Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Dearborn MI Guy, "Acting Alone" to Bomb a Mosque: Turns Out He's Muslim !

A friend of mine sent me a link to the story about a man who was caught trying to bomb a Dearborn MI mosque (the story ran January 31, 2011). If this link is broken or if the initial coverage of this story doesn't come up on Google, the gist of this is that a California man--who had a troubled past, including having spent time in prison--loaded his car with explosives and headed to Dearborn MI.  Dearborn has a huge Muslim population, and the mosque in question is enormous. Anyway, this guy--Roger Stockham--was caught before he had the chance to do anything. 

Our friends at CAIR jumped on this: this is EXACTLY the kind of story CAIR likes to trot out to the media as proof that islamophobia is alive and well in American culture. Unfortunately, the same thing happened here that has happened in so many other cases: it so happens that the "random loony islamophobe" is a... Muslim ! It turns out that his issue with the mosque is that it is a shi'a mosque, and Stockham is a sunni Muslim.

The would-be bomber's religion was not mentioned at all in the original story, and his name was sufficiently un-Arabic to allow most readers to assume that he was not a Muslim at all, but someone who had a grudge against Islam and who was enough of a jerk to act on those feelings by killing or maiming other people.  I admit that's what I thought.  Law enforcement officials claimed that Stockham acted alone, but most of the coverage of this incident hinted at an undercurrent of sympathy for the victims of anti-Muslim bigotry. 

It's interesting that CAIR issued a flurry of press releases about this when the story broke, but now that the Stockham's religion has been revealed, CAIR has a)refused to comment on the story and b) expunged any mention of this incident from their website. 

Isn't that interesting? It suddenly NEVER HAPPENED.

You would think that CAIR's ongoing campaign to rid the world of islamophobia would mean that Stockham would be fair game for a long time, but CAIR is only concerned about islamophobia when the islamophobes are not Muslim. In other words, islamophobia is okay if done in the name of Islam. It's a weird, twisted kind of bias, but there it is.

CAIR is sickening with this kind of spin.  One day it's national, huge news and the next day it's NOT news, just because the perpetrator was one of "their" guys? CAIR has no integrity on any level.

It's also worth noting that the national press is staying away from this new development; it's only being mentioned in local news outlets. And why is that, do you think? Maybe because this little example of "not all terrorists are Muslim" doesn't really work here.

But like I said, I was among those who jumped to the conclusion that this was a hate crime involving non-Muslims targeting Muslims. (Even though, for years, I have been following and documenting similar incidents of islamophobia that were actually carried out by Muslims.)

It also makes me wonder if there has been any progress on the mosque-arson that happened subsequent to the Portland OR Christmas tree jihadi attempt.

CAIR has been awfully quiet on that front....and where there's smoke, there's usually fire. The only question is, who lit the match?

Waving a Red Flag in Front of a Lot of Bull

Senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins (Senate Homeland Security Committee) have finally submitted their analysis of the jihadi massacre at Fort Hood, Texas. They've concluded that (Major/Psychiatrist/Seeker of 72 Virgins in Paradise) Nidal Hasan was a "ticking time bomb," and that despite sending up numerous red flags in the military and medical communities, despite being on the FBI's radar as a radicalized Muslim, and despite using disturbingly violent rhetoric to hint at his jihadi agenda, no one lifted a finger to contain this guy.

That's so untrue it's almost laughable, except that, undoubtedly, some careers will be ruined because of this, and possibly charges will be brought against the designated scapegoats.

Lieberman, Collins, and their staff are most upset that no one is being held accountable for this, that no one connected the dots and then followed through.  That's the bottom line: they need a couple of names of people to throw under the bus so that we can all move on after addressing the incompetence of a few bureaucrats. We can pin the blame on a handful of people who were supposed to know better but then let us all down, and who will be held partly responsible for the deaths of the 13 victims at Ft. Hood.

Here's how lame the Lieberman report is: while Lieberman et al are busy pointing fingers, they have also admitted that there were people who saw Hasan for what he was and who tried to stop him.  These people had enough insight into Islam to recognize the threat Hasan posed and to follow this up by insisting he be investigated.

And he was investigated, by the FBI and by his superior officers. The reason the investigations went nowhere was because the evidence against him was "slim." Not one of these agencies fought the idea of going after Hasan--they tried, as far as the law and the culture of political correctness allowed them, to keep him in their sights. Until Hasan started shooting, all the investigators had to go on was that he was an extremely devout Muslim.

The right people were concerned about clear warning signs, and yet they ran into a huge wall. There was only so much they could do about Hasan without violating his right to freely practice his religion. He said nothing, anywhere, that was in contradiction to the precepts of his faith. He defended suicide bombers: so what? There are plenty of mainstream, moderate Muslim scholars who use the Qur'an to defend that idea.

The Lieberman group has run into the same problem the FBI, etc., had: they can't name the elephant in the room. They would instantly be labeled islamophobic and this would destroy their careers--not because they necessarilly get a huge chunk of the Muslim vote to begin with, but because their political enemies will use it to paint them as bigots.

It must have been frustrating for Hasan's colleagues to agonize over how to handle him, and to then approach people who had some authority to investigate him, only to be told, "Yes, we totally agree with you--he is dangerous--but there is nothing we can do without violating his civil rights." It's only when the bullets started hitting live bodies that anyone was allowed to publicly say, "I knew this guy was going to snap!"

I am not advocating that Islam be outlawed, or that religious freedoms be extended to some groups but not to others. But we do need to recognize that some elements of some religions are antithetical to Western culture, and in particular to the laws of the US. (Ask the Mormons what happened to their revelations on plural marriage.)

I am disgusted, but not surprised, that Lieberman's committee did not have the courage to come out and say that yes, people did know that Hasan was dangerous, and yes, they did try to do something about it....but Hasan's right to practice his religion is more important than the lives of the soldiers he killed.

Until that happens, men like Hasan, and the seditious imams who support them, will be able to pursue their murderous plans with impunity.

Saturday, February 5, 2011

Egypt: Be Careful What You Wish For !

I love how some of my liberal friends are applauding the turmoil in Egypt and comparing it to the American Revolution. Except, Paul Revere wasn't a muezzin and TJ, George W. and Ben "C Note" Franklin weren't mullahs. A closer parallel could be drawn between Egypt and the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is already claiming credit for the uprising's blueprint (never mind the difference between Sunna/Shi'a Islam, which can be sorted out later).

Hosni Mubarek's mortally wounded presidency is now popularly described as a corrupt, US-backed puppet regime that has kept a stranglehold on its huge, impoverished, illiterate population, trampling on human rights and systematically eliminating any opposition. The Western media has embraced this version, and has allowed anti-government entities to explain the riots to us. All the average Egyptian wants, we are told, is a voice and a chance to make a decent living.

Reasonable, right? After all, we're the descendants of people who fought and died for the same thing--and whose legacy is a government built on the Constitution.

But that's not what's really going on.

For one thing, during most of his presidency, Mubarek was not seen as a widely-loathed dictator who displayed the heads of his enemies on Cairo's city walls. He was seen as an honest man and an Egyptian patriot, if a bit heavy-handed in his response to silly little acts of mischief like terrorists blowing up cafes with nail bombs. Yes, his regime has regularly been called to task for violating human rights. And yes, that did solidify support for the "martyrs" who were caught, imprisoned, probably tortured and then executed for assassinating "apostates." But then, you don't bring tea and crumpets to a gun fight, and Mubarek can hardly be blamed for addressing the Islamists in the only language they understand.

Even before Mubarek came on the scene, Egyptian leadership has been in a life-or-death struggle against militant Islam, especially as manifested by the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood has been around since the 1920's, later metastasizing into offshoots like Hamas, al-Qaida, and hundreds of other groups. The Brotherhood is dedicated to forming a worldwide Islamist society, where shariah will replace civil law. (I will go into more detail about the Brotherhood in another post.)

In countries where the Brotherhood or its spawn have gained a toehold, the strategy is this: they place themselves in opposition to the status quo, demand free elections, field a candidate, win the election, and then create an Islamic state. Government resistance, such as throwing out the results to those elections, results in war.  (For a practical tutorial on this, read up on Algeria.)

Once the Islamist state has been established and acknowledged, the "free elections," "grassroots democratic ideals," and "social liberties for all" are quickly dispensed with.

Do people not pay attention? The Brotherhood could win an award for having the Least Hidden Agenda ever. They have never tried to disguise their intentions regarding political takeovers. They have always pursued their Islamist goals, with violence if necessary, but preferably by using the very elements developed by Western democracies--which are, by definition, built on the electoral process. As soon as the goal of Islamicization is achieved, democracy is no longer relevent.

It isn't hard to build popular support for Islamist groups, not when the county (in this case, Egypt) has a booming population and a shaky economy that can't keep the wolf from the door. Islamists who go to a village to build schools and clinics win a lot of friends. It's all PR: the government spends more on the infrastructure, but the Brothers get the credit. They also assume the authority to then "suggest" a more fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, which is why women in these areas go from Western attire to full covering, and not the other way around.

Mubarek has tried to modernize Egypt and improve her standard of living. He also has tried to accommodate Islam--not enough for the Brotherhood, but way too much where the moderate Muslims, and the Coptic Christians, are concerned. Islam is taught in the public schools, and the government funds Al-Azhar University (considered the leading school of Muslim thought in the world). He's walked a tightrope for a long time, but moderation in not what the Brotherhood wants. Unless Mubarek imposed shariah on all Egyptians and further marginalized anyone regarded as secular, he too is an enemy of Islam.  

The events of the past week have been disturbing, and a lot of coverage has been devoted to anti-government vs. "pro-government" clashes. I think that's misleading: why would people fighting the anti-government forces be NECESSARILLY pro-government? If the anti-government forces are Islamist, maybe the crowds fighting them are anti-ISLAMIST.

No one seems to want to mention this, possibly because Obama's administration is now saying we should "re-examine" our policies regarding the Brotherhood. Now there's a thought! Why not re-examine our policies regarding al-Qaida? Maybe Obama can invite the Brotherhood's honchos to a "beer summit" like the one he hosted after the Henry Louis Gates debacle. (Not that the Brotherhood guys drink beer--maybe Biden can crack open a can of non-alcoholic O'Doul's.)

Here's what is going to happen in Egypt--et cetera--or possibly is happening at this very moment:

*Mubarek's government will be replaced by an Islamist entity. Whether the Brotherhood or its minions operating under another name will be calling the shots, the Brotherhood's policies will be put in place.

*Similar revolutions are already happening all over the Muslim world. These revolutions will plunge these countries into the 7th Century.

* Why should we care what happens in Egypt? Because Egypt, Israel, and the US have been each other's allies and, whatever flaws in those interactions, these three countries have provided what little stability there is in the Middle East.

* The Brotherhood is dedicated to wiping out Israel and has already hinted that force may be used against Israel.

*If that happens, war with Egypt is inevitable. We will have to defend Israel on both a moral and practical basis: she is our ally, but also, she is strategically important to us as the only democracy in the region.

*If the US falters in her support of Israel, there will be no stopping Islamism from bulldozing through the region and beyond, up into Europe and then on to the Americas. It is likely that the current administration here will try to address this through "dialogue." This will be perceived as weakness. It will fail.

I don't know if there's a solution to all of this.  The only possible solution is for the US to explicitly throw our support behind Mubarek, but deploying troops to Egypt and propping up Mubarek's government would be hugely unpopular here, and it would be pointless unless the Islamists were firmly and decisively dealt with. It would also be a very short-term solution, and we would have to go after the Brotherhood and all its offshoots wherever they show up...that means criminalizing groups that have Islamist mandates, even if they promote themselves as  "civil rights organizations" here in the US.

And for our own survival, that showdown will happen sooner or later.

So you might want to record the coverage of the riots in Egypt. That may well be the streets of Paris or London in about ten years....or for that matter, Washington DC.
 

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

The Man Who Should Be President

If the Youtube link I posted is broken, you can try Allen West explains Islam.  Allen West succinctly explains exactly why Islam has an issue with the civilized world. The only flaw in his speech--that I could tell--is that he mentions the German and Austrian  defense of Vienna, while omitting the potent force of King Jan Sobieski's winged hussars, a fearless (and feared) branch of elite Polish cavalrymen. But that's just a small quibble, and the other battles West mentions are worth reading about (Tours in France and Lepanto in Italy, especially).

He makes the point that non-Muslims should read the Qur'an, as well as related Muslim sources that go into greater detail on forcing everyone to follow "the straight path." Actually, non-Muslims AND Muslims should go back and read up on Islamic scripture and tradition.  Most Muslims are not Arabian, and don't read and write Arabic, and so they depend on imams to explain Islam to them. (And among the Muslims who do speak Arabic, the Qur'an et al are written in classical Arabic, in which only a few people are fluent.) I'm willing to bet that a lot of genuinely peace-loving, apolitical, non-Westernphobic Muslims have been given a highly edited, sanitized version of what Mohammad stood for...and unless they educate themselves, they will continue to be easily manipulated by scholars who lead them around by the nose.

In other words,  it's everyone's responsibility to go to the sources and see what they have to say, with the understanding that millions of Muslims take those words literally.

Allen West is one of the few politicians willing to say this.

The current administration is playing with fire by continuing to downplay the reality of Islamism (like its history of "outreach" to the Muslim Brotherhood). It's putting our allies at risk, which ultimately puts us at risk. We are nation-building in the worst possible way: lending moral support to fundamentalist states that have an agenda of regional, and then world, domination.

We need leadership that understands this, and is willing to face this issue head-on. I sincerely hope that Colonel West's political ambitions reach far beyond representing his state in Congress, and I also hope that those ambitions are realized.

Go West !

Colonel Allen West Answers a Marine's Question