The terrorist propagandists ply their trade with the same relentlessness that terrorists like Tamerlan Tsarnaev ply theirs. They have no sense of right and wrong and no sense of decency
There is no way to know what tomorrow may bring. There may be floods and there may be hurricanes. There may be muggings and murders. But the one thing we can be sure of is that the parade of sympathetic stories about the Muslim terrorists who bombed the Boston Marathon will continue.
The terrorist propagandists ply their trade with the same relentlessness that terrorists like Tamerlan Tsarnaev ply theirs. They have no sense of right and wrong and no sense of decency either.
And so the paper of record, whose record is that of defending terrorists, is at it again. Before the Boston Marathon bombings, the New York Times ran an op-ed from one of Osama bin Laden's bodyguards whining about his hunger strike. After the bombings, it keeps running sympathetic pieces about the bombers.
The latest such piece tries to spin a new narrative that Tamerlan Tsarnaev only turned to terrorism because immigration rules at the Golden Gloves prevented him from competing.
The narrative contradicts much of what we know from other sources. Tamerlan Tsarnaev told his father that he was giving up boxing because he believed it was against Islam. And Tamerlan Tsarnaev had lost an earlier match, though the New York Times insists, based on a quote from his coach, that he really should have won.
And there you go. A perfectly nice Chechen loses a boxing match and then gets shut out from the competition for a year until he gets his citizenship. And then he gets shut out from obtaining citizenship due to domestic violence and terrorism and he has no choice but to turn to terrorism.
The narrative is slimy and dishonest. And it points toward Appeasement Avenue.
The idea is that if you don't give a Muslim everything he wants, if you don't bend over backward to provide him with special treatment, he may turn to terrorism. And then you're responsible for the murders of those he kills.
It's obscene. It's self-destructive. It's liberalism.