America is behind the curve when it comes to recognizing threats. After three attacks in one day, can Americans finally discuss Islamic extremism without being called deplorable? Throughout the horrific day, almost hourly, authorities reported that the motive for all three attacks was unclear. It was pretty clear to me.
Before the suspect, Ahmad Khan Rahami, had even been captured, New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo originally said the bomb in the city was “obviously an act of terrorism, but it’s not linked to international terrorism”, and clarified that no link to the so-called Islamic State (IS) group “et cetera” had been found.
Rather than address the actual threat, President Obama continued his long tradition of nuanced, culturally masochistic ramblings – still refusing to rule out that this attack was classic domestic terrorism.
Interestingly enough, most Americans were able to figure out the motive by themselves. As anyone paying attention since 9/11/2001 should know, the days of questioning motives are over. There are simply too many dead bodies to still believe President Obama’s claim that religious extremism isnt a threat.
Desperate for coincidence, the Democratic Party is clinging onto the hope that the Minnesota attack and the New York/ New Jersey attacks were not connected. Desperate for dismissal, the Democratic Party clings to the idea that neither attacker had any affiliation with overseas operations. Has anyone wondered why we have a party that cares more about the PR of global Islam than it does for its own constituents?
When a car full of explosions blows up in Baghdad, you won’t find a man wondering what the motive was. When the 30th missile of the week flies from Palestine to Israel, there are no Israelis waiting for their leader to tell them why they deserved the attack.
Unlike the rest of the world, Western Europe and the United States are behind the reality curve – to the childlike point of intentional naivety. Said sadly, with a strong desire to believe terrorism is simply a figment of conservative imaginations, it would seem the Democrats are wrong – terrorism does exist.
Much of this sick “wait and see” rhetoric we’re spoon fed comes in response to two unquestioned facts: if terrorism is at an all-time high, the Democratic party failed at their foreign policy for the last 8 years; if terrorism is at an all-time high, the Democratic Party can’t continue its suicidal plan of continuing Muslim immigration at higher rates.
Instead of discussing the victims or potential responses, Americans are instead subjected to hours of talking heads and politicians expressing their desire for Americans to not jump to the conclusion that Ahmad Khan Rahami and Dahir Adan knew about each other or we’re affiliated with ISIS. Before the verdict is in, I will venture the guess that these attacks were religiously motivated. How many Dem’s want to take that bet?
Editor’s note: This theme reminds me of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement strategy – let’s not offend our enemies. Unfortunately this has turned into such terrible circumstances as the worst possible agreement with Iran, and tens of thousands of potential terrorists coming into our country.