By Brett Daniel Shehadey
Special Correspondent for In Homeland Security
In Garland, Texas, two jihadist gunmen on an FBI list opened fire on a crowd with assault rifles while wearing body armor at an event Sunday. Law enforcement officials told The New York Times that the event was a place to gather and share cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad.
The two jihadists were killed by a traffic cop of the Garland Police Department, who is credited with saving lives. A security guard and a patrol car were hit by a volley of gunfire just outside. The jihadists were said to have just pulled up and opened fire at the security guard at the gate. Their plan for entering through the fence-line was foiled.
The two suspects were believed to have driven from Phoenix to kill as many of these anti-Islamic attendees as they could. When they arrived, there were extra security precautions including layers of private, local, state, SWAT and various federal agencies like the FBI and ATF on hand.
The event is being characterized by some as anti-Islamic and as free speech by others. Few are considering that it actually could be both. Is a contest of satirical cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad worthy of murder? In some countries, and certainly to some people, the answer is yes – but not this country and not these people.
This is a first Charlie Hebdo-like incident in the U.S. involving cartoons and jihadist assailants, but it is only the beginning of a wider net, as two sides of the public face-off to pitch American political values against Islamist ones. Unlike in France, in Texas, many supporting these American conventions actually have an agenda beyond simple criticism. They are well known for their “Islamaphobic” leanings. But in this country, as in Europe, they have the right to free speech and to freely assemble at any event they choose.
As the cause of private anti-Islamic groups increases, whether fighting Islamist oppressions or Islamic political influence in the U.S., more and more anti-Islamic programs will likely continue to have the effect of drawing out jihadists and violence at home. If left unresolved by the American government and the American people, the end result could see retaliation in the streets by the relatives of unfortunate jihadist victims attending similar types of future events.
The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) put on the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest. They treat the War on Islamic Terror as an ideological war where the enemy is here and one where Islam is seen as incompatible with Western civilization and inherently evil. The two founders in the anti-Islamic American movement are Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. They are scholarly and not militant. For years, they have been under constant threat for their beliefs and their message by Islamists – they are under bodyguard protection and often stay at undisclosed locations. However, their events are always public.
The most unfortunate thing in a civilized state is that there are people that will kill another person because of an offensive art show; no matter how sacrilegious. Ironically, the strategy of “drawing” out violent extremists into the open is clever, but it can only work if it has the backing of the entire nation. It could bring out the worst to target these types of rallies and events but the people attending would be the bait.
The more politically divided around free speech versus hate speech that the nation becomes, the more difficult it will be protect the rights, freedoms and people of all beliefs. And both the rights of Muslims and non-Muslims must be protected.
It will likely become more difficult to protect American political values and the cooperation with the most orthodox Muslim states as American groups and events increasingly enter these religious affronts.
Lastly, while American should never officially support the Geller and Spencer positions on the religion of Islam, it will become increasingly difficult to wrestle the public unrest of separating Islam, the religion, from Islamists and international jihad. Nevertheless, America must do so as it is right not to judge religions for the sake of the few threats to person and nation. This could change, however, if more and more American Muslims or Muslim converts become indoctrinated into violence with or without the help of cartoons, foreign powers or terrorist groups.
Note: The opinions and comments stated in the preceding article, and views expressed by any contributor to In Homeland Security, do not represent the views of American Military University, American Public University System, its management or employees.