Recently, I was asked to comment on whether or not we’re turning a page in the conflagration against Islamo-fascism and jihadism after last week’s horrific attacks in Paris. Everyone seems to believe because of the mass rallies, there is a new sentiment.I tend to disagree — although I pray we are finally willing to push political correctness aside. I fear these rallies are just the typical immediate reaction from those of us in the West — only to be quelled by our short attention span and the relentless news cycle. Will this just be another “#BringBackOurGirls” episode? And as a matter of fact, is Boko Haram still around, did we do anything against them, and did we ever get the girls back? Uh, I think you see my point.
Additional testimony to my skepticism comes from the actions of the venerable “newspaper of record,” the New York Times. As reported by The Daily Caller, “When Islamic terrorists expressly tell their victims why they’re being attacked, our mainstream media will do anything to cover it up. They’ll change the subject, they’ll blame the victims… they’ll even stealth-edit their own copy.”“Here’s the latest example of the New York Times censoring itself to avoid offending Muslims after an act of Islamic terror. This morning, BenK at Ace of Spades quoted a New York Times story by Liz Alderman titled “Survivors Retrace a Scene of Horror at Charlie Hebdo.” Take note of these two paragraphs from that story:
“Sigolène Vinson, a freelancer who had decided to come in that morning to take part in the meeting, thought she would be killed when one of the men approached her. Instead, she told French news media, the man said, “I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself,” she recalled.”
However, as they say in football — “upon further review, the call on the field is reversed” – because this is what it now states in the Times:
“Sigolène Vinson, a freelance journalist who had come in that morning to take part in the meeting, said that when the shooting started, she thought she would be killed. Ms. Vinson said in an interview that she dropped to the floor and crawled down the hall to hide behind a partition, but one of the gunmen spotted her and grabbed her by the arm, pointing his gun at her head.
Instead of pulling the trigger, though, he told her she would not be killed because she was a woman. “Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you,” the gunman told her in a steady voice, with a calm look in his eyes, she recalled. “You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.”
Well, as you can clearly see, anything about having to convert to Islam, read the Koran or cover herself was cut. It’s now so sanitized that, well, you might even empathize with these savages and somehow believe them to be human — “steady voice, calm in his eyes.”Therefore, no, I don’t believe we’re turning a page in the fight against Islamic totalitarianism, Islamic terrorism, and jihadism. It was CNN’s Christiane Amanapour who referred to these animals as “activists.”
Unless this cultural jihadist apologist sentiment in the West changes, our policy will never change. We continue to invite folks on national media to hiss “islamophobia” as a deterrent to bring about self-censoring. Which to me is just the non-kinetic means to the same end the two Islamic terrorist brothers sought at Charlie Hebdo.
As the Daily Caller piece explains, “Why would you specifically take out the part about the Islamic terrorist proselytizing for Islam in the middle of the terrorist attack? Why delete this woman’s account of being threatened at gunpoint and being told to convert to Islam? That’s easy. Because you’re one of America’s moral, ethical, and intellectual betters, and you don’t want it to be true. Your reporter hastily left that inconvenient truth in her story by accident, so you airbrushed it out, without any acknowledgment, to preserve the narrative. You turned it into, “Hey, maybe these guys aren’t so bad after all. They didn’t kill the women, right? Let’s not be too hasty.”For some very odd reason the progressive socialist intelligentsia prefers not to acknowledge this enemy. Heck, we can’t even get our Attorney General Eric Holder to make a definitive statement. Again. from The Daily Caller, “In two separate instances Sunday morning, Attorney General Eric Holder refused to follow the lead of France and declare that the U.S. is at war with radical Islam in the aftermath of the brutal attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices on Wednesday. Instead, Holder, who was pressed by both NBC’s Chuck Todd and ABC’s George Stephanopolous with the same exact question, said that the U.S is at war with “terrorists” who “corrupt the Islamic faith” or use a “corrupted version of Islam.”
“The French Prime Minister declared that France is at war with radical Islam. Would you say the United States is at war with radical Islam?” Todd asked Holder. “I would say that we are at war with terrorists who commit these heinous acts and who use Islam, they use a corrupted version of Islam, to justify their actions,” Holder told Todd on “Meet The Press.” “We are bound and determined to hold them accountable, to find them wherever they are.”
So why all of this equivocating? Why does the Obama administration see this as some law enforcement action? Heck, they don’t even want to detain those we’ve taken off the battlefield as they continue to secretly release GITMO Islamic terrorists. And don’t tell me they’re “low risk” — that was how the French classified the now dead perpetrators from last week.
Perhaps Eric Holder should spend more time going after Islamic terrorists and defining them as such, instead of pursuing General David Petraeus — who by the way spent a good deal of his life fighting against Islamic terrorists.
Rallies and hashtag campaigns are the typical response — but yield no results. This enemy only respects and regards strength and might. And as long as we in the West refuse to get into the ring and smack them right in the mouth, they perceive our weakness, and continue to attack. Again, I remind you of Alexander the Great’s famed quote: “I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion.”
What do you think Islamic terrorists and jihadists see in our “leaders” — sheep or lions?