Ditch multiculturalism, or kiss freedom goodbye....
It is irony indeed when a nighttime comedian has a better grasp of the threat posed by militant Islam than many of our leaders. Bill Maher--who famously right after 9/11 idiotically defended 9/11's 19 Islamist fanatics against charges that their suicidal terrorist acts were cowardly--put Ben Affleck in his multi-culti place (10:05) last year.
In Paris, gendarmes arrived on the scene of yesterday's horrific mass murder, without guns, and had to flee from terrorists armed with AK-47s. This, as the threat of homegrown Islamist cells in France is growing.
In Germany, far-right groups have marched against Islam's inroads into German society, defying Chancellor Angela Merkel's appeal on behalf of Islam. The Gray Lady reports that other right-wing movements are sprouting in europe, creating a "dangerous moment" for the continent.
In Britain, authorities took two children from a jihadist mother--if that is the correct term--who was brainwashing them to wage jihad against the country hosting them.
In the US, a senator's pique trumps all as she assails CIA interrogators for practices she knew about in the early days after 9/11, inflicting immense damage on US prestige to score political points and engage in a favorite political pastime in the US, moral preening.
At Commentary Blog Jonathan Tobin notes that self-censorship (sub.) has been the hallmark of Western reactions to complaints from Islamists:
That is what brings us to today’s tragedy. One needn’t approve of offensive videos about a faith practiced by more than a billion people. Nor should we insist that satirists skewer Muslims rather than Mormons. But the plain fact of the matter is that French editors and writers who were brave enough to mock Islamists who threaten the freedoms of the world were gunned down today in Paris while those who take aim at easier targets rake in profits without fear of being attacked. If that doesn’t constitute a clear and present danger to free speech, then nothing does.
The proper response to the attack on Charlie Hebdo involves greater vigilance in the West about homegrown Islamist terror. The effort by some, especially in the liberal mainstream media, to shut down discussions about the danger from Islamists living in the West has helped create an atmosphere in which police and intelligence officials may be deterred from doing what is necessary to defend us. The myth of a post-9/11 backlash against American Muslims has played a role in promoting a false narrative in which radical Islam is made the victim of the story rather than the religious inspiration for terrorism. But we need more than better police work. What the West needs more than ever is a willingness on the part of our leaders and opinion makers to tell the truth about the danger from radical Islam. We should make it clear that while we are not at war with Islam, neither will we tolerate a war on democracy and free speech by European Islamists or their allies in the Middle East.
What we should be thinking about today is whether at long last the West is prepared to stand up and defend its civilization and its values against a growing sense on the part of the Muslim world that it has the right to censure speech with which it disagrees. Until Europe and America stop apologizing and engaging in self-censorship out of fear of offending Islamists, the slaughter in Paris won’t be the last such outrage.
In another post, Tobin (sub.) notes that the president's description of the Paris atrocity as "senseless" violence is absurd; the attack was a purposeful exercise aimed at silencing criticism of militant Islam by Westerners.
Meanwhile, Islamist Turkey, once leaning towards Europe, defended the Islamists, and their asserted right to punish remarks they find offensive.
Worst of all is journalistic cowardice exemplified by silence when a Seattle cartoonist was forced into seclusion after calling for a "Draw Muhammad Day."
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, celebrated Somali-Dutch expatriate, warns that we cannot prevail unless we identify the enemy:
How we respond to this attack is of great consequence. If we take the position that we are dealing with a handful of murderous thugs with no connection to what they so vocally claim, then we are not answering them. We have to acknowledge that today’s Islamists are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in the foundational texts of Islam. We can no longer pretend that it is possible to divorce actions from the ideals that inspire them.
This would be a departure for the West, which too often has responded to jihadist violence with appeasement. We appease the Muslim heads of government who lobby us to censor our press, our universities, our history books, our school curricula. They appeal and we oblige. We appease leaders of Muslim organizations in our societies. They ask us not to link acts of violence to the religion of Islam because they tell us that theirs is a religion of peace, and we oblige.
What do we get in return? Kalashnikovs in the heart of Paris. The more we oblige, the more we self-censor, the more we appease, the bolder the enemy gets.
A WSJ editorial notes (sub.) that militant Islam's challenge is ideological: opposition of religious pluralism and Western freedoms.
Bottom Line. Our response should be predicated upon the following premise as to free-speech freedoms: "Nous sommes tous les Parisiens!"
Letter from the Capitol, LFTC, Homeland Security, National Security, Foreign Policy, Conservative Politics