Wednesday, November 1, 2017

“If It Saves Just One Life...”

     Feeling Islamophobic yet?

     I’ll grant that yesterday’s terror attack didn’t yield a body count that stands comparison with the stars of the sport. All the same, Sayfullo Saipov did what he could. A man alone in a foreign land can’t complain about the lack of support from his cult brethren. He has to “make do.” Apparently, a Home Depot rental truck was all he could secure with which to make his statement.

     The reactions of the media, authorities, and politicos were, as usual, illuminating. I particularly liked this one:

     Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo cautioned at a news conference, “There’s no evidence that suggests a wider plot or a wider scheme.” In the aftermath, city and state law enforcement agencies increased security at high-profile locations.

     Then there’s this one:

     Saipov is expected to survive, meaning investigators will likely have a chance to question him about his motive for the attack, but so far, they said, he appears to have been a “lone wolf’’ suspect – someone who acted alone after being inspired, but not directly instructed, by the Islamic State.

     There’s that “motive unclear” business again. Mind you, Saipov is a Muslim who shouted “Allahu Akhbar!” during his murder spree. His home contained materials from ISIS. His act was methodologically identical to the Bastille Day atrocity in Nice, France. It just wasn’t quite as productive.

     Say, did you know that a few months before Black Tuesday, September 11, 2001, Mohammed Atta tried to get financing so he could buy a crop duster? I bet the Home Depot employee who rented Saipov the truck he used yesterday didn’t know about that. But had he known, would he have released the truck to Saipov anyway? On a date on which ISIS had exhorted Muslims in the First World to commit terror attacks against the expected crowds of pedestrian civilians, many of them children?

     What if he hadn’t allowed Saipov to rent the truck? What do you suppose the sequel would have been? Not for Saipov; for the Home Depot clerk.

     Stretches the mind, doesn’t it?

     The citations above from the Times and the Post are of a sort with which Americans should be familiar. “Lone wolf.” “Inspired, but not directly instructed, by the Islamic State.” It’s pandering, really, though why two American media bastions should feel a need to pander to Islamic mouthpiece groups is a lot more unclear than Saipov’s motive. What’s become all too clear is the regularity of such pronouncements.

     Let’s treat them as veridical. Let’s think, just for a moment, about the implications of Islam-powered terrorist acts perpetrated by “lone wolves.” What does the rapidly proliferating phenomenon of “lone wolf” attacks perpetrated by Muslims who “acted alone,” perhaps inspired by ISIS or al-Qaeda but clearly in conformance with the dictates of Islam, say about Islam and its acceptability in a First World nation?

     What does it say about those who screech their opposition to a ban on Muslims entering these United States? Aren’t they the very same folks who’ve demanded bans on all sorts of inanimate objects because murderers have used them as weapons? Aren’t they the very same crowd that’s repeatedly preached that “if it saves just one life, it’s worth it?”

     Islam has given rise to more than 32,000 terrorist attacks since Black Tuesday. Indeed, during September 2017 alone, the world suffered 155 discrete attacks that took 878 lives – and September of this year was not a “bumper crop” for Islam and its devotees.

     How many terrorist attacks did Christianity inspire this past September? How about Judaism? How about Buddhism, and Hinduism? How about Confucianism and Shinto? I think we can be reasonably confident that had a Christian committed a mass murder while reciting the Nicene Creed or shouting “I know that my Redeemer liveth,” we would have heard all about it. We didn’t, though, or did I miss something?

     I shouldn’t need to write pieces such as this. What I’ve already written should suffice. Yet there are Americans – not necessarily Democrats, but not necessarily not, either – who continue to maintain that excluding Muslims from this nation would be an expression of “bigotry.”

     Is wanting to be safe when out and about an expression of bigotry?

     I shan’t go on too much further. I’ll only note that Islam is one of the great killers of our era. Many generations of analysts and statesmen prior to our time were aware of Islam’s toxicity. Only in the most recent decades have we entertained the contrary notion.

     Look at Europe and its “refugee” invasion. Look at what the “refugees” are doing to Sweden. Look at the troubles Australia has had and is having with Muslim immigrants.

     Then listen to the squawkings of the Left: utterly intolerant toward conservative political opinions, but absolutely unwilling to countenance a word said against Islam, Muslims, or the worldwide Islamic jihad against “infidels,” especially us here in the First World.

     It’s time to close the gates of the West against Islam, and to bar them securely. It’s also time to put the Islamic nations on notice that we will hold accountable any government that funds Islamic infiltration into our nations. It’s time to make the prospect of retaliation uppermost in the minds of Islamic satraps, wherever they may be.

     If it would save just one life...the life of a shopper, or a bicycle courier, or a Hallowe’en trick-or-treater...wouldn’t it be worth it?


Andrew Pryzant said...

No point in banning the Islamic death cult if one continues to tolerate the progressive death cult. They are tied together at the hip.

Reg T said...

We truly need a "Two Doors" policy for muslims in this country.