Six U.S. military men have been murdered by Afghan security forces seized by what may be labeled Koran-Burning Rage.
Koran-Burning Rage follows Pastor Jones Rage, which seized Afghan Muslims after Jones burned a Koran in 201, inspiring rioting in which seven United Nations personnel were murdered.
Pastor Jones Rage followed Fitna Rage, which seized Muslims worldwide over Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders’ short 2008 film “Fitna,” sparking violence, threats and, as a bonus, charges that led to the Netherlands trial of Wilders for “insulting Muslims.” (He was acquitted).
Fitna Rage followed Teddy Bear Rage, which in 2007 seized Muslims in Sudan after a British teacher, whose class named a teddy bear “Mohammed,” was sentenced to 15 days for “insulting religion.” An estimated 10,000 Sudanese turned out to call for the teacher’s head instead.
Teddy Bear Rage followed Pope Rage, which seized Muslims after Pope Benedict in 2006 noted a historic reference to Islam’s propensity to spread by violence. Muslim mayhem, including the murder of a 65-year-old nun, ensued.
Then there is the recurring Danish Mohammed Cartoon Rage, which, since the 2005 publication of a dozen Mohammed cartoons in a Danish newspaper, has led to waves of Muslim violence resulting in the deaths of more than 100 people.
I could continue, but I think the pattern is clear. Critical discussion or representation of Islam spurs Muslims to violence. This violence spurs Westerners to apology.
But apology is always an act of dhimmitude: submitting to Islamic definitions of crime or grievance, which only under Islamic law require contrition.
Today, with the murders of American troops, Muslim violence is more brazen, and Western apologies, too, are more exaggerated. The United States hasn’t even quashed Afghan demands for a trial of those who disposed of several Korans.
Meanwhile, the chorus for punishment grows. “After the first step of a profound apology, there must be a second step … of disciplinary action,” Jan Kubis, the U.N. representative in Afghanistan, said this week.
“Only after this, after such a disciplinary action, can the international forces say ‘Yes, we’re sincere in our apology,'” Kubis said.
Or, rather, yes, we’re sincere in our dhimmitude. Demonstrating his own “sincerity,” Kubis continued: “We deeply, deeply, profoundly respect Islam. … We were very hurt that the international military allowed the desecration of the Koran. We rejected and condemned this act, it doesn’t matter that it was a mistake.”
Speaking for the United Nations, Kubis mimics the aggrievement of Islam. Indeed, Islam’s aggrievement becomes the United Nations’ own, as it draws power from the demonstrably more kinetic Islamic position.
The fact is, this whole affair, like those that precede it, is a power play. Feigned victimhood becomes a trap for the “perpetrator” — in this case, the U.S. military.
Falling for the trap means submitting to violent Islamic dictates to restore the peace in exactly the same way a “co-dependent” family member submits to dictates of a mentally ill relative for the same reason — to stop the outbursts, to make it all “better,” even if “better” is only a lull before the next power play.
Just as such actions bring a co-dependent family member more closely into the behavioral orbit of the sick family member, they bring the United States more closely into the behavioral orbit regulated by Islamic law.
They force the “perpetrator” into accepting the sacredness of an inanimate object, the Islamic position that a Christian or Jew is unfit (unclean) to dispose of the sacred thing without desecrating it, and the Islamic belief that such “desecration” constitutes a capital crime.
They force the “perpetrator” to act Islamic. This is the pattern of dhimmitude. We must break it.
Examiner Columnist Diana West is syndicated nationally by United Media and is the author of “The Death of the Grown-Up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization.”
