« Murder And Suicide By Any Other Name Is Still .... | Main | More Iranian-made Weapons Uncovered In Iraq By U.S. Troops »

July 12, 2007

Accepting The Realities Of "Islam's" Jihadists

With the myth that Islamic terrorists are made up of poor, underprivileged people who are angry at Westerners for being more affluent and prosperous can finally be put to bed, one could reasonably expect the mainstream media and PC-conscious government officials to finally refrain from emphasizing that these extremists are not connected with Islam and the term "Islamophobia" would disappear from the tongues of the media and politician apologists for the Islamists.

However, that just isn't happening, and as Amir Taheri offers in his piece, "'Islamophobia' Idiocy":

.... Prime Minister Gordon Brown keeps repeating that the attacks have nothing to do with Islam - but, at the same time, keeps inviting "Muslim community leaders" to Downing Street to discuss how to prevent attacks. If the attacks have nothing to do with Islam, why invite Muslim "leaders" rather than Buddhist monks?

... Brown hasn't deemed fit to tell it like it is: that Muslims in Britain, indeed all over the world, must come out and condemn terrorism in unambiguous terms.

Instead, we are hearing that the attacks may have been prompted by "Muslim bitterness" about Salman Rushdie's knighting, the latest addition to the Islamist litany of woes. Some "moderate community leaders," like a certain Baroness Uddin, drop hints that Muslims have "foreign-policy issues" that might make them unhappy. The barely coded message: Unless Britain reshapes its foreign policy to please al Qaeda, it must expect to be attacked.

The most that "the moderate community leaders" concede is a "yes, but" position: Yes, it is not quite right to blow up innocent people - but, then again, we must understand how anger at the policies of the government of those same innocent people might prompt some Muslim youths to want to slaughter everyone.

Worse still, Ken Livingstone, London's quixotic leftist mayor, has shifted the blame from the terrorists to the British at large, who are supposedly tempted by "Islamophobia."

Thus, Livingstone works his way into a logical impasse: Do we dislike them because they want to kill us, or do they want to kill us because we dislike them? He implies that the main blame must lie with the British government and its U.S. allies, especially President Bush, who has declared war on terror rather than seeking to cuddle it.

But can one accuse Britain of "Islamophobia"? The answer is an emphatic no.

The problem is definitely not one of Islamophobia, rather it is the Islamists themselves and our own failure to recognize that Islamists are not people to be reasoned with. As Pamela Meister says at FSM, "It doesn't matter where they come from; it doesn't matter what material possessions they have or how impressive their career paths were to date. It doesn't even matter so much who they kill, as long as they strike panic into the hearts of all those whom they decide are their enemies:

(Referencing) Robert Spencer, whose website, Jihad Watch, is devoted solely to educating the public about Islamic Jihad, defines it this way:

...[T]he West is facing a concerted effort by Islamic Jihadists, the motives and goals of whom are largely ignored by the Western media, to destroy the West and bring it forcibly into the Islamic world -- and to commit violence to that end even while their overall goal remains out of reach. That effort goes under the general rubric of Jihad.

This is why we shouldn't really be shocked that doctors have become killers, or that al Qaeda would viciously murder fellow Muslim villagers. Those who join in the Islamic Jihad movement have one goal in mind, and that is to (as Spencer states) bring the West "forcibly into the Islamic world." Committing violence whenever and wherever is part and parcel of the quest. They look for weakness and capitalize on it.

Continue reading ...

Posted by Richard at July 12, 2007 10:54 AM