The end of the terror attack in Sydney, Australia, is still not clear, but that hasn't stopped the media from trying to call it something else. Let's see, we have a Moslem immigrant to Australia who has been protesting Australia's involvement in the fighting in Afghanistan. The guy was convicted of writing vile letters to survivors of soldiers killed in Afghanistan which included threats to those survivors. He also was charged as an accessory to the murder of his wife. He takes over a café in Sydney and grabs many hostages who were in the restaurant at the time. He displays the jihadist flag while the standoff with police is continuing. It now seems that he was killed by police when they stormed the café to try to rescue the hostages.
Is this a terror attack by an Islamic extremist? It sure seems like one. Is he a Moslem extremist? YES. Did he attack innocent civilians? YES. Did the attack promote Islamic ideology? YES. What more does the media want? They are telling us that this was an isolated event carried out by a mentally unstable individual. We don't know if this is true, but supposing that it is, that does not mean the guy is something other than an Islamic terrorist. After all, how many of the 9-11 attackers were mentally unstable people? How many of the suicide bombers who strike all over the world are mentally unstable people? Aren't they all unstable?
But here's another question to consider. If the terrorist had lived, would the folks in Sydney have minded if police subjected him to enhanced interrogation in order to find out if there were other imminent attacks planned? I doubt it. According to a CBS poll released this morning, even in America, that is the view of most people. A majority of the people consider enhanced interrogation techniques to be "torture", but a majority of the people also believe that use of these techniques was necessary and proper in the days after 9-11. An event like today's attack in Sydney reminds us just why that is so.
Is this a terror attack by an Islamic extremist? It sure seems like one. Is he a Moslem extremist? YES. Did he attack innocent civilians? YES. Did the attack promote Islamic ideology? YES. What more does the media want? They are telling us that this was an isolated event carried out by a mentally unstable individual. We don't know if this is true, but supposing that it is, that does not mean the guy is something other than an Islamic terrorist. After all, how many of the 9-11 attackers were mentally unstable people? How many of the suicide bombers who strike all over the world are mentally unstable people? Aren't they all unstable?
But here's another question to consider. If the terrorist had lived, would the folks in Sydney have minded if police subjected him to enhanced interrogation in order to find out if there were other imminent attacks planned? I doubt it. According to a CBS poll released this morning, even in America, that is the view of most people. A majority of the people consider enhanced interrogation techniques to be "torture", but a majority of the people also believe that use of these techniques was necessary and proper in the days after 9-11. An event like today's attack in Sydney reminds us just why that is so.
No comments:
Post a Comment