead of accepting the enemy's classification of itself as a religion, just ask what they are trying to achieve. The answer is world dominance. It is spelled out in the Koran at least as clearly as the Gospels' promise that the meek will inherit the earth. But an ounce of common sense is hard to come by these days, and it appears to be a rarer commodity among the "experts" than among the daytime soap opera viewers. Trying to explain how Islam went postal, the "experts" invented the concept of militant Islam, as if there was any other kind of Islam. They are missing the point; Islam didn't go postal, it was born postal. Ignoring this historic fact, the "experts" gently criticize Muslim fundamentalists. Take those few bad apples away and whatever is left will be the genuine Islam, a religion of peace and love that exists only in the sick imagination of Jewish and Christian liberals. Thank God, during World War II, nobody on our side invented militant Nazism as opposed to genuine Nazism, peacefully practiced by tens of millions of innocent German civilians.

As a matter of fact, Islam does not have a monopoly on fundamentalism. Fundamentalists exist in other religions as well. Jerry Fallwell is a fundamentalist. Pat Robertson is a fundamentalist. Menachem Mendel Schneerson was a fundamentalist. The Pope - actually, any pope - is indisputably a fundamentalist; that's his job description. Have you ever heard any one of them calling for genocide? For suicide bombings? For spreading their faith among the infidels by means of a "holy" war? If, at this point, you feel tempted to mention the Crusades, I have to remind you of two subtle differences between the Crusades and jihad. First, the Koran declares jihad a sacred duty of every Muslim, while the Bible does not even mention the Crusades. Second, can you tell me the century when the last Crusade took place? Jihad, in case you haven't noticed, is raging right now. Like you, I've heard that jihad is supposed to be a Muslim's internal strife for perfection rather than vulgar warfare. To counter this argument, it's quite enough to take one look at the abysmal squalor that in Muslim countries is called life, at the overwhelming corruption, at the social and scientific backwardness, at all those honor killings, genital mutilations, lack of basic sanitary habits, and other beauties of righteous life Taliban style. And you still believe that Islam is "just another religion"?

But let's say you do. Then you absolutely need a scapegoat, some group of obvious fanatics you can blame for everything you, although yourself neither a Muslim nor an expert on Islam, consider a perversion of that pristine religion. Believe it or not, there is an officially recognized candidate for that position. It's the Wahhabi sect ( Even the unemotional, nonjudgmental Columbia Encyclopedia ( describes it as "ultraorthodox". Leaving the "internal strife for perfection" to the sissies, the righteous sect wages jihad not just against us, the infidels, but also against all perversions of Islam and their followers. And guess what? Everything except Wahhabism itself is a perversion, pure and simple. The sect emerged on the Arabian Peninsula in the 18th century and quickly became dominant there. It ruled there on and off until the first quarter of the 20th century, when Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud, a descendant of the founder of the Wahhabi sect and himself a founding father of the currently ruling Saudi royal family, conquered most of the peninsula and created what is known today as Saudi Arabia. The sect openly preaches genocide as the preferred method of jihad. The sect openly promotes terrorism. Financed by Saudi oil revenues, it has established thousands of madrassahs, or Islamic seminaries, all over the world, including the United States. It is quickly becoming the dominant, universally accepted form of Sunni Islam. Osama bin Laden, the Villain of the Century himself, is a prominent member of that sect. But wait! Since there is no separation of mosque from state in Saudi Arabia, the dear intimate friend of President Bush, Prince Abdullah, is both de facto and de jure the leader of the Wahhabis.

Prince Abdullah is the only foreign leader invited to the Bush ranch at Crawford, TX, twice. Every time the two meet, our president tenderly holds our arch-enemy's hand and publicly displays signs of intense affection that make me question his true moral values. One might be tempted to explain it by the proverbial stupidity of our cowboy president. I think that would be wrong. Stupid is as stupid does. A cashier who shortchanges himself is stupid. President Bush is anything but. Can it be that he simply cannot forget where his family fortune gets pumped from under the sand? Or is there another explanation?

How do you explain the fact that the government spends billions of dollars installing practically useless, but absurdly expensive gadgets at our airports, while barring the security personnel from "profiling" those who, as everyone knows, will execute the next strike against us? How do you explain the fact that our border has become like the horizon: clearly visible in good weather, totally unsubstantial, and easy to cross for anyone willing to go the extra mile?

Have you ever been curious how the Roman Empire, despite its vast superiority in every area, fell to the barbarians?


Yashiko Sagamori is a New York-based Information Technology consultant. To read other articles by the author, go to or email


Return_________________________End of Story___________________________Return

HOME May-Jun.2005 Featured Stories Background Information News On The Web Archives