Monday, June 20, 2016

Are We Ar War With Islam? Part VI

Looking at history, it is fairly clear that we were at war with Communism. We had regional proxy wars, and the Cold War. Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson had no problem defining who the enemy was. Did that mean every Russian, every Chinese citizen, or every Cuban believed in Communism? Did it mean that every citizen of every Communist state believed in extending the reach of Communism across the globe? Of course not. No more than every single Muslim believes in violent jihad, or forcing all the world's people to live under Sharia law.

But just how many Muslims do believe in being governed under Sharia law? According to a Pew Research Center report of 12/7/15 by Michael Lipka, 25 countries have Muslim populations in which at least 50% of the Muslims would like to see Sharia law govern. The percentages range from 52% to 99%, when we only count countries with 50% or more agreeing. These countries include Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, the Palestinian territories, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Niger, Djibouti, Congo, Nigeria, Uganda, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Kenya, Mali, Ghana, Senegal, Cameroon and Liberia.

We know that Communist states were totalitarian states. We know that Communists did not believe in what we in the West consider to be basic civil rights - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to assemble and petition the government. Is there any similarity to Sharia law? No freedom of speech. The Organization of Islamic States has been trying for years to get the UN to criminalize any speech critical of Islam. We have seen how death threats are made against those who criticize Islam. We have seen the actual killings at Charlie Hebdo. No freedom of religion. In some Muslim countries it is a crime punishable by death to convert from Islam to another religion. And do not look for churches or synagogues in some Muslim countries. Freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government for change? That did not work out well in Iran with their "Green Revolution."

So, we see how both Communist ideology and Islam's Sharia law are inconsistent with basic American and Western values. Are there other differences between Sharia law and Western values? You bet. According to an article by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the June 14, 2016 Wall Street Journal, at least 40 Muslim countries/territories criminalize homosexuality. You think the Orlando murderer was alone in his beliefs about homosexuality? According to an article in the 6/13/16 Washington Post, at least 10 Muslim countries have the death penalty for certain homosexual acts. Some have death by stoning; when the punishment is less than death it may be imprisonment and/or flogging. Inconsistent with Western values? You bet.

How about Muslim countries treatment of women? It does vary, but we also know how extreme some are. Some countries have large percentages of their populations that do not believe women should be able to choose their own clothing. 56% in Tunisia, 52% in "westernized" Turkey, 49% in Lebanon and 47% in Saudi Arabia, to name a few.

You think that the disgustingly named "honor killings" occur only overseas? The American Conservative said that the Justice Department estimates that there are 27 "honor killings" yearly right here in the USA. One can surmise that there are many more than 27, as the victims are dead, unable to report their own deaths. When killed by their own families, there is no one to complain. Yes, I fully acknowledge that many in the Muslim community condemn such killings. But one must ask how there is a culture that sustains such killings.

Whether women are allowed to be out in public without a man, get an education, work, hold public office can all vary from country to country. So, Obama wants to fight "violent extremists," not "radical Islamists." But,as John Guandolo opined (see Part V), how do we develop a strategy without identifying the enemy. Is the enemy only those who carry out violent attacks? Is the enemy those who support those terrorists, even if they do not participate? Or, can we say that the ideology that supports not just the Islamic terrorists but also a way of viewing the world that is completely contrary to American, Constitutional and Western values is the real problem?

Once again, I fully acknowledge those Muslims who do not support terrorism or jihad, and who do not want to live by Sharia law nor enforce it upon others. But not all Germans supported Hitler, not all Chinese supported Mao, and not all Russians supported Stalin. It is unclear to this writer why identifying the true enemy can ever be an insult to those who do not hold such radical, anti-American beliefs. It is time for Obama and the left to face reality. Or, we can just continue to blame everything that happens on the Republicans, as the New York Times does.

Sunday, June 19, 2016

Are We At War Islam? Part V

(Note: A comment to the last two part post raised the issue of whether "radical" Islam in fact is typical of all Islam. For newer readers, please note that I previously posted a 4 part series on whether we are at war with Islam. Part I was posted on 8/29/10, Part II on 9/13/10, Part III on 9/30/12 and Part IV on 6/6/13. The topics ranged from Islamic propaganda, Islamic influence on education, the Ground Zero mosque, limits on free speech, lack of tolerance, and media bias. It appears that this is an appropriate time for Part V.)

Following the Orlando massacre, President Obama felt compelled to push back against Republicans who have criticized his refusal to use the phrase "radical Islam" for the 7 1/2 years of his Presidency. Said Obama: "That's the key, they tell us. We can't beat ISIL unless we call them "radical Islamists." Obama went on: "What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above...this is a political distraction."

Just a distraction? According to the Washington Times (4/25/13), in 2011 the "White House ordered cleansing of training materials that Islamic groups deemed offensive." This order affected all federal law enforcement, intelligence and military training manuals and courses, resulting in "teachings on Islam be(ing) scrubbed." Is this a good idea? Was it smart that Obama allowed CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America, 2 unindicted co-conspirators in the case involving illegal funding of Hamas, to determine what should be taught to those who defend us in the fight against Islamic terror?

John Guandolo was a counter-terrorism agent in the FBI. His opinion on Obama's order is quite frightening: "There is no strategy in the FBI...At FBI headquarters it is a daily fire drill. The threats come in, and they run around to deal with them and run them down. But because none of it can have anything to do with the Muslim Brotherhood's movement in the United States or Islam, they never address the root cause and common investigative realities."

We already have far too many examples of Americans dying because of Obama's order. Major Nidal Hasan was able to carry out his murderous attack at Fort Hood even though the Army knew of his radical Islamist ties. Political correctness ordered by Obama prevented action against him beforehand. After the 9/11 Benghazi attack, Obama and Hillary both lied about the cause of the attack, preferring to blame a movie video over the true cause - radical Islamic terror. And now we have had the attack in Orlando. The FBI was well aware of the killer beforehand. It has been reported that he even told them that he wanted to die a martyr. Yet, he was not even under constant surveillance.

For the left, and much of the mainstream media, it is clear with whom we are at war - Republicans! That's right. This is from the lead editorial in the 6/15/16 New York Times (really): "While the precise motivation for the rampage (in Orlando) remains unclear, it is evident that Mr. X (the truth-uncensored refuses to use his name) was driven by hatred towards gays and lesbians. Hate crimes don't happen in a vacuum. They occur where bigotry is allowed to fester, where minorities are vilified and where people are scapegoated for political gain. Tragically, this is the state of American politics, driven too often by Republican politicians who see prejudice as something to exploit, not extinguish."

The Times concluded their editorial with this: "The 49 people killed in Orlando were victims of a terrorist attack. But they also need to be remembered as casualties of a society where hate has deep roots." So, for the Times, Republicans, society and hate are the real perpetrators. Nowhere in their editorial do they mention that the real perpetrator was a Muslim; nowhere does the Times mention the motivating factor of radical Islam and ISIS. This is the newspaper that calls itself "the paper of record." We on the right know it to be "the paper of left-wing propaganda and lies."

So, are we at war with radical Islam? Should we be? Or, does all of Islam currently have serious problems that should cause us to be at war with Islam? Please see Part VI.