Lib experts: Execution of terrorists will only make Islamists angrier and angrier

The New York Times reported that Egypt executed fifteen Islamic terrorists.  Predictably, the Times worried that the executions would only make radical Islamists commit more acts of terror.

The Egyptian authorities hanged 15 men on Tuesday for an attack in the Sinai Peninsula in 2013, the start of an Islamic insurgency that the military-dominated government has been battling ever since.

A military court found the men guilty on terrorism charges last month for an attack on a military checkpoint in which one army officer and eight soldiers were killed.

Rights activists and Islamists said Tuesday that they feared the latest executions would drive more young Egyptians into the arms of the Islamic State, also known by its Arabic acronym Daesh.

I thought it was known as "Daesh" only by Obama, who never wanted to use the "I" word.

"This is the new wave of oppression that we have been expecting all year," said Ezzat Ghoniem, a lawyer who defends many Muslim Brotherhood members. "These executions will only push the thousands of young people in prison into the arms of Daesh."

Thousands of people will join Daesh?  Oh, no!

"These death sentences and executions are a flagrant breach of international law," Maya Foa, director of the international human rights organization Reprieve, said Tuesday.

But, on the bright side, if they have to breach "international law" (whatever that is), isn't it better, for honesty purposes, that it be done flagrantly rather than with subtlety?

The families and lawyers of those hanged on Tuesday could not be reached immediately for comment.

Nor could those hanged be reached for comment.

The [Islamic terrorists in Egypt] ... shot down a Russian jetliner in 2015, killing 224 people. It was also believed to be responsible for an attack on a Sufi mosque in North Sinai last month, killing 311 people in Egypt's worst terrorist attack. 

There were no protests in Egypt over the executions on Tuesday

"If they touch those guys, that could push people over the edge," said Abdulrahman Ayyash, a former member who is now an analyst. "They won't let that slide."

I had hoped the Islamic State would "let that slide"!  The Islamic State normally has a great amount of self-restraint, right?

Speaking seriously, what can we learn from this?

1) We can't know for certain, but the people being executed probably weren't doing a sit-in at Cairo U.  The terrorists in Egypt have blown up an airliner, massacred soldiers, and committed mass murders at mosques and churches.

2) The Egyptian people, by their lack of protest, support what their government is doing because they have suffered at the hands of these terrorists.  Remember: the number-one killer of Muslims is Muslims.

3) The Times, by focusing on the protests of "human rights advocates" and lawyers affiliated with the Islamic State, are showing a curious concern for the effect of the executions.

How can anyone believe that the execution of terrorists will provoke violence from a group whose raison d'être is mass murder?

You need to pay close attention, because this article tells you something key about the liberal mind.  Liberals feel that at least part of the outrage of Islamists is justified.  That's right: it's always caused by something.  America supports Israel?  Well, that explains an Islamic attack.  America has an airbase in the remote desert of Saudi Arabia?  It makes Islamists angry!  An American air strike kills 20 terrorists and two civilians?  The Islamic State is outraged because of the death of innocents!  (This, since the death of innocents is its specialty, is something ISIS knows a lot about.)

Since the left feels that the Islamic outrage is at least partially justified, it feels that the Islamists act like reasonable people.  Don't provoke them, and they won't provoke you.  Under that line of thinking, it makes perfect sense that if you cut off the airflow to some of their buddies, you're going to make them mad.

What the left misses is that the Islamists don't need a provocation.  There was no provocation for the attacks on the World Trade Center, or the Boston bombing, or an attack on a Jewish supermarket in France.  The ideology of Islamists instructs them to murder non-believers.  Nothing we can say or do will make them angrier, because they are already trying their best to kill us.

Imagine if the left had advocated not invading occupied France in World War II because "it will only make Hitler madder and madder" or not destroying the Japanese carrier fleet at Midway because "it will only play into hard-line elements around General Tojo."

It's all the same thing.  What articles like this reveal, distressingly, is that liberals still don't have a clue who is fighting us or what makes them fight – not even 16 years after the declaration of war on us.

Ed Straker is the senior writer at Newsmachete.com.

The New York Times reported that Egypt executed fifteen Islamic terrorists.  Predictably, the Times worried that the executions would only make radical Islamists commit more acts of terror.

The Egyptian authorities hanged 15 men on Tuesday for an attack in the Sinai Peninsula in 2013, the start of an Islamic insurgency that the military-dominated government has been battling ever since.

A military court found the men guilty on terrorism charges last month for an attack on a military checkpoint in which one army officer and eight soldiers were killed.

Rights activists and Islamists said Tuesday that they feared the latest executions would drive more young Egyptians into the arms of the Islamic State, also known by its Arabic acronym Daesh.

I thought it was known as "Daesh" only by Obama, who never wanted to use the "I" word.

"This is the new wave of oppression that we have been expecting all year," said Ezzat Ghoniem, a lawyer who defends many Muslim Brotherhood members. "These executions will only push the thousands of young people in prison into the arms of Daesh."

Thousands of people will join Daesh?  Oh, no!

"These death sentences and executions are a flagrant breach of international law," Maya Foa, director of the international human rights organization Reprieve, said Tuesday.

But, on the bright side, if they have to breach "international law" (whatever that is), isn't it better, for honesty purposes, that it be done flagrantly rather than with subtlety?

The families and lawyers of those hanged on Tuesday could not be reached immediately for comment.

Nor could those hanged be reached for comment.

The [Islamic terrorists in Egypt] ... shot down a Russian jetliner in 2015, killing 224 people. It was also believed to be responsible for an attack on a Sufi mosque in North Sinai last month, killing 311 people in Egypt's worst terrorist attack. 

There were no protests in Egypt over the executions on Tuesday

"If they touch those guys, that could push people over the edge," said Abdulrahman Ayyash, a former member who is now an analyst. "They won't let that slide."

I had hoped the Islamic State would "let that slide"!  The Islamic State normally has a great amount of self-restraint, right?

Speaking seriously, what can we learn from this?

1) We can't know for certain, but the people being executed probably weren't doing a sit-in at Cairo U.  The terrorists in Egypt have blown up an airliner, massacred soldiers, and committed mass murders at mosques and churches.

2) The Egyptian people, by their lack of protest, support what their government is doing because they have suffered at the hands of these terrorists.  Remember: the number-one killer of Muslims is Muslims.

3) The Times, by focusing on the protests of "human rights advocates" and lawyers affiliated with the Islamic State, are showing a curious concern for the effect of the executions.

How can anyone believe that the execution of terrorists will provoke violence from a group whose raison d'être is mass murder?

You need to pay close attention, because this article tells you something key about the liberal mind.  Liberals feel that at least part of the outrage of Islamists is justified.  That's right: it's always caused by something.  America supports Israel?  Well, that explains an Islamic attack.  America has an airbase in the remote desert of Saudi Arabia?  It makes Islamists angry!  An American air strike kills 20 terrorists and two civilians?  The Islamic State is outraged because of the death of innocents!  (This, since the death of innocents is its specialty, is something ISIS knows a lot about.)

Since the left feels that the Islamic outrage is at least partially justified, it feels that the Islamists act like reasonable people.  Don't provoke them, and they won't provoke you.  Under that line of thinking, it makes perfect sense that if you cut off the airflow to some of their buddies, you're going to make them mad.

What the left misses is that the Islamists don't need a provocation.  There was no provocation for the attacks on the World Trade Center, or the Boston bombing, or an attack on a Jewish supermarket in France.  The ideology of Islamists instructs them to murder non-believers.  Nothing we can say or do will make them angrier, because they are already trying their best to kill us.

Imagine if the left had advocated not invading occupied France in World War II because "it will only make Hitler madder and madder" or not destroying the Japanese carrier fleet at Midway because "it will only play into hard-line elements around General Tojo."

It's all the same thing.  What articles like this reveal, distressingly, is that liberals still don't have a clue who is fighting us or what makes them fight – not even 16 years after the declaration of war on us.

Ed Straker is the senior writer at Newsmachete.com.