,hl=en,siteUrl='http://0ldfox.blogspot.com/',authuser=0,security_token="v_SeT2Tv8vVdKRCcG9CCW-ZdIfQ:1429878696275"/> Old Fox KM Journal : An Excerpt on the Islamic Enemy

Wednesday, July 09, 2014

An Excerpt on the Islamic Enemy


Why is Islamism Denied as a Source of Terror

Daniel Pipes

"Documenting Denial
The government, press, and academy routinely deny that Islamist motives play a role in two ways, specific and general. Specific acts of violence perpetrated by Muslims lead the authorities publicly, willfully, and defiantly to close their eyes to Islamist motivations and goals. Instead, they point to a range of trivial, one-time, and individualistic motives, often casting the perpetrator as victim. Examples from the years before and after 9/11 include:
  • 1990 assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York: “A prescription drug for … depression.”[6]
  • 1991 murder of Makin Morcos in Sydney: “A robbery gone wrong.”
  • 1993 murder of Reverend Doug Good in Western Australia: An “unintentional killing.”
  • 1993 attack on foreigners at a hotel in Cairo, killing ten: Insanity.[7]
  • 1994 killing of a Hasidic Jew on the Brooklyn Bridge: “Road rage.”[8]
  • 1997 shooting murder atop the Empire State Building: “Many, many enemies in his mind.”[9]
  • 2000 attack on a bus of Jewish schoolchildren near Paris: A traffic incident.
  • 2002 plane crash into a Tampa high-rise by an Osama bin Laden-admiring Arab-American (but non-Muslim): The acne drug Accutane.[10]
  • 2002 double murder at LAX: “A work dispute.”[11]
  • 2002 Beltway snipers: A “stormy [family] relationship.”[12]
  • 2003 Hasan Karim Akbar‘s attack on fellow soldiers, killing two: An “attitude problem.”[13]
  • 2003 mutilation murder of Sebastian Sellam: Mental illness.[14]
  • 2004 explosion in Brescia, Italy, outside a McDonald’s restaurant: “Loneliness and depression.”[15]
  • 2005 rampage at a retirement center in Virginia: “A disagreement between the suspect and another staff member.”[16]
  • 2006 murderous rampage at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle: “An animus toward women.”[17]
  • 2006 killing by a man in an SUV in northern California: “His recent, arranged marriage may have made him stressed.”[18]
This pattern of denial is all the more striking because it concerns distinctly Islamic forms of violence such as suicide operationsbeheadingshonor killings and the disfiguring of women’s faces. For example, when it comes to honor killings, Phyllis Chesler has established that this phenomenon differs from domestic violence and, in Western countries, is almost always perpetrated by Muslims.[19] Such proofs, however, do not convince the establishment, which tends to filter Islam out of the equation...
... Israel offers a control case. Because it faces so many threats, the body politic lacks patience with liberal pieties when it comes to security. While aspiring to treat everyone fairly, the government clearly targets the most violent-prone elements of society. Should other Western countries face a comparable danger, circumstances will likely compel them to adopt this same approach.
Conversely, should such mass dangers not arise, this shift will probably never take place. Until and unless disaster on a large scale strikes, denial will continue. Western tactics, in other words, depend entirely on the brutality and competence of the Islamist enemy. Ironically, the West permits terrorists to drive its approach to counterterrorism. No less ironically, it will take a huge terrorist atrocity to enable effective counterterrorism.

Addressing Denial

In the meantime, those who wish to strengthen counterterrorism by acknowledging the role of Islam have three tasks.
First, intellectually to prepare themselves and their arguments so when calamity occurs they possess a fully elaborated, careful, and just program that focuses on Muslims without doing injustice to them.
Second, continue to convince those averse to mentioning Islam that discussing it is worth the price; this means addressing their concerns, not bludgeoning them with insults. It means accepting the legitimacy of their hesitance, using sweet reason, and letting the barrage of Islamist attacks have their effect.
Third, prove that talking about Islamism does not lead to perdition by establishing the costs of not naming the enemy and of not identifying Islamism as a factor; noting that Muslim governments, including the Saudi one, acknowledge that Islamism leads to terrorism; stressing that moderate Muslims who oppose Islamism want Islamism openly discussed; addressing the fear that frank talk about Islam alienates Muslims and spurs violence; and demonstrating that profiling can be done in a constitutionally approved way.
In brief, even without an expectation of effecting a change in policy, there is much work to be done."

No comments: