Contrasting Views on Islam: Appeasement and Delusion Vs. Reality

Why is it so difficult for Obama and the left to understand that violence and terror in the name of Islam is the problem?

Obama would not use the word Islam in connection with the Paris massacre. Never mind that the terrorists shouted Islamic slogans just as they have in so many other attacks including those in the U.S. For some reason the left refuses to connect Islam with the violence. This despite the President of Egypt in a New Year's day address in which he declared that it is the responsibility of Islam to correct the ideology that inspires these acts. It's unlikely you will hear Obama endorsing President al-Sisi's remarks.

No, the left seems stuck on seeing bogeymen everywhere but Islam. To Secretary of State John Kerry global warming is a bigger problem. And in the wake of the Paris killings what did the New York Times have to say? On their front page, following news reports of the attack a column declaring a "‘Dangerous Moment’ for Europe, as Fear and Resentment Grow." But the danger here was less from violent terrorists but more from an anti-Muslim backlash that might also include growing strength for right wing movements. Just like the U.S. Tea Party was a greater danger than terrorists the right in Europe apparently represents a greater danger than those who kill dozens in the street.

The lengths the left will go to avoid dealing with the reality of Muslim terrorism is staggering. Take the example of Aayan Hirsi Ali whose invitation to speak at Brandeis University was withdrawn after Muslims complained. Brandeis acted as the enabler to terrorists with their cowardly act. Fortunately, there are a few places where freedom of speech is still valued and Ms. Ali wriote an op-ed appearing in Thursday's Wall Street Journal. She begins by taking on the line that violence is un-Islamic. Certainly the killers who do these acts do not think so and they have plenty of scholarly Islamic allies to back them up.

Ali goes on to note that while we allow Muslims to believe what they want, we don't enforce our own views on them. And those belonging to other religions don't go around killing people who offend their religious beliefs. Finally:

How we respond to this attack is of great consequence. If we take the position that we are dealing with a handful of murderous thugs with no connection to what they so vocally claim, then we are not answering them. We have to acknowledge that today’s Islamists are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in the foundational texts of Islam. We can no longer pretend that it is possible to divorce actions from the ideals that inspire them.

This would be a departure for the West, which too often has responded to jihadist violence with appeasement. We appease the Muslim heads of government who lobby us to censor our press, our universities, our history books, our school curricula. They appeal and we oblige. We appease leaders of Muslim organizations in our societies. They ask us not to link acts of violence to the religion of Islam because they tell us that theirs is a religion of peace, and we oblige.

What do we get in return? Kalashnikovs in the heart of Paris. The more we oblige, the more we self-censor, the more we appease, the bolder the enemy gets.

While Obama, the left and many in power continue to deny the link between Islam and terrorism and refuse to support those who understand, the problem continues to grow. We've tried it Obama's way but appeasement does not work. How many more will die before we try something else?

P.S. France has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world yet the terrorists had assualt weapons and a rocket propelled grenade. Even the cops were unarmed. Where are the gun grabbers who wag their finger at every shooting in the U.S.?