Ralph
Peters is past livid. I know for a fact that he’s not alone.
On Christmas
Day, an Islamist fanatic tried to blow up an airplane whose passengers were
mostly Christians. And we helped.
Our
government gets no thanks for preventing a tragedy. Only the bomber's
ineptitude preserved the lives of nearly 300 innocents.
(…)
Contrast our
political correctness with [failed Panty Bomber Umar] Abdulmutallab's choice
of Christmas for his intended massacre. Our troops stand down on Muslim
holidays. A captive terrorist merely has to claim that a soldier dog-eared a
Koran, and it's courts-martial all around.
We proclaim
that the terrorists "don't represent Islam." OK, whom do they
represent? The Franciscans? We don't get to decide what's Islam and what
isn't. Muslims do. And far too many of them approve of violent jihad.
It gets
worse. Instead of focusing on the religious zeal and inspiration of our enemies
and how such motivations change the game, our "terrorism experts"
agonize over whether such beasts as Abdulmutallab or Maj. Hasan, the Fort Hood
assassin for Allah, are really members of al Qaeda or not.
As a Sunday
Post editorial pointed out, al Qaeda's far more than a formal organization;
it's an idea, a cause. If a terrorist says he's al Qaeda, he is, even if he
doesn't have a union card from Jihadi Local 632.
We're
dealing with a global Muslim movement, not a Masons' lodge.
I had to restrain myself from quoting Peters’ entire polemic.
If the jihadis like Abdulmutallab and Hasan and Hakim
Mujahid Muhammad do not represent the essence of Islam, if the behavior of
these charmers is not exemplary of how a devout Muslim should act, then where
are the American Muslims who would repudiate the actions of their co-religionists?
Are they too afraid of how the murderers among them will react? Or are
they merely assenting silently and biding their time?
One
thing is for sure: our present government leadership most certainly is
too afraid to act/react forcefully and effectively to discourage jihadist
attacks. Some say that is due to George W. Bush’s assertion that Islam is a
“Religion of Peace.” Poppycock. The 43rd
President could have asserted that Islam was the religion of ham sandwiches and
it would not have mattered. What mattered is what he did in the
aftermath of the Islamic jihadi attacks of September 11, 2001: he (re)acted
aggressively and forcefully to a homeland attack from an enemy. Say what
you want about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Big Boys in the Islamic
terror circles—like Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri--were not expecting
such a reaction.
Bullies
expect cowering from their targets and the terror kings had American citizens
and their leaders down for wimps. And actually, they were partially
correct about both groups, though the ratio of balls to no-balls differs
between the two groups. They just “happened” to perpetrate 9/11 at a time
when the leadership was strong and not willing back away from a gauntlet thrown
down.
We
went to war--perhaps not against Islam, but against Islamists, who, naturally,
subscribe to the tenets of Islam. And in the minds of very many Muslims,
no fine lines of distinction existed as to with whom/what American was at
war. To them we were and are at war with their religion. Even so,
you may recall that several
leaders of Islamic countries responded to that show of strength by
communicating a hearty “no thanks” to being on the receiving end of American
wrath.
That
response was instructive: who cares if one's adversaries get angry? As
long as they realize that the drawbacks of attacking the Great Satan outweigh
the benefits.
But now,
with the jihadi drawback-benefit analysis having being revised since January
20, 2009 and with the level of cowardice existing in the American leadership
moving toward the higher end and with the very top of that leadership
concentrating on apologizing for that strength, it appears that the portion of
American citizenry in possession of courage and, most especially, in possession
of faith, must fill up the breach of action and reaction. Those who serve
in our military are already doing their part. So what are the rest of us
going to do?
Specifically,
what are you Americans who happen to be Muslim going to do? My religion
teaches us not to be afraid of those who can kill the body. As a matter
of fact, the Bible says that the spirit of fear is not from God at all. I
think all most of us would like to see is a Not-in-Our-Name sort of movement
from you, Americans who happen to be Muslim. Are you too afraid of your
jihadi brethren? What does your religion say about fear?
We’re
waiting.
Sort
of Off-Topic: After Fort Hood, my American dad said that if he were in any
position of responsibility at the federal level, he’d profile anyone with a
"funny" name. Keep in mind this is coming from a guy whose
step-daughter’s surname is Kenyan Luo in origin and whose biological daughters
have Arabic given names. He said that if he didn’t know us, he’d profile
the hell out of us. LOL
We
laugh but it’s logical…and serious.
And
I'll say this because I can: too bad the Funny Name Profiling didn't
start two years ago.
UPDATE:
And right on cue, Anwar al Awlaki, the American-born Muslim cleric based
in Yemen, who is thought to have mentored the incipient jihadism of Major Nidal
Malik Hasan, claims
to have blessed the Panty Bomber plot.
Personally, I think that Awlaki is merely floor-showing for his boys—these
terrorists are such peacocks—but one would think that he would rather keep his
mouth shut since this particular plot fizzled.
Then
again, Awlawi is carving out a spot in the minds of those prone to fear, so his
tactic is understandable.
(Thanks
to Allahpundit)
Recent Comments