The enemies of freedom and democracy are always at work. Sadly they are often helped by those whom Lenin referred to as “useful idiots”. That is, many in the West are wittingly or unwittingly assisting the enemies of the West in their purposes and plans.
Appeasement is often a part of this process. By not taking seriously our enemies and their intentions, and by seeking to placate them, or minimise their threats, Western appeasers often do more harm than good, even if they have good intentions.
This happened quite often during the Cold War. Western apologists for Soviet aggression tried to in fact justify totalitarian Communism, often blaming the West for their belligerence. They sought to make excuses for Marxist imperialism, and sought to blame the Cold War on the West.
The same is happening today with imperialistic Islamism. Plenty of Westerners are seeking to defend the jihadists, and make excuses for them. They buy the line that Muslims are victims, and somehow the West is to blame for acts of Islamic terrorism.
In the effort to appease Islam, these apologists will go to great lengths to deny the obvious, and end up blaming the West, even when it is the target of Muslim violence. The recent massacre at Fort Hood in Texas is a clear case in point.
Many in the MSM have done their best to play down the obvious Islamic motivation of the shooting spree by army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan. They do not want to mention the “I” word (Islam) and they do not want to mention the “T” word (terrorism). They certainly do not want to mention the two words together.
As just one example, when the story first broke, the Melbourne Age ran with the line that Hasan had been bullied and hassled by fellow military personnel. They wanted to make excuses for him, in other words. They certainly did not want to mention the I or T words.
That is because the Age is into appeasement big time. It is quite happy to regularly insult and offend biblical Christians, but it is always fearful of upsetting any Muslim readers. But they are not alone in this. The leader of the free world is sadly very much in the same boat.
Consider the most recent remarks of Barack Hussein Obama at the memorial service just held at Fort Hood. He said this at the service: “It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know – no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor.”
Sorry Mr Obama, but there was no twisted logic going on here at all. It was all fully logical, from a strict Muslim point of view. Hasan was carrying out what his Koran says time and time again; what the hadith state; what the life and teachings of Muhammad exemplify; and what 1400 years of Islamic expansionism attest to.
Killing the infidels is a holy and sacred duty in Islam. And Obama is wrong in his second sentence as well. There is one faith that very much does justify such “murderous and craven acts”. Hasan’s acts have full justification, as mentioned, from all the major sources of Islamic authority, beginning with the Koran.
Fortunately a number of commentators are going against the censorious stream of the MSM, and are speaking out on these foolish and dangerous attempts at appeasement and subterfuge.
English commentator Melanie Phillips for example reminds us of a few simple truths here. She asks why her own country has allowed Islamists to be “recruited to serve in the British police and other parts of the establishment”. But then she notes that the US has been doing the same thing.
“America was going in a similar direction, albeit more slowly and with a quite different demographic. While the vast majority of its Muslim citizens appeared to be people who really had come to the US to get a slice of the good life and had signed up to American values, there was a growing element amongst US Muslims which was becoming steadily radicalised.
“Worse still, the FBI and other counter-terrorism agencies had been influenced by their appeasement-minded British cousins in the security world peddling their wholly false analysis of Islamic terrorism as having nothing to do with religion, encouraging US officials similarly to downplay or passively allow the rise of US radicalisation.”
As Dick Morris notes, this was an act of terrorism: “His statements right before opening fire would indicate that Hasan was motivated by fanaticism and a commitment to Islamic fascism, even though President Obama bends over backwards to avoid saying so.
“Obama’s refusal to call the attack terrorism, and to heed the warning signs about the porous nature of our security system that allowed it to happen on a military base, recalls President Clinton’s deliberate decision to downplay the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. He did not visit the site of the attack and treated it as a crime, promising to find those guilty and punish them, rather than to attack the international groups that funded and enabled them.”
He continues, “It was his failure to understand the difference between an act of war and a crime that undermined President Clinton’s administration’s anti-terror efforts and led directly to 9-11. It would appear that President Obama is going down the same road of denial and minimization of political harm. There may be casualties at Ft. Hood, but Obama is determined that his popularity will not be among them.”
Andrew Bolt is also incredulous at how the MSM is handling this story. Why is the obvious being denied here? “The Fort Hood killer, army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan, was a Muslim. He shouted ‘God is great’ in Arabic as he opened fire. What’s more, fellow doctors and students had complained about his fiery preaching of Islam and ‘anti-American propaganda’. He’d praised the killing in June of another US soldier by a Muslim American. Colonel Terry Lee also recalled Hasan telling him: ‘Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor.’ And these were all facts known to journalists within hours.”
He continues, “In fact, journalist after journalist advanced every possible motive of the massacre bar the one that was screaming in their ears. Oh, you think I’m exaggerating? Then let’s review, just for a start, the ABC’s coverage on Friday. Its first substantial report, by correspondent Lisa Millar, failed in eight minutes to even note the killer was a Muslim, hinting only that Hasan may have suffered harassment because of his unspecified ‘family background’. And, yes, I’m sure you noticed: a Muslim accused of murdering 13 non-Muslims was once more to be portrayed as the real victim.”
Indeed, there is plenty of evidence here. We have known about Hasan for quite some time. Michelle Malkin notes that back in 2007 Hasan gave a “chilling slide presentation … at Walter Reed Hospital while a senior-year psych resident” in which he said “We love death more then [sic] you love life!”
Here in Australia Christian politician Fred Nile put out a press release asking some hard questions about Muslims in our military forces. “This is the second occasion in recent memory when a Muslim member of the US Armed forces has apparently sought martyrdom by a murderous attack on his fellows,” referring to the April 2003 grenade attack in Kuwait by Hasan Akbar which killed two officers and wounded a dozen soldiers.
“Australians would like to be assured that our Defence Forces have in place a system of assessment and review which would identify any person whose adherence to any alien ideology might one day override loyalty to mates and loyalty to the Crown. There is an argument for suggesting that the safety and morale of our troops may warrant a ban on dedicated Muslims joining the Armed Forces, who may be influenced by Islamic Fundamentalism.”
Then there is the foolishness of so-called hate crimes laws. Many Western countries are enacting them to give special clout to two minority groups: homosexual and Muslims. But as Rev. Scarborough asks, was not this a hate crime?
“We know that Dr. Hasan is a devout Muslim who once told a fellow officer that ‘Muslims have a right to stand up against the U.S. military.’ Clearly, yesterday’s rampage was not motivated by love. Given Hasan’s worldview, it’s probable that he was motivated in part by an animus toward Christians and Jews. Assuming that murder charges are brought against him, will Hasan also be charged with a hate crime?”
Scarborough said this highlights the absurdity of hate crimes laws. “If convicted, Hasan could face life in prison or the death penalty. Fanatics are not deterred by the prospect of an additional penalty for hating.”
Once again it is the alternative media that is getting the true story out, as the MSM again fails to do its duty, instead succumbing to political correctness and harmful appeasement. But how many more lives will be sacrificed for such reckless appeasement?