Could The NYC Bomber Be A Jihadist?

Once again, after the initial hype, the Obama administration was shocked, shocked, to discover that the perpetrator of the failed New York City car-bomb attack might have ties to Islamic terrorist philosophy and training. How could this be? We all know that Islam is the religion of peace. And we all know that "jihad" means "personal struggle of the soul," not "kill all the infidels."

As the early events unfolded in Times Square, the MSM and the Obama administration were mystified by who could be behind such a heinous act. Did someone resurrect Timothy McVeigh? Did a psycho escape from a hospital for the criminally insane? Has "Mars Attacks" become real life? What could it be, and who could possibly be behind it? Many warnings were issued from the very beginning. Not about the obvious, but rather about drawing unwise conclusions that it might be a Muslim wreaking havoc on the heart of American commerce. After all, such a thing has never happened before, has it?

Once it quickly became obvious even to cheese-eating surrender monkeys what was going on, the MSM, the administration, and the left-wing blogs started spinning their fabric of denial. At The Nation, leftist Robert Dreyfuss said that rather than part of global jihad, "it seem far more likely to me that he was either a lone nut job or a member of some squirrely branch of the Tea Party, anti-government far right." Very reasonable, since there have been so many mass murders committed by the Tea Party recently. Or do I have the wrong group?

As more and more information on the perpetrator piled up, the spin went from "probably not a Muslim" to "well, he's a Muslim, but . . . . " Hizzoner NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg immediately understood what was really behind it all. "Somebody with a political agenda who doesn't like the health care bill or something. It could be anything." Trying the insanity defense, Pakistani embassy spokesman Nadeem Haider Kiani said "it's too soon to tell exactly what motivated the bomber, but early indications suggest he is a 'disturbed individual.'" In fact, over 15,000 Muslim terrorist attacks and attempts worldwide have been documented since 9-11, but only a very few were conducted by persons who were both hate-filled jihadists and certifiably insane.

CNN found another motivation proving that Faisal Shahzad's attempted mass-murder and mayhem had little to do with his religious beliefs: "It has been confirmed that his house has been foreclosed in recent years. I mean, one would have to imagine that brought a lot of pressure and a lot of heartache on that family." That report didn't mention that those payments could easily have been made if the jihadist hadn't spent all that money on trips to Taliban training camps in the border areas of Pakistan. CBS announced "It isn't clear if more suspects are at large, or what the motive could be."

The Washington Post went on a slightly different flight of fancy: "The economic crisis meets terrorism. This guy is like string theory for the media: He brings together the seemingly incompatible stories that drove the past decade. That said, you of course don't want to speculate on why someone 'really' did something. The hearts of men are opaque, and motives are complex." Yep, it's far too complicated for mere mortals to put two and two together. "Kill the infidels" is far too complicated a concept to break down into easily understood terms.

The New York Post is normally very blunt and very clear in its news and editorials on terrorism. But even they fell into the trap of over-complicating something quite simple. They didn't excuse the act, but attempted to "understand" it: "Shahzad said he was driven to evil by the slew of deaths among leaders of the the terror group (the Taliban) . . . Sources said he was an eyewitness to the onslaught throughout the eight months he spent in Pakistan last summer." You mean the months he wasn't paying the monthlies on his mortgage? Aha! Two reasons to blow up Times Square.

And I still remain unclear on how being motivated by the deaths of Taliban terrorists is unrelated to Islamic terrorism. The next day, The NY Post partially redeemed itself by publishing a piece from Michelle Malkin on how this creep got his citizenship. After a couple of failed attempts at gaining citizenship, the future car-bomber caught on to the sham marriage scam. He, like many of his fellows, conned a dumb American citizen into marrying him, and thus he went to the head of the line for becoming naturalized. Instead of using that against him, the administration is now treating him as a foreigner, but with full American constitutional rights. In reality, that citizenship should be used to add the further charge of treason, one of the few remaining death-penalty federal charges.

By the following day, with much of the information collected and the terrorist in the sights of law-enforcement, the litany continued. NY-1 TV in New York reported "investigators say they still have no motive for Shahzad's actions." AP reported: "NY car bomb suspect cooperates, but motive a mystery." USA Today said "motive of NYC car bomb suspect remains a mystery." And across the pond, The Guardian reported "Times Square bomb: Pakistanis puzzled by bomber's motive."

There's insanity out there all right, and the terrorists are far more sane than the people reporting on them. There is a worldwide collective insanity (outside of Islam itself) that can't find the 500 pound gorilla in the room. These people are either completely blind to the facts, or willfully cooperating with the terrorists, or terrified by, well, terrorism, to the point of deluding themselves. Whatever their reasons for ignoring, then denying, then twisting the motives of terrorist after terrorist after terrorist, they are dangerous fellow-travelers with militant Islam. And it's nothing short of suicidal.

Worst of all, the people we depend on the most to protect us from terrorist attacks are apparently drugged with Islamophilia. It took nearly a day and a half for Attorney General Eric Holder to slip (?) and use the word "terrorism." And this was during an address while he was idiotically trying to explain why the terrorist was Mirandized. As Islamic terror expert Daniel Pipes phrased it: "You can't win a war if you don't have the courage to name the enemy." The current administration absolutely lacks that courage. May God preserve, protect and defend the United States, because Barack Hussein Obama certainly won't.