"Inflamed by the participation in the Iraq war"?
The Washington Post invents the news.
Hugh Hewitt
The left is focused on Karl Rove. Serious people are focused on this:
<<<
"A government memo published in the Sunday Times last weekend warned that a loose group of 'extremist recruiters' sympathetic to the al Qaeda network was targeting susceptible young Muslims, especially those with technical and professional qualifications in engineering and computers. Most did not have police records, it said.
On Tuesday, Iqbal Sacranie, leader of the Muslim Council of Britain, told the BBC he had received the latest news from the police with 'anguish, shock and horror.'"
>>>
The Post report tries to cover for the inane "Iraq is at fault" caucus by noting that:
<<<
"Still, the profile of the suspects suggested by investigators fit long-standing warnings by security experts that the greatest potential threat to Britain could come from second-generation Muslims, born here but alienated from British society and perhaps from their own families, and inflamed by Britain's participation in the Iraq war."
>>>
There is no evidence offered for this astonishing assertion that the Iraq war has anything to do with the massacre. Zero! And none is needed for the true-believers in the MSM. Is this "reporting?" Or cheerleading for an alternative reality where writers feel free to ascribe to murderers their motives?
On Monday, when he was undressing Ron Reagan as the dilettante that young RR is, Christopher Hitches scolded him:
"I thought I heard you making just before we came on the
air, of attributing rationality or a motive to this, and
to say that it's about anything but itself, you make a
great mistake, and you end up where you ended up, saying
that the cause of terrorism is fighting against it, the
root cause, I mean." (emphasis added.)
Until the MSM grasp this point, they are worse than useless in the GWOT.
The Times of London reports that "intelligence agencies say that at least two of the men had recently returned from Pakistan," and that "[t]he mastermind behind the attacks and the bomb maker are both still thought to be at large."
There is no reason to believe that these are other than jihadist converts converts who were jihadist converts before the invasion of Iraq and jihadist converts who would have remained jihadist converts had the invasion of Iraq never occurred.
Another Times story adds:
"A cousin said yesterday that Hasib 'went off the rails
and his parents were very worried. They wanted to instill
some discipline in him; I don’t know what happened, but
18 months to two years ago Hasib suddenly changed and
became devoutly religious.'”
The cousin does not mention the invasion of Iraq, which is now 28 months ago. I can find no mention of Iraq anywhere in the English press.
But there it is, in the Washington Post --"inflamed by Britain's participation in the Iraq war"-- without a shred of evidence to support it, but propped up by an ideology that refuses to consider any theory except those that condemn Bush.
Who are the "mastermind" and the "bomb maker?" When the evidence rolls in that they were "inflamed by Britain's participation in the Iraq war," then the editors of the Post can have their professional credentials and dignity back.
Until such time, they are anti-Bush hacks, and nothing more.
hughhewitt.com
washingtonpost.com
dictionary.reference.com
radioblogger.com
timesonline.co.uk
timesonline.co.uk
washingtonpost.com |
