Friday, July 08, 2005


The Anchoress, this morning, brings us one of the best columns in the aftermath of the London bombings. She begins by quoting Churchill, circa 1940:

"You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask: what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory - victory - at all costs, victory, in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.”

From there, the Anchoress goes on to remind us of a bit of the 26-year long reign of Islamofascist terror, spurned by the revolution in Iran:

Perhaps if, in the 1970’s, (when Islamofascists took and held hostages for 444 days) Churchill’s policy had become our policy, 3000 Americans would not have been killed on 9/11, Bali would not have exploded, Spain would not have capitulated and England would not today be in mourning.

Perhaps if, in the 1980’s, (when Islamofascists had bombed soldiers barracks in Lebanon and began calling for holy war) Churchill’s policy had become our policy, 3000 Americans would not have been killed on 9/11, Bali would not have exploded, Spain would not have capitulated and England would not today be in mourning.

The history is long and lamentable, and I have a feeling most people remember back through only about ten years of it. The Anchoress sets us straight:

Churchill’s necessary policy of 1940 is the necessary policy of today. Fighting against an enemy so cowardly they refuse to wear a uniform, so bereft of shame that they revel in the shedding of innocent blood, there can be no other policy but war and victory.

Al Qaeda has stated that it attacked the UK because of its involvement in Iraq.

It does not explain what were its reasons for all of those attacks before we invaded Iraq.
Spain pulled out…they got attacked again, anyway.

Terrorism did not begin with the presidency of George W. Bush and the invasion of Iraq, no matter how much Barbara Boxer and Al Franken would like us to believe it.
... our enemies would as soon kill us as look at us and if they could slaughter 38,000 instead of 38, they would do so with relish.

An enemy that looks only to kill the infidel or die trying is an enemy that will only be defeated if they are convinced that they will never win.

And if the cultures that produce these enemies can get a sense of hope that they are not damned to lifetimes under religious or secular tyranny, perhaps they will stop producing them.
If there are other solutions out there, real, credible solutions and not mere carping and politicizing…then it is time to have them heard

With that in mind, why don't we look at what the Muslim community is up to this morning:

Arabs fear backlash after London bombings
DUBAI (Reuters) - Arab newspapers urged Britain on Friday not to turn against Arabs and Muslims after bloody bomb attacks in London blamed on al Qaeda Islamist militants.
While all editorials condemned the onslaught, some linked it to Britain's part in the Iraq invasion or its backing for a U.S.-declared "war on terror," which, they said, ignores the injustice of occupation fueling militancy in the Middle East.

When reading this, keep in mind, we eliminated Saddam Hussein, a tyrant of a leader, that they liked no more than we.

And listen to the condemnations:

Saudi Arabia's mufti, or top religious official, Sheikh Abdul-Aziz al-Sheikh, said the bombers violated Islam. "The explosions in London...targeted the faithful as a whole, and this has no basis in Islam. It is forbidden by our religion."

So, you see, he condemned the bombing because it killed Muslims, not because it was wrong in and of itself.

And what else are they concerned with:

Beirut's English-language Daily Star predicted that Muslims would suffer more discrimination after the carnage in London.

Now, let's be honest about this. Muslims, as a whole, are not responsible for bombings plotted and planned by a few. On the other hand, Muslims, as a body, sit in Mosques where these hateful ideas are preached by radicalized Imams. And, from what I can tell, they do not shout these down.

In the United States recently, the think-tank Freedom House did a study which showed that Islamofascist hate literature "fills" the mosques of America. I have no reason to believe that things are different in Britain. Yet, we do not have examples of Muslims working tirelessly to end this kind of supremacist thinking.

If we look to the history of hate-ideology in the United States, we find that white people had quite a bit of trouble taking responsibility for the evil done in their names by groups such as the KKK. However, there was ample and very public evidence of whites working alongside blacks to fight against racism.

Until we see such clear examples from the Muslim community, I believe the Muslim community can expect to be looked on with suspicion. What's more, I assert that when the Muslim community reacts to such suspicion with anger and accusations towards the societies in which they live, they are being ungrateful and, frankly, as obnoxious as the white people of 1960's America who used to say things such as "We ain't got no problem with the coloreds, as long as they stay in their communities, and they stay out of ours."

It is long past time the Muslim community stops reacting to the news of terrorism against Western countries by primarily expressing concern for their own people's safety. Western countries have fought to end tyrranies which held Muslims captive in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. If the Muslim community can not be grateful for that, then there may be a problem that we can not fix.