Non-Patterns and Patterns

Can you derive a pattern from the following events:

• Planes fly into the World Trade Center, killing over 3,000 innocent people and causing property damage in the billions, al Qaeda claims responsibility;
• Vicious attacks against public transportation targets in London and Spain with resultant deaths; Jihadist groups claim responsibility;
• An attack on a Hotel in Mumbai; Jihadist groups claim responsibility;
• The repeated wholesale slaughter of Christians by ISIS; 
• The stoning women to death (in the name of Sharia Law) for alleged adultery in Afghanistan by the Taliban; 
• The kidnapping young girls for use as sex slaves by Boko Haram, 
• The murder of 14 soldiers at Ft. Hood by a known Jihadist military officer that political correctness protected, 
• The murder of journalists and cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo in Paris;
• The threat of "annihilation" of a Western democracy by Iran, who, by the way, will have unfettered, if not immediate, access to nuclear weapons if Barack Obama has his way;
• Fatwas again anyone (e.g., Salman Rushdi, Ayann Hirsi Ali) who speak out again a religious code that has done little to police itself and less to stamp out its most violent elements.

Western leaders, their media hamsters, and most of the Left refuse to acknowledge that any pattern exists or that the events and groups noted from among hundreds of candidates are in any way representative of a particular religion or ideology. There is a non-pattern -- but of course, that's not true.

When pressed with irrefutable facts, the Left snarls a response that amounts to: (1) what good would it do to acknowledge the war; (2) anyone who wants an acknowledgement is a war monger, (3) you can't indict an entire religion or go to war against 1.6 billion people, (4) the "vast majority" of Muslims are peace loving and moderate. The problem, of course, is that those that are not part of the "vast majority" are at war with us, and as a consequence, a threat to us all. Acknowledging the threat is a good thing, calling on Islam to rid the world of the threat is the right thing, and war? No one in the West wants it, but that doesn't mean that our opponents can't wage it.

Richard Fernandez comments:

These facts [a delineation of Jihadist acts], by themselves, are unremarkable. What is truly astounding is the dogged evasiveness with which the administration and most leaders of the Western world are determined not to see them; the insistent will to maintain the atmosphere of “business as usual”. Ed Miliband, the head of the British Labor Party, wishes to criminalize “Islamophobia” and President Obama has repeatedly declared the “war on terror” is over.

All the best places chorus, “what me? Worry?” There is no war. There is no problem that a little silence, a little censorship and a little John Kerry won’t amend. Yet no one is safe.

At this point no one expects Western leadership to have answers. But the public can reasonably expect the leadership to ask questions, at the least to face the facts. No one wants war. But speaking of which, though some have been brought to an end by surrender, and others by victory, never in the annals of history has one been concluded by denial.

Based on recent events in Baltimore, the Left is not always averse to recognizing patterns. The suspicious deaths of black men at the hands of police in Ferguson, MO, New York City, and Baltimore is not only recognized as a compelling pattern, it's analyzed in excruciating detail. The conclusion is immediate and explicit—"racist cops are murdering otherwise innocent black men." There is little equivocation. Indictments are issued, federal probes are initiated, and "solutions" (no matter how bizarre or ineffective) are proposed.

But when Jihadists attack a cartoon contest in Texas, it's a non-story. When other Jihadists murder customers in a Paris deli, it's inconvenient to mention that the victims were Jews. When ISIS murders Christians, there is little analysis and even less media discussion. When Iran talks of annihilating Israel, it's merely political rhetoric targeted at the Iranian public—not be be taken seriously.

Hmmm. I think I see a pattern here.