RUTHFULLY YOURS

The Left is attempting to paint the Orlando massacre as primarily an attack on the gay community, made possible by easy access to guns. That is, according to the Left’s narrative, homophobia and gun violence are the ingredients that lit the fuse. Typical of this distorted way of thinking was the New York Times lead editorial on June 14th, which claimed the United States was being “terrorized again – and again, and again, and again – by the uniquely deadly combination of twisted hatred and weapons of mass destruction as easily available as cough medicine.”

This gross oversimplification plays down the role of ISIS-inspired jihad in fueling the massacre. The shooter, Omar Mateen, pledged allegiance to ISIS, drawing on its strict interpretation of sharia law to justify his rampage.

Some have attributed Mateen’s choice of a gay nightclub as his target to self-loathing for his own possible homosexual tendencies. However, that would not explain why he and his wife cased a Disney theme park in April as a possible location for his attack. Disney reportedly informed the FBI of what their surveillance had picked up, to no avail. Is it just a coincidence that, last January, a Muslim with two handguns and copy of the Koran was arrested at Disneyland Paris? More likely, it demonstrates how jihadists are targeting soft targets popular with tourists for maximum effect, especially those associated with “decadent” Western consumerism.

Moreover, there is the timing of Mateen’s attack. It came just three days after it was revealed that a pro-Isis group had issued a threat against U.S. civilians, including specifically in Florida. And last month, an ISIS spokesman called for lone wolf attacks by its sympathizers in Europe and the U.S. during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan “to win the great award of martyrdom.” Ramadan started a week before Mateen’s attack. If, as has been reported, Mateen had been a frequent visitor to the nightclub for whatever reason, he evidently skipped multiple opportunities to conduct his killing spree and waited for the start of Ramadan, as ISIS leaders had instructed.

Mateen was responding to the same radical Islamic ideology that led two illegal immigrants from Tunisia, who were ISIS followers, to stab a 26-year-old transgender man in Brussels the day before the Orlando attack. And it was the same radical Islamic ideology that led a man claiming allegiance to ISIS to stab a police official and his companion to death in France a day after the Orlando attack, while repeating ISIS’s call to turn the Euro 2016 football tournament being held in France into “a graveyard.”

The deadliest mass shooting in American history happened because of Islamophobia.

Islamophobia killed 49 people in Orlando. It didn’t kill 49 Muslims. Instead it allowed Omar Mateen, a Muslim terrorist, to kill 49 people in the name of his Islamic ideology and the Islamic State.

Omar, like so many other Muslim killers, could have been stopped. He talked about killing people when he worked at G4S Security, a Federal contractor that provided services to the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department. But, according to one of the co-workers he stalked, a former police officer, his employers refused to do anything about it because he was a Muslim.

The FBI conducted an investigation of Omar Mateen. They put him on a watch list and sent informants. They interviewed him and concluded that his claims of Al Qaeda ties and terrorist threats were reactions to “being marginalized because of his Muslim faith.” Omar told the agents that he said those things because “his co-workers were discriminating against him and teasing him because he was Muslim.”

And they believed him.

Poor Omar wasn’t a potential terrorist. He was just a victim of Islamophobia.

Omar got away with homophobic comments that would have gotten Americans fired because he was Muslim. He weathered an “extensive” FBI investigation because he was Muslim.

Anyone who says that there is no such thing as Muslim Privilege ought to look at Omar Mateen.

There is a direct line between Omar’s Muslim privilege and the Pulse massacre. Omar Mateen’s Muslim privilege protected him from consequences. While the media studiously paints the image of a beleaguered population of American Muslims suffering the stigma of constant suspicion, Omar’s Muslim background actually served as a shield and excused behavior that would have been unacceptable for anyone else. Omar Mateen’s Muslim privilege shielded him until he was actually murdering non-Muslims.

President Barack Obama’s tirade on June 14 was filled with angry passion. His rhetoric was not directed against the perpetrator of the Orlando attack and his ilk, however, but against the (unnamed) GOP nominee and others who do not subscribe to Obama’s fundamental views on the nature of Islam and his “strategy” of confronting the threat.

With great passion Obama lashed at those who have called him soft on terrorism, alleging that “loose talk” about Muslims has been detrimental to the U.S. action against militant groups in the Middle East and elsewhere. It is clear that Obama’s understanding of “loose talk” covers all attempts at critical scrutiny of what he, Hillary Clinton, and countless others in the Duopoly still insist is a peaceful and tolerant religion which should not be tainted by the violent actions of a tiny, aberrant and unrepresentative minority.

It should be noted that the original meaning of “loose talk”—as the term was extensively used in both world wars—is disclosing accurate and operationally useful information to unreliable persons who may pass it on to the enemy. If Obama and his speechwriters knew English and history, they’d realize that the meaning of his “loose talk” remark is not exactly what he had in mind: yes, we know the ugly truth, but we should not talk about it openly, because we don’t want them to know that we do know what they are all about.

Obama derided the demand by his critics that he call acts of terrorism the result of “radical Islam”: “We can’t get ISIL unless we call them ‘radical Islamists.’ What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is, none of the above . . . ” Obama is spectacularly wrong. Calling a threat by its right name—which he dismisses as a mere “label”—is the key prerequisite to developing a meaningful strategy. His mandated label of long standing—“violent extremism”—he did not use in his address, however, thus implicitly acknowledging its irritating and politically damaging absurdity.

Obama’s deliberate attempt to create logical and semantic confusion about the nature of the threat is not immediately apparent to the unwary, and it is so dishonest as to bring into question his basic motives. He implicitly suggested that “the threat” is already clearly defined in all its key aspects, and that any debate over “the label” is therefore a mere “political distraction.” To understand the pernicious nature of Obama’s argument we need to revisit his address announcing his phony anti-ISIS campaign two years ago.

“ISIL is not Islamic,” Obama told the nation in September 2014. “No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim.” Since making this surreal statement Obama has learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. Three weeks earlier earlier, in the aftermath of James Foley’s beheading by the Islamic State, he declared—also in the context of absolving Islam of any connection with the IS—that “no just God would stand for what they did yesterday and what they do every single day.” Since they did murder Foley, this meant that—in Obama’s world—there is no God, or that God is not just.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/radical-islam-will-win-unless-part-i

Actually I think Radical Islam will win. The team unfettered by rules usually wins. A boxer fighting under the Marquis of Queensbury rules will get his ass kicked by a cage fighter, or someone employing street boxing rules. Jihad thinks it is the virtuous party, protected by Allah, and with a thousand year tradition of ‘all is fair’ in the service of Islam, e.g. no holds barred fighting, they are a formidable adversary. Against such an adversary, we must recognize pesky details like rules will not get in their way. Good can lose to evil, unless willing to pay the price necessary to win. And sometimes the price is steep. But the cost of losing to evil is even greater.

Before we get too far into this article, let me be clear – God is in all of us; whatever religion we opt in order to share His love, whether Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Wiccan or Islam – I value and respect. But when a faith, any faith, uses itself as a tool for bloodshed, then the faith has to own up to a responsibility to clean its own house, and demonstrate not only a remorse, but commitment to prevent future acts of hatred and violence. The non Jihadists in Islam’s case have a responsibility to act. If as Islamists state the Jihadists represent as small minority of Moslems, then clearly there is an overwhelming number of good guys, right? So act like good guys! Such is my stance on 21st century Islam. And were I alive several centuries ago, it would be my stance against the Catholic Inquisition. Lest anyone decide to misrepresent me, or devolve into media inaccuracy by distorting my views, let me reiterate my stated and lifelong belief that all religions in their best forms allow us to reach our higher angels, and this includes Islam – a faith that is based upon 5 tenets, not the least of which is charity. I’ve experienced the kindness and generosity of Moslems, and worked with them on various philanthropies. But for better or worse the bloodthirsty members of their faith need to be reined in and stopped by the decent members of the faith. Closing ranks for the sake of Islam, crying Islamophobia or denying the evil exists does everyone a disservice.

Fact remains radical Islam is a jihadist movement based upon Islam. There is no way around it. If Jihadists were claiming to kill in the name of John the Baptist, or North American Baptists, I would say their movement is based upon the Baptist faith. A distortion, but nevertheless still invoking it. If the moderate Moslems can get the Jihadists to name a different set of marching orders, I would gladly drop the term radical Islam, but until that occurs, we must familiarize ourselves with the very ideology that serves foundationally for the folks who are inspired to challenge our culture, and bring death into our communities from Paris and Brussels, to Glasgow and London, from San Bernardino to Boston, and NY, the Pentagon and Orlando.

American Muslims must use the time they have left to unleash a transformation within their community.

The despicable conduct of Omar Mateen’s wife, Noor Zahi Salman, is the latest example. The Orlando shooter’s wife allegedly knew of his plan and accompanied him to buy ammunition, yet did nothing to stop him.

Then there was Tashfeen Malik, the obedient jihadist Bonnie Parker, who helped her husband Syed Farook gun down fourteen in San Bernardino.

Days before the killing in Orlando, the Husseini Islamic Center in Sanford, Florida, hosted Sheikh Farrokh Sekaleshfar. The Islamic scholar had previously preached to a crowd of American Muslims in Michigan about gays:

Death is the sentence. There’s nothing to be embarrassed about this. Death is the sentence.

For this? Skaleshfar earned invitations to speak elsewhere.

Time is running out for American Muslims. Mainstream America can connect the dots from Skaleshfar’s bloodlust to San Bernardino to Fort Hood to Seattle to Garland to an empty field in Somerset — and finally to Pulse. All of these murderers thought they were acting according to their professed Islamic faith.

I’ll leave it to others to debate the text of the Koran and what it says or does not say. But American Muslims are running out of time because Americans are running out of patience.

With each new slaughter by a jihadist, the American Muslim community exhausts a bit more patience and goodwill of Americans. No matter how many rainbow-colored burkas are posted on Instagram, or how much rhetoric comes from the diminishing president, the message does not match reality.

Goodwill and mercy is an ablative thing. When jihadist after jihadist destroys our treasured domestic tranquility, they will eventually awaken an American resolve that will sweep away these distractions and confront the problem head-on.

It’s why Donald Trump has tapped into a silent mainstream fury. If the attacks by jihadists continue against innocents, what Donald Trump is proposing might not go far enough to many Americans.

I’m not suggesting this is a good thing. This is merely the human condition. It’s what civilizations have done for thousands of years when faced with similar circumstances.

And contrary to the progressive utopian ideal, history hasn’t stopped.

All of those primal impulses can’t be extracted out by four years of Wellesley and the Sunday New York Times, especially when few Americans read the Times anymore. Hopefully any response from an exhausted America would manifest itself through law instead of pitchforks. But the American Muslim community needs to understand they lose support with every single attack, until they do something about it.

Speaking of Wellesley and the New York Times, it’s been predictable and boring to see the enablers attempt to compare the jihadists to Christians. Every religion has its extremists, they tell us:

CONTINUE AT SITE

I had planned to weigh in on the slaughter in Orlando right after it happened, but a sense of nausea intervened.

There was plenty of nausea to go around. You might think that the chief catalyst would be the scene of slaughter itself: the nearly fifty revelers at a gay nightclub dead, and scores more wounded by a single jihadist.

In a normal world, the spectacle of that carnage would have been the focus of revulsion. I confess, however, that the repetition of such acts of theocratic barbarism these past few decades has left me somewhat anesthetized.

The long, long list of “Islamist terrorist attacks” that Wikipedia maintains comes with this mournful advisory:

This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness.

Indeed, and alas. Take a look at that list: one thing you will note — apart from the fact that the terrorist attacks are correctly denominated as “Islamist” terrorist attacks — is that most years include more attacks than the years before.

There were some 35 in 2014. I stopped counting at 100 for 2015.

So my initial reaction to the news from Orlando was a mixture of anger, outrage — and weariness. “Here,” I said to myself, “we go again.”

First came the casualty figures. Twenty dead. No, make that 30. Wait, it’s 40, no, 50 dead and scores wounded, many gravely. And the murderer? The world held its breath and the media prayed: Please, please, please make him a white Christian NRA member, or at least a crazed white teenager.

No such luck. Omar Mateen was the 29-year-old scion of Afghan immigrants. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Right off the bat his father assured the world that he was “saddened” by the massacre (wasn’t that nice?) and that Omar was “a good son.” Religion, he said, had “nothing to do with” his son’s rampage. He was just “angry” at gay people. So he suited up and headed down to the Pulse nightclub where he methodically shot some 100 people. Oh, and Mateen père has supported the Taliban, and claims to be running for the presidency of Afghanistan. (Cue the theme music from The Twilight Zone?)