Im not a huge fan of Ezra but this time he nailed it, this one's for you mustardman:
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/10/20141028-072929.html
EZRA LEVANT | SUN NEWS NETWORK
After any terrorist attack, why is the first instinct of liberals to downplay it?
Their first reflex is to deny that it's terrorism at all. Nidal Hasan, a Muslim-American soldier, shot 13 fellow soldiers to death at Fort Hood while shouting, "Allahu Akbar." Yet the Pentagon declared the attack "workplace violence," not terrorism.
The next liberal reflex is to deny that an attacker is Muslim. Last month there was a terrorist-style beheading in Oklahoma City. Media reports called the suspect "Alton Nolen." Which was the name his mother gave him. As opposed to the name he took for himself after he converted to Islam: Jah'Keem Yisrael. Media showed old pictures of him dressed as a factory worker, rather than his own Facebook pictures showing him in flowing Muslim robes and head-coverings.
The third liberal reflex is to say a terrorist attack was just the act of a madman. That was the early spin in Canada for last week's terrorist murders. Clearly Michael Zehaf-Bibeau was insane, they said.
The fourth liberal line of defence is to say the attacker is a lone wolf. And indeed, the terrorists listed above committed their murders by themselves. But Nidal was in e-mail contact with al-Qaida; the Canadian terrorists communicated with other extremists, including by Twitter. This weekend the RCMP announced Zehaf-Bibeau had "numerous" other interactions that they are investigating.
The attacking terrorist may have been a lone wolf. But each was part of a larger wolf pack.
That's the liberal spin playbook: deny it's terrorism, deny it's Muslim, call it insanity, and finally call it a rogue act.
But why? Why do liberals go to such lengths to revise the motives of terrorists, who are quite clear about their goals? Why do liberals even obscure the names of terrorist groups, replacing the crystal clear "Islamic State" with the alphabet soup of "ISIS" or "ISIL"? Why do liberals replace the terrorists' own, express rationale with made-up excuses, such as Justin Trudeau's famous suggestion that terrorists are driven to violence because we "exclude" them?
Why do liberals try to revise history, and whitewash the war against us? How is it any more justifiable to minimize the atrocities against us committed by Islamic fascists than it would have been to minimize the atrocities committed by Nazi fascists?
Downplaying the crimes of the terrorists, and even suggesting we are somehow to blame - isn't that like saying "Hitler wasn't as bad as people say, and besides, the Jews provoked him"?
We didn't think that was in the 1940s. We do now, because liberals have abolished the ideas of good and evil as too judgmental. Terrorists? No, our enemies are actually victims themselves, you see. We are privileged. Society is to blame.
When we see the beheading of innocent children and the **** and slavery of the Islamic State, it is too horrible to process for the modern, liberal mind.
We cannot accept the terrorists' reasons, that they mean to kill us and our freedom. So we offer up our own reasons - they're not that bad, we deserve it, it's not black and white.
Liberals cannot understand so much hate against us. So liberals sympathize. Liberals help find the answer. They join in. To justify the hate.
By hating ourselves.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/10/20141028-072929.html
EZRA LEVANT | SUN NEWS NETWORK
After any terrorist attack, why is the first instinct of liberals to downplay it?
Their first reflex is to deny that it's terrorism at all. Nidal Hasan, a Muslim-American soldier, shot 13 fellow soldiers to death at Fort Hood while shouting, "Allahu Akbar." Yet the Pentagon declared the attack "workplace violence," not terrorism.
The next liberal reflex is to deny that an attacker is Muslim. Last month there was a terrorist-style beheading in Oklahoma City. Media reports called the suspect "Alton Nolen." Which was the name his mother gave him. As opposed to the name he took for himself after he converted to Islam: Jah'Keem Yisrael. Media showed old pictures of him dressed as a factory worker, rather than his own Facebook pictures showing him in flowing Muslim robes and head-coverings.
The third liberal reflex is to say a terrorist attack was just the act of a madman. That was the early spin in Canada for last week's terrorist murders. Clearly Michael Zehaf-Bibeau was insane, they said.
The fourth liberal line of defence is to say the attacker is a lone wolf. And indeed, the terrorists listed above committed their murders by themselves. But Nidal was in e-mail contact with al-Qaida; the Canadian terrorists communicated with other extremists, including by Twitter. This weekend the RCMP announced Zehaf-Bibeau had "numerous" other interactions that they are investigating.
The attacking terrorist may have been a lone wolf. But each was part of a larger wolf pack.
That's the liberal spin playbook: deny it's terrorism, deny it's Muslim, call it insanity, and finally call it a rogue act.
But why? Why do liberals go to such lengths to revise the motives of terrorists, who are quite clear about their goals? Why do liberals even obscure the names of terrorist groups, replacing the crystal clear "Islamic State" with the alphabet soup of "ISIS" or "ISIL"? Why do liberals replace the terrorists' own, express rationale with made-up excuses, such as Justin Trudeau's famous suggestion that terrorists are driven to violence because we "exclude" them?
Why do liberals try to revise history, and whitewash the war against us? How is it any more justifiable to minimize the atrocities against us committed by Islamic fascists than it would have been to minimize the atrocities committed by Nazi fascists?
Downplaying the crimes of the terrorists, and even suggesting we are somehow to blame - isn't that like saying "Hitler wasn't as bad as people say, and besides, the Jews provoked him"?
We didn't think that was in the 1940s. We do now, because liberals have abolished the ideas of good and evil as too judgmental. Terrorists? No, our enemies are actually victims themselves, you see. We are privileged. Society is to blame.
When we see the beheading of innocent children and the **** and slavery of the Islamic State, it is too horrible to process for the modern, liberal mind.
We cannot accept the terrorists' reasons, that they mean to kill us and our freedom. So we offer up our own reasons - they're not that bad, we deserve it, it's not black and white.
Liberals cannot understand so much hate against us. So liberals sympathize. Liberals help find the answer. They join in. To justify the hate.
By hating ourselves.
Comment