After the assassination of Dr. Tiller in Kansas, the wingosphere admonished us not to "politicize" the killing, and that doing so would "collectivize" the shooter’s guilt and "smear the entire conservative movement." After all, Dr. Tiller’s murder was just an "isolated incident" — "kooks happen" — so it’s deeply unfair, they argued, to point fingers at anyone but the killer himself. Most importantly, they noted, jumping to score political points while the Tiller’s family was still grieving is crass, uncivil, beyond the pale.
That was then.
. . . isn’t the peace movement responsible for the shootings at the recruiting station?
I wonder if the Justice Department will send marshals to beef up protection at recruiting centers — especially given the past targeting of military centers on campuses and elsewhere across the country.
It seems like it was just within the past few weeks—because it was—that another group of African-American Muslim converts attempted to carry out terrorist attacks against American citizens.
Don’t bet Abdul Hakim wasn’t part of a "broader scheme." The fact is that the antiwar left has been targeting military recruiting stations for years.
So why did all of those rules governing discourse about terrorist attacks change? RedState explains it.
Tiller’s murderer, though a cold-blooded killer, is not a terrorist of the kind that the United States has been fighting since the September 11th attacks.
See? Tiller’s assassin was a right-wing, white Christian and the Arkansas killer is a black Muslim.
Makes all the difference.