Just don’t name it Islam

Staff Columnist

Last Friday, Secretary of State John Kerry weighed into the discussion of just who or what is responsible for the level of carnage in the world today, a discussion made more immediate by the massacre in Paris. Mr. Kerry told us: “It has nothing to do with Islam; it has everything to do with criminality, with terror, with abuse, with psychopathism − I mean, you name it.”

Yes, as Mr. Kerry says, “you name it” just don’t name it Islam.

Hillary Clinton, our president in waiting, also put her oar in the troubled water: “Let’s be clear, though. Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

I think most people would agree that our leaders ought to be very careful on this subject and none of them should run around saying “Islam is our adversary.” I think all should recognize that a great majority of Muslims are not prone to terrorism or terrorist acts, but Ms. Clinton’s statement, like the utterance of Mr. Kerry, is a bit too broad and even though not all Muslims are terrorists, an awful lot of the terrorists are Muslims.

A majority of Muslims may be peaceful but I’m not sure that ought to be confused with tolerance. Just check the Muslim opinion polls on the questions of sharia law, women’s rights, freedom of religion, free speech, homosexuality, and transgender rights. Of course, maybe Ms. Clinton thinks Muslims can do a Cole Porter rewrite and sing, “always tolerant of you darling, always tolerant in my way.”

When Ms. Clinton said Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism, she couldn’t have known that in just a few hours terrorists would be engaged in killing western citizens at the Radisson Hotel in Bamako, Mali while shouting “Allahu Akbar.”

The terrorists in Mali had a theological bent. The hostages’ lives were spared if they could recite a verse from the Koran. If they could not recite from the Koran they were summarily dispatched to the nether world reserved for non-Muslims. Yet, according to Ms. Clinton, the terrorists could not have been Muslims because Muslims have “nothing to do with terrorism.”

Ms. Clinton’s claim is what may be called a “diplomatic lie.” If she were free to speak her mind without regard to diplomatic fall out, she would likely say that Islam has a lot to do with Islamic terrorism but to take that position publicly would run the danger of radicalizing the moderate Muslims when the goal should be to isolate the radicals. This is an entirely defensible position but our leaders might tone down their “no Muslims to see here” defense of the Muslim world, if only to give us some assurance that our leaders haven’t fallen captive to their own diplomatic bull sh**, if that is what it is.

Unfortunately, while it is more than likely Hillary Clinton knows the truth, President Obama seems to be a believer and a purveyor of the “nothing Islamic to see here” Islamic defense. It has to be that way in Mr. Obama’s world. Foreign policy is at the very bottom of his agenda. That’s why every terror attack has to be called something else: man-caused disasters, workplace violence, overseas contingency operations or reactions to some obscure video.

To what, then, does Mr. Obama attribute the rise of terrorism? The answer may not surprise many. Mr. Obama believes Republicans are the ace recruiting tool for terrorism. Don’t believe me? Just hear Mr. Obama in his own words as he addressed the press in the Philippines as reported by The Associated Press: “President Obama on Wednesday angrily accused Republicans of feeding into the Islamic State’s strategy of casting the United States as waging war on Muslims, saying the GOP’s rhetoric has become the most ‘potent recruitment tool’ for militant groups.” Obama then, according to the Associated press, added that those Republicans: “Seek to exploit the idea that there’s war between Islam and the West, and when you start seeing individuals in position of responsibility suggesting Christians are more worthy of protection than Muslims are in a war-torn land that feeds the ISIL narrative.”

Mr. Obama may be a bit off the mark on the Christian protection issue. As Mark Steyn wrote, “the Christians did, indeed, need more protection [in Mali] − which is why they’re dead and the observant Muslims are alive. In Syria and Iraq, in less than two years, the oldest Christian communities on earth have been entirely eradicated − every Christian male is dead or fled, and their prepubescent daughters are now rape slaves for the sexual inadequate of ISIS. So, whether or not they’re ‘more worthy of protection’, those Christians could certainly have used a little of it.”

Christians might also use a little protection from their fellow migrants. According to CNN, migrants from Libya to Italy threw 12 fellow passengers overboard because they were Christians. CNN reported, “Italian authorities have arrested 15 people on suspicion of murdering the Christians at sea, police in Palermo, Sicily, said.”

Then there is the question about the Syrian refugees. Mr. Obama has some arguments on his side in this discussion. No one really knows whether home-grown Islamic radicalism is more threatening than any people in the pipeline. But that doesn’t make the concerns about refugees either illegitimate or bigoted.

In October, FBI Director James Comey told the United States Senate that, “My concern there is there are certain gaps in the data available to us. There is risk associated of bringing anybody in from the outside, but specifically from a conflict zone like that.”

Despite Corney’s testimony, Mr. Obama still has complete confidence in the vetting process. I guess he thinks we will all be safe if and when he finally succeeds in stopping the Republican’s terror recruiting operation.

Tags: , , , ,

Longboat Key News

3 Responses for “Just don’t name it Islam”

  1. T.R. Fortune says:

    (Radical Islamic Terrorist Actions) are the acts of murder, crucifixion and mutilation sanctioned by both Iran and Saudi Arabia either by direct clandestine acts or through their ongoing funding actions.
    These two entities are on opposite sides of the “lines drawn in the sand” yet their approach is the same. That approach is to see that their side of Terrorists WIN.
    For the Saudi’s (Sunni) it is Wahhabism.
    For the Iranians it is the Ayatollah (Shi’a) as the Religious Oligarchy.
    Oddly enough caught in the middle (of history) are the Christians and the Jews.
    It is somewhat irrelevant that Obama uses the term ISIL, while the rest of the world uses the Terrorists own term ISIS. Maybe the use of ISIL is a poke in the eye to the nation of Israel as having evolved from and through the “French Mandate”, the “British Mandate” and then subsequent United Nation Declarations and finally from the recognition of the Israel State by Harry Truman (Democrat).

    One item is crystal clear, Mr. Obama has chosen and continues to choose to do nothing in eliminating any of the Terrorist organizations presently active in Afghanistan (also a Failure of former President Bush, post 911), in Iraq, in Syria, in Lebanon, in Turkey and with “sleeper cells” in the America’s!
    Is Obama guilty of Benign Neglect or is it Designed Neglect?

  2. Tom Burgum says:

    Careful, the Attorney General may take exception with you comment.

Leave a Reply