<< Where Are the Apologies? | Main | Death-Eligible Charges Filed Against Tsarnaev >>

Does It Matter That the Boston Bombers Were Muslim?

It's clear by now that the Boston bombers were Islamic radicals (not Senate Republicans, with all due respect to NYT columnist Nicolas Kristof).  In an Atlantic article  --  certain to be a model for the coming defense narrative  --  they are portrayed as just, you know, ordinary guys who happened to be Muslim.  Indeed, the title of the article, by Ms. Megan Garber, is, "The Boston Bombers Were Muslim: So?"

John Hinderaker at Powerline makes fast and hilarious work of that one:

Before taking a close look at Ms. Garber's article, let's advise The Atlantic not to put away that headline. It could come in handy so often. "The Cole Bombers Were Muslim: So?" "The Embassy Bombers Were Muslim: So?" "The First World Trade Center Bombers Were Muslim: So?" "The September 11 Bombers Were Muslim: So?" "The Madrid Bombers Were Muslim: So?" "The London Bombers Were Muslim: So?" "The Shoebomber Was Muslim: So?" The Underwear Bomber Was Muslim: So?" "The Fort Hood Shooter Was Muslim: So?" "The Beslan Child-Murderers Were Muslim: So?" "The Times Square Bomber Was Muslim: So?"

John's devastating essay spoofing liberal knownothingism about terror is very much worth the read.


A lot of people on the Left are very invested in downplaying the religious angle of terrorism. But if these guys turned out to fundamentalist Christians, would the narrative be the same?

I'm largely a liberal (e.g. in favor of single-payer health care, gay marriage,gun control, etc.), but as long as I live I will never truly understand fellow libs who play virtual Twister feebly attempting to explain away Muslim terrorists and their fellow travelers, when these very same Muslims would surely slit the liberals' throats first if they ever got the upper hand. A great many Muslims simply don't play by the same set of rules that the vast majority of Westerners of all political stripes do. I just don't get why so many liberals don't view (or pretend not to view) Muslim extremism as an existential threat to liberal values and to liberals themselves.

So the vast majority of terrorist attacks are undertaken by muslims.

However, the vast majority of muslims are not terrorists.

I believe both statements are true.

If I am right, what are the implications or what should do about it?

For starters, we ought to severely curtail immigration to the United States by young Muslim men. Moreover, law enforcement should "profile" to their hearts' content. Mosques ought to go on being monitored with no concern whatsoever over whether Muslims' feelings are hurt by such attention. Plus, resources should not be squandered treating everyone equally for appearances' sake (e.g. wheelchair-bound grannies getting as much scrutiny as young men from Muslim countries or Westerners who are clearly Muslim).

As for the vast majority of Muslims not being terrorists, that is certainly true. However, the problem lies in the active support terrorists get from the non-terrorist Muslim population (e.g. plenty of Muslims jumping for joy when the towers fell) all the way to the half-hearted condemnations they get from much of the rest of said population (e.g. criticizing terrorism but calling its perpetrators "martyrs").

While I do understand the necessity of politicians tiptoeing around the issue of Islam's being incompatible with Western liberal values (terrorism merely being its most extreme manifestation), there's certainly no reason ordinary citizens should sugarcoat the situation. I mean, let's face it, when those bombs went off at the marathon, I think most people didn't think it was very likely that the Mormon Tabernacle Choir had planted them.

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives