Lee Rigby killer's UK apologists not just Islamists
Radical Islam is the most violent ideology of our time. It won't make a blind bit of difference if you're a soldier, a nurse, a butcher, a baker or a candle stick maker: if you're an infidel, you're marked for death
Why does the British media give such prominence to apologists for the kind of people who murdered British soldier Lee Rigby? The two killers, Michael Adebolajo, 29, and Michael Adebowale, 22, who ran him over and then hacked him to death on a London street in May, were today found guilty of murder and will be sentenced in January.
One looked over at the court after sentencing and kissed a copy of the Koran. Not an ounce of remorse.
They both argued that they were fighting a Holy war as "soldiers of Allah" -- and there have been many soundbites on the TV; just wait for the Guardian in the next day or two -- to the effect that such murders can be explained as a direct result of British foreign policy.
"The number one problem is foreign policy. Number one!" Sky News showed a London Muslim cafe owner aggressively asserting on Thursday. Sky is not alone, by any means, though within hours of the verdict they have had "experts" saying the killers were not "real Muslims".
That is a theme that has been repeated in the British media endlessly in such cases ever since 9/11, if not before. We shall see how things transpire as the "analysis" begins in earnest. But why have the apologists been soft-balled by journalists and officials for so long?
The answer is because many, especially on the British Liberal-Left -- of which most mainstream journalists are a part -- believe that our foreign policy is to blame: liberate Iraq or Afghanistan, and see what you get, they suggest. And they have said as much for years.
But why should radical Muslims (or indeed unelected Leftists) have a veto over our foreign policy anyway? The fact they dislike it does not mean they have any justification for anything other than peaceful protest.
Also, the vast majority of Western (and indeed Muslim) victims of Islamism are innocent civilians.
Are these people soldiers? Are they taking up arms against a single Muslim?
Whatever wrong-headed, ideological muddle you read or hear about the "root causes" of Islamist violence, the above examples, and many, many others, show that this has nothing whatever to do with our foreign policy. It has everything to do with who we are, or rather who we are not.
As in the Nairobi massacre where Muslims were spared and non-Muslims were murdered, the truth of this matter is not hard to discern: Radical Islam is the most violent and dangerous ideology of our time.
Also, it is crucial that less radical Muslims (who have strongly condemned the Rigby murder) do not make the mistake of creating an ideological atmosphere of Muslim victimhood and Western villainy. Neither stand up to scrutiny. But the radicals do not scrutinise.
And to them it won't make a blind bit of difference if you're a soldier, a nurse, a butcher, a baker or a candle stick maker: if you're an infidel, you're marked for death. We dismiss that reality at our peril.
The Commentator is Britain's fastest growing on-line, quality comment and news outlet
We are wholly dependent on the kindness of our readers for our continued work. We thank you in advance for any support you can offer.