Why Not Blame Islam?
A self-proclaimed Al Qaeda operative in France named Mohammed Merah seems responsible for the recent targeted killings of elite soldiers and French Jews. In dramatic live coverage, we see he has been shooting at the cops coming to get into his flat. Given the intelligence investigators have already gotten from this man, I don't know that most of us will need a trial to judge him guilty of these awful crimes, even if technically he is merely a "suspect".
No doubt, there will be those who will call this a frame-up, no matter how much evidence is brought to bear. Some will focus on the neo-Nazis originally fingered for these crimes (and ultimately cleared by police). The more vile conspiracy theorists will suggest that the real culprits are the governing party, or the far right party, or cunning vampiric Jews hoping to cause chaos in the French republic and somehow generate sympathy for the supposed cause of wiping out Palestinians. The gutter is deep, my friends.
But we've already seen how some of this denial mentality will play out. In a senseless column in the Telegraph entitled Don't Blame Islam for the Toulouse Killings, Ed West writes that "so many of the world’s varied extremists, whatever their motivation and however much they might hate each other, focus their anger and loathing on similar targets – the state, the city, modernity, capitalism, and the one group who embody all these complicating, unsettling changes in the minds of lonely, failed young men – Jews."
It is a facile attempt to cloud the phenomenon, but let's be clear; animal rights groups and eco-terrorists are not targeting soldiers and Jews. The fact is that if we're going to talk about the world's varied extremists, the vastly disproportionate share of them tell us that they are motivated by the call to jihad first promulgated in the Koran. Just have a look at the US State Department's list of terror organizations. Or Canada's list of terror entities. Clearly, the vast majority of them subscribe to Islamic supremacist ideology; it goes without saying that every single member and supporter considers themselves to be Muslim -- and you would think that they would know.
He doubles down, suggesting that "many people kill in the name of jihad but they do not represent Islam or Muslims..." Really? How does West know this? Did someone tell him that people like Mohammed Merah don't represent Islam? Because Merah says he does. Osama bin Laden said he did, before he met his end. Thousands upon thousands of Muslims do claim with no compunction whatsoever that these kinds of attacks are justified by Islam.
Then he brings up another tired canard, casting aspersions on all immigrants and in the process making us wonder why we wouldn't close off our borders today to prevent an apocalypse of terror attacks: "It is not religion that turns some young Muslim men in the West violent, but the sense of alienation and frustration that inevitably comes from being a second-generation immigrant." OK, then. Second-generation immigrants are the problem... but where are the Haitian jihadists? Where are the Vietnamese suicide bombers? How come we've never heard of any second-generation Hindu assassins on motorbikes terrorizing innocent bystanders?
18,616 terrorist attacks by jihadists only since 9/11 tell us the real story.
West's brainless column is only one example of this double-think when it comes to Islamist terror. I could just have easily cited the Guardian or the New York Times. The problem is far more widespread among our media and opinion-makers.
Enough with the lies. Pretending that jihadist terror, virtually prescribed in the pages of Islam's holiest book, is a figment of our overheated, xenophobic imaginations, is madness. It does nothing to help us deal with the problem.
Should we blame the entire religion of Islam for these kinds of terror attacks? That's a bogus framing of the question.
How about this; should we hold people responsible for their vile actions and not seek to blame "society" when cold-blooded terrorists murder "Infidels"? Obviously, yes. Should we be able to recognize a pattern of thousands and thousands of violent attacks emanating from a fairly consistent demographic, without being called racists or bigots? Again, the answer is clearly, yes. And when thousands of terrorists claim in all sincerity that they believe their actions are not merely condoned, but ordered, by their Muslim religion, should we not take them at their word? Of course.
Finally, should we be able to enact policies dealing with these issues without our civil servants, law enforcement or politicians being intimidated by a culture of political-correctness? To do otherwise would be suicidal.
Jonathon Narvey is the Editor of The Propagandist