Last week, the U.K. announced that they will take steps in an attempt to prevent young Muslims from becoming radicalized. It has been apparent for some time in the West that murder and mayhem from Islamic terrorists is just as likely to emanate from the so-called home grown terrorists as they are from those in the Middle East.
The government in Britain announced that they will no longer use the expression “war on terror” and will simply refer to those that are plotting the overthrow of our civilization as “criminals”.
To their credit, ditching the term “war on terror” is long overdue; it was a meaningless description of what is now occurring with some regularity in the 21st century. Terror, of course is not an enemy or an entity that we are capable of going to war with; it is a tactic. Describing the 9/11 and other similar attacks, the blowing up of babies and other innocent civilians and the beheadings as a war on terror was simply a way for the politically correct to keep saying “Islam is a religion of peace” while not having to say exactly who the enemy is. In other words, we would rather lose this war than make moderate Muslims feel bad. The “war on terror” is a real war, but the use of that phrase has more in common with other cutesy wars that we have been engaged in over the years such as the war on drugs and the war on poverty. Kudos to Great Britain if, in fact, that term will never again be used officially.
But calling these young jihadis “criminals” is a step backwards. It is a move back to the good old September 10 days when acts such as the attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993 was met with screams of “call the cops”. Lumping a real enemy in with regular garden variety robbers, drug pushers and even killers, minimizes if not completely ignores what is really happening.
Simplistically speaking, there are two types of common criminals. There are those who live a criminal lifestyle. For one reason or the other, they don’t feel the need to conform to society’s laws. They rob, steal and assault; in other words they do whatever they feel like doing or whatever they think will benefit them at the time. Then there are those criminals who only engage in one type of narrow activity that is against the law. They may sell and use marijuana or drive while they are drunk. But they would never think of breaking other laws any more than the most upstanding of citizens would. Often they talk themselves into believing that what they do should not even be a crime (marijuana) or is not really all that bad and causes no danger to others (drinking and driving). These people who intentionally break specific laws do not really think of themselves as criminals even though the consequences of their acts might lead to imprisonment.
By and large, jihadis fall in the second category. They are otherwise law abiding and most have not led a criminal lifestyle nor even have any type of criminal record. In order for the UK’s policy to work, the following scenario would have to be envisaged. Little Mohammed goes to a mosque where he falls under the spell of a radical imam. He learns that the world is at war with Islam and must be destroyed. He is told not only what he has to do but what he will do must all be done for Allah. The khaffirs must be destroyed. And, of course he will be richly rewarded for his efforts. He seriously considers taking part in a plot to blow up a couple of buildings until he thinks to himself “uh oh, this would mean I would be a criminal”. He then abandons his plans and goes back to playing soccer in his spare time. If anyone seriously thinks that labeling such a young man as a criminal is going to do anything to prevent further terrorist attacks, they are sadly lacking in reality.
Ironically, while the government of the U.K. was pedaling this politically correct nonsense, former Prime Minister Tony Blair was speaking in Toronto. In discussing terrorism, Blair said, “
We have to stand up and fight for our values as though they are at risk – they are.” Wow. Even our mean government with their secret agendas would never speak like that. The reality is that we have to kill them before they kill us.
Labelling these potential killers as “criminals” in the hopes that they will be deterred from committing any “criminal acts” is pure folly. It does nothing other than make those who propose such measures feel good about themselves. And that’s really what it’s all about.
