Calls of Diligence Muffled by Diffidence

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Aug 30, 2011 at 19:18

Much might be said on the divergent attitudes concerning the direction this policy document proffers, but the paragraph cited here is all one really needs to understand why America, in spite of eliminating OBL and tentatively neutralizing al-Qaeda leadership, deposing tyrants like Qaddafi and allowing the route of other Middle Eastern regimes:

"The first debate concerns the nature of the problem. The responsible Right points to one immense threat, Islamism, a global ideological movement that has motivated some 23,000 terror attacks worldwide since 9/11. Islamists deny that their ideology spawns violence, and they categorize those 23,000 attacks as the work of criminals, crazies, or misguided Muslims. Western leftists and multiculturalists concur, bringing their formidable cadres, creativity, funds, and institutions to support the Islamists' denial of responsibility."

And why is that? Even as the ashes of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania were still cooling, the hard-line stance of retribution echoing in south Manhattan that terrible September day in 2001 was muffled and muzzled by the 'moderation' of not desiring to offend the sensibilities of other nominally labeled 'moderate' adherents of Islam. But we have found that many who did not cheer outwardly still made room for excuses that would in the mind of many exonerate the 19 Islamic perpetrators and others of any similar criminal activity. Yet suprisingly for some, they cannot understand why attackes still occur.

That is what this document explicitly and implicitly does to dishonor the memory of the victims of September 11, 2001. Nothing more need be said-the actions that follow will validate the truth what is really intended for America under the current agenda for change.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".