Saturday, May 25, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Islamists Terrorizing London … Again

Posted by Anthony L. Hall

My commentaries on terrorism are replete with remonstrations about the way Western media and political leaders hasten to call any murder perpetrated by a Muslim an act of terrorism. But I am convinced that the reflexive way they conflate murder with terrorism in this context only ensures more of both.

For example, there were 16 mass shootings in United States last year alone – all perpetrated by non-Muslim White men. Most notably:

  • A neo-Nazi killed six people at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin last August. Surely he terrorized Sikhs in Wisconsin every bit as much as those marathon bombers terrorized everyone in Boston last month.
  • A “lone wolf” killed 26 at the Newtown Elementary School in Connecticut last December. Surely he terrorized surviving students and their parents in Connecticut every bit as much….
  • Another lone wolf killed 12 (and wounded 58) at a cinema in Colorado last July. Surely he terrorized moviegoers not just in Colorado, but all over the country every bit as much….

Yet neither the media nor President Obama called a single one of these killings an act of terrorism – with all of the hysteria and overreaction that would’ve triggered. But there can be no denying that, if a Muslim had perpetrated any one of them, they would have called it terrorism. Hence the cognitive dissonance developing where Westerners deem only Muslims capable of perpetrating acts of terror…

Which brings me to the United Kingdom, where on Wednesday two thugs literally slaughtered a British soldier (with machetes and butcher knives) in broad daylight on a street in Woolwich, South East London. But all indications are that what is most important about this “act” is not its daring and barbaric nature, but the fact that the perpetrators are Muslim. Accordingly, it’s being called an act of terrorism….

Of course, there are fewer mass shootings in the UK (by far) than in the United States. Most notably:

  • A lone White, non-Muslim wolf killed 12 (and wounded 11) during a shooting spree in Cumbria, North West England, in 2010.

But, again, despite all of the outpouring of national grief and sorrow, neither the media nor Prime Minister David Cameron called this Cumbria massacre terrorism. And, again, there can be no denying that, if a Muslim has perpetrated this act, they would have called it terrorism.

slide_298902_2489273_freeAt the risk of belaboring the point, there can also be no denying that, even if two neo-Nazis, instead of two Muslims, had slaughtered this British soldier in the same fashion, the media and Cameron still would not have called it terrorism. Got that?

To be fair, though, it’s arguable that the mass shootings cited above did not meet the general definition of terrorism because the perpetrators gave no indication that their violence was politically motivated. Whereas, just as the Marathon bombers in Boston did, these thugs in London made clear their political motivation.

They did so by unleashing excited utterances – to the smartphone cameras of horrified onlookers – about slaughtering this soldier in the name of Allah to avenge the killing of innocent people by British (and American) soldiers in Muslim countries (i.e., reciting chapter and verse from the Islamist global terrorism handbook).

And what must be particularly worrisome to British authorities is that, according to the London Daily Mail, the chief perpetrator was born in Britain to devoutly Christian parents who immigrated from Nigeria – perhaps fleeing persecution at the hands of Muslim fanatics who, for decades, have been terrorizing the “Middle Belt,” which separates the predominantly Muslim north from the predominantly Christian south. His accomplice was born in Nigeria.

In any event, based solely on their lunatic ranting right there at the scene of their crime, Cameron felt compelled to interrupt a foreign trip to rush home and address the nation – as if all of London were under attack. Indeed, because this murder was reflexively deemed a terrorist attack, he had to compete for airtime on all media outlets with looping replays of what smartphones captured of the perpetrators making their plainly delusional declaration of war.

Frankly, the only reason for the grossly disproportionate reaction in this case seems to be that bogeyman term: terrorism.

Therefore, God help us if al-Qaeda ever decides to emulate this feat by coordinating 10 similar [attacks], simultaneously.

(“Manhunt for Marathon Bombers Turning Boston into Theater of the Absurd,” The iPINIONS Journal, April 19, 2013)

_67774544_1e06bb18-5c65-4066-b874-c836576a30c2Nonetheless, there was Cameron – staged with Number 10 as his backdrop to give the occasion the gravitas he thought it warranted – pathetically, shamelessly, channeling Britain’s greatest wartime prime minister, Winston Churchill:

We will never give in to terror or terrorism in any of its forms.

(BBC, May 23, 2013)

Of course, all of his allies, led by President Obama, then felt obliged to pledge unconditional and unwavering support:

The United States stands resolute with the United Kingdom, our ally and friend, against violent extremism and terror.

(, May 23, 2013)

Blah, blah, blah.

Frankly, the only wonder to me is that it took the police so long to show up at the scene. Hell, reports are that the perpetrators ended up mugging for the cameras only after approaching onlookers to ask if anybody had bothered to call the police. Many had; so the only thing left to do, while everybody waited, was for them to plead their case, and for onlookers to listen in horror … and videotape.

Clearly this tardy response makes a mockery of Britain’s vaunted reputation for having “Bobbies” patrolling every street and CCTV cameras surveilling every nook and cranny.

Even more puzzling, though, is that when they finally arrived, instead of taking these machete and knife-wielding idiots out, the police merely wounded them, despite opening fire in a way that would make John Dellinger proud. Remarkably, they are now resting comfortably in hospital in stable condition … with “non-life-threatening injuries.”

So either the London police need to spend more time at the gun range honing their shooting skills; or they did not shoot to kill on purpose, hoping to extract intelligence from them about their Iman/handler, motivations, methods, accomplices, network, etc. If it’s the latter, all I can say is, yeah, good luck with that.

Whatever the case, in keeping with my long-standing policy of doing what little I can to deny mass murderers and wannabe terrorists the publicity they seek, I have not published their ugly mugs and shall refrain from even mentioning their names.

Unfortunately, thanks to the British media and PM Cameron, these cowardly murderers have far more cause to claim “mission accomplished” than former President George W. Bush ever did. I don’t know why Western media and political leaders alike fail to appreciate that publicizing and politicizing these crimes only reward the perpetrators and inspire others to copy their misdeeds: media attention is to wannabe jihadists what blood is to vampires.

I’m constrained to wonder why the media always reward these psychotic people by giving them the fame they covet; that is, by plastering their pathetic mugs all over television and on the front page of every major newspaper … worldwide, and reporting pop psychology about why and how they did their dastardly deeds? Isn’t it clear to see, especially in this age of instant celebrity, why some loser kid would find this route to infamy [and 72 obliging virgins] irresistible?

You’d think … we would have figured out by now that the best way to discourage them is by focusing our attention on the victims and limiting what we say about the [perpetrators] to: May God have mercy on your soul as you burn in Hell!

(“Massacre in Omaha,” The iPINIONS Journal, December 7, 2007)

Not to mention that it emboldens other Islamist lone wolves, as much as it terrorizes people, to have so-called terrorism experts all over TV now pronouncing abject nonsense about these two idiots representing a new phase in al-Qaeda’s grand scheme to bring down Western civilization.

Screen Shot 2013-05-24 at 2.44.29 PMAnd am I the only one who finds it laughable that politicians, like London Mayor Boris Johnson, invariably react by declaring – with a straight face – that these incidents will not force us to change our way of life? Especially given that Western cities are looking more like bustling army bases every day….

Meanwhile, reports are that these two murderers were radicalized by Muslim clerics who blithely abused the freedom of speech and religion they enjoy in Britain to spew the very diabolical language of vengeance these two used to justify their slaughter. But I submit that a cleric inciting worshipers to violence (e.g., by preaching about the right to behead anyone who insults Islam or to “take an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” – whatever that means in practice) is even more anathema to free speech than a person shouting fire in a crowded theater. This too should be illegal.

Alas, nothing could be more pleasing to these radical clerics than to see White “yobs” reacting to this slaughter by vowing to mete out their own form of religious vengeance. For this would give them cause to channel no less a warrior king than Henry V before the famous Battle of Agincourt. And their words of perverse courage, honor, manhood, and martyrdom are bound to inspire many more hopeless and impressionable Muslims to emulate what their semi-martyred brothers did on Wednesday.

But I warned it would be thus:

It must be understood, however, that no matter their collective resolve, there’s absolutely nothing our governments can do to prevent such attacks. Meanwhile, that Americans reacted yesterday as if those explosions went off in Washington or New York should compel Westerners to focus on calming our collective nerves instead of fretting about (or worse, trying to figure out) the motivation for and timing of terrorist attacks by Islamic fanatics.

(“7/7 Terror Attacks in London,” The iPINIONS Journal, July 8, 2005)

NOTE: Apropos of the general definition of terrorism, I wonder why acts of violence the KKK and affiliated White-supremacist groups perpetrate(d) are/were never called terrorism…? Surely they terrorize(d) people every bit as much as al-Qaeda and affiliated Islamist groups do, no? But, if one didn’t know better, one would think Muslims were the first to use terrorism to achieve political objectives.

Related commentaries:
Boston bombing
7/7 terror attacks
Media compounding tragedy

This commentary was originally published yesterday, Friday,  at 4:47 pm

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.

My Books

VFC Painting


Subscribe via Email

Powered by FeedBlitz