Ralph Peters is past livid. I know for a fact that he’s not alone.
On Christmas Day, an Islamist fanatic tried to blow up an airplane whose passengers were mostly Christians. And we helped.
Our government gets no thanks for preventing a tragedy. Only the bomber's ineptitude preserved the lives of nearly 300 innocents.
(…)
Contrast our political correctness with [failed Panty Bomber Umar] Abdulmutallab's choice of Christmas for his intended massacre. Our troops stand down on Muslim holidays. A captive terrorist merely has to claim that a soldier dog-eared a Koran, and it's courts-martial all around.
We proclaim that the terrorists "don't represent Islam." OK, whom do they represent? The Franciscans? We don't get to decide what's Islam and what isn't. Muslims do. And far too many of them approve of violent jihad.
It gets worse. Instead of focusing on the religious zeal and inspiration of our enemies and how such motivations change the game, our "terrorism experts" agonize over whether such beasts as Abdulmutallab or Maj. Hasan, the Fort Hood assassin for Allah, are really members of al Qaeda or not.
As a Sunday Post editorial pointed out, al Qaeda's far more than a formal organization; it's an idea, a cause. If a terrorist says he's al Qaeda, he is, even if he doesn't have a union card from Jihadi Local 632.
We're dealing with a global Muslim movement, not a Masons' lodge.
I had to restrain myself from quoting Peters’ entire polemic.
If the jihadis like Abdulmutallab and Hasan and Hakim Mujahid Muhammad do not represent the essence of Islam, if the behavior of these charmers is not exemplary of how a devout Muslim should act, then where are the American Muslims who would repudiate the actions of their co-religionists? Are they too afraid of how the murderers among them will react? Or are they merely assenting silently and biding their time?
One thing is for sure: our present government leadership most certainly is too afraid to act/react forcefully and effectively to discourage jihadist attacks. Some say that is due to George W. Bush’s assertion that Islam is a “Religion of Peace.” Poppycock. The 43rd President could have asserted that Islam was the religion of ham sandwiches and it would not have mattered. What mattered is what he did in the aftermath of the Islamic jihadi attacks of September 11, 2001: he (re)acted aggressively and forcefully to a homeland attack from an enemy. Say what you want about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Big Boys in the Islamic terror circles—like Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri--were not expecting such a reaction.
Bullies expect cowering from their targets and the terror kings had American citizens and their leaders down for wimps. And actually, they were partially correct about both groups, though the ratio of balls to no-balls differs between the two groups. They just “happened” to perpetrate 9/11 at a time when the leadership was strong and not willing back away from a gauntlet thrown down.
We went to war--perhaps not against Islam, but against Islamists, who, naturally, subscribe to the tenets of Islam. And in the minds of very many Muslims, no fine lines of distinction existed as to with whom/what American was at war. To them we were and are at war with their religion. Even so, you may recall that several leaders of Islamic countries responded to that show of strength by communicating a hearty “no thanks” to being on the receiving end of American wrath.
That response was instructive: who cares if one's adversaries get angry? As long as they realize that the drawbacks of attacking the Great Satan outweigh the benefits.
But now, with the jihadi drawback-benefit analysis having being revised since January 20, 2009 and with the level of cowardice existing in the American leadership moving toward the higher end and with the very top of that leadership concentrating on apologizing for that strength, it appears that the portion of American citizenry in possession of courage and, most especially, in possession of faith, must fill up the breach of action and reaction. Those who serve in our military are already doing their part. So what are the rest of us going to do?
Specifically, what are you Americans who happen to be Muslim going to do? My religion teaches us not to be afraid of those who can kill the body. As a matter of fact, the Bible says that the spirit of fear is not from God at all. I think all most of us would like to see is a Not-in-Our-Name sort of movement from you, Americans who happen to be Muslim. Are you too afraid of your jihadi brethren? What does your religion say about fear?
We’re waiting.
Sort of Off-Topic: After Fort Hood, my American dad said that if he were in any position of responsibility at the federal level, he’d profile anyone with a "funny" name. Keep in mind this is coming from a guy whose step-daughter’s surname is Kenyan Luo in origin and whose biological daughters have Arabic given names. He said that if he didn’t know us, he’d profile the hell out of us. LOL
We laugh but it’s logical…and serious.
And I'll say this because I can: too bad the Funny Name Profiling didn't start two years ago.
UPDATE: And right on cue, Anwar al Awlaki, the American-born Muslim cleric based in Yemen, who is thought to have mentored the incipient jihadism of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, claims to have blessed the Panty Bomber plot. Personally, I think that Awlaki is merely floor-showing for his boys—these terrorists are such peacocks—but one would think that he would rather keep his mouth shut since this particular plot fizzled.
Then again, Awlawi is carving out a spot in the minds of those prone to fear, so his tactic is understandable.
(Thanks to Allahpundit)
