Admitting that Islamic terrorists are motivated by Islam would force our political clown gallery to do something about it. They are literally shitting themselves over that.
It has been beyond ludicrous to hear politicians and journalists deny that jihadists shouting “Allahu akbar” and quoting the Koran are not religiously motivated.
Jonathan Cole is right – this delusion must end:
Why is it so hard for the West to accept that the jihadist movement is fundamentally a religious movement? Jihadists are under no such illusion. They tell us at every breath that their struggle is about Islam…
There is no dispute that jihadists are political actors, have political goals and are having a profound political impact. But why do so many commentators appear to believe this means they also cannot possibly belong to a religious movement? Religious movements are perfectly capable of also being political actors, having political agendas and being of political consequence. Isn’t this precisely the experience of Western societies? Just think of the impact the Christian right continues to have in US politics…
The fact we are still debating whether Islamic theology has anything to do with a movement that has spawned something called the Islamic State shows just how far the West has to go. The West urgently must find a way to speak empirically, objectively and soberly about the global jihadist movement and its Islamic theology, free of the baggage of Western ideological battles that have nothing to do with the jihadist movement.
Here’s why we see this dumb denial, echoed by Muslim apologists in the West.
- To admit the Koran licences terrorism would be to admit that Islam is dangerous in Western societies and needs reform.
- To admit the Koran licences terrorism would be to admit that immigration policies must be changed to make Western societies safer.
- To admit the terrorists are motivated more by the Koran than by the sins of the West would be to deny the militant Left useful seconders to their own campaigns against our traditions and institutions.
- To admit that religion influences behavior, for good or evil, might let Christianity off the hook, given its obviously civilising influence.
- People here, many raised to despise organised religion and to have an outlandish admiration for their own ability to reason, simply do not understand that others genuinely like being adherents of a faith and are motivated to serve it. Indeed, it is precisely the West’s lack of faith that earns it not the admiration of its Islamist enemies but contempt.
And thus we have this dialogue of the deaf.
The assumptions that make asses of us:
1. Monotheism means we all worship the same deity.
2. Religions are: benign, beneficent & anodyne.
3. If it prays & sways; calls itself a religion, it must be a religion.
Misdirection: “Why is it so hard for the West to accept that the jihadist movement is fundamentally a religious movement?”
It is impossible for those in power to acknowledge the fact that Jihad is intrinsic to Islam ‘cuz of the perceived enormity of the consequence of that fact.
Jihad is intrinsic to Islam. Terrorism & genocide are intrinsic to Jihad. Islam can not convert to productive enterprise anymore than lions can convert to grazing. The logical consequence of those facts is: Islam must be made extinct.
LibTards falsely equate the necessary staking of vampires to the Shoa.
Yeah, I know: vampires are mythical. Muslims are real. They attack innocent people, demanding that they embrace Islam. If they do, Muslims offer the option of joining the Jihad, warning they will not share in the spoils unless they join and participate. Muslims make more Muslims with their attacks, just like vampires.
“Our leaders” are the globalist-owned “CONTROLLED OPPOSITION” & their group identity political parties = divide-and-conquer strategies!
As criminals themselves, who only desire ever-more rights and ever-less responsibilities, BY offloading their responsibilities onto their constituent voter victims, BY depriving us or our self-defense rights, these power-trader “politicians” do not exist to defend us at all, and especially not by making these very hard choices!
“Our” politicians are the globalist-owned “CONTROLLED OPPOSITION” & their group identity political parties = divide-and-conquer strategies!
Re: “There is no dispute that jihadists are political actors, have political goals and are having a profound political impact. But why do so many commentators appear to believe this means they also cannot possibly belong to a religious movement? Religious movements are perfectly capable of also being political actors, having political agendas and being of political consequence. Isn’t this precisely the experience of Western societies? Just think of the impact the Christian right continues to have in US politics…”
NO. Our parochial point of view – especially amongst leftopaths – is that all religions must by definition conform to OUR model of what a religion is and is not – and our Judeo-Christian one is based on the “Render Unto Caesar” speech’s separation of church and state – “SO” all libertine psychopaths “think,” everyone else’s “religion” must ALSO separate the two.
Therefore violent physical “political” jihad, must have nothing to do with the “REAL” religious tenets of islam!
Even such otherwise staunch luminaries of the rational rights, such as Robert Spencer and Pam Geller, and ESPECIALLY Dr. Bill Warner with his “POLITICAL ISLAM,” trope, have fallen for, or cynically adopted, this same stance to avoid the precisely same conundrum as evinced above: That to notice that there is no “jihad” without “islam” and worse that there is no “islam” without “muslims” to enact its violent tenets on innocent others, leads inevitably to the conclusion that ALL “muslims” must be confronted and given the same choice they give us: to revert back to non-crazed humans, or …. DIE.
“….our political clown gallery…” :
Are in a psychological bind. They know that once they belatedly admit that Islam is the ideological motivator then they will have to come up with an effective, ruthless response. Such a response would have to be ruthless because the problem of Islamic totalitarianism has been allowed to get a tenacious foothold. This has resulted from prolonged, naive appeasement in the forlorn hope that the menace would develop an acceptable benignity.