Dhimmi Doublethink

Posted on by

 
Reader Nosy writes us with his take on the Joel Hinrichs case. I am posting it here in its entirety without further comment.

     OK, so there was an isolated incident in Norman where some kook blew himself up outside a football game. He did/didn’t try to enter the stadium multiple times (but was/wasn’t turned away when he refused to have his backpack searched) he did/didn’t have an Islamic style beard, he did/didn’t have Pakistani room mates, he did/didn’t get involved at the local Moslem association, and this new security process has/hasn’t anything to do with the bomb in Norman.
Question: if it was an isolated incident, why change the entire Big 12 security policy?
Question: If the incident requires changing the entire Big 12 security policy, aren’t the security people expecting it to happen again, and thus it cannot be regarded as an “isolated incident”?
The two facts don’t match up at all.
It seems to me that one form of dhimmitude is to refuse to admit that the jihad even exists…

5 thoughts on “Dhimmi Doublethink”

  1. It seems to me that one form of dhimmitude is to refuse to admit that the jihad even exists…

    That is the most concise statement I have seen of the situation. It runs rife in academia apparently. To repeat my favorite line from yesterday’s reading, “Something so obvious only an intellectual couldn’t see it.”

  2. But his father says he was not a Muslim and the local MSA says they don’t know him, and no conclusive proof has been found indicating that he was indeed a Muslim. His death has been universally portrayed by officials and the mainstream media as an individual suicide, albeit in a rather bizarre fashion.

    Mosques: The mosque would necessarily want to avoid implicating themselves in his attendance at their place of worship.
    It would certainly subject them to intense scrutiny.

    Father: Of course his father will defend his honor. It’s part of what fathers do, even if mis-guided.

    With the college football season not even half over, of course the powers that make all the cash do not want to cause alarm. (while this may not be the main reason for downplaying what happened, you know it’s in the equation).

    The Bush administration should make a statement, I think we can handle the truth.

  3. Hmmm, the statements of fathers… Well, just look how Hassan Ackbar’s father describes him. Pillar of the community who was a target of racist policies and all…

    The reason policies like that get changed (even if there is no conspiracy involved) is because of a need to be seen by the electorate as “doing something” even if nothing is necessary, or what is being done is absolutely no help at all. No one wants to get caught in the crosshairs twice and get hit with Ed Bradley shoving a microphone in one’s face yelling, “BUT WHY DIDN’T YOU CHANGE THIS POLICY THE FIRST TIME??? [insert racist allegation here]”

    Once again, politicos seem to think a perception of activity is enough, rather than actual progress on an issue.

  4. If only the MSM would weigh in on this, we could do away with this nagging superposition of conflicting facts, and finally have the definitive version.

    Then we could get back to gathering enough grain to pay the jiziya.

Comments are closed.