Playing Politics with Islamic Terrorism

The American Thinker ^ | May 4, 2011 | Jack Kerwick

[Scanian]

If ever we needed proof that politics is a land of make believe, the recent killing of Osama bin Laden is it.

The world is certainly a better place without this terrorist in it. But to judge from the orgasmic eruptions of everyone from journalists and pundits to politicians and students, an impartial spectator could be forgiven for thinking that the reign of Islamic terror or jihad had finally been brought to a close.

In truth, the reign of Al Qaeda hasn't even been ended. In fact, this terrorist organization just received new life from the martyrdom of the one man whose face has come to symbolize for untold numbers of Muslims unwavering resistance to the Infidel. It is critical to remember this.

Had George W. Bush still been president when the events that his administration set in motion reached their culmination this past weekend, Democrats would be among the first people to remind us of this. After all, it was the Democrats who, during the better part of the last decade, tirelessly cautioned Bush against supplying Al Qaeda with a recruitment tool via his aggressive foreign policy. That they now fail to recognize that the killing of bin Laden promises to be a much greater incentive than anything that Bush had done shows that their warnings were insincerely motivated.

They were, in a word, playing politics.

If the Democrats weren't playing politics, then they would also be lamenting the unapologetic displays of American chauvinism that chanting crowds of students and others have arranged on college campuses and other locations--including out front of the White House. For sure, bin Laden's death is something from which to derive satisfaction but chanting "USA!"in response to it can't but strike Muslims similarly to the way that the chanting crowds of Muslims who rejoiced

[Mona Lisa2]

"For sure, bin Laden's death is something from which to derive satisfaction, but chanting "USA!" in response to it can't but strike Muslims similarly to the way that the chanting crowds of Muslims who rejoiced over the collapse of the World Trade Center struck us. "

Seriously? Does the writer really believe Muslims are mourning over bin Laden's death? While there are some, what kind are those exactly? There is a striking difference between people who rejoice over the death of a man who has caused so much human suffering and people who rejoice over the slaughter of innocents. All things are not equal.

[Scanian]

“Bin Laden’s death stuns Arab street: Threat to ‘unleash hell’ on West”

http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-national/bin-laden-s-death-stuns-arab-street-threat-to-unleash-hell-on-west

[FourPeas]

Are you kidding? The one thing non-Muslims should have learned from 9/11 is that Muslims stick together even when Muslims do something so horrible as to murder nearly 3000+ people running airliners into office buildings. Part of Islam, at least the flavor practiced by the majority of Muslims, involves allegiance to Islam and other Muslims to the point of denying obviously proven facts.

[Mona Lisa2]

No I am not kidding. I don’t see mobs in the streets in mourning, or in a rage, except maybe in Pakistan. They are hopeless.

[Mona Lisa2]

I get it. There are some Muslims who will mourn, and be in a rage, but there are some 1 billion of them and if most of them really cared then where are those mobs? The ones who do mourn and are in a rage are hopeless no matter what. I still take issue with the comparison of people mourning the deaths of innocents with the fanatics who mourn bin Laden.