It is ironic isn't it?
On week after eight Muslim doctors were taken into custody for plotting three car bomb attacks in the U.K. only a week ago, and following the discovery of a plot in which forty-five Muslim doctors intend to penetrate America's borders and do the same thing - the reigning champion on Jeopardy this very weekend - is a Muslim doctor.
He's smart, well put together, and very, very knowledgeable about all of the categories in his two day run that relate especially to American politics, relatively unknown heads of state in the Middle East, and fared very well on some relatively obscure chemistry questions too.
Does that make him a jihadi bomber?
I'm not asserting anything of the sort - but the questions now run through my mind that didn't only two weeks ago.
We were told by liberals, and the anti-war left that these poor Muslims were acting out against the United States because of western aggression and 'unfair' economic policies that locked the jihadis in dirt poor conditions. We were told that they were just uneducated blokes whose only possible avenue of response had to be violence against innocent people.
I guess that line of reasoning doesn't hold up when 53 prominent, highly educated, and evidently pretty financially mobile physicians have decided that they will use their Mercedes, Land Rovers, and Jeep Cherokees to destroy us several dozen at a time.
Reacting to the newly uncovered "45 doc" plot against the U.S. this week I observed on my Monday broadcast that it seemed the terrorists had observed our decision to cast suspicion against "poor jihadis" and simply altered their tactics to be less noticeable. Physicians are able to move much more easily from nation to nation, and after all they've taken the Hippocratic Oath to uphold life... right?
As my phone lines lit up one caller, 'Debbie' from Philadelphia, professed to working as an airline flight attendant, she recounted multiple eerie and creepy encounters with Muslim men on recent flights. Her estimation was that these men were purposefully "testing her reaction" as well as the rest of the crew to see what would be done. From one passenger going to the lavatory only to return wearing a bandana (a la 'United 93') to an Arab male who refused to take his seat because he was asked to by a mere woman.
The very next caller was 'Ellie' from Brooklyn; she chastised me for allowing Debbie to tell of her experiences. She launched accusations of Americans’ ignorance when it came to Arab/Muslim customs. She hatefully espoused that 'Debbie' was bigoted for having felt the least bit odd, when in fact "odd" things were happening around her. And in one mad rampant spew at the end of her call she accused me of needing "sensitivity" training, instructing me to use my air-time to spread the truth about Islam and to teach its true meaning.
I replied by responding that the concerns Debbie had, were not the least akin to bigotry. The airline flight attendant is the rule of law on international flights, when she tells the man politely to park his backside in his seat, I could care less what his Arab or Muslim culture informs him of. He has but one responsibility - and that is - to sit the heck down.
It was the observation of many of my show's staff that Ellie was quite likely a plant of some sort, attempting to disseminate exactly what our enemy wants us to think.
And on that initiative - they seem to be winning.
On Friday British Prime Minister Gordon Brown instructed his ministers to no longer use the word "Muslim" when referring to terrorist acts like the ones carried out in London and Glasgow. He also had the "war on terror" removed from the vernacular of the two week old government. His reasoning?
“There is clearly a need to strike a consensual tone in relation to all communities across the UK. It is important that the country remains united.”
And there it is again, that same blasted idea of a "consensual tone."
But does anyone ask the question, "What are we consenting to?" Nobody is arguing persecution for any one religious or ethnic group here, but for the record I'm fed up with all the "consensual tone" we westerners have had to concede on the issue.
Saying "it is important that the country remains united" begs the same question.
United around what?
It seems to me that the enemy is given lots of cover when we force the matter of linguistic correctness upon the masses. We have bent over backwards so as to not offend Arabs and Muslims. So much so that some are starting to ask - when are the Arabs and Muslims going to start helping us with these issues of security?
If consensus must be had then let it be the Muslim community who demonstrates their willingness to work with the larger society by conducting thorough internal investigations, coughing up the perpetrators, and demonstratively wiping their hands of the murderous thugs. Let us see their unique outrage that they share our pain and are willing to stand with the infidel and against their brother - for the cause of justice... consensually speaking.
Up and until that day comes I refuse to criticize good and decent, hard working innocent people like 'Debbie' from Philadelphia who in the aftermath of 9/11, sometimes worries about odd behaviors she sees expressed by religiously self-superior Arab males.
And it will be a very long time, for me personally, before the phrase 'Muslim doctor' will be able to be uttered in my presence without some sense of defensiveness quickening my heart rate.
"That's 'common sense' for $2000 Alex..."