COMMENTARY breaking news top stories world news politics headlines conservative news liberal news fox news fake news economic news socio political government news updates political blogs editorials illegal immigrant racism terrorism Trump Obama Clinton Mueller investigation dossier Russia China Congress scandal Sessions FBI NSA CIA intelligence science news election news worldwide news invasion midterm migrants republicans democrats, Schumer Pelosi Cortez
theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer
Saturday, March 25, 2017
Lo & Behold, London Terrorist A Muslim CONVERT ‘RADICALIZED In Prison’
Cheryl K. Chumley ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Stop the presses. The terrorist who killed four and injured more in an attack on London a few days ago has been identified as 52-year-old Khalid Masood — a Muslim convert.
This is not shocking. In fact, the only on-edge angle at all in the whole “who was the attacker” scenario that ticked from minutes into hours, post-attack, was trying to decide which political or law enforcement player would first announce the terrorist’s name — President Donald Trump on Twitter, or someone in British politics — and this time, whether it would be a Hussein, per se, rather than a Mohammad.
But the stereotype, offensive as it may seem, is rooted is factual analysis, not to mention historical truths. Prime Minister Theresa May told the House of Commons early in the investigation that MI5 knew the attacker’s identity, but would hold off releasing his name until “operational considerations” allowed. That’s code for Gotta Check the Terror Watch Lists.
And lo and behold, we find Masood was a Muslim convert who had possibly been, as Breitbart noted, “radicalized in prison and had lived in several areas of the U.K. known for radical Islamic activities.”
On top of that, ISIS claimed him as one of their own shortly after the attacks.
It’s really no surprise that Britain dragged on releasing Masood’s name and Muslim bent.
Here in America, how terror and crime reporting frequently plays is if Christianity, and particularly, conservative Christianity, is involved, then religion takes a front and center spot. Think Dylann Roof, the South Carolina church shooter. Think Robert Dear, the Planned Parenthood murderous attacker.
“South Carolina Lutheran Pastor: Dylann Roof was Church Member,” ran one Huffington Post headline in June of 2015.
“When I Found Out Dylann Roof Was Raised in My Church,” ran another headline from The Salt Collective.
And CNN, in December 2016, saw fit to make it clear in an online opening paragraph about Roof’s background: “Along with a long, hate-filled screed, the 21-year-old included [on his website] photos of himself burning an American flag, taking aim with a pistol and posing proudly at sites connected to the Confederacy.”
The New York Times, meanwhile, didn’t even make readers wait for the story’s opener to get to the root of the matter about Dear, writing in a headline in December 2015: “For Robert Dear, Religion and Rage Before Planned Parenthood Attack.”
And that piece’s lead? It went like this: “The man she had married professed to be deeply religious. But after more than seven years with Robert L. Dear Jr., Barbara Michael had come to see life with him as a kind of hell on earth.”
The common denominator of those stories?
Religion, front and center. Or, to be clear, Christian religion, front and center. But if Islam is involved? Again, here in America, the left-leaning political and media trend is to tread carefully, walk quietly and carry the smallest of sticks.
Think Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army major who shot and killed 13 at Fort Hood. It took years — that’s right, years — for the government and complicit members of the left-leaning media to call a spade a spade and classify his killings as Islam-based terrorism, rather than the more random-sounding and generic “acts of workplace violence.”
Even after Hasan said during his trial he acted in defense of his faith and on behalf of the Taliban, the powers-who-be in D.C., and the Obama fans in the press, refused to point to his Muslim beliefs in any kind of cause-effect type of discussion — as if one, The Religion, did not, in fact, lead to the other, The Violence.
So here we are, years later, fighting the same war on radical Islam, the same war Islam started with the West, and it’s more of the politically correct same. President Trump, to his credit, is much more blunt, much more honest, about the dangers and evils of Islam, sharia and the spread of Muslim ideology into the West. For that, he’s attacked as a bigot and religious persecutor. But he’s simply trying to keep America safe.
His views are based on history.
The website Religion of Peace maintains a “List of Islamic Terror: Last 30 Days” account, and on Friday, the numbers were this: 133 Islamic attacks in 24 countries, resulting in the deaths of 979 and injuries of 1,102. London’s wasn’t even the most recent.
“Four suicide bombers attack[ed] a refugee camp, killing thirteen people” and injuring 40, in Muna, Nigeria, the site said, citing an attack that happened after the terror assault in London, and was much less widely reported.
Other Islam-based attacks in the last month?
One in Tasil, Syria, when “a man is tied up and shot to death for ‘cursing Allah,’” the website states.
Another, in Paris, France, when a “father and son’s throats are slit by a family member yelling, ‘allah akbar,’” the site goes on.
Another in Bangladesh, when a “young child is blown to bits by a female suicide bomber,” it continues.
And yet another in India, where “an atheist is hacked to death by an angry Muslim over Facebook posts attacking religion,” the site states.
Where are the websites dedicated to acts of terror committed by those of other faiths, other religious beliefs?
The Council on American-Islamic Relations probably maintains a running list of non-Islam-tied acts of violence. But let’s be real here. Pretending Islam is not a frequent precursor to acts of violence and terror doesn’t make the bad go away, as some in the press and political world would have it believed.
Rather, it slows down the fight against the enemy. It sets the stage for unsafe living. And it advances a false narrative, all the while demanding those who know better shut up about the truth — or become a target of a concerted public relations takedown themselves.
British authorities could have announced Masood’s identity and Islamic ties early on in their post-terror investigations. But they didn’t. And they probably won’t next terror attack, either. Or the one after that. Because staying that on-point about the real root of terror would be a sizable admission — a size that would ultimately demand taking actions the liberal political world, in its See No Evil way of thinking, just doesn’t have the stomach to take. That doesn’t excuse the rest of us from seeing, and standing by, the truth, however.