It’s fine to import large numbers of Islamic terrorists into Western nations, but what’s really dangerous is calling them Islamic terrorists because… that could fuel Islamophobia. And everyone knows Islamophobia is much deadlier than Islamic terrorism.
Daniel Greenfield After Muslim terrorists killed 15 people at a Chanukah party in Australia, the media insists we must not mention the “I” word.
“To describe terrorism as ‘religiously motivated’ implies the religion itself authorises or drives the violence,” an editorial at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the other ABC) complains, while falsely claiming that terrorism violates the “fundamental laws of religions such as Islam”.
In New York City, a massive police operation is underway to foil any potential terror attack. The major threat is from so-called “lone wolf” terrorists. (While they don’t refer to the lone wolves as “Islamic,” the previous attacks they refer to are “Islamic” terror attacks). The entire New York Police Department, which is the largest in the US, will be deployed tonight. That’s 34,000 officers.
The op-ed then absurdly claims that “the Qurʾān allows fighting only under strictly limited conditions: in self-defence to repel aggression and oppression, and in response to treaty violation that threatens peace and security. Even then, the use of armed force is the exclusive prerogative of legitimate state authority — not individuals, groups or vigilantes — and is permitted under strict conditions, including the protection of civilians.”
If this were true, Islam would be limited to a small area in Saudi Arabia rather than controlling the entire region, apart from Israel, along with sizable parts of Africa and Asia. And before long Europe.
The entire history of Islam is a series of conquests that Muslims are proud of and took great trouble to record. Mohammed had no ‘state authority’ and his approach to civilians was to kill them if they were men and rape them if they were women or girls. The “limited conditions” under which Islam allows the mass murder of non-Muslims is anything that establishes Islamic power over them.
The op-ed then insist that Islamic terrorism isn’t really Islamic terrorism because “if a belief system explicitly prohibits an act — as Islamic scripture, jurisprudence and law explicitly prohibit the killing of civilians, vigilantism and indiscriminate violence — it cannot logically be said to motivate that act.”
“Muslims disproportionately bear the consequences of that inconsistency as an undifferentiated out-group, routinely represented in certain media and political discourses as criminals, antisemites and violent extremists.”
Can’t imagine why. Especially when the Bondi beach killer was part of a huge Muslim mob chanting threats against the Jews after Oct 7. “Mislabelling terrorism has consequences. It fuels Islamophobia.” Which is much worse than Muslim terrorists killing people in the name of something that is completely un-Islamic… Islam.
Following the recent Islamic terrorist attack in Australia, the people are demanding that the leading anti-Muslim immigration politician, Pauline Hanson, replace the current pro-Islam-apologist, Anthony Albanese, as Prime Minister.
Calling a spade a spade a “spade” or rather an Islamic terrorist an “Islamic terrorist” has contributed to the growing popularity of right wing parties in many EU nations.
View this post on Instagram
The mainstream media fuels antisemitism by repeating Hamas’ fake Gazan casualty stats and keeping on about the war in Gaza and ignoring the many other wars happening where far more civilians are dying.
I do not understand the use of the term “islamic terrorism”, when in reality it is nothing more than … moslems just bein’ moslems.
A moslem is a moslem is a moslem, They are all the same, the lowest of ALL creatures.
Muslims carry it out. Islam instructs them on why and how and when.
Just deport all Muslums, letting in no new ones. Then we won’t have to worry about terrorist attacks.