By Robert Spencer Backlash fever is sweeping the nation: thirteen Americans are dead and thirty-eight wounded in a jihad attack at Fort Hood, and our government’s primary concern -- from the Chief of Staff of the Army to the Islamic pressure groups such as CAIR -- are focused entirely on ensuring that Muslims in the United States are not being victimized by a “backlash.”
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared: “We object to, and do not believe, that anti-Muslim sentiment should emanate from this. This was an individual who does not represent the Muslim faith.”
She said that DHS was taking steps to “prevent everybody being painted with a broad brush.” Not “taking steps to prevent another jihad terror attack.” And she promised: “One of the things we’ll do is make sure that we’re reaching out to the state and local authorities within the US, because they often have better outreach to members of the Muslim community than we do.”
The U.S. Army Chief of Staff, George Casey, likewise seemed primarily concerned about the safety of Muslims, not about the safety of the potential victims of the next jihad attack: “I’m concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I’ve asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that.” Not “I’m concerned that there could be another jihadist among our Muslim soldiers. And I’ve asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that.”
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared: “We object to, and do not believe, that anti-Muslim sentiment should emanate from this. This was an individual who does not represent the Muslim faith.”
She said that DHS was taking steps to “prevent everybody being painted with a broad brush.” Not “taking steps to prevent another jihad terror attack.” And she promised: “One of the things we’ll do is make sure that we’re reaching out to the state and local authorities within the US, because they often have better outreach to members of the Muslim community than we do.”
The U.S. Army Chief of Staff, George Casey, likewise seemed primarily concerned about the safety of Muslims, not about the safety of the potential victims of the next jihad attack: “I’m concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I’ve asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that.” Not “I’m concerned that there could be another jihadist among our Muslim soldiers. And I’ve asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that.”
Casey added: “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse.”
So not having enough Muslims in the military would be worse than mass murder. And this man is the U.S. Army Chief of Staff.
The media was mining the same territory. AP reported Friday that there had been “immediate” anti-Muslim “backlash.” What happened? Did armed bands of furious Islamophobes throw molotov cocktails at mosques? Did ferocious white supremacists maul fragile little girls in hijabs on their way to school? Did angry bigots spit at pious imams quietly going about their business?
No.
Had there been any report -- any report at all -- of any innocent, random Muslim being attacked in a “backlash” after the Fort Hood jihad?
Nope. Not one. Americans are decent people. Americans believe people are innocent until proven guilty.
But Ibrahim Hooper and his fellow thugs at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) need to be able to claim that hate crimes are being committed so that they can claim victim status for Muslims and deflect attention away from such small matters as the jihad at Fort Hood. And, naturally, the clueless and/or complicit mainstream media in their hip pocket.
And so we witness the strange phenomenon of stories of Muslims fearing a backlash soaring and the numbering of actual incidents of backlash remaining at zero.
In the AP story, all that followed the announcement of an “immediate” anti-Muslim backlash were various stories about mosques and Muslims asking for special police protection, and the like. So in reality, the story should have been headlined, “Muslims claim victim status in wake of Fort Hood jihad attack.”
The only actual incidents of “backlash” that AP could come up with were incidents of people calling the Fort Hood massacre a jihad attack -- as if it is “Islamophobic” and hateful to note that a man was shouting “Allahu akbar” as he gunned people down, and that he gave out Korans hours before he started shooting people, and that he expressed sympathy for suicide attackers.
Is it unfair -- even racist -- to say then that he may have been motivated by the Islamic jihad doctrine of warfare against unbelievers? To CAIR and the media, yes.
The liberal media is one thing, but the government of our nation is quite another, or at least used to be.
Napolitano and Casey should know better. If they do not confront the ideology that leads to such attacks, there will be a steadily-increasing spate of them. But apparently preserving “diversity” is a higher priority than national security.
Source: Human Events
Posts
