The only thing he misses is that we in the west have become just aces at staging tastefully subdued funerary memorials. We do like our candles and flowers.
Well at least we all know the form by now. This morning Islamist suicide-bombers struck one of the few European capitals they haven’t previously hit in a mass-casualty terrorist attack.
The standard response now goes as follows. First the body parts of innocent people are flung across airport check-ins or underground trains. Briefly there is some shock. On social media the sentimentalists await the arrival of this atrocity’s cutesy hashtag or motif and hope it will tide them over until the piano man arrives at the scene of the attack to sing ‘Imagine there’s no countries’. Meantime someone will hopefully have said something which a lot of people can condemn as ‘inappropriate’.
I see that the Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson was this morning’s Twitter miscreant, foolish enough to say in the wake of the Brussels attack that the EU might not make us very safe. One may agree or disagree with this sentiment, but Ms Pearson should have known that the only acceptable thing to do after a suicide bomber detonates beside the European Commission is to acclaim the Commission as one of the few entities able to keep us safe.
Murray goes on to capture the phases that follow. To quickly summarize:
We will shortly move to the next phase, which is to find a good news story amid the rubble. Anything will do, but best of all is a Muslim good news story.
Soon we will move to the next phase, during which broadcast media will ask questions that address no major points.
Meanwhile other people will change the subject over to the question of Belgium’s unacceptably interventionist foreign policy. Others will get onto Israel-Palestine.
Meanwhile Twitter will reprise some version of the post-Sydney ‘I’ll ride with you’ meme (based on a fib)
This is how it goes in Europe now. Everything barely worth saying will be said endlessly. And the only things that are worth saying won’t be said. (And in the US – BB)
There is apparently consternation in the usual places — including CAIR, it should go without saying — regarding remarks by Ted Cruz in the aftermath of the jihadist attack in Brussels, in which at least 30 were killed and 180 wounded. Senator Cruz (on whose national-security advisory team I serve) argued, “We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.”
Makes perfect sense, right? Wrong. The Nation’s George Zornick does a good job of capturing the mindset of the Radical Left:
Within hours of the terror attacks in Brussels, Senator Ted Cruz sent out a press release that declared, “The days of the United States voluntarily surrendering to the enemy to show how progressive and enlightened we are at an end.”
The Texas senator and presidential candidate called for more security on the southern border and said the United States needs to “halt the flow of refugees from countries with a significant al Qaida or ISIS presence.” He also advanced a radical idea: “We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.”
Cruz’s campaign did not reply to immediate requests for clarification, but this proposal raises several questions: What powers would Cruz grant law enforcement that it doesn’t already have? How does one identify what is, and is not, a Muslim neighborhood? What does it mean to “secure” the area? Would non-Muslims in that area also be subject to law enforcement surveillance and unspecified “securing”? How are these law-enforcement actions constitutionally permissible “before” there is any radicalization present?
I’m not going to rebut all of Zornick’s arguments, but let’s skip to the final paragraph (emphasis mine):
Another Cruz adviser, Clare Lopez, declared in a recent radio interview that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the federal government. “Brotherhood affiliates and associates and those connected to it are the go-to advisers, if not appointees, for the top levels of national security in our government, in this administration for sure, but going back many decades, really, is the program of this Brotherhood,” she claimed in remarks flagged by Right Wing Watch. She added that Senator Joseph McCarthy “was spot-on in just about everything he said about the levels of infiltration” in the 1950s, which echoes Gaffney’s belief that the House Un-American Activities Committee should be reinstated.
Actually, McCArthy was right. And so is Gaffney. Back to the NRO piece:
In the Obama years, there has been a shift away from post-9/11 prevention-first counterterrorism, which relied on our police, federal law-enforcement and domestic-security agents to gather intelligence about potential threats in the Muslim communities where Islamic supremacism is endorsed — meaning, of course, with cooperation from non-supremacist Muslims living in those communities who are just as threatened as the rest of us are. The Obama Left and its Islamist allies (who are ideologically sympathetic to the jihadists’ sharia-promotion agenda, while assuring us they oppose the violent methods), have moved us back to a pre-9/11 paradigm that regards terrorism as a law-enforcement problem to be managed — meaning, for the most part, that law enforcement engages only after attacks (or, at least, when a concrete threat of attack has been discovered — by which point, it is often too late).
What Senator Cruz is correctly arguing is that we have to recognize the reality of what the threat is and where it comes from, and we have to stick with prevention-oriented, intelligence-based counterterrorism methods that work. We have had some domestic terrorist attacks in the U.S. as the threat has intensified during Obama’s presidency. Yet, we have not suffered the spate of attacks they have had (and will continue having) in Europe. The main reasons for the difference are that (a) we have not had as much mass immigration of an assimilation-resistant population, and (b) our police and local governments have not ceded de facto jurisdiction over communities to Muslim activists who would turn them into anti-American enclaves. Obama policies have put us on the trajectory to repeat Europe’s self-destruction. Cruz is saying we have to defend ourselves — and that we are worth defending.
Simply put, if we don’t want these festering pools of radicalization in our borders we should learn from what the Radical Left considers to be our “betters” over in Europe. While lefties might romanticize the notion of ethnic/racial ghettos where poverty is rampant and local police are afraid to tread, they’re not healthy for any society. To steal a line from Mark Steyn, when you mix a gallon of ice cream with a gallon of horse manure, the end result tastes very little ice ice cream and mostly like manure. As Europe is finding out, it takes a lot less than a 50% mixture to produce that result. The sad irony is that for all that the Radical Left in America claims to care about women and the LGBQwerty community, the neighborhoods that they envision will be the most unsafe places for women or gays to venture.
For closing comments I’ll take you back to Murray’s post:
But perhaps we do learn some things. Albeit silently. A decade ago, after every attack, the pundits used to point to places where mass immigration, integration and open borders were meant to have worked. After London people said ‘What can we learn from France’. After Paris they said ‘What can we learn from the Swedish model.’ Nobody cites Sweden anymore. In fact nobody looks to anyone else’s model anymore. Because all of the ‘models’ failed. So here we are – stuck with a problem our politicians have given us and to which they have no answers. Perhaps all this pointless chatter is just what people do to distract themselves before they have to face up to that fact
Cross posted at Brother Bob’s Blog
Image at the top of the post appears via The People’s Cube