Stunningly, Piers Morgan pens an Op-Ed in the Daily Mail today asking: ‘when are people going to begin listening to Donald Trump about Islamic Terrorism’ (link).  However, Morgan stops short of explaining why Trump’s proposals make more sense than anyone else.

Islam Demonstration

For decades the Western World, and the U.S. specifically, have approached The Islamic Jihad as a problem the non-Islamic local and global community can solve. If only we can attract enough Muslim allies to join us in the ideological fight.

It doesn’t work.

The emphasis is on the wrong syllable.

It’s time for a reset.

We, the non-Muslim/Western community, can’t solve the problem.  Only the larger Muslim/Islamic aggregate community can solve the problem for themselves.  That is, if they really want to.

Donald Trump is 100% correct when he says the Muslim community know where the trouble is within their midst.  In San Bernardino (California) the Islamic community around the terrorists knew the threat posed.  In Paris (France) the Islamic community around the terrorists knew the threat posed.  And in Brussels (Belgium) the Islamic community around the terrorists knew the threat posed.

Yet the Muslim community around each of these groups and individuals did nothing to stop it.  Why?  In large part because the non-Muslim community has taken the responsibility off their shoulders.

The underlying premise behind all the talk of “cooperation” is based on a false paradigm, false choices, and allows those who know, even remotely, of the evil agents to dilute their own responsibility to act.

Our ‘cooperative’ approach is a self-fulfilling victim prophecy, removing responsibility, diminishing community shame, and generating even more hateful action.

This is the process, the mindset, that must be reversed.

There simply MUST be consequences upon the larger closed-circle community for failing to act, and rid themselves of the evil in their midst.

Absent of altruism born of an attachment to moral virtue, there is no inherent sense, guilt, pressure or burden of responsibility upon the Islamic community to act proactively.  There is no downside for their own failure(s) to act and stop the activity of the extremists in their midst.  Within this reality we find the fertile seeding ground of political correctness to be used as a shield against shame.

Right now, more than ever, shame and consequences are needed.

jihadi johnDonald Trump’s proposals, as severe as some might see them to be, are the first set of actual substantive proposals that reverse this decades long paradigm -which is failing miserably- and actually brings consequences upon the individuals, the families, and the local community if they fail to act.

Only the Muslim community can stop terrorism and stop the radicalization from within itself. Change cannot come, via influence or pressure, from outside; insofar as we continue to allow excuses, obfuscations, deflections and the fear associated with political correctness to block the shame mechanism.

♦ Shutting down mosques might sound extreme.  But if a terrorist comes out of a specific mosque to reek the evil, even if the mosque doesn’t harbor the same intent, that mosque should be closed and have all their assets seized.  It wouldn’t take long before each community sees a greater downside to having a terrorist in their midst.

♦ Shutting down immigration might sound extreme.  But if a terrorist comes out of a specific sect or sector, that entire region -and every family member within that region- should suffer the consequences.   No-fly lists, regional immigration blocks, visa refusals etc. It wouldn’t take long before the non-extremist families saw a greater downside to having a family member who is radicalized in their midst.

♦ Deportations of immediate family members might sound extreme.  But if a terrorist comes out of an immigrant family, that family should be exposed to a consequence that drives home a message that Jihad will not be allowed.  It will not be long before Muslim families who have settled in the West see a greater downside to having a son/daughter husband/wife, etc  who is affiliated with terrorism.

It is only by expanding the consequence, where the families of the killed, maimed or injured are not the only ones carrying the burden of victimization.

The direct and immediate consequences of terrorist activity, their Jihad, should be felt by those who surround the jihadist and yet do nothing to stop it.

With consequences clear, proactive calls to the various law enforcement mechanisms will increase.  These are not easy decisions, but how many more truly innocent lives are we going to see before a different, more effective, approach is taken.

As Mr. Morgan shared in his article:

[…]   Trump told me countries must tighten their borders in light of these terror attacks, especially to anyone related to an ISIS fighter in Syria.

Is he so wrong?

He told me he wants law-abiding Muslims to root out the extremists in their midst, expressing his bafflement and anger that someone like Abdeslam was able to hide for so long in the very part of Brussels he had previously lived.

Is he so wrong?

He told me America must make it far harder for illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. and thinks European countries should follow suit.

Is he so wrong?

He told me he believes there are now areas of many major European cities which have become poisonous breeding grounds for radicalized Islamic terror.

Is he so wrong? 

At the end of our interview, I asked Donald Trump to send a message to the large majority of non-violent, decent Muslims who are as disgusted by these attacks as the rest of us.

‘I have great respect for Muslims,’ he said, ‘I have many friends that are Muslims. I’m just saying that there is something with a radicalized portion that is very, very bad and very dangerous. I would say this, to the Muslims, when they see trouble, they have to report it, they’re not reporting it, they’re absolutely not reporting it and that’s a big problem.’

Is he so wrong? 

trump dr phil shrug

Share