The terrorist attack in Orlando has been at the center of every news report for several days at the time of this writing. After reading several articles, I have concluded that the terrorist was an Afghan-American, Democrat, Hillary supporter and Muslim with loyalty to ISIS. Further he has been on the watch list, been reported to the FBI as a potential terrorist, been interviewed by the FBI at least twice, traveled to Saudi Arabia twice and was still able to carry out his terrorist attack without interference. In my mind, this raises serious questions about the effectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the FBI, but that is not the subject of this article because clearly, they have no solution, and they cannot protect us. What then might be a solution to the Islamo-terrorism that now plagues the western world?
A good place to start would be defining the problem we hope to solve. To be clear the particular kind of terrorism I refer to could best be described as “Radical Islamic Terrorism.” Their terror attacks are carried out around the world using such crude instruments as box cutters, machetes, suicide bombs, car bombs, guns, kitchen knives and etc. Often the terrorist is heard calling out “Allah Akbar” before and during the attack. Many of the organizations behind the attacks have openly declared war on the United States, Israel and many western European nations. Interestingly enough, the war against infidels began in 622 AD and has been ongoing for 1,394 years, so this is not something new. In a nut shell, it is an Islamic ideology that is in conflict with western values, and it is that ideology that must be defeated.
Certainly, you would expect the president of the United States to have an interest in solving the problem, but you would be wrong. For the last seven and a half years, he has refused to even define the problem, let alone offer a serious solution. As recently as Tuesday following the Orlando attack, he said that using a phrase like “radical Islamism” is a “political distraction” and merely “a political talking point.” Then of course, he addressed his political talking point, “gun control.” Loretta Lynch the Attorney General for the administration said, “Our most effective response to terror and to hatred is compassion, its unity and its love.” In the June, 2016 report by the DHS, Councils Countering Violent Extremism Subcommittee, it was reported that “Government agencies should employee American English instead of religious, legal, and cultural terms like jihad, sharia, taker, or umma.” It is easy to see how the current administration dances around the problem, and it is a good bet that the empty shirt occupying the White House has no solution, and moreover he is interested in no solution.
In the wake of the Orlando terrorist attack, Hillary Clinton managed to utter the phrases radical Islam and radical jihadists, and stated “We face a twisted ideology and poisoned psychology that inspires the so-called lone wolves.” Notice how calling to mind lone wolves she places the blame on the individual and not the guiding ideology. She went on to claim we needed more resources and better intelligence (more spying on American Citizens I guess) before embarking on the gun control talking points. “I believe weapons of war have no place on our streets.” In fairness, there was a lot more political rhetoric in her speech, but there was far from any attempt to offer any new solution or any solution for that matter. It was just a call for more of the same, and of course, what we are doing is not working.
Donald Trump posted a statement on his website and delivered a speech on the Orlando terrorist attack. In his speech, he stated that the terrorist was from Afghanistan, but that was incorrect. On his website, the statement said the terrorist was an American born of an Afghan immigrant which is correct. Beyond the obvious mistake Trump went on to correctly identify the source of the problem as radical Islam and spoke briefly about the ideology and how it conflicts with Western values. He mentioned mistreatment of women and gays in particular and said that women were enslaved through Islam. He correctly pointed out that Hillary cannot honestly claim to support women and gays, and at the same time, support Muslims because of the obvious ideological conflict.
He pointed out that the real problem was our dysfunctional immigration system that admits a 100,000 Middle Eastern immigrants a year and that those immigrants were not vetted. He affirmed his temporary ban on Muslims until such time as the FBI or DHS could vet incoming immigrants. He went on to emphasize that we needed an immigration policy that benefited Americans and protected American values. There was a good deal more substance to his speech than I have provided in this sketch, and anyone interested should listen to it. It is clear he has a good grasp of the problem and offers solutions. One key to his solution is containment which has worked for centuries, but it remains to be seen if it can work going forward.
Immigration should not be nearly as complicated as politicians try to make it. If you have country A and country B, It is safe to assume that both countries have good people in them. If country A has 95% good people and 5% troubled people, while country B has 85% good people and 15% troubled people, which country do you allow to immigrate? Under our current immigration system in the United States, we choose country B. So we are inviting trouble into the country, and now it is manifesting itself in the form of terror attacks. It is a bit like inviting a bunch of peace-loving rattlesnakes into your house and then acting surprised when you are bitten.
If we are to solve the problem of terrorism, perhaps we should consider the following: “Terrorism has once again shown it is prepared deliberately to stop at nothing in creating human victims. An end must be put to this. As never before, it is vital to unite forces of the entire world community against terror.” – Vladimir Putin
Until next time…