by Clifford F. ThiesThe Muslim-sympathizers were out there before any information was available, blaming this on the War in Iraq. The shooter was supposedly a "decent person" who succumbed to a something like "sympathetic post-traumatic stress disorder." What a crock!
From the UK Telegraph, Nov. 6:
The word on the so-called Arab street is that Major Nidal Malik Hasan should be admired because he stood up for fellow Muslims overseas, against U.S. "aggression," and that his anger, disappointment, and presumed sense of betrayal over U.S. President Barack Obama's failure to end the Afghan and Iraq conflicts is understandable, especially in light of Obama's own Muslim heritage.Then, the Muslim-sympathizers started shifting their position when information started to be revealed that the guy was known to be a jihadist. At this point it was, this act would be illegal for any religion. (Ugh? Don’t many radical Muslims proclaim jihad is a duty? Isn’t this the majority opinion in the Muslim world?)
The President’s reaction was mere sympathy for the victims, as was the reaction of CAIR. NOT the reason why this guy wasn’t identified before he went berserk, or the problem of jihadists living among us will be addressed."I want all of you to know that as commander in chief, there's no greater honor but also no greater responsibility for me than to make sure that the extraordinary men and women in uniform are properly cared for and that their safety and security when they're at home is provided for…"Soldiers don’t need condescending remarks like this. They’re the ones who protect us, they don’t need to be taken care of by a panty waist. The question is: why wasn’t the indications that this guy was a jihadist acted-upon?
The jihadist attack at Fort Hood is exactly the same as the jihadist attack by a police office in Kabul that resulted in several soldiers being killed. It's exactly the same as the incident in Kuwait, when the Muslim soldider threw a grenade into a tent housing Army officers, killing two.
The Muslims in this country have to cooperate with law enforcement to identify the jihadists among us, so we can be protected from them. Otherwise, at some point, the threat of spontaneously-arising jihadists from the Muslim community will convince us that we need Muslims to pass through metal detectors or otherwise be made secure from them.
What, after all, is the chance of a person who is not a Muslim being a deranged shooter, like the Virginia Tech shooter? I don’t know, maybe 1 in 100 million. But, what are the odds that a Muslim picked at random is a deranged shooter? Given the high level of violence in the world, it is way more than 1 in 100 million. Even if it were “just” 1 in 1 million, that would make it very difficult to interact with Muslims for fear that of being shot or blown up.Considering that only about ¼ of 1 percent of Americans are Muslim, the number of incidents of horrific violence from that community is very high. You have the DC sniper, the honor killings, the bombers and would-be bombers.
This is what CAIR absolutely has to do: it has to cooperate with law enforcement to identify the jihadists. They need to cough up the evil, twisted minds in their midst.
Just expressing sympathy and then saying, but don’t retaliate against us, is pathetic.
Here is the statement by the CAIR:
"American Muslims stand with our fellow citizens in offering both prayers for the victims and sincere condolences to the families of those killed or injured."Again, the emphasis is on prayer and condolences. What we need to hear from Muslims is this: We will cooperate with law enforcement authorities to identify people who are a danger to the community.
This sitting on the sideline stuff is bull shit.
Note - Dr. Thies a former National Committee member of the Libertarian Party, a former National Chairman for the Republican Liberty Caucus, and one of the original Founding members of the Libertarian Defense Caucus (Libertarians who support a strong national security policy). He is also a former Captain in the United States Army.
Posts
15 comments:
Chucky has become an absolute disgrace on all Muslim-relates issues now. He use to have "Jihadi" and such terms in his post titles, now it's the same milquetoast bullshit you'll find on CNN. He's totally sold his soul to the Islamic devil.
If someone mass-murdered in the name of Buddha, Buddhist leaders would condemn him. If someone mass-murdered in the name of Jesus, Christian leaders would condemn him. With all the mass-murdering in the name of Allah, why don’t I hear about Islamic leaders condemning this? “No, you don’t go to paradise with 72 virgins!” Maybe they don’t cover it in the news, but it’s not the crazy few that always surprises me, it’s the silence of the leaders.
Bill - it's not a shocker to me that most Muslims do not condemn these attacks. What is shocking to me is how "good liberals" don't condemn these Muslims for being stuck in a 7th century mindset. I thought progressives were supposed to be the most enlightened humans on earth, right?
It's going to be interesting to see how many American Muslims stand up against this cowardly act. Thus far in our conflict with Radical Islam I have seen only a very few brave enough to do it.
Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder.
The West had no problem with the British setting up Concentration Camps and starving Boer women and children to death. But Jews blowing up the King David Hotel were evil terrorists. Who is good and evil depends on who writes the history book.
Gary,
I don’t know about those people you speak of. I know about me and today. Terrorists, people who target civilians, are evil. If this guy is merely a lone traitor, and/or a crazy murderer, he still is a bad guy.
Alex,
As I noticed it, liberals often have problems with every big religion but Islam. They’ll defend atheism, if it’s against a big religion. They have less problems with cults, and appear to embrace hedonism.
I just wish the liberals would be consistent. How can they hate Christianity, but embrace all other religions. Why?
If 10% of muslims are fanatical fundamentalists, that would put the number around 100 million people that hate us. How many of the 900+ million remaining would fall in line?
Gary:
Terrorists kill to inflict terror on bystanders if you will. It's not an official declared war. What the British did may be wrong, but it is not terrorism per se. It's divide and conquer.
Alex,
Liberals disrespect the Dalai Lama and Jews often too. We Christians might get focused on more because there are more of us. As I understand history, the state doesn’t want to share power with anybody, including religions. Liberals maybe don’t see Islam as a threat yet.
Dumb liberals.
But for liberals, Muslims fit into their narrative of oppressed foreigner of a darker hue. Christians and Jews don't.
What the British did was divide and conquer terrorism, a human atrocity...some would call it crime against humanity. Gary, you are 100% right and I am so honestly glad you point out the concentration camp massacre (starvation etc.). BTW: I am a descendant of the Boers you are referring to, so I know the history very well.
If you think about it, post-war Germany paid how many billions to Israel because of the NAZI atrocities, but how much did post-Anglo-Boer 2 war (we won the first one BTW) UK govt. pay to Afrikaners? Zero, zippo, not a single cent!
Experts have calculated that if you accept that indeed 6 million Jews were killed (e.g. not less) during WW2, the British still killed more Boers in relation to size of the population than Nazi's killed Jews.
TRG: So you want to call the Nazi atrocities divide and conquer, and not terrorism?
Alex: indeed the hypocrisy of the so called progressive left shines through again. They are either too ignorant, stupid and naive or just simply partisan as Obamabots or both or intentional misleading. Bowing to the Saudi prince, is not change in foreign policy one can believe in, it is rather indecisiveness and weakness.
The answer to the problem lies somewhere between thinking a military solution is the only option and way to defeat and a weakness of bribery.
As Michael Scheuer remarked, Obama's Turkey speech to Muslims while increasing the Af-Pak war will only make things worse and put the US in a more dangerous position even. Al Qaeda will use it as a recruiting tool by saying, you thought we was more positive towards Islam with gloves, but see he is just a war monger than Bush and more insincere than Bush, who was in any case straight up about his defense of the Iraq war and actually worse than Bush.
They just have to lay low a bit and wait for the US and USD to destruct and they will be in a much stronger position to take over the West. In this scenario it will be better to be in Russian, India, China, Japan, who are fiscally more conservative and where extremist violent percentage among the Muslims will never be able to get a foothold, and not even the moderate Muslims.
"Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder."
Spoken like a true scumbag. There is no evil perpetrated against civilized people by animals that a low-life maggot like you won't rush to defend.
Make the world a better place. Kill yourself.
@Stefan:
The holocaust wasn't terrorism. The nazi's didn't do it to keep the jews in line, they didn't do it to change their ways, they didn't do it to terrorize them: They did it to eliminate them, a straw an enemy. Left to his own devices, Hitler would have eliminated the jews.
Conversely, the IRA didn't want to kill all brits, they just wanted them out of northern ireland and wanted to kill enough people, terrorize if you will, for the brits to tire of the situation and leave. Basically it's used to get one's way, like a child that manipulates a parent through a tantrum.
Of course the terrorists in the middle east sort of have it both ways: They would kill all the jews and/or infidels if necessary, but if they left or converted that would be ok. It's still in an effort to get their way. Hitler just wanted the jews gone as in non-existent. If he was a terrorist, he would have let them leave if they wanted to instead of putting them in gas chambers.
That being said either act is dastardly, and takes one down a road I'd rather not go.
Stefan, if you want to play that game, how about the 2 million Cambodians who were slaughtered by Pol Pot and the Communists in the late 1970s?
Why aren't we holding the Red Chinese, and the Russians responsble for bolstering the Khmer Rouge? Or the United Nations for not lifting a finger while 2 million were being slaughtered in the Souteast Asian Killing Fields.
Post a Comment