We in the Western world often raise the question, “why aren’t moderate Muslims more outspoken in the face of atrocities incited by or actually committed by other Muslims?”
Perhaps a fair question.
Perhaps in light of how violent Muslims are to both Muslims and non-Muslims alike, perhaps it’s self-preservation because they are scared.
I got an email yesterday from a friend who was very upset about something he had read on someone’s blog. I had seen it myself last week, but considered it to be just another sign of how the author was a fool. But what if he really meant it?
As a bit of background: Last week Sam Kerodin posted a story about a bombing at a police academy where at least 47 officers died. He titled the story on his blog, “How Others Do It”. Here is the link: http://iiipercent.blogspot.com/2016/01/how-others-do-it.html
My friend went on to ask, “In a way I can understand the “kill something evil” but how can all LEO be evil? His implied call to just kill police needs to be addressed and a separation drawn. He’s willing to use the system and its resources but calls for the killing of those same resources.
How can the III even attempt to succeed if we are nothing more than a terror group? I understand the perspective aspect but acts of terror and execution of random .gov assets while the ones pulling the strings are unharmed should not play well.
How is what Kerodin calling for and endorsing any different than the ambush of the Philadelphia police officer? The only difference I can see in the III world is that we all condemn the Philadelphia event and fail to condemn the Kerodin call out.”
I’ve got to agree with my friend. If killing those who Sam disagrees with is part of his model for “restoring rightful liberty”, I want nothing to do with it. Replacing liberal totalitarianism with conservative totalitarianism is not ‘restoring rightful liberty.’
I’d like to think that most of us also find this hideous and evil.
Is Honest Debate Not Part of Rightful Liberty?