Nice

This week, the world witnessed still another murderous Islamic terror attack in Nice, France. The story is still unfolding, but it looks like there are at least 84 people dead and many more injured. This time, the murder weapon was a large trunk driven by a Muslim "criminal." It's possible that the criminal was inspired by an al Qaeda "Open Source Jihad" article that suggested; “The idea is to use a pickup truck as a mowing machine, not to mow grass but mow down the enemies of Allah.” The terrorist drove into a Bastille Day celebration using the "mowing machine" at high speed leaving a path of carnage in his wake.

Hillary Clinton responded with the same old, same old, trying, I suppose, to look measured and presidential. But her equivocation seemed programmed. Donald Trump responded immediately, suggesting, correctly in my view, that this attack and others are acts of war. One wonders whether Hillary Clinton will suggest that we ban all large trunks.

For the past 15 years, the elites have defined a strategy that: (1) establishes a narrative depicting Islam as the "religion of peace;" (2) bends over backward not to associate Islam with barbaric terror attacks; and (3) treats terror attacks and their perpetrators as a criminal problem rather than an act of war. Just today, the New York Times published an OpEd defending Sharia Law, suggesting that it's misunderstood. After all, its really, really easy to misunderstand the misogynist, homophobic, totalitarian, violent, religiously intolerant aspects of Sharia, isn't it?

Multinational elites, driven by political correctness and leftist "oppression" ideology, work overtime to do everything possible to shield Islam from accusations that it isn't doing nearly enough to rid itself of Islamist cancer. At the same time, the radical Islamic terror attacks intensify and the carnage grows.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (until forced to do so by concern that Donald Trump had gained the upperhand with regard to homeland security) refuse to use the phrase radical Islamic terror, suggesting with smug arrogance that labelling something what it really is changes nothing. Instead Obama and Clinton seem to prefer fantasy—suggesting that "violent extremism" is to blame and doing everything possible to convince the public that a terror attack is workplace violence or a "lone wolf assault, or a hate crime. Here's the problem. When national leaders refuse to address reality, it is impossible to define the problem, target effective tactics to address the problem and ultimately, to eradicate the problem.

As terror attacks in the West grow in frequency and intensity, even supporters of Barack Obama and his likely predecessor, Hillary Clinton, are beginning ask questions about a strategy that simply isn't working. Harsh critics, myself included, understand that fantasy never wins when it collides with reality.

The big question is, do we want Barack Obama's fantasy perpetuated over the next four years by Hillary Clinton? Do we really think that failed tactics will somehow win out, that radical Islam will just go away? Do we believe that labeling acts of war as "lone wolf violent extremism" somehow represents a coherent attempt to protect the American people? Do we honestly believe that Islam is the "religion of peace" and that its adherents have no responsibility for combatting Jihadist thought with tangible actions, not empty words?

An Aside:
--------------------
As if to emphasize the manner in which the elites want to whitewash atrocities committed in the name of Islam, we get the following report coming out of France by HeatStreet:

A French government committee has heard testimony, suppressed by the French government at the time and not published online until this week, that the killers in the Bataclan appear to have tortured their victims on the second floor of the club.

The chief police witness in Parliament testified that on the night of the attacks, an investigating officer, tears streaming down his face, rushed out of the Bataclan and vomited in front of him just after seeing the disfigured bodies.

The 14-hour testimony about the November attacks took place March 21st.

According to this testimony, Wahhabist killers reportedly gouged out eyes, castrated victims, and shoved their testicles in their mouths. They may also have disemboweled some poor souls. Women were reportedly stabbed in the genitals – and the torture was, victims told police, filmed for Daesh or Islamic State propaganda. For that reason, medics did not release the bodies of torture victims to the families, investigators said.

But prosecutors at the hearing claimed these reports of torture were “a rumor” on the grounds that sharp knives were not found at the scene. They also claimed that maybe shrapnel had caused the injuries.

Exactly what is the purpose of suppressing this information? The French public should clearly understand the barbarity it faces and insist that its leaders act accordingly. And yet, the French leadership (emblematic of leadership in most western countries) prefers to suppress it. Why?