Update: The Washington Post Apologizes for Possible Connection to Radical Islam in Boston Terror Attack

WHY THE FEAR?

by Sharon Rondeau

(Apr. 15, 2013) — Max Fisher of The Washington Post has written an editorial stating that it is “premature” to call the attacks on the Boston Marathon on Monday acts of terrorism.

The title of his piece is “Please Don’t be a Muslim:  Boston marathon blasts draw condemnation and dread in Muslim world.”  However, his article acknowledges that there were “a couple crazies out of 200-something” on a Muslim social media consultant’s “Islamists’ list” who apparently made unsympathetic or worse remarks following today’s double explosion in Copley Square.

It has already been reported that the FBI has called the attacks terrorism, although Obama did not use the term in his remarks.  However, an unnamed official speaking after Obama gave a statement said that the blasts were “an act of terror.”

Why would an apology be made for any Islamic connection to the attacks?  On September 11, 2001, 19 radical Muslims flew airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and ultimately a field in Pennsylvania, with the total number dead just under 3,000.

Claiming that a number of “pro-American solidarity rallies were held throughout the region after Sept. 11, 2001,” meaning the Middle East, Fisher did not include the fact that members of Hamas celebrated the killing of thousands of people on the U.S. mainland that day.  The Obama regime is now aiding and siding with the Palestinians, who carried out “celebrations in the streets, including shouts of joy by women” following the 9-11 attacks.

Just after 9-11, TIME Magazine claimed that Islam is peaceful.

Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, said that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”  Wright has connections to Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam.

An act of terror is defined as “violent acts which are intended to create fear…perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal.”  The religion or nationality of the perpetrator does not determine whether or not the act was one of terrorism.

On September 11, 2012, four Americans were killed at a U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya during a terrorist attack about which the White House lied for several weeks until the intelligence community affirmed that the deaths did not not arise from protests over an obscure video.  Obama’s whereabouts and activities on that evening have not been detailed to the press or the American people.

Obama promised to “find out” who perpetrated the carnage on Monday.  His own FBI, however, has been unable to explain why his identification has been found to be fraudulent.

Promising to mete out “justice” to the terrorists, what kind of justice might Obama face by using fraudulent documents in two presidential elections?

Why can’t terrorism be identified for what it is, regardless of who perpetrates it?

Update, 11:00 p.m. EDT:  The New York Post is reporting that a Saudi Arabian is being guarded at a Boston hospital as a “person of interest” in the bombings on Monday.

—————–

Editor’s Note:  In 1799, U.S. Consul to Tunis William Eaton was quoted as having said, “Too many concessions have been made to Algiers.  There is but one language which can be held to these people, and this is terror.”