Anyone still wondering what the jihadists all have in common?
Clockwise: Hate preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, “shoe bomber” Richard Reid, U.S. Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan Malik, Umar Farouk Detroit bombers Abdulmutallab
Several readers (and a few radio and TV producers) demand to know what I think of the media coverage of the Times Square bombing. But, honestly, this is becoming like Groundhog Day. Before the Times Square jihadist there was the ChristmasPantybomber:
When the president finally spoke, even making allowances for his usual detached cool, he sounded less like a commander-in-chief addressing the nation after an attempted attack than an assistant DA at a Cook County press conference announcing a drugs bust: “Here’s what we know so far… As the plane made its final approach to Detroit Metropolitan Airport, a passenger allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device… The suspect was immediately subdued… The suspect is now in custody and has been charged…”
Etc., etc., piling up one desiccated legalism on another: “Allegedly…”
“suspect…” “charged…” The president can’t tell an allegedly alleged suspect (which is what he is in Obama fantasy land) from an enemy combatant (which is what he is in cold, hard reality). But worse than the complacent cop-show jargonizing was a phrase it’s hard to read as anything other than a deliberate attempt to mislead the public: the president referred to the Knickerbomber as an “isolated extremist.” By this time, it was already clear that young Umar had been radicalized by jihadist networks in London and fast-tracked to training in Yemen by terror operatives who understood the potentially high value of a westernized Muslim with excellent English from a respectable family. Yet President Obama tried to pass him off as some sort of lone misfit who wakes up one morning and goes bananas. Could happen to anyone.
Like it happened to this young man:
And before the Pantybomber there was the previous member of Local 473 of the Amalgamated Union of Isolated Extremists,Â Major Hasan:
For the purposes of argument, let’s accept the media’s insistence that Major Hasan is a lone crazy.
So who’s nuttier?
The guy who gives a lecture to other military doctors in which he says non-Muslims should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats?
Or the guys who say “Hey, let’s have this fellow counsel our traumatized veterans and then promote him to major and put him on a Homeland Security panel?
Or the Army Chief of Staff who thinks the priority should be to celebrate diversity, even unto death?
Or the Secretary of Homeland Security who warns that the principal threat we face now is an outbreak of Islamophobia?
Or the president who says we cannot “fully know” why Major Hasan did what he did, so why trouble ourselves any further?
Or the columnist who, when a man hands out copies of the Koran before gunning down his victims while yelling “Allahu akbar,” says you’re racist if you bring up his religion?
And before Major Hasan there was an entire dance troupe of isolated extremists plotting toÂ behead the Prime Minister of Canada:
After the Toronto arrests, the CSIS assistant director of operations, Luc Portelance, announced that “it is important to know that this operation in no way reflects negatively on any specific community, or ethnocultural group in Canada.” Who ya gonna believe? The RCMP diversity outreach press officer or your lyin’ eyes? In the old days, these chaps would have been looking for the modus operandi, patterns of behaviour. But now every little incident on the planet is apparently strictly specific unto itself: all jihad is local.
The other day, listening to an interview on America’s National Public Radio with the mayor of Toronto, I was laughing so much I drove off the road. David Miller warmed up with a bit of boilerplate Islamoschmoozing: “You know, in Islam, if you kill one person, you kill everybody. It’s a very peaceful religion. And they’re as shocked as Torontonians are. And . . .”
Renee Montagne, the anchorette, instantly spotted the ghastly breach of PC etiquette and leapt in: “Well, they sort of are Torontonians,” she pointed out.
“Sorry,” gulped the mayor, hastily re-smothering Muslims within the great diversity quilt. “They’re shocked as every Torontonian is . . .”
Thereafter, Ms. Montagne expressed bafflement that these allegedly alleged fellows would have wanted to commit a terrorist atrocity in what was, compared to the Great Satan next door, “a very open society, very liberal immigration policy, very good social services.”
Mayor Miller agreed: “More than half of the people who live in Toronto, including myself, were not born in Canada. And I think that’s why Canada works.”
“Although it didn’t work in this case,” Ms. Montagne pointed out, somewhat maliciously.
“Well, we don’t expect these kinds of occurrences, exactly because of our public services, because of diversity,” blah, blah. Insofar as there’s any relation between jihadists and “good social services,” the latter seem to attract the former — at least in the sense that Ahmed Ressam, Zac Moussaoui, the shoe-bomber, the tube bombers, etc., were all products of the Euro-Canadian welfare system. But go ahead, pretend that these guys were upset about insufficient “social services,” that they wanted to behead Stephen Harper to highlight the fact that wait times for the beheaded at the Toronto General are now up to 18 months, and they don’t always reattach the right head. It’s easy to scoff that a chap who can be bothered blowing up the Canadian Parliament must be insane, but, if you were a jihadist sitting in the cave back in the Hindu Kush listening to Renee Montagne and David Miller, wouldn’t you conclude that they’re the ones who are nuts? The Islamic Army of Aden PR guy seems by comparison to have a relatively clear-sighted grasp of reality. A reader in Quebec, John Gross, emailed me to distill the mayor’s approach as: “Don’t get mad, get even . . . wimpier.”
And before the thwarted Toronto plot there wasÂ the non-thwarted London plot:
Among those of us who aren’t Muslim, meanwhile, there’s a stampede to be first to the microphone to say that “of course” we all know that “the vast majority of Muslims” are not terrorists but law-abiding peace-loving people who share our revulsion at these appalling events, etc.
Mr Blair won that contest on Thursday, followed closely by Brian Paddick and full supporting cast. If “of course” Mr Blair and Mr Paddick and the rest do indeed know that “the vast majority of Muslims” do not favour terrorism, is that because they’ve run the numbers and have a ballpark figure on the very very very slim minority of Muslims who do? And, if so, what is it? 0.02 per cent? Or two per cent? Or 20 per cent?
And, if they haven’t run the numbers, why do they claim to speak with authority on this matter..?
Most of us instinctively understand that when a senior Metropolitan Police figure says bullishly that “Islam and terrorism don’t go together”, he’s talking drivel.
Many of us excuse it on the grounds that, well, golly, it must be a bit embarrassing to be a Muslim on days like last Thursday and it doesn’t do any harm to cheer ’em up a bit with some harmless feel-good blather. But is this so?
Why are we surprised that “Muslim moderates” rarely speak out against the evil committed by their co-religionists when the likes of Mr Paddick keep assuring us there’s no problem?
And before London there was Washington, andÂ the DCÂ snipers:
I see my colleague Richard Roeper has been kind enough to apologize to readers on my behalf. “If there’s one thing conservatives despise more than liberals, it’s admitting they were wrong. About anything,” wrote Richard the other day. “Too many of them are bullies, and bullies aren’t good at backtracking.”
Who could he be talking about? Well, as it turned out, he was talking about me, and everyone’s favorite excitable blond, Ann Coulter, and theÂ New York Times‘ token non-leftie William Safire. What were we bullies bullying on about this time? “An awful lot of conservatives really, really wanted the snipers to be terrorists,” explained Richard.
“But they were wrong. I’ll say that because they never will…”
Well, John Allen Muhammad is a supporter of al-Qaida who celebrated the Sept. 11 attacks by changing his name and intensifying his Islamic identity… We now know that the snipers were stopped in the vicinity of the shootings at least 11 times, but on each occasion cops let them go because, as the D.C. chief told theÂ Washington Post, “everybody was looking for a white car with white people.”
Racial profiling, anyone..?
Yes, yes, but that doesn’t mean they were Islamic terrorists, does it?
Well, see the followingÂ trial exhibits:
Exhibit 65-006: A self-portrait of Malvo in the cross hairs of a gun scope shouting, “ALLAH AKBAR!” The word “SALAAM” scrawled vertically. A poem: “Many more will have to suffer. Many more will have to die. Don’t ask me why.”
Exhibit 65-013: The word “INSHALLAH” above a portrait glorifying “Muammar Kaddafi” as “The Liberator” dressed in full military regalia.
Exhibit 65-016: A portrait of Saddam Hussein with the words “INSHALLAH” and “The Protector,” surrounded by rockets labeled “chem” and “nuk” (sic).
Exhibit 65-043: Father and son portrait of Malvo and Muhammad. “We will kill them all. Jihad.”
Exhibit 65-056: A self-portrait of Malvo as sniper, lying in wait, with his rifle. “JIHAD” written in bold letters.
Exhibit 65-057: A drawing of the Twin Towers burning with a plane flying toward the buildings. Captions: “JIHAD ISLAM UNITE RISE!” along with “America did this” and “You were warned.” Portrait of Malvo as sniper labeled “Believer” and portrait of Osama bin Laden labeled “prophet.” A poem: “Our minarets are our bayonets, Our mosques are our baracks (sic), Our believers are our soldiers.” The American flag and the Star of David drawn in cross hairs.
Exhibit 65-067: A suicide bomber labeled “Hamas” walking into a McDonald’s restaurant. Another drawing of the Twin Towers burning captioned: “85 percent chance Zionists did this.” More scrawls: “ALLAH AKBAR,” “JIHAD” and “Islam will explode.”
Exhibit 65-103: A lion accompanies chapter and verse from the Koran (“Sura 2:190”): “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you and slay them wherever ye catch them.”
Exhibit 65-109: Portrait of Osama bin Laden, captioned “Servant of Allah.”
Exhibit 65-117: The White House drawn in cross hairs, surrounded by missiles, with a warning: “Sep. 11 we will ensure will look like a picnic to you” and “you will bleed to death little by little.”
Exhibit 65-133: Reference to “Islamic counter attack force . . . ICAF.”
Exhibit 65-114: Self-portrait of Malvo as sniper. Rant says “they all died and they all deserved it.”
Exhibit 65-101: Malvo’s thought for the day: “Islam the only true guidance, the way of peace.”Â Â :
And before the non-Islamic-terrorism-related DC snipers there wasÂ the non-Islamic-terrorism-related LAX gunman:
I quote from The New York Times headline: “Officials Puzzled About Motive Of Airport Gunman.”
Hmm. Egyptian Muslim kills Jews on American national holiday. Best not to jump to conclusions. Denial really is a river in Egypt. “It appears he went there with the intention of killing people,” said Richard Garcia, the Bureau’s agent in charge. “Why he did that we are still trying to determine.”
CNN and The Associated Press all but stampeded to report a “witness” who described the shooter as a fat white guy in a ponytail who kept yelling “Artie took my job.” But, alas, this promising account proved to be a prank. Saudi Arabia’s popular Arab News suggested that Mr. Hadayet had made the mistake of doing business with El Al and that “the Israeli airline had been late in paying for two limousine rentals from the Egyptian immigrant’s company.” If a couple of late cheques were a motive for murder, Izzy’s and Conrad’s heads would now be stuffed and mounted in my trophy room. But, sadly, this cautionary tale about the Jew bloodsucker’s commercial wiles proved also to be false.
That left the police with no leads. Nothing to go on. The trail’s stone cold. All the FBI has is an Egyptian male, who’d complained to his apartment managers after his neighbours post-9/11 began displaying the American flag; who’d posted a banner saying “READ KORAN” on his own front door; who told his employees that he hated Israel, that the two biggest drug dealers in New York were Israelis, and that Israel was trying to wipe out the Egyptian population by flooding the country with AIDS-infected Jewess prostitutes.
Could even the most expert psychological profiler make sense of such confusing and contradictory signs? Beats me, Sherlock.
I wonder if Richard Roeper will do a column about how “an awful lot of liberals really, really wanted the Times Square terrorist to be a white male Tea Partier