When death stalks the land, make no mistake: He may look like a grim reaper, but he's really a grim sower. An entire sowing bee of experts has so decreed. Indeed, in their warnings about sowing division, our betters are so non-divided that they give off the faintly creepy whiff of fellows all reading off the same cue card helpfully biked round to them by the Central Commissar ten minutes after the "incident" occurred.
If division is the problem, the real division comes from the people who want to deny that Islamists are killing in the name of Islam and who want to carry on after a terror attack as if nothing as happened without mentioning that the jihadis must be defeated.
These people seem to think that if jihadis are named as the enemy, the dumb knuckle-draggers who sadly have European citizenship will confuse that identity with all Moslems and go on a "backlash" killing spree. Better to endure the periodic "lashes" of bombings than risk that!
But by refusing to say that Islamist jihadis are using Islam as a weapon, the people who want to just carry on are basically saying that there is no difference between the jihadis and Moslems. Why should naming and fighting jihadis paint all Moslems as jihadis? Isn't that assumption the true Islamophobia? Isn't basically saying that we can't fight "jihadis" lest the majority Moslems take it personally the failure of liberals to properly divide jihadis from Moslems?
While the minority that is jihadi-friendly or tolerant is distressingly high, the clear majority of Moslems don't support jihadis. But jihadis want to use the barrel of a gun (and the nails of IEDs) to compel Moslems to support the jihad--or else.
If we don't fight the jihadis--and help Moslems resist the jihadis--the jihadis will succeed in redefining Islam in their sick vision. Ah, the glorious end of division?
And at some point we may have to come to grips that maybe jihadis aren't trying to "divide" us. Maybe the jihadis just like to blow us apart.
