Saturday, February 28, 2015
Muslim "lone wolves"
I don't entirely agree with the above graphic. It is true that there has been something of an epidemic of terrorist attacks from Muslims acting alone or nearly alone recently -- in the USA (e.g. Boston), Denmark, France, England, Canada and Australia. But they hardly add up to an army. There are many Muslim armies but their great enthusiasm is for attacking one-another, which is rather neat.
What is clear is that all the attacks have been carried out by losers -- men on the margins of society. The only organized Muslim terrorist body was Al Qaeda and they were on the wane even before Osama bin Laden was eliminated. Osama was certainly not living the high life when he was tracked down. It's possible that the Islamic State might take up where Al Qaeda left off but it hasn't happened yet. And a big one dropped on Raqqa would shut them up for a long time.
Meanwhile. ISIS seems to have its uses. Lots of Jihad-inclined young males from Muslim families in the West go there to join up and fight other Muslims, which is a big improvement on them attacking us. It seems to be a sort of fly-paper for attracting and trapping young Muslim misfits.
So it seems that all the recent attacks have been motivated by Jihad preaching but that Jihad preaching is overall a huge failure. Jihad motivation was only strong enough to move people to attack us who already had little to lose. But one man with a firearm can do a lot of harm for a short while. So it seems to me that we have strong reasons to stop such attacks even if they not systemically threatening. Life will go on much as it otherwise would for 99% of the population despite the misdirected anger of a few misfits.
And although it is desperately "incorrect" to mention it, the killings by Muslims pale into insignificance compared with the plague of killings by blacks. If we want to stop killings, it is blacks who should have our priority attention. But it's not going to happen, of course. Jim Crow is dead and not likely to be resurrected in the near future.
So there is some point in the Leftist contention that Muslim attacks should be dealt with solely as a police matter. Police deal with shootings all the time and the race or religion of the shooter doesn't matter much.
But I think we can do better than that. I think we should criminalize Jihad preaching. Not all speech is free speech and there is already a precedent saying that incitement to violence is not covered by free speech protections. So I think all we need to do is to formally classify Jihad preaching as incitement to violence -- which it largely is anyhow -- and put a few mullahs in prison. Without the incitement, the attacks should at least diminish in frequency. Without the incitement, the losers would probably just continue to bomb themselves out with drugs, which is mostly what they do already
Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).