(There must be some mistake.)
Here's the latest on the two guys arrested in New Jersey as they were off to join the jihad.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/09/faces-terror-officials-release-mug-shots-nj-terror-suspects/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Flatest+%28Text+-+Latest+Headlines%29
I'm sure their lawyers will bring in lots of character witnesses at the trial.
5 comments:
Except those AREN'T the facts and you ARE an Islamophobe.
50%? Try 6%.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/
My comments were addressed at Miggie.
As for who the terrorists are, I don't know, ask the FBI, because it's their data.
And I don't think it's all some right-wing hallucination. I think it's a combination of selective reporting by the media and those with prejudices simply seeing what they want to see.
I (and the Loon Watch article) was only speaking about domestic attacks within the US.
You're also moving the goal posts by making this about number of deaths, when in your original statement you said:
"half the terrorists over the last 25 years are named Mohammed." [implying in a bigoted manner that they are Muslim]
So we're talking about number of terrorists/attacks, not number of deaths. At least I was.
"Oh and I forgot, unless you believe 9/11 was an Israeli operation."
Sorry, not a loon.
"So I know you would like to believe all the Islamic terrorist atrocities and atrocity plots are all made up in the press"
Can you please point me towards where I EVER claimed such a thing? I said it's a matter of selective reporting. That doesn't mean the events are made up. It simply means that similar events involving non-Muslims are not reported on nearly as much, even though they do occur. See the LoonWatch site for plenty of examples of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc terrorism and thuggery.
The JDL is not "the Jews" and al Qaeda is not "the Muslims."
Certainly there are terrorist attacks committed in the name of Islam, and those attacks are perpetrated by professed Muslims. It is legitimate for those in law enforcement and security to identify those who are motivated by a variant of Islam that advocates armed military action against civilians (or army bases) as the fulfillment of "jihad." They will waste a tremendous amount of time if they examine every Muslim in the world.
This started out as a couple of mug shots. Do these mug shots signify much of anything? There are two species of pathetic defensiveness going on here:
Those who want to emphasize that these terrorists are Muslim, but then deny that they are anti-Islamic, and,
Those who don't want any mention of Islam in connection with terrorism, but then deny that they support terrorism.
You all doth protest too much.
Anonymous,
I have rejected your latest comment with a link to your favorite blog critical of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I normally welcome disagreements, but I don't like promoting the other side's blogs.
Post a Comment