The case of Major Nidal Malik Hasan demonstrates that little has changed since the “the lachrymose (or should I say lachrymoose) Chief Charles Moose of Montgomery County” refused to consider African-American Muslims as suspects in his lackluster search for the DC snipers.
From “HONK AN APOLOGY FOR HONKY”: “They pursued the police tenaciously. They called in with tips about the murders. They even postponed scheduled executions in order to try and pierce Chief Charles Moose’s resistant mindset. ‘Check out Montgomery,’ they counseled. When a mere mention of ‘Montgomery’ failed to get Moose’s antlers moving in the right direction, well, they spent a dime on another call, this time providing explicit directions to the Alabama local. Silly snipers; not knowing that homeless Africans are a protected species, they loitered in parking lots in their Chevy Caprice, hoping to get noticed, and all but flagged down a police car. Hell, they even penned their notes in Ebonics.”
“The serial slayers went beyond the call of duty in trying to get caught; Chief Moose, on the other hand, did his best to adhere to the Look Away Doctrine, now imperiling American lives.”
[SNIP]
The same Doctrine continues to imperil American lives.
John A. Muhammad, one of the snipers, is scheduled to be executed tomorrow, Tuesday, for assassinating ten people and critically injured three others. Major Nidal—he murdered 13 Americans—will have to wait his turn.
The young thug flexing his Muslim muscle in this YouTube clip on the streets of London should not be the object of your contempt. He is true to himself. The society that hothouses this vile creature with his veiled threats to snuff out the life of anti-Islam activist Geert Wilders—that country deserves your scorn.
Today that self-immolating society is Britain; tomorrow it’ll be the US. We’re nearly there.
In the hoodlum’s words (via Brenda Walker of VDARE.COM):
We’re here to protest against this man, Geert Wilders, who insulted the message of Mohamed, [blah blah aleikum Islam]. We’re here to give him a message that, like he’s doing his interview today holed up, he’ll remain holed up, because he obviously knows that in Islam, the punishment for the one who insults the prophet is capital punishment. And he should take lessons from people like Theo Van Gogh and others who faced the punishment. So obviously we’re here to warn him and remind him that he’s going to remain holed up as long as he insults Islam and Muslims.
Interviewer: Is that going to be construed a threat, what you just said?
Well, obviously I’m saying, I’m not saying that I’m personally am going to carry out, but, he needs to know that there are Muslims in every corner of the earth, and these people they all have the love for the message of Mohamed [blah blah aleikum Islam]. And in the message of Mohamed he said, ‘the one who insults any of the prophets, kill him.’ That is a capital punishment. Not necessarily that personally I’m going to carry it out, but he should be warned that, you know, of the consequences of it.” [VDARE.COM note: Transcript here, the “blah blah” being the transcriber’s substitute for whatever the fellow is saying when he’s not speaking English.] [ilana’s note: he’s blessing the “prophet.”]
This phenomenon is disturbing for what it says of Britain’s dhimmi culture; not about the bum who should be deportedto a sandy place. Speaking and publishing under the threat of injury or death: this is one of the defining libertarian issues of our times. A society that allows into its midst a sizable contingent whose members, as a matter of creed, threaten to kill countrymen guilty of speech they deem offensive—that society is sick. It will not survive.
The young thug flexing his Muslim muscle in this YouTube clip on the streets of London should not be the object of your contempt. He is true to himself. The society that hothouses this vile creature with his veiled threats to snuff out the life of anti-Islam activist Geert Wilders—that country deserves your scorn.
Today that self-immolating society is Britain; tomorrow it’ll be the US. We’re nearly there.
In the hoodlum’s words (via Brenda Walker of VDARE.COM):
We’re here to protest against this man, Geert Wilders, who insulted the message of Mohamed, [blah blah aleikum Islam]. We’re here to give him a message that, like he’s doing his interview today holed up, he’ll remain holed up, because he obviously knows that in Islam, the punishment for the one who insults the prophet is capital punishment. And he should take lessons from people like Theo Van Gogh and others who faced the punishment. So obviously we’re here to warn him and remind him that he’s going to remain holed up as long as he insults Islam and Muslims.
Interviewer: Is that going to be construed a threat, what you just said?
Well, obviously I’m saying, I’m not saying that I’m personally am going to carry out, but, he needs to know that there are Muslims in every corner of the earth, and these people they all have the love for the message of Mohamed [blah blah aleikum Islam]. And in the message of Mohamed he said, ‘the one who insults any of the prophets, kill him.’ That is a capital punishment. Not necessarily that personally I’m going to carry it out, but he should be warned that, you know, of the consequences of it.” [VDARE.COM note: Transcript here, the “blah blah” being the transcriber’s substitute for whatever the fellow is saying when he’s not speaking English.] [ilana’s note: he’s blessing the “prophet.”]
This phenomenon is disturbing for what it says of Britain’s dhimmi culture; not about the bum who should be deportedto a sandy place. Speaking and publishing under the threat of injury or death: this is one of the defining libertarian issues of our times. A society that allows into its midst a sizable contingent whose members, as a matter of creed, threaten to kill countrymen guilty of speech they deem offensive—that society is sick. It will not survive.
To condemn or not to condemn a “man [who is] behaving … just like the barbarous Prophet Mohammed, who married the six-year-old girl Aisha”—that is the question. An NIS News Bulletin, Via Jihad Watch, reports that the heroic Dutchman Geert Wilders—one of the few political leaders in the West to reject dhimmitude— “has compared the Islamic prophet Mohammed to a pig.” What prompted the fearless leader of the ascendant Party for Freedom (PVV) to pipe up recently?
Geert Wilders has seized on a news report from Saudi Arabia for peppery [sic] written questions to the cabinet. In these, he compares the Islamic prophet Mohammed to a pig.
Wilders has requested clarification from Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen on a marriage in Saudi Arabia between an 80-year-old man and a 10-year-old child. The child had run away from her elderly husband, but was brought back to him by her father, the English-language website Arab News reports based on a Saudi newspaper.
Wilders asks the minister if he shares the view that “this man is behaving like a pig, just like the barbarous Prophet Mohammed, who married the six year old girl Aisha.” The PVV leader wants Verhagen to summon the Saudi Arabian ambassador to express his repugnance.
[T]his puts those who will condemn Wilders in a peculiar position. If they take issue with his characterization of Muhammad, they will either be excusing the Muslim prophet’s marriage to a six-year-old and declining to condemn those Muslims who imitate their prophet by taking child brides, or, if they say that Muhammad didn’t actually marry a child, they’re in the position of denying evidence that is in the sources Muslims consider most reliable. Yet as this incident with the 80-year-old and his 10-year-old bride demonstrates ( “my marriage is not against Shariah,” said the codger), many Muslims take that evidence quite seriously.
Update I (August 31): JP writes: Jamie, you cannot try an Arab in his homeland based on Western Laws.
This is a point well taken and worth making. It is clear to me that unlike, say, an America leader, whose admonitions to the Arab world may carry the threat of an invasion, Wilders is merely being provocative. His intention and consistent modus operandi are to expose the West’s self-immolating left-liberalism. I believe the same is the case here. Where are the Hildebeest-type feminists on this?
My mention of Daniel Hannan, the new-found darling of American conservatives and libertarians, in this context, is only tangentially related. Nevertheless, I’ve been meaning to bring Hanna up. Here’s what he had to say about Wilders:
It’s true that Geert Wilders is a controversialist, who takes pleasure in causing offence. He needs 24-hour protection, so serious are the death-threats he has attracted from jihadis. He revels in offending liberals as well as Muslims: his call for the Koran to be banned struck me as rather inconsistent with his stated commitment to civic freedoms. I wouldn’t vote for him if I were Dutch.
My Netherlands-based family are proud supporters of the heroic Wilders, the only man to understand the stakes. Hannan here is very much in the sneering mode of Mark Steyn, who lauds the manner in which America has dealt with fractious immigrant populations, and distinguishes between the American and European melting pots. I don’t know if he is one, but neoconservatives of the deepest dye do not allow for the questioning of immigration policy with respect to the future of western liberal societies.
“When America’s news cartel woke up to one of 2005’s biggest stories—Muslims running riot across France—the response from many a neoconservative was to gloat.
The Schadenfreude was tinged with a sense of American superiority. It’s not happening here because we’re better. And why are we superior? To listen to their accounts, it’s because we’ve submerged or erased aspects of the American identity. …
Perhaps the threat to both homelands is overplayed. I sincerely hope so—for the French and for us. But even if France isn’t the proverbial canary in the coal mine, shouldn’t Americans be rooting for this once-magnificent European country?
Not according to some prominent neoconservatives, for whom the destruction of 8,400 vehicles, dozens of buildings, and at least one life by the Muslim community of France has served to focus attentions on… the ‘bigoted’ French.” …
Undeniably “exceptionally intelligent,” the man speaks a superb English, something that seduced me initially too. However, I soon discerned that even Hannan’s pronunciations about American liberties sundered under Obama were somewhat shallow, or strategically tailored to his role as a star among Republican TV hosts.
Yes, he knows well and repeats often the principles of dispersion and decentralization of power inherent in the American system. But, like so many neocons, he conveys the false idea that up until recently those principles had been respected. Hogwash. Obama is continuing on the path of his predecessor, and Bush built on the wrecking Clinton did. And before that… well you know the story.
Update II: Via Jamie. It would appear that Hannan does subscribe to the neoconservative concept of a propositional nation. Accordingly, and to quote from my upcoming book, a nation is nothing but a notion (the last is Buchanan’s turn of phrase), “a community of disparate peoples coalescing around an abstract, highly manipulable, state-sanctioned ideology. Democracy, for one.”