It's not unusual for the popular press and various wags to not only deny Islamism's role in one of the many incidences of terrorism that have become far too common in the post-modern West. In fact, it would unusual for the popular press not to deflect and deny.
Case in point:
Yes, and the real reason why Omar Mateen killed forty-nine people was because of steroids.
One can give an educated guess why French prosecutors omitted the graphic details of the Bataclan massacre but would one care to speculate what would cause terrorists to mutilate eighty-nine people in the first place? The terrorists were known to the authorities and ISIS wasted no time assuming responsibility for it. This is what the terrorists were proud of and what the authorities still failed to prevent.
Shuffle as one might, the I in ISIS stands for Islamic, the very ideology that fuels ugly acts of violence and even recommends how to carry these acts out:
(Sidebar: read the whole thing. Very informative.)
It turns outs that Bouhlel was an informant for the French eventually turned by the people he was meant to inform on:
At this point, it would be an act of utter stupidity to further deny Islamist links and influence on this and future acts (yes, future acts). Running around in circles is counter-productive in every respect.
The bigger question would be why do people deny this and in so doing enable and co-operate in these acts of violence? How is denying the bleeding obvious going to repair and save the post-modern West, a civilisation that ignores and shuns values that made it stable and successful for what is clearly a death cult that embraces lunacy and devastation?
For that I would really like an answer because I'm just not getting it.
And now, Rex Murphy:
Case in point:
The Islamic State group claimed Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel as a "soldier" on Saturday, but what is known so far about Bouhlel suggests a troubled, angry man with little interest in Islam.
Yes, and the real reason why Omar Mateen killed forty-nine people was because of steroids.
One can give an educated guess why French prosecutors omitted the graphic details of the Bataclan massacre but would one care to speculate what would cause terrorists to mutilate eighty-nine people in the first place? The terrorists were known to the authorities and ISIS wasted no time assuming responsibility for it. This is what the terrorists were proud of and what the authorities still failed to prevent.
Shuffle as one might, the I in ISIS stands for Islamic, the very ideology that fuels ugly acts of violence and even recommends how to carry these acts out:
“If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him. Do not lack.”
(Sidebar: read the whole thing. Very informative.)
It turns outs that Bouhlel was an informant for the French eventually turned by the people he was meant to inform on:
Yet another criminal known to security services has perpetrated a mass killing, the Tunisian Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel. Why did the French police allow a foreign national with a criminal record of violence to reside in France? Apart from utter incompetence, the explanation is that he was a snitch for the French authorities. Blackmailing Muslim criminals to inform on prospective terrorists is the principal activity of European counter-terrorism agencies, as I noted in 2015. Every Muslim in Europe knows this.
The terrorists, though, have succeeded in turning the police agents sent to spy on them and forcing them to commit suicide attacks to expiate their sins. This has become depressingly familiar; as Ryan Gallagher reported recently, perpetrators already known to the authorities committed ten of the highest-profile attacks between 2013 and 2015.
The terrorists, in other words, are adding insult to injury. By deploying police snitches as suicide attackers, terrorists assert their moral superiority and power over western governments. The message may be lost on the western public, whose security agencies and media do their best to obscure it, but it is well understood among the core constituencies of the terrorist groups: the superiority of Islam turns around the depraved criminals whom the western police send to spy on us, and persuades them to become martyrs for the cause of Islam.
At this point, it would be an act of utter stupidity to further deny Islamist links and influence on this and future acts (yes, future acts). Running around in circles is counter-productive in every respect.
The bigger question would be why do people deny this and in so doing enable and co-operate in these acts of violence? How is denying the bleeding obvious going to repair and save the post-modern West, a civilisation that ignores and shuns values that made it stable and successful for what is clearly a death cult that embraces lunacy and devastation?
For that I would really like an answer because I'm just not getting it.
And now, Rex Murphy:
The events in Nice should not be allowed to fade from our collective memory. An age of terror is upon us. The sight of the bodies of children on a highway in France should provoke a response that is far more permanent and substantial than doe-eyed leaders trotting out the tired litanies of “our thoughts are with the citizens of (fill in the location of the latest atrocity).” The merciless character and unappeasable appetites of murderous jihadism call for real and determined leadership.
No comments:
Post a Comment