Saturday, December 19, 2015

You can call them anything, but don't call them spree killers

Alan Korwin has the best analysis I have read on jihadi violence in quite a while.  Korwin has an article up over at today entitled Watch Your Language! Jihad isn't spree murder. What was San Berardino? Korwin's point is that jihad is military action by people who are completely sane, if misguided. We may not be at war with Islam, but Islam is surely at war with us. Of course, the type of warfare they are conducting is asymmetrical warfare in which soldiers are acting on their own initiative. We might relate it to either resistance fighters during WWII, or to harassment of the enemy. Either way, these are soldiers, and they should be treated as such.

That these jihadi soldiers are being treated in the media as if they are mentally unstable does a disservice to us, the viewers, and insults and demeans them.  Korwin writes:

Calling these independently staged military attacks “terrorism,” even though they are terrible and terrorizing, is part of a self-destructive national effort to deny and disguise the truth about the jihad. It also falsely adds to the assault on the American right to arms, at the worst possible time.

The deception is being waged primarily by democrats, aided and abetted by the “news” media’s artful use of language and the person in the White House, whose middle name we’re not supposed to use, due to political correctness:

“It wasn’t clear at press time if Ms. Rodham-Clinton thinks hyphenating Hussein-Obama supports those who see suspiciously exaggerated tolerance for Muslim interests coming from the White House. Other hyphenated forms, such as African-American, seem to pose no political-correctness problems. (Ben Carson, who is black, said political correctness should be abandoned, during a recent presidential debate.)”

People who don’t follow the news are uninformed. People who follow the news are misinformed. When you stop to think about any of this the veil pierces easily
If, as Korwin notes, these are military actions then the proper way to handle it is with the militia. The military can not operate on American soil except in certain limited ways. These are not properly the focus of police action. In fact, the militia, acting under the authority of the States, properly trained and drilled, is the only way we will be able to quickly respond to these attacks which can take place seemingly everywhere. But the government would rather obfuscate, misdirect, and misrepresent, again with the willful help of the media, because protecting citizens does not fit their agenda. What does fit their agenda endangers us all.

Right after commenting on the article by Alan Korwin, I saw another article bearing on the same theme by Stewart Rhodes of Oathkeepers here. Go read the whole thing. See if your blood doesn't begin boiling as you read it. I know mine did, for I am descended from Viking stock, and it pains me to see my fellows brought so low. Along the lines I mentioned about using the militia, Rhodes says this:
We need to get away from the flawed concept of a few “sheepdogs” who unsuccessfully attempt to guard a nation of sheep. Frankly, we need to take the “sheepdog” meme out back and put a bullet in its head and bury it, because this was not meant to be a nation of sheep, guarded by a few “sheepdogs.” Instead, we need to revitalize the spirit the Founding Generation, the spirit of the Minutemen, where it was recognized that in a free Republic, it the people themselves, as the militia, who are the only true “first responders,” and each man lived by the creed that every citizen was also a soldier, and each has a duty to answer the hue and the cry, with rifle in hand, and go toward the sound of the guns. A nation of riflemen. A nation of warriors. that is what we were meant to be.
Til Valhalla!

No comments:

Post a Comment