Insane

Many of us have encountered this definition of chutzpa (the yiddish word that suggests outrageous, shameless, and impudent behavior): A young man murders his parents. He is caught and goes to trial. After he is convicted, he asks to address the court, begging for leniency because he is an orphan.

On the world stage today, radical Muslims, whether they belong to ISIS or al Qaeda or Hamas play the role of the young man who murdered his parents. In essence, they and the politically correct cadres that refuse to even name them allow radical Islam to continually play the victim card.

Islamists and their PC protectors argue that it is western "aggression" or "oppression" that have turned otherwise peace-loving Muslims into murderous barbarians. That they are simply fighting back when they place explosives in restaurants or airports, killing hundreds of innocents. They argue that Western bombs kill "innocents" (who have been placed in harm's way by the very actions of Islamic terrorists). So their actions are morally equivalent.

The level of chutzpa in this claim is breathtaking, but it is a staple among those who refuse to see a connection between Islam and the terror perpetrated in its name. Here's a typical example from an op-ed by Arun Kundnani published in The Washington Post:

The incoherence of our response to the Islamic State stems from our Islamophobia. Because we believe religious extremism is the underlying problem, we prop up Arab dictatorships that we think can help us contain this danger. Paradoxically, we support the very regimes that have enabled the Islamic State’s rise, such as the Saudis, the most reactionary influence in the region.

With our airstrikes, we continue the cycle of violence and reinforce the militants’ narrative of a war by the West against Islam. Then, to top it all off, we turn away the refugees, whom we should be empowering to help transform the region. If we want to avoid another 14 years of failure, we need to try something else — and first, we need to radically rethink what we’ve been doing.

Ahhh ... a well-worn Leftist phrase appears—the "cycle of violence." If only we would stop defending ourselves when barbarous acts are committed, if only we let Islamic terrorists act with impunity, if only we paid no attention to murderous bombings in public places or the launch of rockets across borders (think: Israel), if only we didn't look at places like Molenbeek, Belgium with suspicion, if only we didn't question the misogynistic, anti-gay, anti-freedom, anti-infidel tenets of Islam, if only we weren't so "Islamophobic"—all of the problems of Islamic terror would evaporate.

Here's the problem. Arun Kundnani's argument is abject nonsense. Why? Because the so-called Islamist victims in all of this aren't victims at all, they are aggressors who are driven by hatred of the West, hatred of adherents of any other religion, and hatred of members of their own religion who disagree with their extreme interpretation of Islam.They are also thugs who thrive on violence and the power that accrues from the application of violence.

Kundnani continues:

... The lesson of the Islamic State is that war creates terrorism ... After all, the organization was born in the chaos and carnage that followed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Russia and Iran have also played their role, propping up Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime — responsible for far more civilian deaths than the Islamic State — and prolonging the war in Syria that enables the militant group to thrive.

So let me see if I understand this argument. If we stop fighting ISIS, if we allow them to operate with impunity, if we don't offend the Muslim community by looking for radicals in their midst, if we accept the stream of beheadings, drownings, murders, anti-Christian genocide, crucifixions, rape, murder, child slavery, bombings, shootings and other atrocities, then ISIS will ... what exactly? Will they recognize the wisdom of PC thinking and attach "coexist" bumper stickers on their pickups that are currently mounted with .50 caliber machine guns?

At the risk of overstating things—that argument is insane!