A couple of car bomb attempts fizzle in London. A flaming car crashes into the airport in Glasgow but there’s no explosion. What’s next, a string of firecrackers that fail to go off in Piccadilly Circus? What a bunch of rank amateurs! Is this what’s got everybody in a tizzy?

And then there was the so-called plot to blow up JFK airport. And before that, the so-called plot to blow up the Sears Tower. And before that, the so-called plot to blow up a number of Canadian landmarks and behead the prime minister. And before that, the plot to blow up LAX. And before that . . .

Beginning to see a pattern? If you’re a chuckleheaded leftist, the pattern is clear: As your hero John Edwards stated, the so-called global war on terror is nothing but a bumper sticker slogan and all of these so-called terror plots that never quite amount to anything are cynically used by Bush/Cheney/Rice/Haliburton to justify imperialistic wars, torture and domestic spying.

If, on the other hand, you are a normal, rational person whose worldview isn’t tainted by leftist idiocy, the pattern appears starkly different. To you, all indications are that the psychosis of radical Islam is spreading like a plague and needs to be combatted on every front, despite the fortunate ineptness of many of the terror attempts.

Nor are you surprised when you learn that some of the suspects in the latest wave of terror in Britain are doctors, and, as an al-Qaeda leader in Baghdad reportedly boasted, “those who cure you will kill you.” That’s because you understand human nature and realize that even the highly educated are not exempt from falling for evil ideologies. (News flash to the uninformed: Ayman al-Zawahiri, second only to Osama bin-Laden in al-Qaeda, is –are you sitting down? — a doctor.)

But the obvious threat of radical Islam has yet to invade the thought processes of people like Keith Olbermann, for instance, whose show on the hardly watched MSNBC is nothing more than a forum for a nightly rant against BushCo and the bumper sticker war on terror. And who did he bring on his show to provide expert analysis on the London car bomb attempts? Larry Johnson, a “former CIA officer” who’s been pooh-poohing terrorist threats since . . . Well, at least since he published a New York Times op-ed entitled “The Declining Terrorist Threat,” in which he said the following:

“Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.

“None of these beliefs are based in fact. While terrorism is not vanquished . . . terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States . . .”

Funny thing about that particular op-ed is that it was published two months before 9/11. Hel-lo-o! Does anybody think that fact ought to have tainted his credibility when it comes to assessing the terrorist threat? But Johnson is Olbermann’s idea of the dream guest. So, when asked by Olbermann what would have happened if one of the car bombs in Britain had gone off, he basically said that it wouldn’t have done much more than damage the interior of the car and maybe singed the nose hairs of any passersby.

Other explosives experts disagree with that lackadaisical downplaying of the potential damage and lethality, but let’s say Johnson’s assessment was right on the mark. He didn’t happen to mention that one of the theories of British police is that an initial explosion might have been intended to draw nightclub revelers out into the street where another bigger bomb in a second car could have been triggered, causing hundreds of deaths.

In the meantime, Ken Livingstone, London’s notorious Bush- and Blair-bashing socialist mayor, defended and praised Muslims in Britain, saying that “in this city, Muslims are more likely to be law-abiding than non-Muslims and less likely to support the use of violence to achieve political ends than non-Muslims.”

Really? I’d love to see the statistics on that. Livingstone went on to say that Muslims “have played a good and active and growing role in creating a multicultural society.”

Ah, now we’re getting down to the crux of the matter. It’s all about the warm and fuzzy dream that the way to achieve a utopian state of human existence is to skip hand-in-hand down the flowery path of multiculturalism. There’s just one problem, Mr. Mayor. When the unwavering belief in multiculturalism causes you to be mindlessly tolerant of the world’s most intolerant people (that would be Muslims) in your midst, you’re planting the seeds of your own destruction and, consequently, of multiculturalism itself.

The good mayor needs to remove his head from the clouds and get over the childish notion that any culture is as good as any other and that all should therefore be equally accepted. He could start by watching “Undercover Mosque,” a documentary produced by British Television Channel 4, in which imams and others are caught red-handed calling for the overthrow of the British government and preaching jihad, Islamic supremacism and mindless misogyny to the high heavens.

He might also take a gander at some of the polls that have revealed that large percentages of young, British-born Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers, want to live under Sharia law, think that death is an appropriate punishment for apostasy and want Muslim women to be veiled. In other words, Mr. Mayor, Britain is crawling with Muslims who, despite having been born and raised there, are less than enamored with the British way of life and prefer to see it replaced with something more reminiscent of 7th century Arabia.

Britain’s new prime minister, Gordon Brown, hasn’t exactly been Churchillian in standing up to radical Islam himself. Iranian-born journalist and critic of Islamism, Amir Taheri, said in a recent column for the New York Post that the prime minister “keeps repeating that the attacks have nothing to do with Islam — but, at the same time, keeps inviting ‘Muslim community leaders’ to Downing Street to discuss how to prevent attacks. If the attacks have nothing to do with Islam, why invite Muslim ‘leaders’ rather than Buddhist monks?”

That’s an excellent question, but in a Western world gone cuckoo for multiculturalism it doesn’t even compute. It would be discriminatory, racist and immoral to focus on any one group of people in the fight against terrorism, even though 99% of the terrorists are members of that particular group.

If one were so inclined, one could divide the world into two types of people: those who take radical Islam seriously and believe there’s a global war against terrorism . . . and those who don’t. To whom would you rather entrust the future of Western civilization?

Greg Strange provides conservative commentary with plenty of acerbic wit on the people, politics, events and absurdities of our time. See more at his website: http://www.greg-strange.com/

Be Sociable, Share!