Saturday, November 14, 2015

Terrorism and why Salon sucks

Ben Norton, a useful idiot who writes for Salon Magazine, is upset that for some unknown, crazy reason, we in the West are blaming Muslims for Islamic Jihad attacks against infidels. How can we be so naive? 

In an uninformed, dhimmie-styled apologist article by Norton, witlessly titled: "Our terrorism double standard: After Paris, let's stop blaming Muslims and take a hard look at ourselves," the useful idiot wrote: 
Any time there is an attack on civilians in the post-9/11 West, demagogues immediately blame it on Muslims. They frequently lack evidence, but depend on the blunt force of anti-Muslim bigotry to bolster their accusations.
Actual evidence, on the other hand, shows that less than 2 percent of terrorist attacks from 2009 to 2013 in the E.U. were religiously motivated . . .
Well, it's quite clear that the Paris slaughter of innocent people was religiously motivated--the attackers said so. Even if they didn't cop to being Muslim, who in their right mind would blow himself up just to kill people if it was not religiously motivated with promises of an afterlife?

Now multiply the odds of 7 or 8 people willing to blow themselves up to kill strangers screaming "Allahu Akbar!" (allah is great) and tell me it wasn't religiously motivated. Read the Koran, Ben.

Norton can write whatever he wants and play with the data to make it seem accurate, but the threat of Islam is real and anyone who is being honest knows it's real. Calling Islamic jihadists "militants" describes their methods, but it tells us nothing as to who they are and what motivates them.

People like Norton, like Obama and his administration, refuse to delve into the root causes of Islamic terrorism, (aka Jihad) and create strategies to destroy the threat that it poses. This is why Obama has not Syrian strategy. This is why he called ISIS the JV team--he refuses to acknowledge who they are, and to some degree, appears more sympathetic to Islam than he is to Christianity and the West.

Norton actually believes that it is "right wing exploitation" that is preventing these attacks from being stopped. Not only is that insulting and stupid, it's downright bull crap. I suspect Norton has never read the Koran or spoken to a devout Muslim like one of the 13% of the Syrian refugees who is sympathetic to ISIS. Yes, that's a real number--I don't need to make up my facts like Norton.

"As soon as the news of the attacks broke," writes Norton, "even though there was no evidence and practically nothing was known about the attackers, right-wing pundits immediately latched on to the violence as an opportunity to demonize Muslims and refugees from Muslim-majority countries."

Perhaps Norton should consider the notion that when most apparently random terrorist attacks are carried out by an Islamic terrorist group, pundits tend to look in that direction. If Norton had his way, we would only be checking 80-year-old nuns at airports. But besides that, I'd like to see the evidence of his claim about pundits "latching on to the violence . . . as an opportunity to demonize Muslims and refugees . . ."

Who should pundits be latching on to, the Amish? Oh, wait--the Jews are always a good target for the left. Let's blame them for the attack. We'll say they inspired it because of what they're doing to the poor Palestinians in Gaza.

People like Norton and others who write for Salon are the real danger to society because they would have you look the other way when danger presents itself.

If you don't believe that orthodox Islam is dangerous to the health of infidels, you're not paying attention to what they say and what they do. Of course I'm not saying that all Muslims are terrorists--but check out real terrorist attacks throughout the world and you'll notice that most of them are Islam-inspired.




No comments:

Post a Comment

UN official and Hamas supporter resigns

His book: "Lipless in Gaza" Martin Griffiths, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator (U...