Radicalized
terror
By Jim Killebrew
Send a link to a friend
[January 10, 2015]
The
media, especially the Fox News Network, has been critical of the
Administration not using the term, "Radical Islamic Terrorist" to
describe the attack in Paris, France. Apparently many believe the
Islamic religion has been hijacked by radical jihadists who are
speaking for the religion as they go about their terrorist
activities. Once again, in the beginning of the attack there was
speculation the shooters in Paris were "self-radicalized." This, in
a country where approximately twenty percent of the population is
now Muslim.
|
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2015/Jan/10/images/ads/current/sewingplace_bcv021809.png) It seems this term "self radicalized" is
being tossed around a lot intimating that
people who are already in the country where
they initiate a terrorist attack are somehow
independently, without the help of anyone
outside their sphere of influence is helping
them to become "radicalized" to engage in
terrorist activities. This was the almost
immediate conclusion the Administration drew
regarding the two men who were charged with
the Boston Marathon bombing; they were "self
radicalized."
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2015/Jan/10/images/ads/current/business_directory_filler.png)
That seems almost like an "oxymoron" where a
person can become influenced to the extent
of being "radical" about some cause without
there even being a cause of which to be a
part. In the case of the Boston bombing
where bombs were made, detonation devices
were constructed, certain materials were
used in combination that closely resembled
the same combination used in other bombings
in other parts of the world, containers to
carry the explosive material were common to
other bombings in the Middle East. Of
course, when three other people were
arrested in connection with the two who
carried out the bombing, it became known
there was a greater "network" than simple
self-radicalization. Not being an expert in
these matters, it still seems that just on
the surface of the evidence one would have
to at least consider those who carry out
these types of terrorist activities may not
have been working alone.
Therefore, as in the Boston bombers
incident, if all of those similarities
exist, the components, type of explosives,
canisters (pressure cookers), types of
shrapnel, the older brother traveling to
Russia for six months, reading and studying
the material published by radicals in Islam,
then how could the Administration conclude
within just hours of the bombing and arrest
of the one brother that they were "self
radicalized"? Likewise, during the Paris
terrorist attack, America's immediate
response was described by the White House
Press Secretary as a "terrible act of
violence." A short time later the President
framed the attack as a "cowardly evil
attack." We have since learned at least one
of the brothers who carried out the attack
in Paris trained in Yemen.
[to top of second column] |
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2015/Jan/10/images/ads/current/graue_preowned_122114.png)
The American media cannot be taken off the hook
for trying to deny the facts of the attacks such as the ones in
Boston and Paris. In some instances, when the incidents were
reported, they were couched in perceptions of those who would blame
the victims for having engaged in some terrorist conduct against the
Muslim community as to deserve what they got. There seems to be a
ubiquitous attempt from the liberal media to deflect the blame from
the perpetrators and place it on those who were simply going about
their business just before they were attacked and killed. Along with
the Administration the liberally-slanted media seems to favor the
position of refraining to call these attacks in Boston, Paris, and
even those in Canada and Australia, the work of Radical Islamic
terrorists, who for the most part, are connected to the larger
terrorist network being carried out all over the world by ISIS,
Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and the Palestinian state. The terror is real; the
terror is deadly, and it needs to be identified for what and who it
is.
Could it be that the Administration believes this has to be the
conclusion in order to fit the narrative the Administration has
projected? The Administration maintains they have destroyed the
capability of terrorist actions world-wide. If so, it seems like a
very dangerous position to turn a blind eye to extended
investigations, restricting theories of cause to just a narrow
narrative and shutting down interrogation efforts prematurely to
curtail the collection of further threats. Those actions, it seems,
could put the citizens of America and the world in further danger.
[By JIM KILLEBREW]
Click here to respond to the editor about
this article.
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2015/Jan/10/images/ads/current/tourism_lda_121014.png) |