Your Rostra Blogpen – Click on Name for Entries by Each Author … Scroll down for Recent Comments & What’s Hot on Rostra

Have a Hot Political News Tip?

Send us a news tip at info@sdrostra.com

Subscribe: Enter Your Email Address

Archives

Login



 

Recent Comments

Login



Tsarnaev brothers: Should America ignore their Muslim affiliation?

Tuesday, April 30, 2013
posted by Bob Siegel

Originally published by Communities @ Washingon Times

SAN DIEGO, April 21, 2013 — Once again, our country was assaulted by terrorists. Once again they were Muslim. Once again, we are being cautioned by academicians and politicians alike not to rush to judgment.

The talking points can be summed up like so: “Despite, their religious affiliation, perhaps these two Chechen brothers, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (captured) and Tamerlan Tsarnaev (dead) had some other motive for trying to kill just as many people as possible during Boston’s Patriots’ Day race. Even if they were acting as Muslims, they were only distorting and misrepresenting a beautiful, peaceful religion. A couple of bad apples don’t spoil the whole bunch.”

Friday evening, in the James S. Brady Press Briefing room, President Obama said, “Obviously, tonight there are still many unanswered questions. Among them, why did young men who grew up and studied here, as part of our communities and our country, resort to such violence?”

Seriously Mr. President? Are there really that many questions? Of course some details are missing, but with all due respect, there’s quite a bit that we do know.

We know the Boston bombing was not merely a domestic crime, but a Jihad in the name of Islam.

Despite their willingness to harvest America’s great opportunities, the Tsarnaev brothers were influenced by Jihadist teachings from the Internet, from extremist speakers who sometimes spoke at a Cambridge mosque, and from other places.

Why did they resort to violence? Because America is not a Muslim country. Period. The job of a Jihadist is to help make the entire world a Muslim world, or at least a world where people are subservient to Muslim rule. It’s just that simple. This observation may smack head on with conventional wisdom or politically correct caution, but that doesn’t automatically make it untrue.Doctors can analyze the lives of these two young men until the cows come home. I’m sure there are many in depth, complicated, psychological reasons why the “holy cause of Jihad” appealed to them. Maybe they didn’t get enough attention from their classmates in kindergarten. Maybe their mother never bought them a sled.

At the end of the day, the motive for embracing Jihad does not matter: It was still a Jihad.

No, that doesn’t mean we blame all Muslims. Yes, there are many peaceful Muslims, but frankly it grows tiresome to keep hearing this same disclaimer.

Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino said to Bill Maher, “You are making an error in that Islam has over 1.4 billion adherents. There’s heterogeneity to it. Are there extremists who are horrible people who would slit your throats? Yes. But there are also folks that are fine, upstanding people” (HBO, Real Time, 4-19-13).

Have you noticed that the more we witness violence in the name of Islam, the more lectures we hear about what a peaceful religion Islam is? FYI, Jihad is not something made up by a few kooky terrorists. It is taught in the Koran.

“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you” (Surah 9:123).

“Mohammed is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to unbelievers but merciful to one another” (Surah 48:29).

Moderate Muslims may ignore or reinterpret such commands, but until moderate Muslims are making more news than militant Muslims, the many  patronizing lectures on their behalf will only grow more annoying.

And so, we do have some answers. We know who bombed the Boston marathon and we know why they did it. We even know how they did it, with pressure cookers.

Given President Obama’s track record, he is more likely to sign an executive order outlawing pressure cookers than to speak more candidly about militant Islam. Unless there are proven ties to Al-Qaeda, it is questionable whether the surviving killer will even be treated as an enemy combatant.

We need to get over the “Al-Qaeda Test” as if this affiliation is all that matters. The term “Al Qaeda” is too specific. We are not at war just with Al-Qaeda. There are many other terrorist groups who have declared war on the United States. On the other hand, the term “terrorist” is too general. We are not at war with every terrorist organization in the world. We are at war with militant Islam. Mincing words will not change this fact. We may not like the truth, but we’d be well advised to start speaking the truth. By denying we are at war, we may just lose the war.

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

Bob Siegel is a weekend radio talk show host on KCBQ and columnist. Bob sometimes selects reader’s comments and responds to them on his radio show. Readers are free to call in and challenge Bob’s response over the air. Details of his program can be found at www.bobsiegel.net.

 

Share


5 Responses to “Tsarnaev brothers: Should America ignore their Muslim affiliation?”

  1. Hypocrisy questioned says:

    Bob,

    You are indeed making the obvious, obvious, but to what point? What is your suggested call to action?

  2. Bob Siegel says:

    My call to action (so to speak) was in my final words:

    “We may not like the truth, but we’d be well advised to start speaking the truth. By denying we are at war, we may just lose the war.”

    It is a call to the government to stop pretending that an enemy has not declared war on us and then prosecute the war accordingly.

    If you mean to ask what the call is to us ordinary citizens, there is not much we can do besides speak the truth and use the ballot box to elect representatives who will speak the truth.

  3. Hypocrisy questioned says:

    Bob,

    Maybe I am dense, but I still don’t know what “…prosecute the war accordingly” means. Other than saying that there are Islamic terrorists out there who mean to destroy us simply because we are not Muslim, what specifically would you have the government do?

    And if the government continually made that statement, wouldn’t you fear that vigilante justice would be taken out on Muslims, or those, like Sikhs, that may look like Muslims who have no desire to do any harm whatsoever.

  4. bill @ the county says:

    I’m frankly leery about legitimizing these nuts by calling this a “war” or “terrorism”, and treating them differently than any other common criminal.

  5. Call it what you will, Bill. It was NOT the work of common criminals.

    Boston was an attack in the name of a religion. The religion ITSELF is not at war with us, but the people attacking us see their attacks as a Jihad — a crusade — a holy war. And they are receiving religious guidance and support from priests of that religion. Clearly PART of the Muslim faith is our enemy.

    That’s no “common criminal” activity.

Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.