I can appreciate that everyone holds off mentioning the religion of the shooter until its been confirmed. Thats just good journalism. Speculation is speculation and doesnt belong in news coverage. But Ive heard several outfits call American-born radical muslims home grown terrorists. No. The closest thing we have to a home grown terrorist is McVey, and even he may have had some help from some Iraqis in his assault on the Murrah building. There are aspects of that case still not properly explored. But an American man who joins the military and puts on the uniform and (either before or after joining) makes up his mind to attack and kill fellow military members in the name of Islam is not a HOME GROWN radical islamist terrorist. He is grown by the same people who grow the terrorists in all the other places in the world. The fact that he was born here is of no account; radical Islam recruits everywhere. I suspect that home grown is a phrase adopted by TV news in order to avoid getting too much heat from the left for naming and shaming Islam. There is room in home grown for the viewer to misapprehend what is meant, and I believe that room is left entirely on purpose. For me, whether he is born and raised in Islamabad, in Istanbul or in south side Chicago, a radical islamist terrorist is exactly the same. Islamism knows no ethnicity or language. Indonesia breeds terrorists as does Pakistan, Malaysia, Iran and Arab countries, among others. Many languages and cultures, and America is included in those. But an Islamist terrorist is by definition NOT American, not in his outlook or loyalty. So home grown is all wrong for me, and I wont be using it. I believe in calling things what they obviously are. This incident is not yet obviously an Islamist terrorist; if it should become that, then that is what I will call it, regardless of the national origin of the killer.
Posted on: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 00:15:57 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015