Is every Muslim a powder keg?


powder keg


The other day Michael Hayden joined the chorus of those who assert that Donald Trump’s anti-Islamic terrorist rhetoric is helping ISIS recruit more jihadis.

“The jihadist narrative is that there is undying enmity between Islam and the modern world so when Trump says they all hate us, he’s using their narrative … he’s feeding their recruitment video.”

Hayden joins Tom Friedman of the NY Times and others.

The new Muslim mayor of London also warns that this country must allow Muslims in or they will attack us.

The new Muslim mayor of London has issued a warning to Donald Trump: Moderate your stance on Muslims, or they will launch more attacks against America.

Trump recently praised Sadiq Khan for winning London’s mayoral race, and said he would be willing to create an exception in his policy restricting Muslim entry into the United States in order to allow Khan to visit. But in a statement Tuesday, Khan dismissed Trump’s invitation, and also denounced his views on Islam as “ignorant,” suggesting Trump’s policies would increase the terrorist threat in both the U.S. and U.K.

This is not a winning argument. If they could attack us for any reason I for one do not want them or that culture here. What Khan sort of forgot to mention was this:

While Khan touted the liberal values of British Muslims, some polls have found worrying indicators that their assimilation is incomplete. A poll in April, for instance, found that two-thirds of British Muslims would not tell the government if a friend or family member became involved with extremists. Half of them said homosexuality should be illegal and over 20 percent supported establishing sharia in the U.K.

We’ve been handed these lines repeatedly but there are some questions that burn to be answered. Ever get the feeling that all Muslims are potential powder kegs? Ever get the feeling that the least offense could ignite the powder keg?

We are told to suppress our right to free speech so as not to offend Muslims and boost recruitment of jihadis. What other rights must we subsequently suspend to avoid offending Muslims and not rouse them to jihad? If rhetoric alone is sufficient to radicalize a people it’s a sign of something deeper being wrong. In January the Pakistani issue of the New York Times removed a front page article critical of Islam so as not to offend. Really?

Somewhere in your life when you told you were a failure or told you were stupid did you go out and prove you were a failure or prove you were stupid? Or did you resolve to prove that the accusers were wrong? Muslims who are so easily recruited into jihad actually wind up validating those who have doubts about them and vindicating the opinion of how important it is to refrain from allowing them to immigrate here. Somalis from the Minneapolis area have left the country by the tens to fight for ISIS. If anyone would even entertain such a notion they ought not be here in the first place. And they sure as hell should not be permitted re-entry.

We should restrict our free speech to avoid offending Muslims? I am trying to imagine FDR calling on Americans to avoid inflaming Hitler, or John Kennedy calling on Americans to avoid inflaming the Soviet Union during the missile standoff.

Curiously, no one calls for suspending criticism of the NRA. Despite all the left wing invective hurled at the NRA, its membership never threatens to attack the United State or those who are the most vocal. If anything, the NRA redoubles its efforts to show that it is most supportive of the law. It does not go on to prove the critics right- it goes out to prove them wrong. Perhaps the Muslims teetering in the offended zone could take a lesson from the NRA.





0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The term, the Overton Window, represents all speech that the powers-that-be ALLOW to be included in discourse.
Political Correctness (from the Left) as well as Islam (from the Regressive Religious Right) each desires to shrink the size of the Overton Window for us in the West.
You gave excellent examples of that, DrJohn.

Now, ask yourself, who in the West has fought to keep enlarging that Overton Window?

Mark Steyn whose battle with Canada over his right to quote a Muslim leader about Hijrah (jihad-by-immigration) lasted years.
Donald Trump whose open discussion about un-PC things like crimes by illegals that kill Americans and radicalization of Muslims who then come here to the USA has turned the media and more than a few world governments upside down.
Milo Yiannopoulos whose research for tech articles about ”Gamergate” led a clear sight as to how feminists sought to close the Overton Window for men whose games include busty females, big weapons and lots of blood.

Earlier today Donald Trump stumped the press by telling them, YES, I will be calling the press out when they lie about me for every day I am president.
Later tonight Milo Yiannopoulos will speak at UCLA, live streamed here:
His topic:
“Feminism is Cancer.”
He rightly points out how early feminists won important things for women but that feminists today are simply easily-offended social justice warriors who have tantrums and need ”safe spaces” simply because he exists.

Is every Muslim a powder keg?


Are a majority of Muslim’s possible powder kegs?


“This is not a winning argument. If they could attack us for any reason I for one do not want them or that culture here.”

So there you have it…It’s one nicely Packaged Manupilation and the world has fallen for it…

We would have to stop EVERYTHING WE DO in our society…lest we do or say something that would ‘provoke’ them…. in order to have them not attack us…and kill us…which means we have to conform to their Ideology or “CULT”…Manupilation indeed.

Just like the protest signs we see that say “Anyone who slanders Islam deserves to die” ‘or must die’ …

@FAITH7: And who buys into that garbage?
How about Obama?
Part of Obama’s U.N. speech was: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”