Authored by J.B. Shurk via American Thinker,
Last week, President George W. Bush sat down with his former secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, to discuss the September 11, 2001, Islamic terror attacks on the United States. While reflecting on his actions twenty-five years earlier, Bush went out of his way to defend Islam: "I also made it clear that Islam was a religion of peace, not a religion of war, and that these people subverted their religion." Bush's absurd statement echoed a similarly absurd statement he made days after the attacks when he told the world, "Islam is peace," even though the burned bodies of three thousand dead Americans strongly suggested otherwise.
There have been 50,000 Islamic terror attacks since 9/11. Without question, Islam is a cult of conquest, misery, and war.
Bush's Islamic appeasement angered me twenty-five years ago, and his continued appeasement infuriates me today. I cannot believe that the man who asked Americans to go to war against an Islamic menace that threatened (and still threatens) the world can be so intellectually shallow and morally obtuse. "Islam is a religion of peace," is a disingenuous stock phrase that is too cute by half. President Barack Obama loves to tell the same lie.
While Americans fought and died in foreign lands in an effort to keep Islam's homicidal evil from causing further harm to the United States, Bush and Obama resettled Muslims into America's heartland. Twenty-five years ago, the sight of a woman wearing a burqa in the Midwest would have shocked and worried passersby. Today, it is too common for anyone to feign surprise. Both the number of Muslims and the number of mosques in the United States have more than doubled since the Islamic terror attacks that changed our country permanently. Bush told Americans that we had to fight the terrorists "over there" so that we would never again have to fight them "over here." While brave American warriors died "over there," Bush and Obama betrayed those warriors' sacrifice by inviting more Muslims "over here," ensuring that Americans will continue to endure Islamic terror attacks until this existential threat is honestly recognized and neutralized.
President Bush is eighty years old, plenty old enough to have learned that he has no business telling Muslims what their "religion" means. If he were telling black Americans what it means to be black, critics would rightfully accuse him of "whitesplaining." Does Bush believe himself to be an expert on the Quran? Has he become a Texas imam or an "austere religious scholar" during retirement? If not, then why does he insist on telling Americans that Islamic terrorists "subverted their religion"? The opposite seems patently clear: Wherever the scourge of Islam stretches its poisonous tentacles, Islamic violence is certain. Muhammad was a pedophile who encouraged the rape, torture, and murder of innocents. It should be no surprise that pedophiles, rapists, and murderers consider that malevolent deviant a "prophet."
Writer Antonio Graceffo wrote a well-researched essay this month describing in detail how Muslims are persecuting and murdering Christians across Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia. Carrying out massacres against Christians with hammers, machetes, axes, and guns, Muslims are right now engaging in a genocide that corporate news media and Western governments entirely ignore. In Nigeria, the Congo, Mozambique, Syria, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Turkey, Algeria, and Indonesia, Muslims threaten Christian lives. These are the barbaric conquerors whom Bush defends as noble representatives of the "religion of peace." No self-described Christian should stay silent while Muslims slaughter Christ's followers around the world. Somehow, Bush remains quiet about Islam's unquenchable thirst for Christian blood.
Islamic bloodlust continues to exsanguinate much of Europe. A recent German report shows that foreign migrants (most of whom are Muslim) are responsible for 47% of all violent crime in Bavaria. Over 80% of North African asylum-seekers in Switzerland have been accused of committing crimes while in the country. While British children beg the government not to resettle illegal immigrants into their tiny villages, the United Kingdom is granting settlement or citizenship to one new migrant every single minute.
How is the British government combating this unsustainable invasion? The Home Office hands each Islamic migrant a nine-page booklet explaining that rape and pedophilia are illegal and that women have the same rights as men. In this behavioral guide written primarily for Muslims, the British government outlines how it is not okay to beat women, mutilate girls' genitals, have sex with children or unconscious women, or leave babies alone. The document further advises Muslims that "women must consent to sex in all situations" and "are allowed to work, study, and make their own decisions" without "permission from men."
In a section on rape, Muslim men are informed that it is not appropriate to threaten someone into having sex or to have sex with someone who is "asleep, drunk, or unable to respond." The British government warns Islamic immigrants: "If you have sex with someone without their consent, this is called rape. Rape is a serious crime in the UK. You could go to prison, lose your support and accommodation, and it will affect your asylum claim." Furthermore, there are no exceptions for child rape: "Even if they say yes, it is still illegal." Finally, Britain's new Muslims are reminded that it is not acceptable to intimidate or abuse people or take sexual pictures or videos of strangers without their consent. These "religion of peace" people sure do need a lot of help figuring out that it's not okay to rape or beat women and children! Perhaps the Brits should stop dropping them off in rural villages where they quickly outnumber the locals ten to one.
A rational person should have no problem understanding Islam as a threat to the world. President Bush held a position of immense power from which he could see Muslim atrocities as key features of that cult belief system. The fact that he remains too much of a moral coward to confront and denounce Islam's murderers, rapists, and terrorists with clarity and resolve has contributed greatly to the current moral confusion plaguing the United States.
We now have members of Congress who openly support Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists. A terrorist-sympathizing Muslim is the mayor of New York City twenty-five years after his "religion of peace" friends flew hijacked commercial airliners into the Twin Towers and murdered thousands of civilians. Another terrorist-sympathizing Muslim running for the U.S. Senate from Michigan agrees with Muslim members of Congress that 9/11 was worse for Muslims who subsequently endured "Islamophobia." When Islamic terrorists aren't trying to murder Americans with their vehicles, bombs, firearms, or knives, they're rioting in the streets and demanding "justice" for Hamas animals who rape and kill women and behead and microwave babies.
Bush's inability to identify Islam as a murderous cult ideology has exacerbated the Islamic supremacy problem in the United States. In preparation for the twenty-fifth anniversary of 9/11 this year, public school administrators instructed teachers in Fairfax County, Virginia, to avoid associating the attacks with Islam. Teachers were even told to treat Muslims as heroes and to create "safe spaces" for Muslim students. Virginia's Democrat governor commemorated 9/11 by ignoring the act of Islamic mass murder and pretending that three thousand Americans died from some kind of inexplicable natural disaster. While New York City's Muslim mayor laughed during the 9/11 Ground Zero ceremony, New York's Democrat governor left early, so that she could appear on cable news. Meanwhile, Gen Z Americans are largely indifferent to the September 11, 2001, Islamic terror attacks on the United States. Some even celebrate Osama bin Laden.
Americans promised never to forget Islam's war against the West. Twenty-five years later, it is obvious that too many did forget. President Bush's moral equivocations are partially to blame for this travesty.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of ZeroHedge.
Tyler Durden Sun, 09/20/2026 - 23:30The Air & Space Forces Association's Air, Space & Cyber Conference opened earlier this week at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland. Air Force Secretary Troy Meink's disclosure that the Space Force had launched "space control weapons" into orbit quickly dominated the news cycle.
Beyond the USAF's new space warfare capabilities, Meink's remarks about the service's plan to build out an upgraded unmanned aircraft fleet over the next six years warrant closer attention. His remarks offered potential clues about plans for a successor to, or an alternative operating alongside, the General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper.
2024 image of American MQ-9 Reaper UAV brought down in Yemen’s Marib. ClashReport/XThe following excerpts from Meink's speech suggest a shift in unmanned aircraft procurement and hint that a Reaper replacement - or perhaps a cheaper alternative - may soon be approaching:
And this is not the only class of autonomous aircraft we are aggressively pursuing. As we saw in Epic Fury, ISR strike platforms have been essential. We have used MQ-9 and even now the ULTRA aircraft to great effect.
Building on these lessons, we are developing a family of low-cost multi-role strike platforms called the Mass Modular Aircraft, or MMAs.
MMAs will provide affordable, attritable, long-range strike, and we will be able to field them at scale. Our intent is to field 100 MMAs in 2029 at even a lower cost than the CCAs and a fraction of the cost of manned aircraft we build today. Then by 2032, 500 of these platforms will join our force operational fleet.
One platform worth watching is ULTRA, a Group 5 unmanned aircraft system developed by DZYNE Technologies, now part of Ondas.
ULTRA could assume part of the MQ-9 Reaper's surveillance workload, particularly missions that prioritize endurance and operating costs over weapons capacity. Its potential role is strongest in intelligence gathering, where extended flight times could reduce aircraft rotations.
In late summer, The National Interest examined the Air Force's search for a Reaper successor in an article titled "Why the US Air Force Wants a Replacement for the MQ-9 Reaper." Mounting Reaper losses in the Gulf conflict have increased the focus on a lower-cost alternative. ULTRA's capabilities support the case for a much cheaper alternative with longer endurance and, considered alongside Meink's remarks, may suggest that the alternative has been found: ULTRA.
Tyler Durden Sun, 09/20/2026 - 23:00