Just an incredible amount of sickness being displayed by the liberal media. The New York Times attempted to solicit sympathy for the two terrorists by claiming, in a headline, that the two were "far from war-torn homeland, trying to fit in." So killing people is just trying to "fit in"?
For other examples, on MSNBC, Jessica Stern was adamant that the bombing had to be the work of anti-government right-wing extremists. Newsbusters noted that CNN's Amanpour hoped beyond hope that the terrorist was not Middle-Eastern. David Sarota, writing at Slate, expressed his hope that the bomber(s) were white Americans. Michael Moore was obsessed with the attack having occurred on "tax day" and "patriots day," and was sure it was the result of a right-wing group.Gov. Cuomo of New York blamed the bombings on global warming. Overall the media--even after evidence of the two bombers fascination and links to Islamic ideology came to light--kept stating that we could not jump to conclusions about the two men's motivation. These people are the enemies of the United States, trying to distract us from the real issues that we have in certain Islamic beliefs and sects, implacable enemies of the United States and our way of life. (See also here, reviewing the morally bankrupt media types; and
Kevin Cullen, a columnist for the Boston Globe hits back:
I was on an NPR show this morning, talking as I drove back from Cambridge to write this column, and a caller came on the air and started talking about how we’ve got to look in the mirror and ask what we as Americans have done to create angry young men like this.Read the whole thing.
I almost drove off the road.
No one who lost their life or their limbs on Boylston Street last Monday did anything to create angry young men like this. And I know that 8-year-old Martin Richard, a beautiful little boy from Dorchester who was killed by a bomb the authorities say the Tsarnaev brothers prepared and left near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, never hurt a soul. He was a kind little boy who was unfailingly nice to his classmate, the daughter of the Boston firefighter who knelt over his body.
Sean Collier, the 26-year-old MIT police officer who was shot to death Thursday night, was a wonderful young man. He worked as a civilian for the Somerville Police Department, but desperately wanted to be a cop. He was thrilled when he got the call to join the MIT force last year, and he was willing to put his life on the line for all of us, as he did late Thursday night when he responded to a call in Kendall Square and was, the police say, executed by the Tsarnaev brothers before he could even get out of his cruiser.
I am willing to bet my life on the certainty that Sean Collier would have laid down his life for anybody, including immigrants from Kyrgyzstan or Chechnya. In the end, he did lay down his life, trying to protect others.
I don’t want to listen to how innocent people bear some responsibility for creating the twisted minds of the Tsarnaev brothers, who emerged from the break up of a totalitarian form of government that collapsed under the weight of ordinary people wanting freedom.
The Tsarnaev brothers are responsible for twisting a great religion to foment hatred. They don’t speak for Muslims any more than I speak for overweight Irish-American guys who like to play hockey. It would be a horrific insult to their victims, and to the unimaginably brave first responders who ran toward the bombs last Monday, if there is a backlash against Muslims.
But, please, spare me the guilt.
Roger L. Simon chips in with a piece discussing that the real issue is radical Islam:
Today Sirota seems like an imbecile (well, he did before), but I would venture to say he doesn’t know why. So I will spell it out for him: the War on Terror (euphemism alert) is not about skin color. It is about ideology, Islamic ideology.
The Tsarnaevs are white people in the purest sense. They are Caucasians from the Caucasus, of all things, but they believe in Allah — do or die, apparently.
Too young for the civil rights movement, Sirota is an adherent of an ultra-bourgeois nostalgia for racism that hides under the ludicrous rubric “progressive.” It’s laughable, but it’s also sad and dangerous.
It avoids a confrontation with the great issue of our time — what to do about Islam, an all-consuming ideology that seeks to engulf the world. The Sirotas of our culture want to downplay that but the reality remains.
Sloughing this off on “white skin privilege” is particularly worrisome, even venal, because many will believe it. As one who was heavily active in the days that term was invented (’60s) and helped promulgate it in my writing and speechmaking, I can attest to how dangerous it is. Its intention was never really to cure racism, but to perpetuate it, to increase racial enmity by pointing the finger at people who were, if anything, only culpable in the most remote sense.
Sirota and his ilk are contemporary dupes of our 1960’s lie. We all pay the price for it.
Now the focus will shift to that other dubious term, Islamophobia. We should beware of being Islamophobic.
What does that mean? We should ignore that people around the world are killing each other and innocent others in the name of one version or other of Islam? The numbers doing that are staggering.
And why is this a phobia? A phobia implies that it is not happening. It is.
A hopeful sign has been the reaction of the Tsarnaev’s uncle, who is appalled by the actions of his nephews and is calling for Dzhokar to turn himself in.
We need more of this, much more. Organizations like CAIR, that spend so much time looking for prejudice and so-called Islamophobia, should look instead to reform the views of their own people. They could start with the rights of women and homosexuals and then move on to revising the whole idea of jihad and the way Islamic cultures treat other religions and peoples.
The Islamic people of the world need a reformation in the most extraordinary way. Ignoring that, as do the Sirotas of our culture, will not help it happen.