At Polipundit Lorie Byrd updates regarding Mohammad Reza Taheri-Azar , who drove an SUV on March 3 through a group of UNC-Chapel Hill students, injuring many. He admits he wanted:
to take the lives of as many Americans and American sympathizers as i (sic) can in order to punish United States for their immoral actions around the world.Taheri-Azar's admission was made in a letter he wrote shortly before the attack. The letter was made public during a court hearing Friday.
Lorie links to Athena, who posts the entire letter including this:
In the Qur'an, Allah states that the believing men and women have permission to murder anyone responsible for the killing of other believing men and women.After reading Lorie and Athena's post, I've some questions.
First, to UNC Chancellor Moeser and university spokespeople: Will you now call Taheri-Azar a terrorist, or must a person do something even more horrific than attempting to kill UNC students solely because they’re Americans before you’ll call him a terrorist?
Second, to MSM news organizations: Most of you have dodged calling Taheri-Azar a terrorist. Instead, he’s “a recent UNC grad.”
Should we expect you to continue avoiding calling him a terrorist while perhaps varying your “recent UNC grad” descriptor with others such as “Tar Heel militant” and “the person U. S. officials accuse of masterminding the 3/3 UNC Pit attack?”
I hope not.
Why refuse to call him what he's told you he is: a terrorist?
3 comments:
No, they will still refuse to call him a terrorist. There are two reasons for this. The first and least important is that they are afraid of muslim backlash. As we know muslims are not tolerant of reality when it relates to them unfavorably and tend to kill people over it.
The second and most important reason is that if they did call him a terrrorist it would denote their acknowledgement of a legitimate terror threat and its perpetrators, and lend credence to the Republican administration's War on Terror. This would do nothing to further their ambition of gaining political power domestically.
Though it would be in the best interests of the country to bear accurate witness to the facts, that is not nearly so important to them as regaining power. If the country must be harmed to accomplish that, that is a price a they are willing to pay, and cheap at the price by their lights.
Their loyalty to the fantasy of their own moral and intellectual superiority is stronger than any small vestige of patriotic loyalty they may retain.
Blackbeard?
If they try him in loony Chapel Hill, I bet he gets a slap on the wrist and basically walks. He's the victim doncha know?
Post a Comment