"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". (Sir Edmund Burke)

In the USA during the 1850s, not all Americans were slave owners, but all slave owners were Americans. The American civil war was the model for good people to come together and act, in order to prevent evil from prevailing. Over 1 million white Northern young men put on the uniform of the Federal government and marched past the Mason Dixon line in order to put an end to slavery in the United States. Over 390,000 Federal troops died and over 275,000 were wounded in action. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, and the North did what it had to do.

During the civil rights era (1955-1968), a wide assortment of Americans - Northerners, Southerners, black and white, Jewish and Christian – conducted boycotts, organized sit-ins, mass marches and freedom rides in order to make sure that all Americans shared equally in the freedoms guaranteed under the US constitution. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, and the American public rose to the challenge.

Not all Germans were Nazis, but all Nazis were Germans. When WW2 was over, Nazi soldiers claimed they were only following orders. German civilians claimed they were innocent victims of Hitler and his Nazi thugs. The reality, of course, is that German civilians did not sufficiently raise their voice in opposition to the Nazi party BEFORE Hitler came to power, didn't march into the streets in opposition to the Nazi party DURING its formulative years, and couldn't do anything about it once Germany had morphed into a full fledged Nazi state. The German people bore total responsibility for the catastrophe that their government perpetrated on the world. All it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing, and the Germans did nothing.

Islamic scholars have said that the modern day phenomenon of Islamic extremism can be traced back to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979. Arab terrorism is not necessarily the same as Muslim extremist terrorism, and the distinction is important if one wants to understand how such a violent form of Islam could develop. Arab nationalists have long viewed the very existence of Israel as an insult to the Arab world, and for decades the Muslim/Arab capitals of the Mideast have sanctioned "acts of terrorism" against Israel as legitimate expressions of "resistance". Now, the homegrown "resistance fighters" whom the Arab world groomed in conflicts ranging from Afghanistan to Chechnya to Israel over the last past 50 years have – for lack of legitimate alternatives in their home countries – adopted a Jihadist version of Islam to justify continuing the mayhem. The world, unfortunately, turned a blind eye to terrorism as long as it was aimed only at Israel. THERE IS NO JUSTIFIABLE "GOOD TERRORISM". Aided by western technology and endless amounts of oil money, Islamic extremism has reached a tipping point and gone global – and is now aiming it's sights on fellow Muslims as well - which proves the point that if you lie down with dogs, you get fleas.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of Muslims are regular people like you and me, and want nothing to do with Islamic extremists or Jihadists. Unfortunately, most of the terrorism around the globe is being committed in the name of Islam. Many people see the rise of Islamic extremism in the same light as the rise of Nazi fascism in 1938, and we have a moral responsibility to speak out and awaken the public. In this day and age of "political correctness", our message is sometimes intentionally mis-construed as promoting "Islamiphobia" by Islamists who are determined to control the public debate. In Europe, Islamic apologists have risen in righteous indignation – and sometimes in spasms of widespread violence - over ANY criticism of Muslim extremists, despite the bloody body of evidence strewn across the globe (Bali, London, New York, Moscow, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Dafur, Turkey, Thailand etc.).

Many Islamic apologists prefer to express their revulsion with Islamic extremism by claiming that their "peaceful religion" is being hijacked by a small minority. My response to them is that if Islam has been hijacked, then moderate Muslims have a moral responsibility to end the hijacking and reclaim their faith. The US war against Islamic extremism is not winnable in the classical sense. There are no clear fields of battle, no capitals to conquer, and no leaders to surrender. Our military can keep Islamic extremist "on their heels" for as long as our country gives them support - but an American public that is "unaware" of the magnitude of this threat runs the risk of losing its resolve. Extremists aren't attacking us for territory, or material wealth. They are attacking our way of life. One only has to look at Britain or France to see what complacence and appeasement will produce in response to Muslim extremism. They are threatening the very core of the Western Judeo-Christian values upon which America was founded – democracy, freedom and the rule of law. If we underestimate this threat, if we don't understand this threat, then we run the risk of letting this menace strengthen beyond our capacity to contain it.

If there is any legitimate criticism of the way we are currently waging the war on Islamic extremism today - and there is much to criticize, it is the fact that the average American citizen isn't "engaged" in this war on ANY level. During WW2, everyone on the home front was "chipping in" and doing their part for "the cause". That's why we are here today. The Memphis Branch of HonestReporting wants to educate and mobilize the Mid-South community to support our government, to support our troops, support our allies, and give individuals a tangible way to be a part of the struggle to defeat this enemy. There are sign up sheets in the back of the room if you would like to join our organization.

If it's true that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing", then we want to make sure evil fails.

Thank you very much.

Muslim claims that the USA media and police are biased against Muslims/Arabs

It is deceitful of Muslim commentators to claim that the media should have called the Virginia Tech shooter (32 dead) a “terrorist” instead of a “mass murderer, insinuating a media/law enforcement bias against Muslims. The dictionary calls terrorism an “act of violence with the intent of intimidation, and is often part of a larger terror campaign meant to advance a religious or political point of view”.

July 4th, 2002: Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, an Egyptian, opened fire at Los Angeles International Airport while standing in line at the ticket counter of Israel's El Al Airlines killing two and wounding four others before an airline security officer shot him dead. Federal, law enforcement and city officials said it appeared the shooting was an isolated incident, with nothing to suggest otherwise. “There is no indication of any terrorism connection in this matter”, said FBI spokesman Matt McLaughlin.

May 23rd, 2002: A Pensacola, Florida, man opened fire at a ticket counter at the main airport in New Orleans, killing one person and wounding another. Authorities said Patrick Gott, a Muslim man, told them he opened fire because people had made fun of his turban at a restaurant... Officials said the shooting did not appear to be related to terrorism and that Gott acted alone.

These are two examples of Muslims committing similar acts of violence. I would contend that the 7/4/02 incident – the Egyptian who attacked the Israeli Air Line ticket counter -was a terrorist act because of the Israeli victims, as well as testimony that came forward regarding his radicalized Muslim religious disposition. In the 5/23/02 incident, the victims were completely random, the perpetrator’s background indicated mental problems, and therefore there was no ulterior motive other than insane rage over some comments about his turban.

Contrary to Muslim commentators asserting media/law enforcement bias, I would contend that the Federal government has clearly gone out of its way to be politically correct in these incidents – opting to call them both “random acts of violence” - despite the glaring distinction between the two.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/07/04/la.airport.shooting/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/23/national/main509955.shtml

IRAN making a mockery of the United Nations…again…and again…and again

On April 9, 2007 there was a United Nations "believe-it-or-not" moment that was fit for the comic books. At the same time that Iran's President Ahmadinejad declared his country was now capable of industrial-scale uranium enrichment AND had kidnapped and imprisoned a dozen British sailors, the U.N. re-elected Iran as a vice chairman of the U.N. Disarmament Commission. The very U.N. body charged with promoting nuclear nonproliferation installed in a senior position the state that the Security Council recently declared violated its nonproliferation resolutions.

In Iran, Ahmadinejad gloated at the Natanz nuclear facility: "With great pride, I announce as of today our dear country is among the countries of the world that produces nuclear fuel on an industrial scale" (in violation of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty- NPT). At the same time, the Iranian vice chairman of the U.N. Disarmament Commission, Seyed Mohammad Ali Robatjazi, railed against "noncompliance with the NPT by the United States" and "the Zionist lobby."

It took the U.N. a mere five days to consider Iran "rehabilitated" after the British kidnap victims made it home alive. Just the night before on April 8, Faye Turney, the only female victim, revealed her Iranian abductors stripped her to her underwear, caged her in a tiny, freezing cell, and subjected her to mental torture such as leading her to believe that her death was imminent.

This is not simply a very bad joke. The U.N. is considered by many as the go-to address for international progress in the world today. Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, declared at a hearing on U.N. reform in February that "the U.N. provides vital support to core U.S. foreign-policy initiatives" including on Iran and the way forward is to "ratchet up" our level of diplomacy there."

Looks like the only "ratcheting up" is the hostility aimed squarely at the USA and Israel. Congressman Lantos and his close friend, former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, have long been drinking from the same well. The "reformed" Human Rights Council was Annan's creation. Lantos is the leading advocate of the United States joining the Human Rights Council - where presumably we could jump up and down while exercising one vote out of 47. Annan, of his own volition, went to Tehran last September and urged the world not to isolate Iran immediately after the Iranian president had ignored a Security Council deadline to suspend its nuclear activities. Lantos confessed to the House Committee at the end of February that he has been begging for a visa to go to Iran for the past ten years and "will be among the first ones to do so once this visa is granted."

Lantos was pleased with his recent trip, along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to Syria. Obviously, the U.N. shares his view that one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism ought to be a welcome player on the world stage. Following the election on Monday, April 9th, of Iran as vice chairman, the U.N. Disarmament Commission elected Syria as its rapporteur to investigate the issue of nuclear nonproliferation non-compliance and report back to the commission.

The line between U.N. diplomacy and farce has been crossed. As long as the UN is held hostage to the rantings of third world dictatorships and banana republics who use the UN as an anti-US platform, we should chart our own course - with our true allies - by strengthening and expanding NATO.