If you wondered about how the left would deal with terrorists, here’s your answer. They wouldn’t. Terrorism would be relegated to the same category as rain.
It most likely will not be you or your family that is killed. But if it is, that’s just the price you pay for being alive in the first years of the 2st Century.
‘War on terror’ — an exercise in folly – Los Angeles Times
Last week’s terrorist attacks involved a handful of men armed only with guns, grenades and homemade bombs. But they killed more than 170 people, closed universities and businesses, shut down India’s National Stock Exchange and did incalculable economic damage to a country that boasts the world’s third-largest military and internationally respected police and intelligence services — none of which managed to prevent the attacks.Sound familiar?
It should. It should remind you of 9/11, when 19 men armed only with box cutters ultimately killed nearly 3,000 people. And the 2004 Madrid train bombings, which killed 191, and the 2005 bombings on London’s Underground, which killed 52. Each of these attacks involved a small number of perpetrators. Each was low-tech. Each caused enormous psychological and economic damage in addition to loss of life, and each occurred in countries with sophisticated security forces.
Get used to it.
Because the Mumbai attack should also remind you of Timothy McVeigh and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which killed 168, and the 2002 D.C.-area sniper attacks, in which two men killed 10 people and caused so much fear that for weeks people were reluctant to go to shopping centers or gas stations, and the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings, in which one man killed 32 people.
The perpetrators of those attacks weren’t Islamic extremists. McVeigh was a white supremacist; the D.C. snipers were a disgruntled African American Army vet and his gullible teen sidekick; the Virginia Tech killer was a psychologically troubled Asian American student. They had nothing in common except anger and a desire to cause death, pain and panic. And they succeeded.
But there’s some inaccuracies in her fashioning of the approved narrative.
Nearly all the terror attacks that are taking place in the world today involved Islamic radicals.
But lets look at her exceptions. Timothy McVeigh a White Supremacist? Maybe, but I don’t remember anything particularly race based in his attack. In his eyes he was avenging the mass murder of women and children at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. If I remember correctly some of their members were not white.
But even so, the left regularly dismisses Palestinian attacks on Israelis as a justified reaction to the killing of Palestinians by the IDF. Or is that justification only available to certain groups? No whites allowed?
As for the DC snipers, they most certainly were Muslims. Take a look at the drawings from their notebooks. They themselves claimed to be Muslims doing the killing in Allah’s name.
The VT shooter? Definately not a Muslim. Nor did he claim to be one. But his attack was not a terrorist act. He made no demands, no statements, no thing political at all. It was the act of a sick, demented mind. But it was not terrorism.
The author knows this, but she needs a foil to deflect the fact that the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks a perpetrated by Muslims and have been for the past thirty years.
I certainly don’t think that all Muslims are terrorists. Anymore than I think all men are sexist or all whites racist,
But the Muslim community has taken no action to remove the radicals from their mosques. Did you see any demonstrations in any Muslim country denouncing the misuse of Islam in Mumbai? Me neither.
But I will note that the board of the Islamic cemetery in Mumbai did refuse the terrorist burial. That is the kind of thing we need to see more of. That and less excusemaking for radicals.