From time to time we are urged not to judge all Muslims by the killings of countless innocent civilians by Muslim terrorists, clearly motivated by their religion’s endorsement of the waging of occasional “jihad” or “holy war” against “infidels.”

I certainly accept the premise that you should not judge all Muslims by the bloody behavior of a minority.  But I think it is fair to ask how it is that supposedly peace-loving Muslims can embrace a religion which among its fundamental tenets has the principle of occasional “holy war” to kill “infidels”—disbelievers in Islam.

The effort to paint Islam as a peace-promoting religion receives setbacks virtually daily with news of yet more Muslim terrorist slaughter in some part of the world.

Two current examples of the problem which peace-loving Muslims have in their efforts to disassociate themselves from other followers of the prophet Mohammad and believers in the Muslim holy book, the Koran:

Awaiting criminal trial in open court in New York City is a Muslim, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  The defendant has proudly admitted that he was the mastermind of the terrorist plan which killed some 3,000 people in New York City, damaged the Pentagon and fell short of a presumed White House target only because of the courageous, fatal resistance of a few passengers on a terrorist-controlled airliner.

Proud 9/11 Mastermind Has A Big Ego

The mastermind doesn’t present a very attractive picture of a follower of Mohammed.  His statements indicate that he takes great pride in his role in the brutal 9/11 killings.  There are indications that he will try to take advantage of a public stage to present his views in support of Islamic “holy war.”

Oh, yes, and he has complained that some pictures—for which he is quite willing to pose—don’t do him justice.

More damning to the Muslim image than Sheikh Mohammed’s ego-driven antics are TV documentaries which made their appearance during Thanksgiving Week in connection with the first anniversary of the brutal, unprovoked terrorist killings of 170 people in the India metropolis of Bombay (now most commonly called Mumbai. 

The documentaries included dramatic footage from tapes filmed inside and outside the two  hotels which, along with a Jewish synagogue, were the scenes of most of the killings.  Adding to the realism was the fact that there were recordings of the communication between the eight young terrorists and their controllers in Pakistan. 

The most remarkable new feature of the story of the brutal killings is the number of examples of the fact that it was all carried out by Muslims in the name of, and with the implied blessing of, their “God.”

One of the Pakistan-based controllers is heard giving these instructions to some of the eight young killers in Bombay as to how to dispose of captives:

“Sit them up and shoot them in the back of the head.  Do it, in God’s name.  Do it.”

Young Killers Told: ‘God Will Protect You’

As the controller asked the young killers whether they were in position to carry out this or that assignment of murder, the answer was never something like “Yes, sir” but always “God willing.”

Occasionally after a new order to kill, the controller would say:  “God will protect you.”

“Praise God” was also frequently heard. 

At one point the controller told young killers to switch their attention to a Jewish synagogue, because “killing a Jew is much more important than killing hotel guests.” 

One of the eight young killers survived.  He said the controller told him that “we would go to heaven.”

The Bombay slaughter was carried out under the banner of “The Army of the Righteous,” which had been created, with the support of the Pakistani military, with the original attention to focus on fighting against Indians in the Kashmir. 

What a bizarre sense of “righteousness”—brutal killings of totally innocent people simply because Muslim terrorists consider them non-Muslim “infidels” and killing them is a pathway to Muslim heaven.

* * *

Haven’t We Seen Enough Of ‘First Lady’s’ Body?
How About Dressing Stylishly But In Good Taste?

Personally, I have seen quite enough of Michelle Obama’s upper body parts, including the shoulders and the upper arms of which, I’ve been told, she is very proud. 

Isn’t it about time for the “First Lady” to dress stylishly but showing a little less—or perhaps considerably less—of Michelle and more of the stylish dresses?  (One wonders, incidentally, who pays for those stylish clothes.  The media enjoyed giving us such detail when the First Lady was Nancy Reagan, you might recall.) 

The question is raised, of course, by the dress which Michelle wore during the recent White House reception for the Indian Prime Minister and his modestly-dressed wife. 

The strapless gown, we were told, was designed by an Indian now living in America and involved three weeks of effort by 30 persons and included some “silver.”

Left unexplained was where the 30 workers worked (one could conjecture that it was in India), how silver was incorporated in the dress and who paid for the silver and those 30 workers.

By interesting coincidence, the same day that the “First Lady’s” sensuous state dinner gown was getting such attention, the news media carried the story of a fashion trend in the opposite direction.  The movement is called “Pure Fashion” and is intended to encourage less emphasis on sex appeal in women’s clothing design.

I suspect that the “Pure Fashion” movement has about as much chance of success as my modest (no pun intended) effort to promote the idea that America’s “First Lady” might well continue to dress attractively and fashionably without wearing gowns that would look more appropriate on a Hollywood celebrity at Academy Awards night in Beverly Hills.

West Point Appearance An Image-Builder
Or Was Obama Motive Too Obvious?

From the question of good taste—or lack of it—on the part of the nation’s “First Lady,” let’s turn to the question of good taste or good judgment on the part of President Obama himself as he chose the setting for his speech announcing his new strategy for increased American commitment to winning the war in Afghanistan.

Obama chose West Point as the site for his speech, almost, one could speculate, as if a world-spotlighted appearance at the U.S. Military Academy would to some extent offset the fact that the American people elected a president with absolutely no significant experience in either foreign affairs or military affairs.

I wonder if the president ever considers that efforts to promote his image along with his policies can be overdone, damaging the image rather than enhancing it.  There comes to mind, for just one example, the Sunday a few weeks ago when he arranged to have one-on-one White House interviews broadcast on five Sunday network TV talk shows on the same Sunday.  (He even used the same White House conference room and the same chairs for himself and each of his five interviewers.)

As I see it, inviting himself to make a major address on the hallowed ground of the United States Military Academy, where so many American heroes received their initial military training, may well have detracted from, rather than enhanced, the image the president was trying to project.

“Trust me and my policy for the war in Afghanistan.  After all, I announced it at West Point, didn’t I?”  If that was the president’s unspoken West Point ploy, I doubt that it enhanced either his strategy or, especially, his image.

* * *

Another ‘Sweet Sarah Memory
And How We Do Miss Her

When I reported last month the sad news of our having to have our senior dog, sweet Sarah, put down a few weeks before her 15th birthday, I was hoping that I could include a picture of Sarah, but a picture wasn’t quickly at hand.

Now one has now turned up and is presented below.  Let me explain the circumstances:

During my periodic (I was about to say regular) ventures to our basement recreation room for exercise on the treadmill, Sarah would almost invariably position herself at the head of the basement stairs customarily dozing there, awaiting my return.

She might have waited there under any circumstances, but I never put it to the test.  She was invariably greeted with some sweet talk, some petting and a snack, usually a small handful of popcorn.

The picture shows Sarah in a younger year, awakened and awaiting my trip up the stairs. 

And I find my voice choking a bit as I dictate this. 

# # #