(Or, alternatively, "Ignorance is bliss--until the knife is at your throat")
Hugh Hewitt couldn't leave well enough alone by limiting his dhimmitude-inducing nescience to his radio program; he also updated his website with a few comments that require a response:
"First, Congressman Tancredo said that if we determined that 'extremist fundamentalist Muslims' attacked the U.S. with nukes, then we should bomb Mecca. Why, he should be asked, if 'extremist fundamentalist' Muslims are guilty would we declare war on all Muslims? Why make the distinction about 'extremist, fundamentalist' Muslims if the distinction doesn't matter in our response....""Extremist fundamentalist Muslims" is merely a synonym for "devout Muslims." Besides, it's redundant.
Mr. Hewitt's argument here belies the fact that Qur'anic Islam inspires and sustains the killers.
Can one have Islam without the Qur'an? No. Can one have Islam without Mohammed? Of course not. Yet it is both of these, the words of Allah and the sayings and doings of Mohammed, that the jihadists are fulfilling when they fight against and kill non-Muslims.
The only sense in which these individuals are extremist is that they are (currently) a relatively small number of people who actually are carrying out jihadist operations. But they must have additional ideological, logistical, and financial support. From where does this come? No doubt, other Muslims. And how many more in the Islamic world must lend them their prayers and their emotional support?
As evidenced by the 7/7 murderers, the degree of a Muslim's devotion to the Qur'an is directly proportional to the threat they pose to the non-Muslim world ("He recently became very religious").
It is only because a majority of Muslims are either unwilling or unable to carry out Jihad that they do not engage in it. (A third group are no doubt unaware of Allah's commands to do so. If they were, many of these would no longer be Muslim.)
Finally, doesn't "fundamentalist" mean they are adhering to the fundamentals of their scriptures? It does, as any cursory examination of Islam's "sacred" texts and history will bear out.
"Tancredo is no doubt being inundated with 'Stand tall Tom!' calls and e-mails from the anti-Islam crowd. This is a fringe opinion, but its supporters are not afraid of voicing it, much like the pro-Durbin remarks crowd on the left fringe urged Durbin to stand tall when he compared the American military to Nazis and Pol Pot's killers...."[emphasis mine]This is the sort of repugnant moral equivalence Hugh usually condemns when others engage in it. It is completely indefensible here.
Our American military are not the monsters Durbin implied. Islam is the violent religion its god commands, and our nation needs to be prepared to do whatever it takes to crush Qur'anic Islam.
Hugh ought to answer these questions: Why are the "anti-Islam crowd" against Islam? Could it be they know something he doesn't? Or are the overwhelming majority of his Monday listeners ignorant, hateful bigots?
No doubt Hugh is surprised that his normally intelligent audience boycotted Monday's show.
He continues:
"...And he ought to apologize to every Muslim soldier, sailor, airman and Marine for suggesting that the way to respond to an attack on America is to attack their faith."Yes, it is regrettable that some of our American heroes will suffer. But whose fault is that? The one who warns against the danger, or the ones who actually create the danger and necessitate such an extreme response?
As Hugh will discover if he researches Islam at all (and no, reading self-serving public announcements--possibly taqiyya--and having "Muslim" friends--probably Muslims In Name Only--doesn't make one an expert on Islam), it is not America attacking their faith, but their faith attacking America. They will have to choose, and a devout Muslim's first allegiance is to the Qur'an and to the Ummah, not to the United States.
"...Destroying Mecca wouldn't destroy Islam. It would enrage and unify Islam across every country in the world where Muslims lived."After 9/11, many devout Muslims saw the "success" of the attack as a gift from Allah and a validation of their religious service. What would the destruction of their holiest site mean, but the defeat of their god and their theology of power?
"I want to be very clear on this. No responsible American can endorse the idea that the U.S. is in a war with Islam. That is repugnant and wrong, and bloggers and writers and would-be bloggers and writers have to chose sides on this, especially if you are a center-right blogger. The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong...We are not in a war with devout Muslims. We are in a war with Muslims who think that their faith compels them to kill non-believers and the nations that support those extremists."What facts contradict the idea that the "War Against Terror" is really a "War of Self-Defense Against Jihad"? Anything from the Qur'an or Hadith? No.
Those "Muslims who think that their faith compels them to kill non-believers" are the "devout" Muslims, and they are right. The Qur'an commands it and Mohammed practiced it. Islam has carried out Jihad against the Infidel throughout its history.
Anyone who can read can see this for himself.
When Allied forces destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and fire-bombed Dresden, I'm sure the same questions Hugh asks above could have been asked then, "Why, ...if the 'extremist fundamentalist' government of Japan is guilty would we declare war on all Japanese? Why make the distinction about "extremist, fundamentalist" Nazis if the distinction doesn't matter in our response...."
It is war. What will deter the jihadists from attacking American cities with WMD, whether nuclear or otherwise? What will be the response from our President if 50,000 people are incinerated? Another warning? A strongly-worded note? To whom?
You must determine what matters to the enemy so that you have something with which to exert leverage.
...And I really hope that Congressman Tancredo, a fundamentally good man, will appear and regret his comments in unequivocal terms. Congressman Tancredo has seen the aftermath of Islamist terrorism up close when he visited Beslan. He knows the cost of encouraging such violence. I believe he will want to make clear that the vast majority of Muslims do not support that kind of butchery.But that kind of butchery is commanded by Allah in his Qur'an. That sort of butchery was practiced by Mohammed and it has a long tradition throughout Islam's history, even to this very day.
What sense does it make to blame the victim here? Somehow we've encouraged such violence? How did we encourage 9/11? How did we encourage the U.S.S. Cole or our African embassies? How did we encourage the '93 WTC attack? How did those children in Beslan encourage their own blood being shed? How has any non-Muslim group encouraged such violence through the past 1400 years?
By not being Muslim.
What sense does it make to blame the victim? How does lying down and crawling deter the jihadists?
How does removing any option, even the most extreme, do anything but reassure our enemies of America's weakness?