Please keep in mind as you read this that I wrote it before more information was released about Shahzad’s motives…keep the timing of the AP article in context.

Every once in a while the combination of idiocy and bias in the liberal media stuns even a reader as jaded as me.  This happened yesterday in an AP article my friend Rusty S. pointed out to me entitled “NY car bomb suspect cooperates, but motive mystery“.

As Rusty pointed out, the article never mentions that the would-be bomber, Faisal Shahzad, is a Muslim.  As I’d remind Rusty, that’s par for the course in the media, so afraid to offend members of that particular violent cult.  On the one hand, his religion is obvious.  On the other hand, it’s critically important and must be mentioned in any rational discussion of Shahzad and the larger threat he represents.

Let’s be clear about this:  “Extremist” Muslims are the ones who are actually following what their holy book, the Koran, says.  The non-violent Muslims are simply not particularly devout members of the faith.  In a way, despite the politically correct rhetoric of many, including many conservatives, we are indeed at war with a religion as it is that religion’s stated goal to convert, subjugate, or kill all non-members of that religion.

What part of this, from one of the last sections of the Koran, don’t you understand? “(F)ight those of the unbelievers near you and let them see how harsh you can be.” Or this: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (People of the Book are Christians and Jews. Jizya is a Muslim tax on non-Muslims.)

Their religion is the one thing that these enemies have in common, as they come from many different countries. Indeed, most of them probably consider themselves Muslim before they consider themselves Pakistani, Egyptian, Saudi, or whatever. Because we are at war with a religion doesn’t mean we are at war with all members of that religion, just as we weren’t at war with all Germans during WWII. But casualties among Germans (including those who didn’t stop their government from becoming what it became, and even a few who tried) were inevitable, just as casualties among Muslims who may not attack us but who don’t stop their brethren from attacking us are inevitable. Furthermore, while I think the quarantining of Japanese Americans during WWII was unconscionable, American Muslims should understand that suspicion, even if essentially unfounded, may follow them, particularly while the most vocal American Muslim organizations are thinly-veiled apologists for terrorists – not a big surprise since most of these groups have funding from the Middle East and are American in name only. American Muslims would do themselves a lot of good by starting a highly visible organization which is clearly and honestly and loudly against terrorism.

So, back to the AP article.  Yes, as Rusty points out with dripping sarcasm, “It was big of them though to call it a terrorist act."  But now that they know he trained in Pakistan and was connected with a radical mosque there, I’m struggling to figure out what part of his motivation is a mystery.

Or are we trying to figure out at the deepest part of his twisted brain just what Shahzad was upset about?  It’s true that the placement of the bomb looked as if he might have been going after Comedy Central, which had been threatened after South Park created an episode poking a bit of fun at Mohammed…a guy who clearly can’t take a joke.  However, Shahzad’s apparently public-school-quality terrorist training in Waziristan took place well before the South Park controversy.  Was he angry about US soldiers in Iraq or about Guantanamo or the US government working with the government of Pakistan to pressure (and hopefully kill) terrorists from his family’s tribal area?  Does it matter nearly as much as the fact that he is a Muslim and that violence-prone Muslims (much like violence-prone people of any sort) will find any convenient excuse to act on their inclinations?

[UPDATE: It was reported later on Wednesday, after I wrote this article, that Shahzad was indeed motivated by US drone attacks which killed Taliban leaders in Pakistan]

Aren’t the odds over 90% that Shahzad’s motivation was the same as that of the would-be “shoe bomber” and the would-be “panty bomber", two other guys whose attempts to kill Americans were stopped primarily by luck and secondarily by quick action on the part of other airplane passengers?  The answer is “yes", it’s almost certain that his motivation was his religion, specifically a desire to have their own little jihads in pursuit of everlasting fame, after-life virgins, and the death of innocents based (for public consumption) triggered by whatever flimsy excuse came along that week.

Is the AP saying that radical (an unnecessary redundant modifier) Islam isn’t to be accepted as the motive of any of these bombers until we know just why they decided that radical Islam was the solution to their problems? Did they not get enough quality time with mom growing up?  Puhleeeeze.

Asking what a Muslim bomber’s motives are is like asking what caused the grenade to go off. It barely matters. Now I’m not saying that his motivation is completely irrelevant. It would be relevant if the ultra-specific motive were (1) a common motive among would-be terrorists and (2) a motive that America could reduce through a sensible but not self-destructive policy shift. However, neither of those is true. Their motive is their religion. Anything beyond that is an excuse.

Not only is the AP ridiculous and intellectually dishonest, but their approach is extremely dangerous.  The next time there is a bombing attempt or, heaven forbid, a successful bombing, should we include middle-aged Baptist women in the hunt because we have no idea what the bomber’s likely motivation is?

A couple other points to mention:

What’s happened to the benefits we were supposed to get from electing a president (born to a Muslim father) who traveled the Muslim world to apologize for the US?  The pace of attacks on Americans and American interests hasn’t slowed down a bit. If anything, it seems to be increasing.  Where’s Barack Obama’s magic power to give the Muslim world a virtual hug and have them suddenly love us?  Or was Barack Obama just as naive – but more dangerously so – in this area as he is in every other area that requires actual practical experience and understanding?  Never in American history has on-the-job training of a president, particularly one so unqualified to study the subjects he needs to learn, been so risky a bet taken by a willingly duped American population.

Also, early reports suggest that Shahzad came from a well-off family. Indeed Shahzad himself earned an MBA in America and was married to a Muslim American (not sure if she was born here or naturalized) woman who had a degree in accounting from the University of Colorado at Boulder, a stone’s throw from where I’m typing this note.  Like most Muslim terrorists we’ve encountered in America, from the 9/12 bombers to the Christmas Panty Bomber, Shahzad shows that poverty and a lack of education are not the drivers of terrorism, putting the lie to another myth of the left (particularly the pro-Palestinian left.)

The AP might think Shahzad’s motive is a mystery, but I don’t.  Islam is a fundamentally violent religion and, at its core, aims for the destruction of any nation with half the freedom of the United States.  By shielding the American people from understanding such a basic fact, the liberal media functions as an enemy agent and should be given the same respect we’d give an enemy agent, or at least that enemy’s nation’s Ministry of Propaganda.

And the elite wonder why the formerly dominant liberal media loses viewers and readers with each passing day…

[One other quick note: While you see law enforcement getting sprained shoulders from patting themselves on the pack, keep in mind that the FBI had Shahzad in their sights at 3 PM on Monday only to let him slip away and then get within moments of freedom on a flight to Dubai…]