The attack plot in Kansas by the Islamist nutcase Terry Lee Loewen is a good opportunity for me to go over the main criticisms directed at me for my writings against Islam, not by Islamic apologists, but by fellow secularists. And while this is not the first time that I do it, some of the old objections never falls out of favor, which is why such posts become necessary every once in awhile.
To set the stage, let’s get into the mind of this psycho first:
Terry Lee Loewen, 58, was arrested on Friday morning at Mid-Continent regional airport in Wichita, according to U.S. Attorney Barry Grissom, after being thwarted by an undercover FBI investigation.
Grissom said Loewen planned to drive a car that he believed was full of explosives into a terminal at the airport and trigger the device in a suicide mission.
A criminal complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Wichita on Friday charges Loewen with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.
According to the affidavit, the undercover agent was told by the suspect on August 5 this year: ‘As time goes on I care less and less about what other people think of me or my views on Islam.
So when I make it clear that Islamic groups in western nations should renounce the doctrine of jihad, I haven’t gotten it all that wrong. A few more gems from the good Muslim:
“I hate this government so much for they have done to our brothers and sisters, that to spent (sic) the rest of my life in prison without having taken a good slice out of the serpents head is unacceptable to me.”
“As time goes on I care less and less about what other people think of me, or my views on Islam.”
‘I have been studying subjects like jihad, martyrdom operations and Sharia law.’
“I believe the Muslim who is labeled ‘a radical fundamentalist’ is closer to Allah … than the ones labeled ‘moderates’.”
“Brothers like Osama bin Laden … are a great inspiration to me, but I must be willing to give up everything (like they did) to truly feel like a obedient slave of Allah.”
“I don’t understand how you can read the Qur’an and the sunnah of the Prophet (saw) and not understand that jihad and the implementation of Sharia is absolutely demanded of all the Muslim Ummah.”
“Religion is not the main motivator for Islamic terrorists; US foreign policy is.”
As it happens, for Islamists, the “concern” for what the US has done to their fellow Muslims does not form in a vacuum. They develop as the individual becomes more religious, as evidenced by this example, and others before it. And while we are at it, let’s look at a few undisputed facts:
- Terrorist attacks coming from Non-Muslims in which the culprits claim vengeance on behalf of third country nationals are virtually unheard of.
- Grievances against the US government (legitimate or not) are not limited to Muslims, but those coming from Non-Muslims are not avenged in this particular way.
- Islamists themselves have, time and again, helpfully told us that the above points are not coincidences; the “logic” they use for committing violence on behalf of their fellow Muslims is traceable directly to Islamic Hadith: Muslims are one body (“Ummah”); if you attack one, you have attacked all of us.
And hence, the effort to separate religious motivation from a backlash against US policies is fundamentally misguided; religion is the reason they think this kind of retaliation is justifiable.
It is worth pondering for a moment why the culprits are never non-Muslims. The atheists claiming that attributing Islamist motivation to the Ummah concept “speculation” obviously have some sympathy with them, and think their grievances are legitimate. Why, then, is it that those atheists themselves do not become terrorists? If they are upset about “imperialism” just as the militants are, then why the atheists do not join Islamic militant groups? After all, those who do join are not motivated by religion, correct?
