Originally Published on the Sultan Knish blog The media coverage of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has one theme and one tack. Like 30 of the 31 men on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list, they were terrorists who just happened to be Muslim.
While the New York Times dispatched its best and brightest lackeys to Boston to write sensitive pieces on how hard it was for the two Tsarnaevs to fit in leaving them no choice but to bomb the Boston Marathon and then send LOL texts to their friends, it fell to a UK tabloid like The Sun to conduct an interview with the ex-girlfriend of the lead terrorist and learn that he wanted her to hate America and beat her because she wouldn't wear a Hijab.
There are all sorts of jobs that Americans won't do. Like pick lettuce, bomb the Boston Marathon and report honestly on the motives of the bombers. The only news network that operates outside the media consensus is owned by an Australian mogul who also owns The Sun.
Americans like to think of their press as freer, but it's only free in the sense that it voluntarily puts on its own muzzle. European tabloids get into bloody brawls with regulators. American newspapers have nothing to brawl about. They will gleefully report anything that undermines national security at the drop of a hat, knowing that they won't be touched, but there is a long list of subjects that they won't touch with a million mile pole.
In Europe, editors risked their lives to publish the Mohammed cartoons. In America, on the rare occasion that they were depicted, they were usually censored. CNN, which could show Kathy Griffin trying to molest Anderson Cooper, without the benefit of pixelation or a suicide button, blurred out Mohammed's face; assuming that Muslims would appreciate the sensitivity of treating their prophet's face like an obscene object.
The American media does not need to be censored. It censors itself.
Did the New York Times really fail to come across Tamerlan Tsarnaev's ex-girlfriend and domestic abuse victim while they were busily interviewing every single person in Boston who ever ran into the future terrorists? Doubtful. The New York Times may be incompetent, but it isn't that incompetent. If it could track down Tamerlan's old coach, it could track down his old girlfriend. It chose not to.
So did every other paper.
Either The Sun is staffed with crack journalists who could do what no American newspaper, news channel and network news program could, or The Sun got the scoop on Nadine Ascencao because no newspaper on this side of the ocean wanted to touch it. And it's easy to see why.
Nadine talks about being beaten in the name of Islam, forced to memorize Koran verses and being taught to hate America. Most journalists on this side of the ocean want quotes on what nice boys the two Tsarnaevs were and how, in true liberal fashion, no one could have expected them to do something like this.
Every background story on them is filled with the same pabulum, because the endless march of “We couldn’t have known” quotes provides the government-media complex with the plausible deniability it needs to continue doing the same thing all over again. If the people couldn’t have known, then it stands to reason that their government or their media couldn’t have known either.
No Islam please, we're American was the mainstream media's unspoken message. We don't do Islamic terrorism. We only report on terrorists who happen to be Muslim.
The only newspaper besides The Sun to do an interview with Nadine Ascencao was the Wall Street Journal; which just happens to be owned by the same tabloid mogul. But there is an interesting difference between The Sun and the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ piece doesn't mention Hijabs, Koran verses or hating America. It doesn't mention Islam at all.
Co-written by a Pakistani journalist, it emphasizes only that Tamerlan was a bully of no particular religion. That reporter's twitter feed features a retweet from another Muslim WSJ reporter who broadcasts that the plans of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to head to Times Square amounted to nothing. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Nothing to see here is the theme of the media's coverage. Like a movie, it begins with inspirational tales of courage, and then just when the villains were about to come on the scene, the credits began to roll. It's only been twenty minutes, but the audience gets hustled out of the theater and told to leave their sodas and popcorn behind.
The "folks who did this", in Obama's patently false folksy parlance, were caught. Or at least one of them was. The sacred liberal ceremony of the Miranda warning was recited by a judge at his bedside and the trial will now move through the traditional phases of expensive lawyers paid for by the taxpayer pleading that their client was traumatized by our foreign policy and the entire story being shoved to the back of the media's coat rack behind the next sports star who comes out of the closet.
This is the surreal world of the American media, which wields its weapons of mass distraction with clinical precision, so that the news hour and the local paper are virtually indistinguishable in content from an old episode of The Jerry Springer Show. But it can't possibly spare the time for a coherent discussion of the real world motives of two men who carried out a major terrorist attack in Boston.
Soviet citizens listened to the Voice of America to find out what their own government wouldn't tell them. American citizens have to read The Sun and the Daily Mail, publications whose standards are slightly above that of The Huffington Post and yet, like the National Inquirer, have become one of the few outlets that will chase after the stories that the media has embargoed as effectively as Pravda.
Instead of wasting time on a dead end like Islam, the media has spent its time chasing down every other possible angle.
Did Tamerlan turn terrorist because he took too many blows to the head while boxing? Could the Boston Marathon bombing have been prevented if only we had let him win?
The New York Times assembled a touching story of an aspiring immigrant boxer radicalized by the petty restrictions of a government that wouldn't let him apply for citizenship because of his history of domestic violence and appearance on a terrorist watch list. But how does that jibe with the Tamerlan from five earlier who beat up a boy that his sister was dating because he wasn't Muslim?
When the media must deal with Tamerlan's theology, it keeps him in the category of the troubled man who turned to some wacky extremist version of Islam propounded by a YouTube convert. The man who beat his sister's boyfriend because he wasn't a Muslim and beat his ex-girlfriend because she wouldn't wear a Hijab wasn't some brainwashed drone who had his mind stolen by YouTube videos. He was a Muslim.
The Tamerlan of 2007 might not have watched as many Jihadist videos, but it would be a mistake to assume that he would have disagreed with their content. That Tamerlan might not have been looking at bombing targets, but neither would he have been upset and angry if some other Muslim had done what he would go on to do. Like Dzhokhar's two Muslim friends, his first reaction would have been to cover it up.
When it comes to serial killers and mass shooters, the media is conditioned to look for a break that follows some life crisis. But with Muslim terrorists there is no discontinuity, only continuity. A few setbacks might have made terrorism more appealing to Tamerlan, but that would not have happened if it had not already been on his menu of life choices. Or that of his brother.
That angle is the most terrifying one that the media can think of. It's the one that they can't touch. It's the one that they won't let anyone else touch either. If they have to mention the "I" word, they will sandwich it between "extremist" and "radicalization". But it's not Tamerlan who was the radical extremist. Among Muslims, his views were mainstream. The Wahhabis are in ascendance in most parts of the world, including the United States. Islamist parties roundly won the Arab Spring.
What was the difference between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and any of the Syrian Jihadists held up by the media as the epitome of courage and bravery? What is the difference between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and the Hamas and Fatah terrorists that the media peevishly contends Israel must make peace with? What is the difference between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and any of the tens of thousands of Muslim terrorists fighting in conflicts around the world?
While the European media, for all its faults, occasionally grapples with the incompatibility of liberal values and Muslim values; on this side of the ocean the topic is all but untouchable. There is no national censorship body that does this. Instead stories are held down by the weight of a consensus that insists the media exists to promote liberal values. All else follows from there.
The stories that promote liberal values are reported. The stories about a future Muslim terrorist beating his girlfriend because she wouldn't wear a Hijab are not because those stories create a sneaking suspicion that Muslim multiculturalism is incompatible with liberal values. And the incompatible Muslims, like Mohammed’s face, have been pixelated out of existence in reports on the terrorist attacks by disgruntled boxers, doctors and perfume salesmen who just happen to be Muslim.
These are the Muslims that the media doesn’t see. And it is doing everything possible to make sure that we don’t see them either.
Since the Boston terrorist attack on 4/15/13 we’ve been learning a whole lot about the two Muslim morons who blew up little children and severely injured hundreds of innocent onlookers and merry marathon runners.
Speaking of the Boston terrorist attack, how long do you think it’ll be before the Leftists and their co-belligerent compadres, the Muslims, start whining about building a mosque close to the finish line of the Boston Marathon? I’ll give it … eh … six months. One-year tops.
Back to getting to know the demonic Frick and Frack brothers.
Of the all the revelations spilling out about the two tools that rained terror down on Bean Town, I guess the one that really gets my goat more than all others is that Massachusetts’ taxpayers actually, albeit unknowingly, pimped these punks’ jihad dreams out. Yep, your tax dollar helped fund these wicked weeds.
Now, I’m not from Massachusetts and I’m not a Red Sox fan, but that sure as shizzle ticks me off, that somehow your hard won cash, over taxed by the state of Mass., was rolled into money for nothin’ for two Muslim asses to bomb your unsuspecting masses.
That. Is. Jacked. Up. People. Jacked Up. I’m talking Capital J … capital U … Jacked Up.
With this blistering revelation of Muslim murderers being on the government dole, I guess we must now instill checks and balances within our welfare system to make certain that they’re not going to hurt us, at least not on our own dime, any longer. No mas, jackwagons.
I don’t know if you guys saw the video released last February where a cleric from England, who actually pulls down a little under $40k from our snaggle-toothed brethren’s welfare coffers, said “free cash” is what we “kuffars” owe Islam. The malcontent actually called it his “Jihadi Allowance”. Yes, he said with preening glee, that we infidels are indebted to Islam for being … well … infidels. I swear, I’m not making this up. You can check it out here.
This makes me wonder if that same mindset has trickled across the pond to the miserable jihadists who’ve rocked up on our shores. Hmmm. Could it be? It appears it was, at least, with the two Boston Bomber twits.
So, what should we do people?
Should we urine test wannabe terrorists that desire our cash while they sit on their asterisks? Can we detect jihad in pee? No? Well, crap. How then are we going to know whether or not we’re funding someone who’s going to blow up a pressure cooker at the next marathon?
That’s a question folks. What do you propose we do to make certain they don’t get one red cent to spill one ounce of our red blood?
HBO's Bill Maher interrupted his show to warn a politically correct guest about the dangers of radical Islam. Are liberals like Bill Maher finally realizing that radical Islam is a threat to U.S. security, or is the liberal comedian having a unique awakening? Find out what Trifecta thinks.
What would motivate two young Muslims to blow up innocent men, women, and children? What did America do to deserve such an outpouring of irrational, blind hatred? In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings, it is clear that most Americans still do not understand the ideology of radical Islam.
Bill O’Reilly noted that America had been very kind to the Tsarnaev family, wondering how they could have paid back our generosity with such barbaric acts of terror. America is a great, open-hearted country that welcomed this immigrant family and made the American dream accessible to them. Now they kill and maim our people?
More than two decades ago, Daniel Coleman, an American intelligence agent, wondered what it was that fueled the fires of an obscure Islamic radical named Osama bin Laden. Reading one of bin Laden’s writings, Coleman observed that “one of the striking features of the document was that time seemed to have stopped a thousand years ago. There was now and there was then, but there was nothing in between. It was as if the Crusades were still going on in bin Laden’s universe. The intensity of the anger was also difficult for Coleman to grasp. What did we do to him? he wondered” (as recounted by Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower).
As Coleman was to learn, and as all of America should have learned by now, in the eyes of radical Muslims, America has done much to deserve their wrath.
First, America’s wars in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan are considered to be Western intrusions into the Muslim world, power-grabbing moves aimed at world domination, sometimes motivated by greed (= oil), always motivated by a sense of the superiority of American democracy.
What we view as wars of liberation at the cost of precious American lives, they view as acts of exploitation, as murderous incursions that are wiping out hundreds of thousands, if not millions of their people. (I am not supporting these views; I am simply stating how radical Muslims view us.)
How many Iraqi and Afghani citizens have been killed by American bombs? they would ask. How many innocent Muslim men, women, and children have been slaughtered? They will now inflict that same terror on us, not by dropping bombs on us from the air (since they don’t have the capability of doing so), but by planting bombs on our busy city streets.
Second, while Israel is known as the Little Satan in the radical Islamic world, America is called the Great Satan, and not only because of our support for Israel (although that is obviously one of our greatest evils in their eyes). We are seen as the champion of Western decadence, the chief exporter of sexual immorality to the rest of the world. (Tragically, the Muslim world in general sees this as the fruit of Christianity, since America is a perceived as a “Christian nation,” whereas the reality is that we have a great and wonderful Christian heritage but we have largely departed from it.)
In a USA Today interview in 1997, Islamic radicals in Egypt expressed their views: “They cite figures on the divorce rate in the United States. They point to crime and drug use. They talk about America’s preoccupation with sex. ‘You will never find these things where true Islam exists,’ argues Ziad Ali, 34. ‘Islam is the only answer, not Christianity, not Judaism, not Buddha. Without it, America is going to hell.’ He points to a young Muslim woman . . . who is fully clothed from head to toe and even wearing gloves. . . . . ‘That is how a woman must dress, not the way they dress in America, in Britain,’ Ali says. ‘In America, your women dress like harlots. They have no dignity. We want to change that here in Egypt so our harlots don’t go to hell.’” (Cited in my book Revolution.)
They see Islamic dress as preserving the dignity of their women; we see it as suffocating and oppressive. They see Sharia laws that call for the beheading of adulterers as safeguarding the honor of marriage; we see them as primitive and barbaric. (Is it any surprise that the media is now reporting that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was married and that his wife is an American convert to Islam who wears a black hijab?)
Third, young, radicalized Muslims love death the way Americans love life, being taught that martyrdom for the cause of Allah guarantees them entry into the heavenly kingdom, replete with 70 virgins (per man!) and many other sumptuous pleasures. In contrast, even the most devout Muslim in the world is not guaranteed acceptance into Paradise, since he might somehow have fallen short of the mark.
And if, in fact, there is a connection between the Boston bombings and Chechnyan Muslims, the tradition of martyrdom is very relevant, as General Mashkadov, a Muslim leader of the breakaway republic, commented on the tenacity of his troops in the late 1990’s as they fought against Russia: “I can only wonder at the strength with which my men fight. . . . All we can do is fight on, to show not only that we want our independence, but that we are willing to die for it.”
Fourth, our killing of Osama bin Laden is viewed as the cold-blooded murder of one of their most revered leaders. If Islamic soldiers assassinated one of our greatest heroes, how would we respond?
And so, bin Laden may be dead, but radical Islam is far from dead. We had better wake up to reality.
From the April 24, 2013 edition of "The Glenn Beck Radio Program"- The real story about the Saudi National who was originally taken into custody immediately following the Bostom Marathon bombings. Glenn Beck drops the hammer on Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano...Glenn gives actual evidence from The Blaze that she- and possibly others in the Obama administration- are involved in a cover up related to the Boston Marathon Terrorist Attacks.
Napolitano admitted Tuesday that a Saudi national once identified as a "person of interest" in the Boston Marathon bombings was put on a terror watchlist after the attack.
Last week, she refused to answer any questions about the Saudi, calling South Carolina Rep. Jeff Duncan's inquiry "so full of misstatements and misapprehension that it's just not worthy of an answer."
But today, speaking at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on immigration reform, Napolitano responded to a question posed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).
"Before the [Tsarnaev] brothers became the focus of the investigation, authorities questioned a Saudi student who reportedly was on a terror watchlist," Grassley said. "I sent a letter to you this morning asking for answers to questions about the bombers and how they interacted with your agency, I trust you will promptly respond..."
"With regard to the Saudi student, was he on a watchlist, and if so, how did he obtain a student visa?" Grassley asked.
Napolitano firmly responded: "He was not on a watchlist. What happened is — this student was, really when you back it out, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was never a subject. He was never even really a person of interest. Because he was being interviewed, he was at that point put on a watchlist, and then when it was quickly determined he had nothing to do with the bombing, the watch listing status was removed."
Developments continue to pour in on the Boston bombing suspects, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The latest report is that a judge and attorney interrupted an FBI interview with Dzhokhar at a hospital, reading him his Miranda rights and perhaps costing them valuable intelligence.
Malkin called the revelation "particularly troubling," and noted that it is "extremely telling that you have rank-and-file people leaking about this to the media."
Malkin said overall, the media seems sympathetic to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, painting him as "some poor innocent teenager who was merely a Holden Caulfield-like figure."
"This is not made up, this is not from The Onion. It's The New York Times likening this guy to 'Catcher in the Rye's' main character!"
Malkin went on to discuss some curious comments on the bombings by Secretary of State John Kerry, along with the reports that Tamerlan was receiving welfare before the attack.
On Monday’s episode of Fox News Channel’s “The Five,” Greg Gutfeld sounded off on those who have made it their primary focus to understand the motivations behind Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s alleged decision to place a bomb at the site of the Boston Marathon.
“After every terror attack each motive shall be discussed, but one,” Gutfeld said. “It is the terror that dares not speak its name. Well, actually it does speak. Our media just won’t hear it. Instead we explore the pain of the poor thugs. Which could be why some terrorists get movies made by Robert Redford, and others get tenure. So what do hacks do when they are wrong about terror? They cling to relativism.”
That relativism, Gutfeld explained, just doesn’t add up when you actually look at other types so-called extremism since Muslim extremism is more prevalent around the world.
“Yeah, Muslim extremism is no different than any other extremism. But in order to make that stick, you have got to suck at math. Muslim versus Christian extremism is not apples to apples. It is comparing Hurricane Katrina to a squirt gun, which is why they embrace root causes — the detached response to evil. Let’s simply focus on the personal turmoil of the bombers, not the real turmoil they caused.”
I’m not really in the mood to write a column. The reason why I’m in a foul disposition is I just saw the picture, taken a few minutes before the Boston blast, of the Muslim POS, better known as “Suspect #2”, dropping off his backpack filled with a pressure cooker bomb right behind eight-year-old Martin Richard, his little sister Jane, his mom Denise and scores of others. This image made me both sick and pissed off.
Minutes after this picture was captured, as we now know, Martin would have nails and buckshot blast his body to smithereens, Jane would have her little leg severed from her frame and their mom would have shrapnel penetrate her head at 3300 feet per second -- leaving both her and little Jane clinging to life and Martin dead on the street. This left me thinking: “What kind of jacked up people do this kind of crap?”
Well, by and large, it is the “Religion of Peace” who does this kind of crap with great regularity, that’s who.
If you’re not hearing this on the evening news please allow me to inform you that two Muslim young men did this. Not right-wingers, as Chris Matthews and Peter Bergen predicted early on. Not Evangelicals or Catholics as the DHS has warned Americans repeatedly to be on the look out for. Nor was it your generic “angry white bogey man” that Salon’s writer David Sirota had hoped; but at least two male Muslims between the ages of 18-35.
I say “at least two” because early on there was a Saudi national that everyone was real interested in who, by the way, will be deported next week. This is the same cat that Michelle Obama secretly visited in the hospital last Thursday. I sure wish that young Saudi male could hang out a few more days here in the states and we could have someone seriously interrogate him; but alas, Big Government says he’s got to go back home and quick.
How quaint. And how strange…
As stated at the outset of this screed, I’m in no mood to write. However, I would like to wrap this piece up by saying two more things: One -- my prayers are with the victims of this baseless slaughter of innocent human lives by Muslim men, again. And Two – you can bet your last buck that if I see a backpack dropped off by a religion of peacer behind a crowd of kids I’m going to tackle that mule.
Originally Published on the Sultan Knish blog 2 out of 3 governments agree that dealing with terrorism is all about having the right attitude. That, "Yes, we've been bombed, but we're ready to pick ourselves up and get on with our lives without drawing any conclusions from what happened" attitude that politicians patriotically advocate as soon as the carnage is over.
"Americans refuse to be terrorized. Ultimately, that's what we'll remember from this week," Obama said in his radio address.
But of course Americans were terrorized. Obama's message is that in response to the terrorism, Bostonians won't spend the rest of their lives locked in their homes, at least not until the next time there's a terrorist on the loose. But then again neither are Rwandans or Sudanese. This isn't so much an inspirational message as a pat on the back from a government that once again failed in its duty to keep Americans from being terrorized.
If America had refused to be terrorized, the Tsarnaevs would not have been admitted to this country or would have been shown the door once they started adding terrorist videos to their playlist. Instead Tamerlan Tsarnaev was free to slap around his girlfriend while his brother Dzhokhar was adding classic hits to his YouTube playlist like "We Will Dedicate Our Lives to the Jihad."
That ditty, from the hit-master behind “Hey, Shahid”, “The Holy Jihad (Rise Muslim)” and “Insallah, We are Waiting for Paradise” contains lyrics like "Paradise’s rivers softly chime/The 72 virgins lovingly whisper" and "Infidels rule the earth/for the faithful life is torture".
But while infidels might still rule the United States, though there are serious questions to be raised about who is ruling Michigan or New Jersey, life was hardly torture for the Tsarnaevs who drove luxury cars, attended good schools and got good media coverage. The good media coverage continued even after their bout of mass murder as the New York Times feature story on them was headlined, "Far From War-Torn Homeland, Trying to Fit In." And who can blame them for trying to fit by practicing some of their native customs of mass murder.
At some point refusing to be terrorized looks a lot like refusing to pay attention to what terrorism is. After September 11 the government encouraged everyone to get back out there and shop. The message now is take in an interfaith service and then visit your local mosque for a sanitized tour that explains how peaceful Islam really is. There's a lot of talk about finishing the marathon and MoveOn.orging on our way past the unpleasantness.
But there are two standards on being terrorized. When a mentally ill man shoots up a school, then everyone is obligated to be terrorized all the time. Children can be seized for chewing a pop tart the wrong way and the leading leaders tow around selected parents of victims to demand that the pesky Bill of Rights take a back seat to a special moral superiority vote from a former Democratic member of congress whose great achievement in life was getting shot in the head by another mental patient.
The next Adam Lanza is just around the corner. But the next Tamerlan Tsarnaev isn't worth bothering with. Gun control is an urgent issue, but mass immigration from terrorist countries isn't.
Talk of refusing to be terrorized smacks of governments handing out coping mechanisms for preventable acts of terror. And once we start going down that road, it's worth remembering that the timeless coping mechanism for that sort of thing is Stockholm Syndrome. Indeed the old Stockholm cure is popular in the media which is already beginning to disgorge explanations of alienation that will show that Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev didn't kill on their own, we made them killers by not showing them enough love.
It's not the role of governments to tell people how to get over a terrorist attack. Nor is it the role of government to violate the Bill of Rights using the act of a lone madman as a pretext. But it is the role of government to stop an international campaign of terror by a fanatical ideology from reaching these shores using the blunt tool of immigration.
Refusing to be terrorized is as simple as refusing to accept more immigrants from Muslim countries. It's not the least repressive measure ever, but it beats interfering with the civil rights of hundreds of millions of Americans who are not members of terrorist groups.
The difference between refusing to accept terrorism and refusing to feel bad about terrorism is the difference between refusing to be terrorized and refusing to pay attention to terrorism.
There is no need for Obama to play Therapist-in-Chief. It's not his job, even if he is better at it than he is at his real job. His job isn't to praise the attitudes of the people his administration put in danger by refusing to give Tamerlan the boot even after warnings had come in that he was involved with Islamic terrorism. It's to refuse to accept the presence of terrorists in this country.
Obama obviously won't do that job. But neither did Bush. Unlike empty paeans to courage by politicians with none of their own, that topic is not even on the table. The terrorists will keep on coming and after each new act of terror, the politicians who keep the door wide open for them will praise the indomitable spirit of whichever city got targeted this time around.
Americans don't need to be told that they have courage. It's a nice topic for a speech, but an even better topic for a speech is, "How I Spent My Summer Vacation Deporting Amateur Jihadists Who Claim Life Under Infidel Rule is Torture." One is an empty compliment. The other is a practical task.
A refusal to be terrorized should not be the task of the civilian population. It only becomes the task of the civilian population when the government is unwilling or unable to keep them safe. And then come the speeches that say, but don't say, "The bad news is you're going to be blown up, but the good news is you're going to be a good soldier about it."
Muslim terrorism doesn't just happen. It's not random. It's not inevitable. It's a known entity and it has a vector. When bird flu breaks out, flights from affected countries are suspended, but when Islamism breaks out in a country, then the planes keep flying and the refugees get resettled and the infection spreads.
America will refuse to be terrorized when it refuses to admit terrorists or potential terrorists into the country and when it begins aggressively deporting terrorist sympathizers from its cities. Americans will refuse to be terrorized when they demand a government that closes the door to terrorists, instead of praising everyone for their courage once the acts of terror happen.
Terrorism is a function of immigration. Terrorists do not come to this country on parachutes or sneak in by boat. For the most part they arrive here legally. They come through a door that our government opened and keeps open as widely as it can because its allied institutions profit from the traffic. It is more important for the government to keep colleges in the Middle East student business and to keep Democrats in the new minorities business than it is to refuse to allow this country to be terrorized.
We refused to be terrorized after September 11. We went shopping. We got back in the stock market. We fought two wars whose prime purposes was to get two Muslim countries to be able to vote for their leaders. And here we are again facing the same thing all over again. Except this time we get to trade Iraq for Syria and Boston for New York.
While we refuse to be terrorized, those who insist on terrorizing us continue swarming into this country. A hundred Muslim nations have sent their progeny to live their tortured lives here, until they grow tired of infidel rule and decide to do what they do back home. Kill. And then we once again can refuse to be terrorized at an interfaith service in which the clergy of the murderers stand side by side with the clergy of the murdered.
The day may come when we finally refuse to be terrorized. They will not do it by going back to do their part for the next shopping season, the next interfaith service and the next healing speech. They will refuse to be terrorized by closing the door on terrorism for good.
Col. Allen B. West remembers the 2009 Fort Hood tragedy, and his personal connection to the Texas military installation. The United States has determined that those wounded or who lost their lives at the hands of Major Malik Nidal Hasan should not receive the Purple Heart. Hear why Col. West thinks that this decision does not recognize the realities of the 21st battlefield.
The September 11 attacks (also referred to as September 11, September 11th, or 9/11 were a series of four coordinated suicide attacks upon the United States in New York City and the Washington, D.C. areas on September 11, 2001. On that Tuesday morning, 19 terrorists from the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda hijacked four passenger jets.
The hijackers intentionally flew two of those planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, into the North and South towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City; both towers collapsed within two hours.
The hijackers also intentionally crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, and intended to pilot the fourth hijacked jet, United Airlines Flight 93, into the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.; however, the plane crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after its passengers attempted to take control of the jet from the hijackers. Nearly 3,000 people died in the attacks, including all 227 civilians and 19 hijackers aboard the four planes.
Originally Published on the Sultan Knish blog
While the New York Times dispatched its best and brightest lackeys to Boston to write sensitive pieces on how hard it was for the two Tsarnaevs to fit in leaving them no choice but to bomb the Boston Marathon and then send LOL texts to their friends, it fell to a UK tabloid like The Sun to conduct an interview with the ex-girlfriend of the lead terrorist and learn that he wanted her to hate America and beat her because she wouldn't wear a Hijab.
Nothing to see here is the theme of the media's coverage. Like a movie, it begins with inspirational tales of courage, and then just when the villains were about to come on the scene, the credits began to roll. It's only been twenty minutes, but the audience gets hustled out of the theater and told to leave their sodas and popcorn behind.
While the European media, for all its faults, occasionally grapples with the incompatibility of liberal values and Muslim values; on this side of the ocean the topic is all but untouchable. There is no national censorship body that does this. Instead stories are held down by the weight of a consensus that insists the media exists to promote liberal values. All else follows from there.
