Roger Simon writes on why the cases of New Zealand (with its recent mass shooting by a left-leaning ecoterrorist with bizarrely white-nationalist pretensions) and Sri Lanka (where a coordinated spate of Eastertide bombings by Muslims has killed around 300 innocent people, mostly or entirely Christians) are far from the same beast:
The seemingly unlimited supply of virtue-signalers who dominate our culture have assured us emphatically the recent terror attacks in New Zealand and Sri Lanka are equivalent, a kind of quid pro [quo] between races and religions.
Other than the fact that, tragically, a great many people died in both—more in Sri Lanka, but the numbers are horrific enough in NZ—this is utter nonsense. They couldn't be more different.
New Zealand was the act of one aberrant or evil (call him either or both) racist individual motivated by rage against immigrants—Muslim "invaders"—he thought were ruining his country. Sri Lanka was a planned attack on multiple targets by a local militant group, likely with the aid of a yet larger group or groups (possibly ISIS) from outside the country, acting under the dicta of a highly-evolved ideology euphemistically referred to as fundamentalist Islam or Islamism.
That ideology—that seeks to take over the world—has hundreds of millions of adherents and sympathizers across the globe, vastly more than Nazism at its height. Whether active or not, they consider themselves at war with Judaism and Christianity as well as all other religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) and seek to eradicate these others from the earth.
Read the rest.
No comments:
Post a Comment