It is Ok to tie attacks to Iraq, but not Islamic terrorist

Oliver North:

On July 4, President George W. Bush told the troops and families of the 167th Airlift Wing in Martinsburg, W.V. that, "Our first Independence Day celebration took place in the midst of a war -- a bloody and difficult struggle that would not end for six more years before America finally secured her freedom." He went on to urge "more patience, more courage, more sacrifice," in order to achieve victory in Iraq. If we were to quit Iraq before the job is done, the president explained, "the terrorists would follow us here," and he reminded his critics, "These people want to strike us again."

What he didn't do was describe just who "these people" are. In the aftermath of last week's botched terror attacks by eight medical professionals in Great Britain -- explaining who "these people" are has became more difficult, and the potentates of the press aren't about to help him.

Mainstream media coverage of the three-part event -- two car bombs that failed to detonate in London and a flaming SUV driven into the front of the airport terminal in Glasgow, Scotland -- was a bigger dud than the doctors' poorly designed vehicular-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs). Even before the terror suspects were identified, cable news and wire service reports were trying to link the botched attack to the war in Iraq.

...

But, whatever you do, never indicate any relationship between the mass murderer want to bes and their religion whether they should Allah, Allah, as they set themselves on fire or not. Diana West talks about how deeply liberals denial is in the UK.

...

The new British prime minister, Gordon Brown, has directed ministers to omit "Muslim" when discussing (Muslim) terrorism. And forget the generic "war on terror"; even that pathetic phrase is off limits. (This has absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Brown's unctuously stated goal to make Britain "the gateway for Islamic finance.") The new Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith (love that "i" ending) refers to British Muslims as "communities" — maybe a prelude to not mentioning them at all. Both have done the "perversion of a great faith" dance to enlightened applause, taking cues from the unpublished "EU Lexicon," which reportedly nixes such "offensive" phrases as "Islamic terrorism."

British literary lions couldn't agree more. Philosopher John Gray and historian Eric Hobsbawm recently said on British television that even the word "Islamist" was "unfair" because "it implied a strong link to Islam." Never mind the link is doctrinally accurate. Better to accommodate mortal threat without identifying its Islamic roots. Instead of defending their nations — for starters, stopping Islamic immigration and, with it, the progression of Islamic law into Western societies — our elites have decided to pretend Islam isn't there at all.

In the media, the effort is misleading to the point of farce. Joel Mowbray, writing at the Powerline blog, noted that the New York Times has identified Britain's Muslim terrorists as "South Asian people" — which, considering Britain's largest South Asian population is Hindu, is beyond absurd. "Diverse group allegedly in British plot," the Associated Press reported, missing that unifying Islamic thread. "All 8 detainees have ties to health service," wrote the Toronto Star, "but genesis of terror scheme still eludes investigators."

...

I do not believe that the investigators are as foolish as the liberals. The got a pretty good clue when the guy who set himself on fire was hollering "Allah, Allah" as he flailed around and attempted to avoid being subdued by authorities. Certainly the everyday Scots who came to the assistance of the police knew what was up as they pummeled him into submission. They certainly exhibited more self awareness than the liberal media. "... genesis of terror scheme still eludes investigators,"--who are these guys kidding?