that it was a "one-off" and that there was "no evidence it was linked to any international group". Why would Weis and Napoletano jump to that same conclusion? Because the wind blowing from the White House is to "reach out to the Muslim world", and that the "religion of peace" has been "hijacked by the extremists", and that therefore we should not jump to the conclusion that terrorist acts might, just might, be Islamic.
At the time, before anyone was jumping to any obvious conclusions, before they had found the perpetrator, I said to a mate, "you know, I'm going to go out on a limb here. It may not be wise for politicians to jump to judgement, but I reckon -- and I'll stake my house, my dogs and my new band saw on it -- that it was a Muslim and he did it to try to kill unbelievers. I may be wrong, in which case you owe me, what, a coffee. But me, I'm jumping to this suspicion: a Muslim with a grievance against the west".
And of course, it has turned out to be exactly that. A naturalised American Pakistani, Faisal Shahzad, was arrested at JFK airport as he tried to leave for Dubai. A naturalised American Muslim. I wonder why he would want to randomly kill his compatriots?
Just the same happened in the case of the Fort Hood killer. Don't jump to conclusions about his motivation. And find any motivation, any, other than the one that in fact does motivate these guys: following Koranic injunctions to "kill the unbeliever wherever you find him".
[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters [non-Muslims] wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
