Refusing to be Terrorized isn’t Words, it’s Deeds

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


obama arafat

“Americans refuse to be terrorized,” Mr. Obama said. “Ultimately, that’s what we’ll remember from this week.”

Words like that sound good, but they mean nothing. Terror isn’t just an emotion, it’s an action. If you are being attacked by terrorists, then refusing to be afraid is not the same thing as refusing to be terrorized.

Refusing to be terrorized means taking action to end terrorism. We have had too many governments that pander to regimes that sponsor terrorism, that invite in terrorists as immigrants and refugees, that turn a blind eye to their incitement to violence, and then after the bodies are scraped up and the wounded are patched up, come out and deliver a speech declaring that we refuse to be terrorized.

Speeches like that are a lie.

If the United States had refused to be terrorized, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would not have been allowed into this country or would have been kicked once it was clear that their interests were headed in a Jihadist trajectory.

If we refused to be terrorized, then we wouldn’t tolerate terrorist mosques and clerics, like the one that the terrorists attended. If we refused to be terrorized, then we would stop apologizing for profiling and screening terrorists.

It’s all very well to have a good attitude in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. But a true refusal to be terrorized is a refusal to accept the conditions on which terrorism is based.

Obama talks about refusing to be terrorized and yet his entire foreign policy depends on appeasing Muslim terrorists. He has tried to negotiate with the Taliban. He is trying to appease Iran. He has thrown open the door to Hamas. He has helped the Muslim Brotherhood come to power. He is mulling over acting as the air force for Muslim terrorists in Syria.

Is that supposed to be a refusal to be terrorized?

A refusal to be terrorized is not a good attitude toward being terrorized, it is a refusal to continue accepting terrorism as the normal state of affairs. It is a refusal to prioritize the feelings of terrorists over the welfare of Americans.

A government that refuses to be terrorized is one that will stop pandering to Muslims and stop bringing in more Tsarnaevs and Attas and Awlakis and Hasans into this country and start removing them once they are here, even if they were born here.

A refusal to be terrorized is a refusal to accept terrorism before it happens. It is not a refusal to dwell on terrorism once it has happened.

There’s a good place to start right here.

Rep. Peter King is calling for greater law enforcement focus on Muslim communities, arguing that authorities should put aside what is “politically correct” and recognize that America faces major threats from Islamic terrorism.

“Obviously the main international base, the terrorist threats are coming from the Muslim community,” King (R-N.Y.)said. “There have been 16 terror plots against New York [since Sept. 11, 2001], all Islamist-based. We’re at war with Islamic terrorism. It’s coming from people within the Muslim community by the terrorists coming from that community, just like the mafia comes from Italian communities.”

  • Texas Patriot

    What you are saying here is so obviously true.

  • Rothschild

    I agree; excellent article, but Americans are basically in shock and numb… when they
    became terrorized, like they were in Boston when they were searching for the suicide
    bomber…they were so terrorized… the terrorists could of basically walked away, because
    the people of Boston were so overwhelmed by it all..to me the people there were and
    are probably to a great extent paralyzed by the horror of it all; and no amount of
    clapping can heal those wounds.

    Being prepared and creating the conditions is the obvious and logical way to not be
    terrorized….but fear makes that next to impossible for them…in other words, they were
    as paralyzed as the terrorists were in their minds; probably similar to the feelings of the
    Israeli athletics, and the terrorists had at the Munich Olympics.

    But, how can they prepare, when all the information they get about the
    terrorists, even after the attack happened, the minute by minute news stories
    is all misinformation, infomercials etc.?

    As a liberal pacifist; I can just as easily spot a Palestinian terrorist walking down
    he street in the same way, as Israeli might…because pacifists renounce violence, so
    they then can see it around them…but, not everyone in the world is a pacifist, and
    Israeli…so they need other ways to prepare..that would be I'm guessing by drilling
    exercises such as a how to spot a Middle Eastern terrorist…things like that…but people
    will have to do that on their own…because, frankly, the government advises them
    not to prepare which is probably the opposite of what they advise the public in Israel.

  • Tan

    The saying from the video game Rainbow Six, "We don't negotiate with terror. We destroy it." This is the value we should follow, but unfortunately we've been doing the exact opposite for some time and it's making us look bad and weak. It's time to stop the hypocrisy and get serious. The question is will we ever?

    • EarlyBird

      Yeah, let's get our foreign policy and domestic law enforcement rules from a video game.

  • Texas Patriot

    I've been thinking about this issue a lot lately, and I think the Boston Marathon massacre is just such an incredible example of why Islamic ideology is so dangerous and ultimately so tragic. The Tsarnaevs' father can't even believe what's happened. He thinks his sons were set up, and he's sure of it. He says his younger son is "an angel", and most of the boy's friends seem to concur that he was one of the best of all guys to be around. How can a young man like that suddenly "flip" and set a ticking pressure cooker full of explosives and nails down next to a family with young children who are cheering at the finish line of the Boston Marathon? It's hellish and freaky and almost totally inexplicable. The only way a normal person could do that is if he believed that it was the will of God, and unfortunately, that seems to be exactly what Islamic ideology teaches.

    Do I feel sorry for the Tsarnaevs? Yes, I do. Not like I feel sorry for their victims of course. But in a way the Tsarnaevs are victims too. Their lives are ruined and their families lives are destroyed as well. Everything they have worked for is gone. Unfortunately, the Tsarnaevs are victims of a false ideology that provoke young men to kill innocent people for no reason whatsoever except to "terrorize" non-Muslims into believing in the Koran and teachings of Muhammad. The older brother obviously had problems. But the younger one seemed almost like the perfect young American. There is NO WAY he could have done what he did unless he thought it was the will of God, and that's the tragedy of it all.

    Until Islam is exposed as a false ideology that does not represent the will of God, there is no question that these attacks will continue, and there is no question that they will continue to make no sense except for the fact that they were provoked by Islamic ideology. It is no wonder that Muhammad's armies were so successful, but it's also no wonder that his empire collapsed upon itself. As a warrior cult designed to destroy other cultures, it is hard to imagine a more effective killing machine than an Islamic army. But that's the only thing it's good for. When it comes to actually building cultures, the only thing Muslims seem capable of is destroying themselves, and we've seen that time and time again throughout the Muslim world. The whole thing is a tragedy, and the only question is how long are we going to permit the ideology of tragedy to remain in our midst.

    • Mary Sue

      I guess even the father couldn't fathom that his sons would fall into the svengali like sway of one of Islam's many equivalent-to-Westboro Baptist Churches.

      • Texas Patriot

        I think many moderate Muslims have been shocked to see their children and their relatives being lost in this fashion. Unfortunately, the path of radical Islam is the path of war against non-Muslims.

        • Indioviejo

          There are no moderate Muslims, only Muslims. The fact that only some become Jihadist is a testament to human frailty. On this point alone we can not afford to receive Muslim immigrants, refugees, or any other kind because the root cause of terrorism is Islam itself.

          • ziontruth

            "There are no moderate Muslims, only Muslims."

            Or should we say: There are cafeteria Muslims like Papa Tsarnaev, and there are those who become strong in religious observance like his sons.

            It can happen in any religion, but with a non-imperialist one like Christianity all you have to put up with is a new Bible-thumper; with Islam, you have a likely terrorist in the wings.

            "On this point alone we can not afford to receive Muslim immigrants, refugees, or any other kind because the root cause of terrorism is Islam itself."

            Quoted for truth.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    Well, if not for Obama Inc's embrace of the Brotherhood Mafia, the landscape in America would be less receptive to Islamic jihadists and criminal illegals who assist them – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/04/20/iran-its-prox

    Ignore the Islamist-in-Chief and start demanding action – one community at a time! It can be done, but patriots have to be as determined as Islamic jihadists, many of whom enter its shores due to multi-culti dictates, as well as those who lie burrowed within, until they are ready to pounce.

    IF not, prepare to be as imperiled as Israelis, and that is that.
    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • Texas Patriot

      Every American president in the modern era has tried to "make friends" with the moderate elements of Islam. Unfortunately, with the Benghazi attacks and worldwide Muslim chants of "Obama, Obama, We're All Osama" on 9/11, it is no longer feasible to view that as a rational possibility.

  • Michael Copeland

    Church services are open to all.
    Mosque prayers and “sermons” are for muslims only.
    Non-muslims are NOT ALLOWED IN.
    Now do we see why?

  • Looking4Sanity

    "Never let a crisis go to waste" – The Obama Administration

    I think it is time we came to the realization that this kind of incident is actually welcomed by this administration. Aside from making a wonderful distraction from their disastrous policies, it simultaneously affords numerous opportunities to exploit the raw emotions of the masses to further their own ends.

    NONE of this is in the interest of the country OR its citizenry. Wake up and smell the collusion, America. Do you really want four more years of this?

    • F.K. Juliano

      Obama loves Muslims. He wants to bring more of them to this country and insert them into every nook and cranny of American society. This makes that harder, so collusion by the Obama regime is extremely unlikely.

      • Looking4Sanity

        The problem with your hypothesis is that it fails to take reality into consideration. Obama is neither a Muslim OR a Christian. He is a secular humanist with a one world government agenda. Anything goes with that lunatic. It's a shame that you don't see it.

  • F.K. Juliano

    To the Founding Fathers, Muslims were pirates who preyed on American shipping in the Mediterranean and most certainly unfit to citizens of a free republic. Thanks an overly broad application of the First Amendment and to the self-hating sickness of "progressives" who allows individuals of the ilk of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, that alien, malevolent ideology has managed to gain a toehold on American shores. It should be dislodged before it grows and devours everything free people hold dear. If a constitutional amendment is required in order to do so, then so be it.

    • Texas Patriot

      Every nation has the right to rid itself of individuals and groups whose overt or covert intent and purpose is the violent or nonviolent overthrow of the ideals and institutions that form the basis of its national identity. America is no exception to that. After forty plus years of terrorism since the Munich Olympics, it is now clear that the purpose and intent of radical Islam is to conquer the world and impose sharia law on all the peoples of the world. Under these circumstances, no constitutional amendment should be necessary to expel radical Islamists from the United States.

    • EarlyBird

      "Thanks an overly broad application of the First Amendment and to the self-hating sickness of "progressives" who allows individuals of the ilk of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, that alien, malevolent ideology has managed to gain a toehold on American shores. It should be dislodged before it grows and devours everything free people hold dear. If a constitutional amendment is required in order to do so, then so be it."

      And the ghosts of our Founding Fathers weep.

      Yep, the first impulse of any of you fascists is to destroy the Constitution. In your world that document is just something "progressives" and sissies care about that gets in the way of real Murcans.

      You don't deserve liberty, you disgusting punk. Liberty isn't for cowards.

  • Michael Copeland

    Refusing to be terrorized, means, apparently:
    Sending billions to the Muslim Brotherhood’s failed state in Egypt
    Sending F-16 jets, tanks, and personnel carriers, tear gas etc. to the same
    Writing off a billion plus of debt to the same
    Remaining silent while Christians in their cathedral are shot as police look on
    Remaining silent while Christians in Nigeria are slaughtered by muslim terrorists
    Negotiating with the Taliban
    Sending men and materiel to the Al Qaeda dominated Syrian insurgency
    Going absent while Americans were being besieged and killed in Benghazi
    And so on and so on.
    By their fruits shall they be known.

  • John Alexander

    And resisting effectively means attacking them where it hurts. Right now they rely on us to respect the lives and property of their loved ones.

    When we get serious we will start to really hurt them back.

    In a lighter vein the Chechen community of Boston have at least cleared up the controversy between Pamela Gellar and CAIR over the true meaning of "jihad".
    http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/
    There's a good take on that in: "My Jihad" at:

    • EarlyBird

      "And resisting effectively means attacking them where it hurts."

      Who is the "them" in this sentence, American Muslims? And how, specifically, do you propose we attack and hurt them?

  • brucemilton

    There has been a lot of publicity in the alternative press the last several years concerning radical muslim clerics who preach jihad and are alowed to give public speeches and invited to speak at schools and civic event in Boston. Concerned groups have been shouting about this problem for years. In fact the muslim slated to speak at the church where Obama spoke in Boston following the bombing has ties to radicalism. Governor Patrick, to his credit, cancelled the cleric at the last minute. If we as a society want to fight terrorism we have to stop radical Muslim clerics.

  • Michael Copeland

    The radical Muslim cleric is not wanted.
    The Mr. Nice Guy Muslim cleric is all right.
    Is the distinction safe? How is it made? What is the test?
    There is not a radical Koran and a friendly Koran.
    Denying any verse is a capital offence in Sharia law.
    As Walid Shoebat asks of the West,
    “What part of ‘Kill’ don’t they understand?”
    The Koran really does say
    “Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” (9:5)
    “…until the religion, all of it, is for Islam” (8:39)

    We have to question whether the ideology itself should be permitted in the West, Saudi oil or no Saudi oil.

    • ziontruth

      "The radical Muslim cleric is not wanted.
      The Mr. Nice Guy Muslim cleric is all right.
      Is the distinction safe? How is it made? What is the test?"

      This should be written in big letters and put in front of every policymaker's face. They tell us not to jump into conclusions and not to be prejudiced, but they don't give prudence any shrift. If you're wrong about a Muslim being a jihadi, you get hurt feelings at worst; if you're wrong about him not being a jihadi, it could cost you your life.

  • Texas Patriot

    "We have to question whether the ideology itself should be permitted in the West, Saudi oil or no Saudi oil."

    In 1973 when the Saudis first announced their intention to use oil as a political weapon, the West was looking at what was supposed to be the end of peak oil and gas production from our domestic reserves. Thus we were faced with the prospect of perpetual dependence on Saudi oil. Fortunately, that is no longer the case. With advent of horizontal drilling, advanced 3-D seismic technologies, and hydraulic fracturing, it is now totally foreseeable that the West will be able to wean itself from middle eastern oil completely. Even Israel has recently discovered large shale oil and gas reserves. In other words, the political weapon the Saudis have used to impose their political will and Islamic religious beliefs on the rest of the world is no longer as strong as it was. At this point, everything depends on whether we will be able to recognize and respond to the unique opportunity we now have to free ourselves from the economic and intellectual slavery to which we were otherwise surely and certainly headed.

    • EarlyBird

      You make a lot of sense. Yes, Islam in its virulent form is an imperial and bloody one. Though we will always have to be on the defense against it (including playing offense where and when it is optimal), we do ourselves a huge favor by making the Arab/Muslim world less important to us economically. When they no longer control a vital commodity like oil, and we are independent of them, we have more options, like getting out of their neighborhood.

  • Michael Copeland

    Important article: I ACCUSE, by I.Q.Rassooli, http://www.LibertyGB.com 21 Apr 2013, reacting to the Boston bombs,
    an ex-muslim's indictment of Obama, and others,

  • Tim Pottorff

    Mr. Greenfield always offers clear, precise and common-sense responses and solutions in his columns. Is it even possible in our day for someone that speaks honest and fresh words to be elected to office?
    When I hear people like Daniel Greenfield, Allen West, Rand Paul, Laura Ingraham, Rush and many others speak, I am encouraged that maybe…just maybe there are enough right-thinking people to change the course of this country.
    We are in a frightening scenario as a nation.

  • EarlyBird

    No, Danny, you hysterical fool. "Refusing to be terrorized," means refusing to completely undo our way of life because of an attack. It means recognizing that we do live in a dangerous world, and that our police and intelligence services are doing everything humanly and democratically possible to prevent such attacks, while knowing that some will still get through.

    Oh, let's back up to the "democratically possible" part, which is what offends you. You and your knuckle-dragging fellow fascists won't accept anything short of interring every Muslim in America, shutting down every mosque, banning immigration and declaring martial law until every Muslim is converted to Judaism.