Our Enemy Doesn’t Care About The Talking Chihuahua
By: Rachel Marsden
A movie about a talking Chihuahua beat out a movie about Islamic terrorism in weekend box office returns. Go figure. A writer friend of mine argued that it’s because people don’t want to see Hollywood’s leftist version of the war on terrorism. But last year when I co-hosted a daily national cable news show, I was instructed to steer clear of talking about the war at all, because apparently ratings indicate that people are tired of hearing about it. In fact, nearly every Islamic terrorism movie has more or less flopped because apparently everyone’s burned out. Except the enemy.
As in real life, conventional wars still get our attention at the box office. We never seem to get tired of watching reruns of WWII. Newsflash: That’s not what war looks like anymore. Hugo Boss used to dress the Nazis – and they had at least some sense of respect for the conventions of war and engagement. Our new enemy is outfitted by Value Village, and can’t be bothered to make even the slightest effort to play by the traditional rules of warfare, yet still wants all the same protections. And we’re far too willing to give it to them – either because we don’t yet recognize this as a real war, or we’re straight-up stupid. You know, the kind of people who would spend a collective $17.5 million dollars watching a talking dog on a screen for an hour and a half.
There’s so much concern over the war on terrorism hurting our freedoms. That curtailment has amounted to exactly this: taking your shoes off at the airport. A small price to pay when the alternative is dressing in a burka and stocking up on Rosetta Stone Arabic language tapes.
The enemy knows that democracy provides them with giant loopholes to further their cause – namely, that of killing us. It explains why Indonesia was terrorist-free under dictator Suharto, only to become a Muzzie fundie playground complete with nightclub bombings after his fall.
In venturing that they can exploit our democratic principles, terrorists are batting nearly 100%.
Former NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik, who served as Iraq Interim Minister of the Interior after the fall of Saddam Hussein, describes the problem:
“In 2004, two middle class boys from Atlanta, Georgia whose father, a Pakistani taxi driver enraged at the influence of American culture on his children, were taken to the bowels of Karachi, Pakistan on a one way ticket and delivered to a Islamic Madrasah. The father’s mandate to the Madrasah and to the boys was that they could not return to the United States until they memorized the Koran – a process that could take up to seven years. The boys were 11 and 9.
“These boys were American born citizens that were not only being deprived of a real education, but they were also thrown into a world of abuse, loneliness and transformation into radical Islam. With every passing day, their love for the United States deteriorated and their desire to follow the radial teachings of the Madrasah grew. This indoctrination process is so powerful that it would invoke two young men, citizens of the United Kingdom, to carry out suicidal attacks against their own countrymen in the bombings in London on July 7, 2005.”
Kerik explains: “There were close to 80 other American kids in that same school. Close to 600 spread throughout Karachi in different Madrasahs and there could be hundreds if not thousands in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Asia. They are all born in the United States with all the freedoms of an American citizen, but could return to the U.S. as chameleons to infiltrate our society in every walk of life; the work environment, our schools, our communities, our financial institutions and our law enforcement agencies – all with the same goal as Osama Bin Laden – the destruction of the United States as we know it today.”
Sounds like that Ted Kennedy immigration “diversity” legislation from the mid-60s was a great idea. Now we have potential American bombers of all colours and ethnicities.
It’s unlikely that lessons will be learned anytime soon. Take the recent US Court ruling to free Chinese Muslim detainees at Gitmo into the US general population – because they’d be tortured if returned to China. That’s because China doesn’t tolerate terrorists. And neither do Putin and Medvedev in Russia, when it comes to the Muslim Chechens. Neither of those countries has a “terrorist problem”. Could explain why these detainees were caught plying their trade in Pakistan and Afghanistan rather than back home in China. I’m sure that was mere concidence. What innocent person hasn’t ended up on a battlefield in Pakistan at some point in their life? So now we’re going to set them free on our own turf where they’ll actually have free, unlimited access to things like backpacks?
Why are we so concerned about sending them back anyway? Their capture and detention has only really delayed the inevitable – and sometimes justice delayed is really just justice delayed. Had these clowns taken up arms sans uniform in any other war, they could have been shot dead on the spot per conventions in place since the Peace of Westphalia. If you try to kill us and fail, you should be rewarded with immediate dispatch to your 72 virgins, courtesy of the US government.
In Britain, the House of Lords just voted down legislation extending the current allowable detention of terror suspects from 28 days to 42. I’m sure our enemy – known for possessing patience to spend years plotting a single terrorist attack – appreciates that kind of consideration of their perceived tolerance threshold.
When it comes to dealing with our enemies, I wish someone in a position to make decisions would have the same care for mine.
COPYRIGHT 2008 GRAND CENTRAL POLITICAL