Sacrificing Americans: 40 violent acts perpetrated by Muslims since 9-11

That’s the number Victor Davis Hanson dishes out on The Corner today. Given Homeland Security warnings, Paul Krugman denunciations of the right and the usual drastic nonsense about right wing violence, California’s favorite classicist puts it all into perspective.

Second, if we counted up the number of “lone wolf” incidents and added it to the number of Islamist terrorist plots that have been foiled since 9/11, we would arrive at more than 40 incidents of terrorist killings or efforts to kill on a wide scale. If anyone could find a comparable series of anti-abortion terrorist acts, backlash attacks on Muslims, anti-Semitic attacks perpetrated by non-Muslims, Jewish attacks on Middle Easterners, or radical environmentalist killings, then one could argue that the public was unduly focusing on Islam.

It seems, instead, that about every three to four months, either a single Muslim male will shoot or run over somebody and tie the violence to some sort of jihadist theme, or a group of Muslim males will be caught trying to blow up something or shoot someone, usually on a mass scale.

Some more:

The general conclusions I would draw, based on the statements of the authorities, those in the military, the media, and the general public, are something like the following:

(1) Most people do not wish to be smeared as bigots, racists, or anti-Muslim, and therefore they will resist suggesting that such violence fits a pattern involving radical Islamic hatred.

(2) Most people assume either that the authorities will break up the plot before it reaches 9/11 proportions, or that the lone-wolf attacker will kill someone else far away, and therefore conclude that they are safe enough and it is a tolerable problem.

(3) Most also accept that (a) most Muslims in the U.S. are not violent, and therefore (b) we have no way in a free society to pick out in advance possible bad actors, and (c) the most likely preemptive strategies — screening imams, infiltrating “charities,” monitoring hate literature, reporting radicals at work, and screening web postings — are all fraught with civil-liberties and political-correctness land mines, and are as likely to boomerang on the authorities or well-intended citizens as they are to produce firm evidence that deters an Islamist killer before he acts.

Basically, a kind of implied silence – you keep your mouth shut, you stay out of trouble.

Bottom line: The society at large, driven by the sermonizing of its elites, has come to an unstated conclusion that, unfortunately, a few Americans will have to be sacrificed from time to time, for the larger goal of establishing the fact that Americans in no way think Muslims are any more likely than any others to commit either random or premeditated terrorist violence. I think that is the initial lesson of Fort Hood. (I remember something similar from the 1980s and 1990s, when we accepted that to be a diplomat or a soldier stationed in the Middle East or Africa or anywhere in the Muslim world meant that there was some chance that your barracks, camp, hotel, embassy, or ship would be attacked — and very little chance that the U.S. government would do much in response other than launch an occasional ineffectual cruise missile or offer a bombastic “this will not stand” speech.)

If the lone-wolf incidents start happening ten times a year, rather than three or four, and if one or two terrorist plots succeed and result in several hundred killed, then attitudes may change (at least for a while).

That was the case for a while after 9-11 – ultimately something does trump political correctness, that being fear for their lives. Then all the lawyering and trouble seems quaint in comparison. Apparently the only thing needed to separate those in power from common sense, even on an issue so grave, is a little time.

Share on Facebook