Why Can’t The Obama Administration Speak Of Radical Islam?
- 0share
- Share
- Tweet
- Comment Now 0
This is something you might have missed last week, but it is vitially important in understanding this administration’s disconnect with radical Islam.
The Fort Hood shooter, the Christmas Day bomber, the Times Square attacker. On May 13, the following exchange occurred at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee:
Rep. Lamar Smith (R.,Texas): Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?
Attorney General Eric Holder: There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions. . .
Smith: Okay, but radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?
Holder: There are a variety of reasons why people–
Smith: But was radical Islam one of them?
Holder: There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them are potentially religious-based.
Potentially? It boggles the mind that our own Attorney General cannot bring himself to admit what is obvious to everyone else. Radical Islam is what motivates these murdereous individuals.
A similar question arose last week in U.S. District Court when Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square attacker, pleaded guilty. Explained Shahzad: “One has to understand where I’m coming from. . . . I consider myself a mujahid, a Muslim soldier.”
Well, that is clarifying. As was the self-printed business card of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, identifying himself as “SoA”: Soldier of Allah.
Holder’s avoidance of the obvious continues the absurd and embarrassing refusal of the Obama administration to acknowledge who out there is trying to kill Americans and why. In fact, it has banned from its official vocabulary the terms “jihadist,” “Islamist,” and “Islamic terrorism.”
Instead, President Obama’s National Security Strategy insists on calling the enemy — how else do you define those seeking your destruction? — “a loose network of violent extremists.” But this is utterly meaningless. This is not an anger-management therapy group gone rogue. These are people professing a powerful ideology rooted in a radical interpretation of Islam, in whose name they propagandize, proselytize, terrorize, and kill.
Why is this important? Because the first rule of war is to know your enemy.
What does this administration hope to prove by using evasive language on this? Is it somehow to leave Islam out of it? That it what it seems to me. I just can’t figure out why. Practicing peaceful Muslims, who are not radical, know that those monsters use their religion to terrorize. Does the Obama administration imagine they do not? Does he think that it somehow insults the Islam religion to call them what they are..radical Islamists? There are Muslims who have and are fighting this very thing with us. It’s absurd to think that they don’t know exactly what they are fighting against.
The Pentagon report on the Fort Hood shooter runs 86 pages with not a single mention of Hasan’s Islamism. It contains such politically correct inanities as “religious fundamentalism alone is not a risk factor.”
Of course it is. Indeed, Islamist fundamentalism is not only a risk factor. It is the risk factor, the common denominator linking all the great terror attacks of this century — from 9/11 to Mumbai, from Fort Hood to Times Square, from London to Madrid to Bali. The attackers were of various national origin, occupation, age, social class, native tongue, and race. The one thing that united them was the jihadist vision in whose name they acted.
…………………………
There’s a final reason why the administration’s cowardice about identifying those trying to kill us cannot be allowed to pass. It is demoralizing. It trivializes the war between jihadi barbarism and Western decency, and diminishes the memory of those (including thousands of brave Muslims — Iraqi, Pakistani, Afghan, and Western) who have died fighting it.
- 0share
- Share
- Tweet
- Comment Now 0
