Tags: , , , , , , | Categories: The Science of Think by Chris on 5/6/2015 9:12 AM | Comments (0)

  An internal discussion (a healthy one) has ensued in the country regarding the failed terrorist attack in Garland, TX. Pamela Gellar sponsored a “Draw Mohammad” contest and secured a $10,000 prize for the winner. The move, for one, was clearly intended to antagonize radical Islamic terrorists and indeed achieved the intended results.
  The national dialogue erupting from the event has been primarily from two points of view. One, some in the national media are giving voice to the “that was stupid” point of view, Bill O’Reilly of Fox News being one of them. Others are pointing out that we are starting to abridge our political speech and even way of life in slow capitulation to the whims of radical terrorist haters. It can even be argued we are flirting dangerously with abridging our first amendment rights on other subjects as well being exposed to relentless accosting from other radical groups within our country.
  Those opposed to the “drawing contest” think it foolish to poke the bear. In most other cases I would agree. Diplomacy is almost always our first and most desired vector to resolve any relationship conflict whether personal, domestic or international. The problem is that diplomacy presupposes rationality.

 It was the Chinese philosopher of war, Sun Tzu who said,
“Know your enemy and know yourself and you will always be victorious.”

  Terrorism has been around for a very long time now, in fact all of my adult life. Israel has a long standing policy not to negotiate with terrorists. Until Barrak Hussein Obama America didn’t either, another state credo he has violated. The reason for this is radical Islamic terrorism is irrational. Religiously radicalized people don’t want to talk. They’ve lost their objectivity being supplanted by an idealism that crosses the boundaries of humanity and embraces physical violence as a means to achieve parity with their ideals. This is why “radical” Islam is not a true religion. The physical violence attribute alone disqualifies it.

“Appeasement is the language of the conquered.”

  In the “drawing contest” debate a growing concern I have is with those who still show signs of denial in that they hold out even the slimmest of hope we can somehow diffuse, negotiate and resolve diplomatically this conflict with radical Islam. The failing negotiations with Iran and their nuclear weapons is a shining example. They “appear” to be talking but continue to act in a clandestine manner and build their nuclear weapons capability.

  The evidence is overwhelming that terrorists have moved into our States, established a beachhead and are now bold enough to start executing attacks. This was unheard of a few years ago and proves we are slowly losing the battle. If safety and security at home is threatened it is time to change what we are doing and how we are doing it. This is the primary duty of an American President and our commandment to him through the power of our Constitution. President Obama’s “Laissez Fare” approach to the border belies his sworn duty as does his reluctance to identify terrorism that has hijacked Islam as an excuse for murder.

  In psychological terms “denial” is the inability to see the obvious, even the obvious that is immediately or near immediately threatening injury or death. This is why, albeit admittedly very dangerous, the drawing contest was making a point. This is a point obscured by denial for some in leadership. The terrorists don’t want to talk.

One may never know there are termites in the wall until the wall collapses.
When someone has already made the decision to shoot at you, words will not stop bullets.

If radical Islamist's will send children into crowded streets to blow themselves up how rational do you think they are?

There are literally tens of thousands of Americans who will not sit buy idly while thug terrorists open fire on our streets.

To avoid this Americans must retire Senators and Representatives shown not to stand on these American ideals at the next election and the next and the next.