Mehdi Nedder knew the suspected Islamic terrorist, Mohamed Merah, only “slightly,” says the Associated Press. But what he knows about him now has him slightly more worried.
Merah, 21, killed seven people in Toulouse, France, including three children, who just happened to be Jewish, and three French paras, who just happened to be soldiers, before he was finally killed in a shootout with police.
He bragged he had brought France to its knees according to various newswire accounts.
"This person doesn't represent me," said Nedder. "What worries me is what society will say tomorrow in the bakery shops, at the butcher's or at the post office."
He should be worried. And so should all Muslims.
The world, you see, can’t afford Radical Islam.
Nor should it tolerate it anymore.
That doesn’t mean that the Judeo-Christian West can’t afford it; or that Israel can’t afford it; or that China and India can’t afford it. All of these regions and countries have long been burdened by costs associated with accommodating Islamists whose fantasies of a world-wide Caliphate are as grandiose as they are fantastical.
What it means, rather, is that no one, but mostly including Muslims, can afford to tolerate Islamists, pat them on the head and send them back to their cultural corner like a willful and precocious child.
Because Islamists won’t stay in that corner; they are armed and equipped with modern weapons, and a mind thoroughly embedded in the feudal past.
There is a debate going on in this country about energy policy that is complicated by the fact that too much of the energy the world uses is controlled by radical Islamists.
Judging by the $30 premium in oil prices, that complication is costing the world about a trillion dollars a year.
How many people can be fed, educated and clothed with a trillion dollars?
There’s a debate too about US involvement in wars and rumors of wars that at its most basic comes down to supporting liberty against radical Islamists.