‘Afghan Group’ Places Dynamite at Renowned Paris Department Store

News coverage begs the question: How do we fight evil when we refuse to call it by its name?

When I saw that explosives were found at a popular shopping destination this morning, I found myself asking two questions.

My first question was why we haven’t seen this plastered all over the news channels and Web sites today. The answer, I guess, was simple enough — now that we’ve elected this wonderful and magnanimous president-elect and “citizen of the world,” perhaps the mainstream press is a little hesitant to show that much of the Middle East still doesn’t care for Western civilization.

The second question, however, was far more difficult and the answer far more important: How are we supposed to fight radical Islamic terrorism across the globe if we mindlessly kowtow to the altar of political correctness and hesitate to even call it by its name?

When five sticks of dynamite were found this morning at Printemps, forcing the evacuation of the venerable Parisian establishment immensely popular among natives and tourists alike, the Associated Press in its report merely mentioned that the Afghan Revolutionary Front–no more , of course, than a group of Afghans protesting France’s involvement in their home country–were responsible.

Included in the report was a paragraph or two indicating that French President Nicholas Sarkozy supports the efforts fighting terror in Afghanistan, has many troops there (ten of which died outside of Kabul in August), and has committed even more as the United States does the same, but obviously missing from the article were the words “Islam” or “Muslim,” save for the following:

A senior police official said several aspects of the incident did not bear the hallmarks of Islamic terrorism — sending a warning, the type of explosives used, the language in the letter and the name used by the group. The group is unknown to the French domestic intelligence agency, the official said anonymously because she was not authorized to speak to the media. “This doesn’t resemble anything we have ever seen.”

Now, because the French authorities have not captured anyone, and because they could not determine that those responsible for the placement of the explosives were indeed radical Islamic terrorists, I certainly cannot fault the AP for hedging their language a little bit. However, I’m fairly certain that the “Afghan Revolutionary Front” is not comprised of a bunch of uppity Baptists.

Am I wrong to assume that those responsible answer to Allah? Maybe. Is it unfair to do so? Absolutely not. A Reuters piece seemingly written from the same pool of information makes the connection. By and large, a monumental percentage of terrorist attacks across the globe in recent years can be connected with radical Islam, and more and more it seems that we’re not keen on calling a spade a spade, and in fact willing to do anything to avoid it.

Not once during all four days of the Democratic National Convention did we hear the words “Islamic terrorism.” Not once. Yet here we are, in only the second presidential election since the attacks of September 11, 2001, and you’d think it was back on September 10th. And, of course, during this year we’ve seen Iranian President Mahmoud Aquavelvajaahd invited to speak to students and faculty and staff and press at Columbia University in New York City despite his countless threats to wipe Israel off of the map, and we’ve seen former President Jimmy “Dhimmi” Carter go not once but twice to embrace and legitimize and play tonsil hockey with the leaders of Hamas, who actually have been trying for years to wipe Israel off of the map.

Sadly, we seem incapable of dismissing the easy and politically correct notion that we all dream of cupcakes and streamers and pony rides and peaceful coexistence in this vast world. Yet we insist on maintaining that blissful ignorance despite a wealth of evidence showing that such ignorance could mean death or defeat at the hands of radical Islam.

We dismiss Ahmadinejad’s statements as the insane ramblings of a rarely-showered head of state with a beard and a stinky dinner jacket, rather than pay attention to the actual words coming from his mouth.

We fight to provide rights inherent only to American citizens to enemy combatants caught in the act of planning to or actually trying to kill American soldiers–our own mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters–and somehow refuse to acknowledge that each and every one of these despicable characters would slit the throats of the nearest infidel if they only had the chance.

We understandably cannot comprehend the mindset it takes to strap an explosive vest to a handicapped woman, or to ourselves, and go to a populated area to wreak havoc and terror among others, but instead of erring on the safe side, instead of dealing from common sense and caution, we shoot from the hip with emotion.

And when ten gunmen kill hundreds of defenseless people in an equally defenseless Mumbai, a sizable segment of our population actually blames American foreign policy for the attacks, as if those radical Islamic terrorists only happened upon the only Jewish community center in a city of ten million where they went inside and just happened to tie up, torture and kill a Rabbi and his wife in front of their two-year-old son. It’s Bush’s fault. It’s because of the war in Iraq. It’s the natural consequences of imperialism and aggressive nation-building. If we keep to ourselves, they say, they’ll understand and keep to themselves as well.

All we are saying, comes the echo from the left, is give peace a chance.

When they capture our soldiers and our contractors, people who lay their lives on the line every single day so Iraqi and Afghani men and women and children have running water, have respectable schools, have freedom and the right to vote and dip their index fingers in purple ink, they don’t extend any sympathy, they don’t offer food and water and Bibles and prayer and court proceedings with taxpayer-paid attorneys — they torture, they burn, they kill, and they drag their bodies through the streets to show everyone else how they feel about the Infidels.

In a display of utter contempt, they throw shoes at the very man whose actions, faith and determination in the face of global criticism and scrutiny has allowed them to throw their shoes at a head of state in the first place.

But we don’t pay attention, anyway. It doesn’t matter. We weren’t watching when the streets of Palestine erupted in celebration at the destruction of the Twin Towers. We weren’t watching when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed laughed at us for actually providing him with a fair trial. We’re too busy making excuses for those who want nothing more than our bloody Infidel head on a silver platter. We’re too busy drowning in hope and gushing over change and rabidly looking forward to a detente-at-all-costs foreign policy, implemented by people who refuse to acknowledge that some people in the world just don’t deserve to sit across a negotiation table from an emissary of the United States of America.

We can’t even admit that it was likely Islamic terrorists who placed explosives in a crowded Parisian department store. We know they’re Afghani. We know they’re unhappy about the French military presence in Afghanistan. Yet we’re not even unable, but rather unwilling to make the connection for fear that we might offend someone, for fear that we might incite a riot.

God forbid we draw any more political cartoons featuring the Prophet Muhammad, or name any more class teddy bears after him!

For some reason, we insist upon taking some imaginary high road, as if people willing to kill children for Allah will somehow understand, desist, and get a respectable job at their neighborhood Halal restaurant. I don’t understand it. Despite having our own nose bloodied, despite being threatened daily with more violence to ourselves and to our families, we insist upon trying to win a fist-fight with a hug. It doesn’t work, and like it or not we’re all going to pay dearly for it.



  1. Bobby K. says:

    When the pacifists French are getting this in their shopping malls, what are we in for, and why won’t the MSM call them what they are. Like you said Jeff it’s not a bunch of unhappy Baptist, its left wing Islamic terrorists. And the French are not there because they want to be, they are there at the UN’s (whom by the way I think are a waste of space) request

    Merry Christmas to everyone here…

  2. Anonymous says:

    this one’s getting printed, framed and hung on the wall over my desk.

  3. gailbullock says:

    I can picture your daughter playing with her dolls under the desk in the Oval Office already. Jeff Schreiber for President! Go, War Eagle! (Oh, I do hope so!)

  4. Ihatesalantro says:

    Another exceptional article. I hope it is alright that I printed off a copy so my husband can read it to his boss.

    Thanks, Jeff.

  5. California Mom says:

    Could not agree with you more Jeff! You have such a way with words! At least there is SOMEONE out there that actually understands that "playing nice" is going to have extreme circumstances in the future for everyone in this country and all over the world. Looking the other way and not calling people out for what they truly are, (TRAITORS of this country) will allow horrible things to happen right under our noses come this January. The question is, how do you make people understand when all they care about is what is on Oprah today or what movie star was the “best dressed” on the red carpet??? I know sooooo many people that could care less about what rights are being taken away from us on a daily basis. As long as they have their Starbucks and cable TV…nothing else matters. It’s frustrating and scary to realize how many people just don’t give a &*%@!

  6. Anonymous says:

    I could not have possibly stated everything you just did ANY BETTER. There are no more words that can be said that will convey any more meaning than those you have presented.

    I feel exactly the way you do on this subject, always have and always will. As far as callling Evil evil, and showing us what it is, Bush has been doing his very best in that department and he has protected us from it since ’01.

    People in this country do NOT know how fortunate they have been for the past 7 years and how quickly all of that will change once Obama takes office (if he takes ofice).

    Reno, NV

  7. K says:

    Jeff, Excellent commentary!

    @ California Mom, I share the frustration.

    HAVING EYES, DO YOU NOT SEE? AND HAVING EARS, DO YOU NOT HEAR? And do you not remember Mark 8:18

    IOW, don’t cast pearls before swine!

  8. Anonymous says:

    It’s popular to say “America is at war.” But I’m afraid that isn’t really true.

    Like someone said: Our MILITARY is at war.

    America…is at the mall.

  9. Anonymous says:

    This is off-topic but I had to post it. Jeff, this is in your state. These parents ought to be charged w/ cruelty to a child. Can you imagine the chiding he will get growing up?


  10. John Galt says:

    However you can now buy a commemorative Barack Obama 44th U.S. President coin set.

    Available on sale the day after the electoral college met.

    They even offer a bonus a commerorative Obama-Kennedy half dollar.

    One thing the website has correct is that it is indeed “A piece of history”


  11. Anonymous says:

    And another “annoyance” here on the home front that not too many are geting excited about is the seeming circling of sharks from Russia and China. The warships are invading nearby territory (The Russians are coming….) and China is heavily influencing interests in SA. Nobody even takes a look at just how people are treated back home with these guys, just that the open door policy shifts to these human rights violators because, well, the US hasn’t been paying them too much attention lately. Desperate times call for desperate solutions I suppose.

  12. Anonymous says:

    I think you probably intended to put a pic of Afghan Hounds up -but those are Salukis.

  13. Jeff Schreiber says:

    Shows how much I know. They looked like all the Afghans I saw — I picked ‘em because they were in a “group.”

    Crap. Now I gotta find a new photo of a “group” of “Afghans.”

    Proving a point and trying to elicit a smile from you folks is turning out to be pretty difficult!

    Thanks for pointing it out.

    – Jeff

    PS … maybe I should just change the headline to “a group of Salukis.” Nah, that wouldn’t make much sense.

  14. Jeff Schreiber says:


  15. John Galt says:

    AOL is conducting a poll asking people whether there is merit to Obama’s birth certificate controversy.

    Of about 78,000 voters so far more are yes it does than those saying it doesn’t.

    Go and vote now.


  16. Anonymous says:

    Next, the PC police will have us calling pedophiles, “child admirers.”

    I am about ready to push all these politically correct, left leaning, socialists off the edge of their flat, globally warm, earth!

  17. Anonymous says:

    jeff -

    you forgot to mention that “uppity baptists” only bomb abortion clinics, which provides an excuse for the “civilized” world to not call them what they are: religious zealots who are terrorists. whether you are a muslim or a baptist, when you bomb something you are a terrorist. ergo, you don’t need the “islamic” precursor to terrorist in every ap report.

  18. Anonymous says:


    (there's your smile)

    And, yes, better. ;) <-(that's a winky smiley)

    I only really noticed because I've always wanted a Saluki -very cool dogs. And you simply don't see many pictures of them on blogs. I was a bit surprised.

  19. Anonymous says:

    MSM Assoc Press called it both TNT and dynamite. A significant boner. The two are different, not just in explosive power and chemistry, but also who would have access to each. Also AP said it was OLD dynamite, seemingly to dismiss its potency when old dynamite does not lose power, but becomes more dangerous because the nitroglycerine begins to seep out in droplets. Techie stuff, but still shines the light on AP’s sloppy writing and agenda driven news.

  20. Anonymous says:

    I think we should apologise just as the Danish have done. See: http://www.danishmuhammedcartoons.com/Apology.html

  21. Anonymous says:

    “Am I wrong to assume that those responsible answer to Allah? Maybe. Is it unfair to do so? Absolutely not.”

    Fine. But if you were an AP correspondent and you then injected this assumption into the piece you were filing (as you appear to be suggesting that this correspondent should have) then, yes actually, that would be wrong. What’s more, you could be fairly certain that your story would be picked up by no one. This is because the agency you filed with probably wouldn’t even put your piece on the wire since it contained assertions that had no definitive basis in known, verifiable fact at the time.

    I’m not saying I think that your assumption is wrong. In fact, it’s probably right. (Although my eyebrows went up a bit at the group’s threat to “go back into action in your big capitalist stores”. I’ve always thought that Islamic fundamentalists are more concerned with systems of religion and ethnicity as opposed to economy.) I’m just saying that, in theory at least, assumptions don’t have a place in journalism, particularly in the kind of straight-forward, condensed stories that the major news agencies tend to favor. And I’m especially surprised that someone who is so relentlessly critical of the MSM would suddenly be encouraging journalists to dabble in assumptions.

    Also, in the course of railing against Islamic fundamentalism, you talk about Ahmadinejad, suicide bombers, the attackers in Mumbai, terrorists in Iraq/Afghanistan . . . and the journalist who threw his shoes at Bush.

    Isn’t this last “example” a bit of a stretch? The implication is that that guy’s actions are on par with those of the others. Do you really think he properly fits the category of “Islamic Terrorist”?

    In fact, maybe this is a good example of why some people are cautious about using terms like “Islamic terrorist”: The more you use them, the more likely you are to use them incorrectly.

  22. Anonymous says:

    You forgot to mention that “liberal Democrats” only bomb government buildings, which provides an excuse for the “civilized” world to not call them what they are: liberal Democrat zealots who are terrorists.

    (i.e. Bill Ayers)

  23. Anonymous says:

    "The Illinois supreme court Wednesday rejected a bid to remove the state's corruption-tainted governor from office in the wake of charges he tried to sell president-elect Barack Obama's vacant senate seat.
    The state's attorney general asked the court last week to impose a restraining order stripping Rod Blagojevich of the bulk of his powers while considering her request to have him temporarily replaced by the state's lieutenant governor.

    "In light of his arrest in the filing of the criminal complaint, Governor Blagojevich can no longer fulfill his official duties with any legitimacy," Lisa Madigan said Friday after filing the requests.

    The court denied her request without comment, an order filed Wednesday showed.

    Blagojevich has so far refused mounting calls to resign after he was arrested on December 9 amid an FBI investigation that accuses him of a staggering pattern of corruption, including refusing to free up funds for a children's hospital until he received a 50,000-dollar campaign contribution.

    State legislators launched an inquiry Monday to determine if there were grounds for impeachment.


    I said it previously, take note of this case as soon the country will be saying the same things reagrding the now usurper-elect.

    Last week it was the Il. AG would go to the courts to get an unqualified person removed, she does so and is turned down by the court.

    It looks like the final nail in the revolution is being hammered right into our nation's coffin, after years of liberals appointing activist judges who won't uphold the Constitution.

  24. Anonymous says:


  25. Ian Thorpe says:

    Right and wrong Jeff,
    Right that if we are going to take on the terrorists we must not listen to the whines of the politically correct at home, wrong that we should be emphasising Islam or Muslim.
    Afghanistan is a tribal society, like the part of East Africa whose culture Sidi Barak Hussein Obama seemed so keen to embrace, a culture is comfortable with using rape as a weapon of war, (that becomes even worse when you understand the stone-age thinking behind it) a culture that gives a woman slightly less status than a cow.
    And yet, and yet… for all the money, lives and technical superiority we cannot win the war in Afghanistan, if the allied efforts are increased the fighters will simply melt away again to re-emerge elsewhere, possibly in a revived Iraqi conflict, possibly in Somalis. All we can do, as the British have done three times before, is withdraw and let them organise their society as they wish. Alternatively we can restablish a form of colonial rule under the Uited Nations and come to an accommodation with the warlords to keep order among the populaton while we keep Russia and China out.

    What we must avoid is provoking a wider conflict with Islam. There are a lot of them, they’re widespread and they control a lot of resources. Fortunately most are quite well disposed towards the west.

Speak Your Mind