Jihadi Du Jour: Politically Correct Speaking

No one but a most reprehensible bigot would claim that every Muslim is a terrorist. Such a generalization would not only be untrue but it would also be undeniable proof of the speaker’s despicable racial prejudices. Neither can it be denied, however, that in every major terrorist event around the world over the last few years… the perpetrators were all Muslims!!! Today’s International Herald Tribune reprints an article by Jeff Jacoby from The Boston Globe, where he decries Political Correctness and the incorrectness of its results:

Is radical Islam connected to terrorism? Notable British voices spoke out on that subject after Britain’s recent terrorist near-misses - the two unexploded car bombs in London’s West End and the fiery SUV rammed into the main terminal at Glasgow’s international airport.

Consider what four of those voices had to say:

One declared that the word “Muslim” must not be used in connection with terrorism, and insisted that even the phrase “war on terror” should be scrapped.

The second likewise cautioned against pointing a finger at Islam, contending that in London, “Muslims are . . . less likely to support the use of violence to achieve political ends than non-Muslims”

The third, asked whether Muslim extremists might be responsible for the attempted atrocities in London and Glasgow, counseled: “Let’s avoid presumptions. . . . It can be the work of Muslims, Christians, Jews or Buddhists.”

Obviously the one who made the first statement has never learned that a disease can only successfully be cured if the treatment deals with the full disease rather with one or two of the symptoms. The second statement, is even more idiotic! There are no Christian priests, no Jewish Rabbis, or Buddhist heads of ashrams preaching violence on British society, or on any elements of that society. Preaching violence is a daily occurrence, however, for some radical Muslim Imams.

In spite of anti Christian, anti semitic, anti Buddhist cartoons constantly appearing in British publications there never were demonstrations (violent or otherwise) against said publications or their cartoonists. Nobody has asked for the heads of the culprits, while Muslims demonstrators have violently demanded just that. No Christians, Jews or Buddhists have ever requested that Britain replace its laws with laws approved by any of these religions, Muslims have in the past and are now violently demanding that Sharia law replace British law. Muslims are . . . less likely to support the use of violence to achieve political ends than non-Muslims?!?!? Methinketh, the particular speaker has seriously misspoken. Don’t you think so, gentle reader? As for the third statement it is disingenuous at best, another blatant attempt at clouding the true facts!

By contrast, the fourth noted the resemblance of the latest terror attempts to “other recent British Islamic extremist plots,” pinpointed “Islamic theology” as “the real engine of our violence,” and described British jihadists as “mindless killers” who have “declared war upon the whole world.”

The first three statements, disingenuous but quite politically correct, were made respectively by 1) Britain’s new prime minister, Gordon Brown; 2) London Mayor Ken Livingstone, and 3) Daud Abdullah, deputy secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain.

Just days before the second anniversary of the deadly 7/7 London transit bombings, and less than a year since 24 British Muslims were arrested for plotting to blow up passenger jets over the Atlantic, the three men spoke as if they had no inkling that Britain is a battleground in militant Islam’s global jihad - as if only a boor or a bigot could imagine that Muslims might somehow be linked to the car bombs in London and Glasgow.

And the fourth statement? Those were the blunt words of Hassan Butt, a onetime spokesman for the radical Islamist organization al-Muhajiroun, who has renounced his former life.

In an essay published last week in the Daily Mail, Butt emphasized that jihadists are motivated not by opposition to British or U.S. foreign policy but by a fundamentalist theology that seeks to subject the entire world to “Islamic justice.” Radical Imams teach their followers that they must fight for Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam) against Dar al-Harb (the House of War - i.e., infidels to be defeated). And “in Dar al-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.”

By turning a blind eye to the radical theology of the jihadists, Butt says, mainstream Muslim institutions make it easy for the extremists to recruit new followers. His words apply equally to political leaders like Brown and Livingstone: “They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex truth that Islam can be interpreted as condoning violence against the unbeliever - and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace, and hope that all of this debate will go away.”

Wars cannot be won through denial and willful blindness. Yet in ways large and small, Western leaders and institutions deliberately avert their gaze from the reality of the Islamist threat.

The fact remains that most of these Islamic preachers of hatred and violence and most of these violent felons (yes, gentle reader, they use the excuse of religious teachings and extremist interpretations to commit violence and rejoice in it!), came to the West to better their lives, to find opportunities unavailable in their countries of origin. They came to live on the public dole! Ah, what gratitude! Extremist Imams who use every means of emotional and psychological pressure to mold their flock into unthinking robots that can be mobilized for whatever nefarious deed these preachers deem necessary, happen to be also Muslims in spite of what London’s laughingstock Mayor Ken Livingstone may claim.

The UN secretary general, Ban Ki Moon, blames global warming, not Sudan’s jihadist regime, for the genocide being carried out in Darfur. A leading candidate to succeed President George W. Bush, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, maintains a lavish campaign Web site, complete with detailed position papers that have nothing to say about radical Islam’s aggressive war.

For a politician who is running for public office to conveniently ignore an inconvenient truth is, sadly, a part of the political game. For the Secretary General of the UN, to refuse to call it as it is, to refuse to acknowledge the racial cleansing being practiced in Sudan by ethnic Arabs, is criminal. Not only does it in no way alleviate the plight of the victims but his is merely an attempt at grandstanding, by pushing fashionable (though highly questionable) pseudo science as the excuse for unspeakable violence. Shame on you, Ban Ki Moon! UN Secretary Generals may come and go, but things stay the same…

Another candidate, former senator John Edwards, prepares a 5,200-word speech to the Council on Foreign Relations - and devotes just 19 of them to the menace of Islamic extremism.

The obfuscation is sometimes almost comical. The New York Times, reporting the Glasgow attack on Page 1, carefully avoided using the M-word to identify Britain’s Muslim terrorists. Instead it attributed the 7/7 bombings to Britain’s “disenfranchised South Asian population” and reported that the terrorists in Glasgow “were South Asian.” (As Joel Mowbray pointed out for Powerline, Indian Hindus are Britain’s largest South Asian demographic.)

Similarly, seven reporters contributed to AP’s story on the arrested jihad-doctors (”Diverse group allegedly in British plot”), yet somehow missed the radical theology they presumably shared.

Political correctness is no strategy for victory. Islamic fascists will not hate us less if we avoid all mention of the theology that inflames them. Winning the war the jihadists have declared - the war of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb - begins with moral clarity. Denial is a luxury we cannot afford.

Edwards, the “$400 haircut, working man’s candidate” is too vacuous and too much of an airhead to seriously tackle an issue that might alienate some potential voters. Frankly, his chances of being the next Democrat candidate for president are less than mine… and I’ve already made it very clear that I’m not even running!

As for the New York Times risible attempts at journalism… well… a rapidly plunging readership is a very eloquent statement as to that publication’s political slant is worth! Talking about the AP’s Political Correctness… you can rest assured that had the terrorists been Jews or Christians, their religion would not have been omitted. I guess that is because as Jews or Christian we would have been appalled, dismayed and enraged for our co-religionists to have turned to terror and we would waste no time in demanding swift punishment. That is so unlike the M people, isn’t it?!?!?

The word Islam is not derived from salaam - peace, it is derived al-silm which means submission or surrender. Let’s call it like it is gentle readers, Islam is not the religion of peace, Islam is the religion of submission! Between the useful idiots (who in their fashionable hatred and total ignorance reject all the West represents) and the taqiya - deception perpetrated by the IslamoFascists, truth and facts are laid by the wayside, discarded as inconvenient.

Political correctness is no strategy for victory. Islamic fascists will not hate us less if we avoid all mention of the theology that inflames them. Winning the war the jihadists have declared - the war of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb - begins with moral clarity. Denial is a luxury we cannot afford. That is so true! Will any of the politicians in the West, have the courage to stop obfuscating the truth? Hasn’t the time come to eradicate this cancer within, before the whole Western body perishes?

Chaim

Cross-posted at: Freedom's Cost

Labels: A World at War, Britain, dhimmitude, freedom of speech, Imams, Islamic Jihad, islamofascists, Terrorism, Terrorists