Saturday, October 30, 2010

It Can't All Be Our Imagination

Yesterday (Friday, October 29), security authorities were scrambling worldwide in response to a flurry of terrorist activity. Many international flights were quarantined at airports while security personnel and the FBI investigated packages aboard any plane on which cargo of Yemeni origin had been loaded. At least two of the packages were determined to have explosive materials in them, but at the time of this writing, neither had made it to the United States.

We may never know the full extent of the actual danger. But it was bad enough to warrant the President of the United States briefly addressing the American people about the matter. Al Qaeda has loosened its grip on terror camps in Afghanistan and has been concentrating on the Gulf nation of Yemen. This is the same nation which harbored the suicide bombers who attacked the USS Cole during the Clinton administration, killing eighteen American sailors, and nearly sinking the Navy destroyer. The anniversary of the attempted sinking is drawing near as is the American election day. Al Qaeda is big on anniversaries and symbolic terror attacks to celebrate those anniversaries. The scramble yesterday may be part of that pattern.

Over the next few days, you will get far more news and facts about the security scramble from other sources, so I just briefly want to comment on two recent events that indirectly demonstrate that we are not yet ready to face the underlying reality full on. That reality is that this is not a "war on terror," despite the protestations of two administrations, one Republican, the other Democratic. This is a war of Islam on the West. Yet both administrations have spent a hundred times as much effort in defending "moderate Islam" and labeling the Muslim terrorists as "extremists" than they have rooting out the terrorists and their supporters/enablers, and destroying the beast. With the assistance of the mainstream media, political correctness has time after time defeated common sense and clear thinking.

You are expected to wear sackcloth and heap ashes on your head each time you even consider "profiling" people wielding Korans and wearing Middle Eastern garb ("Muslim clothing") in places where it is entirely inappropriate or solely for the purpose of establishing visually the wearer's primary allegiance. Even though the very many terror attacks and attempted terror attacks in the past ten years have been almost exclusively conducted by Muslims, we are supposed to believe that it's a sin to have certain suspicions about those who go out of their way to show you that they are primarily Muslim and that they intend to be "in your face" about it.

The two incidents to which I refer are the National Public Radio (NPR) firing of liberal journalist Juan Williams, and a recent complaint against Delta Airlines for "religious profiling" of Muslim passengers filed by the Council on American/Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Juan Williams was the victim of rigid political correctness. You all know the story by now. He dared to state than when he sees airline passengers dressed in clothing that indicates they identify first and foremost as Muslim, he "gets nervous." The NPR liberal fascists conveniently failed to review the rest of his statement in which, as a good liberal, he issued all the standard disclaimers, and then some. He was furious that racists and bigots drew generalizations about Muslims. He repeated the [irrelevant] truism that "not all Muslims are terrorists." Gee, not all Nazis were murderers, but enough of them were to draw valid conclusions about Nazism. Williams is far more generous toward Islam than I am. But his disclaimers simply weren't enough. He had deviated from the pure liberal line, and he was finished at NPR.

Williams had merely expressed his personal, logical, and very real visceral reaction to "Muslim garb," particularly on an airline. If you don't think that clothing or accessories don't have any genuine significance, consider how many innocent victims have been murdered in South Central and East Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago and New York City for simply wearing the wrong color tee-shirt. Wearing "Muslim garb" says "I am a Muslim, and I believe in Islam." Many adherents of Islam, even if not a majority, believe that killing infidels and forcing the living ones into submission is a major tenet of the religion. It's not ignorance, stupidity or religious hostility that would compel a non-Muslim to get a little nervous around those wearing that Muslim garb.

Not all snakes are poisonous, but unless you are a trained herpetologist or naturalist, it's probably a good idea to be leery of any snake that suddenly shows up in your space. In fact, until you're sure it's not a venomous snake, you should probably get out of the area. Is that some sort of ignorant speciesism? Or is it just good sense? Does it mean you're a bigoted snake-hater, or simply someone wise enough not to put yourself in harm's way?

The more immediate issue that concerns me is the proximity in time of the Friday explosives discovery and package alert for all airlines entering US airspace, and the CAIR complaint against Delta Airlines. Obviously, there's no direct connection between "Muslim garb" and mysterious packages containing explosives. I am talking about the liberal and Muslim convergence of opinion that it is more important to be sensitive about all things Islamic and emanating from Islamic strongholds than it is to be sensitive about getting blown up--along with a couple hundred of your fellow citizens.

CAIR supports all things Islamic, and is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation prosecution for funding and promoting Islamic terrorism. This administration particularly has a liaison officer who consults with CAIR before issuing any statement relating directly or indirectly to Muslims and/or Islam. CAIR is a major broadcaster of misinformation about the Ground Zero mosque, its adherents, and it funders. But since they are an Islamic organization, we are not to question their good faith, their facts, or their loyalties. Aw, phooey. I question them all.

I should also briefly mention the recent assaults on the Pentagon and Marine recruiting centers. Multiple shots fired, at some distance, over a period of several weeks. I'm not sure whether it's Muslims or not, but I know I can be pretty sure it isn't Swedish Lutherans trying to root out Italian Catholics. There are two likelihoods: Muslim terrorists or anti-war extremists. The latter are frequently the ignorant dupes of the former. Both are willing to commit murder in the name of tolerance. Now in all fairness, the attacks have been on buildings, not people, which is unlike the Islamoterrorists, so it may simply be someone who has a beef with the military and doesn't want to kill anyone. It's simply that events since 9-11 make my thoughts turn almost immediately to one source.

I'm tired of the pussyfooting and walking on eggs whenever the words "Muslim" or "Islam" enter into any public discussion. This isn't about "guilty until proven innocent." If it walks like a terrorist, looks like a terrorist, and is known to frequent the company of terrorists, it's probably a terrorist. As I've said before, in multiple articles, until I see a massive, visible and vocal nationwide movement against Islamic terrorism by the elusive "moderate Muslims," I'm going to continue to join Juan Williams in his nervousness. If those allegedly large majority moderate Muslims can show me they are with us in the defense of America and Western Civilization, I will apologize and mend my ways. Until then I'm going to continue to cling to my Bible, my gun, and my prejudices.




24 comments:

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

I think we all will cling to our bibles and guns.

Keep your powder dry.

Libertarian Advocate said...

Law Hawk:

I am in complete agreement with your conclusion. As I see it if the "moderate" Muslim community here and elsewhere genuinely want to be accepted and embraced by the rest of us, they will have to step up and prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. By that I mean, they must take firm hold of their faith and expel those among them who adhere to Jihadi ideology. De-fund mosques where extremist thought is taught and be completely intolerant of terror recruiting amongst them. Absent such an undertaking by "moderate" Muslims, there is no reason we should take them seriously.

Tam said...

We all know how effective appeasing the enemy prior to the outset of WW2 was. I think that pretending the enemy doesn't exist is at least as, if not more, dangerous. Particularly with the mindset of this enemy.

StanH said...

We will either face the Islamic goons now or face them later, when they are entrenched. Very much like the NAZIs in the lowlands of Poland, we turn our heads and pray, the moderate Muslims will step forward - - it didn’t happen then, and it isn’t going to happen this time. Appeasement only allows the bully to grow in strength, emboldens his actions, and if left unattended, like your snake analogy, will bite us. This is worrisome to say the least. I’m with you Lawhawk, we must call a duck, a duck.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Are we headed for another period of crusades? These Muslim people are still operating in the era of the crusades and probably the only effective way to deal with them is the way it was.

Not being there at that time I cannot be sure there were not moderate Muslims at the time of Suliman the Great. The siege of Malta trying to eradicate the Knights Templar should be reviewed by every one. That was absolutely an all out demonstration of how brutal man can be to man.

We are facing the same mentality and I firmly believe the same gross brutality can occur again.

I agree with Joel keep your Bibles and guns at hand. And as Rene-Robert Cavelier said "cache le poudre.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: Better safe than sorry, right?

LawHawkRFD said...

Libertarian Advocate: I've had Muslim friends and acquaintances over the years. Even in my radical days, none of them seemed to have any enmity toward America or the West, and actually were assimilating. I saw that change in the 90s. Later, none of them would outright condemn the 9-11 attack, or would use the weasel-words about "radical" Muslims. And one theme appeared even among the most moderate, from the 60s through today, and that was unadulterated hatred toward Israel and the Jews.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tam: So true. And worst of all, this time there is no clear nation to deal with or oppose. It's a religious-political philosophy that spills across borders and has no official existence. So now we have the problem of weak-kneed leaders combined with an enemy that is difficult to negotiate with since there is no person or nation in charge of the war machine. And then, to top it all off, those who present themselves as leaders, and most of their followers, follow a religion that doesn't allow for negotiation or compromise. That would be a tough situation for an administration which truly and deeply loves America. The current one does not.

chas7007 said...

Good article LawHawk:

What I find interesting is that the Muslim community doesn't seem to be outspoken and condemn the extremist! You might get a little comment here and there in the media. It really looks like a show for t.v. I see no strong movement to show their American patriotism and moderate ideology vs the murderous Jihadist. This makes you wonder. If I were them, I would be marching in "protest" to clearly show the difference. But they are not. Instead I'm seeing a growing imposement of their religious practices on our freedoms and laws. Example: N.Y. prayer time, clogs up the streets and disrupts business. What if Christians or Jews did this? This expected tolerance is growing nationwide. Also this insane idea that "we" have to pay for washing stations with our tax dollars to appease a particular religion. These examples may be light to some, but this is how it begins. It will get harder and harder to reverse if we don't stop it like the ACLU would stop Christianity or any other religion from doing the same. Tam is right, we cannot afford to ignore the truth. If we were more outspoken and not so "afraid" to be "politically correct", perhaps good American moderate Muslims will have to do the same. If we ignore true enemies that want to wipe us off the map, why shouldn't they? We are sending a message to peaceful moderates "Be politically correct, don't be outspoken and take a stand." Geez, you might get fired! It's time all good Americans of all religions stop "bowing" like our president and stand up for their freedom. Or it will erode. Good job commenters, keep speaking up!

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: In keeping with the theme of the past couple of posts, let's take a quick look at the "Nazis in America" parallel. The Nazis had a large movement going in America, although they somewhat disguised it with an America First theme. Unlike today's Muslims, German Americans were (and still are) America's largest single identifiable ethnic group. The movement even sucked in notable non-Nazis like Lindbergh. But when the theme turned pro-German Nazi and took on the anti-American, anti-Semitic trappings, the movement began to collapse while many of the early supporters turned visibly and publicly against them.

Hitler was constantly parodied and mocked during the late 30s nationwide, and there became an increasing awareness among German-Americans (my family included) that he was a madman who was going to plunge the world into a long, dark night. Making the trains run on time or avenging the Treaty of Versailles didn't even come close to being an excuse for staying silent about the horrors of Nazism.

And then, of course, the day America declared war on Nazi Germany was the last time that any sane American would don a Nazi-type uniform or even "German garb," or demand that Americans be tolerant of a murderous philosophy that National Socialists argued was merely an exercise of free speech and religion.

Carrying it one step farther, can you imagine Americans tolerating, let alone listening to the Council on Nazi-American relations at the end of WW II? Or, say, the building of a 13-story National Socialist Philosophical Center, preferably located in Manhattan, midway between a Polish-Catholic Church and a Jewish Synagogue?

LawHawkRFD said...

Tehachapi Tom: I certainly hope not. First of all, let's remember that Christians lost the Crusades (which is one of the reasons why I've always wondered what the hell the Muslims are so angry about). Just as important is the fact that the Crusades were religious wars for both sides. This is a one-sided war of a religion of hate, domination and intolerance against the free, secular West and the Jews.

Despite Obama's attempt to paint it otherwise, American is clearly largely Christian, but our Founders wanted that to be voluntary so they went out of their way to keep official religion out of government. Although Christians and Jews both have every reason to fight for life, freedom and the West, this is in fact a very one-sided religious war.

LawHawkRFD said...

Chas7007: Well-said. And let's not forget the Muslim prayer vigil on the steps of the Capitol, followed by the feds telling the Beck rally that they couldn't pray inside a government building. Anybody who thinks that the Obama administration and municipal nanny-state officials like the Mayor of New York City aren't taking sides is willfully deaf, dumb and blind.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tehachapi Tom: PS--Although cache le poudre is a good idea, I prefer "keep your powder dry, and don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes." LOL

Di said...

Relating to the fear that some people have of naming this enemy what it actually is, or using certain words to describe the actual situation, I read this in "Atlas Shrugged" yesterday: "Words are relative. They're only symbols. If we don't use ugly symbols, we won't have any ugliness." Notice any of that philosophy lately? If we don't use certain words, the meaning of the words doesn't exist - political correctness doesn't erase the existence of facts, or feelings for that matter.

LawHawkRFD said...

Di: That is a very astute observation. And I have indeed seen far too much of that lately. Hidden ugliness is no less ugly, but in the dark, it's allowed to fester and metastasize. In the words of the great philosophers, the Partridge Family, "evil grows in cracks and holes, and lives in people's minds."

LawHawkRFD said...

I am loving this. It's not applicable to this particular post, but I'm watching Obama getting out-shouted by the homosexual rights advocates at a rally for Blumenthal in Bridgeport, Connecticut. He's rattled, but I'll admit he's holding his ground better than I would have expected. They want more funding for AIDS research and money for AIDS in Africa. I don't know how much more money they need for research to teach people not to engage in dangerous sexual or drug activity, or how much money they think we should be sending to Africa on top of what we're already sending. But an angry heckling mob at a Democratic rally in liberal Connecticut can't be all bad.

Ponderosa said...

To Di's point (I think)...

The definition of the word “religion” has not been or is now no longer useful.

Much like “a right” used to mean individuals were free from governmental interference and now mean the government is free to take from individuals, religion does not mean what is used to mean.
Or liberal. Or commerce. Etc.

Options:

1. Religion as currently defined only refers to our understanding of how Christianity works. The American political, legal & economic systems are based largely on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Even the concept of Western secular society is an outgrowth of Christianity – given that the Latin word “secular” is a Christian definition.

2. Islam has never limited itself to religion alone. While it espouses a belief in a god, it also includes very strong political, legal and economic elements.

3. Islam is not much different than any other religion – it is just that is has more than a billion adherents which has and will dominate all societies that don’t actively protect themselves.

Whatever is most correct should, should inform how we move forward as a country.

If this is ‘wrong’ thinking – please let me know.

LH, Andrew, Bev, Commentarama regulars I respect your views and will revise if I'm in the weeds.

LawHawkRFD said...

Ponderosa: That is a very good discussion, and I agree entirely. I imagine you've noticed that frequently, including this article, I refer to Islam as a religious/political entity. The two concepts are so intertwined, that the concept of freedom of religion is utterly impossible. Likewise for tolerance of different beliefs and different ideologies.

I've occasionally pointed out that the guiding precept of Christianity in the modern era is "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." The Islamic concept is "you shall accept our truth, and if you don't, we shall shove it down your throats, and if you still don't get it, we'll kill you." We must always keep in mind that despite the outright lie from the Muslims and their fellow-travelers, "Islam" does not mean "peace." It means "submission."

Christianity has come a long way from the Inquisition and the Crusades. Islam is still stuck in the desert just outside that cave and living in the Sixth Century.

Ponderosa said...

The MBs worked in Hollywood and are based in SF. If they are libs really it shouldn't come as much of a surprise.

Then again they like guns. A lot.

LawHawkRFD said...

Ponderosa: I didn't know they were home-based in San Francisco. That would explain their Obama fixation. But their pro-gun position isn't typical of San Francisco, though the citizens did defeat a Board of Supervisors effort to ban handguns entirely (prior to the Supreme Court decision). The few M-B shows I did see involved guns or explosives, so I guess that's how I missed their liberal leanings.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Hawk
The real shame here is we have the means to launch a new crusade and to succeed.there is a group of people who will make sure of the outcome being in our favor.
I speak of the United States Marines.
Give them a clear goal and the resources to do the job then get out of the way. No inbeded any thing to interfere with the job at hand. Nothing else for them to worry about or anyone to baby sit. I fear until some one has the courage to implement such a plan we will always be living in the shadow of some covert strike by these Muslim animals. We must not forget they only have to succeed once to be effective whereas we must succeed every time to thwart their success.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tehachapi Tom: And the first place we'll send them is the shores of Tripoli. I don't know where Osama bin Laden is hiding, although we can guess it's somewhere on the Afghan-Pakistan border. But we know where al Awlaki is. He's in Yemen. They can't find him, but they can find a woman and her daughter and blame the current round of mail bombs on them. He's a terrorist, a propagandist, and a treasonous dog on top of it. He's probably behind the latest terror plots. If we had the will, and quit worrying about world opinion, we have the Marines, Special Forces, the SEALs and the Rangers who could take him out in no time. But then, we might offend a moderate Muslim or two.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Hawk
I'm surprised here you are one of the few clear thinkers and you state moderate Muslim.
Moderate Muslim is an oxy-moron.
We need a more clear defining term,
can you come up with one? It needs to be descriptive as well as understandable to the voting masses.
Whoops I got an extra letter in that last word, sorry.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tehachapi Tom: That's always a difficult problem--finding a word that adequately describes a group in one word. So far, I prefer Daniel Pipes "Islamist."

Post a Comment