We know who the terrorists were, at least most of them, and we will probably determine any who escaped detection, in time. But who else is the real "culprit", besides the perpetrators themselves? Does extraneous blame for the Brussels bombings need to be passed on to seemingly innocent parties? I believe so.
The whole concept of European compassion for the Muslim refugees has been blown so far out of realistic proportion, that it must take the "lion's share of the blame", certainly not for the bombings themselves, but for creating the casual circumstances that allowed the perpetrators to pull it off, at least as easily as they did. I recognize that it is always too easy to point the finger of blame, after the fact, but the circumstances are so dire that they must be freely, and thoroughly examined, if real measures of protection from future attacks are to be found.
I wonder if this level of what I consider to be profoundly misplaced compassion is virtually a byproduct of "Political Correctness", and whether this has it's roots in the high level of Socialism that pervades the European Community. Not to suggest that all compassion is dangerous, but to blatantly extend it to a group that contains elements of terrorism, and a society that supports this terrorism, and even approves of it, without participating in it, must be reconsidered, if only to secure the safety of the rest of society from the risk of future attacks. The love of freedom is certainly to be encouraged in all societies. But when the very freedoms that are extended to a refugee group are used to create a situation that so endangers the people who extended their compassionate hospitality to them, it is time to reconsider the wisdom of that compassion. I know how offensive this must seem, especially from someone who professes faith in Jesus Christ, but the same Bible that encourages us to, "...love your enemies", also tells us to, "..see the danger, and hide [ourselves]". God clearly expects us to use discernment in determining when compassion is called for, and when judgement is required, and to what level it is necessary to apply it, based on the circumstances that surround the issue. That's why the book of Leviticus discusses God's principles of Law so minutely; not that every circumstance that will ever occur is dealt with, but that enough of them are covered that reasonable people can draw just conclusions from similar aspects of Law, to conclude wise, and just decisions from similar situations, and circumstances. God did not expect everyone to recognize these principles, so He cautioned His people to choose out Judges who had demonstrated previously a capacity to understand them. Today, we have Politicians who have demonstrated a greater capacity for embracing the principles of "Political Correctness", than for understanding the necessary balance that must be tenuously measured, between compassion for the innocent needy, and fair judgement for the blatant criminal element, from which we all need protection. "Political Correctness" extends too much compassion for the criminals, while looking too hard at the innocent, trying to find some reason to Judge them harshly, not for crimes they commit, but simply because they disagree with the "Politically Correct".
The government in Belgium has come under some criticism for allowing the situation in Brussels to deteriorate to the point that the terrorists must have felt that the opportunity was too great for them to pass up, since terrorism was their goal. I don't suggest that I know if the criticism is valid, but if it is, then the voters in Belgium must hold their politicians culpable, and vote accordingly, or there will surely be repetitions of the recent attacks. The concept of protecting individual freedoms has become so sacrosanct that one nation's government intelligence is not considered relevant, and is therefore dismissed as false, and dangerous terrorists are allowed to go free until they blow themselves up, with a lot of innocent people along with them! We must recognize that the threat is so dire that we must pass laws that temporarily suspend some freedoms, with the condition that they will automatically be restored at some future date, unless additional laws are passed to renew them. This will give the voters the opportunity to hold their representatives responsible if the suspension is too harsh, or to allow it's renewal, if not.
The Turkish government is reputed to have arrested one of the bombers and deported him back to Europe, with the charge that he was a dangerous terrorist. The European governments promptly released him, and we see the result of their misplaced compassion in the headlines of the newspapers' accounts of the bomb blasts that followed. I'm not suggesting that potential terrorists should be locked up before they commit crimes, but neither should they be given freedom to roam around society at will, perhaps looking for future targets. When someone from a terror-prone background is determined to be a dangerous threat, he, or she should be deported back to the country of his origin. In other words if they want to continue to enjoy the freedoms extended compassionately by their host country, they must learn to quell their desire to enforce "Sharia Law" on their hosts, who don't want it. Let them return to their former homeland and try to explain why "Sharia Law" has brought nothing but poverty, and violence to their country, and why they want to extend it to other countries that do not want their poverty, and violence. The truth is that "Sharia Law" enforces the principles that force many to live in poverty, and the violence is used to keep them obedient to those principles, so that those who foment the violence don't also have to live in poverty!
No comments:
Post a Comment