Published on Feb 7, 2015 by Barracuda Brigade
Published on Feb 7, 2015 by Barracuda Brigade
Surrender Monkeys are people who would rather grovel before evil than take a stand against it.
NRO, By Victor Davis Hanson, Feb. 5, 2015:
Members of the Obama administration have insisted that the Taliban are not terrorists. Those responsible for the recent Paris killings are not radical Islamists. The Muslim Brotherhood is largely secular. Jihad is a “legitimate tenet of Islam.” And “violent extremism,” “workplace violence,” or “man-caused disaster” better describe radical Islamic terrorism. Domestic terrorism is just as likely caused by returning U.S. combat veterans, according to one report by a federal agency.
What is the point of such linguistic appeasement?
The word “appeasement” long ago became pejorative for giving in to bullies. One side was aggressive and undemocratic; the other consensual and eager to avoid trouble through supposedly reasonable concessions.
But appeasement usually weakened the democratic side and empowered the extremist one.
The architect of appeasement — for example, Neville Chamberlain, former prime minister of Great Britain — was predictably a narcissist. Chamberlain believed that his own powers of oratory, his insights into reason, and his undeniably superior morality would sway even a thug like Adolf Hitler.
President Obama currently is convinced that his singular charisma and rare insight into human nature will convince the Taliban to peacefully participate in Afghan politics. Obama will supposedly also win over the Iranian theocracy and show it how nonproliferation is really to everyone’s advantage.
“Reset” diplomacy with Putin was supposed to lessen tensions — if, after the 2012 election, Putin just had more exposure to a flexible statesman of Obama’s wisdom.
Throughout history, without the vanity of the conceder, there would never have been appeasement.
Appeasement also always subordinates the interests of vulnerable third parties to the appeaser’s own inflated sense of self. When Chamberlain and the French prime minister Edouard Daladier signed the 1938 Munich Pact, they worried little about the fate of millions of Czechs who lost their country — and less about millions of Poles who were next in line for Hitler’s Blitzkrieg.
Reset diplomacy with Russia in 2009 was not much concerned about the ensuing danger to Crimeans or Ukrainians. When the Taliban takes over, hundreds of thousands of reformist Afghans will die.
Obama sees a deal with Iran as a way to cement his legacy as a breakthrough statesman. In comparison, the long-term consequences of a nuclear Iran on the security of tiny Israel or on the stability of the largely Sunni Arab Middle East are future and more abstract concerns for others.
Even major concessions never satisfy aggressive powers. It is a traditional Western liberal delusion — brought on by our wealth, leisure, and the good life — that autocrats appreciate magnanimity rather than see it as timidity to be exploited further.
Hitler fumed that the compliant Chamberlain at Munich was a “worm” for making such concessions to him and boasted that he would stomp on that “silly old man” on the next occasion he saw him.
Releasing Guantanamo prisoners, or ignoring red lines to Syria, deadlines to Iran, and step-over lines to Russia, did not win over aggressors. Gestures of appeasement and empty threats only emboldened terrorists and green-lighted dictators to ratchet up nuclear enrichment, or violence against their own people — or to go into Ukraine.
When a top Russian general brags that its nuclear force is now more powerful than America’s, or when Raúl Castro warns that Cuba now expects an early return of the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay as the price of normalization, past American concessions seem to have whetted their appetites for more confrontations.
The euphemisms for radical Islamic terrorism have not curbed it. They have not improved U.S. popularity in the Middle East.
The appeasing party is not always the weaker one. In 1938, Combined British and French military power was greater than that of the Third Reich. President Jimmy Carter had far more military options than did the Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran during the 1979–80 hostage crisis.
Instead, stronger democratic nations feel that they can continue to enjoy short-term calm and peace of mind — and let others worry about any long-term likelihood of aggression. Maybe by treating jihad, terrorism, and radical Islam as taboo words, radical Muslim terrorists will respond and become less threatening.
In truth, appeasement, not deterrence, is the more reckless path. With serial concessions, democratic leaders convince aggressors that they must be stronger than they actually are. Those fantasies increase the likelihood that weaker dictators and terrorists will miscalculate and set off a deadly confrontation down the road.
Yet the public often prefers appeasement. Military preparedness and investment are too costly. Backing up threats seems too scary. Churchills and Reagans sound shrill. Alliances, deterrence, and balance of power sound so old-fashioned. Evil and good are derided as too simplistic. Defusing a crisis now is preferable to ensuring one down the road.
Appeasement continues not because it works, but because it serves the pretensions of narcissists.
— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals. You can reach him by e-mailing firstname.lastname@example.org. © 2015 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Auschwitz requires more context than just Hitler. It requires that we understand why so many countries and so many world leaders enabled him. And it is not a difficult thing to understand. All we need to do is look at the response to Muslim attempts to kill Jews before and after the Holocaust.
It was easier to appease the Nazis. It is easier to appease the Muslim world. The Jews were not seen as a canary in the coalmine; instead, like the Czechs and then the Poles and then everyone else, they were an obstacle to making a deal with the devil. Today it’s the Nigerian Christians, the Burmese Buddhists and a long list of others around the world including the Jews of Israel who stand in the way of peace.
The Holocaust and the entire war happened because everyone wanted peace with Nazi Germany and refused to accept that Nazism was innately aggressive.
PJ Media, By David Solway On February 1, 2015
My friend Barbara Kay recently published a moving column mourning the twelve people killed at Charlie Hebdo. “Historically,” she writes, “the Islamist terror attack on Charlie Hebdo — I already think of it as 1/07 — will be seen as more devastating than 9/11.” The reason is that “those 12 people represented an institution that cannot be replaced with bricks and mortar. Those twelve iconoclasts were not collateral damage. They were the very spirit of freedom of speech, the pillar of democracy and free peoples everywhere. Spirits are not so easily rebuilt.”
It is a stirring piece expressing an unimpeachable sentiment. But the assault on Charlie Hebdo by no means marked a turning point, as she appeared to suggest. Far from a unique event, the Muslim campaign against free speech has been going on for many years now. Freedom, the right to dissent, the satirical genre — all have been dying for some time.
The Danish cartoons marked an identical watershed. The assassination of Dutch provocateur and filmmaker Theo Van Gogh marked an identical watershed, as did the death threats against his collaborator and Danish parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks, who had his satirical drawings removed at a Tallerud art exhibition and who has an ISIS bounty on his head and is living under police protection, marks an identical watershed. The fatwa against Salman Rushdie and the killing of his Japanese translator marked the same watershed. Geert Wilders living under police protection marks the same watershed. Though later acquitted by the Danish Supreme Court, Lars Hedegaard’s remarks about the lethal dysfunction of many Muslim families, which led to his conviction for hate speech under the Article 266b of the Danish penal code and a subsequent assassination attempt, marks the same watershed. TheSouth Park controversy over the appearance of Mohammed dressed as a giant teddy bear marked the same watershed — the producers instantly caved following a threat issued on the Revolution Muslim website. Molly Norris, of “Let’s all Draw Mohammed” fame, still in hiding, marks the same watershed, as does the imprisonment of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula for producing a low-rent, little-watched video trailer, Innocence of Muslims, ridiculing Mohammed. Yale University Press refusing to print the Danish cartoons in a book dedicated to the subject marks the same watershed. The list goes on.
It’s been a long time since most ordinary or even celebrated people would dare to represent Mohammed or say anything mocking or even critical about the religion of hate. Our pusillanimous leaders and members of the intelligentsia buckled under to Islamic triumphalism some years back and evince a growing tendency to Sharia-compliance. If, after the Danish cartoon controversy, every single intellectual or public figure of any note had posted the cartoons, we would be in a different place today. But instead they joined in the chorus about responsibility and not unnecessarily offending pious people.
My own country, Canada, is traveling the same route to cultural perdition. Anti-Islamic firebrand Eric Brazeau, just sentenced to a year and a half in jail for reading out the Koran on a subway train, marks the same watershed. And the much maligned Ezra Levant, one of the few courageous journalists who actually printed the Danish cartoons as legitimate news depicting what the violence was all about, was sued by an offended imam, lost his magazine The Western Standard, found himself over $100,000 poorer, and is once again fighting in court. Few of us can approximate to his moral stature and his willingness to put himself on the line for an essential cause.
Meanwhile, the hundreds of journalists around the world wearing Je Suis Charlie banners don’t have the cojones to show what Stephane Charbonnier and his colleagues died for. And how many of our news outlets have actually reported the whole story, cartoons and all? The failure to defend our freedoms began ages ago when almost no one had the clarity of vision and the moral courage — certainly not our journalists, our politicos, our academics, our intellectuals, our entertainers — to man the barricades and fight against those who would deprive us of our rights. In fact, many of these pundits and news outlets saw fit to blame the victims for provoking the jihadists. This isn’t just a paradox; it’s bad faith, cowardice, hypocrisy and a form of cultural treason of the highest magnitude.
We are told ad nauseam that the terrorist atrocities we are witnessing on an almost daily basis have nothing to do with Islam — this despite the 25,000-plus Islamic-inspired terrorist attacks since the slaughter of 9/11. As for the bloodbath atCharlie Hebdo, the disavowals quickly set in. French president Francois Hollande lost no time flogging the tired mantra,assuring us with a straight face that the Charlie Hebdo perpetrators were “fanatics who have nothing to do with Islam.”Assem Shalaby, president of the Arab Publishers Association, has condemned “this vicious attack that contravenes the principles of Islam and the message of its prophet” — which it manifestly does not, as anyone even passably familiar with Islamic scripture, jurisprudence and orthodox commentary is immediately aware. Clearly, Josh Earnest, President Obama’s press secretary, is not, deponing on CNN that the Paris murders violate “the tenets of an otherwise peaceful religion” — unless, of course, like his master, he is lying through his teeth. At the same time, to cite Honest Reporting, “Conspiracy theorists and anti-Semites claim Israel is responsible for the Charlie Hebdo terror attack. The International Business Timessupplies the oxygen” — as does CNN and, of course, the ever dependable Ron Paul. True to form, plying a double disclaimer, the BBC described the event as “an apparent Islamist attack.” A win-win for Islam.
Indeed, the expression of official horror over the Paris tragedy and the discharge of mass sympathy for its victims were only convenient forms of evasive self-flattery in the absence of both foresight and political action that might have prevented this atrocity, as well as so many others. How much more bracing and honest the response of Israeli author Bat Zion Susskind-Sacks, who writes of the Paris Unity March (“this dog and pony show”) attended by international criminals and jihad sponsors like Turkish prime minister Ahmet Davutoğlu and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas: “NO, I am NOT Charlie! I am the four Jews who died in the hostage situation in Paris on Friday; I am the four praying Rabbis who were slaughtered in their Synagogue in Nof Yofeh in Yerushalayim last November; I am the little baby who was killed at the stop of the Light rail, when a terrorist drove his car directly and purposely into the crowd waiting for the tram to arrive; I am the 3 Yeshiva students who were kidnapped and slaughtered in cold blood by Hamas Islamist Jihadists in Judea last Summer.” Her point is unexceptionable. I have not seen anyone marching in Paris wearing an apron reading Je Suis Hyper Cacher.
Freedom of expression is on life support and the powers that be are ready to pull the plug. The moral qualities of honesty and courage — honor as traditionally understood — now languish atavistically in the cultural and political wasteland of the West. The dark continent of Europe, the Commonwealth nations, and America seem prepared to extinguish themselves as they promote the erosion of values that once sustained them — in iconic terms, the triumph of a fatuous grotesquery like Michael Moore over manly duty represented by Chris Kyle. We live in an “official” culture in which cowards call heroes cowards and alien prophets are welcomed as benefactors. The only ray of optimism in this desolate landscape emanates from the small but illustrious band of truth-tellers still active among us. It’s not much, but it’s all we have.
UTT, by John Guandolo, Jan. 20, 2015:
If the recent events of the past 14 years have not brought clarity to understanding that the core teachings of Islam is the sole reason the West is facing the warfare we are from so many different directions, then you may be incapable of reasonable and rational thought.
Since two Muslims killed a dozen people at the media outlet Charlie Hebdo in France, Muslims all over the world are holding massive protests…for the victims? No. They are protesting their “outrage” over the cartoons. In a sane society, a group of identifiable people who barbarically brutalize decent society would not be able to globally complain about how cartoons effect their feelings. But they are not ignored for the exact opposite reason intellectually dishonest leaders in Europe and America tell us we should embrace, appease, and empathize with the Islamic world.
They threaten us violence while our leaders tell us to embrace the Muslim community because, as they say, “Islam is a religion of peace.”
Truer words have never been spoken, if you understand that “Peace” in Islam (per Sharia/Islamic Law) occurs when the entire globe is under the rule of Islam and Islamic Law.
As massive crowds of Muslims across the globe call for more violence and killings (read “justice” for those who “slander” the prophet), our leaders tell us we should stop offending the Muslim by publishing cartoons or speaking truth about Islam. Color me reactionary, but I find sawing the heads off of 5 year old children and putting them on spikes for all the world to see just a bit more offensive. Yet I do not see any massive demonstrations around the world against that or for the children who are victims.
It is time for rational and reasonable people to stop giving quarter to those who are psychotically disconnected from reality – i.e. those who believe Islam “doesn’t stand for this (violence).”
* Nearly every Islamic School on the planet, beginning in the first grade, teaches Jihad is a permanent obligation on the Islamic community until the world is under Islamic rule (under Sharia).
* Islamic legal scholars are (and always have been) unanimous in their understanding on the definition of “jihad”; the obligation of jihad; the requirement to establish a global Islamic state (Caliphate) under Sharia (Islamic Law); and that Muslims may never take Jews or Christians as their friends. There is no such thing as a “version” of Islam that teaches something other than that.
* Sharia mandates jihad when the Islamic community has the strength and material ability to wage it. Historically, over the last 1400 years, the Muslim community has waged jihad when they had the strength to do so. In Islam, Mohammed is the “insan al kamil” or the “perfect man.” Mohammed commanded Muslims to “fight and slay the unbelievers” until they (1) convert to Islam, (2) submit to Islam, pay the jizya (non-Muslim poll tax), and “feel themselves subdued,” or (3) be killed. Mohammed waged war on the non-Muslims until they submitted, converted or were killed.
* All published Sharia (Islamic Law) defines “slander” as those who say anything about the prophet or Islam “which a Muslim would dislike.” This is a capital crime in Islam. The truth of the comment is not a part of the discussion in Islamic Law – only that a Muslim “dislikes” it.
The jihadis who took innocent lives in France at Charlie Hebdo, did so in accordance with, not against, Islamic Law.
100% of the Islamic jihadis we face on the battlefield, have committed acts of jihad in Europe or America, or those jihadis we have arrested before they did what they were trying to do all say words to the effect of: “We are jihadis fighting jihad in the cause of Allah in order to impose Sharia and establish the Islamic State.”
All Islamic doctrine backs this statement up – unequivocally.
The jihadis – or “terrorists” – are in complete agreement as to why they are doing what they are doing across the globe. All Islamic jurisprudence supports them and never hasn’t supported them. We are witnessing millions of Muslims protest over cartoons but not over the victims at Charlie Hebdo or Fort Hood or London or Madrid or Mumbai or Boston or anywhere else in the world.
To make this as clear as possible, Al Qaeda has never misquoted Islamic Law in furtherance of what they are doing. Never.
If you had a dinner guest who didn’t follow your rules, was rude and inappropriate with your wife and daughter, and threatened you while eating a dinner you prepared in your house, you would ask him to leave.
The West may want to consider this option for a Muslim population which continues to threaten our lives in bolder and bolder fashion, while demonstrating absolutely no respect for human life, decency, liberty, or reasoned thought.
It used to be that the media would at least wait a day before sweeping the latest victims of Muslim terrorism into the trash to refocus on the looming “anti-Muslim backlash” that never actually comes.
The increase in Muslim terrorism however has made it risky for the media to wait that long. 24 hours after a brutal Muslim terrorist attack, there might be another brutal Muslim terrorist attack which will completely crowd out the stories of Muslims worrying about the backlash to the latest Muslim atrocity.
The massacre at Charlie Hebdo was quickly followed by a massacre at a kosher supermarket and somewhere in between them the Islamic State in Nigeria had wiped out the populations of sixteen villages.
With so many Muslim attacks crowded together, the media had no choice but to take a deep breath and dive in with its “Muslim backlash” stories.
The Voice of America ran its “Muslims fear backlash” piece while the bodies were still warm. The Los Angeles Times rushed out its “Muslims fear backlash” story before the Kosher supermarket massacre. It quoted the Muslim spokesman for the National Observatory Against Islamophobia asserting that it is Muslims who suffer after such attacks. Muslims however weren’t the ones who suffered. The four dead Jews at a Kosher supermarket did the suffering at the hands of a Muslim gunman.
While Muslim murderers were still prowling France for victims, the media was making the story about the perpetrators, not the victims.
And Muslims around the world lined up to join the “Fear of a Backlash” party like it was an exclusive nightclub. Both Belgian and Swedish Muslims claimed to be afraid of a backlash after the Paris attacks. At least those Swedish Muslims who weren’t calling for Allah to “multiply such attacks.”
Even Detroit Muslims got in on the act. Dawud Walid, executive director of CAIR in Michigan, claimed, “We are concerned about backlash against Muslims in the west.”
Even while Jews were set to be murdered by a fellow exponent of Walid’s anti-Semitic ideology, the media was pandering to his phony claims of victimization thousands of miles away.
The Muslim backlash narrative insisted that the real victims weren’t Yohan Cohen, Yoav Hattab, Philippe Braham and Francois-Michel Saada dying in a Kosher supermarket in France, but Dawud Walid, the anti-Semitic spokesman for a hate group closely linked to terrorism over in Michigan.
Is it really a backlash that Muslims fear or a moral reckoning?
In the rush to make bigots like Walid the victims, instead of the actual men and women being murdered in the name of his violent ideology, the hard questions about the connection between the historical Islamic anti-Semitism bandied about by Dawud Walid and the modern massacres of Jews go unasked.
The murder of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists had its roots in an Islamic political and legal tradition of punishing blasphemy that has continued uninterrupted for over a thousand years. The murder of four Jews in a Kosher supermarket was part of a great Islamic tradition that began with Mohammed. The defenders of the “Prophet” began by killing blasphemers and then continued his work by killing Jews.
Muslims are not the victims of the Hebdo massacre. They are not the victims of mass murder in a Kosher supermarket. They are not the victims of the Sydney Siege.
They are the perpetrators.
When the media rushes to print interviews with Muslims claiming to suddenly be terrified of an imaginary backlash, it is marginalizing and silencing the real victims of Muslim violence who have been the subjects of a Muslim assault for over a thousand years complete with literal lashings.
Not every Muslim supports what happened, but the history and theology of Islam support the ends of silencing blasphemers and killing Jews, if not necessarily the provocative individual means.
The root cause of Islamic violence is Islam. Everything else, from poverty to YouTube videos, is subsidiary at best.
The cries of “Islamophobia” and the claims of a backlash silence the victims of Muslim terror and encourage social blindness to the next Muslim attack against Jews, Christians, Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists and countless others.
The Muslim backlash story is a great media tradition that dates back to at least September 11. While the streets of downtown Manhattan were still streaked with the ashes of the dead, the media began running stories about Muslims who were changing their clothes and putting up American flags out of fear that the maddened patriotic rabble would shortly begin massacring Muslims.
The mass anti-Muslim riots after September 11 never materialized; just as they never materialized after the Sydney Siege in Australia or the latest Muslim massacres in France.
The worst thing the media came up with in Australia, after touting its phony #Illridewithyou hashtag warning that Muslims were being persecuted, was three men and one woman holding up a sign reading, “Death to ISIS; Get Out You Rag-Headed F___s.”
They were immediately interviewed by police on possible charges of Isisphobia.
If the police had been as assertive in going after every Muslim in Australia waving a “Behead all those who insult the Prophet” sign, Australia would have been a lot safer.
And if the Australian media had been as aggressive in going after Sheikh Monis, as it did after a few young men waving Australian flags on a shopping center roof, the murder of two Australians in a café might not have happened.
But instead of fighting Jihadists, the media and politicians are determined to fight the threat of a backlash to Muslim terrorism. The obsession with the backlash however implicitly admits the existence of Islamic terror and sidelines it to instead focus on the reaction to it as the greater threat.
On one side are bodies heaped across Europe and America. On the other is the occasional slice of pork on a mosque door, a little graffiti scrawled on a wall or a dirty look on public transportation.
One is genocide and the other is petty vandalism.
We don’t need any more earnest interviews in which Muslims claim that they are the real victims of Muslim terrorism because they now feel “unwelcome” when the bodies of non-Muslims still lie in the morgue.
Try comparing an “unwelcome” feeling to being dead.
It is that sense of self-pitying Muslim victimization that leads easily to Muslim violence. Violence is often sanctioned by victimhood. That Muslims believe themselves to be the victims is nothing new. The Nazis also believed that they were the victims. So did the Muslim killer in a Kosher supermarket who claimed that ISIS, with its mass rapes and genocidal campaign, was the victim of French intervention.
If European Muslims really want to end atrocities like the ones that took place in Paris, instead of making themselves into the victims, they should examine the complicity of their religion, their politics and their sense of victimization in perpetrating them.
Video at Breitbart, by FRANCES MARTEL, Jan. 8, 2015:
Breitbart National Security Editor Dr. Sebastian Gorka, who is also the Major General Horner Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University, appeared on “Fox & Friends” on Thursday to discuss the potential reactions by the French government to yesterday’s brutal jihadist attack on satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and how a history of negotiating with terrorists might make preventing future attacks of this nature difficult.
“France has a track record all through the Cold War,” Gorka explained, “of deciding behind closed doors to basically negotiate with the bad guys.”
Highlighting terrorist affiliates and organizations, from Algerian groups the Palestinians to Iran, that the French government has worked with, Gorka explained that previous negotiations that “made it very, very difficult for international cooperation against terrorism” may now render any meaningful reaction on the part of France to the Charlie Hebdo massacre near impossible.
“Once the terrorist think that you are a potential funding stream,” Gorka asked, “what’s to stop them from kidnapping more of your citizens? … It’s a neverending cycle.” Past behavior may undermine the popular reaction to the attacks– thousands of French citizens taking to the streets yesterday night holding signs in solidarity with the magazine, with the slogans “Je Suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie”) and “Not Afraid.”
While positive that the French people have reacted so strongly against the attack, Gorka warned, “At the same time, it’s undermined by this track record of giving in to the bad guys”– who, he added, today are not merely partisan radical Islamists but subscribe to a fatalist global jihad ideology. Those who follow globalist Islamist ideology, he explained, cannot be negotiated with because “they want to destroy Western civilization.”
National Review Online, by Fred Fleitz, Jan. 8, 2015:
Some media outlets in the United States and Europe today honored the Charlie Hebdo journalists killed or injured by radical-Islamist gunmen yesterday by publishing some of theCharlie Hebdo cartoons satirizing the Prophet Mohammed that led to this vicious attack.
National Review Online, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post, the Weekly Standard, Bloomberg, the Huffington Post, the Daily Beast, Getty, and some other U.S. media outlets ran one or more of the cartoons today.
In the U.K., the Guardian, the BBC, and the Times of London ran the cartoons. TheFinancial Times ran them on its website. Spain’s El Pais and Germany’s Berliner Zeitungalso ran them.
Noticeably absent from this list are the New York Times, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and the Associated Press. These U.S. media outlets chose to self-censor their coverage of theCharlie Hebdo killings by not running the controversial cartoons of Mohammed because of intimidation by radical Islamists.
The New York Times said its decision not to run the Charlie Hebdo cartoons is because “Under Times standards, we do not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities. After careful consideration, Times editors decided that describing the cartoons in question would give readers sufficient information to understand today’s story.”
Give me a break. The New York Times never hesitates to run material offensive to Christians. Moreover, as a former intelligence officer, I find it hypocritical that the Timeseagerly runs stories revealing classified material causing serious harm to U.S. national security in the name of freedom of the press but refuses to run Charlie Hebdo cartoons that go to the heart of this freedom.
When asked about his decision to run cartoons satirizing Islamists in light of death threats,Charlie Hebdo editor Stéphane “Charb” Charbonnier — who was killed in the attack yesterday — said, “I prefer to die standing than living on my knees.” National Review and some other media outlets stood with Charbonnier’s deep commitment to the freedom of the press today by running Charlie Hebdo cartoons. By choosing not to run them, the New York Times, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and the Associated Press are appeasing radical Islamists and telling the world that their decisions to run material that may offend certain groups is driven by political correctness and not principle.
Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst, is a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy.
Fox News, by Steven Emerson, Jan. 7, 2015:
They shouted in Arabic “Allahu Akbar” (Allah is Greatest) and “We are avenging the Prophet Mohammed” as they sprayed their victims with hundreds of bullets from their semi-automatic weapons.
Their “victims” were the top editorial cartoonists of the satirical Charlie Hebdo magazine, who had dared to practice their right of free speech. Their offense? Publishing cartoons deemed “offensive” by Muslim leaders around the world. The perpetrators? Islamic terrorists.
Yet in the immediate hours after the murders in Paris, the response from western leaders was scurrilously predictable in their refusal to describe the attack as an “Islamic terrorist attack.”
Indeed, the responses from our own president, French President Hollande and British Prime Minster David Cameron all spouted the same empty pabulum in asserting that the Paris attack had nothing to do with Islam or any religion for that matter. But the hollow comments coming from our own leaders are steeped in the stench of appeasement and cowardice.
The first comments came from Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, who refused to even call the massacre an act of terrorism, but made sure to add the now typical non-sequitor which now routinely follows Islamic terrorist attacks, that “Islam is a religion of peace” and therefore nobody should associate the “extremists” in Paris with Islam.
Then President Obama issued his own statement, but in keeping with his administration’s 6 year old prohibition on using the term “Islamic terrorism,” he simply referred to the attack as “terrorism” — a vanilla term conspicuously devoid of any descriptive term explaining the motivation behind the attack. Thus, to the proverbial Martian it literally could have been eco-terrorism, white supremacist terrorism, or narco-terrorism. (But admittedly, calling this an act of “terrorism” was a step up from the classification of Major Nidal Hassan’s similar massacre at Fort Hood as “workplace violence.”)
Then in live comments delivered later, both President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry gave blustery defenses of the U.S. determination to protect the right of free speech and vowed that neither the French nor anyone in the West would be cowed into silence by terrorism.
Secretary Kerry said as follows:
“Today, tomorrow, in Paris, in France, or across the world, the freedom of expression that this magazine, no matter what your feelings were about it, the freedom of expression that it represented is not able to be killed by this kind of act of terror.” Nice words of bravado.
I hate to disabuse our secretary of state, but indeed “freedom of expression” has indeed already been killed by acts of Islamic terrorism.
Notwithstanding the secretary’s nice words of bravado today, the views in 2012 of the Obama administration on the very same French magazine were markedly differently “We are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the prophet Muhammad, and obviously we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this,” said Jay Carney, the White House spokesman. “We know these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory.”
The president himself, before the United Nations, revealed his own appeasement of Islamic terrorists and hoodlums when he declared in September 2012:
“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
Where was his moral insistence that we would never give into terrorists who would employ violence to intimidate us in suppressing our right to free speech?
Just imagine if, amidst the recent North Korean campaign to intimidate Sony into not showing its film that offended North Korea, the president had stated, “The future must not belong to those who slander Kim Jong-un.”
The issue we face is not, as Islamist groups falsely claim in the United States — ironically the very ones invited to the White House, Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and State Department — that using the term Islamic terrorism connotes a generalization that all Muslims are terrorists any more than using the term “Hispanic drug cartels” means that all Hispanics are druggies or that the term “Italian mafia” means that all Italians are mobsters or that the term “German Nazis” mean that all Germans were Nazis.
The term Islamic terrorism means just that: terrorist attacks with an Islamic motivation — whether they attempts to silence critics of Islam, impose Sharia, punish Western “crusaders,” commit genocide of non-Muslims, establish Islamic supremacy (or Caliphate), or destroy any non Muslim peoples (e.g. the Jews and Christians) that are “occupying Muslim lands.”
And so in refusing to use the term Islamic terrorism, the administration and their multiculturalist western leaders go along with the patently false charade that Islamic terrorism simply does not exist.
This has profound national security implications not only for non-Muslims, but for Muslim victims of Islamic terrorism. If you cannot name your enemy, how can you expect to defeat him?
In buying into the notion that uttering the term “radical Islam” is somehow racist, the real scandal here is that our administration and other Western leaders in general are in fact taking a page out of the playbook written by Muslim Brotherhood front groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).
Those groups, in turn, are ideological derivatives in the West of the Muslim Brotherhood which itself the parent of all Islamic Sunni terrorist groups—from Al Shabab to ISIS to Al Qaeada to Hamas. And in the West, those Muslim Brotherhood front groups have managed to perpetuate one of the biggest and most dangerous national security frauds of the past 30 years: that use of the term Islamic terrorism is tantamount to a racist generalization that all Muslims are terrorist. And that any criticism of Islam means you are an Islamophobe.
Four weeks ago, the United Arab Emirates, a distinctly observant Muslim country, had the courage to designate the Muslim Brotherhood and 83 other Islamist groups including CAIR in the U.S. as Islamic terrorist groups.
And our reaction? To our everlasting shame, the Obama administration came to the defense of CAIR, which has been described as a front for Hamas by the FBI and was designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist money laundering trial in U.S. history that resulted in the closure of the Holy Land Foundation and the conviction of its leaders for laundering money to Hamas.
Phrasing the problem of “violent extremism,” as the Obama administration has done repeatedly, of being a problem exclusively of only Al Qaeda and now ISIS, is intellectually spurious and truly dangerous to our national security.
Most recently, in describing ISIS, the Obama administration has categorically defined the group as having “nothing to do with Islam.”
It’s time for our leaders to stop this nonsense. Islamic terrorism and extremism are brutal realities that have killed tens of thousands of people, mostly Muslims.
Islamic extremism cannot be confined to groups we don’t like. Islamic extremism is now a movement, just like fascism and communism; it spans a spectrum from Hamas to Al Shabab to the Muslim Brotherhood. And to ignore the common denominator in the motivation behind 75% of the world’s annual terrorist attacks carried out by Islamic terrorists is a sure guarantee that Wednesday’s attacks will be repeated over and over again.
Will we ever learn?
Steven Emerson is executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorismand the executive producer of a new documentary about the Muslim Brotherhood in America “Jihad in America: the Grand Deception.”
There are no Palestinians. There are no moderate Syrian rebels. There is only Islam.
The axe that fell on the head of a Rabbi in Jerusalem was held by the same hand that beheaded Yazidi men in the new Islamic State. It is the same hand that held the steering wheel of the car that ran over two Canadian soldiers in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec and the same hand that smashed a hatchet down on the skull of a rookie New York City cop in Queens all in a matter of months.
Their victims were of different races and spoke different languages. They had nothing in common except that they were non-Muslims. This is the terrible commonality that unites the victims of Islamic terror.
Either they are not Muslim. Or they are not Muslim enough for their killers.
The media shows us the trees. It does not show us the forest. It fragments every story into a thousand local narratives. In Jerusalem the killers were angry because of Jews praying on the Temple Mount. In Queens and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, they were outraged because we were bombing the Islamic State.
And in the Islamic State they were killing Christians and Yazidis because America hadn’t bombed them yet.
Our leaders and our experts, the wise men of our multicultural tribes, who huddle in their shiny suits around heavy tables, believe in the good Muslim terrorist the way that the Muslim believes in Allah. The good Muslim terrorist who is willing to make peace for the right price is their only hope of salvation. The good Muslim terrorist willing to settle for Palestine or Syria at 50 percent off is their way out of a war.
And so like Chamberlain at Munich and FDR at Yalta, like a thousand tawdry betrayals before, they make themselves believe it. And then they make us believe it.
A thousand foreign policy experts are dug out, suited up and marched into studios to explain what specific set of un-Islamic Muslim grievances caused this latest beheading and how the surviving non-Muslims need to appease their future killers. And then another tree falls. And another head rolls.
The appeasement never works. No non-Muslim country has ever reliably made peace with Muslim terrorists inside its own borders. Even the Muslim countries have a shaky track record. Most have settled for either massacring them, like Algeria and Jordan, or secretly allying with them, like just about every Muslim country from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia.
And yet Nigeria is expected to cut a deal with the Boko Haram rapists of its little girls, Israel is expected to negotiate with the mass murderers of its Rabbis, Hindus in India are expected to negotiate with the Jihadists who burn them alive and somehow arrive at a peaceful settlement. And if the peace doesn’t come, then it won’t be the fault of the rapists, the axe-wielders and arsonists, but of their victims.
It is never the Muslim terrorists who are at fault for not being appeased by any compromise and any concession. It is the fault of their victims for not appeasing them hard enough.
Read more at Frontpage
Some of the organizations have a history of willful blindness to the Islamist ideology and have allied with American Islamists with extremist histories.
By Ryan Mauro:
A group of 53 Christian leaders and activists are urging the Obama Administration not to militarily strike the ISIS terrorist group in Iraq and Syria in a published letter. Several of the organizations represented have a history of willful blindness to the Islamist ideology and have allied with American Islamists with extremist histories.
The letter was published by the Catholic Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns. One of the group’s stated objectives is:
“Identifying and eliminating the root causes of violence and conflict with a focus on…U.S. aggression and national security policy (e.g. war on terrorism and war in Iraq and Afghanistan). The nexus of violence and poverty is clear.”
The worldview of this Christian group is that Islamic extremism is a response to American imperialism. In other words, its America’s fault and the Islamist terrorists are victims, even if their methods are deplorable.
This perspective is fundamentally in error and naïve. ISIS calls itself the Islamic State because that’s what it is fighting for. According to its own words, it is fighting for a caliphate and sharia governance (i.e, an Islamic State). There is no logical way to connect opposition to American foreign policy with this agenda.
In a blunt interview with NBC News, an American from North Carolina who tried to join ISIS and was arrested said, “My reason for the support of ISIS is because they’ve proven time and time again to put Islamic law as the priority and the establishment of an Islamic state as the goal,” Don Morgan said.
By characterizing American military action as “aggression” and ISIS as victims, the organization is assuming the worst of American intentions and the best of ISIS’, even going so far as to ignore ISIS’ own words and actions.
The Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns views Islamic terrorism as an outburst against inequality and poverty. Studies have repeatedly debunked this. The latest was a Queen Mary University of London study that concluded that there is no connection between Islamic terrorism and poverty, lack of education or unemployment.
Read more at Clarion Project
Obama is trying to bring down governments that fight Islamic terrorism, whether in Egypt, Israel or Nigeria, and replace them with governments that appease terrorists. This shared goal creates an alliance, direct or indirect, open or covert, between Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and the PLO and Obama and Boko Haram.
Leftist policy is the search for the root cause of evil. Everything from a street mugging to planes flying into the World Trade Center is reduced to a root cause of social injustice. Throw poverty, oppression and a bunch of NGO buzzwords into a pot and out come the suicide bombings, drug dealing and mass rapes.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s Boko Haram, the Islamic terrorist group that kidnapped hundreds of Nigerian schoolgirls, or a drug dealer with a record as long as his tattooed arm.
Obama and Hillary resisted doing anything about Boko Haram because they believed that its root cause was the oppression of Muslims by the Nigerian government. Across the bloody years of Boko Haram terror, the State Department matched empty condemnations of Boko Haram’s killing sprees with condemnations of the Nigerian authorities for violating Muslim rights.
Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton haven’t championed #BringBackOurGirls because it’s a hashtag in support of the kidnapped girls, but because it undermines the Nigerian government. They aren’t trying to help the kidnapped girls. They’re trying to bring down a government that hasn’t gone along with their agenda for appeasing Boko Haram and Nigerian Muslims.
The hashtag politics aren’t aimed at the terrorists. They’re aimed at helping the terrorists.
There’s a reason why the media and so many leftists have embraced the hashtag. #BringBackOurGirls isn’t a rescue. It denounces the Nigerian government for not having already gotten the job done even as the State Department stands ready to denounce any human rights violations during a rescue attempt.
Obama and Boko Haram want to bring down the Nigerian government and replace it with a leadership that is more amenable to appeasement. It’s the same thing that is happening in Israel and Egypt.
State Department officials responded to Boko Haram attacks over the years with the same litany of statistics about unemployment in the Muslim north and the 92 percent of children there who do not attend school. When Hillary Clinton was asked about the kidnappings by ABC News, she blamed Nigeria for not “ensuring that every child has the right and opportunity to go to school.”
Clinton acted as if she were unaware that Boko Haram opposes Muslim children going to school or that it would take the very same measures that her State Department has repeatedly opposed to make it possible for them to go to school. This is a familiar Catch 22 in which the authorities are blamed for not fixing the socioeconomic problems in terrorist regions that are impossible to fix without defeating the terrorists and blamed for violating the human rights of the terrorists when they try to defeat them.
The mainstream media has been more blatant about carrying Boko Haram’s bloody water. Their stories begin with the kidnapped schoolgirls and skip over to a sympathetic reading of history in which Boko Haram only took up arms after government brutality.
Read more at Front Page
The following passages are excerpted from the excellent book, The Pirate Coast: Thomas Jefferson, the First Marines, and the Secret Mission of 1805, by Richard Zacks:
In 1801, just after the inauguration of Thomas Jefferson, Tripoli had become the first country ever to declare war on the United States. The ruler, Yussef Karamanli, had ordered his Janissaries to chop down the flagpole at the U.S. consulate to signal his grave displeasure with the slow trickle of gifts from America. Jefferson, when he learned the news, had responded by sending a small fleet to confront Tripoli and try to overawe it into a peace treaty.
For more than two centuries, the Barbary countries of Morocco, Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli (now called Libya) had been harassing Christian ships, seizing cargo and capturing citizens. Algiers once boasted more than 30,000 Christian slaves, including one Miguel Cervantes, before he wrote Don Quixote. European powers in the 1500s and 1600s fought ferocious battles against Muslim pirates like Barbarosa. However, over time, a cynical system of appeasement had developed. The nations of Europe paid tribute — in money, jewels, and naval supplies — to remain at peace. England and France — in endless wars — found it cheaper to bribe the Barbary pirates than to devote a squadron to perpetually trawling the sea off Africa. At its core, expediency outweighed national honor.
When the thirteen American colonies split off from mother England, they lost British protection. The United States found itself lumped in the pile of potential Barbary victims, alongside the likes of Sardinia and Sicily. (From 1785 to 1815, more than six hundred American citizens would be captured and enslaved. This nuisance would prove to be no mere foreign trade issue but rather a near-constant hostage crisis.)
In colonial days, preacher Cotton Mather had described Barbary slaves as living for years in dug-out pits with a crosshatch of bars above… Galley slaves also lived to tell of being chained naked to an oar, forced to row ten hours at a stretch. Slaves, facing forward, pushed the forty-foot-long oars by rocking back to near horizontal, as though in a grotesque limbo contest, and then lurching with full strength, again and again. During hard chases, they were sustained by a wine-soaked rag shoved in their mouths…
Rituals varied, but in one account (of a North African slave auction) an American stated that after being purchased: “I was forced to lie down in the street and take the foot of my new master and place it upon my neck.” Another described being forced to lick the dust along a thirty-foot path to the throne of the [king] of Algiers (now called Algeria).
The main story of the book is that William Eaton and seven U.S. Marines organized and led a group of thousands of enemies of the king of Tripoli and captured the second biggest city in the country, making the king willing to negotiate a treaty and return the captured Americans. A few years later, the American navy became powerful enough to put a permanent end to the Muslim capture of American ships in the Mediterranean.
The above (except what is in italics) was excerpted from the book, The Pirate Coast, by Richard Zack. Without ever saying it explicitly, these excerpts demonstrate that aggression toward Western nations in the name of Islam is not a modern phenomenon, and is not caused by recent grievances. Modern grievances used to justify violence arepretexts, used since Mohammad’s time (read more about that here). The reason Thomas Jefferson knew this is because he read the Koran.
Jihad Watch, By Robert Spencer:
As many of the responses point out, there was no way that Daniel Pearl could have avoided being murdered by jihadists by practicing “individual accountability & reconciliation.” Nor was he any part of a “cycle of violence”: he was a Wall Street Journal reporter. Power reveals by this tweet the entire wrongheaded mindset of the U.S. foreign policy establishment: that the way to deal with jihad is to seek “reconciliation” by making various concessions, and launching hearts and minds initiatives that shower money on the offenders in hopes that they will be bought off as “friends.”
Power is also, unsurprisingly, a vociferous foe of Israel. We tried to tell you: in our book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War On America, Pamela Geller and I wrote:
One Obama foreign policy adviser, Samantha Power, resigned from the Obama campaign team under fire in March 2008 after calling Hillary Clinton a “monster.” Obama never seemed fazed by her calling in a 2002 interview with Harry Kreisler of the Institute for International Studies at Berkeley for military action against Israel to secure the creation of a Palestinian state.
Power said that establishing a Palestinian state would mean “sacrificing – or investing, I think, more than sacrificing – billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence.” She said that this would “require external intervention.”
Many observers quite reasonably concluded that in this Power meant that the United States should invade Israel in order to secure the creation and protection of a Palestinian state. Confronted about this during the Obama presidential campaign, Power made no attempt to explain or excuse her statement: “Even I don’t understand it…This makes no sense to me….The quote seems so weird.” She assured supporters of Israel that she did not believe in “imposing a settlement.”
Power’s anti-Israel bias was not limited to that one statement. When the much-hyped “Jenin Massacre” of 2002 turned out to have been a Palestinian propaganda operation rather than an actual massacre, Power remained skeptical, saying at a conference funded by George Soros: “I was struck by a [New York Times] headline that accompanied a news story on the publication of the Human Rights Watch report. The headline was, I believe: ‘Human Rights Reports Finds Massacre Did Not Occur in Jenin.’ The second paragraph said, ‘Oh, but lots of war crimes did.’ Why wouldn’t they make the war crimes the headline and the non-massacre the second paragraph?” National Review’s Michael Rubin commented: “It is questionable whether any war crimes occurred in Jenin, except of course the war crimes associated with Palestinian assembly of suicide bombs which Palestinian terrorists — not uniformed officials — used to target civilians on buses and elderly in hotels. But, that does not seem to be what Samantha Power means.”…
“U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power Facing Criticism Over This Tweet,” by Sharona Schwartz for The Blaze, February 24:
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power received a torrent of negative responses after posting a tweet Sunday evening that some interpreted as suggesting Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl’s killing could have been prevented by “individual accountability & reconciliation.”
Here’s what she wrote:
Daniel Pearl’s story is reminder that individual accountability & reconciliation are required to break cycles of violence. @DanielPearlFNDNSamantha Power
And here are some of the responses:
@AmbassadorPower To what “cycle of violence” are you referring? The man had his throat cut for being a Jew.Zathras
@AmbassadorPower Reconciliation? With people who cut his head off because he’s Jewish and American? They referred to him as “the Jew”.SunnyRight
@AmbassadorPower How, precisely, does on reconcile with medieval savages who traffic in videotaped decapitation porn?Rick Wilson
Five hours after she posted her tweet, not one response on her twitter line was of a positive nature….
On February 15, 2013, I posted an article at Front Page Magazine titled “Saving the Neighborhood ” that dealt with an invitation the democratic advocacy organization Act! for Canada had extended to British lawyer Gavin Boby, a specialist in town planning law and director of the Law and Freedom Foundation. I referred in that article to Boby’s lecture at the Ottawa Public Library on the consequences of allowing mosques to be built in municipal neighborhoods without adequate public consultation and supervision, an event whose reverberations have not yet died away and are unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future as mosque construction continues unabated. (Of the approximately 1200 mosques operating the U.S., for example, nearly 80 percent  were built after 9/11; there are no official data for Canada, but it is estimated  that there are at least 1000 mosques in the country, a lowball figure.)
Also known as the “mosque buster” — a designation, be it said, not of his choosing — Boby has devoted his time and expertise pro bono to advising the residents of municipal boroughs on the legal recourse at their disposal to prevent local mosque construction. In cases that Boby researched, the presence of mosques had led to the blighting of the quality of life in such residential areas, usually beginning with what he calls the “parking jihad,” as Muslim congregants occupy parking spots and private driveways on Friday worship and holy days, seriously limiting residents’ mobility, freedom and private property rights. Such disruptions would invariably metastasize. Residents walking their dogs would find themselves molested. Eventually, various forms of vandalism would occur — broken windows, severed TV cables, and the like — to force down the already depressed market value of homes, which were then bought up by Muslim interlopers. Such cases have been meticulously documented by Boby and justify the pursuit of legal impediment against the domestic proliferation of mosques, often camouflaged in civic application forms as “Islamic cultural centers” and “inter-faith community centers” to deceive the unwary and the credulous.
As Boby explained in a talk delivered to the Q Society of Australia  on September 12, 2012, in Melbourne, a mosque is not like a church, synagogue or temple; it is “a center of power used for political and military purposes.” Studies  have shown that a large majority of mosques act as recruitment hubs for jihad, foster the imposition of Sharia law, and labor to drive a sanctified wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims. For Islam, which makes no distinction between church and state, between the things which are God’s and the things which are Caesar’s, between synod and politburo, is not a religion like Christianity or Judaism; it is a political movement garbed in the trappings of a religion, or alternately, a religion whose primary agenda is the conquest of the world through political, cultural and military means.
What Boby is attempting to accomplish — to educate and empower beleaguered residents of generally poorer working districts to maintain the preferred character of their neighborhoods — is both legal and ethical, as well as humane and empathetic. There is nothing “racist” or “bigoted” or “fascist” about his endeavors — epithets that dubious Islamic organizations, clueless do-gooders and liberal charlatans readily lob in his direction.
Most towns and communities have zoning bylaws that prescribe what can and cannot be erected in the areas under their jurisdiction. The village I have lived in for many years, for example, is strict in this regard, forbidding the construction of any building, commercial, religious or private, over three stories high, and even halting the construction of a palatial dwelling that reached for a fourth. No one claimed that the town council was biased against the wealthy or the architecturally ambitious. Similarly, if a town or borough wishes to prevent the construction of a mosque — or church or pub or stupa  or spud hut or casino or soup kitchen — that would transform the character of a neighborhood in a way it finds undesirable, it is legally permitted to do so under existing zoning regulations. Boby is not advocating, as has reportedly happened in Angola , that Islam should be banned and all mosques closed or dismantled to forestall a Sahelian  future (the report has been disputed, but, as of this time, does seem to be accurate ); he is, rather, arguing for citizens’ rights in preserving the nature, morale and typical features of the places they reside in, should they choose to do so.
The acid irony is that most of those hostile to informed citizens like Boby and his compatriots are affluent ideological accommodationists, socialist poobahs and progressivist conservatives dining on the calipash of slow intellection. They need never worry about mosques stippling their upscale turf, whose driveways would not be blocked, whose dogs would have the romp of the neighborhood and local parks, whose windows would not be broken, and whose telephone lines and satellite dishes would remain intact. Among this privileged cohort we find a clutch of political officials and administrators tainted by political correctness, media lefties, assorted members of the liberal elite, infatuated academics who live in “the glebe,” “moderate” Muslims who rarely attend religious services but approve of neighborhood mosques, and court Jews who pride themselves on their “social justice” credentials (though I am tempted to call these more craven of my co-religionists courtesan Jews) — in effect, pseudo-intellectuals like the emulsified tandem who published an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen, titled “Mistaking Islamism for Islam ,” protesting Gavin Boby’s presence among us and serving to mobilize a posse of offended Muslims to petition the library to annul the presentation. And, naturally, the journalists were out in force to interview the assembly of aggrieved Muslims, though none saw it as their duty to attend the lecture or to interview Boby.
Apart from the convenient fact that such people are exempt from the trials and outrages that afflict the less advantaged classes, they exhibit no understanding of the political and historical trajectory of Islam, the nature of the Koran and the Hadith, and the contagious influence of the mosque. They have eagerly embraced the propaganda of the Islamic camp and its enablers, namely, that Islam is a “religion of peace.” This is a giant step toward ultimate surrender to an alien dispensation, guaranteed by what Larry Kelley in Lessons from Fallen Civilizations  calls the 8th Law of History (Kelley enumerates ten such Laws): “When a civilization accepts the propaganda of the enemy as truth, it has reached the far side of appeasement and capitulation is nigh.” The truth being obscured is that Islam is a religion of perpetual war — “the truth of Islam is in its killing fields,” writes  Daniel Greenfield — and anyone who doubts this has not read the history of Islam or delved into the pages of its canonical texts, theological, philosophical, political and jurisprudential. Boby, for his part, is perfectly aware of these larger and deeper issues, but has chosen to fight on a more limited, cadastral front by reducing the number of mosques that conquer territory piecemeal, one neighborhood after another.
Most of those attempting to neutralize Boby and his allies believe with Daniel Pipes that radical Islam can be countered by something called moderate Islam. They are afraid that unsparing criticism of, or principled resistance to, the spread of Islamic doctrine and culture will drive the moderates into the arms of the extremists — as if opposing violence creates even more violence, an inversion of reason so preposterous as to resemble a neurological fugue. They are terrified of being labelled as “Islamophobes.” They wish to be seen as lovers of diversity, as enlightened thinkers, as noble representatives of an advanced civilization. They do not realize that, after they have slept for the next twenty years like Rip Van Winkle, they are heading for a grim awakening. As indeed, unless we come to our senses, we all are. And by then our firearms will be pretty well useless, like Rip’s, “the barrel incrusted with rust, the lock falling off, and the stock worm-eaten.”
Read more at PJ Media