Five separate acts of violent crime committed in the past week, three by Muslims and two (so far as we know) by non-Muslims. Why do I make the distinction? I expect fully to hear cries of foul from Muslim apologetic groups like CAIR for calling the acts committed by Muslims terrorist acts while not applying the same moniker to the shootings in Washington state and Sacramento. The cries of foul are sure to come. Here is how to respond. 1. The man who ran down Canadian soldiers in Quebec, the man who shot soldiers at the war memorial and then went inside Parliament to continue his shooting spree, and the hatcher hacker in New York all had verses of the Quran proudly displayed on their public profiles. The two non-Muslims did not. 2. The three Muslim terrorists were all admitted self-radicalized. The other two were not. 3. The three Muslims all attended mosques with known ties to radicals. The other two did not. 4. The three Muslims all admitted on public profiles their affinity for the work of ISIS and wanting to help out with the cause. The other two did not. 5. The three Muslims followed the teaching of their religious scripture and the example set by their prophet Muhammad. The religious affiliation of the other two, if any at all, was not a factor in their actions. Dont allow Islamic apologists to get away with their attempt, as I expect the will, to make an attempt to equate all these crimes as simply that: criminal activity, with no connection to religion or ideology. Their arguments are invalid. Ive heard them in the past; expect to hear them again in the future.
Posted on: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 16:53:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015