The usual load of nonsense of any Jihad attack is being mobilised. First of all there is the Greenwald the clonelord whining “Why is Boston ‘terrorism’ but not Aurora, Sandy Hook Tucson and Columbine?”, claiming that we don’t know what their motives were.
Glenn, you clown, the guys’ own mother said it was Jihad. Meanwhile they have ties to movements likes Islamic Jihad and were even questioned by the FBI and their attack has been celebrated by other Jihadis. As my comrade Faisal Gazi says, “what a dishonest twat this man is”.
Speaking of dishonest twats, here we have The Zingularity moaning:
why do some members of the right appear to want Islamic terrorist attacks?
Oh, I don’t know. Why does so much of the left seem to be gagging for another Okhlahoma city or another Breivik? Speaking as a rightist myself, rest assured, we don’t want these Jihad attacks; we get more than enough of them as it is – 20,751 as of this moment.
Then there is the CYA of the disgraceful agencies of the CIA and the FBI. Here we have Ed Brayton complaining that there is a conspiracy theory on the right about the flight of the suspicious Saudi national following the attack. Well, one has to be on one’s guard against conspiracy theories. Once you start believing them, you start believing completely crazy things such as the idea that FDR employed two thousand or so ranking Nazis to run the CIA, or that the FBI tried to blackmail Martin Luther King into committing suicide, or that Nixon and Kissinger prolonged the Vietnam war to put Nixon in the White house, or that JFK imported a mafia gun-moll into the White House, or that the CIA helped put Zia ul-Haq in power in Pakistan and Nelson Mandela into Robben Island in South Africa, or that there is a powerful Saudi lobby funded by oil wealth, or that the first words of George Tenet on seeing 9/11 were “I wonder if it has anything to do with this guy taking pilot training…”
I take it my point is made. What is interesting here is that it is an illustration of the brain-death that party mindedness brings about. Following 9/11 a persistent point of criticism against the Bush administration were the flights that took members of the bin Laden family ou of the country. Now because one of “his” is in the White House, Brayton throws up his hands.
This in response to my commentator who quite rightly asks why it is next to impossible to hold these institutions to account. The answer to that is simple and straightforward. Following 9/11 the Right was not going to deal with them because that would look like being soft on National Security and the Left was happy to defend them to the hilt because they out to stitch up Bush. It was left to a minority to make the case that these institutions are beyond reform.
