The government, press, and academy routinely deny that Islamist motives play a role in two ways, specific and general. Specific acts of violence perpetrated by Muslims lead the authorities publicly, willfully, and defiantly to close their eyes to Islamist motivations and goals. Instead, they point to a range of trivial, one-time, and individualistic motives, often casting the perpetrator as victim. Examples from the years before and after 9/11 include:
1990 assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York: "A prescription drug for … depression."[6]
1991 murder of Makin Morcos in Sydney: "A robbery gone wrong."
1993 murder of Reverend Doug Good in Western Australia: An "unintentional killing."
1993 attack on foreigners at a hotel in Cairo, killing ten: Insanity.[7]
1994 killing of a Hasidic Jew on the Brooklyn Bridge: "Road rage."[8]
1997 shooting murder atop the Empire State Building: "Many, many enemies in his mind."[9]
2000 attack on a bus of Jewish schoolchildren near Paris: A traffic incident.
2002 plane crash into a Tampa high-rise by an Osama bin Laden-admiring Arab-American (but non-Muslim): The acne drug Accutane.[10]
2002 double murder at LAX: "A work dispute."[11]
2002 Beltway snipers: A "stormy [family] relationship."[12]
2003 Hasan Karim Akbar's attack on fellow soldiers, killing two: An "attitude problem."[13]
2003 mutilation murder of Sebastian Sellam: Mental illness.[14]
2004 explosion in Brescia, Italy outside a McDonald's restaurant: "Loneliness and depression."[15]
2005 rampage at a retirement center in Virginia: "A disagreement between the suspect and another staff member."[16]
2006 murderous rampage at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle: "An animus toward women."[17]
2006 killing by SUV in northern California: "His recent, arranged marriage may have made him stressed."[18]
Now if Christian extremists commit acts of violence and murder- you're sure to see 'CHRISTIAN' mentioned in the headline or body of the story describing the perpetrator(s.) Why not muslim extremists? Is it because it seems to follow a pattern? Perhaps it happens too often for the political correct class to cover for it?
The state/party media (which is what mainstream media virtually is these days) throws up filters all too often. Is anyone bothering to pull these biases down?
. "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"- Mao Zedong
I want to take this opportunity to recognize ThunderBunny's artistic endeavor.
I've noticed she's developed an interesting formula for making a post that, had it not been both overused and full of Islamophobia, might actually be clever. It's almost like she studied communications in college, but didn't really pay attention. Anyway, here is the formula:
Step 1: For the thread title, use some sort of juxtaposition of the topic at hand to catch the reader off guard. This is the lure or bait.
Step 2: The opening line continues off the title, but then hits the reader with a "reveal," kind of an "ah, ha" moment. This leads into a dramatic-looking quote.
Step 3. Be sure to both enlarge and bold the "meat" of the quote. You need to emphasize it's importance somehow since it's not actually shocking, so just say it louder.
Step 4: Break the rest of the quote down into regular scale text, but it's helpful to underline and bold some parts too (see above).
Step 5: Close the quote and link to your source, then provide a question or comment to launch the discussion. Note: this last step only works in theory.
The best part of ThunderBunny's posts is that each one reads like a billboard with the message "stay away from this thread!" They have a visual look of danger, much the same as poisonous plants and animals in nature.
I don't share TB's zeal for broad brushing all things Islam onto the terrorist canvas but I think he's making a valid observation to highlight the double standard that exists in mainstream media to selectively publish associations depending on if the subject is a protectorate of the media's political agenda or not.
Another example of the same kind of 'editorializing' slipped into news reports that used to be used a lot:
If a U.S. Congressman was caught in a scandalous situation AND was a Republican the party affiliation was sure to be there ie; 'Congressman Daemon Spawnski (R), Texas, caught wearing schoolgirl skirt and smeared with butter was found licking a handicapped boyscout's toes in YMCA shower'.
If, on the other hand, it was a Democrat congressman in the same kind of situation the headline was; 'Rep. Dick "Little Boy" Fondoler, congressman from Ca. arrested for lewd behavior in bath house raid'.
(R) = republican
Rep. =representative
(D)= not used for these kind of headlines
Stupid readers see Rep as republican
