My BS barometer is about to explode:
Â “It’s all our fault…”
“We have to look in the mirror and ask what we as Americans have done to create angry young men like this.”
There are those young men again. A mature investigation might look at another common factor. Whatever could it be?
“There’s a lot that we still need to know about what motivated them, obviously,” Brokaw said, noting the Muslim faith of both bombers. “And the fact is that that Islamic rage is still out there.”– there’s some mindless drivel about “root causes” and it allÂ within our power to change.
Brokaw should seek help here:
The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance of a work of fiction written by an Indian living in London. The grievance of the existence of black African Muslim farmers, who won’t abandon lands in Darfur. The grievance of the existence of homosexuals. The grievance of music, and of most representational art. The grievance of the existence of Hinduism. The grievance of East Timor’s liberation from Indonesian rule. All of these have been proclaimed as a licence to kill infidels or apostates, or anyone who just gets in the way.– Christopher Hitchens
“There is still no clear motive for the attack.”
In the more than 6000 words filed by The Age on its live coverage thread by 8.30am on Saturday, the word “Muslim” was used just once: “The brothers are Muslims believed to be of Chechen origin, but there is still no clear motive for the attack.
Muslim? Really? What an amazing coincidence.
Probably meaningless. But wait a minute:
Rats! Again: nothing to do with Islam!
“Focus Turns to Hunt for Bombing Motive” –-Â Wall Street Journal, April 20
Yes, it’s such a mystery!
OUR media behaved politely after the Boston bombing.
A dangerous silence on ideology of Boston terrorists
None jumped to the correct conclusion: these terrorists were yet again Muslim.
In fact, even after brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were identified and found to be – surprise! – Muslim, some still pretended not to notice or think it relevant.
Muslim? Really? What an amazing coincidence.
So in the more than 6000 words filed byÂ The AgeÂ on its live coverage thread by 8.30am on Saturday, the word “Muslim” was used just once: “The brothers are Muslims believed to be of Chechen origin, but there is still no clear motive for the attack.”
“No clear motive”, even though by then we knew Tamerlan, the elder brother, named after a famous Muslim warrior, had called himself “very religious” and died with a bomb strapped to his chest.
Moreover, a YouTube account in his name was stuffed with videos of calls to jihad and homages to terrorism.
Now what could have helped motivate him to blow up Westerners with pressure cooker bombs of the kind featured on jihadist internet manuals?
Over at the ABC, there was much the same assumed bafflement.
Saturday’s AM started with a report from Boston that didn’t mention “Muslim” once.
It merely hinted the brothers were Chechens “possibly inspired by terrorist ideology”.
Which ideology? Not stated.
Only in a later AM report from Moscow was a clue given, with references to “Islamist” forces in Chechnya.
Same in yesterday’sÂ Sunday AgeÂ editorial.
It mentioned the bombers were Chechen, but not that they were Muslim, adding: “It should be noted that information that emerged. . . didn’t fit into any neat profile, aside from the fact that the suspects were young adult males.”
No, nothing to fit the profile of the bombers of Bali, London, Madrid, Beslan, New York.
Or of the underpants bomber, shoe bomber and “dirty bomber”.
No pattern at all.
Sydney’sÂ Sun-HeraldÂ likewise dodged the “M” word in yesterday’s editorial: “Their mother said her elder son got involved in religion about five years ago and believed her sons were controlled by someone else.”
What religion was that? The editorial didn’t say, even though the bombers’ mother had: “[Tamerlan] talks about Islam a lot.”
This is, of course, the approved way of reporting – or not reporting – Muslim terrorists.
For instance, SBS after the September 11 attacks destroyed tape it had filmed of the then mufti of Australia praising suicide bombers in his mosque.
SBS told me it wanted to stop you jumping to an “unfair” conclusion about this hate-preacher.
The ABC was equally keen to stop you jumping to the correct conclusion when US army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan shot dead 13 soldiers at Fort Hood.
Nidal was Muslim.
He shouted “God is great” as he fired.
Fellow doctors had complained about his fierce preaching of Islam and “anti-American propaganda”.
All this was known to journalists within hours.
Yet the ABC’s first substantial radio report failed in its eight minutes to even note the killer’s faith.
Of course, even the ABC knows perfectly well each time there’s a bang, odds are the terrorists are Muslim.
That’s why on Friday, just before the Tsarnaev brothers were cornered, AM ran a pre-emptive piece on a Muslim apologist warning us not to assume the bombers were what they were.
“Government agencies have cast that shadow on American Muslims, Arabs, South-Asian for over a decade now,” he complained.
Actually, what casts that shadow is not mean police or nasty media.
It is Muslim extremists blowing up people.
After all, hundreds of Australians are dead from Islamist terrorism.
Nearly two dozen Australian Muslims have been jailed for terrorism-related offences, and Muslims have been filmed in our streets calling for critics of Islam to be beheaded.
ASIO now warns that hundreds of young Lebanese Australians are now fighting in Syria and could return as radicals with “extremist al-Qaida-type doctrine”.
And one of the videos on the Tamerlan Tsarnaev YouTube account was of a sermon by Australian sheik Feiz Mohammad, who elsewhere has urged children to be jihadists and said the punishment for a critic of Islam was to “chop off his head”.
We have the right to worry, and even the right to suspect every time a bomb goes off that Muslim hands set the detonator.
Islam is certainly not the whole explanation, not even for the Boston bombers, who may also have been influenced by Chechen culture, their alienation and their family upbringing.
Nor is every terrorist Muslim – think Anders Behring Breivik – but it’s true too often to stupidly pretend there’s no pattern.
I know there is a danger in writing articles like this.
Debating Islamic radicalism risks making the peaceful majority of Muslims here feel unwelcome, even persecuted.
But not debating could be far more dangerous.
Aftab Malik, a British Muslim scholar embedded for three months in southwest Sydney’s Muslim community, warned us this month to stop shutting our eyes and mouths.
He’d detected a “sense of uneasiness” in Muslim Australia that reminded him of British Muslims before the July 2005 Islamist bombings in London that killed 52 people.
Malik, of the United Nations’ Alliance of Civilisations, said Australia needed to talk “about culture, about meaning, about belonging”.
“Unfortunately, for British Muslims, it took a terrorist attack for us to have that discussion,” he said.
“You need to pre-empt this. Don’t wait till something tragic happens.”
By “something tragic”, Malik means a few radical Muslims here doing what was done in, say, Boston.
And what will the ABC say then? Still “no clear motive for the attack”?