How Will Muslims Be Viewed in Light of the Paris Attacks?
Market reaction to the Paris killings by Muslims continues. But rather than speculate about exactly what will cause stocks, bonds, gold, etc. to move up or down, let's simply focus on what will eventually take center stage: How should Muslims be viewed in light of the Paris attacks? Not sure that we're at this point yet? Neither was I. Then I saw this in the Wall Street Journal this past weekend:
Of course, had these attacks occurred a couple of decades ago I don't think there would be any question here. The likely reaction would have been strong and adamant: Hunt down those guilty and kill them; find those who sympathize with them and either: a) kill them; b) expel them from our our beloved country; c) arrest and detain them pretty much forever.
Compare that simple, rational, easy-to-understand statement to most of what comes out of Obama's mouth. On Monday, I heard him opine about how all Muslims weren't terrorists, how ISIS isn't really an "Islamic" group, etc. Does anyone listen to him anymore? Haven't we all finally had enough of that nonsense? To be clear, I'm not saying that all Muslims are terrorists, or even how many Muslims follow ISIS or are sympathetic to their aims and methods (an unknown number). I'm simply saying that the people behind the Paris attacks, call them what you will, and those who sympathize with them are Muslims, or at least consider themselves Muslims. Does anyone doubt this?
When one looks at this not with an eye jaundiced by political correctness, but rather with unshackled reason and common sense, how can one argue against the obvious: a nation determined to preserve its integrity will round up each and every individual responsible or suspected of attacks on innocents? Once that's accomplished, consideration must be given to those who might, because of their association with Islam, endanger the citizens of the nation. What else can be done to protect the nation's citizens from being killed and/or maimed by people whose religious convictions justify the murder of innocents? (For the answer to that question, look at what our leaders are doing now, or rather not doing.)
Following such reasoning, we wind up having to consider not only how Muslims should be viewed in light of the Paris attacks, but what we must do now. Do we identify all Muslims and brand each with the label "Suspicious"? Do we instead exercise patience and discretion, withholding judgment until we have reasonable suspicion that Muslim A - vs. Muslim B - represents a clear and present danger to U.S. citizens? It's a dilemma, but we need to address this now.
One thing I submit we do not do is follow the current leadership of our beloved nation and essentially talk a lot and do nothing. Whether that leader's name begins with "O" (as in Obama), or "C" (as in Clinton), or "P-C-G-F-E"(Paul, Cruz, Graham, Fiorina, Etc...), we need to look carefully at their proposed courses of action and decide whether such proposals will increase or decrease our national security. Maybe our congressional representatives have figured this out, given yesterday's vote to halt acceptance of Syrian refugees. As we mentioned last time, accepting immigrants from Syria likely will not only not increase our security, but likely will outright decrease it. Are there any conceivable reasons any sensible citizen would want perfect strangers from a country (Syria in this case) to settle here - remembering that such people come from a country in which ISIS lives and thrives - to not only penetrate our borders, but melt into the fabric of our neighborhoods until the day when they rise up and begin shooting our relatives, friends and neighbors?
Let's remember here the following: It is not unreasonable to assume that among the Syrians being allowed into the U.S., some are members and/or sympathizers of ISIS, indeed that some were planted amongst these immigrants specifically to come here and kill Americans. We can conclude this with assurance for at least two reasons: 1) The immigrants flooding Europe contain a disproportionate percentage of young men. That's not normal. Immigrant waves such as these, if they consist of families fleeing danger, would not be so disproportionately composed of young men of fighting age (late teens, 20s). 2) Many of these immigrants have no identifying paper work. Since all countries require some form of ID these days, how is that possible? And without identification, how do we know who these people really are? Even before yesterday's vote, some members of Congress insisted on better "vetting" of the Syrian refugees. They were rebuffed by the administration. Why?
Look at it this way: If you answered your front door bell and came across a stranger would you let him or her into your home? If you asked for ID and they didn't have any, would you let them in?
Would it be in any way unreasonable to suggest that any American in their right mind could not, should not support such a course of action? Rather, would it not be eminently reasonable for that same American citizen to reject the entry of such strangers into our country unless and until such time it can be determined exactly who these people are via background checks, interviews, etc. Wouldn't it be even better if we could somehow assure that said strangers will cherish the opportunity to not only live here, but eagerly seek to prove themselves loyal citizens of the United States, dedicated to upholding the Constitution (not Shariah law)? Being the descendant of immigrants, I can tell you that my ancestors were expected to demonstrate loyalty before being granted citizenship.
So while I don't think it reasonable to assume that every Muslim out there wants to kill us, it's also not reasonable to claim that those who have killed and maimed and who will surely do so again are not Muslims. The fact is, the actions of the few have likely tainted the many. If there's a way to separate those Muslims who present a danger to the rest of us from those who don't, now would be the time to determine what that might be.
The Paris attack is in some ways even more alarming than 9/11. Airplane hijackings have largely been stopped through enhanced security. Paris suggests that Islamic State has embarked on a strategy of urban unconventional warfare wherever it is able across the West. And it is far harder to track and prevent suicidal jihadists with assault rifles and grenades who want to blow up a restaurant district or concert hall.Whether or not ISIS perpetrates attacks similar to what we saw in Paris last weekend, there's always Al Qaeda (remember them?). And so-called "home-grown" radical Muslims. Even without a domestic attack on our soil, we're already seeing what appears to be a change in attitude. Witness yesterday's action by Congress to put a moratorium on accepting Syrian refugees.
Of course, had these attacks occurred a couple of decades ago I don't think there would be any question here. The likely reaction would have been strong and adamant: Hunt down those guilty and kill them; find those who sympathize with them and either: a) kill them; b) expel them from our our beloved country; c) arrest and detain them pretty much forever.
Compare that simple, rational, easy-to-understand statement to most of what comes out of Obama's mouth. On Monday, I heard him opine about how all Muslims weren't terrorists, how ISIS isn't really an "Islamic" group, etc. Does anyone listen to him anymore? Haven't we all finally had enough of that nonsense? To be clear, I'm not saying that all Muslims are terrorists, or even how many Muslims follow ISIS or are sympathetic to their aims and methods (an unknown number). I'm simply saying that the people behind the Paris attacks, call them what you will, and those who sympathize with them are Muslims, or at least consider themselves Muslims. Does anyone doubt this?
When one looks at this not with an eye jaundiced by political correctness, but rather with unshackled reason and common sense, how can one argue against the obvious: a nation determined to preserve its integrity will round up each and every individual responsible or suspected of attacks on innocents? Once that's accomplished, consideration must be given to those who might, because of their association with Islam, endanger the citizens of the nation. What else can be done to protect the nation's citizens from being killed and/or maimed by people whose religious convictions justify the murder of innocents? (For the answer to that question, look at what our leaders are doing now, or rather not doing.)
Following such reasoning, we wind up having to consider not only how Muslims should be viewed in light of the Paris attacks, but what we must do now. Do we identify all Muslims and brand each with the label "Suspicious"? Do we instead exercise patience and discretion, withholding judgment until we have reasonable suspicion that Muslim A - vs. Muslim B - represents a clear and present danger to U.S. citizens? It's a dilemma, but we need to address this now.
One thing I submit we do not do is follow the current leadership of our beloved nation and essentially talk a lot and do nothing. Whether that leader's name begins with "O" (as in Obama), or "C" (as in Clinton), or "P-C-G-F-E"(Paul, Cruz, Graham, Fiorina, Etc...), we need to look carefully at their proposed courses of action and decide whether such proposals will increase or decrease our national security. Maybe our congressional representatives have figured this out, given yesterday's vote to halt acceptance of Syrian refugees. As we mentioned last time, accepting immigrants from Syria likely will not only not increase our security, but likely will outright decrease it. Are there any conceivable reasons any sensible citizen would want perfect strangers from a country (Syria in this case) to settle here - remembering that such people come from a country in which ISIS lives and thrives - to not only penetrate our borders, but melt into the fabric of our neighborhoods until the day when they rise up and begin shooting our relatives, friends and neighbors?
Let's remember here the following: It is not unreasonable to assume that among the Syrians being allowed into the U.S., some are members and/or sympathizers of ISIS, indeed that some were planted amongst these immigrants specifically to come here and kill Americans. We can conclude this with assurance for at least two reasons: 1) The immigrants flooding Europe contain a disproportionate percentage of young men. That's not normal. Immigrant waves such as these, if they consist of families fleeing danger, would not be so disproportionately composed of young men of fighting age (late teens, 20s). 2) Many of these immigrants have no identifying paper work. Since all countries require some form of ID these days, how is that possible? And without identification, how do we know who these people really are? Even before yesterday's vote, some members of Congress insisted on better "vetting" of the Syrian refugees. They were rebuffed by the administration. Why?
Look at it this way: If you answered your front door bell and came across a stranger would you let him or her into your home? If you asked for ID and they didn't have any, would you let them in?
Would it be in any way unreasonable to suggest that any American in their right mind could not, should not support such a course of action? Rather, would it not be eminently reasonable for that same American citizen to reject the entry of such strangers into our country unless and until such time it can be determined exactly who these people are via background checks, interviews, etc. Wouldn't it be even better if we could somehow assure that said strangers will cherish the opportunity to not only live here, but eagerly seek to prove themselves loyal citizens of the United States, dedicated to upholding the Constitution (not Shariah law)? Being the descendant of immigrants, I can tell you that my ancestors were expected to demonstrate loyalty before being granted citizenship.
So while I don't think it reasonable to assume that every Muslim out there wants to kill us, it's also not reasonable to claim that those who have killed and maimed and who will surely do so again are not Muslims. The fact is, the actions of the few have likely tainted the many. If there's a way to separate those Muslims who present a danger to the rest of us from those who don't, now would be the time to determine what that might be.
Comments