“Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American.”
That was the headline on a column of the popular liberal website, Salon, last week.
The author, David Sirota, said when a white guy commits odious crimes, “white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated.”
Even as I read that, I realized there is some truth to it, for Sirota himself is a white male and I do not hold other white men responsible for his sick and warped comments. It’s not Sirota’s maleness or whiteness I blame for his stupidity.
It’s his liberalness.
Oh, there was a lusting on the left for the killers to be white.
David Axelrod, the white male campaign strategist for Barack Obama, told a left-wing news channel, “I’m sure what was going through the president’s mind is — we really don’t know who did this. It was tax day.”
Really? Was that the salient characteristic of the Boston Marathon bombings? That it was on tax day — the implication that it was some right-wing protest against taxes and, it being Boston after all, surely linked to the Tea Party?
Or — just a wild guess here — did the terrorists target the Boston Marathon because it was a mass gathering of people, with enormous media coverage, the better to create terror? Axelrod preferred his theory, because Obama had already done a victory lap in the war against terrorism, and in fact had scrubbed the word terrorism from its official vocabulary. How could it be terrorism when Obama won that war?
As Hillary Clinton told Congress after the al-Qaida attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”
Blaming the Tea Party — oh, please, let the terrorists be Republican! — would allow Sirota and Axelrod and Clinton achieve their ultimate goal: Defining conservatives as enemies of the state.
Alas, it was not to be. The Tea Party’s perfect streak of peacefulness continues, but radical Islam, popularly known as the religion of peace, increases its body count.
One of the accused terrorists, killed in a gun battle with Massachusetts police early Friday morning, was Tamerlan Tsarnaev, a Chechen Muslim.
Tamerlan is an unusual name. It would be like finding a young white male Republican named Adolf.
We don’t hear the name Tamerlan a lot in the west, but that wasn’t always the case. Christopher Marlowe, a contemporary of William Shakespeare, wrote a play called Tamburlaine the Great. Tamerlane, who called himself the Sword of Islam, was a military dictator, great in the same sense that Hitler and Stalin were great.
Actually, he was greater. During his bloody reign some 700 years ago, his armies killed 5% of all human life on earth — the equivalent, given the world’s population at the time, of someone killing
350 million people today. Hitler and Mao and Stalin together did not achieve that bloodbath.
Why is that relevant? Because there is a branch of Islam that believes in violence, that looks into the Qur’an and reads it literally, as a document of war. Which it is. Mohammed was first and foremost a warrior. Unlike the bloodier chapters of the Bible, there has been no reformation of the Muslim faith, no modernization, no liberalization.
In fact, the most famous and powerful Muslim leaders — certainly the most popular on the Muslim street — call for a return to Tamerlane-style butchery, to achieve a global theocracy.
Last week, Justin Trudeau mused about the “root cause” of the bombings. But he suggested the root cause was “marginalization,” as if the bombers were kids bullied in high school.
No. The root cause is that they believe, like the old Tamerlane did, that the world should bow to Islam, and if persuasion didn’t work, swords or bombs would.
This column was written for Sun News April 21 2013.