Earlier last week I posted my misgivings on how some South African commentators turned the Boston Bombings into a platform to highlight American war
crimes, without once referring to the war crimes of Islamist insurgents and terrorists.
Watching CNN and some other channels this morning (after the capture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) it seemed some left-wing speakers were immediately
downplaying the Islamist angle, and astoundingly wanted to box these likely culprits into the same class as school shooters: as simply alienated and
disenfranchised young men!
No potential link whatsoever was to made between them and extremist Muslim ideology.
On Sky News it was intimated that without direct links to a terrorist organization they couldn't be called "terrorists", and the Dzhokhar couldn't be
charged as a terrorist.
They were just angry young men who went on a rampage, perhaps with some political influence and religious overtones as minor influences.
I'd say they were blatantly Islamist from the first tidbits of information, which fired an immediate liberal response of damage control, because many
leftist Western attitudes make the same basic propagandist points as Islamic extremism.
It is clear that the majority of Muslims are not extremists - I think we can all understand that by now.
However, one doesn't have to search Youtube for long to find Islamist preachers who openly say things like that the black flag of radical Islam will
fly over the White House (and all the world's governments), and that they don't believe in democracy or human rights.
In documentaries like "My brother - the Islamist" (see Youtube) it is quite clear that those in the Islamist cult see the "infidels" as valueless, and
almost take personal affront at Western freedom of dress, alcohol use or gay rights.
It's not just a disapproval, it's almost an attempt to dehumanize the "kuffar".
The earliest reports already made this ideology quite clear for Tamerlan (the older brother).
He made it clear that he couldn't befriend or identify with Americans (typical attitude of Islamists to the "kuffar"), that there were no values, and
that alcohol was wrong.
It seems his Youtube channel alone was a blatant link to his ideology, although a local media report here says simply that he defended "orthodox
Islam" (with an anti-Sufi post, for example).
Well, allegedly Tamerlan Tsarnaev also made an Al Qaeda prophesy video on his Youtube channel titled "The Emergence of Prophesy: The Black Flags of
While a lot of Anti-Americanism does not itself constitute calls to terrorism, a lot of the "War on Terror" critique is one-sided, and simply cannot
admit that Islamism does commit atrocities and it successfully recruits young people.
Neither does it admit that one-sided victim-hood propaganda pushed by Western liberals is a useful milieu for the developing Islamist mindset, just as
tacitly racist attitudes in wider society may further enable a young white supremacist.
Well, it certainly won't dissuade them from more radical beliefs and actions.
For example, apparently on the 6 April the mosque attended by Dzhokhar (Islamic Society of Boston) hosted a book signing by the British journalist
Victoria Brittain who criticized the UK and US for waging a "War on Islam" rather than a war on terror.
The attitudes of the parents were similarly bordering on complicity, with the mother saying that a major FBI conspiracy was to blame, instead of her
little angels, who were victimized because they were Muslims (typical persecution complex that feeds Islamism). She did admit however in a roundabout
way that the FBI had already investigated Tamerlan previously (although at the time he played his cards right and they ignored him).
Although not all media accounts have been verified, I think the emerging picture is pretty clear.
The brothers came under the sway of radical Islamism, and they played their lone wolf part of not arousing suspicions very well.
Their direct family (parents) and religious milieu might not openly have encouraged terrorism, but it certainly seems to have focused on the
persecution of Muslims in a propagandist and unbalanced way.
Last week I watched the German ARD documentary "Im Netz der Salafisten" (In the net of the Salafists) on Youtube, and this showed devastated German
parents whose young adult children were converted to Islam in Salafist mosques, and in some cases they willingly joined terrorist insurgents in
Pakistan or Somalia just a few months later.
This is how effective Islamist mind control can be: it can take even complete non-Muslims and turn them into extremist fighters within a matter of
It is a global danger to moderate Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Why is this white-washed?
Is this not conspiracy?
If there is a conspiracy that will ultimately use the War on Terror to curtail Western freedoms then the Islamists are surely part of that of
If the "Illuminati" run everything, then they also run the Islamists.
Why this unbalanced focus on the police during the Boston events?
What innocent US citizens did they hurt or kill in this case?
Surely those who propagate Islamic extremism and terrorism, and provide its fertile soil of propaganda should also be seen as a part of the
The aim of terrorism is often to cause an authoritarian over-reaction, and thus to alienate the masses from authority.
It doesn't matter if the terrorists are local or imported, if they have accomplished this they have succeeded.
So I was heartened by the Boston crowds celebrating their police and first-responders yesterday.
If civil liberties and freedom in the Internet is curtailed I blame the foolish people who came under the sway of Islamism, or whatever terrorist
Without terrorists who fall victim to a whole network of direct and indirect encouragement none of this reaction would be possible.
They are also useful idiots in the globalist agenda, and possibly the turd in the punchbowl for Internet freedom.
While American war crimes certainly don't help to diffuse the situation, I think there is a form of radical Islamism that will attempt to take global
power no matter what anyone else says or does to appease them.
Unless virtually all the media is lying these guys were guilty.
I would say they were fools and pawns in restricting Western or Muslim freedoms even more, but then again protecting Western or Muslim freedoms was
definitely not their goal.
They wanted to provoke more oppression, and thus more angry people to join their "righteous" totalitarian cause.
Let's also pay attention to the Islamist conspiracy and call a spade a spade.
Unless 90 percent of the media is lying (and entertain a conspiracy that Islamism with various nationalist appeals doesn't exist, which would be
denying reality, since one can find Islamist preachers and their sympathizers in most countries) these bombers were Islamists.
Their ideological blogging doesn't even make them slightly Islamist - they were blatant Islamists!
Clearly their parents themselves sounded biased and confused, and unable to provide clear moral guidance.
So what if people in Boston celebrated with chants of "USA"?
Better than living under the black flag of Islamism.
edit on 20-4-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)