Ooh, DON'T say "MUSLIMS" when you talk "TERRORISTS" and don't say "ISLAM"

"Well I'm a MUSLIM HILLBILLY boy

"And my heart's full of hummus and hatred..."

Whatever. You think any parody of MUSLIMS or ISLAM or the great MOHAMMAD would stand a chance of remaining on Twatter or Farcebook? The entire Beach Boys discography, yes. Anything negative about Muzzies...oh no no no. Which is part of why these flatulent urine-faced hairy punks have become so bold.

They are aided and abetted by the notion that their fucking "religion" is so superior and sacred that murdering non-believers makes sense.

Enter this columnist...

Maybe editorials like this show that we're getting the start of real outrage.

The New York Times, which hadn't run a front-page editorial in 100 years, actually wrote one demanding gun control and sanity. (Although I doubt they referred to the murderous duo as "Muslim Killers.")

Time to get angry. REALLY angry. What happened in San Bernardino can't be rationalized, even by white Liberal pantywaists. Two cowardly monkeys with machine guns literally AIMED their weapons at selfless workers who were not a) attending a rock concert or b) shamelessly enjoying themselves watching the Boston Marathon. They were enjoying a holiday party celebrating peace and good will for ALL. Even the Muzzies were invited. This was a facility that was involved in helping helpless people deformed, retarded or victims of sad diseases. NO excuse that the noble, fine religion of ISLAM had ANY reason to send two of its loonies to commit mayhem.

It's too bad that this NY POST writer has to go off on a Republican-Conservative bend...as if he's defending the conservative cocksucker who killed three people at an abortion clinic.

But his basic point is still important: that when it comes to a certain type of killer, you can't say "wing nut" or "psycho" or identify the race or religion even when the race and religion is the reason the maniac went on a rampage.

You can't say "Muslim Killers" and you can't state the obvious? We all know that there's only ONE religion that is terrorizing the globe right now. And no, Roger Waters, you picked the wrong one.

The Post, which printed this piece, was instantly smacked down for running a cover that said "Muslim Killers."

MORE of the text:

“Fox and the GOP ramped up their rhetoric about baby body parts being sold to Planned Parenthood,” Larry Wilmore said on Comedy Central’s “The Nightly Show.” “So do I feel comfortable saying that he was at least partially motivated by the right’s demonization of Planned Parenthood? Oh, yeah!”

The Washington Post made the same link, suggesting Republican anti-abortion rhetoric “created an atmosphere that put clinic workers and patients at risk.”

That’s a conclusion to which you’re allowed to jump. But two Muslims committing mass murder? Heaven forbid that radical Islam had anything to do with it.

In the media’s mind, Muslims are the victims — of right-wing bigots — and their creed is a Religion of Peace incapable of inspiring violence, unlike Christianity.

CNN initially tried to pin the San Bernardino shootings on “some type of militia group.” The New York Times claimed they amounted to “domestic terrorism.”

Other outlets said the real villain here is obviously the NRA.

The Beltway punditry is twisting itself into knots trying to avoid admitting the obvious motive — violent Islamic jihad. Now, in a desperate fit to re-spin it all, we’re hearing from CNN that poor Farook was actually acting out over a “turbulent childhood,” and that Malik was suffering from “postpartum syndrome.”

After getting it so wrong, a chagrined New York Times shrugged in a front-page editorial: “Motives do not matter.”

“A Muslim extremist? A disgruntled worker? A Christian fanatic? A racist? A misogynist? With each mass shooting, Americans struggle to fathom what motivated the killer,” the Times wrote in an accompanying online “discussion.” “But does it matter whether someone is killed by a Muslim extremist or someone with a less dramatic reason to pull the trigger?”

The answer of course is, duh! There are a lot more Muslim extremists in the world than Christian extremists, and they can do a lot more damage. Allies of the Islamic State attack innocents in Paris, in Sinai, in Mali, in a ­jihad aimed at our way of life. Is the Times really suggesting that this ideology is irrelevant?

Making the slaughter in California all about gun control is a convenient distraction for a president uninterested in confronting a global epidemic for which he has no strategy. And the only one “struggling to fathom” the Muslim motive is the liberal press, who are obsessed with flipping the narrative in any mass shooting to gun control and conservatives.

When it comes to Muslim terrorism, sorting out motives is oh-so-complicated for the mainstream media. So used to telling us what we should think, they’re suddenly left scratching their heads.

But when it comes to “right-wing domestic terrorism,” the motive is instantly clear to them. And they are miraculously lucid and articulate in ­explaining it to us.

The bottom line is that every excuse is given for Muslims who kill people. They answer to a higher power. They are admirably clinging to old customs. They are justly angry that the world is...what...buying their fucking oil? Not leaving them alone when they are the ones demanding to immigrate?

One thing I'll say about the "old ways." Maybe WE should try them. Maybe instead of coddling every lunatic who shoots people, we should put 'em up in front of a firing squad, with all the networks running the scene, and show 'em being shot DEAD.

We have too many people on the planet (especially now that there's a new baby Kardashian). We could save a lot of money by NOT giving jail house space to every Black Sabbath fan who wants to blow away his councilwoman, every Batman fan who wants to kill people in a movie theater, and every disgruntled baby-faced Muzzie who thinks blowing up a Marathon race will get him the front page of Rolling Stone.