« MI5, Muslim Bomb Plots, And Shocking 7/7 Secrets |
| Bangladesh: Islamists Set Off Railway Bombs »
May 2, 2007
US: Is Pat Buchanan a Trustworthy Man?
The question today is, should we trust all sincere critics of Islam? Take Patrick J. Buchanan. He has criticized Islam strongly in the past; his own Magazine, Chronicles, carries Srdja Trifkovic, one of the most consistent and powerful critics of Islamic expansionism. But let's look at one of his recent columns.
In The Dark Side of Diversity, Buchanan argues, comes from the fact that rising immigration rates, coupled with a loss of national identity have lead us to be "alienated from each other", a feeling which sometimes explodes into mindless violence. This cannot be helped, because a nation is not made simply of ideas. As Buchanan says, rather beautifully, "...documents no matter how eloquent and words no matter how lovely do not a nation make."
There is much to agree, even in that. Rhetoric and ideals have never been and will never be a satisfying substitute for genuine bonds. And yet, there is something odd in the column. Mr. Buchanan uses sixteen examples of immigrants or groups of immigrants becoming murderously mad: Cho Seung-Hui; Colin Ferguson; Angel Resendez; Julio Gonzalez; Chai Vang; Peter Odighizuwa; Juan Corona; "The 1993 bombers of the World Trade Center"; "the killers of 9-11"; John Lee Malvo; Ali Hassan Abu Kama; Sirhan Sirhan; " The rifleman who murdered two CIA employees"; Hesham Hadayet; Gamil al-Batouti; Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar. That much is true. But of these, the first seven men were either clinically insane or psychopathic, while the latter nine men or groups of men were all political murderers, all inspired by the ideology of Jihad. Mr. Buchanan cannily omitted this fact.
And so, we must reach our conclusion: simply criticizing Islam or the horrors of Jihad does not make you trustworthy. Having your priorities in order is also necessary. For Mr. Buchanan, anti-immigrant agitation is far more important than defeating Jihad. Instinctive dislike of the enemy and a willingness to criticize it does not a trustworthy man make.
Posted by Ruy Diaz at May 2, 2007 2:40 PM
Comments
Sane or not, it seems to me that the critical point is that Islam presents Muslims with a template through which to view the world and, as part of that template, it points out the enemies of Islam-Jews, Christians and all other non-Muslims-and tells Muslims that it is not only acceptable to kill and torture those enemies that don't submit to Islam but, that it is a holy, religious act to do so. The Qur'an tells Muslims the they are "the best of peoples" and also tells them that non-believers are inferior, deluded, unclean, destined to burn in fire forever and be tortured as they burn.
Muslim ideologues believe that Allah has decreed that Islam should conquer and rule over the world. Since this is a command from the only true God, anyone who impedes Muslim's progress towards this goal is really attacking God and Islam and, thus, any Muslim attack against such people is really a totally justifiable act of self defense. Muslim thinkers have also developed the idea that since all non-believers have rejected Islam--which these Muslim thinkers regard as the only true religion--these non-believers are, by that rejection "guilty" and can not claim the status of "innocents" i.e. among the non-believers there are no innocent civilians. So, bad day or no, disappointing life or not, rejection by a girl, failure at school or bad evaluation at work--crazy or sane--when frustration, hatred and rage builds up for whatever reason, the template channels Muslims to direct that hatred and rage against Islam's preferred targets--their attackers, the guilty, unclean, subhuman non-believers.
Posted by: GaryK ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.westernresistance.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 2, 2007 5:46 PM
Ruy Diaz, you are right to note that Buchanan is not so much vigilant against the totalitarianism of Islam, as against all immigrants. Maybe he's like the BNP in the UK. I don't know if Buchanan and the BNP are racist (innocent until proven guilty, I say), but if they are racist, Buchanan and the BNP should obviously be avoided by those who merely want to stop Islam's totalitarianism. Islam is not a race. - traeh
Posted by: traeh at May 2, 2007 10:14 PM
It has been proposed by the above posting that Buchanan ,and the B.N.P,are racist .May I inform the prior socialist twit ,that the B.N.P,are racist ,simply because they believe in showing loyality to their own kind .This is an evil trait that I believe that Mr Buchanan,and the B.N.P.have in common,and good luck to them,and you may never know could become fashionable.
Posted by: bowen at May 5, 2007 6:27 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)