When is a Bastard Not a Bastard?

By this time we all know that some Islamic sheetheads placed and exploded bombs on several London Underground trains, and one bus.

The incidents are, of course, criminal and evil. But, of course, this is the type of thing to be expected from people who, though lacking the military power to impose their political and religious views on the West, strive to do so.

But here's the interesting thing. About fifteen years ago (maybe longer) the IRA exploded a bomb in London during the changing of the Guard ceremony. The result was, if I remember correctly, that several people and several horses were killed. One of the British newspapers, it may have been The Sun, headlined their story about the incident with the words, "Those Bastards!" Thursday's bombing resulting in the deaths of at least 49 commuters excited no where near the invective that the IRA bombings did. There were no references to the bombers as bastards, baddies or even mischievous rascals. In fact, the BBC has stopped referring to those who placed and detonated the bombs as terrorists and now refers to them as just bombers.

Certain clergymen and women of the Church of England (an institution where probably at least 60% have questionably orthodox Christian beliefs), have gone as far as to say that there is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist. There are only terrorists who say they are Mohammedans. Well, ain't that just too special? Let's just all hold hands and sing "Michael Row the Boat Ashore." Tim McVey (the Oklahoma bomber) has often been pointed at as a "Christian terrorist" despite the fact that no recognized Christian group ever preached such actions as that which he carried out. But people who take literarally the preachings of their half educated clergy of a half educated religion are given a pass because the press doesn't want to offend the sensibilities of the greater Islamic world. In other words, the standards for the behaviour of the Mohammedans are lower than that for Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, animists.

Why? Could it be because the press and politicians are afraid of the Mohammedans? If the LA Times or the NY Time or the BBC call Islamic terrorists in the West "Islamic terrorists," perhaps in those halls of journalistic "integrity" there is the possibility that a bomb may be delivered with the editors' mail. On the other hand, Christians and Jews, if insulted by the news organs, will call for boycotts, Hindus and Buddhists will protest, Taoists will shrug their shoulders and laugh. And animists will just continue to worship idols and wait for movie stars to give them some jack in exchange for "higher knowledge about Baron Samadhi."

Isn't it strange that during the IRA bombings that the IRA was referred to as "Bastards" and the Islamic terrorist haven't been referred to in the same way despite the fact that there is probably a higher percentage of Irishmen in Britain than there are Mohammedans. I can only assume that Mohammedans are the world's "special needs" children i.e., they can mess their pants, hit other kids and scream like Tasmanian Devils, while everyone else is expected to behave like a civilized person.

Our forefathers had the grit to turn back the Mohammedans at Lepanto and Vienna. Apparently we don't.