Murderous Muslims behind Boston bombing – but the media fights shy of blaming Islam for the atrocity

THIS is what we now know about the Muslim brothers who carried out the April 16 bombings at the Boston marathon  and subsequently shot dead MIT police officer Sean Collier, 26: the men, known as “Suspect 1” and “Suspect 2,” were identified as ethnic Chechen brothers. Suspect 1, who was killed in a firefight with law enforcement, is Tamerlan Tsarnaev, age 26. Suspect 2, was 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. He was arrested shortly after, suffering serious injuries and unable to talk.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, left and his brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, left and his brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

But, astonishingly, there has been a noted reluctance in the US media to link their crime with radical Islam, even though it has now emerged that the older brother had been interviewed by US officials in 2011 because the Russian government was concerned over his ties to “radical Islam”.

However, he was released after the FBI assessed he had no connection to terrorist activity.

According to Eric Golub, writing for the Washington Times:

The question that was asked before the bombers’ identities were known was what philosophy, ideology or system of beliefs caused them to act. CNN and MSNBC immediately speculated about “right-wing nutcases” and tea partyers. As of 2013, the number of terrorist attacks involving members of the tea party is precisely zero. The last major terrorist attack that had even the slightest link to anything on the political right was Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh in 1995. Described as a devout Christian and Republican, he was neither.

Conversely, most major terrorist attacks in the United States and Europe in the last 20 years have been motivated by radical Islam. This fact is ideologically uncomfortable for some people, forcing them into imitations of ostriches. Defenders of radical Islam immediately point out that it is unfair to blame one billion Muslims for the actions of terrorists.

He added:

Let’s be very clear: Not all Muslims are being blamed. All Muslims are not terrorists. However, most terrorists are Muslims.

And he asked:

How do we defeat an enemy when we refuse to even call it by its name? How does the government protect us from terrorism when it refuses to admit where most terrorism comes from, opting to treat it as a general human malaise that is as likely to be perpetrated by retired Swedish school teachers, Baptist missionaries and tea party Republicans as by young Muslim men?

And he pointed out that the Fort Hood shooting was described as “workplace violence”.

Yet between the 1972 Munich Olympics, the 1985 murder of (wheelchair bound Jew) Leon Klinghoffer, the murder of Daniel Pearl, the blowing up of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the U.S.S. Cole, the bombings in London, Bali and Madrid, 9/11, the Christmas Day Underwear Bomber, Richard Reid the Shoe Bomber, and many more, there is one common thread. They were all committed by radical Islamists.

He added:

Call them what you like — jihadists, radical Islamists, Islamofascists — if they aren’t immediately at the top of your list of suspects after a major terrorist act, you aren’t serious about terrorism. You’re like police officers who start their investigation of a school shooting by interviewing the prom queen and the cheerleading squad.

This has to stop. If “an abundance of caution” to avoid a “rush to judgment” exists for radical Islamists after a terrorist act, then at the least we should avoid speculating about the involvement of political conservatives, who are statistically as likely to have done the deed as the prom queen is to have launched a shooting rampage at her school.

The International Business Times, not bound by the politically correct agenda poisoning the New York Times, has zeroed in on radical imam Feiz Mohammad as a source of inspiration for the Tsarnaev brothers.

Sheikh Feiz, as he is known, has created controversy in Australia and England. He thinks Jews are pigs and women deserve to be raped. He supported the fatwa on a Dutch politician and regularly broadcasts sermons from al-Qaeda’s spiritual leader Anwar al-Awlaki. This is the man who influenced Tamerlin Tsarnaev.

Will President Obama and Attorney General Holder acknowledge that radical Islam played a role here? Will the anchors at MSNBC or the writers at the New York Times? The poison spread by radical Islamists is killing and maiming people. Isn’t it time to stop it from being spread?

A murderous, cancerous ideology known as radical Islam has metastasized globally. It needs to be stopped, and admitting the problem exists is the first step to recovery for deniaholics.

As we grieve for those we lost and pray for the families of the victims, we must also honestly confront the fact of who murdered them, and who deliberately tried to assign blame anywhere but where it ultimately belonged. Only that way can we avoid putting political agenda above saving lives.

Also writing  in the Washington Post, Wayne Depree said:

If you wish to defeat an enemy, first clearly identify him. Listening to NBC and the rest of the main-stream media blame what happened in Boston this last week on terrorism was akin to hearing Edward R Murrow blame WWII on blitzkrieg. While both activities are best described as a military method or tactic, neither are actual enemies.

Two radical muslim terrorists murdered and maimed Americans, and NBC, along with other media outlets, refused to report all the facts clearly. And you wonder why they have no credibility anymore.

The reality is that in spite of the media’s best efforts, the information does get out. The people aren’t as uninformed as the media would like them to be, and media dominated by the state are deeply mistrusted … It’s up to the public to demand this perverse censorship stop. Letting this type of ‘reporting’ continue is a clear and present danger to freedom.

62 responses to “Murderous Muslims behind Boston bombing – but the media fights shy of blaming Islam for the atrocity”

  1. barriejohn says:

    All warfare is childish. It’s the logic of the playground that if you are stronger than someone else then that makes you right. My father fought in the War, and often said that playing by rules – like the Geneva Convention – is ridiculous when you analyze the situation, but we all think that that is better than the alternative. Certainly, if you can’t avoid bloodshed altogether, then civilian deaths should be avoided, but if a country is at war then who is really a civilian?

  2. Matt Westwood says:

    It is being said that the legal situation of the Boston bomber is complicated, as there are many who want to treat him as an enemy combatant. But there should be no such complication. The state of Chechnya is not at war with the US. Therefore they should be treated as civilians, and given the full benefit of the courts of law.

    The declaration by Dubya of a “war on terror” can not legally be taken to be a formal declaration of war. Otherwise there is a precedent that allows a government to declare a “war on litter” and treat litterbugs as enemy combatants. That would probably be a step too far for liberazis.

  3. charlie says:

    I do not wish any war go on and on. From the history I have read over the years, WW1 was basically a “family” affair in Europe as most of the crown heads of Europe were related to Queen Victoria in some manner.
    WW2 was fought because of the treaty after WW1 ended and in the Pacific due to the US trying to limit the ability of Japan to have access to resources.
    As to the atomic bomb that old Harry Truman dropped, Japan was already beaten before the bombs were used. They wanted to keep the emperor. Guess what? They got to keep him after the atom bombs were used. I tend to think the atom bombs were used to give Stalin a fright and to show all who the “new boss” was/is still today, the US of A.
    Every war is a useless mess. War is the ultimate failure to communicate.
    Yes, I do think the bombing of Europe and Japan during WW2 was cowardly. The bombing killed civilians who had little to no choice and most likely did not support the war. Yes, governments do drive up nationalism, but sane humans need to realize that and fight against it. I am disgusted by the moronic chants of “usa, usa, usa” Well, the US is number 37 world wide for health care. Really something to cheer about? The US IS the biggest debtor and the number one in weapons/weapon systems. Wow, big deal. Maybe if we quit making so many damn bombs and really started talking to other people we might have fewer wars. Just my opinion.

  4. Matt Westwood says:

    Good stuff that war does:

    a) Reduces the world’s population burden a little (although it’s only temporary, unfortunately)

    b) Provides a spur to technological development (and if you argue that this is a bad thing, turn off whatever device you’re using to read this and start growing your own vegetables).

    Just sayin’.

  5. Lazy Susan says:

    BarrieJohn – I fear you are making serious mistakes.

    First, “might is right” is generally used as an example of wrong headed thinking. When we say that the victors write the history books, it is with irony, not satisfaction.

    Second, “if a country is at war then who is really a civilian?” That attitude justifies any amount of murder of innocents. I am sure you can tell when a person is armed and in military uniform. Anyone else is a civilian (or perhaps a spy). Calling everyone an enemy combatant is what leads to horrors like Dresden or Oradour-sur-Glane (where the Nazis massacred an entire village.

    We humans know that we make war; I don’t think there has been a time in history when there was not a war going on somewhere. But we also do what we can to stop it being worse than it needs to be. Things like the Geneva convention are a huge step forward.

  6. Lazy Susan says:

    Matt – I agree, every cloud has a silver lining. For many people in the UK, WWII was the best thing that ever happened to them. The nation was united, with everyone working for a common cause; there was a career path for everyone irrespective of social class; diet improved despite the food shortages; anyone could learn new skills. There was certainly a huge cost! But it was not *all* cost. Big cloud, little lining.

  7. barriejohn says:

    Lazy Susan: That’s exactly what I meant! I said that all war, and in particular the principle of “might is right”, is childish, in response to your comment about childish arguments. I also agree with the Geneva Convention, etc, as I said, but don’t forget that the allies considered the bombing of civilians lawful during WW2, so where do you draw the line? My father was right – these “rules” are really ridiculous when you look at them in the cold light of day, though we are all in favour of them. He also thought that “Bomber” Harris should have been shot – a bit extreme, perhaps, but erecting a statue in memory of the mass murderer was hardly in good taste. Harris claimed that opponents of mass bombing were wrong because it “had never been tried”; he tried it and it failed miserably. Millions of people – including brave young airmen, lost their lives proving its lack of efficacy, yet the Americans continued with “carpet bombing” in Indo-China…with the same result!

  8. Lazy Susan says:

    Charlie – “Every war is a useless mess. War is the ultimate failure to communicate.”

    Agreed. It’s what happens when all else has failed. But it does fail.

    “Maybe if we quit making so many damn bombs and really started talking to other people we might have fewer wars. Just my opinion.”

    I hate to bring up Hitler, but how would you have handled him? I think you could have talked all you wanted, but it would have achieved nothing. Maybe you think it would have been better for Hitler to take over the whole world, than have a war to stop him? I’m not being sarcastic BTW. The Third Reich would have had to change if it took over the world – it might have become a model of efficiency and humanity. Since it didn’t happen, we can never know.

    Or looking forward, what do you suggest should be done if North Korea attacks southwards? Should the rest of the world help South Korea? Or isolate all of Korea until the spasm has passed? Or help North Korea? Who would you suggest talking to? What do you do if they don’t want to talk?

  9. Lazy Susan says:

    BarrieJohn – Sorry, I misread you then.

    I think I read that Churchill was quite sticky about bombing cities: he insisted that the UK should not be the first to do so, but was mighty relieved when the Germans started because it meant he could “legally” retaliate and get the Germans to take their eye off the RAF airfields. If Goering had stuck to destroying the RAF, and not been diverted into bombing London, the outcome would have been different.

    Two points – one is that behaving “legally” is tremendously important in practical terms. It allows you to keep some kind of moral high ground. This gives your troops who are facing the mud and blood and death every day something to believe in. They have to believe that they have some kind of justice on their side.

    The second is the ineffectiveness of bombing cities. What it does is draw the target population together to face the enemy. We get the “blitz spirit” of Londoners. To overcome that you have to destroy the city entirely; but then you come up against the legality of waging war on civilians.

  10. barriejohn says:

    LS: The country was not that united during the war – people look back with rose-tinted spectacles. There was a lot of crime, and looting, of course, and when Churchill said “We can take it”, some people told him “Where to stuff it”, just as many ridicule Dave’s “We’re all in it together”! The War also destroyed the career proepects of many young people, as well as taking away many lives. My father had joined the RN before the War to train as an electrician, and came out in 1945 with a successful career ahead of him, as he had plenty of nous and drive, but others weren’t so lucky. His best friend and school-mate, who joined up a few days after him, went down with HMS Hood, aged 21 just years!

  11. Marky Mark says:

    Charlie said:
    (Since 1945 we have only gone to war, declared and not declared, against countries that were unable to really pose a threat to the US homeland.)
    …This is because of our Military Industrial Complex (MIC), and something President/General Eisenhower warned about. They made so much money during WWII they did not want it to end. By lobbying politicians (bribes) they got their constant wars. They needed places to test out their toys and still do.

    Then there are the wars for resources that are corporate influenced. It is no wonder there are terrorist groups around the world that hate us. We have turned into the old British Empire, an Empire we fought against to gain our freedom and become a country. Our revolutionary soldiers would have been classified as terrorist by today’s standards.

    (End of rant and I apologize for being so long winded, but this old veteran is damn sick of the useless deaths.)
    …We have to work to establish a third party in this country, one that will make campaign donations illegal. Public funded elections will save this country.

    (As to the atomic bomb that old Harry Truman dropped, Japan was already beaten before the bombs were used. )
    …I disagree with you on this, the Japs thought the emperor a god, and were training civilians to fight to the death to protect him and the homeland. The bomb was a necessary evil. The Japs were like the Nazis, thought themselves a superior race, look what they did to civilians in China, and their rampage across the Pacific was for war resources

  12. The Woggler says:

    Matt – it would be better to have those things without having to rely on war to provide the impetus.