- by Gitabushi
The views expressed in this post are mine and mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect on the views of PC Bushi or Kaiju Bushi.
“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”
The Western World may not want a war with Islamic Extremists, but Islamic Extremists have taken away that choice.
Western leaders are gaslighting us on Islamic Terror. Elites will repeat that your chance of being killed by an Islamic Terrorist is less than that of being struck by lightning, or some other bullshit statistic. They will repeat that Islam is a religion of peace. They will repeat that moderate Muslims aren’t attacking us, that we shouldn’t punish moderate Muslims for the actions of a few, etc., etc., etc
1) Your chances of being killed by a Terrorist are vanishingly small
“Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute.”
This is the spirit of the United States. We are a free people. A death from an Islamic Terrorist is an act of war, a deliberate murder, a violation of our Right to Life. Getting struck by lightning is not. There is a qualitative difference, and it is the most base deception to compare those two.
The responsibility of our leaders is to take reasonable precautions to seek our best interests. It is not in our best interests to be killed by terrorists any more than it is to be struck by lightning. However, people can be deterred from becoming terrorists, and terrorists can be stopped by reasonable actions (discussed later in this piece). Lightning cannot. Lightning deaths are not within the responsibility of our leaders. Stopping terrorist deaths is. Why do they give excuses to gaslight us into accepting a few deaths every few months?
2) Islam is a religion of peace
We won’t kill someone just for believing in Islam. We should kill people who embrace terrorism. Non sequitur.
3) Moderate Muslims aren’t attacking us, we shouldn’t punish them by refusing to allow them to emigrate to the West.
What is a moderate Muslim? To what extent do moderate Muslims facilitate terror by funding via donations to radical mosques, by providing rhetorical cover for extremists, by providing numbers for the terrorists to hide among?
I’m not saying we need to start killing Muslims en masse, of course, but a government, any government, owes its first responsibility to its current citizens. Any government is also supposed to moderate/resolve problems between existing citizens. So in the first case, we are under no obligation to permit another Muslim to enter our nation until they work harder to root out and eliminate terrorists. In the second case, Muslims who are already citizens should follow the US Constitution as their primary law. Sharia should never be allowed to supplant US Law at any level. Honor killing, FGM, donations to radical mosques, etc., should be prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.
Some will point to the current/recent attacks as evidence (or even proof) that the War on Terror is a failure. After all, we started back in 2001 and they are still conducting successful attacks 16 years later.
This is an incorrect interpretation.
First, we have never fully prosecuted the war on Islamic Extremism. George W Bush said that if you supported terrorists, we would treat you like a terrorist, but he never really followed through. We invaded Afghanistan and toppled their terrorist regime. We toppled Saddam Hussein’s terrorist regime. But even with Iran surrounded, we never threatened to end their terrorist regime. We did nothing as Erdogan used terror tactics against the Kurds. We just fought terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But even with those mild measures, we were winning. From 2006 to 2009, terrorist attacks were down worldwide. The flypaper strategy of attracting terrorists to Iraq and Afghanistan was working.
The United States elected a President that didn’t want to defeat Islamic Terrorism and thought that a powerful, confident United States was bad for the world, and he prioritized his vision for worldwide interests over United States’ national interests.
Due to his views, he had us pull out of Iraq while before their commitment to democracy and liberty were able to take root. He imposed rules of engagement in Afghanistan that made it more difficult to effectively combat terrorism. He loosened restrictions that prevented terrorists from entering the US. He toppled Qaddafi, who had stopped engaging in terror, allowing al Qaida and other Islamic terrorist groups to have unrestricted access to weaponry. He did nothing to deter or stop the rise of ISIS and of Islamic Terror organizations in Africa. He released dozens of terrorists from Gitmo. He changed policy so that we no longer captured terrorists, but killed them, resulting in the loss of additional first-hand information on terror plans from interrogating captured terrorists. He turned the focus of the Intelligence Community away from combating terror toward spying on his political enemies. And he gaslight us again and again and again, by refusing to call Islamic terror by its name, by claiming obviously-coordinate attacks were unpredictable “Lone Wolf” efforts, by blaming terror attacks on guns, or workplace violence, or something else.
George W Bush didn’t go all-out to combat terrorism, but we were still winning. Obama could not have done a better job cultivating Islamic Terror than if his actions were a deliberate attempt to do so.
We need to return to an active posture in combating terrorism. We need to do what George W Bush did, but more so.
We need to change their calculus. We need to make them believe that becoming a terrorist (or in their minds, a Holy Warrior) will mean their futile death. We need to deny them successes, and we do that by fighting and killing them overseas, in their land. We need to deny terrorists easy access to the United States. That means no more refugees, and that means significant efforts to combat radical ideology targeting US citizens, and ending terrorist funding via Islamic charities.
Some innocent people will be wrongfully impacted by these actions, yes.
But as I quoted, “Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute.”
There is a principle at stake. There are always false positives and false negatives. Western leaders have prioritized the interests of the innocent Muslims at the expense of innocent non-Muslims. However, it is a subset of Islam that is actively attacking and killing innocent non-Muslims. If innocent Muslims are harmed by a renewed War on Radical Islam, it is the fault of the subset of Muslims, in the same way that a person robbing a home is charged with murder if the homeowner kills his accomplice.
If the Islamic Terrorists were not attacking the West, the West would not respond by killing Islamic Terrorists.
The question of the extent that moderate Muslims support extreme Muslim terrorists is undetermined. But the fact that it is uncertain means there is a possibility moderate Muslims are not innocent.
But the teens that attended the Ariana Grande concert are purely innocent in any religious war. Islamic Terrorists targeted them, and killed many. This removes the benefit of the doubt for moderate Muslims. We should not target them. We should not intentionally harm them or damage their interests. But we can no longer afford to consider their interests when Islamic Terrorists are using them to launch deadly attacks on the unquestionably innocent.
The point of war is to eliminate the enemy’s will to fight. We never really tried to do that before. We must fully eliminate Islam’s Will to Kill Westerners. Whatever it takes.
It is time to go to war.