Tensions in Sri Lanka have been brewing for several years among a number of Islamist groups. As they are pushed, they will start hitting softer targets
CHARLOTTE, NC: The one thing more maddening than the ambivalence that ensues after every major terrorist attack is the inane follow-up questions and/or commentary by the media.
In the wake of the horrendous Easter attacks in Sri Lanka which left nearly 300 innocent people dead, one article stated
“No one is quite sure yet why police didn’t act on the intelligence when it was received, but it’s certain to be a very big topic of conversation in Sri Lanka and around the world.” (Sri Lanka Was Warned of Possible Attacks. Why Didn’t It Stop Them?)
The reason, of course, is because we are constantly lulled into an on-going false sense of security, or better yet, apathy, that “it couldn’t happen here” until it actually does. Then when it does, everyone scratches their heads and asks the same silly questions.
The next most frustrating aspect, according to Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch
“Reflects the establishment media’s ironclad rule: whenever non-Muslims attack Muslims, Muslims are the victims. And when Muslims attack non-Muslims, Muslims are the victims.” (UK: “Crisis analyst” says Sri Lanka jihad massacres could lead to violence against Muslims)
If we can ever get beyond the liberal concept of Muslim victimization, which appears is never going to happen, then possibly something might change. Certainly, it won’t occur while bleeding-heart apologists continue to look the other way.
Once again stating the obvious, the media is reporting that the multiple suicide attacks were carried out as retaliation for the bombings of two mosques in New Zealand in March when more than 50 Muslims were killed.
While Islamic apologists nod their heads and scratch their knowledgeable chins and opine that it is nothing more than the old “eye for an eye” concept, they fail to recognize that “retaliation” in the Muslim world is nothing more than a synonym for “justification.
