Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Jihad in Minnesota: why the deafening media silence?


Readers may remember the stabbing attack on two shoppers at the Mall of America in Minnesota last November.  It was widely reported in the mainstream media to be a robbery attempt.  Many of us had our suspicions about that, given the name and religion of the attacker (not widely reported at the time).  To this day, such evasion continues.

However, it now looks like our suspicions were justified.

At the plea hearing Thursday, Abdiraham's attorney read a statement — which is public record — to the courtroom, which explained why he attacked the two men.

In the statement, Abdiraham said he went to the Mall of America to answer the "call for jihad by the Chief of Believer, Abu-bakr Al-baghdadi, may Allah protect him, and by the Mujahiden of the Islamic State."

The statement added, "I understand that the two men I stabbed know and have explained the reason for my attack, and I am here reaffirming that it was indeed an act of Jihad in the way of Allah."

Abdiraham also said in the statement that Americans will not be safe as long as "your country is at war with Islam."

Omar Jamal, an activist with a Somali watchdog group, said he is aware of the statement.

"This is a widespread sentiment with Somali youth," he said.

Jamal said the federal government's effort to make it difficult for would-be jihadists to travel abroad and join a terrorist group has had unintended consequences locally.

"What is very concerning in this instance, is the fact that youth are exploring more 'How can I do something here, what weapons are accessible,'" he said.

There's more at the link.

It's not racist or intolerant in the least to acknowledge that certain areas of the country are at higher risk of this sort of attack, because of the higher proportion of Islamic candidates who might be potentially radicalized in that way.  Minnesota's Twin Cities area is among them, thanks to a large local population of Somali refugees and immigrants.

If you live in or near such an area, it's no more than common sense to be on the alert.  I'm not for a moment advocating vigilante justice, or anything so stupid.  However, if the two men stabbed in this attack had been more aware of the risks involved, and more on their guard, they might have been better able to protect themselves.  That's a worthwhile thought to keep in mind.

Peter

17 comments:

Bob M said...

Jeez....

Spoken like a true moderate.

Andrew said...

From what I've seen on tv, and what my friends from up north tell me, the Mall of America has become a "No-Go" zone, and has been for years.

Not to be, well, bigoted, but any place where the majority of the female population is covered up in one way or another is not a safe place.

Rule works for Islamic areas, rule works for rural, backwoods eastern Europe (and some sections of western Europe not including those areas already gone over to the crescent.) Seriously. Italian 'hill-billy' areas where the married women or grannies still wear headcoverings on a daily basis are not the place for some stupid un-aware tourist to stumble into. Same with Eastern Europe. Same with, well, rural China.

But, unfortunately, most head-covered nogo zones are Islamic in nature. Bummer, but true.

Anonymous said...

Need you really ask the question, Peter?
There's another word for silence of the media, especially in the twin cities; collusion. They will not report on anything that doesn't support the leftist party line and islam being a "religion of peace" is among their canons. The attacker was nearly always referred to as a "Minnesota man" as if one of my pale, ice-fishing seventh-generation Scandinavian friends went on a rampage.
Boat Guy

Harry Flashman said...

The individuals who colluded to bring Somalis into Minnesota did the people of that state a grave disservice. But they made a lot of money on it, and a lot of naive people helped them do it.

We are starting to get the Burka Bunch in our small town in Georgia. Apparently our state "accepted" a number of the illegals that tried to get into Australia and got caught. Australia said "hell no" but Obama said "we" would take the "poor souls" and now here they are in rural Georgia.

Old NFO said...

Time to move, or carry a bigger gun... sigh

Anonymous said...

If there was ever an argument for Minnesota to adopt "Constitutional Carry" ...

Yeah, I know, then the bad guys will be carrying legally. Know what? The bad guys never cared about legality. The good guys need a level field.

Ed_Mc
{what the heck? FIVE pages of street signs and nine panels of roads - just to prove I'm not a 'bot?}

A Texan said...

Or maybe we should have never imported these worthless people in the first place. I hate to lump them all together, but how do we benefit from more Somalis and region of Africa every bit as bad as the rest of it?

Anonymous said...

Maybe????
Ya think?
BY

Anonymous said...

Dang spell check.
Boat Guy apparently aka "BY"

Alphonse said...

I'm not for a moment advocating vigilante justice, or anything so stupid.

OK, then, if resolving the problem - death by jihad - isn't something we should take personally, perhaps you can tell us what the "Peter Grant Approved Method" might be?

The government(s) we pay exhorbitant taxes to haven't seemed to take much interest in our demise caused by islamic terrorists - in fact, they've supported it at every turn, gleefully assisted by the media - so, other than the dreaded and forever condemned "vigilante justice" the approved alternatives to simply "dying in place" are.....what?

Bob M (above) has it right.

Peter said...

@Alphonse: Speaking as one who's had to deal with real terrorists - the hard way - I think I have a rather more personal insight into the problem than most of my readers.

Remember the Golden Rule? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you arrogate to yourself the right to mete out vigilante "justice", you've got nothing coming when others decide to do the same thing to you. That's why we have the rule of law. It's there for our own protection as much as the protection of others. We violate the presumption of innocence, the right to trial by a jury of our peers, and such protections at our own peril.

However, that doesn't stop us being alert to the danger of extremist violence, and preparing ourselves to counter it if necessary. Counter-actions can range from simply staying away from areas of greater risk, to the use of lethal force in self-defense. All are legal, when applied correctly. If you decide to do anything outside the law, I hope you're prepared for what happens when others decide to do that to you - because "what goes around, comes around". That's a lesson I've learned the hard way on more than one occasion.

You can't condemn an entire people, or race, or religion, on the basis of the actions of some of its members. Even if many of its members act in illegal or unsavory ways, that doesn't mean there aren't others who don't. If you have some sort of magic wand that can instantly tell the guilty apart from the innocent, I'm sure every church, policeman and prosecutor in creation would like to talk to you, very urgently. If you don't, you don't have any right to take the law into your own hands.

McChuck said...

Peter- Yes, yes we can. Every single Muslim everywhere is a threat to all non-Muslims, because that is part of their religion. The Quran, the literal words of their god, calls for never ending jihad against all non-Muslims. The only options a devout Muslim has when dealing with unbelievers is to:
A) Kill them.
B) Enslave them. Slave women may be lawfully raped by any Muslim man. Slaves may be killed by any Muslim man. Slaves pay an extra, extortionate tax for the privilege of being allowed to survive in a Muslim land.
C) Convert them to Islam. False converts shall be killed. Apostates shall be killed.
D) When in a position of powerlessness, lie to the unbelievers, and pretend to be friendly. Encourage the infidels to trust Muslims, while importing more and breeding faster than the locals. When there are enough Muslims in the area to be politically or militarily powerful, see options A, B and C.

They have to go back. They all have to go back. Some will resist this - they must be detained and deported, or killed while resisting. There is no peace between Muslims and anyone else in the whole world.

The Muslim term for all non-Muslim lands is "the land of war." When an entire people say they want to kill you, and have a 1400 year history of doing so, maybe we should believe them? Do pray tell, what is the middle ground between life and death, other than slavery? What is the starting point of negotiations with someone who wants nothing other than your death, and is willing to die to achieve that goal?

Peter said...

@McChuck: I'm getting sick and tired of the nonsense spouted about Islam by those who have a purely academic, one-sided perspective on the matter. In general, they don't know what they are talking about. They confuse culture with religion, seize on sentences and words and chapters rather than examine the religion as it is actually lived, and generalize rather than get specific.

If you haven't actually lived among Muslims (in different cultures, too, not just one of them) then you have little idea how Islam is lived out from day to day. It's just like Christianity in that respect. If you think America is a Christian country, with its rampant immorality, dishonesty and corruption (all measured by Biblical rather than worldly standards), you also have little idea what Christianity is all about. Religion is lived in practice rather than in theory.

Yes, there are Muslims - and Muslim societies - that live according to standards we find abhorrent. I have no problem excluding them from our society, and shunning theirs. On the other hand, there are also Muslims who find such practices equally abhorrent, and would never even consider living by such standards. In the same way, there are Christians who see nothing wrong in enforcing their understanding of Biblical morality on others, even if that involves forcing children into under-age "marriages" that are little more than an excuse for child abuse. (Yes, some self-proclaimed Christians do that to this day, as well as Muslims - just not all Christians, and not all Muslims.)

I repeat what I've said before. You cannot generalize. If you do, then you've got nothing coming when others lump you into a general category, too, and treat you accordingly. There's a reason why the Golden Rule exists in some form in every single major religion and philosophy in human history. That's because it works. Defy it at your peril.

If someone is guilty of offenses, deal with him as such - but not because he's Muslim, or Christian, or anything else. It's the offenses we're worried about, not how he justifies or excuses them. The moment you make his beliefs a touchstone for how you treat him, you invite others to do the same to you. Be very, very careful before you make that choice. It has consequences. Few of them are pleasant. I know. I've seen that at work in many countries, in many communities, and in many faiths and cultures. I speak from bitter experience.

0007 said...

Dear Peter -
That last response is possibly the most ignorant thing I've ever read from you. First off I have lived in the ME on and off since 1983. I have many friends that are muslims over there including one of the richest men in the world.
The fact remains that Islim is not just a religion but a political theocracy that demands that all non-believers submit or be killed. Doesn't matter what you would like to believe about it what matters is what their book says and what THEY believe.
Sure there are a few who would like to live and let live, but in point of fact they are outliers who are considered apostates and as such are on the same ticket as non-believers.
Sorry sometimes I get carried away, but reality is what it is.
Kinda like when the commies/anc took over South Africa...

Peter said...

@0007: When you live(d) in the Middle East, was it in a local community, with Muslims as your neighbors, or was it in a Western ghetto that had little or no cheek-by-jowl contact with Muslims?

Also, the Middle East is by no means the majority of Muslims. South-East Asia, the Indian and Pacific Oceans, and Africa have many hundreds of millions more. Yes, there are fundamentalist groups and sects among them; there are also many that are not, so much so that internecine conflict among Muslims is far more common than conflict between Muslims and non-believers.

I have extensive personal experience of these things. I'm not just spouting book learning or Internet rumors here.

Anonymous said...

That approach only works insofar as the state can be trusted to pursue Justice.
And to protect the innocent from reprisals in the wake.

If the state refuses to take its responsibilities seriously, regression to mean is inevitable. It took generations for governments to build the credibility to supplant vigilante justice. Losing it, will take far less time. We've been seeing leaks in the dam for decades now, and they're only getting worse.

Vigilante justice has sometimes accomplished much good.
Other times, it has enforced tyranny.
Like fire, it is extremely dangerous, incredibly useful, and sometimes absolutely necessary.
I agree that the time for such drastic things is not yet (with isolated exceptions such as "in the face of an antifa attack"). But I'm forced to aknowledge that we're much closer to a tipping point than I'm comfortable with. And that with nearly all sense of community shattered, it will be incredibly hard to moderate vigilante zeal once it gets going.

I have seen the good side of vigilante justice when official channels were powerless. When a community actively shunned a man for what he had done to his wife. And when gangbangers tried to move into my old hometown, using violence and arson to intimidate. Citizens stood up to defend their community. Local lore tells of many more, some involving the traditional tar, feathers, and a rail.
But that society is no more.
What has replaced it, is tinder that awaits a spark.

Conor Foran said...

@Peter @McChuck To be a 'good' muslim, you have to be a bad person. To be a good Christian, you have to be a good person. It is that simple. There is no equivilency between bad people that happen to be muslims and bad people that happen to be Christians.

To be a 'good' muslim is to follow in the footsteps of the false prophet Mahomet - a brigand chief, rapist, murderous pedophile. To be a Good Christian is to follow in the footsteps of Christ - to take up one's cross and follow him.

Mahomet said that the muslims are the slaves of God and the infidels are the slaves of the muslims.

Jesus said, "I do not call you my slaves but my friends. You are my friends if you do as I command you. Love one another as I have loved you. There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friend."

If a person cannot see the difference between the true and the false religion, or why we should exclude the people whose last, overriding command from their false prophet was to "kill the infidel wherever you find them, until the submit and feel themselves submitted and pay the jizya" - that person is not ignorant, he is insane, or evil.

And even if we do let in 'bad' muslims - what do we do about their children, when they return to the faith of their ancestors in zeal?