Muslims fear "backlash" from non-radical infidels

It seems that whenever there's a radical Muslim terror attack the liberal media worries that the vast right wing nut jobs will go after Muslims. We saw this after the radical Muslim terrorist attack on 911 of 2001 and 2012, and after Nidal Hassan (the Muslim psychiatrist whose business card indicated he was a "Soldier of Allah") killed unarmed American soldiers at Foot Hood--oh, wait--that didn't happen. There was no right wing nut job backlash. How can that be?

The "Paper of Outhouse" Washington Post published a piece by Kevin Sullivan, Sarah Pulliam Bailey and Elahe Izadi (whose father has a high probability of being named "Mohammad") about the possibility of an intense backlash against Muslims by the American public.

Attacking infidels and then saying you are worried about a backlash is exactly what Muslims have done since they began causing global warming way back beginning in 624 A.D. 

They always seem to point outward, never inward--it isn't them, it's you who are the terrorists. "You made me do it. It's all your fault." 

Doesn't Islam sound like an abusive husband after beating his wife? "You made me do it."

Rabia Chaudry

Anyway, getting back to that bathroom tissue called The Washington Post, the article never speaks about what has happened, it only talks about the fears Muslims have about what might happen. It's a narrative as honest as Hillary's explanations of her emails and Benghazi.

That kind of hype is what the left always spews after soft-target Americans are slaughtered in gun-free zones. But the left cannot name one actual backlash to use as an example of what to worry about. Not one.

The article's lead incident of "backlash" as described by Rabia Chaudry (her friends call her "Rabid") goes like this:

Rabia Chaudry kept her 7-year-old daughter home from her private Islamic school in Maryland on Thursday, fearing anti-Muslim backlash from Wednesday's massacre nearly 3,000 miles away in San Bernadino, Calif. (my italics).

"I think we are all feeling exhausted and very vulnerable, " said Chaudry, a lawyer and national security fellow at the New America Foundation. "I'm angry at those people who did this attack. And I'm angry at how this is being politicized. Everything boils down to, 'We should fear Muslims. And they shouldn't be here.'" 

Being fearful about a backlash doth not a backlash make. I know children who are afraid of the monsters under the bed, but I checked and they must have gone. And kids in a private Muslim school are hardly likely to cause a backlash with her kid.

It appears that Ms. Chaudry is feeling as vulnerable as many Americans are right now. We feel vulnerable because we have a president whose only balls are on the golf course. Chaudry feels vulnerable because, well, she's either hallucinating or lying through her tooth.

After every radical Muslim terrorist attack, Obama makes perfunctory speeches about the "unacceptable behavior," while refusing to call it radical Islamic terrorism. He does everything to protect the image of Islam, even to the point of insulting Christians about how we were responsible for the Crusades. His rhetoric is appalling.

Obama's attempts at moral equivalency between Islam and Christianity are as feeble as Anthony Weiner's attempts at trying to find true love on Twitter.

The Crusades was in response to the Muslims attempting to gain European domination over the Christians, not simply Christians attacking Muslims.

There they go again--pointing outward instead of inward.

P.S. Check out the New America Foundation. 

Tweet