Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Alton Nolan As He Is Today (2014), Not Yesteryear

The post I wrote last Saturday morning entitled We Face a Monstrous Evil: Terrorism in Oklahoma seems to have struck a chord. Most people understand that the post draws attention to radical Islam, which seems to have infested the Oklahoma City metropolitan area. Chopping off the head of a woman is an act of brutal terrorism. The beheading of innocent men and women is taking place around the world in regional pockets where radical Islam has taken hold. Some who've read my post  objected by saying "I've seen Alton's picture in the Washington Post. How can you call Alton Nolan a radical Islamic terrorist? He's a clean cut all-American kid!" Answer: The Washington Post and other major national newspapers are showing old pictures of Alton Nolan. Alton became radicalized while attending a mosque in Oklahoma City in recent years.

I wish our national media would start paying attention to details. Alton Nolan made no bones about the fact he was a radical Islamist. He let people know through his social footprint on Facebook his feelings about infidels who reject Sharia and the Islamic caliphate. He openly called for the downfall of America's government. He beheaded an innocent woman, not immediately after being fired (as the media initially reported), but after going home and preparing to kill.

Benjamin Netanyahu said in a speech yesterday, "The Nazis believed in a master race. The militant Islamists believe in a master faith." The Prime Minister of Israel is right. The monstrous evil in our midst is a group of radical Islamists who believe that everybody should believe like them or else. Our media needs to get on board in reporting the truth as it is. Sometimes the truth hurts, but we are better off as a nation hearing the truth than having it whitewashed it for the sake of political correctness.

Alton Nolan 2014
Alton Nolan 2010


Aussie John said...


Your comments are so appropriate and applicable to much Australian media as well.

It seems that in most cases representatives of the media outlets are more interested in manufacturing a story (often with a political agenda) than reporting, and investigating the truth.

raswhiting said...

It is ironic that FaceBook only offers his 2010 photo when I Share the link to this page!

Anonymous said...

Marc G.
It has always been a sore spot with me that the media always want to show persons involved in violent crimes, especially when they are younger males,in earlier photos when they are posed and well groomed. One will not be able to pick out the lone wolf or one sent under orders as a terrorist and do not kid yourself Oklahoma would be a ideal location for a terrorist attack. Their message, We can get you anywhere". We are a soft target, just be vigilant.

Bob Cleveland said...

People do not seem to realize that Islam is to Radical Islam (Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc...), as Christianity is to the Ku Klux Klan. I don't know why they cannot make that distinction.

Maybe it's the speck/log syndrome.

Not to mention the white and mostly Christian mob screaming outside the black church in Montgomery when the freedom riders were inside.

Wade Burleson said...

Bob, you make a great point.

An excellent point.

Christians understand the KKK is not Christian and shouts it from the rooftops.

Christiane said...

found this from a Rachel Held Evans source which speaks to this post and affirms much of it:


I was appalled by the photos of all the women who had been slaughtered by Islamic fundamentalism.

'Fundamentalisms' (yes, with the 's')
are radical, not conservative, and want to change the character of a religion to make it violent and aggressive towards those who are innocent in order to CONTROL them politically . . . look at what extreme 'christian' fundamentalism has done regarding the 'discipline' of infants and toddlers . . . and all fundamentalisms attack women's dignity in ways unspeakable

Christian fundamentalism is NOT Christian.
Muslim fundamentalism is NOT Muslim.
The character of a faith can never be defined by radical people who push violence towards the innocent.

Confused said...

Christiane, while your point is well meaning in nature, the fair and honest statement should be that fundamentalist factions in any religious group as in fact a part of that group just as the other groups falling along the spectrum of most groups with commonly accepted labels as "conservative," "mainline," " moderate," "liberal," "reformed," and so on. The term "radical" can be a difficult one for a large part of conservative churches who have been using that term in a positive way in their sermons, literature, and popular mediums like Contemporary Christian Music and camps/conferences for people of all ages where believers are challenged to "be radical/live radically for God/Jesus because Jesus was a radical" and core message of Christianity is a radical posture to the way of the world that requires personal sacrifices even unto death in living out that revolutionary/radical belief.

Of course, dying to oneself and one's personal desires are by no means close to bringing about the violent physical death and brutalization of other human beings in the act of religious devotion.

Just wondering: are missionaries who leave behind family and worldly comforts and even signifant wealth (doctors, dentists, educators, etc.) "radicals"or "extremists" for defying the norm practiced by the overwhelming majority of believers, especially when their practicing their faith includes physical hardship and even danger, which is even more stark when children are involved? What about those who commit to celibacy and poverty so they can be just like Christ in every way and in following the Gospel by being free to go into all the world without the responsibilities that come with having a family?

How about the often repeated belief based on Scripture, tradition, theology, and conviction that Jesus could return at any moment? Why all the personal debts and/or extra work in order to build big houses and own a lot of nice possessions or organizational debt to build massive church buildings (and even campaigning for candidates and laws that preserve and promote family/Chritian values in all levels of government and throughout society) if one truly believes that "this world is not my home" and "Jesus is coming any moment now"?

Of course, the expected response is that these "radicals" have a special calling or were given special spiritual gifts that enable or compel them to live so "ab-normal" relative to every other believers. Which is fine if I were not asking honest questions rather than start an argument. I am just really struggling with whether to take what Jesus taught and commanded seriously or just walk away from choosing to become a Christ-follower (I'm not too interested in coping with this serious existential dilema by adopting fancy theologies developed over the centuries or by accepting liberal solutions that involve watering down the Scriptures to something that is almost not recognizable).