Wednesday, August 30, 2006

The Plight of the Gentle and Innocent 

I'm a fan of Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus column at National Review Online. Here's the body text of an email I sent to Jay this morning:
As always, today's Impromptus was a pleasure to read. One item, about the plight of Muslims, inspired me to comment.

“The gentle and innocent Muslims are paying the price for the black sheep of our communities. Nobody trusts us anymore. People feel that some Muslim with a jacket full of bombs is going to walk in to a business and blow himself up.”

Quite so. These true and poignant words are enough to make you weep — or fight.

What a perfect statement of why the "gentle and innocent Muslims" need to decry, early and often, at all levels of their political and religious establishments, the use of terrorism. I've been waiting since 9/11/05 for this to happen, and pretty much all I've heard is whining and seething. It appears the "gentle and innocent Muslims would rather weep than fight.
Expanding on the above, think of Iraq, Israel, Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, India, Darfur, Somalia, The UK, The US, Spain, Germany: All places that are experiencing or have recently experienced terrorist activity, all initiated and perpetrated by Muslims. Anybody else (especially the "gentle and innocent Muslims") see a pattern here?

I am sure that the vast majority of Muslims are "gentle and innocent" but by their silence, they are tacitly agreeing with and supporting the use of terrorism. Until that changes, I think it is likely that they will increasingly experience the kind of backlash that Jay (and, in a linked article, Serge F. Kovaleski.) discusses.

Sadly, what we non-Muslims continue to mostly see is the kind of comment voiced by Malik Ahmed, 55, quoted in Kovaleski's piece:
"No, no, no, no. This is a funny story. This is an injustice. This is a policy of racism against the Muslim people," said Ahmed, who is unemployed. "There needs to be a major reconciliation. This has only made Muslims angrier."

(0) comments

Friday, August 25, 2006

Dueling Headlines 

This item reminds me of an old Soviet-era joke (ca. 1962):

Auto race with two cars, an American car and a Soviet car. American car wins. Headline in communist party newspaper: Soviet Car Places Second; American Car Next To Last.

(0) comments

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Well, this is interesting .... 

Sweetness and Light reports that Catherine Mayo, the Vermont woman on the London-Washington flight that was diverted to Boston might be a journalist who has written a number of articles for the Pakistan Daily Times. Two articles, reprinted on S&L, reflect the talking points of the loony left and constitute anti-American and anti-Bush propaganda.

Look for an expose' soon about how Ms. Mayo was mistreated and tortured by the evil minions of the Bush Administration.

(0) comments

Federal Judge in Detroit Rules NSA Warrantless Searches Unconstitutional 

I haven't had a chance to read the opinion yet, but here's a bio of Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, 73 years old, and the first black woman to be appointed to a federal judgeship in Michigan. Excerpt:
In 1960 Taylor married United States Representative Charles Diggs, Jr., and she moved to Detroit.

After moving to Detroit, Taylor worked for a year as an assistant county prosecutor in Wayne County. In 1964 she spent the summer in Mississippi as part of the National Lawyers Guild civil rights program to provide legal services for civil rights activists, arriving on the day that three civil rights workers disappeared in Philadelphia, Mississippi.


After the birth of her daughter, she worked managing her husband's Detroit office until their divorce in 1971. From 1970 to 1975 she was a partner in the law firm Zwerdling, Mauer, Diggs, and Papp. In 1976 she married S. Martin Taylor. Taylor became active in politics, helping Coleman Young in his 1973 campaign and Jimmy Carter in his 1976 victory.

Taylor was appointed to the federal bench in 1979 by Jimmy Carter. Given her background, the ruling should come as no surprise. Judge Taylor is obviously one of those people who do not believe Islamofascism is an existential threat to our society, and that a state of war exists between the United States and Islamofascist non-state actors.

Just a guess, but it appears to me that the mindset among those folks is that war can only be waged between nation-states, and therefore non-state organizations like Hezbollah and al-Qaeda must necessarily be dealt with under criminal laws. That approach may work in the long run, but I don't think so, and even if it does, it will result in many more deaths of innocents than treating the struggle as a true war.

(0) comments

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?