"In the understandably intense focus on the Boston Marathon terrorism, let’s not lose sight of the fact that it was the second terrorist attack on America in little more than a half a year. The other one was Benghazi last Sept. 11 when a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed...[Yes] [O]ur enemy is not confined to al-Qaida but encompasses the whole jihad movement waging war against the West.
...
Right from the moment the bombs exploded in Boston, denial was in the air. Liberals at MSNBC and Slate began speculating — even voicing hope — that the murders were the work of white far-right extremists trying to make a point of the date of the attack, Tax Day...[I had not heard that. Incredible.] [T]here’s little reason to doubt that [the Brothers Tsarnaev] were immersed in the venom of Islamist jihadism...
Even so, the denial continues. The Boston Globe published an article headlined “Islam might have had a secondary role in Boston attacks.” It channels speculation that the brothers were more akin to the alienated killers of Columbine than Islamist terrorists. But there’s no getting around the Islamism drenching the two of them. We’ve seen this denial before. The 2009 attack at Fort Hood by Nidal Hasan that killed 13 Americans is labeled by the Obama administration as “workplace violence” even though Hasan had been in contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, a jihadist deemed so dangerous that Obama had him killed in a drone attack.[Absolutely right, that attack was clearly Muslim terrorism also but I did not know the Obamas classified it as "workplace violence." The Obamas and their supporters, like the New York Times and Thomas L. Friedman, are in denial as this writer says, but I would go farther: it is appeasement created by fear. Neville Chamberlain feared war more than anything, including Hitler. He knew what Hitler was doing as Germany re-armed and began making territorial demands to the east--it was all laid out in Mein Kampf. Chamberlain went into denial about Hitler and Mein Kampf and sought to appease Hitler with Czechoslovakia. (Churchill, no appeaser, called Mein Kampf "the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message.") The Obamas, the New York Times, Mr. Friedman and, apparently MSNBC and Salon, will deny, deny, until they die. They are appeasers.]
...
Then, there’s the desire, in accordance with our history of tolerance, not to taint Muslims in general with the crimes of fanatics. [This is hard, too hard for the Obamas, et al, but we can do that. The German people supported Hitler; the Japanese people supported Hirohito. World War II was a war of peoples, not just governments. So too do the people of Islam make war on America and Israel. I have read the Koran, every turgid, pregnant page. It is an ugly, vicious text. I find support for terrorism in virtually every surah. The wonder, to me, is that any believer in the Koran is not a terrorist. But there are Muslims who are not terrorists. I know two lawyers who are Muslims. And we can wage war against Islam and against the Muslim people without warring against every single Muslim. We can do that and we do, we do that now. We don't war enough against Islam. The police should have been watching Tamerlan Tsarnaev; that Muslim should never have been allowed into a crowd of people with a backpack without being stopped and questioned. Because of the Koran all Muslims in America should be watched, not stopped, watched. If, as with Tsarnaev, there is reason to believe any Muslim might act on the Koran's teachings, then he should be stopped. We can not be in denial about the Koran any more than we could about Mein Kampf.]
But it gets ridiculous when the AP rewrites its stylebook to separate the word Islamist from the violence so often associated with it.[Didn't know that. Not sure I understand it. Maybe I'll look it up. No.] The tone-deft Council on American-Islamic Relations complained the word is a description for “Muslims we don’t like.” No, [No? What do you mean "No?" Yes! I don't like Islamists. Who amongst us likes Islamists?... FBI, go interrogate that guy who raised his hand.] it’s a word for Muslims who don’t like us, who killed us in Boston, Benghazi, New York and Washington, and who are at war with Western humanist values. [Yes, yes, and yes. Sorry, si.]
...
All this denial engenders a politically correct attitude that can impede our defenses...[ditto]Boston marks the fifth time the FBI investigated someone for possible terrorism links and the individuals subsequently attacked Americans."[Swine FBI.]
...
Right from the moment the bombs exploded in Boston, denial was in the air. Liberals at MSNBC and Slate began speculating — even voicing hope — that the murders were the work of white far-right extremists trying to make a point of the date of the attack, Tax Day...[I had not heard that. Incredible.] [T]here’s little reason to doubt that [the Brothers Tsarnaev] were immersed in the venom of Islamist jihadism...
Even so, the denial continues. The Boston Globe published an article headlined “Islam might have had a secondary role in Boston attacks.” It channels speculation that the brothers were more akin to the alienated killers of Columbine than Islamist terrorists. But there’s no getting around the Islamism drenching the two of them. We’ve seen this denial before. The 2009 attack at Fort Hood by Nidal Hasan that killed 13 Americans is labeled by the Obama administration as “workplace violence” even though Hasan had been in contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, a jihadist deemed so dangerous that Obama had him killed in a drone attack.[Absolutely right, that attack was clearly Muslim terrorism also but I did not know the Obamas classified it as "workplace violence." The Obamas and their supporters, like the New York Times and Thomas L. Friedman, are in denial as this writer says, but I would go farther: it is appeasement created by fear. Neville Chamberlain feared war more than anything, including Hitler. He knew what Hitler was doing as Germany re-armed and began making territorial demands to the east--it was all laid out in Mein Kampf. Chamberlain went into denial about Hitler and Mein Kampf and sought to appease Hitler with Czechoslovakia. (Churchill, no appeaser, called Mein Kampf "the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message.") The Obamas, the New York Times, Mr. Friedman and, apparently MSNBC and Salon, will deny, deny, until they die. They are appeasers.]
...
Then, there’s the desire, in accordance with our history of tolerance, not to taint Muslims in general with the crimes of fanatics. [This is hard, too hard for the Obamas, et al, but we can do that. The German people supported Hitler; the Japanese people supported Hirohito. World War II was a war of peoples, not just governments. So too do the people of Islam make war on America and Israel. I have read the Koran, every turgid, pregnant page. It is an ugly, vicious text. I find support for terrorism in virtually every surah. The wonder, to me, is that any believer in the Koran is not a terrorist. But there are Muslims who are not terrorists. I know two lawyers who are Muslims. And we can wage war against Islam and against the Muslim people without warring against every single Muslim. We can do that and we do, we do that now. We don't war enough against Islam. The police should have been watching Tamerlan Tsarnaev; that Muslim should never have been allowed into a crowd of people with a backpack without being stopped and questioned. Because of the Koran all Muslims in America should be watched, not stopped, watched. If, as with Tsarnaev, there is reason to believe any Muslim might act on the Koran's teachings, then he should be stopped. We can not be in denial about the Koran any more than we could about Mein Kampf.]
But it gets ridiculous when the AP rewrites its stylebook to separate the word Islamist from the violence so often associated with it.[Didn't know that. Not sure I understand it. Maybe I'll look it up. No.] The tone-deft Council on American-Islamic Relations complained the word is a description for “Muslims we don’t like.” No, [No? What do you mean "No?" Yes! I don't like Islamists. Who amongst us likes Islamists?... FBI, go interrogate that guy who raised his hand.] it’s a word for Muslims who don’t like us, who killed us in Boston, Benghazi, New York and Washington, and who are at war with Western humanist values. [Yes, yes, and yes. Sorry, si.]
...
All this denial engenders a politically correct attitude that can impede our defenses...[ditto]Boston marks the fifth time the FBI investigated someone for possible terrorism links and the individuals subsequently attacked Americans."[Swine FBI.]
