Adjective Averse

When noted anti-Semite and Congresswoman, Ilhan Omar, (D-MN) spoke at a CAIR conference and referred to the events of September 11, 2001 as:"some people did something," more than a few Americans were offended by her words and the fact that they were spoken at a conference sponsored by an Islamist front group that implicitly advocates Muslim Supremacy. The trained hamsters in the mainstream media along with far too many Democrats and progressives leaped to her defense, suggesting that any criticism of her dismissive words was "racist" and "Islamophobic."

It appears that specific identification of the perpetrators of an attack that murdered almost 3,000 Americans is no longer allowed in polite (read: politically correct) company. In fact the entire media now appears to be adjective-averse in such instances.

But not always. About a month ago, "some people did something" in New Zealand, perpetrating a heinous attack that killed 57 Muslims in a Mosque in Christchurch. In this case, rejecting the notion that adjectives could not be used, the media correctly and rapidly identified the lone suspect as a "white supremacist." They spent days and days dissecting his words and motivations, examining his white supremacist philosophy and damning his murderous behavior. Appropriate in all respects.

This weekend, "some people did something" in Sri Lanka, perpetrating a heinous attack that killed over 300 Christians in multiple churches and hotels in Columbo on one of the holiest weeks of the Christian calendar. In this case, the media has chosen to return to its adjective-averse approach. The perpetrator, it seems, is an Islamist group, but you'd never know that by listening to majority of news coverage. For example, this morning NBC News reported the story with plenty of video, commentary and eyewitness testimony. They talked about "terrorists" and even went so far as to use the word "extremist," but the word "Muslim" did not appear in the story until almost 3.5 minutes in—an eternity in broadcast journalism. Few, if any, media sources have spent time dissecting words and motivations of the terrorists, examining their Muslim supremacist philosophy and damning their murderous behavior.

Is the fact that the terrorists were Muslim not relevant? Or is it that the Ilhan Omars of the West have succeeded in their strategy to convince the trained hamsters that any use of the adjective "Muslim" to describe terrorists is "Islamophobic?" The terrorists who killed 300+ in Sri Lanka are as much Muslim Supremacists as the perpetrator in New Zealand who killed 57 was a White Supremacist. Why are they described and discussed so differently?

UPDATE-1:
-------------------
As if to make my point, examine the two tweets on two different terror incidents offered by past Democratic icon, Hillary Clinton:

Hillary names the victims of the attack in NZ explicitly; yet she alludes to Easter worshippers (not "Christians) in her tweet on Sri Lanka. Hillary is hardly adjective averse in her NZ tweet, calling the perpetrators "white supremacist terrorists." She was far more circumspect, avoiding the word "terrorists" altogether and never, ever, ever using the words "Islamic" or "Muslim" or even "Islamist" in her Sri Lanka tweet. Finally, she tells us that her heart breaks for the global Muslim community and condemns the NZ atrocity, but somehow, she merely prays for the unnamed victims (again, she cannot utter the word "Christian") and does not suggest that the global community "condemn" Islamic terror, but rather "stand against [unnamed] hatred and violence."

If all of this weren't so predictable, it would be astonishing.

UPDATE-2:
-------------------
Aggressive intelligence work and tons of human and financial resources have reduced the number of terror incidents in the USA and have caused many Americans to forget the threat of Islamic terrorism. David Harsanyi discusses this and then writes:

... the American left continues to downplay the danger [of Islamic terrorism], first by arguing that Islam has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism, then by lumping every white-skinned person who commits a terrorist act into one imaginary coherent political movement to contrast against it. It’s true that Americans have been spared much Islamic terror since 2002—a year that, curiously, nearly every graph media uses to measure domestic terrorism starts—but only because we’ve spent billions of dollars each year and immense resources, both in lives and treasure, keeping it out of the country and fighting it abroad.

Another reason the majority of Americans might not comprehend Islamic radicalism’s reach is the skewed intensity of the media coverage. Political correctness and a chilling fear of being labeled “Islamophobic” makes it difficult to honestly report on terrorism around the world.

In addition to the massacre this Easter in Sri Lanka, at least 200 Christian civilians have been murdered in Africa by Islamic militants thus far in 2019—many of them killed by machete, some by bombings. Many more Christians have been murdered during the past calendar year.

In November 2018, for example, 42 people were slaughtered in an attack on a Catholic mission in the Central African Republic. In October, 55 Christians were murdered by a group of Islamists in Nigeria. Another 29 were killed when 10 churches were burned down in Ethiopia last summer. Another seven Coptic Christians were gunned down in Egypt—and others spared only because of the good work of police.

There are pockets of racists in the world, and individuals who engage in terrible acts of violence against innocent people. These are dangerous men, capable of doing tremendous damage. But no group threatens global peace the same way that political Islam does. None has its reach or material and theological support. None has created more mayhem and death in the world since the end of the Cold War. The Sri Lankan massacre is just another harrowing reminder.

In much the same way as political correctness creates cognitive dissonance among thinking people—deep down, they know it's B.S., but everyone gaslights it so it must be the right way ... or maybe not—the left thinks that by being adjective averse, people won't connect Islam and terror. That, of course, says more about the leftists' condescending view of the intelligence of the general public than it does about their attempt to downplay Islam's role in worldwide terror.

If you're honest, in the first moments after you hear about a terror incident, the very first thought that enters your mind is Islamic terror. That's because the vast majority of terror cases are connected to Islamists, even if the trained hamsters in the media and elites on both sides of the aisle don't want to admit it.