When we read about terrorist acts perpetrated by Muslims, we tend to see each one in isolation. In fact, the media seem to work overtime to remind us that each act was an isolated act–the work of an off-balance individual.
In a blog post today, Victor Davis Hanson catalogues attacks and plotted attacks by Muslims since September 11, and the list is staggering. When you put them all together, it is clear that it is a pattern. It is clear that none of these is an “isolated incident.” Rather they are part of a larger plan by a network of radical Muslims.
Says Hanson, “In other words, the attack on Fort Hood happened on schedule. It was the rule, not the exception. And something like it will occur again – soon.”
I wish that it were not so. But we cannot make something go away by wishing. Worse yet, the people who keep telling us that these are “isolated” incidents had better snap back to reality. How many “isolated incidents” do they need before they recognize that this is a systemic problem?
13 responses so far ↓
languagelover // November 12, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
So, out of the several million Muslim Americans that are living in the US (I can’t find a definitive number online–anything from 2 million to 8 million), Hanson lists a handful of Muslims in charge of terrorist attacks, this is the rule, not the exception? (That list isn’t staggering, by the way. It’s pretty small for EIGHT YEARS of examples.)
There are more car accidents than terrorist attacks. Does that mean that it’s actually a plan from a Islamic terrorist groups to cause teenagers to crash their cars?
There are more school shootings than terrorist attacks from Muslims. Does this mean that there are secret Islamic terrorist training camps causing disgruntled students to open fire at schools?
So, no, I think that Hanson is trying to make a mountain of a molehill. It’s easy to worry about isolated attacks unless you actually look at numbers. We would have less deaths in the US if we banned car driving than if we kicked all of the Muslims out of the country.
Jay Burns // November 12, 2009 at 6:31 pm |
Agreed. However, we can only police actions. We cannot begin to police thought. So, until someone begins to carry out a plot, there is little that can be done. Unless you are ready to have government officials guessing at your intentions and handing out punishments on speculation.
Also, I am not willing to give up my right to a public trial. I am not willing to give up my right to protections from warrantless searches and seizures. Sneek and peeks are unlawful and should be.
If we are to see terrorist acts like these from citizens the punishment should be swift and severe, but I won’t give up my freedom to save freedom.
Scott Erb // November 12, 2009 at 8:34 pm |
I clicked the link expecting to find a long list. But in eight years it seems it’s really a few isolated incidents, remarkable in fact by how short the list is, given the fear people had after 9-11. If this is the best Hanson can do in trying to promote some kind of fear of Islam, then it really is evidence that we have little to fear.
That said, any leads suggesting real radicalism based on any faith or ideology should be investigated according to the law.
cindyinsd // November 13, 2009 at 2:10 am |
I don’t buy the idea that the attacks are coordinated by any human agency. I do think that attacks like these are absolutely to be expected from an Islam waxing in strength and numbers, but there’s no need for coordination. Coordination would weaken the impact. These attacks can come from anywhere, anytime. Terrorist “organizations” can’t predict them, and neither can we.
No, we will continue to see stuff like this and to see it escalate as more Muslims learn what Muhammad really taught. The incidents of terrorism give rise to more incidents. I have a friend whose husband was spurred to take his Muslim faith seriously by the 9/11 attacks. He was almost persuaded to return home in order to participate in jihad.
How many more are fully persuaded? More every time Islam shows itself “strong.” To us, this seems ridiculous. We can’t understand this mindset that is completely foreign to us. Not everyone is like us–we in the west expect everyone else to think just as we do. How silly and arrogant. They do not see things our way, nor can they be expected to.
Islam’s world view is so completely “other” from ours that we can’t even see it–like a person accustomed to speaking only by sign language might ignore those funny sounds you’re emitting, even as you ignore all the wild gestures he’s performing.
Islam is and has always been out to conquer the world by any means actionable. It will persecute secular Muslims as viciously as it will persecute those of other faiths or no faith.
How to stop it? We can’t. We’d have to kill too many people. God (YHWH) could stop it, but He won’t. We’ve spit in His face, killed His children by abortion, betrayed Israel. We’re up for judgment. If we repented, He might change His mind, but I don’t see that happening–do you?
Nope–it’s a problem. A real problem. We won’t solve it by abandoning our constitution or our liberties, and I can’t see any other way to solve it, either. All we can do is love the Muslims we know and hope and pray that we can take a few of these friends and lead them to the true God, who loves them even if they don’t participate in jihad.
renaissanceguy // November 13, 2009 at 3:18 am |
LL: “(That list isn’t staggering, by the way. It’s pretty small for EIGHT YEARS of examples.)”
I’m truly flabbergasted. Unless you think that terrorist attacks are normal and something we should just live with, I do not see how the list of such attacks and planned attacks does not seem staggering to you. What number is the cut-off for you between an acceptable number of terrorist attacks and too many?
“There are more car accidents than terrorist attacks.”
Don’t you see an essential difference between car accidents and terrorist attacks. Unfortunately car accidents are bound to happen. Terrorist attacks should not happen. Or perhaps you really do think that a certain number are just to be accepted?
“So, no, I think that Hanson is trying to make a mountain of a molehill.”
I don’t think it is a molehill to the people who have lost loved ones.
“. . .than if we kicked all of the Muslims out of the country.”
Who said anything about kicking all of the Muslims out of the country? That’s absurd. Let’s just be cautious about the ones who are here and even more cautious about those who wish to come.
———-
JB: “However, we can only police actions. We cannot begin to police thought.”
Of course. I hope that you would realize that I agree with that.
“Also, I am not willing to give up my right to a public trial. I am not willing to give up my right to protections from warrantless searches and seizures. Sneek and peeks are unlawful and should be. ”
Of course, you don’t have to. You are not in a Muslim terrorist cell.
I do want to preserve the Constitution, but I have to tell you that I am torn when it comes to people planning or carrying out mass murder. It’s not very libertarian of me, but I would rather stop them, especially if it prevents hundreds of deaths–or even one death.
I suppose deep down I want freedom to triumph over control, but it is pretty hard to hold to that principle, if safety is at stake.
We must be one of the stupidest countries in the world. First we invite people into our country who are prone by their culture and education to become aggressive against us. Then when they do commit acts of aggression we wring our hands, worrying about whether we are treating them fairly.
———
SE: ” But in eight years it seems it’s really a few isolated incidents, remarkable in fact by how short the list is, given the fear people had after 9-11.”
Wow! Who’s running the asylum. So, please tell me how many terrorist attacks would you think are too many? I’d say one, but I guess I’m just weird. I guess I’m crazy for thinking that we should not regard the killing of our fellow Americans by radical Muslims as not so bad or within an acceptable range.
“If this is the best Hanson can do in trying to promote some kind of fear of Islam, then it really is evidence that we have little to fear.”
Who said anything about promoting fear of Islam? Islam is a religion; it cannot hurt anyone. What Hanson is talking about is the very rational fear, given the circumstances, of certain Muslim people.
All of this would be a nice, interesting academic discussion, if it were not for the fact that these violent acts have acutally occurred. Nobody’s imagining them.
———-
C in SD: “No, we will continue to see stuff like this and to see it escalate as more Muslims learn what Muhammad really taught.”
Yeah, it’s a strange world we live in. Non-Muslims tell us all the time, including our former President, that Islam is a religion of peace. The history and writings of Islam indicate otherwise, as do the speeches of its current religious teachers. A few liberal Muslims try to pretend that the Koran does not promote violence, but he most devout and dedicated Muslims say otherwise. Then some of them carry it out.
I have yet to hear a Muslim person categorically say that these terrorist acts are wrong and directly confront the Muslims who are carrying them out. I haven’t seen them try to root out such people, including the inciting imams. I haven’t seen them insisting that madrassas that teach violence should be closed–or even that certain mosques should be closed. You hear all the time about “moderate” Muslims who do not condone the violence, but what are they doing, actively doing, to stop it? (If anyone can cite real examples, I’d appreciate it. In fact, I’ll highlight them on my blog here.)
How purposely blind can people be?
“Not everyone is like us–we in the west expect everyone else to think just as we do. How silly and arrogant.”
Right. It’s called the moral equivalence argument. It says that “they” want the same things that we want and have the same values that we have. Forget the evidence. Just keep saying the platitude over and over until most people believe it.
“All we can do is love the Muslims we know and hope and pray that we can take a few of these friends and lead them to the true God, who loves them even if they don’t participate in jihad.”
I agree, but that love should include some “tough love.”
I’m not talking about torturing or killing people. I am not talking about deporting every Muslim. I am talking about being cautious. I am talking about being alert to the danger, a danger that is not potential but all too real.
languagelover // November 13, 2009 at 8:16 am |
RG,
In regards to “I have yet to hear a Muslim person categorically say that these terrorist acts are wrong and directly confront the Muslims who are carrying them out.” http://www.religioustolerance.org/islfatwa.htm
or
http://www.startribune.com/yourvoices/45858187.html
The news simply chooses not to make these announcements public.
So, are you on the same side of folks who rounded up people during World War II and created concentration camps, I mean “internment camps,” on US soil for people we should be “cautious of”?
You don’t want to kill them or torture them, but you do want to take away their assumption of innocence on the basis of religious belief. Because a dozen out of a million acted like fanatics?
languagelover // November 13, 2009 at 8:45 am |
I have a comment in moderation.
Jay Burns // November 13, 2009 at 10:11 am |
I am talking about protecting the liberties of citizens. Period. I don’t care what your religion is; Islam, Christian, Buddist, Hindu or athiest, we shouldn’t violate your constitutionally protected liberties doe to your religion. If you break the law. You should be brought to justice. I am all for hunting down terrorists. I do not care about the rights of non-citizens. If you are a citizen of another country, or here illegally you are not affforded the same protection from warrantless searches and seizures.
If you want to make the regulations for citizenship more difficult, I am on board. If you want to secure our boarders, I am on board. I am not on board if you want government officials listening to citizen to citizen conversations to see if we are terrorists. I am not on board if you want to go door to door searching for materials that suggest a citizen might be a terrorist. I am not on board if you want to revoke the right to a public trial for a citizen accused of terrorism. I am not on board if you want to remotely search citizens computers for proof of terrorism. If you get a warrant from a judge BEFORE the fact, fine.
Don’t kill who we are, to protect who we are.
languagelover // November 13, 2009 at 4:02 pm |
Well said, Jay.
My comment in moderation has some links which refer to RG’s comments that no Muslims speak out against the terrorism. In fact, there are. We just don’t hear it on the news as often.
On another note, RG. You don’t see the difference between hate crimes and regular crimes, but there is a difference between Islamic terrorist crimes and regular crimes?
Scott Erb // November 13, 2009 at 8:35 pm |
Gee, RG, terrorism is extremely rare. Violent acts of other sorts exist all the time. Trying to make a big deal out of rare terrorism in a way that seems to ignore all the other violence (including the deaths caused by our choices — e.g., car deaths, etc.) seems weird. Hanson’s proving that terrorism isn’t really a big deal, if that list is the best he’s got. He’s showing that we should stop focusing so much on a rare problem and really shift our money and attention to the far more common ones. He doesn’t say that, but that would be the logical result of taking his evidence seriously if one compares those incidents with all the rest of what happened in the last eight years in this country of over 300 million.
Fear of terrorism is not rational.
Also, Islam is a religion of peace. Most all writing and interpretations of the Koran show that. A few radicals both in Islam and outside try to twist it to make it something else. But I’ve studied this pretty extensively for courses I teach, including ones on terrorism and Islam, and the more one learns about the faith, the more one realizes that Islam is not a violent religion. In fact, the Old Testament is in many ways far more violent (and the God in the Old Testament can be interpreted as being a rather petty and unjustly vicious diety — getting angry, jealous, ordering children killed, war crimes, and all sorts of things we try to teach our children to avoid).
You can always cherry pick negative interpretations of another religion. Those who do so about Islam are way outside the mainstream, as are those who do so about Christianity. And again — the West has a far more violent history than the Islamic world.
Mike Lovell // November 14, 2009 at 11:19 am |
“And again — the West has a far more violent history than the Islamic world.”
I’d take exception to this one, as it is hard to make such a comparison, without clear definition of who represents what. Where are the boundaries of East/West.
Because Africa has been marred in violence for centuries upon centuries, just within itself, nevermind outisde invasions….the transfer of Persian grounds, Atila the Hun, Pol Pot, Stalin. Then over here you have the destruction of indigenous cultures up and down the Americas, and a whole host of other atrocities.
Mike Lovell // November 14, 2009 at 11:22 am |
whoops, I just realized I lumped in non-muslims in the eastern category, but still….you look at muslim grounds and the battles fought there, its still pretty friggin bloody, before you even get into the development of the west
renaissanceguy // November 15, 2009 at 1:03 am |
I think it has become downright silly to play the game of who was the most violent group of people on earth. It’s not even possible to quantify it.
I would rather we all recognize that all violence is bad, no matter who perpetrates it. Even violence done for a necessary or “good” cause is a lesser of two evils. Can we all just say that it is wrong for anyone–dark-skinned, light-skinned, Christian, Muslim, Jew, or atheist–to kill innocent people?
I think that we should also concentrate on stopping current violence instead of wringing our hands about the conquest of North America or the Crusades or the Boer Wars or whatever. Let’s stop terrorism and other violence now instead of saying, “Your history is bloodier than our history.”
What do you say?