Even at the height of World War II, citizens of the United States could take comfort in the following:
- Nazi Germany had a capitol–Berlin–and a single, all-powerful leader–Adolf Hitler. Once Berlin was occupied and Hitler dead or captured, the war would be over.
- And, for all their ferocity, German soldiers were easy to recognize: They wore gray uniforms, spoke German and waved flags emblazoned with swastikas or imperial eagles.
Wehrmacht soldiers marching through conquered France
Today, Western nations under attack by Islamic “holy warriors” face none of those advantages. Islam has no single capitol city–or leader.
Nor do Islam’s jihadist legions wear uniforms. Many of them don’t speak Arabic or wear clothing associated with Arabs, such as flowing robes and headdresses.
More ominously, millions of Islam’s potential “warriors” live within the very Western nations they despise. They can get all the instruction and inspiration they need to wreck havoc simply by going to the Internet.
Or, if they have the money, by traveling overseas to such terrorist-recruiting centers as Syria or Afghanistan.
And yet, faced with an unprecedented threat to their security, many Western leaders refuse to publicly acknowledge this fundamental truth:
Even if the West isn’t at war with Islam, Islam is at war with the West.
Leaders like President Barack Obama, who insisted, at a White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism in February, 2015: “We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”
David Cameron
And leaders like British Prime Minister David Cameron, who said on August 29, 2014: “Islam is a religion observed peacefully by over a billion people. Islamist extremism is a poisonous ideology observed by a minority.”
On June 20, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) issued a censored version of gunman Omar Mateen’s call to a 9-1-1 operator. While taking a break from slaughtering 49 defenseless men and women and wounding another 53, Mateen pledged his loyalty to ISIS.
Fortunately for the United States, the Bureau hasn’t always been so craven.
Ronald Kessler, author of the 2011 book, The Secrets of the FBI, quotes Arthur M. Cummings, the Bureau’s then-executive assistant director for national security:
“I had this discussion with the director of a very prominent Muslim organization here in [Washington] D.C. And he said, ‘Why are you guys always looking at the Muslim community?’”
“I can name the homegrown cells, all of whom are Muslim, all of whom were seeking to kill Americans,” replied Cummings. “It’s not the Irish, it’s not the French, it’s not the Catholics, it’s not the Protestants. It’s the Muslims.”
Occasionally, Muslims will condemn Al Qaeda. But “rarely do we have them coming to us and saying, ‘There are three guys in the community that we’re very concerned about,’” said Cummings.
“They don’t want anyone to know they have extremists in their community. Well, beautiful. Except do you read the newspapers? Everybody already knows it. The horse has left the barn.”
Cummings has no use for such Politically Correct terms as “man-caused disasters” to refer to terrorism. Nor does he shy away from terms such as “jihadists” or “Islamists.”
“Of course Islamists dominate the terrorism of today,” he says bluntly.
In May, 2014, Steven Emerson, a nationally recognized expert on terrorism, posted an ad in The New York Times, warning about the dangers of PC-imposed censorship. And he posed the question: “How can we win the war against radical Islam if we can’t even name the enemy?”
He has a point–and a highly legitimate one.
Imagine the United States fighting World War II–and President Franklin Roosevelt banning the use of “fascist” in referring to Nazi Germany or “imperialist” in describing Imperial Japan.
Imagine CNN-like coverage of the Nazi extermination camps, with their piles of rotting corpses and smoking gas ovens, while a commentator reminds us that “Nazism is an ideology of peace.”
Then consider these Islamic terrorist outrages of our own time:
- The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., which snuffed out the lives of 3,000 Americans.
- The 2004 bombing of Madrid’s commuter train system.
- The attack on the London subway in 2005.
- The killing of 13 U.S. Army personnel at Fort Hood, Texas, by a Muslim army major in 2009.
- The bombing of the Boston Marathon in 2013.
- The kidnapping of 300 Nigerian schoolgirls by Boko Haram in 2014.
- The slaughter of 12 people at a Paris satirical magazine that had published cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed in 2015.
- The murders of more than 100 people in ISIS attacks across Paris in 2015.
- A series of deadly terrorist attacks in Brussels, killing 31 and injuring 270 in 2016.
In every one of these attacks, the perpetrators openly announced that their actions had been motivated by their Islamic beliefs.
In his groundbreaking book, The Clash of Civilizations (1996) Samuel Huntington, the noted political scientist at Harvard University, noted:
“The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.”
The West may not be at war with Islam–as countless Western politicians repeatedly assert. But Islamics have no qualms about declaring that they are at war with the West.
.jpg)
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AFGHANISTAN, AIRBUS A321, AL QAEDA, ALEPPO, ANDREI KARLOV, BARACK OBAMA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, CBS NEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, HAMAS, HARRY S. TRUMAN, HEZBOLLAH, IRAQ, ISLAM, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND SYRIA, MUSLIMS, NBC NEWS, NPR, RUSSIA, SLATE, SOVIET UNION, STINGER MISSILES, SYRIA, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TURKEY, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, USA TODAY, VLADIMIR PUTIN
THE CHICKEN KIEV HAS COME HOME TO ROOST FOR RUSSIA
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on December 20, 2016 at 12:13 amOn September 30, 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin started launching airstrikes against Syria.
The objective: To bolster the dictatorship of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who is now caught up in civil war.
This began on March 15, 2011, triggered by protests demanding political reforms and the ouster of al-Assad. More than 400,000 people have been killed in the fighting.
The Obama administration is worried about Russian intentions in Syria. And Republicans are furious, demanding that American military forces directly confront those of Russia.
Yet despite Democratic and Republican fears, there is no reason for alarm–by Americans.
Putin’s intervention in Syria’s civil war offers three possible outcomes for the United States. And they’re all highly positive.
Vladimir Putin
First, the Russians have killed thousands of America’s sworn enemies.
Russians are well-known for their disregard for human life. During their invasion of Germany in 1945, Russian soldiers literally nailed civilians to barn doors, squashed them under their tanks, and raped countless women of all ages.
In Syria, they have slaughtered everyone who got in their way. Thus, they have killed far more of America’s actual and potential Islamic enemies than even our own military–hamstrung by do-gooder “rules of engagement:–could possibly eliminate.
There is no reason for the United States to intervene or even regret what is happening in Syria. Since 1979, the U.S. State Department has listed Syria as a sponsor of terrorism. Among the terrorist groups it supports are Hezbollah and Hamas.
Second, if Russian planes get shot down or large numbers of Russian soldiers or civilians get killed, Russia will suffer the casualties–not America.
The Soviet Union waged a ruthless war against Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989. Out of that war grew Al-Qaeda. Millions of Islamics still hate Russians for their brutalities.
From 1999 to 2009, Russia fought a brutal war against Islamics in Chechnya. Chechens responded with terrorism across Russia.
Russia’s intervention in Syria has only hardened its image as an enemy of Islam–even as it’s supported one group of Islamics (the Assad regime) against others.
On October 31, 2015, Airbus A321, a Russian airliner, broke up in mid-air, then crashed in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, killing all 224 people on board.
The plane was carrying holidaymakers from the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh to St. Petersburg when it crashed into a mountainous area of central Sinai.
In Egypt, a militant group affiliated to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) claimed that it had brought down the plane “in response to Russian airstrikes that killed hundreds of Muslims on Syrian land.”
The crash proved emotionally wrenching for Russians. Flags across Russia flew at half-staff and Russian Orthodox priests conducted services to pray for its victims.
President Putin declared a nationwide day of mourning. In St. Petersburg, home to most of the victims, authorities ordered the mourning to last for three days.
And on December 19, 2016, Andrei Karlov, the Russian ambassador to Turkey, was shot in the back and killed as he gave a speech at an Ankara art gallery.
His killer was Mevlut Mert Aydintas, an off-duty police officer.
Afterward, standing over the fallen diplomat, Aydintas shouted: “Don’t forget Aleppo, don’t forget Syria,” and “Allahu Akbar” (“God is Greatest!” the Islamic battle cry).
After fleeing the scene, the 22-year-old assassin died in a shootout with Turkish police.
For Russia, the chicken Kiev is coming home to roost.
Third, Russia has replaced the United States as “the Great Satan” in the eyes of most Islamics.
The Soviet Union never fully recovered from its losses in Afghanistan–13,310 soldiers killed, 35,478 wounded.
American military officials have told Fox News that it “appears likely/probable” that U.S.-made Stinger missiles have fallen into the hands of ISIS combatants.
The Stinger is a shoulder-fired surface-to-air weapon. During the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan, the United States supplied huge numbers of these weapons to Afghan forces. They proved devastating against Russian planes and helicopters.
And how might have ISIS fighters acquired such a weapon? From American-supplied army bases they occupied as they steamrolled across Iraq.
Flag of ISIS
If Russia starts taking heavy losses in Syria or at home through terrorism, this could lead to widespread unrest. Even Vladimir Putin could find himself in danger of being replaced.
The same holds true if bombs start exploding across Russia–especially in major cities such as Moscow and St. Petersburg.
The peoples of the Middle East have long memories for those who commit brutalities against them. In their veins, the cult of the blood feud runs deep.
When Russian bombers pulverize civilians in Aleppo, their relatives and friends will thirst for revenge. And some Syrians–or others who sympathize with them–will step forward to take it.
Mevlut Mert Aydintas will almost certainly not be the last one.
No American could instill such hatred in Syrians–or Islamics generally–for Russia. This conflict could easily become the Islamic equivalent of “the Hundred Years’ War” that raged from 1337 to 1453 between England and France.
When Adolf Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, then-Senator Harry Truman said: “I hope the Russians kill lots of Nazis and vice versa.”
That should be America’s view whenever its sworn enemies start killing each other off.
Share this: