With the recent bombings in Manhattan and New Jersey this past week, a common thread throughout the events emerged. The main stream media and local politicians censored the events to avoid describing what was really going on, terrorism.

Absent a motivation, Mr. de Blasio suggested the word terrorism should not be used, shaking his head in disapproval at the notion that the basic facts of the bombing could be described that way.

“Here is what we know: It was intentional, it was a violent act, it was certainly a criminal act, it was a bombing — that’s what we know,” he said on Sunday, flanked by law enforcement officials at Police Headquarters in Lower Manhattan. “To understand there were any specific motivations, political motivations, any connection to an organization — that’s what we don’t know.”

The approach appeared to be aimed at calming nerves in a city on edge, and at avoiding a rush to conclusions, both in New York City and across the country.- New York Times

As if calling the “intentional  and violent acts” terrorism would somehow change the outcome or the reactions to the bombings. Instead, it just causes backlash. Terrorism seems to be politicized now more than ever and as a result, certain words (like terrorism or radical Islamic terrorist) seem to be off-limits.

Editorial cartoon courtesy of Robert L. Lang

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting our Veteran Editorial by becoming a SOFREP subscriber. Click here to get 3 months of full ad-free access for only $1 $29.97.