Islamophobia Is Un-American

6 12 2015

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

Christianity has 2.2 billion followers. Islam has 1.8 billion followers. At most, Judaism has 14 million followers.  There are radical members of each religious group; and Americans cannot allow fear to generate unbridled hatred and anger.[2]  The United States and the American people are not at war with Islam or its followers. Anyone who suggests otherwise is Islamophobic.

Islamophobia does not have any place in the U.S.  Yet, this is exactly what many are preaching today, which is wrong.  Islamophobia is un-American, and inconsistent with Jesus’ teachings as set forth in the New Testament—just as racism, anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination are evil.  Fear spawns hatred, anger and retribution. Too much of it is present in America and other countries.

According to the rhetoric espoused by some people, one might think that they want to kill all followers of Islam, or attack or discriminate against them, which is absurd and evil unto itself.  A large number of Americans are afraid. But their fear is nothing when compared with the fears that were present in the U.S. after 9/11.

We live in difficult and challenging times.[3]  But the terrorist acts of a few cannot be allowed to permeate and change our great nation or the American people.  This is a lesson we learned from World War II.  An estimated 110,000 Japanese-Americans were “interned” at Manzanar in California and at other camps, because of similar fears.[4]

Terrorist attacks have occurred in the U.S. and abroad.  Tragically,  it seems that “terrorism”—in its many forms—will be present for a long time to come.  Kate Steinle was killed brutally in the “sanctuary city” of San Francisco by a known criminal and illegal immigrant.[5]  Oklahoma City was bombed by Timothy McVeigh[6].  More than 900 perished in the religious cult of Jim Jones.[7]  Mass killings occurred recently in Paris[8] and San Bernardino, California[9].  And the list goes on and on.

Large numbers of Americans tune out Barack Obama because of their frustrations, anger and disgust.  Indeed, there is enormous venom with respect to the followers of Islam and him—as well as outright racism—which appears on Web sites in the U.S. and abroad.  Often, violent statements and actions are directed at both.[10]

This is not the American way.

© 2015, Timothy D. Naegele

Islamophobia

_______________________________________________

[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and http://www.naegele.com/documents/TimothyD.NaegeleResume.pdf). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal. Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com; see also Google search: Timothy D. Naegele

[2]  It has been said: “Muslims are like guns and gun owners. There is only trouble with a small percentage.”

See also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/abortions-and-autos-kill-more-in-america-than-guns/ (“Abortions And Autos Kill More In America Than Guns”)

[3]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/01/global-chaos-and-helter-skelter/ (“Global Chaos And Helter Skelter”); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/29/the-death-of-putin-and-russia-the-final-chapter-of-the-cold-war/ (“The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War”)

[4]  A Japanese submarine attacked the oil fields at Ellwood, north of Santa Barbara, California:

Though damage was minimal, the event was key in triggering the West Coast invasion scare and influenced the decision to intern Japanese-Americans.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Ellwood (“Bombardment of Ellwood”); see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manzanar (“Manzanar”)

[5]  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Kathryn_Steinle (“Shooting of Kathryn Steinle”)

[6]  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh (“Timothy McVeigh”)

[7]  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones (“Jim Jones”)

[8]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/we-are-all-parisians/ (“We Are All Parisians”)

[9]  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bernardino,_California#21st_century

[10]  The President’s religious “origins” in Islam contribute to this.  See, e.g.https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/ (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?”)


Actions

Information

31 responses

7 12 2015
Richard Hameroff

Ugh.. Not sure I agree with this Timothy… There is an incompatibility between western civilization, and Islam. The Koran embraced violence.. True followers of Islam are not the passive ones, generally speaking.. At least not today.

Liked by 1 person

7 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Rick, as always.

Yes, I understand that not everyone will agree. Those elements of radical Islam must be pursued, just as we went after those who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

However, there are 1.8 billion followers of Islam, including women and children; and the vast majority are by no means radicals. As noted in footnote 2 of this article:

Muslims are like guns and gun owners. There is only trouble with a small percentage.

I agree with that. Indeed, if Islamophobia spreads in the United States, Europe, and around the world, it may radicalize those followers of Islam who would not otherwise become radicals.

Is this what we want for the United States and Americans? A true “Clash of Civilizations”? It would be unlike anything that America has faced during its existence, and it is unnecessary and unwarranted.

This has happened to the Palestinians who live in Gaza and the West Bank—where Netanyahu and Israel are responsible for an estimated 2,200 deaths last year alone. Indeed, almost 70 years of supporting Israel has inured to our detriment in the Islamic world.

Jews are being urged to flee to Israel, as anti-Semitism spreads dramatically in Europe and globally. Jews can be targeted anywhere in the world, and there is nothing that Israel or its Mossad can do to protect them.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/ariel-sharon-is-missed/#comment-7039 (“Is Night Falling Again For European Jews?”)

I respectfully submit that what Israel has done is not the path that we should follow. That country was founded by terrorists, and now the shoe is on the other foot.

Like

7 12 2015
Richard

Thank you for your reply…

As long as the ‘peaceful’ Muslim majority, allows the radical minority to grow, and take over Islam, this will not end, and will likely accelerate.. When will they stand up, in force, and destroy the jihadists? I don’t think they ever will, because at their core, while most are against the most violent means, they really don’t disagree with the end result. That being, world domination..

Israel is used as a scapegoat, and the fact is, if Israel ceased to exist, the radicals would still find a motive to continue their war against the west. As I said, and as I’m sure you well know, true Islam is not compatible with western ideology..

Timothy, I’m not sure if you have read the Koran, but if you have not, please do. I think it’s hard to derive from its passages, the conclusions you have.

Liked by 1 person

7 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Rick.

What you suggest means there is no hope for Western civilization, and that the “Clash of Civilizations” which Samuel P. Huntington wrote about—and Richard Nixon worried about—has arrived.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations (“Clash of Civilizations”)

You posit, as does “Col. B. Bunny” below, that there is no chance of two “societies” coexisting in peace, which undergirds the American experience.

Indeed, we are the only true “melting pot” on the face of the Earth—an amalgamation of the seemingly-disperate cultures that comprise human life on this planet.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/america-a-rich-tapestry-of-life/ (“America: A Rich Tapestry Of Life”)

Like

7 12 2015
Richard

Sadly, that’s what I’m saying Timothy..

Like

9 05 2016
Michael Cram

How do you even dream to think that we went after the attackers of 9/11? I’m sorry, but that takes all the remarkable work you are doing here and flushed it right down the toilet. How do you justify your statement?

Like

9 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Michael, for your comments.

There are two sides to the coin: (1) Islamic terrorists, and (2) the peaceful followers of Islam.

As I have written above:

[T]here are 1.8 billion followers of Islam, including women and children; and the vast majority are by no means radicals.

I condemn the first group, but do not condemn the second group at all.

The United States is the world’s only true melting pot; and since it began, it has welcomed those of other cultures and religious beliefs, which undergirds its strength.

See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/america-a-rich-tapestry-of-life/ (“America: A Rich Tapestry Of Life”)

Like

9 05 2016
Michael Cram

So, you honestly believe that this attack was performed by Islamists?

You think a plane crashed in Pennsylvania? A plane crashed in to the pentagon?

Like

9 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

You don’t?

I worked at the Pentagon. I know what happened there.

Like

9 05 2016
Michael Cram

There is no evidence to show any such type of event occurred. Now your blog smacks of controlled opposition.

Good day, sir.

Like

7 12 2015
Col. B. Bunny

Mr. Naegele, Muslims do not belong in Western countries. Every Muslim who has been naturalized swore a false oath that they would support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the U.S. See the Cairo Declaration of the 57-Muslim-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference that affirms that sharia is supreme over all man-made law. Therefore, any Muslim “citizen” of the U.S. is a liar.

Shariah is inconsistent with the First Amendment not least for the fact that all eight schools of Islamic jurisprudence affirm that death is the proper punishment for apostasy. Muslims who even question the interpretation of the mullahs are guilty of blasphemy or interpretation, the equivalent of apostasy. Muslims, especially their religious leaders, can NOT accept that the First Amendment and the criminal laws of our country trump shariah.

Muslims bring with them the hideous practice of FGM. Cousin marriage, polygamy, and child marriage are rampant in the Muslim world. These are values that are antithetical to anything that is remotely understood as being American.

Around the world over 27,000 infidels have been murdered by faithful Muslims since 9/11 and you well know the frightful slaughter involved in the Muslim conquest of part of the Indian subcontinent, as well as the more recent Armenian genocide.

It is not Islamophobia that does not belong in America. It does not exist. We do not fear Islam. What we have is a justified disdain for this political doctrine that turns its adherents into our enemies. We understand what a disaster it is for Muslims to enter infidel nations in any numbers. We despise it for the backward, oppressive, and vicious political doctrine that it is.

The disdain for the savagery and enshrined hatred, aggression, and subversive goals of Islam is, hopefully, growing. Muslims have waged war on infidels for 1,400 years and it is Islam and each and every one of its followers who do not belong in America.

The burden of proof is on you to show that Muslims cheerfully integrate into Western societies and that the no-go areas of France and Sweden and enclaves like the Somalia areas of Dearborn and the Jamaat al-Fuqra camps around our country are the exception. Explain the Muslim exultation over Western calamities and the signs “Freedom go to hell.” “Islam will dominate the world,” “Shariah for the U.K.,” “Americans we are your death,” “Shariah for the Netherlands,” and “Wait till you see the real holocaust.”

Wherever Muslims are, even in their own countries, there is murder, especially of Christians. And rape. Sweden is now the rape capital of the world, second only to some southern Africa postage stamp of a nation (Lesotho).

One has to be willfully blind to think that there is anything the least bit benign or noble about this bandit culture that still cannot get it that the world is round.

Liked by 1 person

7 12 2015
Richard

Excellent post, Col Bunny.

Like

7 12 2015
Col. B. Bunny

Thanks, Richard.

Like

7 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your thoughtful and articulate comments.

First, you stated:

Muslims do not belong in Western countries.

They are here already. Their numbers are growing dramatically in Europe, as you know; and they are growing here as well.

Second, they are required to accept our laws, whether the clerics like it or not. This is the “price of doing business” and staying here. To the extent that they engage in practices that are inconsistent with our laws, they will pay heavy prices (e.g., incarceration).

Third, lots of groups bring practices with them that are “foreign” to this country. It has been true since our great nation was founded, yet we survive and thrive.

Fourth, you stated:

We do not fear Islam.

We do not hate it either, or its followers. To do so is Islamophobia.

Fifth, many Americans view the hoods, thugs and criminals who have burned, looted and killed innocent people (e.g., elderly blacks), and destroyed their businesses—and launched a war against our police—as a clear and present danger.

See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/#comment-7288 (“Rioting, Looting And Killing By Thugs And Hoods In American Cities“)

To use your words:

[T]his [is a] bandit culture that still cannot get it that the world is round.

Lastly, President Obama’s message tonight appears below, which I support.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/06/islamophobia-is-un-american/#comment-7894

Like

7 12 2015
Richard

Tim, while you may support Obamas recent comments on ISIS, his words hold little weight, when everything to date he has done has been weak, and ineffective. He speaks as a professor, not a president.

I think, by your writings, I know by now you are not a hawkish man, and I respect that. However, I don’t belive you’re naive, so while you support his message, you can’t actually think anything of substance will change in his policy toward ISIS, right?

Eventuality, we are going to lose a city or a large amount of people, from terrorism.. Nuclear materials, made into a dirty bomb, biological or chemical weapons.. Unless we hit them hard, they will grow. Knowing that they will keep coming, and keep recruiting, requires extreme thinking, and measures to counter then threat. And I don’t see Obama ever doing what is required.. With just over a year to go with Obama, a lot can happen, and most people I know don’t have any faith left, in his message..

I do have hope for our civilization, but not blind faith . It can go either way, and the leaders of the western world will need balls of steel.. The entire PC,entitlement trajectory, of our country has to be reversed.. Hope won’t cut it otherwise.
.

Like

7 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Rick, for your comments.

First, I served as a U.S. Army Infantry Captain, albeit I opposed the Iraq War because I believed that Saddam had WMDs that he would use against our military forces. Indeed, he had used WMDs against Iran and the Kurds.

Also, I believed the war was not worth fighting. We were pushed into that war by Israel, its “neocon” surrogates and other “Israel Firsters,” just as Netanyahu has been trying to push us into a war with Iran.

In retrospect, I was correct. Thousands of Americans died or were maimed in the course of three wars in the region, and trillions of dollars were wasted. Americans will not support another war—even if Israel’s existence is at stake.

Donald Trump is right. Let the parties in the region fight it out; and when the dust settles—or the nuclear clouds part—then we can see who is still standing, if anyone.

The Middle East is not America’s fight, just as the Iraq War was a mistake. The U.S. is the largest energy producer in the world once again, and is essentially energy independent. We do not need the Middle East anymore, including Israel.

Second, I agree with your conclusions:

Obamas recent comments on ISIS, his words hold little weight, when everything to date he has done has been weak, and ineffective. He speaks as a professor, not a president.

Also, on balance, what you say is possible:

Eventuality, we are going to lose a city or a large amount of people, from terrorism.. Nuclear materials, made into a dirty bomb, biological or chemical weapons.. Unless we hit them hard, they will grow. Knowing that they will keep coming, and keep recruiting, requires extreme thinking, and measures to counter then threat. And I don’t see Obama ever doing what is required.. With just over a year to go with Obama, a lot can happen, and most people I know don’t have any faith left, in his message.

I am well aware of the dangers in this world.

See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/ (“EMP Attack: Only 30 Million Americans Survive”), https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/01/global-chaos-and-helter-skelter/ (“Global Chaos And Helter Skelter”), https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/china-is-americas-enemy-make-no-mistake-about-that/ (“China Is America’s Enemy: Make No Mistake About That”), https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/the-next-major-war-korea-again/ (“The Next Major War: Korea Again?”)

Lastly, I have believed for some time that the end of the Obama presidency offers our adversaries unique opportunities to strike us. The same was true of Jimmy Carter’s presidency; and it is true of any weak presidency.

Indeed, Abraham Lincoln had many weak generals, but his favorites and strongest were Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. He credited both with winning the Civil War militarily and thereby preserving the Union.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/ulysses-s-grant-an-american-hero/ (“Ulysses S. Grant: An American Hero”)

Like

7 12 2015
Richard

If left alone in this fight, Israel will be forced to use methods that would surely further the conflict.They may be forced to execute the ‘Samson option’ [See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option], should such an option actually exist. Pulling completely out of the middle east seems implausible at best.. It could be argued that the Iraq war was a success,that was undone by Obamas policies.Right or wrong, its water under the bridge,and we must move past the coulda, woulda, shoulda senerios.

I realize, that you most definitely know the dangers this world faces. I respect your knowledge. I was being rhetorical .. I thoroughly enjoy your posts, but I cringe when you continue to blame Israel for the bulk of the problems.This was going on, long before Netanyhu was in charge, and surely it will continue long after.

Like

7 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

First, there are strong reasons to believe that Israel will be engulfed and cease to exist.

See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/ariel-sharon-is-missed/#comment-7868 (“Israelis Don’t Share This American Jew’s Pessimism”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/ariel-sharon-is-missed/#comment-7039 (“Is Night Falling Again For European Jews?”)

Second, Barack Obama is effectively paying lip service to the problems of the Middle East, and very little more. They are intractable.

Third, it is a fact that Israel has been a burden without benefits for almost 70 years. Our support of the tiny country—which was founded by terrorists—has engendered hatred for us throughout the 1.8 billion members of Islamic world.

Fourth, no American should ever forget:

(1) The traitor Jonathan Pollard who sold our secrets and jeopardized this country, and who should be returned to Israel in a body bag, or as ashes.

(2) The unprovoked Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, which killed 34 brave Americans and maimed many more.

See http://www.gtr5.com

(3) The Iraq War, which Israel and its “neocon” surrogates pushed us into.

And these are only the ones that are generally known.

No friend or ally does this!

Yet, the “Israel Firsters” will leap to its defense as always, claiming that everyone who criticizes the tiny country and its practices is an anti-Semite, including Jews themselves.

Fifth, there are plenty of Jews who agree with me, but many are “cowed” by AIPAC and other fanatical Jewish “Israel Firster” groups that seek to ban all criticism of Netanyahu and his ilk.

See also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/ariel-sharon-is-missed/#comment-7737 (“Netanyahu Sets Off Firestorm Of Criticism”)

He is detested by Barack Obama and other world leaders, just as he was hated by the Rabins and Ariel Sharon.

Indeed, Leah Rabin blamed Netanyahu for her husband’s assassination. She saw “only doom for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process” with Netanyahu at Israel’s helm; and her views were prescient.

Like

7 12 2015
Richard

Ok, I get it. But you seem to be dodging the fact, that Israel is not the primary cause of ISIS,and even if it ceased to exist, the jihad would continue..

Like

7 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

I believe—as do many Americans, Jews and non-Jews alike—that the hatred of the United States and Americans stems from our support of Israel for almost 70 years.

Is it the only factor? Certainly not. But 70 years is a long time for hatred to boil and fester.

Indeed, one very prominent American Jew—who was born and raised in Israel—has asked the following question about the treatment of Palestinians:

Is this how I wanted to be treated when I was a minority in another people’s country?

Perhaps this says it all.

Lastly, this thread of comments has gotten too long for many people to read comfortably on a smartphone. Thus, a new thread needs to begin.

Like

7 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

President Barack Obama’s Message

We Will Prevail Against ISIL – Here’s How:

White House logo

Tonight, I addressed the nation from the Oval Office on my top priority as President: Keeping the American people safe.

It weighs heavily on the hearts and minds of all of us in the wake of the terrible tragedy in San Bernardino. Fourteen Americans — dads, moms, daughters, sons — were taken from us as they came together to celebrate the holidays. Each of them a public servant. All of them a part of our American family.

The FBI is still gathering the facts about what happened in San Bernardino, but here is what we know. We have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home. But it is clear that these killers had embraced a perversion of Islam, stockpiled assault weapons, and committed an act of terrorism.

Our nation has been at war with terrorists since al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Since then, we’ve hardened our defenses. Our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted countless plots and worked around the clock to keep us safe. Our military and counter-terrorism professionals have relentlessly pursued terrorist networks overseas — disrupting safe havens, killing Osama bin Laden, and decimating al Qaeda’s leadership.

But over the last few years, the threat has evolved as terrorists have turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all-too common in our society. For the past seven years, I have confronted the evolution of this threat each morning. Your security is my greatest responsibility. And I know that, after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.

So, tonight, this is what I want you to know: The threat of terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Here’s how:

First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is necessary, using air strikes to take out ISIL leaders and their infrastructure in Iraq and Syria. And since the attacks in Paris, our closest allies – France, Germany, and the United Kingdom – have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign, which will help us accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL.

Second, we will continue to provide training and equipment to Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens. In both countries, we are deploying Special Operations forces who can accelerate that offensive.
Third, we are leading a coalition of 65 countries to stop ISIL’s operations by disrupting plots, cutting off their financing, and preventing them from recruiting more fighters.

Fourth, with American leadership, the international community has established a process and timeline to pursue cease-fires and a political resolution to the Syrian civil war. Doing so will allow the Syrian people and every country to focus on the common goal of destroying ISIL.

That is our strategy — designed and supported by military commanders, counter-terrorism experts, and countries committed to defeating these terrorists. And we constantly examine further steps needed to get the job done. That is why I have ordered the Departments of State and Homeland Security to review the visa program under which the female terrorist in San Bernardino originally came to this country. And that is why I will urge high tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice.

Here at home, we can do more together to immediately address this challenge.

To start, Congress should act to make sure that no one on a No Fly List is able to buy a gun. What possible argument can be made for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measure, but no matter how effective our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, we cannot identify every would-be mass shooter. What we can do, and must do, is make it harder for them to kill.

Next, we should put in place stronger screening for those who come to America without a visa so that we can know if they’ve traveled to war zones. And finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, then it should vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists.

This is what we should do. But I’d like to also say a word about what we should not do.

We should not be drawn once again into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria. That’s what groups like ISIL want. We also cannot turn against one another by letting this fight become a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want. ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers, and account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims around the world who reject their hateful ideology.

If we are to succeed in defeating terrorism, we must enlist Muslim communities as our strongest allies in rooting out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization. It is the responsibility of all Americans — of every faith — to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It is our responsibility to reject language that encourages suspicion or hate. Because that kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values, plays into the hands of groups like ISIL. We have to remember that.

I am confident America will succeed in this mission because we are on the right side of history. Even as we debate our differences, let’s make sure we never forget what makes us exceptional: We were founded upon a belief in human dignity — the idea that no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what religion you practice, you are equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law.

Let’s not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear. That we have always met challenges — whether war or depression; natural disasters or terrorist attacks — by coming together around our common ideals. As long as we stay true to who we are, then I have no doubt that America will prevail.

Thank you,
President Barack Obama

Liked by 1 person

7 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Don’t Bother Talking To ISIS

ISIS execution by sword

This is the title of an article that Michael J. Totten has written for World Affairs:

Jonathan Powell, formerly the chief of staff of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, has done the impossible. He has written an article for The Guardian that is almost entirely correctly yet utterly wrong.

Bombing ISIS is not enough—we’ll need to talk to them too.

That’s his headline.

But he’s not a fraction as naïve as you might think. He gets pretty much everything right until he asserts that we’ll have to talk to ISIS eventually.

He’s not the kind of guy who thinks wars can be ended on the Dr. Phil show. He doesn’t believe diplomacy will ever convince a genocidal terrorist army that’s massacring innocent people on three continents to join the civilized mainstream.

He recognizes that bombing ISIS is necessary.

He also realizes destroying ISIS will require boots on the ground. But whose? Kurdish militias do very well in battle, but they’re neither equipped nor willing to conquer or liberate the vast swaths of Arab territory.

And Powell realizes that Iranian-backed Shia militias like Hezbollah are out of the question for entirely different reasons. Unlike the Kurdish People’s Protection Units, Iranian militias are themselves terrorist organizations.

Sunni militias in Syria, meanwhile, are mostly unwilling to fight ISIS until they first drag Bashar al-Assad out of his palace in Damascus.

So he thinks we’ll have no choice but to talk to ISIS at some point.

What on earth would we say?

Well, he acknowledges that we have nothing to say to each other right now, but he thinks we’ll eventually think of something once everyone realizes there is no military solution.

He’s wrong.

Look. It’s true that there is no viable military solution right now. The West could in theory send tens of thousands or even hundreds of ground troops to Syria and Iraq and smash the ISIS “caliphate” in short order, but it’s not going to happen for a very simple reason:

We don’t want to.

There is virtually zero appetite in the West right now to launch any kind of a rerun of the Iraq war.

Another 9/11-style attack could change public opinion in an instant, of course. A series of Paris-style attacks in New York City or anywhere else in America might have the same effect over time. But in the meantime, we’re in a holding pattern.

The thing about holding patterns is that they’re temporary. At some point, something is going to change even if it takes a l-o-n-g time.

Perhaps Assad will be overthrown and Sunni wrath in Syria will shift from the capital and toward the deranged “caliphate” out in the desert. Perhaps the civilian population in ISIS-held territory will finally say enough and fight the bastards themselves. Maybe Russia will say eff it and go in there whole hog.

Maybe something totally unpredictable will happen. It’s the Middle East we’re talking about, after all.

Even if the holding pattern lasts years, we still won’t be able to resolve the ISIS problem by talking to ISIS because we’ll have no more to say at that time than we have today.

ISIS is a genocidal army. It murders Yezidis, Shia Muslims, Christians, Alawites and Westerners not because of anything they’ve done but because of who they are. There is no conceivable political solution to be had with these kinds of people. They will continue to kill until they are no longer able to kill.

That’s how it always is with genocidaires.

“It is important to understand that talking to terrorists is not the same as agreeing with them,” Powell writes. “The British would never have discussed a united Ireland at the barrel of a gun against the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland. But when we sat down with the IRA, its leaders wanted to talk about legitimate subjects like power-sharing and human rights. The same will be true of Isis. No one is going to talk to them about a universal caliphate, but we can talk about Sunni grievances and a way of ending violence.”

ISIS is not the Irish Republican Army. It is not even Hezbollah. It has far more in common with the Nazis. And we didn’t resolve the Nazi problem by talking.

The IRA was at least somewhat interested in human rights. Obviously ISIS is not. Nor are its leaders and fighters interested in “ending violence.”

Abu Bakr Naji, one of ISIS’s intellectual architects, made it abundantly clear what they’re interested in when he published The Management of Savagery. “Jihad,” he wrote, “is naught but violence, crudeness, terrorism, frightening [people], and massacring.”

That’s what ISIS wants. They’re not even trying to hide it.

“I am not arguing that talking is an alternative to fighting,” Powell writes. “Unless there is military pressure the armed group will never be prepared to talk. But judging by history, fighting is unlikely to provide an answer by itself.”

History has proven over and over again that fighting can provide an answer all by itself. Not always. But sometimes. And sometimes there’s no other option.

The Nazi regime no longer exists. The Empire of Japan no longer exists. Moammar Qaddafi’s regime no longer exists. Saddam Hussein’s Arab Socialist Baath Party no longer exists. Thanks to Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia in 1977, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge government no longer exists.

At some point—lord only know when—ISIS will no longer exist. And it won’t happen because anybody talked them out of existence.

See http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/dont-bother-talking-isis (emphasis added); see also http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/isis-plot-world-domination-revealed-6968444 (“ISIS plot for world domination revealed in chilling detail with plans for education and industry“)

Cut off their oil revenues and other sources of income, as well as their access to the Web (e.g., social media), and their collapse will have begun in earnest.

Like

8 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

The Ugly Face of Islamophobia: Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens [UPDATED]

Bret Stephens

In an article entitled, “Fighting Terror by Self-Reproach,” Stephens has written:

Nobody who watched Barack Obama’s speech Sunday night outlining his strategy to defeat Islamic State could have come away disappointed by the performance. Disappointment presupposes hope for something better. That ship sailed, and sank, a long time ago.

By now we are familiar with the cast of Mr. Obama’s mind. He does not make a case; he preaches a moral. He mistakes repetition for persuasion. He does not struggle with the direction, details or trade-offs of policy because he’s figured them all out. His policies never fail; it’s our patience that he finds wanting. He asks not what he can do for his country but what his country can do for him.

And what’s that? It is for us to see what has long been obvious to him, like an exasperated teacher explaining simple concepts to a classroom of morons. Anyone? Anyone?

That’s why nearly everything the president said last night he has said before, and in the same shopworn phrases. His four-point strategy for defeating ISIS is unchanged. His habit of telling us—and our enemies—what he isn’t going to do dates back to the earliest days of his presidency. His belief that terrorism is another gun-control issue draws on the deep wells of liberal true belief. His demand for a symbolic congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force is at least a year old, though as recently as 2013 he was demanding that Congress kill the AUMF altogether. Back then he was busy boasting that al Qaeda was on a path to defeat.

The more grating parts of Mr. Obama’s speech came when he touched on the subject of Islam and Muslims. “We cannot,” he intoned, “turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam.” Terrorism, as he sees it, is to be feared less for the harm it causes than for the overreaction it risks eliciting.

This is the president as master of the pre-emptive self-reproach—the suggestion that Americans are always on the verge of returning to the wickedness whence we came. But since when have we turned against one another, or defined the war on terror as a war on Islam?

Syed Rizwan Farook, a heavily bearded and openly devout Muslim, was a county employee in good standing with his colleagues who didn’t raise an eyebrow until he and his foreign bride opened fire in San Bernardino. The first 48 hours of the investigation amounted to a nationwide flight from the obvious, a heroic exercise in cultural sensitivity and intellectual restraint, as every motive except for jihad was mooted as a potential explanation for mass murder. Had Farook’s wife not sworn allegiance to ISIS moments before the attack, we might still be debating whether an act of Islamist terrorism had really happened.

On Sunday the Italian newspaper La Stampa carried an interview with Farook’s father, also named Syed. “My son said that he shared [ISIS leader Abu Bakr] Al Baghdadi’s ideology and supported the creation of Islamic State,” the elder Farook told correspondent Paolo Mastrolilli. “He was also obsessed with Israel.”

The father went on to explain that he had tried to reason with his son by saying that Israel would no longer exist in a couple of years and that the Jews would soon be returning to Ukraine, so there was no need to take up arms for jihad. “But he did not listen to me, he was obsessed.”

Now the Farook family professes utter shock at what’s happened. How can they be shocked? How did we become a society in which a son tells his father that he supports ISIS and it fails to register with this ostensibly integrated Muslim family, living the American dream, that perhaps a call to the FBI would be appropriate?

Here’s how we became that society: By pretending that the extreme branch of Islam to which Farook plainly belonged is a protected religion rather than a dangerous ideology. By supposing that it is somehow immoral to harbor graver reservations about 10,000 refugees from Syria or Iraq than, say, New Zealand. By being so afraid to give moral offense that we neglect to play the most elementary form of defense.

If you see something, say something, goes the ubiquitous slogan. But heaven help you if what you see and say turns out to be the wrong something—an alarm clock, for instance, as opposed to a bomb.

This is President Obama’s vision of society, and it is why he delivered this sterile, scolding homily that offered no serious defense against the next jihadist massacre. We have become a country that doesn’t rouse itself to seriousness except when a great many people are murdered. Fourteen deaths apparently isn’t going to move the policy needle, as far as this president is concerned. Will 1,400?

See http://www.wsj.com/articles/fighting-terror-by-self-reproach-1449533593 (emphasis added); see also http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-security-concern-due-to-divided-loyalties-1450310897 (“‘A Security Concern Due to Divided Loyalties’”—It is not surprising that a photo of Israel’s flag flying higher than the American flag would be used with this article. This is how “Israel Firsters” like Stephens view the world. “Divided loyalties” is too nice and sterile a term to apply); but see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3369735/The-militants-threatened-shoot-Muslim-passengers-board-bus-defy-terrorists-demands-separate-Christians-deadly-terror-attack.html (“Christians escape Kenyan terrorists after Muslim passengers on board bus say shoot us all or not at all“)

This is not surprising at all, inasmuch as Stephens is the Journal‘s resident Jew from Tel Aviv—who purveys the beliefs and prejudices of the murderous Netanyahu as well as the Israeli Prime Minister himself.

Totally-biased reporting at its best. At least the Jerusalem Post used to get credit for his work, when Stephens was its editor in chief.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Stephens

Someone ought to take Stephens aside and tell him that Islamophobia is un-American. And that Christianity has 2.2 billion followers. Islam has 1.8 billion followers. At most, Judaism has 14 million followers.

There are radical members of each religious group; and Americans cannot allow fear to generate unbridled hatred and anger.

Stephens’ closing words neglect to mention that Netanyahu and Israel are responsible for an estimated 2,200 Palestinian deaths last year alone.

Yet, those are only trivialities, when the goal is to carry the message of hatred against the followers of Islam—all 1.8 billion of them.

It is small wonder that anti-Semitism is spreading dramatically in Europe and globally, which may may represent a precursor of epic tragedies to come. .

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/ariel-sharon-is-missed/#comment-7039 (“Is Night Falling Again For European Jews?”)

Like

22 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

More Trash Talk About Donald Trump From Bret Stephens [UPDATED]

Bret Stephens

Not to be outdone by his earlier Islamophobic rants, the Wall Street Journal‘s resident Jew from Tel Aviv—Bret Stephens—is trashing Donald Trump and posing as an American conservative:

Dear fellow conservatives:

Let us now pledge to elect Hillary Clinton as the 45th president of the United States.

Let’s skip the petty dramas of primaries and caucuses, the debate histrionics, the sour spectacle of the convention in Cleveland. Let’s fast-forward past that sinking October feeling when we belatedly realize we’re going to lose—and lose badly.

Let’s move straight to that first Tuesday in November, when we grimly pull the lever for the candidate who has passed all the Conservative Purity Tests (CPTs), meaning we’ve upheld the honor of our politically hopeless cause. Let’s stop pretending we want to be governed by someone we agree with much of the time, when we can have the easy and total satisfaction of a president we can loathe and revile all the time.

Let’s do this because it’s what we want. Maybe secretly, maybe unconsciously, but desperately. We want four—and probably eight—more years of cable-news neuralgia. We want to drive ourselves to work as Mark Levin or Laura Ingraham scratch our ideological itches until they bleed a little. We want the refiner’s fire that is our righteous indignation at a country we claim no longer to recognize—ruled by impostors and overrun by foreigners.

We also want to turn the Republican Party into a gated community. So much nicer that way. If the lesson of Mitt Romney’s predictable loss in 2012 was that it’s bad politics to tell America’s fastest-growing ethnic group that some of their relatives should self-deport, or to castigate 47% of the country as a bunch of moochers—well, so what? Abraham Lincoln once said “If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend.” What. Ever. Now the party of Lincoln has as its front-runner an insult machine whose political business is to tell Mexicans, Muslims, physically impaired journalists, astute Jewish negotiators and others who cross his sullen gaze that he has no use for them or their political correctness.

And while we’re building a wall around our party, let’s also take the opportunity to throw out a few impostors in our midst. Like that hack, George Will. Or John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, Jeb Bush and every other Republican In Name Only. Or Marco Rubio, who didn’t chicken out on immigration reform quite as quickly or convincingly as Ted Cruz did. Or the Republican “Establishment” and “elite”—like the editorial board of this newspaper—who want to flood the country with cheap foreign labor so they can enrich their Wall Street pals.

All of them must be humbled, re-educated or thrown out, like old-time cadres with suspected bourgeois tendencies. How else will real Americans get a hearing and find their voice? What’s a lost election cycle or two when the soul of movement conservatism is at stake?

As for what the soul of that movement is supposed to be, we can figure that out later. Donald Trump is a candidate of impulses, not ideas. (If you can hire people to write your books you can also hire them to do your thinking.) This doesn’t seem to have perturbed his supporters in the slightest. Mr. Cruz is happy to be on any side of an issue so long as he can paint himself as a “real Republican”—the implicit goal here being the automatic excommunication of anyone who disagrees with him. Naturally, he’s rising.

What we won’t accept, however, is a standard-bearer whose convictions or personality might conceivably appeal to those wavering voters who usually decide elections in this country. Of all the reasons to dislike Mr. Rubio, surely the greatest is that he’s the only Republican who consistently outpolls Mrs. Clinton in general election matchups.

Didn’t we already mention that our subliminal goal is to lose this election?

Of course we’ll tell ourselves that the polls don’t matter, that a congenital liar like Mrs. Clinton can’t possibly win, that all we have to do is turn out the hidden Republican base that supposedly didn’t show up to the polls for Mitt Romney. We’ll convince ourselves, too, that those voting blocs we’ve spent the past decade alienating—not just Hispanics, or Asian-Americans or gays and lesbians, but also moderates turned off by loudmouth vulgarians, oleaginous debate champs or ostentatiously pious Christians—don’t matter either.

Deep down, though, we know the political math doesn’t add up for us. We just don’t care. Because we’ve turned even the appearance of moderation, or the amenability to compromise, into a four-letter word. Oh, did we mention House Speaker Paul Ryan is another sell-out?

Years ago, the late columnist Michael Kelly wrote of American liberalism that it was “an ideology of self-styled saints, a philosophy of determined perversity. Its animating impulse is to marginalize itself and then enjoy its own company. And to make itself as unattractive to as many people as possible: If it were a person, it would pierce its tongue.”

On current trend, this will soon better describe American conservatism, which is going the way of the Democratic Party circa 1972. So let’s skip the non-suspense of next year’s campaign cycle, gird ourselves for a McGovern-style debacle, and elect Hillary Rodham Clinton now.

Merry Christmas!

See http://www.wsj.com/articles/lets-elect-hillary-now-1450742854 (“Let’s Elect Hillary Now”) (emphasis added)

More psychobabble from Stephens.

For openers, Mitt Romney lost because the GOP Neanderthals stayed home and did not vote. They turned on him, like they are doing with Donald Trump today; and they will pay dearly for it.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/boycott-the-gop-and-ignore-foreign-naysayers/ (“Boycott The GOP And Ignore Foreign Naysayers“)

Second, and very predictably, Stephens castigates Trump:

Now the party of Lincoln has as its front-runner an insult machine whose political business is to tell Mexicans, Muslims, physically impaired journalists, astute Jewish negotiators and others who cross his sullen gaze that he has no use for them or their political correctness.

How did “astute Jewish negotiators” find their way into this article? Oh yes, some readers may have forgotten that Stephens is an “Israel Firster” and an avowed Islamophobic.

He is the Journal‘s resident Jew from Tel Aviv—who purveys the beliefs and prejudices of the murderous Netanyahu.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/ariel-sharon-is-missed/#comment-7951 (“The Ugly Face of Islamophobia: Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens“)

He adds:

Donald Trump is a candidate of impulses, not ideas. (If you can hire people to write your books you can also hire them to do your thinking.)

Next, he trashes Hillary Clinton too. Surely Stephens would feel more at home back in Israel.

Lastly, he does not need to wish any of us “Merry Christmas” when it is not his religion. It is a token gesture devoid of meaning.

Like

12 01 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Is The Wall Street Journal Islamophobic? [UPDATED]

Wall Street Journal

In an article entitled “Denying the Obvious About Islamist Terror,” Dorothy Rabinowitz—a member of the Journal’s editorial board—has written:

It required only half a minute for the mayor of Philadelphia, Democrat Jim Kenney, to achieve national fame. On Friday, an already sensation-crowded day, it fell to the mayor to take part in the official pronouncements on the attempted murder of city police officer Jesse Hartnett, shot and severely wounded as he sat in his patrol car when a would-be assassin emptied his gun at him—13 shots in all.

Police Commissioner Richard Ross Jr., appointed just three days earlier, delivered the details with noteworthy eloquence: The wounded officer, bleeding heavily from three wounds, one arm useless, had gotten himself out of the car, chased the attacker and shot him.

The drama of this recital needed no amplification, but there it was anyway: Clear security video images showed the assailant in his flowing white dishdasha—a robe favored by Muslim men—running toward the patrol car, shooting, sticking his hand in the window, and racing speedily away. Pictures too of the police officer lurching out of the car to give chase.

The wounded shooter, Commissioner Ross revealed, told police after his capture that he had mounted the attack in the name of Islam, that he believes that “the police defend laws that are contrary to Islam.” The man apparently wanted to talk only about his devotion to Islam.

Undaunted by anything he’d heard so far, Mayor Kenny then came to the microphone and declared: “In no way, shape or form does anybody in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam” had anything to do with the attack. “This was a criminal with a stolen gun.”

Mr. Kenny’s tone was fervent. Out of this event—involving a murderous assault on a police officer, and a heroic response by that officer—the mayor, awash in excitation, had divined what was, for him, the most important concern of this day. Namely, persuading citizens that this attack had nothing to do with allegiance to Islam.

It added to the surreal wonders of this scene that, immediately after the mayor’s pronouncement, the commander of the police department’s homicide unit calmly took the microphone. Capt. James Clark reported that the shooter (later identified as 30-year-old Edward Archer) had said, repeatedly, that he followed Allah, that he pledged allegiance to Islamic State and “That is the reason I did what I did.”

The mayor’s comments, so bizarre in their determined denial of the deluge of facts delivered by top police officials standing next to him, were, nonetheless, familiar enough. Americans have learned to expect, after every Islamist terror attack, lectures instructing them that such assaults should in no way be connected to Islamic faith of any kind.

To hear the mayor of Philadelphia was to grasp, more clearly than ever, the fury that has led to Donald Trump’s success in attracting voters—the fury of citizens who know official lies when they hear them, whether about border security, immigration, or the ever-expanding requirements of multiculturalist dogma.

These are not the easiest of times for the enforcers of such dogma, especially in Europe, as another mayor, a German, has reason to know. Much of Germany is, today, still in shock over the coordinated assaults that took place New Year’s Eve, when bands of young men surrounded, sexually molested and robbed women in the streets of Cologne—molesters unanimously described by eyewitnesses to have been of Arab and North African origins. For four days following the mass assaults, Germany’s ZDF public TV station reported nothing about the attacks.

Cologne’s police chief would soon stand accused of concealing that the assailants were Middle Eastern males. The mayor of Cologne, Henriette Reker, found herself in instant trouble when she advised women that if they wanted to protect themselves, it was certainly possible to keep strange men at arm’s length. She ventured no explanation of how this might be done when a woman was tightly encircled by men grabbing at her private parts while others stole her handbag, as was typically the case during the assaults.

Mayor Reker also announced that it was “absolutely impermissible” to suggest that the perpetrators could have been part of the recent refugee flood into Germany. Within days investigators were able to report that most of the 33 suspects rounded up were asylum seekers.

The current political piety dictating what is and is not permissible to say about terrorism and Muslims didn’t spring from nowhere. Nor did the compulsion to preach on the subject. The Philadelphia mayor’s bewitching half-minute lecture on Friday was only the most recent example. The sermonizing reflex—a quintessential element in Barack Obama’s notion of leadership—has by now taken on a life of its own. Who doesn’t know now to expect, in a speech by the president, or in some exchange of his with reporters, the glum rebuke, “That’s not who we are”?

On no subject has there been more sermonizing than on Muslims and terrorism and on what the real Islam is and is not—no surprise in an administration which has from its outset tended to the apparent view that the American nation is essentially composed of yahoos whose barely controlled instincts to riot require regular monitoring and checks by their enlightened betters.

All this notwithstanding the history that shows that, after the slaughter of 9/11 and through all the bloody assaults since that were committed against them by rampaging soldiers of Islam—Fort Hood, the Boston Marathon, San Bernardino—Americans have conducted themselves with exemplary courage and dignity. Neither the president nor other moral instructors who hasten forth after every terror attack to bring light unto the nation appear to have noticed.

Years of effort by this administration to deny, conceal and sermonize the nation out of its awareness of facts clearly evident to them is the sort of thing that doesn’t escape Americans in this election season, shadowed by the threat of terrorism. That is a fact Hillary Clinton might consider as she goes forth to celebrate her identification with the Obama years.

See http://www.wsj.com/articles/denying-the-obvious-about-islamist-terror-1452556011 (emphasis added)

One commenter responded:

I sense that politicians in particular really bend over backward to avoid offending just this one religion [Islam] . . .

Nonsense, that religion is Judaism.

Indeed, some Jews cowardly try to stifle debate at Web sites such as the Journal, and label anyone who does not agree with Netanyahu, AIPAC and the AIPAC-bought Republican lackeys in Congress as anti-Semites, which of course is absurd.

I have read Dorothy Rabinowitz’s articles for many years; and I cannot recall disagreeing with any of them.

However, this one is clearly Islamophobic.

There is no other way to describe it. Both explicitly and with innuendos, she has targeted all followers of Islam—and labeled them, just as surely as Hitler’s Nazis labeled the Jews.

One must never forget that Christianity has 2.2 billion followers. Islam has 1.8 billion followers. At most, Judaism has 14 million followers. Yet, it was a Jew who killed Yitzhak Rabin.

Indeed, to her credit, the courageous Leah Rabin blamed Netanyahu for her husband’s assassination. She saw “only doom for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process” with Netanyahu at Israel’s helm; and her views were prescient.

Should the world be targeting Netanyahu and his ilk, who were responsible for an estimated 2,200 Palestinian deaths in Gaza during 2014 alone?

The U.S. and the American people are not at war with Islam or its followers. Anyone who suggests otherwise is Islamophobic.

Islamophobia is evil and un-American, just as racism, anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination are.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/06/islamophobia-is-un-american/ (“Islamophobia Is Un-American“)

Fear spawns anger, unbridled hatred and retribution. Too much of it is evident in many of the articles and comments at the Journal‘s Web site, and in the writings of the Journal’s Bret Stephens and others.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/ariel-sharon-is-missed/#comment-7951 (“The Ugly Face of Islamophobia: Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens“)

Like

19 01 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

More Islamophobia From The Wall Street Journal And Bret Stephens [UPDATED]

Wall Street Journal

In an article entitled “Normalizing Iran,” the Journal‘s resident Islamophobe from Tel Aviv, Bret Stephens, writes:

In Syria, Bashar Assad is trying to bring his enemies to heel by blocking humanitarian convoys to desperate civilians living in besieged towns. The policy is called “starve or kneel,” and it is openly supported by Hezbollah and tacitly by Iran, which has deployed its elite Quds Force to aid Mr. Assad’s war effort.

So what better time for right-thinking liberals to ask: “Is Iran really so evil?”

That’s the title of a revealing essay in Politico by Stephen Kinzer, a former New York Times reporter now at Brown University. “The demonization of Iran is arguably the most bizarre and self-defeating of all U.S. foreign policies,” Mr. Kinzer begins. “Americans view Iran not simply as a country with interests that sometimes conflict with ours but as a relentless font of evil.”

Mr. Kinzer’s essay was published Sunday, as sanctions were lifted on Tehran and four of America’s hostages came home after lengthy imprisonments. The Obama administration publicly insists that the nuclear deal does not mean the U.S. should take a benign view of Iran, but the more enthusiastic backers of the agreement think otherwise. “Our perception of Iran as a threat to vital American interests is increasingly disconnected from reality,” Mr. Kinzer writes. “Events of the past week may slowly begin to erode the impulse that leads Americans to believe patriotism requires us to hate Iran.”

What a weird thought. My own patriotism has never been touched one way or another by my views of Iran. Nor do I hate Iran—if by “Iran” one means the millions of people who marched alongside Neda Agha-Soltan when she was gunned down by regime thugs in the 2009 Green Revolution, or the fellow travelers of Hashem Shaabani, the Arab-Iranian poet executed two years ago for “waging war on God,” or the thousands of candidates who are routinely barred from running for Parliament for being insufficiently loyal to the Supreme Leader.

This is the Iran that liberals like Mr. Kinzer ought to support, not the theocratic usurpers who claim to speak in Iran’s name while stepping on Iranian necks. But we are long past the day when a liberal U.S. foreign policy meant shaping our interests around our values—not the other way around—much less supporting the liberal aspirations of people everywhere, especially if they live in anti-American dictatorships.

Today’s liberal foreign policy, to adapt Churchill, is appeasement wrapped in realism inside moral equivalency. When it comes to Iran policy, that means believing that we have sinned at least as much against the Iranians as they have sinned against us; that our national-security interests require us to come to terms with the Iranians; and that the best way to allay the suspicions—and, over time, diminish the influence—of Iranian hard-liners is by engaging the moderates ever more closely and demonstrating ever-greater diplomatic flexibility.

That’s a neat theory, proved wrong by experience at every turn. The Carter administration hailed the Ayatollah Khomeini as “a saint.” Our embassy was seized. Ronald Reagan sent Khomeini a birthday cake, along with secret arms, to facilitate the release of hostages in Lebanon. A few hostages were released, while others were taken in their place. The world welcomed the election of “moderate” President Mohammad Khatami in 1997. Iran’s illicit nuclear facilities were exposed during his second term.

In 2009, on the eve of presidential elections, the New York Times’s Roger Cohen celebrated “the vibrancy of a changing, highly educated society” that he had found on his visits to Tehran. “The equating of Iran with terror today is simplistic,” he wrote. After the election, he ran for his life from the terror of the same street militia that had murdered Agha-Soltan.

Now we’re supposed to believe that the change Mr. Cohen and others had hoped for has finally arrived. The proof, supposedly, is that the regime has so far kept to its nuclear promises (in exchange for a $100 billion windfall), that it swiftly released U.S. sailors (after scoring a small propaganda coup), and that it let the other hostages go (though only after very nearly taking the wife and mother of one of those hostages in his turn, and then after an additional $1.7 billion reward from the U.S.).

Are these signs of a new-and-improved regime? Or merely one that is again being given good reasons to believe that it can always extract a bribe for its bad behavior? The notion of moral hazard, fundamental to economics, has a foreign-policy dimension, too. Any country that believes it will never be made to pay the price for the risks it takes will take ever-greater risks. It’s bad enough when the country in question is Greece. This is Iran.

Iran will become a “normal” country only when it ceases to be an Islamic Republic. In the meantime, the only question is how far we are prepared to abase ourselves in our quest to normalize it.

See http://www.wsj.com/articles/normalizing-iran-1453162144 (emphasis added)

Another Islamophobic article by Stephens, who was previously editor in chief of the Jerusalem Post. Indeed, he and his fellow Islamophobes at the Journal regularly attack others like Stephen Kinzer, but the Journal rejects and censors any serious criticism of them.

They have crusaded with the murderous Netanyahu, AIPAC, and the AIPAC-bought GOP lackeys in Congress against the Iran deal. This is what “Israel Firsters” do—just as Israel and its “neocon” surrogates pushed us into the Iraq War, and as Netanyahu and his ilk have been trying to push us into a war with Iran.

Indeed, all participants must be indicted, tried, convicted and imprisoned, inter alia, for monies paid (directly or indirectly) by a foreign government/Israel to influence the American political process. Stephens is an un-American Islamophobe and a vile “Israel Firster,” and he is certainly not an American patriot.

The “$100 billion windfall” to which Stephens refers is actually closer to $150 billion, but the funds constitute Iranian assets that were frozen by the United States. The release of Americans by Iran must be juxtaposed against the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, which killed 34 brave Americans and maimed many more.

See http://www.gtr5.com and http://www.naegele.com/documents/USSLibertyMemorial.pdf (USS Liberty Memorial Web site) and http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liberty_tuesoct02-story.html and http://www.naegele.com/documents/NewrevelationsinattackonAmericanspyship.pdf (“New revelations in attack on American spy ship”)

While writing about Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Stephens fails to mention that Netanyahu and his ilk have consistently tried to bring the Palestinians to heel by employing similar tactics that are equivalent to “starve or kneel.” Indeed, Israel is an Apartheid state; and Netanyahu—who has morphed into his ancestors’ Nazi oppressors—must be tried by the International Criminal Court for his crimes against the Palestinian people, including an estimated 2,200 deaths in Gaza during 2014 alone. At the very least, he must be arrested whenever he sets foot outside of Israel.

He is an enemy of the United States and the American people; and to his credit, Barack Obama realizes this. Indeed, our president is not alone. Netanyahu is “detested” by other world leaders, just as the Rabins and Ariel Sharon hated him. The courageous Leah Rabin blamed Netanyahu for her husband Yitzhak’s assassination. She saw “only doom for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process” with Netanyahu at Israel’s helm; and her views were prescient.

Is it any wonder that anti-Semitism is rampant all over the world?

See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/ariel-sharon-is-missed/#comment-7039 (“Is Night Falling Again For European Jews?“)

It is a sad day in America when a major publication like the Wall Street Journal is Islamophobic, and employs vile Islamophobes like Stephens who attack Kinzer and others.

See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/31/is-israel-doomed/#comment-8012 (“Is The Wall Street Journal Islamophobic?“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/ariel-sharon-is-missed/#comment-7951 (“The Ugly Face of Islamophobia: Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens“); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/06/islamophobia-is-un-american/ (“Islamophobia Is Un-American“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/ariel-sharon-is-missed/ (“Ariel Sharon Is Missed“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/the-madness-of-benjamin-netanyahu/ (“The Madness Of Benjamin Netanyahu“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/israels-senseless-killings-and-war-with-iran/ (“Israel’s Senseless Killings And War With Iran“)

Bret Stephens

Like

3 02 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama Blasts Islamophobia [UPDATED]

Tolerance

John Stanton has reported for BuzzFeed News:

During his first visit to a mosque as leader, President Barack Obama on Wednesday called on Americans to combat Islamophobia and slammed Republicans’ use of increasingly hostile rhetoric towards Muslims, calling it inexcusable and blaming them for a surge in attacks on Muslims.

“We’ve seen too often people conflating horrific acts of terrorism with the beliefs of an entire faith,” Obama said in his speech at the Islamic Society of Baltimore in Maryland.

“For some time, we’ve been asking for pushback,” Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said to the AP. “Perhaps this will start a trend.”

Obama also slammed Republicans, arguing their “inexcusable political rhetoric against Muslims…has no place in our country.”

“It’s no surprise than that threats against Muslims have surged,” he said.

Obama’s historic visit to the mosque comes as conservatives, particularly those on the campaign trail, have been using harsh language in talking about the Muslim world.

Donald Trump has staked out the most extreme position, calling for a complete ban on allowing Muslims to enter the United States. Sen. Ted Cruz has called for a halt on immigrants from countries with active Islamic terrorist organizations, which would amount to a de facto ban on Muslim immigration into the U.S.

Jeb Bush, meanwhile, has argued that Syrian refugees of Christian descent should be given priority over Muslim refugees in any future resettlements. All of the Republican candidates support at least a temporary halt on bringing refugees to the country.

At the same time, Muslim leaders say they’ve seen a spike in incidents of vandalism, threats, and physical assaults across the United States, particularly in the wake of the Paris and San Bernardino terrorist attacks.

Earlier in the day, Obama and senior advisor Valerie Jarrett participated in a roundtable with Muslim leaders from around the country, during which they discussed how Muslims contribute to their communities as well as the challenges of Islamophobia, according to White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest.

See http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnstanton/president-obama-visits-us-mosque#.xkkxj2bOb0 (emphasis added); see also http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-to-make-first-visit-to-u-s-mosque-1454515229 (“Obama Makes First Visit to U.S. Mosque”—”Outreach to Muslim community comes as terror fears, hate crimes against believers are rising”—”Obama also argued against profiling Muslims in the fight against terrorism and called on Muslim leaders to more vocally combat what he described as a ‘radical, tiny minority’ seeking to hijack their religion”—”[C]onflating extremist attacks with all Muslims fuels the threat of terrorism”—”According to a survey published Wednesday by the Pew Research Center, . . . 68 % of Americans believe that the problem is with violent people using religion to justify actions, not religion itself”—”Former President George W. Bush visited a mosque six days after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, telling a group at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. that ‘the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam,’ and that those who intimidated Muslims in the wake of the attacks ‘represent the worst of humankind'”)

What the president failed to address is the blatant Islamophobia spewed by the Wall Street Journal‘s Bret Stephens and others, by Israel’s murderous Netanyahu and others of his ilk, and by fanatical Jewish “Israel Firsters” and related groups.

They constitute the “800-pound gorilla” that neither Obama nor other American leaders dare to address politically.

The tragedy is that it is a two-way street. Anti-Semitism is increasing dramatically in Europe and globally—which may represent a precursor of epic tragedies to come.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/ariel-sharon-is-missed/#comment-7039 (“Is Night Falling Again For European Jews?“); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/31/is-israel-doomed/ (“Is Israel Doomed?”)

At the same time, Islamophobia is increasing—spawned at least in part by those who suffer from anti-Semitism.

It must never be forgotten that Christianity has 2.2 billion followers. Islam has 1.8 billion followers. At most, Judaism has 14 million followers.

The United States and the American people are not at war with Islam or its followers. Anyone who suggests otherwise is Islamophobic.

As I have written in the article above:

Islamophobia is un-American, and inconsistent with Jesus’ teachings as set forth in the New Testament—just as racism, anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination are evil. Fear spawns hatred, anger and retribution. Too much of it is present in America and other countries.

Like

25 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Is ISIS Faithful To Islam?

American Muslims

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

“We are not at war with Islam,” said John Kasich after the Brussels massacre, “We’re at war with radical Islam.”

Kasich’s point raises a question: Does the Islamic faith in any way sanction or condone what those suicide bombers did?

For surely the brothers and their accomplice who ignited the bombs in the airport and set off the explosion on the subway did not do so believing they were blasting themselves to hell for all eternity.

One has to assume they hoped to be martyrs to their faith if they slaughtered infidels to terrify and expel such as these from the Islamic world and advance the coming of the caliphate of which the Prophet preached.

And where might they have gotten such ideas?

Kasich’s word, radical, comes from the Latin “radix,” or root.

And if one returns to the roots of Islam, to the Quran, does one find condemnation of what the brothers did — or justification?

Andrew McCarthy was the prosecutor of the “Blind Sheikh” whose terrorist cell tried to bring down a World Trade Center tower in 1993, and plotted bombings in the Holland and Lincoln tunnels.

The U.S. government depicted the sheikh as a wanton killer who distorted the teachings of his faith.

Yet, McCarthy discovered that Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman was no imposter-imam, but “a globally renowned scholar — a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence who graduated from al-Azhar University in Cairo, the seat of Sunni Islamic learning for over a millennium.”

Seeking to expose the sheikh as a fraud who had led his gullible followers into terrorism, against the tenets of their faith, McCarthy discovered that “Abdel Rahman was not lying about Islam.”

“When he said the scriptures command that Muslims strike terror into the hearts of Islam’s enemies, the scriptures backed him up. When he said Allah enjoined all Muslims to wage jihad until Islamic law was established throughout the world, the scriptures backed him up.”

“[T]he Blind Sheikh’s summons to Islam was rooted in a coherent interpretation of Islamic doctrine. He was not perverting Islam,” writes McCarthy in the Hillsdale College letter Imprimis. McCarthy goes on:

“Islam is not a religion of peace. … Verses such as ‘Fight those who believe not in Allah,’ and ‘Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war’ are not peaceful injunctions….”

In its formative first century, Islam conquered the Middle and Near East, North Africa and Spain with sword and slaughter, not persuasion and conversion.

Undeniably, there are millions of Muslims in America who love this country and have served it in every walk of life, from cops, firemen and soldiers, to doctors, scholars and clergy.

Yet when “moderate, peaceful Muslims” were called to testify as defense witnesses, says McCarthy, they could not contradict the Blind Sheikh’s claim that he had correctly interpreted the Quran.

The questions that arise are crucial.

When we call Islam a “religion of peace,” are we projecting our own hopes? Are we deceiving ourselves? Are the Muslims we respect, admire and like, as friends and patriots, assimilated and “Americanized” Muslims who have drifted away from, set aside, or rejected many core beliefs of the Quran and root teachings of their own faith?

Are they simply secularized Muslims?

When the Afghan regime we installed sought to cut off the head of a Christian convert, was that un-Islamic? Or does Islam teach that this is the way to deal with apostates?

Is the hate spewing forth from the Ayatollah toward Americans and Jews un-Islamic? Is the Saudis’ cutting off of heads and hands of adulterers and thieves and suppressing of women un-Islamic?

Or is that what the Quran actually teaches?

Have the Islamists of al-Shabab in Somalia, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, al-Qaida and ISIS in Syria and Iraq — who daily die fighting in the name of Islam — misread their sacred texts?

Are they all heretics who fail to understand the peaceful and loving character of their Islamic faith?

Or is the West deluding itself? Is it possible we are the ones misreading the sacred books of Islam and what the triumph of Islam would mean for our civilization — because we lack the courage to face the truth and do what is necessary to avoid our fate?

Islam is rising again. Of its 1.6 billion adherents worldwide, many are returning to the roots of their faith, seeking to live their lives as commanded by the Prophet, the Quran and Sharia.

Western survival would seem to dictate a halt to all immigration from lands where this deadly virus we call “radical Islam” — with which Kasich concedes we are at war — is rampant, just as we would halt immigration from lands where the bubonic plague was rampant.

That would surely contradict the cherished beliefs of Western liberals.

But, then, as James Burnham reminded us, “Liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide.”

See http://buchanan.org/blog/isis-faithful-islam-125039 (emphasis added)

Lots of us have hoped and, yes, prayed that ways would be found to honor Muslims’ beliefs without sacrificing Western values and beliefs.

Again, the United States is a unique “melting pot” of the world’s cultures and religions; and most of us believe that it must be welcoming to all: a beacon of freedom to all.

We hope too that the “Clash of Civilizations” which Samuel P. Huntington wrote about—and Richard Nixon worried about—will not arrive; and that the terrorist attacks on Paris and Belgium are the handiwork of radical Muslims, and do not represent the world’s 1.8 billion followers of Islam.

Clearly, Pat Buchanan suggests another and potentially more terrifying point of view.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations (“Clash of Civilizations”)

Like

6 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Congratulations: Victory For Sadiq Khan As London’s Mayor

Sadiq Khan

Conor Sullivan and Jim Pickard have reported for the UK’s Financial Times:

London elected a Muslim mayor on Friday, in a remarkable triumph over the racial and religious tensions that have bedevilled other European capitals.

The historic moment — Sadiq Khan is the first directly elected Muslim mayor of an important western city — is being scrutinised around the world, particularly in European countries struggling to integrate Muslim communities.

The win reaffirms London’s multicultural image at a time of rising populist fervour in Europe and the US. Europe’s anti-immigration parties have made inroads in recent months, fuelled by rising public fears following the terrorist attacks in Brussels and Paris by Isis.

In the US, the rightwing Drudge Report website greeted Mr Khan’s early lead at the ballots with the scare headline “First Muslim Mayor of Londonistan”. Mr Khan’s ascent has also made headlines across France and Germany, with Le Monde noting that he described his religion as “part of my identity”.

In a reflection of the international as well as city-wide nature of the job, Mr Khan was congratulated on his apparent victory by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo.

Mr de Blasio tweeted: “Sending congratulations to London’s new Mayor and fellow affordable housing advocate, @SadiqKhan. Look forward to working together!”

Ms Hidalgo wrote: “Congratulations to @SadiqKhan, elected Mayor of London! Convinced that his humanism & his progressivism will benefit the Londoners!”

The son of a Pakistani bus driver and his seamstress wife, Mr Khan was one of eight children raised in public housing in south London. His Conservative rival, Zac Goldsmith, is an Eton-educated billionaire’s son who seemed drawn from the English ruling class of a previous era.

Mr Khan, a fast-talking affable politician with a facility for straddling ideological divides, takes the reins of a capital city where roughly one in eight residents identify as Muslims.

However notable his rise, Mr Khan’s new power will be far more modest than those of municipal leaders elsewhere. In the US, mayors in cities such as New York and Chicago command multibillion-dollar budgets and small armies of municipal workers.

By contrast, the London mayor, elected by voters only since 2000, has limited powers over police, transport and housing.

Throughout the recent campaign, Mr Khan made no secret of his Muslim faith. He does not drink and when he was joining the Privy Council, an honorary body which advises the Queen, he asked to be sworn in using a copy of the Koran rather than a Bible.

“Hey @ZacGoldsmith. There’s no need to keep pointing at me & shouting ‘he’s a Muslim’. I put it on my own leaflets,” he tweeted at his Conservative rival.

But he has also spoken of having multiple identities that coexist. “I am a Londoner, I am European, I am British, I am English, I am of Islamic faith, of Asian origin, of Pakistani heritage, a dad, a husband,” he said on the campaign trail.

“We do not just tolerate each other in London; we respect each other,” he has also said.

Mr Khan sought to negate criticism that he had shown poor judgment by appearing in public with people who had expressed extremist views by saying he would be “the British Muslim who will take the fight to the extremists”.

Attempts to stop British children being radicalised was “not working”, he added, and he hoped he would have a better understanding of how to combat radicalisation because he was a moderate Muslim who knew the community from the inside.

He said he had received abuse and death threats from conservative and extremist Muslims after he voted in favour of gay marriage in parliament.

Even after being accused of employing Islamophobic tactics, Mr Goldsmith repeatedly pointed to occasions when Mr Khan had “shared a platform” with extremists, which he claimed gave them legitimacy.

Mr Khan and the Labour party dismissed this as a racist tactic designed to appeal to voters who harboured anti-Muslim prejudice.

The attempts appeared to backfire. Mr Khan’s lead in the polls apparently grew as the attacks intensified. A newspaper article written by Mr Goldsmith carried a picture of the mangled wreckage of a London bus blown up by Islamist terrorists in 2005.

Sunder Katwala, director of the British Future think-tank, which studies the integration of ethnic minorities, said the Tory candidate’s tactic had been “especially unlikely to have worked in London without strong evidence that the claims of extremist links were valid”.

He added: “Compared with Europe, in London you see more confidence about the integration of ethnic minorities, in politics, civic society and business. On the left and the right you see a growing number of ethnic minority politicians. In European cities you don’t tend to see it on the right.”

In the next decade Mr Katwala expected one of the main parties to elect a non-white leader.

Less than an hour after the polls closed, Andrew Boff, a prominent Conservative in London local government, said on television that Mr Goldsmith’s campaign “was effectively saying that people of conservative religious views are not to be trusted and you shouldn’t share a platform with them”.

Mr Boff said that view was “outrageous” and the campaign had “done real damage” and had “blown up” bridges the Conservative party had built with London’s Muslim communities.

Mr Khan recently observed that he was not the first Muslim to achieve high office in the UK, pointing to Sajid Javid, the Tory business secretary. “Typical. You wait for ages for a Pakistani bus driver’s son to come along, then two come along at once,” he joked.

Elsewhere in Europe, the Morocco-born mayor of Rotterdam, Ahmed Aboutaleb has become one of most popular politicians in the country — he has been tipped as a possible future prime minister — in a country of rising anti-Muslim sentiment.

Outside a south London mosque after Friday prayers last week, Ben Houari, 38, who moved to London from Belgium to “run away from racism”, said a Muslim would never be elected mayor in his former home. “In Belgium you’ll never ever become mayor if you’re someone with a different culture.”

Lord Hain, a former Labour cabinet minister, said: “In the dominant British city, probably the most important city in the world, to have a Muslim mayor is an important statement.”

Tulip Siddiq, Labour MP for Hampstead and Kilburn — who is also a Muslim — said Mr Khan prayed, fasted and had been on the hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca. “But when I look at him, I don’t think of him as ‘Muslim man’. I think Labour, Londoner, south London, ambitious,” she said.

“I think he is a good role model for lots of reasons. He is ethnic minority, didn’t go to Oxbridge, grew up in a council house, has working-class roots.”

Across Britain many councillors are Muslim — typically in the Labour party — and 13 MPs in the 650-seat House of Commons are Muslim, up from eight in the previous parliament.

The Commons figure — 2 per cent of the whole — is less than the proportion of Muslims in the UK, which is 4 per cent, or about 3m.

See http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8c974c8e-1379-11e6-bb40-c30e3bfcf63b.html#axzz47uP71qDx (“Victory for Sadiq Khan highlights tolerant face of London“) (emphasis added)

Congratulations from the United States and the American people.

And no, Donald Trump is not anti-Muslim, much less Islamophobic like some in the American media such as the Wall Street Journal‘s rabid Bret Stephens, who might feel more comfortable living in Tel Aviv again.

Like

13 06 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

More Un-American Islamophobia And Fear [UPDATED]

American Muslims

In a Wall Street Journal editorial, it is stated:

A young American Muslim pledging allegiance to Islamic State is now responsible for the largest mass shooting in U.S. history. Can we finally drop the illusion that the jihadist fires that burn in the Middle East don’t pose an urgent and deadly threat to the American homeland?

We hope so after the Sunday morning assault on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando that killed at least 51 and wounded 53 as we went to press. The killer was Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, the son of immigrants from Afghanistan who was heard shouting “allahu Akbar” (God is great) as he fired away. Mateen attacked a popular night spot for gays, who are especially loathed in Islamist theology.

Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack, and it rarely does so unless it played some role. CNN and others reported that a U.S. official said Mateen made a 911 call during the attack in which he pledged allegiance to Islamic State and mentioned the 2013 Boston marathon bombing.

We’ll learn more about Mateen’s ISIS ties in the days ahead, but it hardly matters to the victims whether the would-be caliphate planned the attack or merely inspired it. As we learned again after December’s murders in San Bernardino, ISIS propaganda over the internet can all too easily reach Muslims alienated from American society. Young men who are second generation immigrants seem to be especially vulnerable to calls for jihad.

The FBI has been focusing more resources on these homegrown threats, and an FBI special agent acknowledged Sunday that Mateen had come to the agency’s attention as a potential risk in 2013 and again in 2014. He was questioned in one instance for having ties to an American suicide bomber. But Mateen was deemed to pose no serious threat and the investigation was closed.

This is reminiscent of the way the FBI misjudged Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who came to its attention after a trip abroad and later with his brother blew up the Boston marathon. The oversight points to how difficult it is in a free society to pinpoint when someone is becoming radicalized enough to kill.

Second-guessing is easy. But one conclusion we’d draw is that the FBI is right to use “sting” operations against Americans who show jihadist leanings on social media or with friends. One way to stop a Mateen before he strikes is to have an undercover agent invite him to take a step toward violence. If he refuses, then he is probably not a threat. If he accepts, then it’s fair to conclude he might have acted on his own eventually.

The political left has begun to criticize these undercover operations in the same way it has attacked surveillance and interrogations. “They’re manufacturing terrorism cases,” Michael German of the anti-antiterror Brennan Center for Justice recently told the New York Times. “These people are five steps away from being a danger to the United States.” Tell that to the families of those killed in the Pulse nightclub, Mr. German.

President Obama could also help if he weren’t so reluctant to acknowledge the domestic danger from ISIS. Mr. Obama did say in his Sunday remarks that this was “an act of terror,” though he still can’t muster the words Islam or jihad or Islamic State. The truest words he uttered were that Orlando “could have been any one of our communities.”

Perhaps he meant gun violence, but his point applies to Islamist terror too. A federal official disclosed that Mateen bought his weapons legally in recent days, and no doubt Democrats will make much of this politically in the coming days. But if the FBI doesn’t identify someone as a terror threat, then basic rights can’t be denied. Mateen was also a licensed security guard, and a determined jihadist will always be able to find firearms.

The distressing truth is that no amount of domestic vigilance can stop every ISIS-inspired act of terror. That’s why the only real solution is to destroy Islamic State in its havens abroad so young Muslims around the world won’t see it as the vanguard of the future.

Part of President Obama’s legacy will be that Islamic State grew so dangerous on his watch, prospering in the political vacuum that was created when he chose to withdraw from Iraq and then do little in Syria. The job of the next President will be to repair the damage done by those two historic mistakes.

See http://www.wsj.com/articles/jihad-in-orlando-1465772204 (“Jihad in Orlando“) (emphasis added); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/06/islamophobia-is-un-american/ (“Islamophobia Is Un-American“); but see http://buchanan.org/blog/islam-west-irreconcilable-conflict-125343 (“Islam & the West: Irreconcilable Conflict?”—”The more Islamic the West becomes, the less it remains the West”)

This is not a “Mary Poppins” world in which we live.

Members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities are hated in America and globally—for religious and a whole host of other reasons—and no amount of “political correctness” is going to change that fact.

One can stick one’s head in the sand and deny that such over-arching prejudices exist, but they do. To think otherwise is delusional. On a higher plane, each of us is a child of God, free to pursue our lives and dreams as we see fit. We have free will, to choose our own paths, with which others may not agree.

To take the Islamophobic approach that the Journal has in this editorial—as well as in so many articles by Bret Stephens, in particular—is patently absurd and ignorant. There are 1.8 billion followers of Islam in this world; and to target or stigmatize them is un-American, at the very least.

See also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/06/islamophobia-is-un-american/#comment-7908 (“The Ugly Face of Islamophobia: Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/06/islamophobia-is-un-american/#comment-8058 (“More Islamophobia From The Wall Street Journal And Bret Stephens“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/31/is-israel-doomed/#comment-8012 (“Is The Wall Street Journal Islamophobic?“)

This editorial states:

One way to stop a Mateen before he strikes is to have an undercover agent invite him to take a step toward violence.

Entrapment is illegal in the United States, but the Journal‘s editors do not care.

Like

17 06 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Is Islamic Terror America’s Future? [UPDATED]

Bald Eagle and American Flag

Patrick J. Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

If the cliches hold — nothing succeeds like success, the past is prologue — this generation will not likely see an end to the jihadist terror that was on display at Pulse in Orlando on Sunday.

For terrorism has proven to be among the most cost-effective and successful strategies of war that the world has ever seen.

Consider. The 9/11 attacks involved 19 hijackers willing to crash airliners into four buildings: the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and the Capitol.

So doing, those 19 altered the foreign policy of the United States.

They drew the world’s last superpower into wars that have bled and almost bankrupted us, broken a president, and left us mired in half a dozen civil and sectarian conflicts with no exit or end in sight.

As a political terrorist, Osama bin Laden rivals Gavrilo Princip, whose assassination of the Austrian archduke set in train the events that led to the Great War that brought on the downfall of the West.

Consider the success of Islamist terror since 9/11.

As Gerry Seib of The Wall Street Journal notes, in the 15 years since then, just 95 Americans have died in jihadist attacks in the U.S.

Yet, one atrocity in Orlando, where 49 were slaughtered, polarized the nation, brought the presidential candidates to savaging one another, and held a national TV audience spellbound for a week.

The whole world is talking about Orlando.

And what did this victory cost the Islamic State?

Zero. What Omar Mateen did suicide bombers do every day in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, kill dozens of innocent people while shouting “Allahu Akbar!”

Yet compare the returns from this act of Islamist terror in Orlando, to those from similar attacks in Kabul, Baghdad or Damascus.

Any wonder ISIS would implore its followers to strike where they are, inside the U.S., inside Europe, and not come to Syria to die anonymously?

Under siege in Raqqa, Mosul and Fallujah, being bombed and bled as it surrenders the conquered lands of its caliphate, ISIS’ shift in strategy and targeting makes perfect sense.

Consider, now, the triumphs of Islamist terrorism in Europe.

The 2004 Madrid train bombings led to the defeat of a centrist government and rise of a socialist regime that pulled Spanish troops out of Iraq.

The Paris attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan theater strengthened the National Front of Marine Le Pen.

The Beslan massacre of school children in North Ossetia in 2004 led to a consolidation of power by Russian strongman Vladimir Putin.

Across Europe, the political impact of Islamist terrorism, though the numbers of dead and wounded have been, measured against the casualties of conventional war, relatively few, has been extraordinary.

Islamist terrorism has helped spawn anti-immigrant parties and “illiberal” regimes. The association of Islamic terror with Muslim immigration and refugees from Syria’s war has helped to drive “Brexit,” the British campaign to secede from the EU.

Islamist attacks have helped propel anti-EU movements and to incite nationalist demands for a recapture of state control of borders and security policy from Brussels.

Obama explains his reluctance to use the term “radical Islamic terror” on his not wishing to validate ISIS’ claim to be the spear point, the fighting arm of the world’s largest religion in fulfilling the mission given to it by Allah — to make the whole world Islamic.

And this is exactly what ISIS has in mind.

By the frequency and ferocity of its attacks, it seeks to displace al-Qaida and other Islamic resistance movements in the eyes of the 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide, and to be seen by the young as the great liberator of the Islamic world and future conqueror of the West.

The crushing of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of victory in this war, for ISIS is not just an organization but a cause, a movement, an idea.

ISIS believes that by repeatedly wounding and provoking the West, it can reignite a war of civilizations. And though the West is vastly superior in nuclear weapons and conventional arms, economic power and technology, ISIS believes it can gradually drive the West out of the Middle East, as it has already helped to drive the Christians out.

Then, ISIS believes, through mass Muslim migration into a West whose native-born are dying out, Muslims can reoccupy these lands they had almost wholly conquered, until stopped by Charles Martel 14 centuries ago.

For some few Muslims, as we saw at Fort Hood, San Bernardino and Orlando, ISIS offers a dream worth dying for. And as they kill and die for ISIS, they will push America where they are pushing Europe — to the right.

See http://buchanan.org/blog/islamic-terror-americas-future-125352 (emphasis added); see also http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/17/obama-admin-pace-issue-one-million-green-cards-migrants-majority-muslim-countries/ (“Obama Admin. On Pace to Issue One Million Green Cards to Migrants from Majority-Muslim Countries“)

Sobering thoughts to ponder, indeed.

Imagine, just imagine, a nation-ending EMP Attack launched from a barge—in the Gulf of Mexico, the Sea of Cortez, or off our Atlantic or Pacific Coasts—consisting of one nuclear warhead attached to a single missile that might shut down much of the country and kill all except 30 million Americans.

This is why it is so vital to elect a president like Donald Trump, who will not cower or fail to arm our military with everything that it needs to fight conventional and asymmetric wars of the present and the future.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/ (“EMP Attack: Only 30 Million Americans Survive“); but see https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/06/islamophobia-is-un-american/ (“Islamophobia Is Un-American“)

Like

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: