The former U.S. ambassador to the UN—whose role is to represent the United States in front of the world—is targeted by “progressives” [in this case, a columnist for The Guardian newspaper] as a criminal because he was ” ‘instrumental in preparing and initiating the Iraq war by disseminating false claims through the State Department” while he was under-secretary of state for arms control.’ ”
Meanwhile, an acknowledged jihadist, whose role is “to inspire other people to wage jihad,”gets the front page treatment in the New York Times, which quotes the director of Belgium’s federal police force thus: “She enjoys the protection that [lenient Belgian law] offers. At the same time, she is a potential threat.”
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that “war-mongering” is being treated as a crime on one side—namely, ours—but not on the other. Not very fair, that. Nor very confidence-inspiring for your normal everyday citizen of the West, who wants the authorities to prevent crimes—to act before a terrorist incident occurs, not to react afterward.
Note a distinction which is not made: the War in Iraq actually happened, while Jihadella writes stupid warblog slashfic on the internets. Notice another: Walrusface is being treated as a criminal suspect by a private citizen (SPOILER ALERT:Mr. Bolton will not see th inside of a jail cell), while Osama bin Bloggin has actually been arrested by federal law enforcement in two European countries. However, “your normal everyday citizen of the West” should read these two stories and proceed immediately to cower under the bed in fear from the deadly threat from the Moorish hordes (who, in this case, among other terrifying superscary terrorpowers, can neither hold down a job, speak Arabic, nor actually get into al-Qaeda. But she knew someone who did! I believe this makes her al-Qaeda’s #3 in command.) Words on the Belgian internets are more serious than war, some dude’s publicity stunt is more significant than actual police action. Words speak louder than actions, always.