There’s a lot of special pleading about Orlando from Muslims and liberals. It’s time to do away with that. If not, we give the issue away to Trump.
The atrocious attack in Orlando, Florida, was an act of ISIS-inspired jihadist terrorism that targeted gays. It must concern us all.
Before any of our assumed multiple identities, we are human beings first and foremost. You don’t have to be black to condemn racism, nor Jewish to condemn anti-Semitism, nor Muslim to condemn anti-Muslim bigotry, and you certainly don’t have to be gay to condemn the evil that just descended upon Orlando.
A puerile response by some of my fellow Muslims is to ask “why should we apologize for something that has nothing to do with us.” But this entirely misses the point.
Just as we Muslims expect solidarity from wider society against anti-Muslim bigotry and racism, likewise we must reciprocate solidarity toward victims of Islamist extremism. Just as we encourage others to actively denounce racism wherever they see it, so too must we actively denounce Islamist theocratic views wherever we find them.
Enough with the special pleading. Enough with the denial. Enough with the obfuscation.
The killer of Orlando was a homophobic Muslim extremist, inspired by an ideological take on my own religion, Islam. In just the first seven days of this holy month of Ramadan, various jihadists have carried out attacks in Tel Aviv, Baghdad, Damascus, Idlib, Beirut, Orlando, and now Paris.
This global jihadist insurgency threatens every corner of the world and has killed more Muslims than members any other faith. So why pretend it does not exist? Why shy away from calling it by name?
So far do many of us liberals go in denying the problem, that we’re happy to stigmatize other vulnerable minorities in the process. “He was not a Muslim, he was nothing but a mad lunatic,” we cry in exasperation. As if those with mental health issues are somehow automatically predisposed to murder, or immune to manipulation and exploitation by cynical Islamists and jihadists.
So far do many of us liberals go in denying the problem, that we’re happy to stigmatize other vulnerable minorities in the process. “He was not a Muslim, he was nothing but a mad lunatic,” we cry in exasperation. As if those with mental health issues are somehow automatically predisposed to murder, or immune to manipulation and exploitation by cynical Islamists and jihadists.
Then there’s that other old tactic to try and avoid discussing the Islamist ideology. “He wasn’t from the Muslim community,” we proclaim. “He was acting in isolation, a lone wolf.” [...]
It is time that we liberals took the fabled red pill and accepted reality. Just as this clearly has something to do with outdated gun laws, and just as those laws need reform, this also has something to do with Islam, which also needs reform today. No other stance makes any sense. [...]
Liberals who claim that this has nothing to do with Islam today are being as unhelpful and as ignorant as conservatives who claim that this represents all of Islam. The problem so obviously has something to do with Islam. That something is Islamism, or the desire to impose any version of Islam over any society. Jihadism is the attempt to do so by force. This ideology of Islamism has been rising almost unchecked among Muslims for decades. It is a theocratic ideology, and theocracy should no longer have any place in the world today.
But it is as if we liberals will stoop to anything to avoid discussing ideology. We will initiate state sanctioned presidential kill lists and launch unaccountable targeted assassinations. Yet, no amount of drone strikes under Obama—at a rate that far exceeds Bush—will ever solve the problem. We cannot shoot our way out of an ideology. We cannot arrest our way out of an insurgency. Yes, law and war have their own place, but they will never solve the problem.
In the long run, only reducing the local appeal of this ideology will solve the problem. Whereas Islam today requires reform, the Islamist ideology must be intellectually terminated. To do so requires first acknowledging it exists, isolating it from Muslims, devising a strategy to challenge it, and then backing the voices that do. [...]
So this is my appeal to President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and to all liberals and Muslims, for humanity’s sake let’s stop playing politics with evil. Just as this so obviously has something to do with lax gun laws, it so clearly has something to do with Islam. Hillary Clinton nearly conceded as much after these recent attacks. But liberals must own this debate, not merely appear to be defensively reacting to Trump’s agenda.
This September will mark 15 years since the 9/11 attacks, and we still haven’t devised a strategy to address Islamist extremism, let alone identified voices who can do so globally. Not al Qaeda, not ISIS, nor any other theocratic jihadist group that may emerge in the future, but a strategy that recognizes we are in the middle of a Cold War against theocracy. If we refuse to isolate, name and shame Islamist extremism, from fear of increasing anti-Muslim bigotry, we only increase anti-Muslim bigotry. If the rise of Trump has not convinced us of this yet, then nothing will.
Then there’s that other old tactic to try and avoid discussing the Islamist ideology. “He wasn’t from the Muslim community,” we proclaim. “He was acting in isolation, a lone wolf.” [...]
It is time that we liberals took the fabled red pill and accepted reality. Just as this clearly has something to do with outdated gun laws, and just as those laws need reform, this also has something to do with Islam, which also needs reform today. No other stance makes any sense. [...]
Liberals who claim that this has nothing to do with Islam today are being as unhelpful and as ignorant as conservatives who claim that this represents all of Islam. The problem so obviously has something to do with Islam. That something is Islamism, or the desire to impose any version of Islam over any society. Jihadism is the attempt to do so by force. This ideology of Islamism has been rising almost unchecked among Muslims for decades. It is a theocratic ideology, and theocracy should no longer have any place in the world today.
But it is as if we liberals will stoop to anything to avoid discussing ideology. We will initiate state sanctioned presidential kill lists and launch unaccountable targeted assassinations. Yet, no amount of drone strikes under Obama—at a rate that far exceeds Bush—will ever solve the problem. We cannot shoot our way out of an ideology. We cannot arrest our way out of an insurgency. Yes, law and war have their own place, but they will never solve the problem.
In the long run, only reducing the local appeal of this ideology will solve the problem. Whereas Islam today requires reform, the Islamist ideology must be intellectually terminated. To do so requires first acknowledging it exists, isolating it from Muslims, devising a strategy to challenge it, and then backing the voices that do. [...]
So this is my appeal to President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and to all liberals and Muslims, for humanity’s sake let’s stop playing politics with evil. Just as this so obviously has something to do with lax gun laws, it so clearly has something to do with Islam. Hillary Clinton nearly conceded as much after these recent attacks. But liberals must own this debate, not merely appear to be defensively reacting to Trump’s agenda.
This September will mark 15 years since the 9/11 attacks, and we still haven’t devised a strategy to address Islamist extremism, let alone identified voices who can do so globally. Not al Qaeda, not ISIS, nor any other theocratic jihadist group that may emerge in the future, but a strategy that recognizes we are in the middle of a Cold War against theocracy. If we refuse to isolate, name and shame Islamist extremism, from fear of increasing anti-Muslim bigotry, we only increase anti-Muslim bigotry. If the rise of Trump has not convinced us of this yet, then nothing will.
Actually it will be fascinating to watch how this plays out. On one hand the gay community is uber-liberal and therefore opposed to any limitations on immigration. On the other hand, one of those immigrants just attacked them. Are they listening to Trump?
ReplyDeleteOn one hand the gay community is uber-liberal and therefore opposed to any limitations
ReplyDeleteMany of them have responded by saying that this should not be used to "spread hate against Muslims". They are refusing to acknowledge that the problem is hate of the Western man or Islam. In two words: Cognitive dissonance.
No, they will go the Gun Control route rather than the Muslim route.
ReplyDeleteClinton being much more in favor of gun control will be viewed as the candidate most likely to prevent a repeat attack.
Actually, the killer was born in the US. Also, according to a number of people including his ex-wife, an ex-schoolmate and several people he's been hanging out with at the gay bar for over a year and communicating with over a gay dating app, the killer himself is gay.
ReplyDeleteIf a gunman is not acting on orders but just acting out, it's just plain ol' deranged mass murder acting alone, not terrorism. The political players that be have coopted this in a bid to hijack public fear.
ReplyDeletewhy not consider it incitement to encourage everyone to commit acts of terrorism. If the excitement didn't exist the nuts would not do acts of terroism
ReplyDeleteIf the author of this article doesn't like his own religion, fine. But he should study it before changing it. A while back I had an opportunity to review a video that included an expert on Islam. It was apparent to me that this scholar had spent years seriously studying Islam from an objective perspective.
ReplyDeleteHe taught that Jihad is not obligation on all Muslims. They have the prerogative to take it on. Thus the fact that this author and the vast majority of Muslims are not Jihadists is not the whole story. The vast majority of Americans do not volunteer to serve in the U.S. military, either. That doesn't make civilians "real" Americans while enlisted soldiers are not.
Americans organize their soldiers into armies. Jihadists at this point in history are more in the guerrilla mode.
There is some crossover. Commander Anders Breivik was a lone wolf. ISIS in some areas is highly organized.
We are at war. The author got that right. So, thank you to the blog owner for posting this. The article indicates that so-called liberals are realizing that if they don't trumpify a little that they will become irrelevant.
Nonsense. There have been any number of terrorist acts perpetrated by Muslims not because they are deranged, but because they are devout. The guy stated that he's doing it for ISIS, for pete's sake. No one is coopting anything except in the minds (such as they are) of wacky conspiracists.
ReplyDeleteSo what if he's born in the US? He's the radicalized US-born child of immigrants. The problem is still one of Muslim immigration.
ReplyDeleteHome grown is even worse. Biting the hand that feeds you is bibchinat bonim gidalti veromamti veheimo poshu bi. It's done because they are convenient sleepers to wake them up at any time and any place. They can mingle with the crowd, scout out, and blow themselves into oblivion taking along masses of innocent bystanders. This is why they must be totally eradicated off of the face of the earth at it's source.
ReplyDeleteSo we need to expel all muslims from the country? What exactly can you suggest that would have prevented this?
ReplyDeleteWe can't expel citizens, obviously. But we can stop future immigration, and we can expel non-citizens. Both of those steps would prevent the presence in this country of people like this murderer.
ReplyDeleteWhy can't we expel citizens?
ReplyDeleteThat argument cannot stand, DT. When a deranged lunatic offers some pretext for his deranged behavior, that hardly demonstrates it to be the cause. Why give his excuses such credence? The bottom line is this: Had the FBI & CIA magically "solved" the ISIS problem six months ago, would this boy still have gunned down dozens of innocents at a gay nightclub? The answer seems to be probably yes.
ReplyDeleteBy your logic, if a mass murderer said demonic voices caused him to murder, then we ought to look into curbing religion in order to save lives. DItto for the gunman at the abortion clinic. We can't scoff at his claims to act out of Christian love and then swallow this boy's stated sympathies with ISIS, none of whom he'd never met.
What would make it terrorist is if some organized terrorists aided & abetted the act. Not that the press seems to care. Nor do their readers seem to care to think critically. (That'd be you & kishkeyum.)
See my reply to DT immediately above.
ReplyDeleteA side-word of advice, assuming you're frum: You may want to revisit the advisability of the "pete's sake" phraseology in the future.
Also, when someone hops on some incident as an example of something that it's not, that called "coopting." No conspiracies anywhere in sight, just their demagoguery and your silly accusations.
The bottom line is this: Had the FBI & CIA magically "solved" the ISIS problem six months ago, would this boy still have gunned down dozens of innocents at a gay nightclub? The answer seems to be probably yes.
ReplyDeleteActually, the answer is no!
You do have to take a broad and consistent look at him and the thousands and thousands of others who are like him. Some Muslims barbarically behead people, then the disgusting video of it inspires hundreds of Muslims to drop their lives and join ISIS. This is a fact. This idiot would not have done it if there was no ISIS or violent Islam.
Also, when someone hops on some incident as an example of something that it's not, that called "coopting."
ReplyDeleteCorrect. And when they correctly characterize an incident as what it is, that's not called "coopting," as in the case of calling the Orlando atrocity an example of Muslim terrorism.
You can spare me your advice, it doesn't interest me in the slightest.
Because they have the right as citizens to remain here, genius. As non-citizens do not.
ReplyDeletehttp://nypost.com/2016/06/18/why-the-lone-wolf-terrorist-is-a-myth/
ReplyDeleteFacts for you. It's all about Islam.
What is the difference? Are you referencing a law? Laws can be changed.
ReplyDelete