Terrorism, defined by the use of fear and intimidation and the violent targeting of innocent human lives, is horrible. But America is not at war with terrorism.
Terrorism isn’t an ideology. It is a tactic used by terrorists, the vast majority of whom have been driven to wage war by their faith. It is the adherents of one faith in particular, Islam, who are unique in their use of that terrorism today.
When news broke earlier this week about an attack near a London mosque, the British political establishment, as well as the American left, including much of the media, finally had a terrorist incident that they could rail against without any hesitation and use to further deflect the public’s attention from the war we are in.
British Prime Minister Theresa May rushed to a microphone and said, “We are in a war with terrorism.” May is hardly alone. This is the same rhetoric virtually every Western leader has used since 9-11. In fact, the term “war on terror” originated in the Bush Administration.
But if terrorism is the enemy, the attack at the mosque by Darren Osborne, a 47-year-old alcoholic from Wales, is as much a threat the United Kingdom as are the almost weekly attacks by radical Islamists.
Osborne should suffer the full penalty of the law for his disgusting attack. But he is not what is threatening the United Kingdom, the United States, the people of France, Sweden, Germany or Judeo-Christian Civilization.
After each radical Islamic terrorist attack, establishment politicians try to gloss over the problem by saying: “A terrorist blew up our daughters at a concert.” “A terrorist stabbed patrons at a bar.” “A terrorist stabbed an Israeli policewoman to death.” “A terrorist stacked up gay and lesbian bodies in Orlando.”
And, yes, Osborne drove his van into a group of people who did not deserve it. True enough. But then our leaders say, “See, there is a big problem with terror” and it completely misses the point.
The real danger is that most of the attacks are being carried out by Islamic supremacists. Islamism is the only common denominator in most of the attacks.
The real danger is that there is a massive infrastructure around the world that supports them, that supplies them and teaches them that they are pleasing Allah when they kill infidels.
The real danger is that the “religion of peace” has a big problem with violence. Nearly 1,400 people have been killed during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. And it’s not over yet.
So far, we don’t know much about Mr. Osborne, but I can guarantee you that he is not part of a worldwide movement whose goal is to destroy Western Civilization.
We keep hearing that because of Donald Trump, Islamophobia is on the rise and that attacks against Muslims are on the rise. To many on the left, these were worthy victims, the type of victims who help underscore the leftwing narrative that
Muslims are a besieged minority under attack from Islamophobes—the kind of people who voted for Donald Trump.
But that’s fake news. In reality, the hate that is on the rise is anti-Semitism, even reaching record levels in the United Kingdom. Incidentally, Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world.
The European political establishment is all in for the idea that you can take a nation filled with men named John, replace them with people named Ahmed, and still have the same country. But you can’t. There is a reason England is known for the Magna Carta, John Locke, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, William Wilberforce and John Newton. And that grand history has nothing to do with Islam.
Since the attack by Osborne, a terrorist has attacked Brussels Central Station, and a terrorist has attacked a Michigan police officer.
However, simply referring to the attackers as “terrorists” loses all context. Both men reportedly shouted “Allahu Akbar!” They were Islamic supremacists. And the language we use matters when it comes to public policy.
It matters because if you want to win the war, you must identify the enemy you are fighting. If the enemy is “terrorism,” then the solution is to make travelers take off their shoes and put their shampoo in five ounce bottles. If the enemy is “terrorism,” then the solution is to limit Second Amendment freedoms and ban handguns.
But if the enemy is radical Islam, then the solution is to identify the radicals through extreme vetting so we can prevent Islamic supremacists from getting into the country, which they are trying to do.
If the enemy is radical Islam, then perhaps we should be identifying those mosques that promote anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and jihad.
If the enemy is radical Islam, then perhaps we should be more deliberate about teaching our children about the values and virtues of Western Civilization and Judeo-Christian culture.