Skip to comments.Dining Out With the Terrorists
Posted on 12/13/2015 3:19:08 PM PST by afraidfortherepublic
On the days when my wife teaches late classes at the university, we usually go for supper at a nearby mall, which boasts a massive "dining hall" (once a "food court") and which features a wide range of exotic menus to choose from. It is immensely popular, seating hundreds of diners at any one time, some in company, others peering into their smart phones, a few reading books, some attending to baby carriages, most clearly enjoying themselves under ample lighting in a mainly festive atmosphere.
Janice and I were there for a 7 o'clock post-class supper on Wednesday, December 2, tucking into our Bento Box and chatting about university politics and related issues, when for no apparent reason I was suddenly struck by a kind of vision, a troubling sense of premonition. I imagined a team of terrorists emerging from the corridor into the dining area, armed with AK-47s and spraying the crowd-they could take as many lives as they had bullets to take them with. What would I do? My first impulse was to shield my wife, but by then it might already be too late. The image does not bear describing. The security guards would have been utterly useless since they are unarmed, and, given our strict gun laws, no one among the diners would have carried a weapon. It was Bataclan revisited. I shook off the visitation and returned to a semblance of normality, but the meal had lost its savor.
Later that evening, after a two hour drive to our country home, I consulted my computer to catch up on the day's events and read about the mass shooting in San Bernardino. And I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that the horror could just as easily have happened in that spacious, well-lighted dining hall, or in one like it, and that, thanks to our lax immigration procedures and the welcome we have extended to the droves of âSyrianâ refugees and other poorly screened migrants, one day it surely would. And I knew, too, that in the aftermath, we could expect the same evasions and platitudes from our newly elected prime minister, the feckless Justin Trudeau, that Americans were treated to by Obama, who lied: "At this stage we do not yet know why this terrible event occurredâ¦we don't know why they did it, we do not know the extent of their plans, we do not know their motivations."
One wonders how the jihadists get away with their atrocities and from where they derive their power. Of course, they enjoy material help from the constitutive practices and ideology of the very nations they are attacking: the scourge of multiculturalism, which has received them into the body social and the body politic, and the reigning pathology of political correctness that refuses to name the enemy and suppresses or scumbles their true identity. The terrorists also profit from the sympathy of left-wing parties and the complicity of the liberal elites who pride themselves on the destructive canard of "tolerance," that is, tolerance of both the intolerant and the intolerable. Influential leaders of Western nations have clearly sided with the children of Islam. One need look no further than Barack Hussein Obama, the first pro-Muslim American president; Justin Trudeau, the first pro-Muslim Canadian prime minister; Angela Merkel, the first post-war pro-Muslim German chancellor; and political weaklings like France's president Francois Hollande and Britain's prime minister David Cameron, among many others.
But the terrorists' strength emanates from even more powerful sources. What we have not appeared to understand is that their spirit and practice differ categorically from the methods, traditions and policies of the armies of the West, in two crucial ways.
First, they are not bound by the Geneva conventions, they do not wear uniforms, they do not regard civilians as non-combatants, they do not care for the wounded, they do not respect the sanctity of rescue and medical corps, and, what should be immediately obvious, they do not take prisoners; they take hostages. Which is to say, they are out-and-out barbarians with no redeeming traits and their only connection with what we call civilization is deceptive and parasitical. As PJ Media columnist David Goldman writes in the Asia Times, "The trouble is that very large numbers of Muslims are willing to kill themselves in order to harm enemy noncombatants, and the number appears to be increasing. To my knowledge that is something new under the sun. Japanese kamikazes and Nizari assassins in the Middle Ages, like the pre-1917 Bolsheviks, were willing to die to kill public officials or soldiers. But the murder of noncombatants through suicide attacks (or attacks likely to prove suicidal) is something we have never before witnessed."
Second, they are subjectively invincible. They do not take casualties. Their bodies are like weapons; when these are spent, they can be discarded. In other words, they do not die, but are immediately translated into Jannah, the Muslim heaven, where they will revel eternally in sparkling brooks, fruited orchards, and harems of sloe-eyed virgins. In a sense, they are the zombies of the modern world, the armies of the living dead who, as they are fond of saying, love death more than we love life. They cannot be defeated, they can only be quarantined, kept at bay, left to rave and rampage in the killing grounds of their own countries.
I don't wish to join the controversy around Donald Trump's proposal to ban Muslim immigration or Ted Cruzâs more modest plan to restrict it. But it's clear that we have an enormous problem on our hands. "[T]o deny we have a gigantic Muslim problem in this country and in the world," writes Roger Simon, "is to be a troglodyte of epic proportions. Something has to be done." Simon advocates the outlawing of Sharia law, which is a start. But since Sharia is a bedrock principle of the Islamic faith, proscribing the one looks equivalent to prohibiting the other-a thorny contradiction, to say the least. Additionally, if a jihadist wants to kill Americans or Canadians, a public renunciation will have no braking effect on his intentions.
Simon and I agree that border security has become an unmitigated farce and that Muslim immigration should be rigorously monitored and scrupulously vetted. Indeed, it needs to be radically curtailed. Plainly, only a small percentage of the Muslim community living in the West are jihadists, but the zombies enter our countries under cover of a non-belligerent majority, whether as legal immigrants, as students, or as refugees. As former FBI counterterrorism agent John Guandolo points out, since 9/11, "we collectively have received nearly zero help from the Muslim community" and a "vast majority" of U.S. mosques and Islamic centers are a part of a much larger "jihadi network."
This suggests that we need to take resolute action against the so-called "terror mosques"-which proliferate throughout the landâand the host of problematic Islamic organizations, many affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, by revoking their licenses and privileges. We must also revise our immigration protocols drastically downward and refuse to accept the multitudes of refugees and migrants who will deplete our budgets, displace native citizens and furnish the camouflage the killers among them require to carry out their purposes. Regrettably, they are already here, with many more on the way, bound by the precepts of an archaic religion and culture at odds with liberal values and wholly incompatible with the constitutions and charters of Western secular nations.
Blogger Tim Murray is worth heeding when he reminds us that "we donât have a moral obligation to act as a dumping ground for hundreds of millions of migrants from failed statesâ¦who can't be expected to check their third world mentality at the door." Nonetheless, we now find them in the free shelters, military barracks, subsidized apartments, affordable housing projects, and eventually residing next door, like the Khadr family in Canada and the Farook family in the U.S., where they are at liberty to feed their hatred and hatch their plots.
How many innocent people will have to be butchered before we awake to the reality that the enemy is embedded in our midst? How many apologists for Islam will have to take a bullet or a knife blade before they change their tune? Hundreds? Thousands? Or-if a recent EU Parliament report is correct in claiming that ISIS is acquiring the expertise and the raw materials to build and employ weapons of mass destruction-millions? According to the London Daily Mail, "Wolfgang Rudischhauser, Director of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Non-Proliferation Centre at NATO said: 'ISIS actually has already acquired the knowledge, and in some cases the human expertise, that would allow it to use CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) materials as weapons of terror.'"
Such devastation is a genuine future threat, as Europol has acknowledged. But on the less cataclysmic scale of our present circumstances, we remain under the gun. We are hectored daily by the political elite not to turn against our (presumably) innocuous Muslim neighbors-yet as Rudyard Kipling wrote in a poem called "The Stranger:"
The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control--
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.
In this connection, I think also of W.B. Yeatsâ immortal lines from "The Second Coming:" "The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity." As for the "worst," the jihadists who have infiltrated our societies, they are not only full of passionate intensity, which gives them a distinct advantage, they are also full of death, which to them is life everlasting, and which is the greatest advantage of all.
Meanwhile, the "best" among us are the mediocre, the fearful, the sanctimonious, the decadent and the corrupt, those whom C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man called "men without chests," men without "virtue and enterpriseâ¦traitors in our midst." Political divisions and allegiances are not entirely applicable in this regard. Lewis' apt formulation is reminiscent of a distinction put forward by Dwight Morrow in a letter praising his good friend, America's thirtieth president Calvin Coolidge: "I have about come to the conclusion that the division of the people of the world is not really between conservative and radical, but between people that are real people and people that are not." Our leaders, opinion makers and the plurality of our intellectuals are in this respect not "real people."
In such amenable circumstances, coddled by the human wraiths that constitute our authority structures, the terrorists are free to wreak carnage among us, and they will continue doing so until or unless we come to our senses. Prayers, "je suis" slogans, sidewalk bouquets and candlelight vigils are a non-deterrent joke, a sentimental indulgence that only shames us. There is no alternative, if we wish to live more or less normally-or even simply to live-but to implement the stringent measures mentioned above. Every day that passes raises the probability of further attacks targeting ordinary citizens who will suffer the consequences of their complacency, timorousness and self-righteous clemency for those who wish to kill them. For the fact is, we are engaged in a war unlike any that has been fought before.
Yet in a significant way, the jihadists, their supporters and their devout co-religionists have already won. They have made air travel an ordeal and a danger. They have infested our universities with their demands and activities. They have sponsored hate-speech legislation that has curtailed freedom of expression and led to damaging law suits ("lawfare"). They have exploited the workplace with their assumptions of and claims to special exemptions. They have stoked the fires of anti-Semitism. They have rendered neighborhoods inhospitable. They have established ghettoes and no-go zones. They have made shopping a wager and strolling a hazard. They have turned Christmas parties into charnel houses and public events into abattoirs.
And they have made dining out a risky proposition.
This post is not specifically Wisconsin, but applies everywhere, so I’m pinging the list.
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsiin interest ping list.
Bet you regretted that "Bento-Box" and wished you had a burger... or a gun.
Hmm...[ponders]...WHY is it that we DO, by Leftist lights, have the “moral obligation” to take millions of “refugees” regardless of their intentions...but we DO NOT by the same reckoning have any “right to impose our western ideologies on other countries?”
Question, how did we deal with the japanese kamakazi’s in ww2 who also were willing to die for thier cause? We are in denial, we are at war but we dont want to see it. Mecca would be a good place to get thier attention and we go on from there. Im afraid that these massacres will continue until we say enough and we do what needs to be done, we win!
I just sat through a sermon at church this morning that enjoined us to be merciful and welcoming to all sinners — even politicians — and immigrants. I can’t buy it.
This nation has restricted immigration since Colonial days. Catholics, for instance, were not welcome in any Colony other than Maryland. Chinese were prohibited after the transcontinental RR was finished. My husband’s grandmother was prohibited from joining her husband here from Italy until she could prove her health — a 3-4 year process in 1914. Japanese residents and citizens were interned unless they volunteered for the military during WWII. Iranians were prohibited by Jimmy Carter during the hostage crisis. As late as the 1970s and ‘80s Australians had a strict quota placed upon them in retaliation for Aussie quotas against Americans. Indian friends, who belong to my church, were prevented from getting visas for their young adult children for 10 years. The daughter (who just got in) went to college in Australia, and the son is not here yet. BTW, the family is not complaining. They are grateful to be reunited with the daughter, finally.
But, suddenly we are supposed to give carte blanche to the Muslims.
What is wrong with enforcing our borders? That is what borders are for.
tolerance of both the intolerant and the intolerable
That right there is the crux of the issue. Islam is completely intolerant and their theology is completely intolerable. In order for them to freely exercise their religion, the rest of us must die.
I would rather have everyone required to have, and be proficient with a M4 than have everyone required to be disarmed.
“I don’t wish to join the controversy around Donald Trump’s proposal to ban Muslim immigration or Ted Cruz’s more modest plan to restrict it.”
Sheepish, unarmed and craven is no way to go through life.
That’s a great video! Great sermon!
Come on Humble, a bento box is Korean or Japanese, two countries devoid of Islam. The gun, I agree with.
Must live in a state that does not allow citizens to carry weapons.
What is the magic trick to post the whole article
I'd have stood up, expressed my disagreement and walked the family out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.