by baldilocks

Originally posted November 23, 2009. Edited.

There use to be a mosque near my home, but the adherents have since move their digs to Crenshaw Boulevard.

The congregants were all black, but I’m not sure if they were Black Muslims (Explanation: back in the day, the distinction “Black Muslim” indicated that the persons under discussion belonged to the Nation of Islam and therefore subscribed to the ideology set forth by Elijah Muhammad—an ideology considered an anathema to other Muslims.  These days, the term merely means a Muslim who is black, that is, they may be NOI adherents or they may not be. I make the distinction to indicate that I did not see anything other than black people coming and going from that mosque, but that’s not a surprising thing in South Central Los Angeles and, therefore, no indication of whether the mosque belonged to NOI or not.)

A several years ago, something occurred that I’ve thought about every now and then, especially after reading about terror attacks.  At midday, I was in the back of the house in my office—blogging, of course.  At some point, a noise entered my consciousness.  It was a voice, a tinned one and, as I listened I became aware of three things: that the voice was male, that it was coming out of a bullhorn and that it was repeating the same phrase over and over again.  However, I could not make out the words at first.

As the volume decreased, I originally thought that the origin of the voice had moved on.  But it had only gone around the block a few times.  Finally, the origin of the voice came back around on my street and, apparently, the driver decided to park for a few minutes almost directly in front of my house. The unintelligible phrase was being repeated once more.  And once again.

Finally I got up from in front of my computer, went to the front of the house, peered through the blinds of the large picture window in the living room and…froze.

The voice was coming from speakers attached to the type of truck that is sometimes used by ice cream vendors. The truck was spotlessly clean and gleaming white except for the design on the side: the huge blood-red star-and-crescent symbol of Islam.

The occupant had been exhorting the residents of this neighborhood using a two-sentence phrase, most of which I have blocked out of my memory.  But I do remember one part and, really, it’s the only relevant part.  The occupant was advising us to…

“Embrace Islam.”

By the time I gained the presence of mind to grab a camera, the gleaming white truck had moved on.  I haven’t seen it since.

From the time that it came to light the Major Nidal Malik Hasan basically warned the FBI and the Army of what he was–if not of what he was about to do [at Fort Hood in 2009]—I’ve been thinking of that “ice cream” truck and what that particular vendor was selling.  Aren’t jihadis required to warn their infidel foes and invite them to convert before any attack?

“Embrace Islam,” he said.  Left unspoken was the alternative.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done on February 2017! Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

baldilocks

 

Nidal Hasan mug shot
Nidal Hasan mug shot

By John Ruberry

Last week’s news was dominated–which was as it should have been–by the barbaric burning alive of a captured Jordanian pilot at the hands of the Islamic State, which the terror group videotaped.

While the White House did deem this atrocity as a terrorist act, President Obama has been reluctant to what his administration probably refers to as the “T-word.” That is, terrorism.

Just last month spokespersons from the White House were refusing to call the Taliban terrorists. You know, that group that harbored Osama bin Laden as he plotted the 9/11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people.

Nothing to see here, folks…just move on.

In 2009, evil Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan, while screaming “Allahu Akbar,” murdered 13 soldiers and wounded 30 others at Fort Hood in Texas. For over five years our military–its commander-in-chief of course is Obama–refused to call this slaughter an act of terror. Instead the Fort Hood shootings were classified as “workplace violence.” This injustice wasn’t just a matter of semantics–some benefits and compensation were withheld from the victims because of the heartless definition.

Of course Obama could have added to his plethora of executive orders by righting this wrong. But he didn’t.purpleheart-vi

But on Friday, thanks not to Obama but to a change in the legal definition of terrorism by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015, the Fort Hood shootings are now classified as terror acts–and the wounded will soon be awarded Purple Hearts.

Hasan, who is now imprisoned on death row at Fort Leavenworth, had communicated with Anwar al-Awlaki, who until his 2011 death was leader of Al Qeada in Yemen. The shrink also had business cards printed with SoA after his name–an acronym for soldier of Allah.

Last year Hasan wrote to the leader of ISIS, telling him, “I formally and humbly request to be made a citizen of the Islamic State.”

Now will Obama himself finally call the Fort Hood murders an act of terror?

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

MosqueBy John Ruberry

Five days ago free expression was attacked in Paris when Cherif Kouachi and his brother Said, who were trained by Al Qaeda in Yemen, screamed “Allahu Akbar” (God is great!) while killing 12 people with AK-47s, most of them journalists employed by satire magazine Charlie Hebdo. The terrorists were killed by French police two days later.

Muslim apologists quickly filled the airwaves, explaining that such atrocities are not compatible with Islam and that murderers such as the Kouachi brothers are outliers of the faith–bad apples.

Maybe.

I generally don’t agree with HBO’s Bill Maher, a strident atheist, but when he said last week about Islam, “When there are that many bad apples, there’s something wrong with the orchard,” I have to admit he’s on to something.

Radical Muslims were of course behind the 9/11 attacks in the United States, as well as the 3/11 Mardid and 7/7 London bombings. The jihadists who have seized much of Iraq and Syria–while murdering thousands of Christians and Yazidis–have announced the founding of a new Caliphate. The Fort Hood murderer considered himself a Soldier of Allah. And while western journalists were devoting the lion’s share of its coverage to the Charlie Hebdo killings last week, another Islamist group, Boko Haram, murdered all of the residents–2,000 people–in the Nigerian village of Baga. These are the same criminals who kidnapped 200 teenage Nigeria girls who were the subject of Michelle Obama’s #BringBackOurGirls Twitter campaign. It didn’t work–the teens are still missing.

Islam–you have a problem. Yes, there are many Muslims that I know who like most people, just want to live their lives and be left alone.  But my guess is that the radicals oppose them too.

Egypt’s president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who did his nation and the world a huge service by ousting the Muslim Brotherhood from power, is calling for a “religious revolution” within Islam. In a New Year’s Day speech, Sisi said, “Is it possible that 1.6 billion people should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live?”

If the rest of the world’s inhabitants don’t accept Islam, what Sisi said of the radicals very well may be true.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

C.K. Dexter Haven: You don’t believe it then?

George Kitterage:
Believe what?

C.K. Dexter Haven: Well the ah, the implications of what you saw, let us say?

George Kitterage: What am I to believe?

C.K. Dexter Haven: That’s entirely up to you.

George Kitterage: I’ve got eyes, I’ve got imagination haven’t I?

C.K. Dexter Haven: I don’t know have you?

George Kitterage: Oh So you pretend not to believe it.

C.K. Dexter Haven: Yes I pretend not to.


The Philadelphia Story 1940
.

Yesterday Stacy McCain (who unless I’m very much mistaken has decided his dream Ambassadorship is finished) continued what appears to be his push of Rick Santorum as a Newt alternate. In his post last night he commented on one of the two really interesting moments of the debate, Rick Santorum saying aloud what everybody knows:

“Well, the folks who are most likely to be committing these crimes,” he replied. “Obviously Muslims would be someone you’d look at, absolutely. Those are the folks — the radical Muslims have been people committing these crimes by and large, as well as younger males. Not exclusively, but these are the things you profile to find your most likely candidate.”

There is a certain inherent power to saying the truth out loud and Stacy McCain noted that the target audience for that answer is not likely watching MSNBC this morning, nor caring if Politico has its knickers in a twist.

Although this statement will meet with much wailing and gnashing of teeth by the usual suspects, I’d like to say something that everybody should have figured it out by now:

It is my opinion that we as a government are profiling, have been profiling and will continue to profile without admitting it.

Be honest; how may of you reading this blog would have guessed on Sept 20th 2001 that a dozen years later there would not be another successful coordinated terror attack on this country?

Oh yes we had Major Nidal Hassan, we had the DC sniper but all of those operations have been pretty much inspired, rather than coordinated.

The record has been remarkable, and the reason we have such a remarkable record is because of what we do.

Does anyone seriously believe that we did not have mosques under surveillance during the Bush years? Does anyone seriously believe that the Obama administration, political beliefs not withstanding, would risk a successful attack on the US during their watch by NOT having mosques and Islamic institutions under their eye? Do you think our successes are sheer luck?

And lets go one step further, I submit that not only is the US doing profiling, but western countries such as Canada and England are as well, furthermore I submit that ISLAMIC countries are doing the same.

Surprised? Take a look at the body count at Religion of peace.com. They document over 18,000 attacks since 9/11 by radical Muslims. If you look at the attacks listed there are two facts that are incontrovertible:

1. The vast majority of attacks take place in Islamic countries.

2. The majority of the people slaughtered in these attacks are Muslims.

Don’t’ get me wrong, to the Islamist, the Christian, Jewish or non Muslim target is always preferred but there is just as much hatred, if not more for their fellow Muslims who are either, not worshiping correctly or faithfully enough or associating with infidels.

And there are not a whole lot of tears shed for fellow Muslims who are simply in the way when attacking a non-Muslim target.

Given this situation, if anyone thinks that the overwhelmingly autocratic rulers of these various countries who are trying to maintain their wealth and position are not keeping a close eye on these guys you are not paying attention. Such leaders live with the threat of murder every day and aren’t shy about shedding a little blood to keep the power and wealth they have.

So if it’s true, if we ARE profiling and the Muslim world is profiling and other western nations are profiling, then why are we pretending otherwise? Why is every shoe on every foot removed before going on an airplane? I can think of three reasons:

1. There is always the exception, the convert or the sucker to watch out for.

2. It is to our advantage to convince our enemies that we are NOT profiling them to keep them sloppy.

3. Maintaining the Social fiction. (the most important)

It is the third item I want to address.

As anyone who deals with people knows, there are many potentially uncomfortable moments in life when you are faced with dealing with a situation that’s best ignored. At a funeral for example or at the party of a friend you might run into a person you despise, but you choose not to make a scene for the sake of the host, the people you are with, or the grieving family. This is called tact.

Being an honorable person is important but part of that social compact of honor in the western style is allowing people a graceful exit. In the old dueling days, the wrong word and the wrong gesture could lead to standing back to back at 20 paces so people allowed themselves the fiction of congeniality to avoid such things. Consider this quote from the movie the Comancheros by Circuit Court Judge Thaddeus Jackson Breen:

Major here has told me what your troubles are. I’ve been thinking it over and in light of my forty years experience in legal jurisprudence, I have come to the positive conclusion that there ain’t no way to do this legal and honest… but being good sensible Texans, we’ll do it illegal and dishonest!

In order to prevent a miscarriage of justice the judge and the Texas Rangers create an acceptable fiction. Today you don’t see much of honor in western culture, but in Arab culture saving face isall. The honor of a family, of a tribe or of a country is so ingrained culturally that people will slaughter each other to protect it, after all a culture that has no compunction about slaughtering their own children over family honor is not going to lose a lot of sleep over killing a stranger of a different faith.

And that where this fiction comes in. I suggest we are profiling Islamists, Arab and Islamic leaders KNOW we are doing so and might even be helping us along, but it can’t be admitted publicly by our governments or theirs.

If and when such a thing is admitted in public, Muslim and Arabs honor, in a culture all about saving face, would demand action. Action that would be disastrous both for them and for us.

One might think that it is a better thing for all of this to come out in the open at once and have it taken care of once and for all, Patton thought that about facing the Soviet Union, but in the end the Soviets fell without having to fight a World War costing tens of millions of lives and untold destruction.

I submit and suggest that every time we go though a security check at an airport, we are fighting that long cold war, allowing the fiction to be preserved in the Arab face culture that gives us the ability to clandestinely work with governments and operatives around the world to not only slay our enemies who would hope to strike us, but to prevent a successful attack that would require the type of overwhelming response that would have an incredible cost in both blood and treasure worldwide.

Or as per the quote at the start of this post, C.K. Dexter Haven and George Kitterage both wish to end up with Tracy Lords, Haven is willing to give a pass to what he sees and George Kitterage is not. in the end it is C.K. and NOT George who ends up going down the aisle with Tracy. George might have felt better venting, but Dexter got the girl in the end.

In a political sense, Rick Santorum is right, saying it aloud and bluntly will likely win him votes and respect among American voters, but if he gets into the oval office and is briefed I would be very surprised if he didn’t discover that the measures he wants taken are already well in hand.

In his famous speech of Sept 21, 2001 President Bush talked of “… covert operations secret even in success.”

I submit that when the final history of this war is written we will be shocked at how many of those victories have been won on American soil.