FRONT PAGE MAG: A Memorial Day for Islamic Terror May 27, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield

On John Wilson Street, the flowers lie thick. Men and women walk by leaving bouquets and cards. If not for the balloons and teddy bears with British flags on them, it might be Copley Square near the finish line of the Boston Marathon where the same bouquets lie limply against steel barriers. But there the teddy bears and balloons wear the stars and stripes.

In the middle of May, Prime Minister David Cameron was at Copley Square saying that we will never give in to the terrorists while praising the values of diversity and then two weeks later he was outside 10 Downing Street declaring that we will never give in to the terrorists and praising Islam. The places had changed but the script hadn’t.

Listen long enough and you realize that every politician is working from the same script.

After Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the second Boston bomber, was captured, Obama gave a little speech praising the “diversity that makes us strong” and asserting that “we refuse to be terrorized.”  After the butchery of Jewish children by a Muslim terrorist in Toulouse, France last year, President Sarkozy talked up Muslim victimhood and said, “We mustn’t give in to terror.”

“I want the world to understand that our actions today were not aimed against Islam,” President Clinton had said, as he announced strikes against Al Qaeda targets after the bombings of American embassies, “the faith of hundreds of millions of good, peace-loving people all around the world, including the United States.”

Like a commercial jingle, after the obligatory tributes to the indomitable courage of whatever city the attack took place in, the same two contradictory messages repeat again and again. “Islamic PR is our priority” and “We won’t give in to terror.”

It would be easy enough to make a tour of such places and hear the empty words ring from mute stone and the washed out remains of posters and cards, wilted flower petals and teddy bears whose colors have run together until it is impossible to tell what flag they used to wear. What lost child and lost father they memorialized.

The politicians only speak to assure the people that they are taking the problem seriously when past echoes from the stones tell us that they aren’t taking it seriously at all.

“We will find out who did this and we’ll find out why they did this,” Obama said after Benghazi. Those words should sound familiar. In 1993, after the World Trade Center bombing, President Clinton told Americans, “We’ll find out who was involved and why this happened. Americans should know that we will do everything possible to keep them safe in their streets, their offices and their homes.”

Eight years later the towers had fallen.

The FBI had two years’ worth of warnings and an informant inside the group that did it. Ramzi Yousef, the perpetrator of the attack, was the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the attacks of September 11 that finished what his nephew had begun.

Yousef studied electrical engineering in the United Kingdom and then spent time in one of Osama bin Laden’s training camps. And then back to the United Kingdom and on to the United States.

The story is a familiar one. Neither Tamerlan Tsarnaev nor Michael “Mujaheed” Adebolaja came out of nowhere. They were familiar presences in intelligence files. Their links to terrorist groups were known. They could have been stopped but they weren’t, because Islam is a religion of peace and diversity is our strength. Instead they were just among the thousands of strongly diverse names sitting in file folders.

The UK government is rolling out a task force that will tackle violent extremism of unspecified origin. Proposals include keeping “extremists” from appearing on campuses. Considering that one of the London beheaders had been “radicalized” as a teenager by a combination of Somali drug gangs and his local mosque, it’s a weak and random suggestion that will almost certainly go nowhere.

Over a month after the Boston bombings, Obama unrolled his own proposals, questioning the morality of drone strikes, and calling for the release of more Gitmo terrorists and the end of the War on Terror.  By refusing to be terrorized, Obama apparently meant that if we pretend that terrorism doesn’t exist, then it won’t. War is over if you want it. Put down some cards and flowers and then let the terrorists go.

Governments have been successfully terrorized. It has fallen on the people not to allow themselves to be terrorized, to keep a stiff upper lip when the bombs go off and bloodied bodies roll into the gutter.  They are expected to convince themselves that the presence of large numbers of Muslims in their cities is a strength, rather than a dangerous threat. To notice that is to be terrorized. And if you notice that the terrorists are Muslim, then the multiculturalists have lost and the terrorists have won.

If you doubt that, consider the 1,200 London police officers dispatched to protect mosques after the brutal Muslim attack on a British soldier. Or the Stockholm police chief saying, ”Our ambition is really to do as little as possible” in the face of Muslim riots, but still taking the time to hand out tickets to the Swedes whose cars were burned and to arrest Swedish vigilantes coming out to protest the rioting.

The role of the people is to see nothing and to take comfort in the empty promises. We refuse to be terrorized. We won’t give in. But they have already given in. And they will let us put out the flowers, cards and teddy bears so we get it out of our systems. Until the next time.

It’s not that our governments can’t protect us against Islamic terrorism. It’s that they choose not to.

The enemy we fight is not unknown. His soldiers are no ciphers. Their names sit in intelligence databases. And when the names come up on their screens, the analysts nod and go, “Yes, him. Thought he might do something like that one day.”

On John Wilson Street, Michael ‘Mujaheed’ Adebolaja stood with bloody hands to tell us that he was killing in the name of Islam. And then out came the Prime Minister and the Mayor of London to assure everyone that Islam had nothing to do with it. And who are we to believe, the politicians or our own lying ears?

The scene could be happening anywhere. It could be Boston or New York, Paris or Jerusalem. In Nigeria, they are blowing up churches. In Myanmar, they are burning Buddhist monks alive. This isn’t the political outrage of a tiny minority, but the continuation of a thousand years of genocide.

There aren’t enough flowers in the world for every man, woman and child murdered by Islam since Mohammed. There aren’t enough cards or teddy bears or words. There certainly aren’t enough tears. The best way to remember them is with a determination to tell the truth about their killers.

There have been enough lies. To the living and the dead, we owe the truth.

Britain has been in denial about the Islamist threat. Time to face it down. (Hey London, Can't Say You Weren't Warned) DOUGLAS MURRAY, associate director of the Henry Jackson Society, a London-based think tank.

How many ignored warnings does it take? That is one question that should hang over Britain after the horror of the daytime murder of a British soldier on the streets of south London. On Wednesday afternoon, Drummer Lee Rigby was killed in Woolwich by two men wielding large knives and shouting "Allahu akbar"—God is great.

Islamists have been saying for years they would do this. They have planned to do it. And now they have done it.

The attack itself is not surprising. What is surprising is that British society remains so utterly unwilling not just to deal with this threat, but even to admit its existence. Politicians have called the Woolwich killing "unforgivable" and "barbarous." But expressions of anger should not really be enough.

Attempts to attack military targets in Britain go back to before the millennium and even before, it is important to note, the war on terror. In 1998 Amer Mirza, a member of the now-banned extremist group al Muhajiroun, attempted to petrol-bomb British army barracks. In 2007, a cell of Muslim men was found guilty of plotting to kidnap and behead a British soldier in Birmingham. The plan had been to take the soldier to a lock-up garage and cut off his head "like a pig." They wanted to film this act on camera and send it around the world to cause maximum terror.

In 2009, al Muhajiroun protested at a homecoming parade in Luton for British troops returning from Afghanistan. Carrying banners saying "go to hell," "butchers" and "terrorists," the group was protected by British police officers from an increasingly irate crowd of locals. The resulting outrage toward the police gave rise to the deeply troubling English Defence League, a street protest movement that often turns violent.

Now comes the attack in Woolwich, which the perpetrators—as with the earlier cell—wished to be observed and even filmed. Reports suggest that they invited people to capture their actions on video. The perpetrators gave interviews, machetes in hand, to bystanders with cameras. This horrific scene is something that will stick in the memory.

But it should also have been foreseen. Instead we entered the stage of denial. For there is already, in the reaction to events, more than a hint of what I have previously termed "Toulouse syndrome." The term is named after the attacks last year carried out by a jihadist called Mohammed Merah, who killed three French soldiers in a rampage that concluded with the murders of four French Jews at a school in Toulouse.

In the early stages of the attacks, when little was known, there was significant speculation that the culprit was a far-right extremist. At that stage everybody knew what they were going to say. But once the culprit turned out to be an Islamist, the gaze nearly fell away completely. "Nothing to see here, please move on" was the order of the day.

"Toulouse syndrome" also touched Boston last month. After the bombing at the marathon, media and politicians waited, hoping—some even said as much—that the attackers would be tea-party types. Then everybody would know what to say. But when it turned out to be Islamists?

So it is with the Woolwich killing, which British officials have lined up to denounce. Yes it is sickening. Of course it is barbaric. But what of it? Even all these years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2011, our societies remain unfit for purpose in facing up to—and facing down—Islamic extremism.

Too many still seek refuge in ignorance and denial that was so memorably displayed by U.S. officials after the Fort Hood shooting in 2009. A man who was a member of the American armed forces, Maj. Nidal Hasan, gunned down his colleagues while shouting "Allahu akbar." On that occasion the American government, like the French government before it and the British government this week, decided to focus on everything about the attack other than what really mattered: the motive. Fort Hood was put down to a case of workplace violence.

There will be many angles to the events in London that must be addressed in the coming days, and we can hope many will receive the appropriate level of public attention. Among them will be one particularly unpleasant irony.

Most of the extremists who have repeatedly expressed their hatred of British soldiers are themselves supported by the British state. A prominent hate-preacher—Anjem Choudary, a leader of the disbanded al Muhajiroun—was even caught on video earlier this year extolling Britain's "jihad-seekers' allowance." As he explained to his followers, "The normal situation, really, is to take money from the kafir"—a slur for non-Muslims. "Allahu akbar. We take the money."

After the video showed up online, a BBC reporter asked Mr. Choudary to clarify how much he's taking—the press has long reported a sum of £25,000 ($37,770) per year. "It's irrelevant," Mr. Choudary replied.

This would not be the first time a country has paid both sides in a conflict. But if the reported figure is anywhere near accurate, it would surely be the first time in human history that a society has paid its opponents better than it pays its own. A British soldier can expect to start in the army on a salary of around £16,000 ($24,172).

The events in south London must cause a re-evaluation by British society of the insanity we have been permitting. The question is not how sad we feel. The only question should be what we do about it.

Time we stood up to Islamists who would destroy us - Let's Stop Paying Them to Kill Us On a sunny afternoon on a London street an unarmed young man is murdered in the most brutal way imaginable. First his assailants frenziedly hack at him with meat cleavers then yelling "Allahu akbar" (God is great) they slice off his head.

Can you spot what's wrong here? I would have thought it was obvious. I'd say it's one of the vilest crimes committed in Britain since at least the 7/7 London terrorist bombings. But clearly I'm a bit eccentric because lots of people disagree with me - as I discovered when the horrific story first broke.

Some thought the worst aspect of the case was that BBC political reporter Nick Robinson had described the suspects on the news as "of Muslim appearance". Others were mightily exercised that the alleged murderers had been shot by police (rather than politely escorted to the nearest cell with full access to Sky Sport, presumably).

Still others seemed determined not to draw any "unhelpful" conclusions about the murderers' religious motives. All right, so they might have shouted "Allahu akbar" and given an interview afterwards saying: "We swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone."

But this was no reason to suggest that this sordid crime had anything to do with the "Religion of Peace", now, was it?

Not for the first time I find myself wondering what madness has seized our culture.

Have we been so brainwashed by political correctness that we no longer know how to respond honestly to a crime of near matchless barbarity and evil? For me - and no doubt you too - it couldn't be more clear cut.

What happened to that young soldier on the streets of Woolwich on Wednesday was wrong if you're white; wrong if you're black; wrong if you're Christian; wrong if you're Muslim; so wrong from every conceivable angle that it seems a crime against decency and logic for anyone, however wellintentioned, to try to make excuses for it.

Indeed I'd argue that the people mouthing these inane pieties are Islamic fundamentalism's useful idiots - they make it more, not less, likely that there's going to be another atrocity like this just around the corner. What their attitude shows is that we as a society don't have the gumption to tackle this problem head on.

So what exactly should we be doing to prevent home-grown atrocities such as this? Step one, definitely, should be to acknowledge that the problem actually exists rather than burying our heads in the sand for fear of causing offence.

At the moment - as we saw with the Boston marathon bombings - our default response to any Islamist terrorist incident is first to worry about how the "Muslim community" might feel.

What ought to be a story about the very real menace of militant political Islam instead becomes a story about how we must all try to be nicer to the Muslim community at this difficult and embarrassing time.

Police and forensic officers at the scene of the attack in Woolwich

Not for the first time I find myself wondering what madness has seized our culture.

But we knew that. Hardly anyone - save the odd crackpot - seriously blames Muslims generally for incidents such as this.

It would be nice, though, if on these occasions a few more members of that peaceful Muslim majority came forward and condemned the deed outright rather than using it as another excuse to play the oppressed minority victim card.

This is symptomatic of a broader problem with Islam in Britain: that all over, in ghettolike pockets, there are immigrant communities that feel no loyalty to the traditions and values of their host country, only to the broader Islamic world known as the "umma".

While it's true that the vast majority of them will have been properly appalled by the barbarity of the Woolwich murder many will yet have sympathised with the killers' line that: "We must fight them as they fight us."

Yet almost no one in our political class (at least not outside Ukip) will admit this. "We will defeat violent extremism by standing together," announced David Cameron. But actually that's just not true, we need to show that the limits of our tolerance for this enemy within have been thoroughly exhausted.

We need to withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights, which for years has denied us the chance to deport Islamist hate preachers and terrorist sympathisers such as Abu Qatada.

We need to stop giving benefits to those who abuse our hospitality and generosity by plotting to destroy us. We need to clamp down on specialist Muslim schools and madrasas that use Saudi textbooks preaching that Jews are lower than pigs and that "kuffar" (non-Muslims) are inferior.

We need to stop Islamist extremists targeting vulnerable groups such as prisoners and university students. We need to stop turning a blind eye to honour killings, female circumcision and the grooming of young girls by organised Asian gangs.

Above all we need to realise that there will never be peace or social cohesion in our divided land so long as we go on playing this ridiculous game where one section of our population has to be treated with kid gloves and special rules in case they're offended.

Fundamentalist Islam is not a problem we should be trying to sweep under the carpet, it is a problem we should be striving to defeat. So far we're not doing a very good job.

Jihad Returns to London: A Reply to Prime Minister David Cameron

British soldier Lee Rigby was murdered and beheaded on a London street by two Muslims. Prime Minister David Cameron and London Mayor Boris Johnson have assured the world that the attack had nothing to do with Islam. Yet the Qur'an clearly states that the penalty for "making mischief" in a Muslim land is death (5:33), and Rigby had served a tour in Afghanistan and was actively recruiting more soldiers for the British Army. How can Western leaders deny the obvious?

FRONT PAGE MAG: The London Horror and Jihad Denial

It began on Tuesday in Woolwich, London, when two young men in a car deliberately ran over an off-duty British soldier who was walking to a nearby military installation, then “hacked and chopped” at his body and attempted to decapitate him as they shouted “Allah akbar!” They forced witnesses to film the scene, saying: “We swear by Almightly Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reasons we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day.” When police arrived, the murderers “charged at them wielding firearms, knives and a machete.” They were apprehended alive, and are now in hospital. It has since emerged that one of them, a son of Nigerian immigrants, was born in Britain as Michael Olumide Adebolajo, converted to Islam in 2003, changed his name to Mujaahid (i.e., jihadist), and for several years attended meetings of the group Al-Muhajiroun, founded by terrorist preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed. Late Thursday afternoon, U.K. time, the murdered soldier was identified as 25-year-old Lee Rigby, a drummer in the 2nd Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers and the father of a two-year-old son.
Just like this week’s nightly riots by “youths” in Stockholm, the brutal slaughter in Woolwich was plainly a jihadist act. Yet just as the Swedish elites are continuing to dance around that uncomfortable core truth, their British counterparts are engaged in some fancy footwork of their own – led by Prime Minister David Cameron, who describedTuesday’s atrocity as “not just an attack on Britain and on the British way of life” but “also a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to our country.” (Does it need to be said that for a British leader to haul out this ragged, repulsive lie in the year 2013 is itself a betrayal – a shameless, craven betrayal of precisely what Cameron pretends to be standing up for, namely “Britain and…the British way of life”?)
The papers were full of the standard-issue stuff. The Muslim Council of Britain made the usual assertion that the latest heinous act committed in the name of Islam had “nothing to do with Islam.” Baroness Warsi, a Pakistani-English Muslim who serves as “Communities Secretary” in the current government, painted the familiar pretty picture of “faith communities coming out together” in the wake of said heinous act “and showing a unified condemnation of this.” The Guardian ran the obligatory hand-wringingarticle about the “fear of backlash” against Muslims in the wake of the heinous act in question. (The headline of another Guardian article actually indicated that there had been “Anti-Muslim reprisals after Woolwich attack”; it turned out that one man was “in custody on suspicion of attempted arson after reportedly walking into a mosque with a knife in Braintree, Essex,” and that “police in Kent were called to reports of criminal damage at a mosque in Canterbury Street, Gillingham.”) And Ken Livingstone, the loathsome ex-mayor of London (which he described as “the most successful melting pot in the history of the world and the city of the free”), warned those less evolved than himself not to “scapegoat entire communities for this barbaric act.” This from the sometime host, defender, and chum of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is famous precisely for encouraging such barbaric acts.
Newspaper commentaries on the atrocity added up to a depressing profile of the pathetic, obstinately reality-challenged psychopathology of the British elite when confronted with Islamic violence. The prize for sheer inanity of approach must go to Laborite Dan Hodges, who spent a whole column in the Telegraph elaborating on the theme that “for me, yesterday’s barbaric act of terror in Woolwich was literally senseless. None of what happened actually made any sense.” The murder, he asserted, was “confusing, horrific, bizarre.” He proceeded to repeat this refrain in one paragraph after another: “none of it made sense….Still none of it made sense….It didn’t make sense….It didn’t make any sense….Yesterday was the senseless day.” Reading this feeble, embarrassing nonsense, one could not help wondering: was Hodges equally stumped by 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, Bali, Beslan, the Boston bombings? One of the things that didn’t “make sense” to Hodges was that one of the murderers spoke of “our lands,” meaning the Muslim world, even though “he had a south-east London accent.” It was as if the Woolwich killers were the first “home-grown terrorists” to ever come to Hodges’s attention. How remarkable that during all these years when the non-Muslim world has been racked by one death-dealing jihadist assault after another, Hodges’s contemplation of these incidents has apparently yielded absolutely nothing in the way of awareness or insight.
Brendan O’Neill, also writing in the Telegraph, was also purportedly baffled beyond all hope by Tuesday’s events, professing to find it “shocking” and “bizarre” (that word again) that one of the terrorists “claimed to be acting on behalf of all Muslims,” speaking “as if he were a representative of the ummah.” Again, one would have thought that this was the very first time such a thing has ever happened. “How can a couple of men,” O’Neill asked, “so thoroughly convince themselves that they speak for all Muslims, to the extent that they seriously believe their savage and psychotic attack on a man in the street is some kind of glorious act of Islamic resistance?” Unlike Hodges, however, O’Neill had a theory. A certain kind of thinking, he posited, had led directly to the Woolwich atrocity. Jihadist ideology? Nope: contemporary British identity politics. You see, “in this era in which any old fool can claim to be a ‘community spokesperson’, and can be treated seriously as such, these murderous loners seem to be trying a psychotic version of the same trick – claiming that by dint of shared skin colour or common religious sentiment they have the authority to speak on behalf of millions of people they have never met or whose lands they have never visited.” Somehow, O’Neill would appear to have missed the news that it’s not only in Merrie Old England that jihadists have proudly proclaimed themselves to be jihadists.
Some observers emphasized that it was crucial to “keep calm.”  Writing in the Independent, sociologist Frank Furedi urged Brits not to “over-react” – and, moreover, not to “redefine” this “incomprehensible act of violence” (yes, he was mystified too) as “an act of political terrorism.” If O’Neill saw the two killers as products of British identity politics, Furedi, calling it “unlikely” that they had “been busy reading al-Qaeda’s terror manual,” cast them instead as products of “reality entertainment” culture, noting their decision to record their monstrous actions on camera. “The murderers may have adopted the role of idealist jihadists as one of them chanted ‘We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you,’” wrote Furedi, “but what they really meant was that we will never stop performing.” Furedi’s advice to his readers: don’t give “recognition to two self-obsessed killers who did not deserve it.”
Michael White made a similar argument under the headline “Woolwich attack: let’s try a bit of keeping calm.” Hey, here’s a thought: could it be, just possibly, that official Britain has been too damn calm for too damn long? How about finally getting a little angry? Just to begin with, how about reforming the insane immigration and deportation policies that have made London a sanctuary for some of the most contemptible preachers of Islamic terror on the planet? How about cutting out all the smooth lies, the slick euphemisms, the talk of “Asians” when the subject is really Muslims? How about somebody in a position of authority screwing up a little courage and facing a few facts – and thereby maybe, just maybe, causing Churchill to stop spinning in his grave?
White had a lot to say. Protesting that the publication of photos of the Woolwich perpetrators’ “rusty knives and meat cleavers” was “indecent” and “voyeuristic,” he proposed that today’s Brits adopt the “Keep Calm and Carry On” attitude of their World War II-era forebears – in other words, turn away from the gruesome images and don’t exaggerate the importance of these evildoers (who might just as easily have been members of some street gang unrelated to Islam rather than “ill-educated and unemployed young men…who have been watching jihadi video nasties on the internet”). Suggesting that the Woolwich killers are “lone wolfs” (sic) whose acts have no wider meaning or organizational backing, he maintained that “the only visibly organised conspiracy” in the picture is the English Defence League (that tacky pack of unspeakable rowdies). He went on to insist that, in any event, ordinary street gangs are “a greater problem for life in our big cities than wannabe jihadis.” And he found it appropriate to add that British soldiers of the non-Islamic persuasion are, after all, sometimes “attacked” or “even occasionally murdered” by “their drunken co-religionists.” So why make a fuss about the Islamic roots of this unfortunate affair? (For good measure, White worked in a passing reference to the nightly riots in Stockholm by “the unemployed.”)
What artful dodgers! The lesson was clear: with very few exceptions, the British elite is terrified to call jihad by its rightful name. It would rather condemn the English Defence League for the thousandth time than choke out even the most muted, gracefully nuanced acknowledgment that there might, in fact, be something of a causal connection between the instructions to the faithful spelled out in the Koran and the actions carried out in Woolwich on Tuesday afternoon. Yet it’s precisely that elite’s dishonest, irresponsible, lily-livered response to abominable transgressions like this one that is driving more and more people into the arms of the EDL. For while Cameron, Livingstone, and company were responding to the Woolwich killing by defending Islam, feigning perplexity, and/or dismissing the idea that this murder had any larger significance, EDL leader Tommy Robinson was speaking the plain and simple truth, accusing the country’s leaders of being “scared to say the word Muslim” and flatly rejecting the fatuous falsehoods about Islam that are proferred in Britain’s classrooms and endlessly reiterated in its media. Said Robinson on Tuesday: “Our next generation are being taught through schools that Islam is a religion of peace. It’s not. It never has been. What you saw today is Islam.”
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

THE SLIMES BURYS the Brutal Islamist Beheading Story; NY Slimes Puts Brutal Islamist Beheading Story on A7, Omits 'Swear by Mighty Allah' Line Uttered by Attacker

While the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal this morning gave front-page coverage to yesterday's grisly beheading of a British serviceman on a London street in broad daylight, the New York Times placed their 20-paragraph story by London correspondent John F. Burns on page A7. Editors slapped on the headline, "'Barbaric' Attack in London Renews Fears of Terror Threat," with "barbaric" in scare quotes.

While the Post, Journal, and Times all ran quotes from one of the attackers as transcribed from a cell phone video filmed by a bystander, the Times curiously left out a portion of the rant where the attacker boasted, "We swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone."

---

The Times's Burns did quote one thing the attacker said, and it was a line in which he effectively blamed the British government for pushing him to a homicidal rage:

I apologize that women had to see this today, but in our lands women have to see the same thing....You people will never be safe. Remove your governments! They don't care about you.

But as Washington Post London bureau chief Anthony Faiola noted, immediately before that so-called apology, the attacker claimed inspiration from the Koran, insisting that

There are many, many ayah [verses] throughout the Koran that says we must fight them as they fight us, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Burns curiously left that line out of his story.

Had such a brutal attack happened in London or the U.S. and it was followed by the assailant boasting on camera, "We won't stop fighting you until we claim this country for Jesus Christ!" or that the Bible justified his violence, it's hard to believe those facts wouldn't be placed prominently in the story and maybe even quoted in the headline.