Diana West has the must-read column of the day on the pathetic inability of Westerners to call the war and the warriors who want infidels beheaded what they are. Too many of our political and military leaders here and across the pond are stuck, Diana writes, in a “mental no-jihad zone.” Case in point:
Objecting to a recent column characterizing his views as being non-comprehending or indifferent to jihad, Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, senior counterinsurgency adviser to our forces in Iraq, wondered in an e-mail whether I “may not like Muslims, and that’s your choice.” It was a long e-mail — one of several — but even these few words convey the viewpoint, increasingly prevalent, that discounts the doctrinal centrality of Islam to jihad violence convulsing the world, from Iraq to London. In the mental no-jihad zone (and, in Lt. Col. Kilcullen’s case, despite what he calls his “significant personal body count of terrorists and insurgents killed or captured”), only personal animus can explain alarm over the Islamic institution of jihad (let alone dhimmitude). “Alternatively,” he wrote, “you may think Islam contains illiberal and dangerous tendencies.”
I may think? I do think “tendencies” such as jihad and dhimmitude. “Again,” he said, “you’re entitled to that view.”
“That view” is increasingly absent at the top, where Islam itself is politically and strategically beside the point. Consider current military thought, as expressed by Lt. Col. Kilcullen: Typical terrorists, he wrote, are “driven by fundamentally non-religious motivational factors.” I wonder which non-religious motivational factors inspired Glasgow’s terror-docs to scream “Allah, Allah” while ramming a flaming car into the airport.
Of course, it gets worse. Debate now divides the Pentagon over a new lexicon for Centcom. At stake is the Islamic term “jihad” itself, which could become officially verboten within the ranks of the fighting force that is actually supposed to defeat it.
This might leave us speechless, but it better not shut us up.
Stifling dissent is precisely the mission of the likes of CAIR, which has chosen veteran syndicated columnist and radio commentator Cal Thomas as its latest target (via WTOP):
Recent remarks from WTOP commentator Cal Thomas have sparked controversy in the Muslim-American community. Now, an Islamic advocacy group is responding to Thomas’ commentary.
In his weekly commentary on WTOP Radio Monday, Cal Thomas discussed the recent thwarted terror attacks in the United Kingdom.
“How much longer should we allow people from certain lands, with certain beliefs to come to Britain and America and build their mosques, teach hate, and plot to kill us?” Thomas asked. “OK, let’s have the required disclaimer: Not all Muslims from the Middle East and southeast Asia want to kill us, but those who do blend in with those who don’t. Would anyone tolerate a slow-spreading cancer because it wasn’t fast-spreading? Probably not. You’d want it removed.”
Thomas’ commentary prompted the Council on American-Islamic Relations to urge its supporters to contact WTOP and voice their concerns. WTOP received many calls and emails from both sides.
On Wednesday, WTOP invited Ibrahim Hooper, a CAIR spokesperson and Cal Thomas, to separately respond to Thomas’ previous comments.
In his response, Hooper said Thomas’ comments undermined CAIR’s effort to promote mutual understanding and social justice.
“For him, I would imagine that his next step is the expulsion of the Muslim-American community,” Hooper said.
I’d settle for keeping the jihad enablers and sympathizers at CAIR out of White House events. But we can’t even ensure that. Steve Emerson reports this morning:
The White House has admitted to a senior government official that it did not vet the audience members in attendance at President Bush’s speech last week at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., despite having been warned of the potential presence of individuals who might have triggered national security concerns.
An informed source has told me that the White House was completely unaware that a Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) representative would be present at President Bush’s speech last week for the rededication ceremony of the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., and, in fact, had no idea who the mosque leaders had invited to the event, basically surrendering the vetting process to the Islamic Center, a Saudi-funded institution with a documented history (pdf) of extremism and anti-Semitism.
Further, the source told me, “We desperately need to know what radical Islamists are doing in this country” and he was “shocked and surprised to learn that the White House would not take greater care of who was vetted to this event,” adding, “this was not your typical Rotary Club invitation.” The source told me that a White House official said that it does not vet all attendees at events to which the President is invited to speak, and the Islamic Center ceremony was no exception. Additionally, the White House was warned by a senior government official that it was making a huge national security error in not vetting those in attendance at the mosque. A White House liaison has told me in the past that CAIR has been barred from attending White House events on national security grounds.
And on cue, CAIR is playing up spokesman Ibrahim Hooper’s attendance at the speech and taking full advantage of its presence to insinuate itself into the President’s agenda.
Our own White House: in the mental no-jihad zone.blog comments powered by Disqus
January 7, 2013 08:27 AM by Michelle Malkin
May 24, 2011 05:14 PM by Michelle Malkin
December 1, 2009 09:01 AM by Michelle Malkin
September 28, 2009 05:10 PM by Michelle Malkin
May 19, 2009 04:07 PM by Michelle Malkin