Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘radical Islam’

THE TAVIS SMILEY THING – CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS

Posted by Andrew Roman on June 1, 2010

Tavis Smiley

Ask a liberal this question: If a black man commits a crime, is he, by default, doing so in the name of his blackness? Assuming the criminal did not specifically designate the crime as such, is it fair, or accurate, to say it was a “black” crime, perpetrated in the name of being black?

If a woman commits a crime, is she, by default, doing so in the name of her sex? By virtue of the fact that she is a woman, does it mean that the wrongs she does are automatically assumed to be enacted in the name of her genetalia?

On both counts, it would be a ridiculous assumption … unless evidence supports the claim.

If, for instance, person A (a black man) walks into a convenience store, blows five people away and shouts, “I dole out this justice in the name of my black skin!” can one reasonably assume that the crime was committed in the name of his blackness? Certainly, in his mind, it was … hence, the proclaimation. And what if it is discovered through subsequent investigation that he possessed anti-white literature and posted frequently at militant black-power websites and blogs? Would it then be safe to assume he did so in the name of his blackness?

And what if, person B (a black man) walks into a convenience store, blows five people away and says absolutely nothing about skin color and makes no overt references to the melanin in his skin? Can one conclude the crime was also committed in the name of his skin color? And if ensuing investigations reveal a person who did not involve himself in racially charged activities and did not post at black power blogs, should we still infer he did what he did in the name of being black?

What does the evidence show?

(On a side note, I am vehemently opposed to hate-crime legislation and all the silly post-it-note classifications that liberals attach to crimes. The action is either a crime or it isn’t. The mother of a slain daughter will not feel any better knowing that her baby was murdered by a non-bigot. It’s a matter of values.)

In this country, the overwhelming vast majority of people are Christian.

Does that mean that crimes committed in this country by Christians are necessarily to be considered Christian crimes, even when perpetrator has made no mention of faith and has not referenced his or her faith in the undertaking of the act?

PBS’s Tavis Smiley, an intelligent man by all accounts – and a card-carrying, hard-core liberal – seems to be a tad confused on the matter.

During a recent television interview with Ayann Hirsi-Ali, a Somalian-born Dutch activist and politician who is openly critical of Islam, Smiley broke out his trusted “moral equivelancy” card in discussing the dangers and threats Americans face on a daily basis from radical Christians.

The exchange went like this:

AYANN HIRSI-ALI: The people who were engaged in terrorist activities look like you and me. They look like everyone else here. Major Nidal Hasan, the military guy who, in November, shot thirteen of his colleagues and injured thirty-two – he’s going to be on trial pretty soon, I think this week – (and) the young man, Faisal Shahzad, in Times square, who tried to blow innocent people that he doesn’t know up, these guys are acting on conviction. Somehow, the idea got into their minds that to kill other people is a great thing to do and that they would be rewarded in the heaeafter.

SMILEY: But Christians do that every single day in this country.

AYANN HIRSI-ALI: Do they blow people up-

SMILEY: Yes, Christians, every day – people walk into post offices, they walk into schools … That’s what Columbine was. I mean, I could do this all day long. There are so many more examples of Christians — and I happen to be a Christian, that’s back to this notion of your idealizing Christianity in my mind, to my read — there are so many more examples, Ayaan, of Christians who do that than you could ever give me examples of Muslims who have done that inside this country in which you live and work.

One can only find themselves detached from reality in this way if they are on the left. It is because of Smiley’s leftism that he can say such a thing … and absolutely believe it. (See Attorney General Eric Holder’s unwillingness to admit that radical Islam could be – I say, could be –  a factor in recent domestic terrorist attacks and attempted attacks: “I don’t want to say anything negative about a religion.”)

To begin with, since the beginning of 2006, there have been two post office shootings in the United States, both of which occurred that year.

As horrible as these crimes were, neither of them – nor any of the nearly 40 post office incidents that have occured since 1986 in the United States – were done in the name of Jesus Christ.

School shootings, such as the murderous rampage at Columbine High School, were also not undertaken in the name of Jesus. Rather, these were perpetrated by those who wholly rejected the Christian faith.

The threat of terrorism that exists to the American people by Christians who do so in the name of Jesus Christ is nonexistent. The number of terrorist attacks that have taken place on American soil – or anywhere for that matter – in the name of Christianity is equally quantifiable.

John at the Verum Serum blog writes:

But even if a church-goer gets angry and shoots his landlord today, that’s not at all what Hirsi-Ali was talking about. She’s talking about religiously motivated violence. And when you get to this category, you can bring up the murder of Dr. Tiller, Dr. Slepian and Dr. Britton. Those murders are arguably religiously motivated. But that’s three incidents in 12 years, four if you include Eric Rudolph. And as already noted, that’s compared to three incidents of attempted mass murder (successful in once case) by jihadist in just the last six months.

Has it officially been ruled out that the Times Square bomber was jilted by a girlfriend? Or that he was dissatisfied with Barack Obama’s health care reform bill?

As talk show host Dennis Prager says: “Leftism deprives you of wisdom because it creates a world in which you cannot see clearly.”

wordpress statistics

Posted in terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

BEND OVER … ISLAM COMING

Posted by Andrew Roman on April 26, 2010

There’s an important point to be made regarding the “drawing of the Prophet Mohammed” discussions taking place all over cyberspace in recent days.

Ever since the artistically-courageous Comedy Central television network decided it was best to assume the role of coward by censoring an episode of South Park depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammed in cartoon form – something that is strictly forbidden, according to many Muslims – the topic has been as hot as Al Gore’s twisted perception of the earth’s climate.

Comedy Central’s grab-the-ankles move was motivated only by cowardice. Nothing else. It had nothing to do with sensitivity.

They got scared.

The fact is, even if one hundred thousand devout Christians protested in the streets against a  South Park episode portraying Jesus in a less than favorable light, no one at the drawing boards would worry about violent retribution from a vengeful gang of Christ followers.

Even a Seattle artist, Molly Norris, who initially won my respect by creating a clever campaign called “Everybody Draw Muhamned Day,” has done an about-face, tucking her once audacious tail back between her legs and scurrying back to her den of political correctness and sick submission. On her website, she wrote: “I am NOT involved in “Everybody Draw Mohammd [sic] Day!”

Such courage.

Such fortitude.

I suppose fearing an IED blast from under your chair at Starbucks is sufficiently motivating.

Indeed, submerging a crucifix in a container of urine can pass for thought-provoking, bold social commentary – while, most importantly, striking no fear whatsoever in the heart of any artist who wishes to desecrate Christ in such a way – but daring to portray Mohammed in picture form (something that was done in the Middle Ages, incidentally) is a cataclysmic no-no.

Okay.

So be it.

Miss Tammy at the great Weasel Zippers blog wrote: “May she enjoy her dhimmitude.”

Nice.

The obvious point to be made here is that there is no danger of a band of knife-wielding rabbis storming the offices of a publication that depicts Moses or Isaiah in a funny hat wearing a bathrobe. There will be no ax-brandishing gang of Jesus-loving extremists busting down the door of a television production facility that creates a cartoon of a mellow, perhaps-high, Jesus Christ working in a record store in Rhode Island – like on The Family Guy, for instance.

The larger, more relevant point to make here is that only in Islam do practitioners expect non-believers to adhere to their beliefs at the risk of a violent backlash (see Theo Van Gogh).

First of all, why is it necessary for non-Muslims to have to keep from depicting Muhammed in art form if they don’t believe he is a prophet? Isn’t that akin to Jews demanding that non-Jews avoid bacon because they keep kosher? Or threatening violence if gentiles mix milk and meat? Isn’t that as ridiculous a proposition as insisting that non-Christians wear a cross around their necks or else risk getting blown up?

Second, why do non-Muslims call Muhammed the “Prophet” when, to them, he isn’t one? I don’t hear a lot of Muslims calling Jesus “The Savior, Jesus.”

The sad irony is that the very thing “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” was supposed to address – namely, the outrageousness of death threats aimed at people who draw Mohammed – is what caused Norris to turn-tail.

Norris was certainly not equipped to be the “leader” of such a movement. She simply had a good idea that caught on, and then got scared when it got “too real” for her. This really isn’t intended as an indictment on her. Rather, this is slice to the throat of those who continue to tow the ever-fracturing line of moral relativism.

I am confident that the “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” will now take on a life of its own.

Mark it down on your calender.

It’s May 20th.

 

wordpress statistics

Posted in Islam | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

IT’S CONSERVATISM’S FAULT?

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 24, 2009

Nidal Malik Hasan, terrorist

In all of their self-serving delusional grandeur, the mainstream media remains dogmatically determined to cite reasons other than Nidal Malik Hasan’s religion for the November 5th terrorist attack that killed thirteen at Fort Hood.

Believe it or not, they may have actually hit upon one, thanks to New York Times columnist Robert Wright .

It’s American conservatism.

In a piece published on Saturday, Wright blamed Hasan’s shooting spree on being “pushed over the edge by his perception of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.” (both of which were initiated by a Republican president).

And while Wright cedes that Hasan also “drew inspiration” from radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki, now in Yemen, the Fort Hood shooting was, according to him, “an example of Islamist terrorism being spread partly by the war on terrorism — or, actually, by two wars on terrorism, in Iraq and Afghanistan.” 

He went on to say that “Fort Hood is the biggest data point we have — the most lethal Islamist terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. It’s only one piece of evidence, but it’s a salient piece, and it supports the liberal, not the conservative, war-on-terrorism paradigm.” (Not that thousands of Islamic terrorist attacks all over the world over the course of many years are especially salient in understanding Hasan’s motivations, mind you).

In fact, Wright believes that Hasan’s actions are mostly the  result of a noxious combination of conservative war-mongering and bats flapping around in his belfry:

It’s true that Major Hasan was unbalanced and alienated — and, by my lights, crazy. But what kind of people did conservatives think were susceptible to the terrorism meme?

These may be the two most asinine lines I’ve yet come across on the Hasan matter.

What is he talking about?

Hasan was isolated because he chose to be. Strange as it may seem to Wright, Hasan’s radical Islamic yammerings probably didn’t appeal to too many of his fellow soldiers. Talking jihad is not a great little ice-breaker.

Note how Wright initially classifies Hasan as “unbalanced and alienated.” By Wright’s reckoning, Hasan is crazy. Yet, in the next sentence, he appears to explain away the bulk of, if not all, Islamic terrorists, by suggesting that anyone “susceptible” to jihad must be, by default, “unbalanced and alienated.” In other words, terrorists, while bad, are prone to be frail mental flowers teetering on the edge of self-control, driven over the cliff by outside forces – in this case, two Muslim-erradicating wars waged by George W. Bush.

unbalanced?

Seriously, this is how liberals think.

America – or rather, conservative America, with its propensity toward hawkish, unnuanced solutions to the most complex problems of the human condition – is to blame (at least in part) for driving Hasan to kill. Safe to say, if the United States were not involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, people like Hasan, while still unbalanced, would probably have never been pushed to blow away innocents.

If not for America, so the thinking goes, recruiting numbers at suicide-bombing re-up centers would plummet. (It’s one of the reasons President Obama gave for closing Guantanamo Bay, you’ll recall – because of its function as an Al-Qaeda recruiting tool). By such logic, America shouldn’t bother fighting against terrorists at all, thus ensuring zero recruitment among the murdering class. Only the unhinged and easily-provoked are “susceptible to the terrorism meme.”

How would such an approach work in the civilian world, I wonder, in dealing with criminals such as serial rapists? Or child molesters? Or murderers? Would societal conditions improve or deteriorate if law enforcement officials decided to stop being so “aggressive” in pursuing evil-doers? Does it make sense for law enforcement to back off for fear of creating more rapists? Or bank robbers?

Or are common criminals not as “crazy” or as easily provoked as jihadists?

Wright continues:

Central to the debate over Afghanistan is the question of whether terrorists need a “safe haven” from which to threaten America. If so, it is said, then we must work to keep every acre of Afghanistan (and Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, etc.) out of the hands of groups like the Taliban. If not — if terrorists can orchestrate a 9/11 about as easily from apartments in Germany as from camps in Afghanistan — then maybe never-ending war isn’t essential.

However you come out on that argument, the case of Nidal Hasan shows one thing for sure: Homegrown American terrorists don’t need a safe haven. All they need is a place to buy a gun.

Liberals are funny when they try to think things through.

Take a moment to ask yourself this …

How many homegrown Islamist terrorist attacks have there been on American soil over the years?

Perhaps a better question is … how many homegrown Islamist terrorist attacks have there been on American soil over the course of time that did not involve a United States Army Officer (who most likely would not have had not too many problems acquiring a firearm anyway)?

It is precisely because America is not a safe haven that so many terrorist attacks have been thwarted over the years.

And why is it not a safe haven?

Because of the presence (both overtly and covertly) of those men and women charged with the task of defending the United States against all foes, foreign and domestic.

In short, it’s just not very feasible for terrorists to train and prepare for 9/11 style attacks in the United States (or in most free nations, for that matter) the same way they would be able to do in nations sympathetic to their cause. Obviously, preparations can be undertaken to varying degrees in almost any location, as evidenced by the number of stateside plots that have been squashed in recent years;  but the notion that one can hatch, and train for, terrorist attacks with the same ease  – and with the same scope – from “apartments in Germany” as they can from Taliban-protected camps in Afghanistan is ridiculous.

Just because one believes that terrorism can potentially spring from almost everywhere does not mean nothing should be done anywhere.

This is about values, not the ability to acquire a gun.

This is about having the courage to label evil, not the willingness to protect diversity at the expense of innocent lives.

Presumably, in Wright’s world, if those external forces that so played havoc with Hasan would just back off and stop doing whatever they’re doing to provoke the susceptibly unhinged who have yet to snap, terrorism would drop like President Obama’s approval numbers.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Dumb Liberals, Evil, Foreign Policy, religion, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »