Tom Friedman continues his journey into insanity (i.e. the terrorists win)

Seriously? As he notes, we don’t even know who the bomber was or what the motive might have been – isn’t it a bit early to announce that we will win by ignoring the guy?

And if, just for example, the bomber is a lone nutjob desperately in need of better mental health care and reporting, why does ignoring him make any sense at all? Was Tom Friedman exhorting us to ignore the lone psychos in Aurora and Sandy Hook? He was not – Sandy Hook was a clear signal for an assault weapons ban, but killing and maiming with bombs gets a pass?

It is inconceivable to me that Tom Friedman or his editors would ever run a column telling the Sandy Hook parents that it was time to move on or else Adam Lanza wins. So how the Times let pass this exhortation to the newly legless to just get over it is beyond me.