Just a Regular French Youth
As soon as I heard the news I suspected the score. “Far-Right extremists!” screamed the media pack, but my hunch was right: the murderer of a rabbi and three children at a Jewish school near Toulouse, and of three French soldiers only days earlier, was not French. He was a French citizen of Algerian descent, as we now know, but his allegiance and his identity had nothing to do with passports and ID cards.
Mohammed Merah (23), who was killed at his apartment on Thursday after a 30-hour standoff, was a Muslim—one of at least twenty million who now inhabit the European Union. The “context” was duly provided by The New York Times: “Much of the concern about domestic terrorism in Britain, Belgium, Germany and France has focused on these young people, who may have had little formal religious education but are susceptible to calls for jihad, especially when their own lives have been marked by disappointment, crime, racism and joblessness.”
The suggested narrative about this “soft-spoken and alienated youth” is clear:
- Had Mr. Merah and his ilk had more “formal religious training,” they would have been less likely to kill, maim or otherwise harm their infidel fellow citizens because they would have become good Muslims, which is to say peaceful, tolerant and compassionate.
- Had the infidel host-society been less racist and had it provided “jobs”—which Mr. Merah and millions of other young “European Muslims” like him would no doubt eagerly take in lieu of welfare—they would not have succumbed to the lure of jihad.
The variants on the theme of “racism” as the root of all evil in France are too numerous to quote or hyperlink. The Associated Press report, carried by dozens of newspapers all over the United States, took note of the supposedly “chronic and ambient discrimination within French society.” The Islamist terrorist and the neo-Nazi, for La Stampa’s editorialist, are “two opposite nightmares which live side by side.” According to The Scotsman, “the neo-Nazi threat” is real and by no means diminished by the killer’s identity. “France is a deeply racist country, and Toulouse will only make that worse” was Adrian Hamilton’s headline in The Independent, with the French merely transferring their resentments from Jews to Arabs.
This is all predictable liberal nonsense. The key neglected aspect of the Merah case is that he should have been marked, tracked, and prevented from carrying his murderous plans years ago. We now know that Merah had traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan to undergo terrorist training in Pakistan’s tribal areas along the Afghan border, but what happened next is unclear. French investigator say that he was arrested in Afghanistan and handed to the United States military, which “put him on the first plane headed back to France.” A Pentagon spokesman on detainee issues confirmed that he had been taken into custody by the police in Kandahar a few years ago, but that it remained unclear whether he had been released or turned over to American, French or some other NATO nation control after that.
The reason for confusion was revealed by The New York Times, which noted that Merah would have been difficult to track as he moved around the world, “because he left the country as a French citizen and had a French passport [and] could have returned through a third country like Turkey or Thailand to avoid detection.”
The problem of Muslim terrorists with Western passports is not new, and the solution exists: European countries (as well as the United States) need laws that will treat a Muslim citizen’s links with Islamic extremism—amply documented in Merah’s case—as grounds for the removal of citizenship and deportation to the suspect’s country of origin, or in Merah’s case his parents’ country of origin. The only obstacle to such reasonable and morally as well as legally justified course is the self-destructive mindset of the Western liberal society itself.
Once it is accepted that a bona fide Islamist cannot and should not be a citizen of a secular Western state—and that realization will eventually sink in, after dozens, perhaps hundreds more lives are lost—the political will can be easily translated into legislation. Those who preach or promote jihad from Marseilles to Malmo, and advocate the introduction of sharia in the non-Muslim host-societies, can and should be treated in exactly the same manner as ideological extremists of other hues who preach violence. It will be a long and hard struggle to open the eyes of legislators and legal regulators that Islam itself is a radical, revolutionary ideology, inherently seditious and inimical to Western values and institutions, but it can be done. If France now gets closer to that realization, Merah’s victims will not have died in vain.
Other necessary measures would then follow, such as preventing illegal invasion and not only halting but reversing “legal” immigration from the Muslim world into Europe, North America and the Antipodes. For those who stay, introducing profiling is essential: not all Muslims are terrorists, but all significant transnational terrorist networks that threaten Western countries’ national security and way of life are composed of Muslims. Merah’s case is a timely reminder that a person’s appearance, origin, and apparent or suspected beliefs should raise red flags at airport security checkpoints and elsewhere. Routine profiling needs to be legitimized as an essential tool of trade of law enforcement. The possession of a Western passport should no longer be treated as a potential terrorist’s “right,” and must not exempt him from due scrutiny.
The only French political figure of prominence capable of understanding the necessity of such measures is Marine Le Pen. Le Pen, currently ranked third in the polls of presidential candidates for the April 22 election, says France must “wipe out” the Islamist threat and accused the authorities of systematically minimizing it. “We have underestimated the rise of radical Islam in our country,” Le Pen said. “We didn't want to see it, out of weakness or for electoral reasons…”
After a grim week for France it is to be expected that her message will be heard more clearly than before.
Entries(RSS)
I agree with the article. The Western world won't win this war against radical Islamic fundamentalism because of political correctness. Immigration has always been a weakness and danger for countries. I've never been in favor of it. France is for the French. England is for the English and America is for Americans, etc. The elites fail to grasp this and its a detriment to their countries. The ordinary citizens suffer because of their cowardice.
If a 6'4" Irish American is guilty of some violent crime, I understand that I might attract more scrutiny from security and law enforcement; and ultimately, this makes me safer too! Additionally, those autocratic, utopian politicians and legislators who stand in the way of legitmate self defense, the protection of kith and kin, in order to promote their ideology have become the enemy as much as the jihadist.
"The elites fail to grasp this and its a detriment to their countries. The ordinary citizens suffer because of their cowardice." -end quote of Mr. SwordKiller
I'm afraid it's having been hypnotized more than cowardice among the ordinary and intent more than unawreness among the elite. Also besides being propagandized, the ordinary *can't confront a truth they are not yet ready for. Such as the woe or hurt, that the realization and subsequent acceptance of their abject betrayal by their elites-would cause them to feel. It's also part of why America in the West is known as a 'helpless' giant.
I feel Ms. Le Pen omitted the third reason that terrorist threats are underestimated or willfully ignored.
The odds of you personally being killed in a terror attack are lower than the odds of you having a fatal event on traffic on the way to work or being struck by lightning. For this reason, terrorism may never be a high priority issue in any part of the world, even though each particular terror attack is a great tragedy by itself.
In 2010, there were 40 times as many anarchist terror attacks as Islamic terror attacks in Europe, according to the EU Terror Trends and Situation Report. Even then, anarchist terror attacks are not taken seriously. Those too are small in scope and insignificant in the bigger scheme of things. You can be an Italian, a Spaniard, or a Greek, and you may never see a single anarchist or an anarchist terror attack in your life, despite living in the hotbed of anarchism. So what are the hopes of Islamist terror attacks being taken seriously?
I guess it's called Out of Sight, Out of Mind. Between the rabid debates on pensions, licensing, public transportation, and nuclear proliferation, all the legislators and executive cabinet members see their mindspace crowding out any talks on terrorism of any kind. Terrorism is one small grain of sand on a giant molehill.
Dr Trifkovic,
considering the enormity of the ongoing embarrasment this case must be giving Sarkozy and his government, could it now even be foreseeable for Marine Le Pen to actually win the French presidential elections next month?
@Prateek Sanjay: Terrorism may be a "small grain of sand on a giant molehill", but a very large and growing Muslim presence in a Western European country is a crushing burden on the native population. I am certain Ms. Le Pen "omitted" the statistical risks of terrorism because it is irrelevant to her argument that Islam is incompatible with Western Civilization and it's non-French adherents are obviously incapable of assimilation.
Quite so, Mr. Scott.
Still, whatever can one do about:
1) white European converts to Wahhabism and jihad or half-Algerian born-agains to Wahhabism and jihad?
2) second-, third-, fourth-, or fifth-generation Islamic extremists living in the Western world?
There is no place where you can deport them back, right?
This whole debate may well be 40 or 50 years too late. Everybody's hands are tied in this regard. James Burnham did say that where there was no solution, there was no problem.
Incidentally, H. P. Lovecraft's writings on New York indicate a large presence of Kurds and Arabs in America as early as the 1910s. What if this sorry fate was sealed then and there?
Mr. Sanjay,
You seem so sure that it is too late and that nothing can be done. It feels as if you wish Europeans and Americans to adopt this fatalistic view to the problem of third world immigration, which is understandable given that you are not of European or American descent and may have your own reasons for wishing the decline of the West. Do not underestimate the vitality of the West; for the host may be sick and the medicine late but there is still a chance for recovery, even if not a full one. And all Europeans and Americans should hope for and fight for as much once they understand the case.
When I criticize Muslim and African immigration to Europe the idea of political/religious terrorism is on the back-burner. Street terrorism is much more at the forefront of my thoughts. The number of Muslim terrorist incidents is dwarfed by the number of Muslim and African rapes, muggings, murders and armed robberies that have gone on since they started arriving. The dung mentioned in the story had 18 prior convictions before he became a jihadist, multiply those convictions by the number of young Muslim and African men living in Western Europe and you'll get the picture. If affiliation with Al-Qaeda or the Taliban warrants arrest or death, then why shouldn't it be applied to street gangs as well. This is the big disconnect, in my opinion, when it comes to debating this issue. Political and religious insurrection is the next logical progression from disrespect and predatory behavior towards native Europeans.
Cui Bono? http://www.BrotherNathanaelFoundation.org/videos
Time to become Western Civilization or get off the pot. You know what, rolls down hill, and we're *sick of it. Wake-Up!! ... Ugh.
scotty; the decline of the west is accelerated by boobs who confuse friend from foe. sanjay is a gentleman who i'm sure would accept your apology.
Mr. Schultz,
Mr. Sanjay has posted in the past that he would gladly accept a decline in America's well-being if it would benefit his home country and continent (see, "Four More Years--Of This?"). I do not fault him for this; everyone has their loyalties: and both these points were clearly stated in my post to him. My objection was to his minimizing the arguments for a Western nation to defend itself against irrational immigration policies, specifically non-Western immigration. If I have misunderstood Mr. Sanjay's words, I sincerely apologize for the tone of my comments.
mr. scott;; i get it now. you are claiming that if one advocates u.s. citizens should be taxed less and thus have more $ available to buy darjeeling tea - benefiting india's economy- the advocate is therefore glad to see a decline in america's well-being. your tone is fine - your facts are discordant. nuff said.
Mr. Scott, all I said was that since US has had such low interest rates on their bonds, their government could easily lower taxes and raise public spending temporarily. Maximum benefit of that would go to Americans, of course, and some part of it would filter to the rest of the world with more American demand for foreign goods.
Believing that lower US taxes will lower US standard of living is pretty surprising.
I was describing a win-win situation, not a win-lose one.
Mr. Sanjay,
Believing inflationary spending along with lower taxes will raise the US standard of living is surprising.
The US has "temporarily" raised spending for over a decade with lowered taxes and is now burdened with an almost 16 trillion dollar debt, nearly 100 percent of GDP. Add to the US debt and its corresponding inflation a trade policy that has shipped millions of manufacturing jobs overseas with a pernicious immigration policy and you have an economy that benefits the rich here and emergent economies abroad, but does little for the American worker or for the future of the nation.
India and others will gain a manufacturing base and a higher standard of living, and America will have a huge debt to service, more jobs lost and a lower standard of living.
Eventually a weak dollar and increased costs of manufacturing overseas (including a rising standard of living) will bring manufacturing back to the US. But at what cost to America?
It doesn't look like a win-win to me.