Lee Rigby, the 25-year-old soldier killed yesterday (The Daily Mail)

THE Woolwich jihadist, Michael Adebolajo, 28, became a serious Muslim when he was 15 years old, reports The Daily Mail. He is the son of Nigerian immigrants and, for thirteen years, he evinced all the makings of a future jihadist, reportedly alarming his family and friends. He became a self-appointed soldier for Islam and finally took his beliefs to their logical climax when he killed the British soldier Lee Rigby yesterday.

Such an act could have been prevented. But brilliant surveillance work that can distinguish the bad Muslims from the good Muslims will never work. All Muslims support jihadists in the sense that all support the prophet and the sacred texts that mandate brutal slaughter of infidels. There is only one sure way to prevent jihad in Britain, and that is to prohibit the practice of Islam — not radical Islam, but all Islam. Islam contains positive teachings and most Muslims are not murderers. But, as Bill Warner, of the Center for the Study of Political Islam, puts it, one cannot separate Islam’s political ideology and its promotion of violent conquest from its good moral teachings anymore than one can take yellow out of a rainbow and still have a rainbow.

Center for the Study of Political Islam

Center for the Study of Political Islam

— Comments —

A reader writes:

It is worth noting that there were women who tried to intervene. Their actions can be seen here

One was a cub scout leader whose engaged with the two men and dissuaded them from further violence. The other two simply knelt by the soldiers body; placed their hands upon him and prayed, all while his severed head lay beside him.

Compare their actions (deeply feminine ones in my opinion) with that of the female police officer who arrived too late to be of any use to the victim and managed to fumble the arrest.

This example of brave, demonstrative Christian faith successfully subduing militant Islam is not likely to be trumpeted in our secular liberal media. The British press shy away from anything that portrays Christians in a positive light.

Laura writes:

Yes, that’s a very interesting aspect of this incident, which I hadn’t had time to mention. The women didn’t seem to be afraid or intimidated. Two of them wanted to sit by the victim and pray for him. The other accosted the bloody Adebolajo. Ingrid Loyau-Kennett, 48, “jumped off her bus when she saw the soldier’s body lying in the south-east London street, checked his pulse and then tried to talk to the men who hacked him to death.”

To Adebolajo’s rant, she replied “Right now it is only you versus many people. You are going to lose.”

By the way, the press did not seem to shy away from reporting about these women and their intervention.

Ginger Eastman writes:

To call that Muslim murderer a solider is an insult to all soldiers especially to a real soldier who got hacked to death by a coward.

I hope you print an apology and retraction. That murderer is not a soldier. You dishonor all soldiers by suggesting that animal is.

Look up the definition.

Laura writes:

He is a Muslim soldier, which means he is brutal, merciless and animalistic, at one with thousands of other jihadists of the past and present. The Muslim soldier targets the innocent and disarmed. He was not deranged. He was fighting for his Islamic principles.

I will not apologize. However, you might apologize for outrageously accusing me of equating the British military with Islam.

 Buck writes:

I’m not watching TV or reading any news reports beyond the one linked here in your original post. I can’t stand the dull, monotonous, spirit-killing drone of public officials or incompetent media speculation and dishonest denial.

The setting, from the video or the aerial photos, appears to be a non-descript urban street without restaurants, shops or many pedestrians. There are high walls, barriers, and bland sidewalks. It appears to be off the beaten path.

If the scene developed as I imagine; the savages ran the soldier over, got out and hacked his defenseless body to pieces, before more than a small handful of people realized what happened. It was too late to stop it, as any unanticipated attack would be.

Then, it seems, they simply waited for the “shootout”. Most of the crowd seen in the photos are government personal who were called to secure and investigate the scene.

Because of the never-buckle-to-reality stoicism of the Brits, they refuse to arm and defend themselves. The two women (I can imagine the scene) who tried to shield the soldier while the savage Muslim hacked at his body, were simply physically and psychologically irrelevant to the overwhelming strength, physicality and purpose of the ecstatic Jihadist savage who was in the throws and focus of the most important act of his life. He flicked them away like the weak representatives of the West that they are. Then, their first task complete, the savages proudly and confidently presented themselves to the onlooking and mesmerized Eloi who represented not even a hint of a threat.

The whole scene is a depiction of death. The people on sight, with the temporary exception of the now traumatized, bewildered and guilt ridden cops, are all already brain-dead.

The only way this stops, is the only way that it has ever been stopped; by superior force. Islam will continue to come at us until we gain a monopoly on the use of force or when we break their will to fight. In 1400 years, no one has ever broken Islam’s will. The only way that Islam has ever been stopped and contained is by force. Their essence is Allah’s command to Jihad. It does not take a genius to discern a proper course of action from that.

Rob writes:

You make a very important point that Michael Adebolajo is a soldier of Islam.  But I think you should take the analysis further and not  downplay the implications. Because it is the implications – that he is a good, talented, loyal soldier of the enemy, that must be faced.

Adebolajo was not animalistic, nor did he target the innocent.  He was the very model of discipline.  He killed his enemy in the time honoured Islamic fashion, spared all the bystanders, was respectful to the non-combatants (women), waited calmly for the police and his shootout/martyrdom, and controlled both the scene and the media.   And all this without (as far as we know) any formal military training.

That Islam can produce soldiers like this in the heart of the West is really worrying.

Laura writes:

Thank you. Excellent points. I agree, although I think the way he chose to kill his victim was animalistic even though the beheading is a time-honored Islamic ritual. It is precisely because Islamic combatants are willing to use this gruesome form of execution that they possess such power. The price for dissing Mohammed is very high.

And you’re right. He didn’t choose someone innocent, not in his mind.  That was the wrong word. He chose an enemy soldier, as I originally suggested.

But many Westerners looking at him, with his blood-soaked hands, immediately jumped, I am sure, to the erroneous conclusion that he was deranged and insane.

Bill R. writes:

Regarding Ginger E.’s complaint, I think Laura’s use of the term soldier will survive comparison with its dictionary definition, and “soldier” must ultimately be regarded as a morally neutral term. Remember, after all, the Waffen SS were soldiers, too, even as they murdered innocent and unarmed civilians. So, too, for that matter, were members of the Red Army even as they raped German mothers and daughters during the Battle of Berlin. At the same time, however, to call this thuggish, jihad-inspired murderer a “soldier” and then to juxtapose it to the use of the same word for the British soldier who was murdered did seem, at least initially, a little out of place. One cannot possibly imagine two “soldiers” further apart on the moral and civilizational spectrum than the British victim and the “soldier” who murdered him.  Furthermore, the murderer hardly appears to possess the discipline, esprit de corp, or subordination to immediate command one usually associates with the term “soldier.” So while I can see up to a point what troubled the commenter, Ginger E., I think she went way too far in suggesting an apology since anyone reading carefully even this one post, never mind any additional familiarity with Laura’s views, knows she had no intention of putting this jihadist-thug on a par, morally or otherwise, with the British soldier he murdered.

Furthermore, Ginger E. might reflect, as I did as I gave it further thought, that one reason Laura may have used the term “soldier” for this jihadist was to underscore a point many people miss and that is that Islam regards war as the manner in which it expects to triumph on this earth, and wars need soldiers. So a soldier is a normal way for a believer in Islam to regard himself. It’s all the easier to miss this when we’re inundated with sappy, PC bromides like the British Prime Minister adding to his condemnation of the attack that it was “also a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to our country” (you notice how they never explain exactly how it’s a betrayal of Islam or, for that matter, just exactly what is this “so much” they’ve supposedly “given” to Western societies). It may not be fair to call this particular act in Woolwich the Islamic norm, but it isn’t exactly an Islamic abberation either.

Also, by using the term “soldier” for both the Muslim murderer and his British victim, Laura draws our attention to a comparison we, in fact, do need to make precisely for moral reasons in spite of the moral neutrality of the term per se, a comparison precisely for the purpose of illustrating the moral difference between these two soldiers and the cultures they represent, not any similarity; to wit, that this — this thuggish, meat-cleaver-wielding animal with blood-soaked hands, babbling some half-witted justification for barbaric, cold-blooded murder — this is indeed what passes for a soldier in Islam. Thugs, murderers, fanatics, psychopaths, these are indeed and in truth Islam’s soldiers. How proud she must be!  Oh what a theocratic eutopia surely awaits us all at the end of those gallant soldiers’ march!  Compare that to the decency, the discipline, the rectitude, the honorable comportment and dignified manner of a true, civilized soldier such as you find serving in the armed forces of Great Britain and such as you see pictured there in the person of the murdered Lee Rigby.

Mr. Rigby perhaps did not realize that the war he went abroad to fight had since come home to Britain because, frankly, and sad to say, Britain invited it there. Perhaps not the British people, but their elites certainly did. But being a disciplined soldier, and not a thuggish, jihadist soldier, even if he had realized it, I’m sure Mr. Rigby would have obeyed his superiors and not acted on such a realization unless he were ordered to.

Islam, let us remember, is a religion that believes in the historic process — in the kingdom of this world — and in Islam achieving its ultimate triumph on earth through violent conflict. Therefore, unlike the famous Christian hymn, “Onward Christian Soldiers,” Muslim soldiers do not march as to war, they march to war, period.

So must we.

Laura writes:

So a soldier is a normal way for a believer in Islam to regard himself.

That was my basic point. The original draft of this post said, “Two Soldiers,” and then within a few minutes, I changed it to, “Two Soldiers, One British and One Muslim” after realizing the inappropriateness of saying simply “Two Soldiers.”

Anyway, you have analyzed the comparison well.

Jewel A. writes:

Dear Ginger, in an asymmetric war you will have asymmetric soldiers. If we’d have learned one thing, it would have been that we are in a very new, yet very old kind of war. The enemy fights, kills and dies by its own rules.

The real enemy is the left wing political hacks who rule the media, the ruling class and academia. They are the ones who keep the rest of us from seeing the truth about the war we are in.

Bill R. writes:

The more I read your original post the more apt I felt your use of “soldier” was in the two contexts. The idea of a soldier is morally neutral but an actual soldier’s behavior never is. And a soldier’s behavior reflects the culture he’s fighting for; he presents us with a preview, as it were, of what life will be like under the regime for which he fights. The ends do not justify the means but they are likely to reflect and repeat them. Furthermore, it is the regime that picks, trains, and inspires the soldiers that fight for it, not generally the other way around, so what would be more natural than that soldiers would reflect that nature of the regime for which they fight? Now Islam may not actually recruit people like Adebolajo and 9/11 highjacker Mohamed Atta and others, but elements of it do, Islam is obviously their inspiration, the cause for which they fight, and Islam is not telling them not to be soldiers of Islam, or not to fight with such tactics, at least not in any meaningful way that I’ve ever seen. So would Adebolajo be a soldier for Islam if Islam really didn’t want him to be? How could he? If such behavior really was a betrayal of Islam how could there so many who, like Adebolajo, manage, at the same time — even within the same act — to be both supremely devoted to Islam and supremely devoted to betraying it? These jihadists couldn’t do what they do in the numbers and with the fanaticism they do it if it was really a betrayal. Islam wouldn’t tolerate it. We’d be hearing Muslims all over the world condemning his acts as a betrayal of Islam, and surely they’d put at least half as much energy into condemning it as we see them do when they really regard something as an offense against Islam, like a certain movie or newspaper cartoon. We know they would. If it was really a betrayal of Islam people like Adebolajo would be getting in as much trouble with Islam as Salman Rushdie. But that’s not what we see. When it comes to the Adebolajos and Attas the only ones who ever seem to end up calling it a betrayal of Islam are the British Prime Minister and the President of the United States.

James N. writes:

Of course the so-called “terrorists” are soldiers – enemy soldiers.

We would be much better off if this correct locution were used all the time.

One of my very first thoughts about 9/11 was that Bush should have given Todd Beamer a posthumous commission as a colonel in the unorganized militia of the United States, so that he could be awarded the Medal of Honor whIch he so richly deserved.

The reasons we don’t do this, of course, is so that we can continue to deny reality. If we resolutely pretend that we are not at war with THEM, then, magically, somehow, they will not be at war with US. Or, alternatively, we will be at a new kind of war, a war where nobody wins and nobody loses.

To accept the reality – that there are thousands of enemy soldiers on our territory, that a war which we promise not to win ipso facto is a war which we will eventually lose – is much too difficult for most people.

A reader writes:

My only comment for now concerns the use of the word “coward” [by Ginger E.] to describe the animal Muslim that murdered Rigby. Barring insanity, it takes a certain amount of courage to kill someone and wait for your capture. But the REAL cowards are Western elected officials (Cameron, Blair, Bush II) who are afraid to speak the truth about Islam and lead us to victory over this menace by banning the practice of Islam and Muslim immigration, and showing them the only thing they understand: overwhelming force like only the US can do.

P.S. – I emailed the Boy Scouts to share my disgust with THEIR cowardly vote to normalize gays in BSA.

Please follow and like us: