by William Teach | July 16, 2016 7:49 am
Liberals worship their talking points of diversity and multiculturalism, to the point that they feel a deep, abiding need to defend the indefensible. And they’ll do and say anything to defend it
Our Best Defense Against Terrorists
How we react to terrorism has become a measure of who we are, as individuals and as a society. It is not clear yet whether the heinous massacre in Nice, France, was the work of a “lone wolf” or a terrorist network, but in a way it doesn’t matter. Each new attack, each new convulsion of fear, horror, grief and anger is a progressively greater test of enlightened civilization’s commitment to its core values.
Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, the 31-year-old Tunisian who drove a truck through a festive nighttime crowd celebrating Bastille Day on Nice’s seaside promenade, may well have been avenging some personal grievance with the weapon closest at hand. Or it may emerge that ISIS or some other organized terrorists pushed him to this atrocity, targeting France — the country with the largest Muslim population in Europe and the strongest embrace of secularism — for the third time in 19 months.
But whoever struck the blow, whatever its malevolent purpose or toll, the response cannot be to abandon the respect for human rights, equality, reason and tolerance that is the aspiration of all democratic cultures. Though it has become almost a cliché to argue that the goal of terrorists is to bring their victims down to their moral level, it is also a truth, and it must be reaffirmed after every attack.
Got that? We need to tolerate these brutal people who want to essentially do two things: attack the infidel, and change Western society to conform with hardcore Islamic beliefs as expressed in the Koran. Some of those beliefs are specifically laid out in the Koran, some have been spun by the Islamists.
That is what the French prime minister, Manuel Valls, did in the wake of the assault. Warning France that it had to learn to live with terrorism, he declared that the only dignified response was for the French to remain faithful to the spirit of July 14, “which means a France brought together and united around its values.”
Just learn to live with it, because it would be “against our core values” to restrict those with the hardcore Islamist beliefs access to our nation. I suggest that refugee camps be set up near the homes of the NY Times Editorial Board.
Should we just have learned to live with the Nazis and the Japanese empire?
Not surprisingly, the National Front, the right-wing party that thrives on aversion to Muslim immigrants, reacted disdainfully to these statements. “Spare us the indignation of the vultures of the main parties who let the wolves in to carry out this carnage,” declared Eric Domard, a senior adviser to the National Front leader Marine Le Pen.
Um, where are they wrong? France has long been a hotbed of Islamic extremism. Is it any surprise they have had so many attacks, not to mention all the violence, burning cars, and crime.
Apart from demonstrating Mr. Gingrich’s woeful ignorance of Shariah, his outrageous proposals would violate several Supreme Court rulings, constitutional amendments and laws barring discrimination on the basis of religion or restrictions of freedom of expression and belief. And in so doing, his ideas illustrated the greatest threat posed by terrorism: a descent into the lawless, hateful demagogy of those who despise the West and its values.
Interesting. If it was a hardcore Christian sect pushing to be able to practice their own rules and laws separate from US laws and rule, and pushing for the government to adopt these laws and rules, would the NY Times think the same? As for woeful ignorance of Sharia Law, are these the things the NY Times wants to tolerate?
That’s just a small list, and the link leads to many more links on Sharia Law.
As Mr. Valls and many others have warned, there will be more terrorist attacks. More innocent lives will be lost. There is no way that the police can track every vengeance-seeking potential killer or neutralize every weapon as commonplace as a truck. What threatened nations and their leaders can do is to firmly instill the idea that the only sure defense is to stay true to what democratic societies really stand for.
Would that be support of violating national security provisions, constant lying, and attempting to hide the work of government? The NY Times has supported Hillary Clinton, and surely wants her to be president. How about using the power of the federal government to intimidate private citizens and entities? The NY Times has supported Democrats who used the power of the government in instances such as the IRS targeting scandal, the AGs going after climate skeptics, and those who targeted supporters of Scott Walker, among others. The Times has been very supportive of Black Lives Matter, and railed at law enforcement.
What’s so democratic about letting in people who want to kill the infidel as well as get rid of Western democracy?
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.
Source URL: https://rightwingnews.com/media-bias/ny-times-name-diversity-stuff-rubes-need-get-used-terrorist-attacks/
Copyright ©2020 John Hawkins' Right Wing News unless otherwise noted.