Posted by
Jason Cunningham on Thursday, July 19, 2007 6:45:31 AM
Funny, in a sad way, how some people blame our presence in Iraq for much of the terrorism now taking place (and also funny – again, in a sad way – how these same people don’t attribute any terrorism to our presence in Afghanistan – because, of course, even liberals find it hard to argue against that war). Here’s a much better theory: Terrorist tendencies and hatred for the West (particularly America) already existed before we entered Iraq or Afghanistan; our presence in these places was the heat that brought some of this hatred boiling to the surface, but it would’ve come out sooner or later, anyway. In fact, much of it already had: The first World Trade Center bombing, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, the bombing of American embassies, and, of course, 9/11 – these things all happened before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. I ask liberals: Were those terrorist actions our fault, as well?
God forbid we should ever fight back, especially against a people that have practiced violence for millennia. For those of you not in the know, Islamic violence is nothing new – it wasn’t a twentieth-century phenomenon, and it certainly wasn’t inspired by our invasion of Iraq. Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was himself bent towards violence. Now to be fair, everyone in his corner of the world was warlike, their various tribes and clans constantly battling one another. Arabia was a dog-eat-dog world. Yet it’s interesting to note – and let me be clear that this is a rather large note – that Mohammed, after “finding” his religion, did not become a practitioner of peace, or preach a faith of love and compassion. Sure, he acted subdued for a while … until he had enough followers to form an army, at which point he resumed pursuit of his bloodlust. There’s a reason that Islam has historically been called “the religion of the sword”: because that’s what it’s always been. Mohammed’s personal motto was not “Come unto me, all ye who labor, and I will give you rest,” but “Convert to Islam or die!” If anyone tells you that Islam is a “religion of peace,” then they’re practicing a watered-down version of the original.
Oddly enough, this real threat that Muslims present is confirmed by liberals’ reaction to them … or should I say, inaction. Because Liberals are petrified to “offend” Muslims, they spend a lot more time criticizing America for “inciting” the poor terrorists than they do condemning the actions of terrorists. All the liberal groupies in the media run story after story berating peaceful Christians for supporting something as harmless as public postings of the Ten Commandments, but say nary a word to help stem the flow of blood coming from terrorist actions. You guys could help out, you know, by doing something such as, oh, I don’t know, encouraging so-called “moderate” Muslims (including those here in America) to police their own people. It’s a crazy idea, I know, but hey, it might help. It’s just lucky for Liberals that Christians aren’t bomb-happy.
So can anyone give me a good reason why Liberals aren’t taking Muslims to task (besides the obvious “they’re scared”)? Why aren’t Liberal politicians, such as Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy, railing against radical Muslims (and the “moderate” Muslims who lend them de facto support by their conspicuous silence)? Why aren’t “the reverends” Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the leadership of the NAACP excoriating all the “moderate” black Muslims in this country for not putting pressure on their extreme brothers? And why are Liberal celebs, such as Madonna and Brad and Angelina, working so hard to get more aid for Africa instead of flexing their muscles against the extremists (most of them Muslim) who are causing so many of the problems in Africa? As always, it seems, Liberals love to attack the symptoms, not the cause.