Islam in Australia: myths and common media positions. Part 7: The Second Flinders Street
Terrorist mentally deranged Attack.
Opinion: Anthony Cox
I wrote some time ago after the first Flinders Street Muslim terrorist attack about how this was part of an ISIS edict for Muslims to commit such vile acts by running over people with a car. Then the authorities and the media said it was not Islam but a mentally deranged person.
The same thing has happened almost a year later and the authorities and the media are still saying the same thing, that the terrorist was just mentally deranged and drug addled. No known terrorist links says the ABC and the rest of the fake news merchants. Focus is on the terrorist’s drug addiction, his poor mum makes the news demonstrating how peaceful her family is by attacking reporters and later says her son, the terrorist, is a beautiful boy.
This was a terrorist act. The video and photos are conclusive:
It doesn’t matter that the beautiful Muslim boy had no terrorist links or was on drugs. How many other drug addicts do this? How many other non-Muslims do this? None. Yet time after time here and elsewhere in the world Muslims, beautiful, drug-addled or otherwise do this, they kill people by running over them in cars. The beautiful son even said he did this because of the poor treatment of Muslims. But police are still looking for a motive. And premier Andrews or PM Turnbull did not even mention Muslims or Islam. And Duncan Lewis, the head of ASIO, who infamously said in reply to Pauline Hanson, that refugees are not involved in terrorism, has not commented on the fact that the beautiful son is a refugee.
So why are our leaders (sic) and media so unwilling to blame Islam for these attacks? Lewis and various policemen speak of cooperation with Muslims generally which will have benefits in intelligence against the few bad Muslims disposed to terrorism. This has been a dismal failure in the US. It can only be a dismal failure because Islam itself is against the West. This sort of capitulation and appeasement was a failure in the past, a failure during Obama’s sickly reign as POTUS and will continue to be a failure. This hasn’t stopped extraordinary expressions of Dhimmitude from within Europe, particularly from Sweden which has, at least from the viewpoint of its politicians, completely given in to Islam because as Swedish minister Jens Orback says:
We must be open and tolerant toward Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so toward us
Sweden’s government even has advertisements declaring there is no way back from the effect of Islamic immigration. Another Swedish politician states Sweden now belongs to the (Muslim) immigrants.
So cowardice, as I said before, is at play. The politicians who manifest this craven fear are despicable creatures no doubt. But even the Western politicians who aren’t cowards misunderstand Islam. Islam is antithetically different from the West. These politicians, apart from the likes of Trump, are products of a left/liberal education and it is the world-view produced by this left-wing attitude which is proving to be the downfall of the West in the ongoing war with Islam. An ALP member and unionist Mitchell Goff sums it up:
We like to think of Islamism as being a construction of order, with a hierarchy that mirrors our own, and with a capacity to arrive at some negotiated position if it comes into conflict. But the moment we do that we miscategorise what it is that Islamism actually is. It is a radically different moral framework for confronting the world, one that comprises of allies and enemies, one in which the achievement of Paradise is most assuredly brought about through the physical destruction of the enemy. It is not without order or form, but it is not an order or form that is grounded in the ethic of individual worth as we understand it. It has no Pope, and so cannot move monolithically. Theological evolution is no simple task and it is often the case that a local imam’s idiosyncratically moderate interpretation of Islam has little relevance outside of his local community. Even then, moving the religion itself requires leaving a significant amount of theology at the door, or radically re-understanding it in a way that has simply not occurred for the most part of history.
Terror attacks that we uselessly describe as “lone wolf” attacks require us to suspend everything we intrinsically understand about ideologies of this nature. They no more need people to spread than they do organisations. A terrorist doesn’t need to be a member of ISIS for us to understand that the ideology motivating him is the same ideology motivating ISIS. There may not be some traceable master-servant relationship, but there is, of course, a theological one. People looking for evidence of communication between a militant and a warlord seem to be barking up the wrong tree. How many more times does this have to happen before we stop providing excuses they’re not asking for or rationalisations that don’t fit the pattern?There is a method in these attacks that is replicated across time and space. The notion that they bear no relationship either to each other or to a broader ideology is simply wrong. Jihadist terror is a war tactic pulled out of an ideology of death. Jihadists understand how to manipulate our institutions because they understand our moral code and know that we don’t really have a strong ideological framework to repel bad ideas because, quite understandably, we’ve come to view traditionalist ideology or more specifically religion as the root of evil. As we constructed liberalism we failed to construct walls around it that enabled it to defend itself from illiberal ideologies like communism, fascism and (Islam).
Until the West’s media, academics, politicians and policy makers stop regarding Islam as something which can live in the West as part of the West the West will continue to have grievous problems with it.