It is no surprise that there is outrage at the idea that
predominately Muslim neighborhoods should be afforded increased police presence. After all, we’re in the middle of an election
cycle! We are in a time when diversity and tolerance are more important than saving
lives, when responding to terrorism with silly social media gestures (”Je Suis morons!”)
and expressions of love are more important then prevention, when people are
more inclined to blame “conditions” than “killers”. Given that, it is no surprise that the
response to such suggestions is to call them “hate-filled”.
What I don’t understand is how wanting to increase monitoring
of neighborhoods in which killers hide is hate-filled. Aren’t such killers threats to the peaceful
people living in the neighborhoods in which they hide? Isn’t it the isolation of such neighborhoods
that allows killers to operate without being caught or captured? In fact, given that it has been asserted that
at least one of the suicide bombers at the Airport in Brussels was a “criminal”
as opposed to “jihadi” (are they mutually exclusive?) doesn’t it make sense to
protect and serve the people of the neighborhoods in which such criminals are
operating? Is it a problem because they killers are not committing their crimes
of terror in the neighborhoods?
People, like NY Police Commissioner Bratton, call attention
to the large number of Muslim LEOs. Others
note the large number of Muslim veterans or active duty warriors. Indeed, and it is their families who are as
much at risk from murderers among us as anyone else. One need not condemn all Muslims for the
crimes of a few. But if those killers
find a safe place to hide and operate in certain neighborhoods, then to protect
the people in those neighborhoods one must go there to look for them.
Of course none of that makes sense when you have people in
positions at the State Department, like Evelyn Farkas, who believe that the
problem starts with lack of opportunity, from disenfranchisement of Muslims. Thus, it is clear that, to her, that it makes
no sense to address the immediate issues that threaten the safety of the larger
populace as well as the local citizenry of all religions. Even if there are institutional issues that
impact the problem, are we to wait years until they are solved, suffering
attacks in the meantime. Let’s just have a big hug and it will all go
away. Perhaps she doesn’t mean that, but
if liberals can take simple ideas like “we have to look for criminals in the places
they hide” as hateful, then I can take ideas like “There would be no terrorists,
no radicalization, if there were no disenfranchisement” as idiotic.
I feel like a broken record, but I have to come back to this
again because it is so clear to me:
Liberals have no problem demonizing those they hate. This is most often seen in their antipathy
toward the large mass of gun owners. They have no problem casting them as evil and
the NRA as a terrorist organization. An
infinitesimal number of legal law-abiding gun owners commit crimes and an even
smaller number commit murders. Still,
those few are seen as representative of the culture and all are condemned. Take the sentence above; “One need not condemn
all Muslims for the crimes of a few” and replace Muslims with gun owners. When those illegally possessing firearms
commit crimes, legal gun owners become the whipping-boys. When an autistic boy shoots up a school, a skinny
white by shoots up a black church, or a deranged black man shoots up a community
college or his former colleagues, all gun-owners are guilty. And in the case of the Charleston shooter,
Southerners and their symbols were indicted.
Then there is talk of sending LEOs, SEALs, and you name it to go
door-to-door take out their fellow citizens with whom they disagree. Somehow that is okay, but when the community,
the culture, in question is Islam, taking the radical actions of a few as
justification to attack a group is abhorrent.
Just read the comments here.
Just read the comments here.
No comments:
Post a Comment