AP has this on the leader of these swine:
Prosecutors said the Sydney and Melbourne terror cells were led by Algerian-born firebrand cleric Abu Bakr, 45, who was among those arrested. He made headlines earlier this year by calling Usama bin Laden a "great man," and saying he would be violating his religious beliefs if he told his followers not to travel to Iraq to join the insurgency. [1]Since Islamic terror is ubiquitous, well financed, and in deadly earnest -- and the much sought after "moderate" Muslims have yet to be captured on film despite numerous photo tripwires set out in the Deep Woods -- clearly the presence of this "firebrand cleric" is an indication that something went tragically wrong in this Western nation when it allowed such an animal to enter Australia and to flourish.
An Australian proposal to allow terror suspects to be subject to up to a year of electronic monitoring is thus an excellent idea, even if it is limited in its scope.
More to the point, special provisions applicable only to Muslim immigrants need to be implemented.
Given the obvious fact that we are at war with radical Islam -- surely not a debatable proposition -- and the so-called moderate Muslims are of no use whatsoever in dealing with the radicals, the Australians and we should abjure any tolerance of all foreign-origin Muslims ("clerics" especially) who do not solemnly swear that sharia can never be the law of the land, that apostasy from Islam is theologically permitted and cannot be punished by death, and that the concept of najis as it has historically applied to infidels is corrupt and debased. For starters.
When the "cleric" Abu Bakr calls Usama bin Laden a "great man," organizes terror, and says that it would violate his "religious beliefs" to tell his followers not to join the Iraqi terrorists, he is like giving us several Valuable Clues that we ignore at our peril:
- To fight against Americans is a religious duty mandated by the basic tenets of Islam, not just a desirable political act in the view of some Muslim from Algeria.
- Anyone who opposes or impedes radical Muslim objectives can be killed without fear of religious sanction.
- There will be no gratitude toward any host government on the part of Muslim immigrants.
- The thinking of Muslims is very, very different from that of other people.
Were we to read, for example, that any Christian pastor had organized a terror cell, we would be astounded at the distance the man had fallen from the tenets of his faith. When we read of a Muslim “cleric” doing the same thing, who among us is the least bit surprised? The man is just . . . doing . . . his . . . job. Isn’t he?!
Ayatollah Khomeini was acting true to his religion and -- without protest from any significant Muslim quarter -- ordered the summary execution of Salman Rushdie for being a smart ass.
Establishing the freedoms of the West has been an expensive proposition but to permit them to be used by the sworn enemies of the West is madness, sheer suicide. Historically, hostile and inconsistent belief systems take hold in countries because of military invasion.
In the latter part of the 20th century, however, Western nations, out of (1) naive humanitarian concern, (2) allegiance to vacuous "nation of immigrant" and multiculturalism doctrines, and (3) for other reasons permitted people from vastly different cultural backgrounds freely to enter their countries and reside there.
In all instances -- but one -- this is not something that necessarily subverted the established order. Chinese, Haitians, Hindus, Hmongs, Vietnamese, Latin Americans, etc. brought vitality and a valuable diversity of (acceptable) practice and (non hostile) attitude without an on board, down-to-the-bone desire to trash local customs and laws or subjugate or kill their new hosts.
The one exception, of course, is people of the Muslim faith. All of them for our present purposes. The Colonel simply has zero faith that Muslim moderates care about the challenge posed by the salafists, or that, if they do, they will engage in any kind of effective action to eradicate their influence. The Colonel believes the presumption should be that Muslim "moderates" tacitly support the goals of the radical Islamicists or are too afraid not to. Eighty percent of American mosques are financed by Saudi money[2] and thus beholden to or controlled by the execrable wahhabists. These lunatics ("Islalooneys") submerge or cow the rest, who have remained and will remain silent.
CAIR does its part.[3]
"Moderates" have to rebut the presumption of cooperation. If the Colonel is wrong, let it be proved.
Thus, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798[4] were just ahead of their time by about 203 years (with the exception of the Sedition Act, which is silly) and should be used liberally today against any and all who engage in overt acts of support for the Islamicists.
President Adams's concept of "dangerous" aliens (viz., radical Frenchmen) was pretty mild compared to what our experience of foreign Muslim terrorists in our midst has been.
Stated simply, the debate about the detention of extremists at Guantanamo does not go far enough. We need to face fearlessly the unpleasant truths brought to the surface by Muslim hatred of the West and their infiltration of the West at the misguided invitation of Westerners.
Notes
[1] "Report: Sydney Terror Suspects Had Chemicals for 15 Bombs." Associated Press, 12/9/05.
[2] "Saudis Have Radicalized 80% of US Mosques." Little Green Footballs, 12/6/05.
[3] "WMAL bows before CAIR (Michael Graham fired)." By Krempasky, RedState.org, 8/21/05.
[4] "Alien and Sedition Acts." Wikipedia.
No comments:
Post a Comment