Saturday, March 24, 2012

Mass-Murdering Right-Wing Extremist

On Wednesday of this past week, a right-wing extremist went on a killing spree in the environs of the city of Toulouse in La Belle France. The mainstream media in America and France knew immediately that the killer was some sort of right wing nut when it was announced that he had killed three Jewish children, their father (a rabbi) and three French Soldiers.

A repeat of the mass murder in Norway, undoubtedly. The story quickly began to fall apart, so the liberal press on both continents went into rapid spin cycle. Just as they did after the Fort Hood massacre, they cautioned against drawing any conclusions just because the murderer had shouted “Allahu akbar.” When they found out his name was Mohammed Merah, they still had no clue as to what his motivation might have been. They advised caution, since two of the soldiers were of North African Muslim descent, and the third was black. The name Mohammed was most likely a coincidence and the murders were still the act of a right-wing terrorist.

That didn’t work out too well either. Even before the French police finally put a bullet in the murderer’s head as he tried to escape, information was coming in that he was a French citizen of Algerian origin, had fought with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and had broken out of a Kandahar prison in 2008 and returned to France. The sensational headlines about the right-wing extremist who was a racist murderer who was driven to hatred by Islamic immigration to France began to move to the back pages as it turned out he was nothing but another jihadist terrorist.

They drew conclusions from rumors that the murderer had filmed his murders using a camera suggested to him by the Norwegian nutcase mass murderer Anders Breivik. The New York Times particularly promoted that nonsense in two front page stories. Before admitting, however reluctantly, that the right-wing story was all wrong, the BBC, London’s Telegraph, the Paris dailies, French TV and a few fellow travelers in the American press decided they had another great story to beat “Islamophobes” over the head with.

The entire premise of an unaligned terrorist with no particular agenda finally went entirely out the window when the transcripts of the negotiations with the jihadist prior to his head-cleansing were released. In those transcripts, the follower of the religion of peace stated in no uncertain terms that he was seeking revenge for the French army’s involvement in the war in Afghanistan. In addition, he was avenging the deaths of the victims of Jewish oppression in Palestine. And lest anyone think he shot the two Muslim soldiers and the one black soldier by mistake, he made it clear that Muslims are fair game if they belong to any military establishment which opposes the Taliban.

So, the liberal worldwide press immediately retracted their earlier stories and admitted their mistake, right? Wrong. They turned on the turbocharger on the spin machine. Forget the damned Jews and kids and soldiers. Who’s the real victim here? Why who else? It’s Mohammed Merah. Though the American press leaned toward the “lone wolf” theory, proposing that Merah had no connection to other Islamists, the European press rolled out its favorite mantra:

“Yes, Mister/Monsieur/Herr Merah did a terrible thing. But in doing so, he was an extremist who in no way represents the religion of peace. No true Muslim would ever consort with mass murderers or antisemites” (see caption photo). The British Guardian and the French dailies know who the real culprits are. First, there is French President Nicolas Sarcozy, who finally has taken action against radical Islam in France (in other words, he’s an Islamophobe). And second, there’s the growing right-wing sentiment of certain French political parties opposing further immigration from the lands of Jihadistan.

Thus, Merah did act alone, but in the name of Allah and Islam (however mistakenly, wink, wink) and only after being forced to do so by sinister Western forces of Christianity, Judaism, and secularism—fascists all. To put the frosting on the cake, they repeat the falsehood that Breivik was a Christian with right-wing leanings who did the same thing as Merah, only worse. Jimmy Carter must love that moral relativism, particularly since it’s based on a lie to start with.

The facts haven’t changed, but the liberal press stories sure did. Allahu akbar. And by the way, the photo is from the 30s showing the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem meeting with some German guy.

22 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

great story, Hawk. I had seen this on Drudge, but had not really gotten into it in depth. Is it just me, or is the liberal media really going hard right now. it is almost as if they are panicking. In addition to the most blatant spin out of AP, the local paper is in overdrive on one sided oped pieces.

T-Rav said...

I wouldn't have believed the amount of spin on this if I hadn't already seen examples of it. There was a professor of Islamic studies at Oxford University who said about the shooter, "Mohamed Merah stands before us like an overgrown adolescent, unemployed, at loose ends, soft-hearted but at the same time disturbed and incoherent." Murdering multiple children, apparently, counts as a sign of being "soft-hearted."

It is comforting to note, however, that the intelligentsia will cover for my every action, as long as I convert to Islam first.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: They are panicking. I am beginning to develop the thought that they may be taking their last desperate gasps. Little lies and distortions don't work anymore, so it's time to start manufacturing and repeating the big lie. It isn't working here, but I can't speak for the Europeans. We must remember that The Netherlands is on the verge of becoming the first Islamic nation in Western Europe since 1492.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: The European media refuse to say words like "Islamist, jihadist, Arab, Muslim terrorist," or the like. They consistently refer to these monsters as "disaffected Asian youth." Somehow, I don't think it's their Chinese immigrants who are raising hell and committing terrorist acts.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

What is worse is a French Teacher asked from her class "a minute of silence for this bastard." The teacher has been suspended. I would have fired the b#tch for abusing children.

BevfromNYC said...

I have to admit that my first thought was that it probably was a Neo Nazi. But I was only going by the initial reports of the shooting at the Jewish school.

I think the the MSM is just afraid of Islamic reprisals if they report on Islamic terrorists even "lone wolves". Of course they have no such qualms with wrongly branding any other kind of "lone wolf" terrorists by damning any other entire group (i.e. Gabbie Gifford's would-be assassin)

T-Rav said...

LawHawk, I think The Netherlands and Great Britain are currently in a race to see which one gets there first. And given the strengths of the reactions in both countries, I wouldn't bet against the British.

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: I'm sure a lot of people had similar reactions. And it's not an entirely poor assumption. But we're not "news reporters" and what we think can evolve as the facts come in. A reporter is expected to get the facts, but when the shootings occurred they took the fact of the shootings and quickly built their favorite theory around it. Assumptions are for philosophers and propagandists, not for news reporters. That's the problem. There is a near-total lack of reporters who don't immediately insert their own agenda into a news story. The stage is set before the actors and the plot ever appear. Worse yet, when caught with their factual pants down, these so-called reporters double-down on the mistake or change the entire thrust of the "news" to fit their favorite pet theories.

The constant downplaying of Muslim terrorism is a combination of wishful thinking and abject fear. In other words, at least as far as the mainstream media, the terrorists are winning the debate.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: Based on both raw numbers and percentages of the population, I'll still put my money on The Netherlands. Besides, if the Islamists get too out-of-hand in England, all the opponents have to do is skip past the religion and tell the English populace that the Muslims are actually a foreign soccer team.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: I guess the public school system in France is almost as bad as ours. Was that a teacher of French or a teacher in France?

Joel Farnham said...

A teacher in France. Most of her students got up and walked out on her. That is telling. I think the truth is getting out to students even though the journalists parade lies even in France.

BevfromNYC said...

Joel, ah, yes those pesky Jews who spread lies about honest non-violent Islamic terrorists who slaughter children in the street.

At least Sarkozy doesn't do verbal acrobatics to appease.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: This is one of the few times that I find a small problem with the First Amendment. The French know exactly the same thing we know about radical Islamic penetration into our respective nations. But without a First Amendment to prevent it, the French government can take small steps to discourage this onslaught that we are unable to accomplish. Among those are the prohibition against burgas and other Islamic paraphernalia in the public schools. I wish there were a way around that in our country, but there isn't, and I would not damage the First Amendment protections by drawing exceptions solely to stop the advance of a particularly noxious form of religious expression.

Oh, and good for the French kids who walked out.

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: No reason to state the obvious. We all know the Jews are behind everything evil in the world.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: Another thought. French kids, pretty much like kids anywhere, have a tremendous grasp of the obvious. The teachers have to spend years convincing those kids to ignore what is right in front of their eyes and what is patently clear to them.

tryanmax said...

LawHawk, I know you were making a joke about Islamists vs. Chinese, but it might be useful for some to know that in Europe, what we call Asian they call Oriental and what we call Mid-Eastern, they call Asian. Just in case anyone was confused.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: I assumed everyone knew that, but I probably should have explained. We stopped using "oriental" years back when it became a politically-incorrect epithet. But our use of "Asian" makes more sense than that of the Europeans because we will at least admit that the Middle East is rarely thought of by Americans as being Asian, even though that may be geographically correct.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: I almost forgot to add that many Muslim terrorists who are being called "Asian" by the European press are actually from Muslim enclaves in Eastern Europe. To identify them by a geographical or racial eponym is duplicitous and misleading, since it is not geography that produces the terrorists in any event. It is a religious belief that unites them.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: One thing is sure. They don't want the public to figure out there is a common bond among the terrorists, regardless of geography or ethnicity.

tryanmax said...

LawHawk, absolutely. The international press wants to promulgate a false notion that fear of Islamism is some sort of pan-European ethnocentrism. Thus their defense of Islamists becomes, "You can't lump all these different people together!"--despite the fact that calling the entire Eastern hemisphere "Asia" does just that.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: And that dovetails with their disdain for the concept of American exceptionalism, putting them in the same camp as Islamofriendly Barack Obama.

Individualist said...

Lawhawk

Murdering Jihadist fanatics are not extreme they are just misunderstood.

Post a Comment