After the July 7 terror bombings on three London Underground
(subway) trains and one of the city’s famous double-decker buses,
Western leaders were quick to recount memories of the resolve of
Londoners during the World War
II blitz on the city by the German Luftwaffe.
The blitz isn’t the only comparison one can draw with the Second World War.
Another is the matter of appeasement.
For much of the decade preceding the September 1939 German invasion of Poland that precipitated World War
II,
Winston Churchill was warning of impending calamity. He was largely
ignored, criticized as a warmonger and kept out of government. This
period came to be known as the famous statesman’s “wilderness years.”
But he was right.
Just one year before the outbreak of war, British Prime Minister Neville
Chamberlain sat down and talked with Adolf Hitler in Munich,
purportedly receiving his assurances that he would stop his aggression.
Returning to Britain, waving a piece of paper in his hand as he came
down the steps of his airplane, Chamberlain proclaimed “peace in our
time.”
He had appeased Hitler by giving in to Germany’s annexation of
Czechoslovakia, trusting things would end there. But all he did was buy
time while Hitler grew stronger.
The apostle Paul warned of such delusion: “For when they say, ‘Peace and
safety!’ then sudden destruction comes upon them …” (
1 Thessalonians 5:3).
While this prophecy specifically applies to the global state of
deception just preceding the coming Day of the Lord, the principle is
always at work: The subtle spirit of appeasement blinds people to the
truth, leading to serious, often fatal, misjudgments.
For some time now too many Western leaders today have been making
similar mistakes in the war on terrorism. As the threat to Western
civilization has mounted, they have often been in the dark, blinded by
political correctness, unable to see the stark threat that faces us all.
Occasionally there’s a voice like Churchill’s crying in the wilderness,
but too often it’s been quickly smothered by the politically correct
mantra that all religions and cultures are essentially equal and can
live peaceably side by side. Attitudes leading up to and in the
immediate aftermath of the London bombings are a case in point.
“Islam and terrorism don’t go together”
Two days after the London bombings, Charles Moore, former editor of
London’s Daily Telegraph, wrote an article for the paper July 9 in which
he asked the question: “Where is the Gandhi of Islam?”
He commended Londoners for their stoicism and the emergency services for
their magnificent work, but then wrote the following astute paragraph:
“Yet there seems to me to be a radical disjunction between our heroic
capacity to deal with the immediate effects of terrorism and our
collective refusal to confront what lies behind it. The effects of this
disjunction are, literally, fatal.”
Mr. Moore quoted the deputy assistant commissioner of the London
metropolitan police, Brian Paddick, who, when asked about the nature of
the terrorists, said: “Islam and terrorism don’t go together.”
Mr. Moore comments on this statement: “It is true that the vast majority
of Muslims are not terrorists, or involved in terrorism, and this needs
to be said strongly if people assert otherwise. But if the Metropolitan
Police really believe what Brian Paddick says, if they really, truly
think that the words ‘Islam’ and ‘terrorism’ must not be linked, then we
have little hope of catching the killers, of understanding how the
terrorism works, or of preventing new atrocities.”
Mr. Moore adds a very perceptive thought: “What strikes one again and
again about the reaction of the public authorities, of commentators, of
the media, is the terrible lethargy about studying what it is we are up
against. We are dealing with an extreme interpretation of one of the
great religions of the world.
“We flap around, looking for moderates and giving them knighthoods,
making placatory noises, putting bits of Islam on to the multi-faith
menu in schools, banishing Bibles from hospital beds, trying to
criminalise the expression of ‘religious hatred,’ blaming George Bush
and Tony Blair.”
In other words, we have practiced appeasement as a previous generation
did in the years leading up to World War
II.
He continues: “But if we do not know the way the faith in question
works, its history, its quarrels, its laws and demands, we will not have
the faintest chance of distinguishing the true moderate from the
fellow-traveller or of bearing down on the fanaticism.”
Dangerous ignorance of religion and history
It’s not surprising that the British people are ignorant of Islam. The
average citizen today is almost as ignorant about Christianity.
After two devastating world wars, Britons abandoned practicing
Christianity in droves, holding onto it in name only. Church attendance
plummeted. Having rejected the Bible as the standard for religious and
moral absolutes, people rapidly accepted a new standard—that of
multi-culturalism and political correctness.
According to this standard, all religions, cultures, creeds and ideas
are morally equal and not to be criticized. There is no absolute right
or wrong; no one can judge another’s beliefs and actions.
After decades of swimming in this sea of political correctness and
multiculturalism, most people today genuinely believe that there is
little or no difference between various religions. They have become
spiritual appeasers, no longer able to discern right from wrong, truth
from error, safety from danger. They know little or nothing about the
Bible or the Koran.
This was not the case with previous generations of Englishmen. American
historian Benson Bobrick wrote about the incredible enthusiasm the
English people had for the Word of God in past centuries. “Englishmen
carried their Bible with them—as the rock and foundation of their
lives—overseas,” wherever they went (Wide as the Waters, 2001, p. 12).
Canadian historian Jacques Barzun wrote that this enthusiasm for the
Bible “did not cease for 350 years. 1900 was the first year in which
religious works (at least in England) did not outnumber all other
publications” (From Dawn to Decadence, 2000, p. 10).
The same enthusiasm could be found in the United States at the time. The
July 10 Lansing State Journal noted that at the Michigan State
University campus in East Lansing, excavations are taking place at the
site of one of the first student dormitories, called “Saints Rest,”
which was “named by students after a popular Christian devotional of the
time” in 1856.
Less than 150 years later our most prestigious universities reject the
Word of God and teach secular values to our young people. They have lost
their spiritual moorings in a world floundering spiritually because it
has discarded biblical standards.
The Old Testament prophet Hosea wrote to modern-day Ephraim, the British
people who formed the “multitude of nations” foretold in
Genesis 48:19. Through Hosea, God tells us, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (
Hosea 4:6,
emphasis added throughout). This is not knowledge of the physical
universe, but knowledge of who we are, why we are here, and God’s
eternal standards that show us how to succeed in relationships, both
individually and at the national level.
How well that describes so much of the Western world today. Rejecting
the timeless truths and standards of the Bible has set our peoples up
for destruction. Not understanding the truths of God only causes
spiritual confusion and leads to acceptance of false religions and
philosophies which, in turn, lead to ever-increasing problems, conflicts
and dangers.
Hosea 7:8-9
adds: “Ephraim has mixed himself among the peoples [embraced other
cultures and religions as equally valid with the true faith of the Word
of God] … Aliens [people who worship other gods] have devoured his
strength, but he does not know it.”
Ancient Ephraim had the same problem modern Britain and other Western
countries have today without knowing it. They have been blinded,
thinking that accepting all religions and cultures as equal is a
strength when too often it sows the seeds of social and cultural
disintegration.
The enemy within
Imagine if, in World War
II, one in eight
Londoners was a German. This would have complicated the situation
alarmingly. Today, one in eight Londoners is Muslim, many of whom are
second-generation British residents. It is becoming increasingly evident
that some have been recruited for terrorism from their number,
especially from militant mosque congregations.
Three of the four London suicide bombers were second-generation Britons
born to Pakistani parents (the fourth was a Jamaican-born immigrant to
Britain and a Muslim convert).
The first of the men arrested for the unsuccessful July 21 bombings had
immigrated to Britain from Eritrea with his parents at age 14. In spite
of a prison sentence for knifepoint muggings as a teenager, he had been
granted British citizenship and given some $60,000 in welfare payments
over recent years.
Another of the suspects arrested for the failed bombings had also been
on welfare and lived in government housing. All four suspects had moved
to Britain as children or teenagers and apparently were radicalized and
moved to terrorist acts after moving there.
Richard Reid, who in December 2001 attempted to blow up a transatlantic
American Airlines flight with explosives hidden in his shoe, was born in
a London suburb to an English mother and a Jamaican father. He had
converted to Islam while in prison.
Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, sentenced to death in Pakistan for the 2002
kidnapping and beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl
there, was a London native and former student at the London School of
Economics, born in Britain to Pakistani immigrant parents.
In April 2003, two British citizens, Asif Mohammed Hanif and Omar Khan
Sharif, carried out a suicide-bomb attack in Mike’s Place, a Tel Aviv
nightspot frequented by many Americans. Sons of Muslim immigrants, the
bombers had been recruited by the terror group Hamas in Britain and
entered Israel using their British passports.
Recent articles on terrorism in Iraq highlight that many of the
insurgents are second-generation Muslims recruited from Western
Europe—their parents were immigrants from the Middle East and North
Africa, but they were born in Europe.
Iraq and Britain aren’t the only places where Western-born converts to
violence have emerged. Mohammed Bouyeri, convicted of shooting Dutch
filmmaker Theo van Gogh on an Amsterdam street before nearly beheading
him, had lived all his life in Holland since his birth there to
Moroccan-immigrant parents.
“What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith,” Bouyeri explained
in confessing the killing. “… I was motivated by the law that commands
me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his prophet.”
Some Muslim leaders have spoken out and strongly condemned such acts,
particularly in the wake of the London bombings. Yet these realities
raise serious questions about the ideals of multiculturalism, including
the widely held conviction that second-generation immigrants are fully
assimilated and identify with their new country.
Two days after the second round of London bombings failed, London’s
Telegraph published results of a survey of attitudes among Britain’s
Muslims illustrating the magnitude of the problem. “The sheer scale of
Muslim alienation from British society that the survey reveals is
remarkable,” stated the article’s author, Anthony King, professor of
government at Essex University.
“Although a large majority of British Muslims are more than content to
make their home in this country, a significant minority are not,” he
continued. He explained that almost of third of those surveyed believe
that “Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should
seek to bring it to an end.”
He further found that “nearly one British Muslim in five, 18 per cent,
feels little loyalty towards this country or none at all.” In terms of
numbers, this means that “well over 100,000 British Muslims feel no
loyalty whatsoever” toward Britain. Perhaps most ominously, he reported
that “one per cent, about 16,000 individuals, declare themselves
willing, possibly even eager, to embrace violence” (“One in Four Muslims
Sympathises With Motives of Terrorists,” July 23).
Western leaders in denial
While Prime Minister Blair and President Bush express their commitment
to advance democracy in the Middle East, they should take note of the
threat at home to Western ideals of democracy.
Charles Moore, the former Daily Telegraph editor cited earlier,
continued in his piece: “I have beside me an article that appeared
during our recent [May] election campaign in Muslim Weekly [London]. By
Sheikh Dr Abdalqadir as-Sufi, it calls for the replacement of British
parliamentary democracy with ‘a new civilization based on the worship of
Allah,’ attacks the Conservatives for being ‘in the hands of an illegal
Jewish immigrant from Romania’ and speaks of the ‘near-demented judaic
banking elite.’
“… Last year, [London mayor Ken] Livingstone extended a warm welcome in
London to Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a mainstream, world-famous spiritual leader
based in Qatar. Qaradawi has supported suicide bombing against
Israelis, the treatment of all Jews as legitimate targets, the whipping
of homosexuals and the killing of all Americans—civilian and military—in
Iraq.”
There’s little wonder that the same mayor was in denial over the
perpetrators of the London bombings. “This isn’t an ideology, it isn’t
even a perverted faith, it’s mass murder,” Mr. Livingstone was quoted as
saying in London’s Financial Times July 8. The bombings were
unquestionably mass murder, but the perpetrators certainly appear to
have been motivated by both religious ideology and perverted faith.
When a terrorist isn’t a terrorist
Even the word “terrorist” became controversial in Britain, when it
became clear that the
BBC would not use the
word to describe the bombers, apparently because the broadcaster might
lose some of its international audience. According to the organization’s
editorial guidelines, “the word ‘terrorist’ itself can be a barrier
rather than aid to understanding” (Tom Leonard, “
BBC Language That Labour Loves to Hear,” Daily Telegraph, July 13).
The
BBC also canceled a dramatization of a
patriotic British classic from World War I, Greenmantle by John Buchan, a
follow-up to the classic 39 Steps. The novel’s heroes thwart a German
plan to unite Islamic peoples against the British, a very real threat at
the time.
The
BBC’s decision to cancel was in stark
contrast to their refusal to be pressured last year when Christians
protested over the showing of the blasphemous London stage play Jerry
Springer—the Opera. There’s clearly a double standard of continuing
contempt for Christianity and its values, coupled with fear of Islam and
a growing inability to say anything critical of this religion, its
history or its followers.
In the United States, the Public Broad-casting Service (
PBS)
follows the same philosophy, fearful of critiquing Islam in a
documentary special made for the Empires series while being dismissive
of Christian beliefs in other documentaries.
Failing to see the danger
Those of us who are older know that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11,
2001, on New York and Washington, D.C., of March 11, 2004, in Madrid and
of July 7 and 21 in London this year would not have happened 50 years
ago. Massive immigration from the Third World, prompted by politically
correct government policies, has significantly changed the demographics
of Western nations in the last four decades.
Britain has long welcomed many immigrants from the Third World, as have
many other European countries. Likewise the United States, once a haven
for white European immigrants, in recent decades changed its policies to
bring in more poor, culturally alien peoples from Asia, Africa and the
Middle East who are far less likely to successfully assimilate. Many
observers are now—too late—questioning the wisdom of those moves.
After the London bombings, a cry immediately arose to change Britain’s
practice of granting asylum even to some convicted of or wanted by
authorities for religious extremism in their own countries and to expel
those who, taking advantage of Britain’s free-speech protections, have
argued for the overthrow of Britain’s democracy and the establishment of
an Islamic state.
For four decades politicians, intellectuals and academic institutions on
both sides of the Atlantic have espoused political correctness and
multiculturalism, reversing the biblically based beliefs and ideals held
by our ancestors since the Reformation. Instead of being thankful for
the blessings Almighty God bestowed on the British and American peoples,
they blame Western leaders for virtually all the world’s problems.
Continually heard on the
BBC following the
London bombings were questions about how four young men born and brought
up in Britain could take the lives of so many, about what made them
feel so “alienated” and asking how can Britain and other countries do
better in assimilating Muslims.
Nobody even considered the possibility that perhaps Islamic and Western
values are inherently incompatible, a fact that Islamic nations
themselves acknowledge by their refusal to allow non-Muslims to
immigrate into their countries.
The Dutch politician Pym Fortuyn was one of the first to realize this,
pointing out that Islamic values threaten liberal Dutch society.
Assassinated in 2002, he paid with his life for the comment. So did
Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, mentioned earlier. Perhaps it’s not
surprising that
BBC employees are careful
about criticizing Islam!
Do we have the will and wisdom?
Clearly the London suicide bombings have caused some Western leaders to
awaken to the serious threat that confronts their nations. Hopefully
it’s not too late.
Rejection of biblical standards and absolutes has had many unforeseen
consequences. Lack of discernment—characterized by appeasement in the
face of growing danger—has been only one sad result of trying to live
apart from the Word of God.
In an age of religious confusion, exacerbated by the new ideology of
multiculturalism, does the Western world have the will and the wisdom to
face up to the real threat that ideological terrorism poses? If not, we
can only expect more attacks in the future. While many Western leaders
and intellectuals flounder about spiritually, unable to discern the
danger, terrorists remain single-minded in their deadly purpose.
The prophet Isaiah’s words from more than 2,500 years ago seem so
relevant today: “Justice is turned back, and righteousness stands afar
off; for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. So
truth fails, and he who departs from evil makes himself a prey [or, as
some references render it, ‘he who departs from evil is accounted mad’]”
(
Isaiah 59:14-15).
Christians,
meanwhile, must seek the discernment that can only come from God’s Word
and continue to pray fervently for God’s Kingdom to come. Only then
will the suffering and violence that plagues our world finally come to
an end.
GN 
Wikimedia 
So the focus of the United States government, the FBI right now, is trying to find people who might be threatening or saying negative things about Muslims, targeting them, finding them, and exploring ways to punish them. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Have you heard about the Obama counterterrorism strategy called Countering Violent Extremism? It's actually... That's what it's called: CVE. Have you heard of that? Well, let me tell you about it.
The theory behind Countering Violent Extremism -- the theory of the strategy -- is that, number one, Muslim communities have uniformly rejected terrorism so we don't need to investigate them. We don't need to, because they're a religion of peace. Remember now, you think it's a joke, but Obama and the Democrats, when they say, "Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam; it's a bastardization; Islam is a religion of peace. All these people out there, ISIS, ISIL, claiming to do what they're doing for Islam? They are not Islamists! They are extremists; they are not Muslim."
We can't use it, because we're not allowed to Hoover up that kind of information unless Muslim outreach partners inform us. So when a guy goes to get a gun, he passes our background checks, and that's it! You wonder how? This is how. This is why things like Orlando happen. We're not allowed, by virtue of Obama's legislation... Well, it is legislation, because this is the icing on the cake. It's about to run out of money. I mean, the FBI's trying to investigate, but they are limited by these guidelines -- Countering Violent Extremism -- that do not allow them.
Writing at
"The instruction to refrain from scrutinizing social-media commentary ... is a straightforward application of what passes for the official Obama administration 'anti'-terrorism strategy, known as 'Countering Violent Extremism.' Malik, a native Pakistani, who immigrated to the United States in July after living for a time in Saudi Arabia," as did Mateen, "joined her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, in [killing] 14 people in San Bernardino, California... Government officials now concede that Malik was inadequately screened before being permitted to relocate to the United States on a K-1 visa, issued because she was the fiancee of Farook, an American citizen.
Well, it turns out that the people the FBI interact with happen to be Muslim Brotherhood or CAIR or other such representatives. That's the only way the FBI can learn officially what's going on. They're not allowed to do it! I know this doesn't... Folks, I can imagine you're saying, "Rush, this doesn't make sense. You have to have something wrong here." I know you're thinking that. Even though you trust me implicitly -- even though after 28 years, 27, whatever it is, you know instincts I don't lie or make things up -- you still can't believe this. This doesn't make sense.
Obama, why won't you say militant Islamic terrorism, extremist Islamic terrorism? Why won't you say it? Precisely 'cause of this! It doesn't exist, in his world. Countering Violent Extremism imagines movies being shot up by wacko members of the Tea Party. Of course, the things they imagine right wingers doing doesn't happen, don't happen. "'Violent extremism' didn't produce the Orlando shootings..." Now, wait. Now, wait. See, this is important. You're thinking, "Rush, now, come on." No, no, no. "'Violent extremism' didn't produce the Orlando shootings..."
CALLER: Exactly. And he even said that they became radicalized over information on the internet, as if it was just a virus.
In the aftermath, we learned that he was all over the internet telling people his anger, what was enraging him, and what his intentions were. The guy called the FBI during the act. He was on the FBI watch list. They didn't do anything about it. People said, "Why not?" Now we know. They're not allowed to. The guy called the Washington Post in the middle of the act. He calls 911; he calls the Washington Post. When I heard that, I said, "Aand it still happened?" He calls 911 in the middle of his rampage! When you discover this, when you learn this, you say, "Wait a minute! This doesn't make any sense."
The CIA director just threw Obama under the bus. But it's budget time in Washington at the same time. And the CIA has many budgets, including the black budget that nobody ever sees. Got all kinds of money in it for black ops that nobody ever sees and that we never know. But it still has to be appropriated. Here we have the first of two. This is Obama at the Treasury department. This from the press conference where he got all defensive about people accusing him of never using the term "militant Islamic extremism" or "terrorism."
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thank you for taking my call.
Posts
