Posted by
John Caile on Wednesday, December 30, 2009 12:27:17 PM
It was impossible for the mainstream media to avoid making comparisons between "belly-bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and "shoe-bomber" Richard Reid. But there has been a remarkably consistent avoidance of some rather intriguing details about the young man who tried to ignite an explosive device in his shoe on board an American Airlines plane in 2001.
First, he was not merely "Richard Reid from the UK," as a talking head referred to him the other day - which might give the (intended?) impression that he was just some disturbed young British lad who was having a bad day. Not even close.
Mr. Reid was in fact a member of Al-Qaeda who went mostly under the names "Abdul Raheem" and "Tariq Raja" and was a follower of the most radical form of Islam known as "Salafi" or "Wahabism."
Like his father, he spent much of his youth in and out of prison, where he converted to Islam. He later attended a virulently anti-Christian madrasah in Pakistan.
Even more interesting is the fact that Mr. Reid (dare I say "Abdul") was sent to bomb American Airlines Flight 63 by none other than Khaled Shaikh Mohammed - yes, the very same senior Al-Qaeda operative who is set to go on trial in New York.
In other words, the "shoe-bomber" has the resume of a typical jihadist - young, ideologically radical, and Muslim - hardly the picture one gets when presented with nothing more than "Richard Reid from the UK" is it?
But remember that the same sort of "camouflage" was applied to the "Beltway Snipers" of 2002. Before the two shooters were captured, the "experts" were oh so certain that they were "young, white, and likely Christian males" - when they turned out to black, and the senior member of the team was legally named "John Allen Muhammed," well, disguising their Muslim affiliation was a bit more difficult.
Nonetheless, the media skillfully avoided discussing the fact that both Muhammed and his young protege, Lee Malvo, were recent converts to Islam. And even when the obvious question could no longer be avoided, the press did everything to downplay the idea that their newly adopted religions had anything to do with their murder spree.
More recently, look how long it took for the media to admit that Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan was, quite simply, yet another radical, Islamic jihadist - just a home-grown one. It is probably not a shock that the most ridiculous comment came from the oh-so-politically-correct MSNBC, who said the following:
"There was no official word on motive. But Hasan was scheduled to be
deployed overseas on Nov. 28, officials said. Sen. Kay Bailey
Hutchison, R-Texas, said military officials had told her that Hasan was 'pretty upset' about his deployment, which she said was to be to Iraq."
The reason for the media's doing everything possible to avoid the obvious reality of Muslim extremism is simple - it conflicts with their liberal world view that all evil comes from white, Western, mostly Christian peoples, while "people of color" are invariably seen as "victims" of "oppression" by the industrialized nations of the world. Thus the media will always try to hide the Muslim connection whenever possible. And when they simply cannot avoid reporting on an act of terrorism perpetrated by a Muslim, they minimize the religious motive by calling the jihadist an "isolated extremist" - just as President Obama did.
So, don't be surprised to see all sorts of attempts at justifying, or at the very least, "explaining" this latest attack by yet another young, male, radical, Islamic terrorist. However, given that Al-Qaeda is publicly bragging about recruiting, training, and equipping Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab for his attack on Delta Flight 253, it will be a bit more difficult to deny his jihadist credentials.
But don't think for a moment that they won't continue to try...