Terrorism Apologia at The Times
According to Fattah, the people who just slaughtered innocent Londoners have "grievances." Speaking of one terrorist murderer, a friend remarks: "He was sick of it all, all the injustice and the way the world is going about it. . . Why, for example, don't they ever take a moment of silence for all the Iraqi kids who die?" That is, he explains, a "double standard." We also learn that they don't like their leaders and..... well, that' s it. Them's the "grievances."
Wow! Well, you have to admit, that would send most people straight to the dynamite, don't you think? Seems that the terrorism was not a product of the "drug problem" or "rising crime," as Fattah indicated in his previous piece. Now we've come to the heart of the matter--the terrorists had "grievances" after all. This is, by the way, Fattah's characterization, thereby giving an official New York Times imprimatur to terrorist dissembling and spin.
Having recited these "grievances," Fattah goes on to lend them substance in this extended riff: "They did not agree with what Mr. Tanweer had done, but made clear they shared the same sense of otherness, the same sense of siege, the same sense that their community, and Muslims in general, were in their view helpless before the whims of greater powers. Ultimately, they understood his anger."
So it goes, paragraph after paragraph of swill like this, the New York Times willingly allowing itself to become a mouthpiece for Islamic killers. In the end, the reader learns nothing new, such as, for example, any links between prominent Muslim clerics and the killers. One such "group has not enjoyed much success here, despite the grievances of young men like Mr. Dutt and his friends," says Fattah.
One thing is for sure: If there was any link between organized groups and the killers from Leeds, we won't find about it from the terrorist shill Hassan Fattah. We'll find out from one of the journalists the Times has on its payroll.
UPDATE: Backspin quotes James Taranto of Opinionjournal addressing the "why they hate us" question. He also describes how it is possible to report on terrorist motivations without becoming a shill for terrorists:
"It's not that the query is inherently objectionable; understanding what motivates the enemy is obviously helpful in wartime. But the people who ask this question almost never genuinely seek to understand; rather, they have their own axes to grind against the U.S. or the West...
"Now and then a terrorist actually takes the trouble to explain his motives. London's Daily Telegraph reports on the trial of the man who allegedly (and now confessedly) murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh."
Taranto noted that the Van Gogh killer told the Dutch court: "I take complete responsibility for my actions. I acted purely in the name of my religion," he told its three-strong panel of judges. "I can assure you that one day, should I be set free, I would do the same, exactly the same."
The killer then turned to the victim's mother and said: "I don't feel your pain. I have to admit that I don't have any sympathy for you. I can't feel for you because you're a non-believer."
This had nothing to do with Israeli "occupation" of "Palestinian lands," America's "unilateral invasion" of Iraq, "torture" of prisoners at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, the widening "income gap," or any of the other litany of complaints that the terror apologists trot out. Islamist terrorism arises from religious fanaticism and hatred, plain and simple.UPDATE: Fattah does it again. He's clearly the Times emissary to terror-land.