Victimization of Terrorists
http://chersonandmolschky.com/2013/08/22/victimization-terrorists/
1 Reply
“Friendly” terrorist? (Source: http://www.european-freedom-initiative.org)
Members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Haram… victims? Thinking in those terms, no one would dare to make such a bold statement. But in recent years whenever a terror attack has occurred in the West, the media has rushed to get to know the perpetrators, digging into family history and inventing far-reaching explanations as to why these “poor” mass murderers committed their crimes. It seems anything is better than telling the public the cold hard truth that the terrorists themselves wanted us to know: the motive was jihad. “Allahu Akbar!”
Compassion is a good thing, whether it is for the collective group or for the individual. However, this compassion should be within reason and have limits. In Western society today, compassion is too often misguided. A new phenomenon we are experiencing now is the victimization of terrorists.
It is illogical to explain away the reasons why someone committed some horrible act, placing the blame on a terrible childhood, on society, on what else is happening in the world, on the government, and frankly, on anything other than the true reasons. If, for example, Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 32 others at Fort Hood, openly admitted that he did it under the influence, not of drugs or alcohol- but of Islam- yet this jihadist motive is not allowed in court- where is that denial leading us as a society?
Anwar al-Awlaki was a US citizen killed in a drone attack. Let’s not forget who he was and what he did. An Islamic “spiritual advisor” who for a time was the imam at Nidal Malik Hasan’s mosque in Virginia, he made innumerable online videos and writings including Al Qaeda’s online magazine named “Inspire,” and “inspire” it did! Not only connected to the 9/11 attacks but also a slew of others including Fort Hood and the 7/7 bombings, he was a recruiter for Al Qaeda whose lectures had reached Muslims worldwide. When he was killed, the media did not report on any of his crimes but chose instead to focus on the fact that he was an “American.” Seems to me, he was an enemy of the United States and as such did not deserve any special rights.
In another outrageous move by the media, Rolling Stone Magazine decided to feature Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on its August 2013 cover in the most attractive photo they could find of him. There was a backlash from the American public, but the fact remains that the magazine defended their choice, and sales soared. Tsarnaev was made to look like a celebrity. Other media outlets were quick to explain the difficult childhood the brothers suffered. There are “Free Dzhokhar Tsarnaev” groups on Facebook, and many young girls think he’s innocent because they like the way he looks. News groups have also covered countless stories of the Tsarnaev brothers’ mother, another way to humanize Islamic terrorists.
Meanwhile, in an effort to counter Dzhokhar’s stardom, Massachusetts state trooper Sgt. Sean Murphy posted photos he had taken during the night at the boat when the police captured the murderer. The reaction? Murphy was temporarily suspended, and there is an ongoing investigation of his actions. He is now back to work but has the graveyard shift. So victimizing terrorists is ok, but painting a more accurate picture deserves punishment?
The reversal of logic is mind-boggling. When these two jihadists killed 4 people and injured over 260 others, the liberal media painted a terrible portrait of their lives, explaining how they were loners who never fit in, taking, once again, the focus away from Islam. Articles about the police shootout with the Tsarnaev brothers report how Tamerlan “was killed in the shootout” but fail to report that it was his own brother, Dzhokhar, who killed him by running over him with the SUV. And the latest news is that “poor” (then) 19 year-old Dzhokhar was shot in the face by police. So we are focusing on his young age and his injuries, rather than his crimes.
Just one month after the Boston Marathon Bombings, while the actual victims were still reeling from the incident, the families of the dead still grieving and those left amputees still learning how to get around, President Obama proclaimed that the war on terror is over. Meanwhile, Islamic terror continues all over the world, with the recent ousting of Egypt’s President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, which Obama backs, causing even more Muslim attacks on Christians. (The latest: three nuns paraded around “like prisoners of war” and dozens of attacks on Christian churches, homes and businesses.) The Islamic war on Israel is never-ending, and while Israel defends itself against the constant attacks, the liberal media criticizes the nation, as if it doesn’t have the right to defend itself. But if the assailants are Muslim, then those assailants miraculously turn into the victims.
A church in Egypt destroyed by Muslims. (Source: www.catholic.org)
But the mainstream media could never report such a piece of political incorrectness. One thing they are very good at is scrutinizing politicians. You’d think that candidates running for President were running for Sainthood with the way the media digs into their backgrounds and prints every little detail they find. Yet when someone kills thousands of Americans, he deserves some kind of “rights” as an American citizen? Someone kills 13 people while crying, “Allahu Akbar,” but we cannot use the guidance of Islam as the official motive? If the reason is purely financial so the victims do not qualify for certain benefits, as some are suggesting, the money the government spends on the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay demonstrates that money can be made available when it is a priority.
Guantanamo Bay is a travesty. With the national debt out of control, the US government can somehow cough up $81,000 for new televisions at Guantanamo Bay, while the civilian workers at the Pentagon were furloughed for 11 days without pay. Furthermore, the government is hiring instructors to teach the terrorists at Gitmo watercolor painting, Adobe Photoshop and Arabic calligraphy. The Pentagon has even asked the government for $450 million dollars to maintain and upgrade the facility.
These terrorist prisoners also enjoy the right to celebrate their “faith” in style. This year’s Eid dinner to mark the end of Ramadan at Guantanamo included lamb, bread, dates and honey, for people “truly deserving”, that is, terrorists who are enemies of the United States. But what’s a meal after all?
Do the terrorists at Gitmo deserve a nice, relaxing atmosphere?
They are given Qur’ans, prayer beads and rugs and have access to thousands of Islamic books which are only allowed to be touched by the Muslim librarian. Any guard who touches them could be fired. And the American flag is not allowed to be flown within sight of the prisoners. We went from waterboarding to a Muslim day spa.
And so with all the money and effort spent on the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, it is unlikely that “paying special benefits” to the Fort Hood victims is the reason for denying Nidal Malik Hasan’s jihadist motive. It is however, an unfortunate result.
The new trend is to either shift the blame from Islam or from the terrorists themselves and to even take it a step further and victimize them. They were deprived; that’s why they did it. It might be wise to stop victimizing the assailants and actually victimize the true victims. Stop humanizing those who are capable of evil. Stop sugarcoating Islam and covering up every act of Islamic terror with explanations and lies. Innocent people are murdered every day in the name of Allah. People are tortured, raped and maimed by those who have learned this behavior from their beloved prophet- around the world and every day.
Should we feel sorry for the 3000 innocent victims from the 9/11 attacks, or should we feel sorry for those responsible, people like al-Awlaki? Should we pamper those 9/11 terrorists who are still living, laughing themselves to sleep at night at our stupidity in Guantanamo Bay? Should we learn their histories, learn about their families, their hardships? And what about Nidal Malik Hasan who killed his fellow soldiers in cold blood? The Tsarnaev brothers? And if so, where does it end? Should our compassion then extend to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan… Bin Laden? They all had families, loved ones. We could humanize even the most inhuman of us all, but should we? Up is down, black is white, and something is seriously wrong with our society today. Let’s call a spade a spade: Islamic terrorism is influenced by Islam. Such a simple concept. Is that so hard to admit?
By: Rachel Molschky
Posts
