Tuesday, June 6

Is terrorism a problem? Democrats don't think it is.

The latest attack in London has triggered the usual flood of comments seeking a solution for the problem of Muslim fanatics killing western civilians.

Many Leftist commenters claim these attacks are really our fault.  The argument is usually along the lines of "9/11 was a reasonable retaliation for the evil Rethuglican G.W. Bush invading Iraq."  They believe--and want you to agree--that Islam is no different from any other religion.

(Kidding about 9/11 and Iraq, obviously--but I'll bet if you took a poll of students at most liberal colleges today at least half the kids would agree with that.  Remember that today's college freshmen were barely a year old on 9/11/2001.)

Other leftists are less crazy, saying the attacks are the work of a few "lone wolves," analogous to crazies, and that there's no way to stop the attacks--just as we can't predict who will go crazy.  Accordingly, the Left says there's nothing to be done--we must not restrict Muslim visits or immigration, and must not deport anyone.  Cuz, freedom of religion, man.

(The Left, as you all know, is really really big on religious freedom.)

By contrast, those on the right--many of whom have actually studied the Koran--claim that imposing sharia law on the entire world is a goal openly stated in the Koran, and one of Islam's most basic objectives--in which case the attacks are skirmishes in an existential war.

These commenters claim that the only solution is for the west to finally recognize that this IS a war, which emperor Obama refused to do.  (Even though G.W. Bush took the war to Iraq and Afganistan, he contradicted that message by claiming that Islam is "the religion of peace.")

Point is that if western pols refuse to recognize this as war, there's no possible way to counter the threat.

At the moment it appears that apologists for Islam will use our own laws--and appeals to "religious freedom"--to keep us from acting effectively, until eventually enough Muslim are here that they begin winning elections--as in Dearborn MI and Minnesota.  And in London, which elected a Muslim mayor.

There are basically three categories of Muslims.  One is the Muslim equivalent of "Christmas and Easter Catholics," who are "Westernized" and not much interested in taking over the world.  They're useful to the Jihadis because we look at them and say "Gee, Achmed is a Muslim and he's a cool guy who's no different from me."  Most Americans are quick to defend Achmed from discrimination and unjust treatment.

Next are devout Muslims.  They believe Sharia law is superior to U.S. law, and fully support efforts to win concessions to Islamic laws and traditions by their host country.  Their first loyalty is to Islam.  Many provide financial support for the jihadis.  Most Americans think "Abdullah may be different but he's still not a bad guy," so we work to protect Abdullah and to accommodate his religious laws and traditions.

Last are the Jihadis, who believe Islam is destined to rule the world.  They're the beheaders and suicide bombers, and most sane Americans want these folks as far from them as possible.  But amazingly there are some useful idiots on the Left who think we can reach an accommodation with them that will let both groups coexist.  But the Koran is clear that the only options available to infidels are either converting to Islam, or paying the "infidel tax" ("jizya") and submitting to Islam, becoming second class citizens.

The comments to discussions of Islamic terror attacks suggest that roughly half of all Americans strongly oppose putting any restrictions on allowing Muslims into the U.S., and equally strongly oppose deporting non-citizen-Muslims already in the U.S.  I suspect that even another 9/11-scale attack will change their minds about this.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home