Let’s stop appeasing r̶a̶d̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ Islam

There used to be a handy term for people like those who refuse to name radical Islam as the cause of terrorism: Appeasers.

History’s most famous appeaser was likely Britain’s pre-war prime minister, Neville Chamberlain. In September 1938, Chamberlain travelled to Germany to make a deal with “Herr Hitler.” If Britain and other European countries didn’t make a big deal about Nazism, perhaps they wouldn’t provoke the fascists.

On his return, Chamberlain proudly waved a piece of paper in the air that he said guaranteed “peace for our time,” (often incorrectly quoted as “peace in our time”).

Of course, less than a year later, Hitler was sending his invading armies across Europe. He had taken Western Europe’s sensitivity as weakness.

  • john700

    I wouldn’t have a problem with Obama going to Raqqa to negotiate will Al-Baghdadi. 😛

  • Flyboy

    Gunter himself falls into the appeasement trap when he uses the term “radical” Islam. The term implies there are two Islams; one that is good and another that is off the rails and aberrant. Is this really the case? ISIS and other Islamic terrorist organizations say they are simply following the dictates of Islamic doctrine as written down and codified in Sharia’h Law. If this is true, and it appears it is, Islamic terrorism can only be as “radical” as Sharia’h Law – a legal code that is sanctioned by Islam’s highest clerical authorities and curries favour with a majority of the world’s Muslims.

  • Alain

    Hitler, like Muslims now, recognised weakness when he saw it no matter how the others tried to dress it up.