Inspirational Connections

It's interesting to observe the on-going response to the Charlie Hebdo-Almost terrorist incident in Texas. The media, true to form, demonizes anti-Islam provocateur Pam Geller who organized the Mohammed cartoon conference that was the object of the terrorists' thwarted attack. After all, she has the temerity to suggest that some in Islam respond to insults with extreme violence, and then, as MSNBC's Chris Mathews stated, she set a "mousetrap" whose cheese was the cartoons. Sure 'nuf, the event was attacked by Islamists. The story, it appears, is all about Geller. The violent Islamic terrorist attempt is merely a side issue.

Now that ISIS has suggested that it supported the local-grown terrorists, the White House, true to form, refuses to acknowledge the connection. The atmospherics would be bad.

The FBI, true to form, scurries around the terrorist's apartment looking for any "operational" connection between the men and ISIS (or other Jihadists), hoping to find a smoking gun that would indicate complicity with the group. This is necessary, but it is not sufficient.

The problem, as Richard Fernandez explains in an excellent essay, is that ISIS is thoroughly modern in its recruitment efforts and needs only provide an "inspirational" connection. The rest can be left to the fevered thinking of extremist Muslims, reinforced at extremist Mosques, and bingo, we have one or more terrorists on the loose.

No one wants to acknowledge the simple fact that extremist Mosques in the United States enable the "inspirational" appeal of ISIS and other Jihadist groups. For example, the Cambridge Mosque, religious home of the Boston Marathon bombers might deserve a look. But that's politically incorrect. Fernandez explains:

The notion that Islamic institutions can serve as recruiting depots for ISIS is very dangerous politically and for that reason is often rejected out of hand as a form of “Islamophobia” or bigotry. For example, the CNN article on the Cambridge mosque cites sources who say that no connection can be drawn between the mosque and the extraordinary number of terror suspects associated with it.

Odd, though, that certain mosques do tend to attract people who later become violent and plan or execute terrorist incidents. There's never an explanation provided for that coincidence, and maybe that's all it is, but then again, maybe not.

Fernandez goes on the consider the curious juxtaposition of Geller and the Islamic radicals who tried to kill her:

But although officials appear to discount the possibility that mosques may be dangerous, it ironically seems a well established media truth that Geller’s speech is dangerous. To them Gellers and [Girt] Wilders [an anti-Islamic politician from the Nethelands] can rouse people to seditious behavior in a way that a radical imam cannot.

I agree that it's important for the feds to look for and uncover operational connections between home-grown terrorists and the groups that comprise radical Islam. But it's equally important to examine local inspirational connections, and that's something that the feds want to avoid at all cost. One day, the cost of avoidance may be very high.

UPDATE
---------------------------
The Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City (ISGKC) is a mosque that has hosted Islamist speakers that are at least as provocative as Pam Geller. Patrick Poole reports:

As I reported at PJ Media back in September 2012, ISGKC launched an online petition calling for Barack Obama to sponsor a bill limiting the free speech of American citizens by criminalizing insults to religion (namely, Islam) following international protest of the “Innocence of Muslims” video.

The petition, which was signed by the ISGKC executive board and posted on the mosque’s website, received 348 signatures. One of the mosque board members defended the petition in an interview with the local media following our PJ Media report:

“Insulting somebody else or putting somebody down can insight violence and lead to people losing their lives. We’re trying not to give these people a chance to misbehave,” said Mohammed Kohia, who started the petition along with the executive board of the Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City.

But as a local ACLU attorney explained:

Somebody’s speech is no excuse for violence, that’s right … but you can’t punish the speaker for the violence practiced by others. While I understand why they’re upset, their preposition is clearly unconstitutional.

As I noted at the time, the position of ISGKC was particularly peculiar given that the mosque had hosted internationally renowned Islamic hate speaker Khalid Yasin, whose controversial statements include calling for the death penalty for gays and describing the beliefs of Christians and Jews as “filth.”

Oh ... by the way ... the ISGKC will, according to Poole, "... hold the funeral for one of the two jihadists killed in a shootout Sunday outside a Dallas-area convention center that was hosting a “Draw Muhammad” cartoon contest."

I'm sure there won't be any extreme language or hate speech at this solemn event, will there?