Why does Huffington Post insist on referring to the deceased man in this article as "a military man"? Why do they highlight his love of guns?
Gee...let me guess: hatred of the military and guns, sowing fear.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Friday, January 9, 2015
"They said they want to die as martyrs,"
A couple of truths emerge from recent events in Paris.
In no particular order:
1. It is all well and good to have a kumbaya mentality and to wish strongly that all people believe in peace, in live and let live. The paternalism of Western cultures, the idea that we, in our benevolence, are in a position to allow the proliferation of cultures and religions who are dedicated to our destruction, whose tenets are antithetical to our valued freedoms, will sadly be our undoing. We see this in the alarmism regarding European protests against Islam. Why are we surprised? The French have been most welcoming to Muslim immigration. To what end?
The time has come for Islam to police its own or to be subjected to greater scrutiny and suspicion, to see its march across the world challenged. The terrorist menace represented in Paris is emerging from within that community. How odd it is that a society that has held all police to account for the actions of a few, and all whites to account for the racist actions of a few (many in long-past history), cannot get past the reflexive "But it's a religion of peace" argument. These are not random acts unrelated to religious belief and a President or administration that will not acknowledge the religious component of them is doing the people a disservice. We have a battered wife for a president.
2. Of course, the administration that is avoiding such statements is also motivated to disarm the people. In France we are seeing a clear and prescient example of what happens when one disarms the people and puts their safety in the hands of the government. Hostages, victims, terrorists inside, police outside. Hostages taken, journalists and others slain, armed terrorists bent on martyrdom acting with impunity. Imagine if only 20% of those victims/hostages were armed and well-trained, capable of defending themselves, to potentially stop these attacks. Willing to die trying, die in action rather than capitulation. Even if some of them were to die trying, imagine how it might end such attacks earlier, imagine how it might affect the mentality of terrorists who now feel secure in the knowledge that they can commit such carnage, achieve the body count they want, before state security can take any action (should they do so). Terrorists who can assume that they will be the only armed participants. These are terrorists who have no qualms at dying for their cause; the threat of security showing up to kill them and count the bodies means nothing. They fear failure more than death.
3. "They said they want to die as martyrs." I say we allow law-abiding, armed citizens, to help them fulfill that desire, help them on their way. And if law-abiding citizens must die, let them die on their feet with guns blazing in defiance, not on their knees cowering like sheep.
As for me:
In no particular order:
1. It is all well and good to have a kumbaya mentality and to wish strongly that all people believe in peace, in live and let live. The paternalism of Western cultures, the idea that we, in our benevolence, are in a position to allow the proliferation of cultures and religions who are dedicated to our destruction, whose tenets are antithetical to our valued freedoms, will sadly be our undoing. We see this in the alarmism regarding European protests against Islam. Why are we surprised? The French have been most welcoming to Muslim immigration. To what end?
The time has come for Islam to police its own or to be subjected to greater scrutiny and suspicion, to see its march across the world challenged. The terrorist menace represented in Paris is emerging from within that community. How odd it is that a society that has held all police to account for the actions of a few, and all whites to account for the racist actions of a few (many in long-past history), cannot get past the reflexive "But it's a religion of peace" argument. These are not random acts unrelated to religious belief and a President or administration that will not acknowledge the religious component of them is doing the people a disservice. We have a battered wife for a president.
2. Of course, the administration that is avoiding such statements is also motivated to disarm the people. In France we are seeing a clear and prescient example of what happens when one disarms the people and puts their safety in the hands of the government. Hostages, victims, terrorists inside, police outside. Hostages taken, journalists and others slain, armed terrorists bent on martyrdom acting with impunity. Imagine if only 20% of those victims/hostages were armed and well-trained, capable of defending themselves, to potentially stop these attacks. Willing to die trying, die in action rather than capitulation. Even if some of them were to die trying, imagine how it might end such attacks earlier, imagine how it might affect the mentality of terrorists who now feel secure in the knowledge that they can commit such carnage, achieve the body count they want, before state security can take any action (should they do so). Terrorists who can assume that they will be the only armed participants. These are terrorists who have no qualms at dying for their cause; the threat of security showing up to kill them and count the bodies means nothing. They fear failure more than death.
3. "They said they want to die as martyrs." I say we allow law-abiding, armed citizens, to help them fulfill that desire, help them on their way. And if law-abiding citizens must die, let them die on their feet with guns blazing in defiance, not on their knees cowering like sheep.
As for me:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)