-
One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born
May 23, 2013 | 6 comments
-
The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again
May 22, 2013 | 7 comments
-
Carney Goes Birther on Major Garrett
May 22, 2013 | 7 comments
-
Ray Manzarek, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Thoughts on The Tornado in Moore, Oklahoma
May 20, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
Last night, an act of Islamic terrorism was thwarted when the FBI arrested 19-year-old Mohamed Osman Mohamud when he attempted to set off a bomb in Portland, Oregon.
The young jihadist had planned to detonate a car bomb during the lighting of a Christmas tree in Portland’s downtown area. The FBI had been monitoring Mohamud for more than six months by convincing him they were fellow operatives.
Yet somehow the New York Times managed to report this story without mentioning Mohamud is a Muslim. Their headline?
Oregon Teen Arrested in Plot to Bomb Holiday Event
Ah, but you know those crazy Oregon teens.
View all comments (55) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/11/27/those-crazy-oregon-teens
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- The Welfarians
- The Great Train Robbery
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Linda| 11.27.10 @ 4:02PM
That's the NYTimes for ya... of course, with a name like Mohamud, I think folks will figure it out.
Buff| 11.27.10 @ 4:45PM
I live as close to Portland as one can without being in it. Local news reports Portland's uber liberal mayor has already urged 'fairness' in dealing with thhis now 'post-Thanksgiving' or Turkey Bomber. Afterall, he was an OSU Beaver. And the only reason he may seem surprised is because the same mayor had a hand in Portland opting out of a big city terrorism task force during the Bush years.
As one might imagine, Portland's progressive community is looking for answers to this blocked act of terror. A newspaper in India reported the attempted bombing occurred at the lighting of Portland's 'Christmas tree.' There you go.
teyuna| 11.27.10 @ 4:58PM
when McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City, did they write, "A Christian bombed a federal building" ? and if not, why not?
I'm guessing it is because it would suggest that Christianity was the reason, and that therefore, all Christians should be feared. Since "we" don't fear Chistians, this headline does not make sense. And, neither does inserting Muslim make sense to self-respecting, nonviolent Muslims.
DAveH| 11.27.10 @ 6:28PM
Because, genius, because although he was raised Catholic, he very specifically stated that he was an "agnostic" and that "science is my God" as an adult. All white people aren't Christians, my friend. BTW--Who would you use as an example instead? I won't hold my breath.....
Chris| 11.28.10 @ 2:09PM
Because even if he was Christian he wasn't doing it for a religious reason. All of the Islamic terrorists have a religious underpinning to their actions.
Neo-libertarian| 11.28.10 @ 5:41PM
He shouted "Allah Akbar" when he thought he had suceeded in killing a bunch of children at a Christmas celebaration. Surprise, the definition in the Urban Dictionary is about to come true for this young miscreant.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Allah Akbar
Kingfisher| 11.27.10 @ 5:02PM
Well it is kind of obvious he is a Muslim, isn’t it? You are complaining just to complain, Aaron.
The NYT shouldn’t apologize for assuming that readers have a modicum of background knowledge, nor should it cater to the lowest common denominator of society.
AJsDaddie| 11.27.10 @ 5:14PM
Teyuna, you are kidding, right? Did McVeigh scream "Praise to Jesus!" when he bombed the building? On the other hand, the DHS itself was busy decrying "right-wing extremism" so we're evidently not afraid to ascribe violent nature to socio-political belief systems.
And Kingfisher, It's not a newspaper's job to assume. It's to report the facts, all the facts, in an unbiased and complete manner. To leave out the fact that the terrorist is a Muslim is simply pandering. It's made even worse by the fact that the article referred to two OTHER people as Muslims, while leaving out that salient fact about the "OSU student" and "Oregon teen".
The hypocrisy is breathtaking, and it's time to start calling BS on the MSM, each and every time it fails, and that's a regular event. And that includes calling BS on all of you enablers.
Mel Torme| 11.27.10 @ 5:24PM
I noticed that none of the reports that I saw on-line ever used the world"immigrant" to describe this mid-directed yute.
"Somali-born Oregon teen", that's what they say, but they never mention that he had to immigrate to get here. I guess we can assume that, but just go ahead and say it "he immigrated to the US from freakin Somalia, and he became a citizen, even took an oath to renounce all allegiance to foreign powers, etc., he did".
I shouldn't point out the stupidity of expecting people from Somalia to actually respect their oath of citizenship, but, then again, there's a lot of lying during oath-taking going around (most presidents of the US, for example).
Kingfisher| 11.27.10 @ 6:40PM
AJsDaddie,
If a newspaper does not assume a modicum of background knowledge or intelligence it cannot serve its function because it will perpetually have to explain simple concepts to simple people. What part don’t you understand?
By harping on the obvious, you support the al-Qaeda narrative that the United States is fighting a war on Islam. You are undermining our nation’s global efforts in fighting Salafi Jihadism, for the sake of promoting your agenda.
AJsDaddie| 11.27.10 @ 7:22PM
We are not fighting "Salafi Jihadism". We are fighting against imbeciles who blow up innocent civilians and the cretinous sub-humans who recruit them, regardless of their race, creed or religion. The fact that the overwhelming majority of these morally destitute vermin are of a particularly violent sect of the Muslim faith is simply a fact - something that should be neither ignored nor glossed over.
Your complaint that even mentioning the Muslim tie-in somehow causes more terrorism is a fabrication that is completely destroyed by the fact that there has been absolutely ZERO violent backlash against Muslims in this country despite the horrific destruction of 9/11, and yet the terrorism doesn't end. Face it, Kingfisher, these vicious criminals will attack America regardless of what we say or do.
al-Qaeda isn't recruiting more people because I say that Mohamed Mohamud is a Muslim. al-Qaeda is recruiting people because they are a ruthless evil of the worst kind promising a perfect afterlife to the hopeless and the impressionable.
In the same manner that all decent Christians would disavow the Crusades, I hope that every Muslim worldwide stands up and decries the predatory viciousness of these horrible thugs. And perhaps if we keep highlighting the fact that these thugs consider themselves Muslims it will help the moderate Muslims to take a stand against these cowards who pervert their religion.
If not, so be it. But don't try to tell me that pointing out Mohamed Mohamud's religion is the reason he tried to blow up babies at a Christmas tree. That's perhaps the most egregious form of blaming the victim I've heard.
Kingfisher| 11.27.10 @ 8:32PM
The “particularly violent sect of the Muslim faith” that you speak of, is Salafi Jihadism. I’m not ignoring it, but you are by dumbing it down it down to just “Muslim”. And again, in doing so, you support the al-Qaeda narrative.
Our national security efforts require the assistance of both foreign and domestic Muslims; by painting them all with a wide brush you undermine that effort. Way to go.
AJsDaddie| 11.27.10 @ 9:11PM
I'm not dumbing anything down. You're the one dumbing things down by saying that we're somehow stoking the fires of al-Qaeda by talking about the Muslim faith. You know full well that nothing could be further from the truth: the Salafi jihadists will continue to attack Americans and indeed all infidels until fundamental Islam reigns supremely over the world. That's pretty much their entire reason for being, dating back to Sayyid Qutb.
All I want is Muslims to loudly and adamantly renounce the jihadists and the tactics of terrorism. This is not happening. A Pew Research poll in 2007 indicated that as many as 25% of young Muslims in America believe that suicide bombings are sometimes acceptable. This doesn't bode well for peaceful coexistence.
Personally, I will consider any link between the Muslim religion and terrorism refuted just as soon as every Muslim leader adamantly and completely denounces the slaughter of innocent civilians by suicide bombers and the Muslim religion as a whole disowns the Salafi jihadists.
Fair enough?
Kingfisher| 11.28.10 @ 5:25PM
Let me illustrate this for you:
- The FBI agents who conducted this sting operation in Oregon? Some of them were probably Muslim. And the success of this counterterrorist operation was aided in part by linguists and intelligence analysts who are Muslims and American’s. Same with the similar case in Maryland several months ago.
- The Saudi security and intelligence forces that helped us thwart the recent airplane/copier bomb plot? They are Muslims.
- The members of al-Qaeda who turned on the group and provided vital intelligence to us after 9/11 because they were disgusted with the slaughter of innocents? Muslim.
The Sons of Iraq in Anbar province behind the Sunni Awakening that helped reduce the violence in Iraq? Muslim.
- The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan? Muslim.
- Jordanian GID, without whom our efforts against AQ would be useless? They are all Muslims.
- My buddy who has pumped more bullets into Salafi Jihadists than anyone I know, and who carries a Quran in his rucksack and wears an American flag on his shoulder? He is a Muslim.
All of these people are Muslim and have aided in our efforts. None of these people would aid our efforts and help save American lives if they thought The United States was waging a war on Islam.
The only people, who want them to think that the US is in fact fighting Islam, are our enemies like al-Qaeda and people like you, AJsDaddie.
What part don’t you understand?
AJsDaddie| 11.28.10 @ 5:51PM
What I don't understand is why you think I'm either anti-Islam or anti-Muslim. I am anti-terrorist as should be any thinking human being regardless of their race, creed or religion.
I am concerned however that there isn't complete, thunderous condemnation of these attacks from every corner of the Muslim world. EVERY corner. Not pockets, not individuals, not even some high profile clerics (and there are a few). I expect nothing short of complete unconditional denunciation of all suicide bombings. Period.
Those that do not condemn are complicit. You do understand that, right?
Kingfisher| 11.28.10 @ 9:02PM
AJsDaddie,
Whether you are personally anti-Islam is not particularly of interest, what is of interest is countering the al-Qaeda narrative that the US is against Islam. To that end, your actions are of interest in that they will either counter or support that narrative.
Look, this stuff bigger than you and I. It is irrelevant that you expect “nothing short of complete unconditional denunciation of all suicide bombings”, and it would be irrelevant if I expected it too.
Why? Again, this stuff is bigger than you and I; it involves the national security of our country, and when dealing in such matters you deal in reality and concrete actions like liaison and joint operations with Islamic people and nations on the diplomatic, intelligence, military, and economic level. Not fantasy demands for “nothing short of complete unconditional denunciation of all suicide bombings”.
AJsDaddie| 11.28.10 @ 9:34PM
Oh my gosh what a letdown. This is all you've got? After complaining how I am undermining the very security of the nation, you perform a complete 180 and suddenly I am insignificant.
Rather than addressing my points you present a narrative in which it's totally realistic to believe that my actions affect national security, but on the other hand demanding that people condemn suicide bombings is a "fantasy".
Man, you jumped the shark quick.
Kingfisher| 11.29.10 @ 11:15AM
Endorsing the al-Qaeda narrative that the US is against Islam undermines US counterterrorism efforts. It’s Information Operations, and it involves mass behavior and psychology; to that end individuals – both you and I, are largely insignificant.
Suicide Bombing is a tactic, I don’t get worked up about tactics. Different groups use suicide bombings in different ways to support different strategies. Its asymmetric warfare, you don’t get to pick the type of fights you are in so there is no use crying about it.
Shia groups like Hezbollah use suicide attacks selectively, and Iranians do not perform suicide terrorist attacks (though they did on the battlefield in the Iran-Iraq war). Sunni terrorist groups in recent years have been very indiscriminate in employing suicide bombing, and as a result have alienated much of the Muslim world.
AJsDaddie| 11.29.10 @ 7:13PM
Complete claptrap. If you want Information Operations, then have Muslim clerics demand that all suicide bombings stop, and declare fatwa against them, as Sheikh Tahir ul-Qadri has done. That would stop the narrative right there.
http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....15000.html
Then our attacks on terrorists wouldn't be anti-Islam, because there would be no Muslim terrorists. But that's against your talking points. It doesn't really matter; you've shown your true colors by saying that you don't get worked up about suicide bombers. I'll leave others to decide for themselves whether what you say after that carries any intellectual weight whatsoever.
Kingfisher| 11.29.10 @ 9:28PM
Fatwa’s are nonbinding in Sunni Islam, first of all. Second of all, Islam is very decentralized and nonhierarchical, and as such top-down declarations would have little effect – at least as far as the Sunni go. You are talking like there is an Islamic pope or something, there isn’t.
Yes, suicide bombing is a tactic, and I do not get worked up about tactics. When Jundallah uses suicide bombers to kill a bunch of officers from Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp in Baluchistan, I am supposed to be outraged at that? I would be a hypocrite if I did, because up until very recently we were aiding Jundallah (though it appears we have stopped).
The MEK, PKK/PJAK have all used suicide attacks before and we have recently worked with all of them. It’s an ugly reality in an uglier world; so I am sorry that I cannot get worked up over a tactic.
AJsDaddie| 11.29.10 @ 11:59PM
Well, I'm sorry I wasted my time because frankly I don't care one whit about someone who "cannot get worked up" over suicide bombings. You get on a blog post about a terrorist to say in effect that suicide bombers are fine, but don't talk bad about them or you'll make the Muslims mad.
Heckuva job, Kingfisher!
Kingfisher| 11.30.10 @ 10:58AM
I didn’t say they were fine. It’s just killing is killing; suicide bombing is a tactic – part of asymmetric warfare. You focus on the enemy and his strategy so you can defeat them, you dont go whining about your enemies tactics because that is useless. And that’s what you are doing; you are whining about the enemy’s tactics.
If a suicide bomber took out all of the al-Qaeda majlis al shura, you would really be against that?
If you are not against it, it is hypocritical. If you are fine with it, then you get where I am coming from.
AJsDaddie| 11.30.10 @ 5:12PM
I'm not "whining about tactics" I'm complaining about targets.
You know perfectly well I'm talking about suicide bombings against civilians (a "tactic" even some Muslim clerics have publicly declared as haraam). So your analogy doesn't hold.
And it deflects from the point. The point is simple: you and your kind apologize for suicide bombers and blame us for stoking the fires, and frankly we won't stand for it anymore. Islamo-fascists are out there quoting the Quran and killing innocent civilians, and they are going to continue no matter what we the victims do. As long as the Muslim community continues to accept them as Muslims then the Muslim community is complicit. As long as you blame the victim, you are complicit as well.
You are the dangerous one, Kingfisher. You are the one who will ultimately get people killed. Rest easy with that thought.
Kingfisher| 11.30.10 @ 8:36PM
Ok then, let’s say a suicide bomber took out all of the al-Qaeda majlis al shura, but in doing so also destroyed a bus full of innocent women and children. Would you be against that? What if it were just a minivan full of innocent women and children?
If you are against it then you are man of conviction, but I would also ask how your convictions apply when we drop a JDAM on a building in the center of a village and cause the deaths of innocents? Try as much as we do to avoid it – it still happens.
If you are for it than you can understand where I come from when I say that I cannot get worked up over a tactic. And if you are for killing your enemy at the cost of innocent lives, what is the difference between doing it through a suicide bomber or a laser-guided bomb?
Answer these questions and then tell me if you can apply your black and white sense of morality, and victimhood to it?
AJsDaddie| 12.1.10 @ 12:07AM
There's a difference between collateral damage and intended victims, even AJ knows that. Comparing bombings of civilian targets to attacks on embedded combatants? This conversation is degrading quickly as you stagger ever more clumsily into the world of nonsensical analogies, flailing your arms and barking about how the world is so very, very gray!
You're definitely one of the bad guys. The spooky bad guys - the ones who try to justify the most heinous of acts.
Kingfisher| 12.1.10 @ 11:06AM
That’s the problem with insurgencies and asymmetric warfare, the combatants live amongst civilians. There are no frontlines of “embedded combatants”; it’s not a conventional conflict like WWII or something.
And what does it matter if you or I say there is a difference between collateral damage and intended victims? It doesn’t change the fact that the people we wish to have help us defeat al-Qaeda might think otherwise.
Say there were a number of high value targets meeting one afternoon across the street from your house. And then in trying to kill those targets I drop a 2000 pound JDAM on that house, and unintentionally kill your child. Your child AJ dies in your arms.
AJ is dead as a result of my actions; are you going to care that there is a difference between collateral damage and intended victims? Are you going to give me any help when I come asking? Moreover, are you going to seek revenge? What if your culture says that you are weak and not a man if you do not get revenge?
Funny, I am the bad guy. I “justify” heinous acts, like my justification or lack thereof is the red or green light for these things to happen or something.
AJsDaddie| 12.1.10 @ 1:34PM
Yes I will care. I won't hurt less, but I'll care. If AJ dies fighting in Afghanistan, I'll hurt but I'll be okay with it. If the JDAM actually did take out bad guys, I'll be sad but I'll be okay with it.
If, on the other hand, some subhuman moron with an attitude and a bomb blows up a schoolbus with AJ on it, then I will move heaven and earth to find the bastard who gave him the bomb and make sure they pay.
This explanation, by the way, isn't for you. You know the difference, you're just trying to use invalid analogies to sway others. I just want to make sure that everybody who reads this realizes how incredibly stupid your arguments are. Most people get it, I'm sure, but I just want to underscore your inanity.
In fact, I probably wouldn't have responded at all, excpet that this does point out another bit of personal responsibility: you don't let bad guys live in your neighborhood. It's the same reason you denounce people who do bad things, lest you be tarred with the same brush, or bombed with the same bomb.
Finally, I love your craziness. You say that your justification is neither the red nor green light. So what you say has no effect on how these people act, even though your entire reason for trolling this thread was to lambaste us because what we said affected how these people act.
Self-contradiction at its finest, which is the ultimate endpoint of all Leftist memes!
Yep, dangerous to the core, KF. Dangerous to the core.
Kingfisher| 12.1.10 @ 8:38PM
Yeah, I wasn’t talking about AJ fighting in Afghanistan. I was thinking along the lines of him playing in the front yard or something. I figured AJ was a young boy, seeing as how queer it is for one grown man to refer to another grown man as “daddie” (a southern custom I never could understand).
And the high value targets were briefly meeting at the location, not staying there (as is they do in an urban insurgency), so the personal responsibility (which is more a western concept; another reason why using your values to understand this stuff is useless) doesn’t apply. And don’t dodge the question by saying it is a hypothetical, I know of several instances where this has happened.
So again: I kill your little boy who is innocently playing in the front yard in an attempt to take out some high value targets. The questions for you are:
- Will you care that there is a difference between collateral damage and intended victims?
- Will you provide any help if I come asking for it?
- Are you going to seek revenge?
The clarifications have been made and the scenario is realistic; you have no excuse for not answering the questions and a failure to do so is direct evidence that you are fruitcake.
The “red light, green light” was supposed to be sarcastic, because the implication that understanding WHY people commit suicide terrorism is the same as justifying suicide terrorism is retarded. You understand your enemy, so that you can better destroy him; you know the old Sun Tzu maxim. What part don’t you understand?
P.S. - Don’t give me that “I probably wouldn't have responded at all” line. Admit it; you haven’t had this much fun debating someone on the site ever. It’s clear you are a knowledgeable person with a decent vocabulary, and the level of discourse on this website unfortunately hovers somewhere between Sarah Palin’s Twitter account and a Freshman English course at Florida State. You enjoy my banter, admit it.
Best,
KF
AJsDaddie| 12.2.10 @ 2:00AM
Don't flatter yourself. I don't enjoy your banter in the least. You're just another loser who uses hypothetical worst case scenarios to avoid dealing with moral questions. After reading some of your stuff, I feel mild disgust, sort of like I just stepped in something foul. The crack about southern customs and the unnecessary use of the word queer is just par for the course. It shouldn't even be part of this discussion; you throw it in for some sort of shock value I guess.
You are, however, allowing me to present an object lesson to any remaining readers on how to school a typical Leftist trying to use moral equivalence. After all of your carefully wrought design of putting "high-value targets" in a civilian population where evidently your only recourse is a WMD, you still miss the point entirely.
I would accept collateral damage if this were the only way to take out sufficiently high-value targets. That means you would have to convince me that the subjects were imminently going to kill many innocents and also that the only way to stop them was to drop the bomb that moment. That's an almost impossible set of hurdles, but if you met them, I would understand. I would be heartbroken at the loss of AJ, and I would be unlikely to be able to look you in the eye or be in the same room as you (and I would expect it would be just as uncomfortable for you), but I would understand.
However, someone targeting civilians solely to cause mayhem is not in that same category, not even close. They deserve to die, and everyone who abets them deserves to die, and anybody who provides support or succor should be ostracized by society, if not imprisoned.
Your moral equivalence is useless, because your position requires an astronomically improbable confluence of conditions, whereas my position is simple, universal and unassailable: targeting civilians simply to kill civilians is terror and is always wrong.
Yes indeed, pretty black and white.
Penny| 11.28.10 @ 3:59PM
Informed Christians, decent or otherwise, do not apologize for the Crusades. They were a response by Christianity to the deadly spread of islam, and its take-over of Christian lands. The Crusades succeeded, albeit temporarily. Without them, Eurabia would have been achieved then by more overt traditional means, rather than the one now in effect. Neither method is without violence, of course, but that's just another traditional muslim calling card.
beebop| 11.28.10 @ 7:46AM
al-Qaeda narrative that the United States is fighting a war on Islam.
Why are we pandering to their narrative versus focusing on our safety within our borders? At what point do you not see danger versus perceptions?
I'd like them to know that we have a "narrative" that we are not going to tolerate violence brought to bear for any purposes -- religious, political or social engineering -- on free citizens of our sovereign nation. But hey. That's just me.
Kingfisher| 11.28.10 @ 9:12PM
Fighting the narrative enables the thwarting of terrorist attacks and the killing/capturing of al-Qaeda. That is what is important, not what beepop wants them to know.
Garet Benson | 11.27.10 @ 5:15PM
I don't think it's just the NY Times. I'm not an expert Web searcher, but I can't seem to find ANY media outlet that used the word Muslim in the headline. Most seem to like "Samali-born." In fact, even when I skimmed a half dozen reports, I couldn't find the word Muslim anywhere in the body of the article.
Mike Cresswell| 11.27.10 @ 5:18PM
In brief reply to "Teneya". Do your homework before putting your mouth in gear. McVeigh, by his own words claims to be Agnostic. That means he's not a Christian Tenya, that`s why your argument fails. That and of course the fact that the Islamist fanatics, Muslims to the last man of them`, have declared war on the entire western world
,and nobody knows of any rational reason why. Perhaps it`s as simple as the fact that we Non-Muslims find it abhorant that a Middle Aged Pervert would actually consider marrying a pre-pubescent little girl and then actually consumating the marriage with her. There are many religions in the world, but only one that would condone this kind of perversion.
Kingfisher| 11.27.10 @ 6:50PM
You are supporting the al-Qaeda narrative that the United States is fighting a war on Islam. In doing so, you are aiding the enemy and undermining our nation’s efforts in fighting global Salafi Jihadism. Please bash your head against your keyboard.
beebop| 11.28.10 @ 7:52AM
I am not concerned about the belief system of al qaeda and your contention that we are aiding the enemy and our nation's efforts in fighting the extremist Muslim practioners flies in the face of any reality based thinking. Really it does. We can't speak of it because in so doing WE make it real? Please. Your head has been bashed by something already and I doubt it is your keyboard.
Mel Torme| 11.27.10 @ 5:30PM
and another thing: As Mark Steyn said, a large majority of the guys committing, or attempting to commit, all of this violence, are named Mohammed. It is uncanny. Even without the ubiquitous computer, (imagine it was the early 1980's) it'd be damn easy to single out people based on first name. "What's your name, son?" "Mohammed". "OK, we've got a warrant to search your stuff. Do we have your permission?"
It ain't rocket science people. I mean, sure, it's a little bit harder when the dumb towel-head can't even spell his name right, like this guy, but, heck, there are these things called, like, "regular expressions", in the, you know, unix world, and all, you know.
DRed| 11.27.10 @ 6:01PM
Fox doesn't describe him as a muslim in their headline either.
"In the Oregon case, the F.B.I. received a tip from a Portland Muslim who was concerned about Mr. Mohamud’s increasing radicalism, according to a federal law enforcement official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing."
That's for those of you think there are no 'good' muslims and wonder why it might be good policy to avoid pissing off all muslims in America.
The One Who Runs Like a Duck| 11.27.10 @ 10:32PM
We took a shellacking, DRed. You are the man. I love your debating style. Apparently there are a bunch of people who want to piss off all Muslims in America. How do you piss off a Muslim? Of course by noticing the fact that almost all terrorist acts are committed by Muslims. Frankly every three months or so a Muslim either tries or succeeds in killing some innocent civilians.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/AmericanAttacks.htm
Our job is to make sure that nobody notices that they all have something in common. All you need to do is lie a little. For instance, tell the American public that Methodists commit terrorists acts too. Of course by your reasoning you wouldn't say this unless you have a different standard for Christians compared to Muslims. In fact we progressives attack Christians whenever we get a chance. You know the ones who cling to their guns and Bibles and are equally likely to commit terrorist acts. Maybe it is that we can attack white people but have to leave dark people alone. That would explain why we progressives never said much about my ex-minister Reverend Wright or those race crazy Black Muslims. They both hate Jews and whites and no progressive ever says anything. We are so darn nuanced it gives me a headache. Wow this is deep. Our plan is coming together. We are geniuses. Don't ask, don't tell forever, baby.
DRed| 11.28.10 @ 1:26AM
I see you finally got tired of all the shrimp, Mr. President. How long is this bit with the shellacking going to go on for? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with your Methodist comment. Or your pitiful whining about poor oppressed white people. Or complaining about gay people in the military. I guess it just all feeds into your persecution complex. Why don't you tell us more about how hard it is to be a white man in America?
I don't think you would piss off muslims by noting that muslims commit a majority of the terrorist acts against us. It's a fact, after all. The muslim who alerted the FBI to this guy in Portland-was he also an America hating terrorist?
The One Who Runs Like a Duck| 11.28.10 @ 10:34AM
We took a shellacking, DRed. Don't be so defensive. I like your double standard. You remind me of my gay nanny when he used to say, "You should never hurt a child." When I want to get a reasonable picture of the world I always search out the opinion of a Muslim. What should we do about homosexuals? Surprisingly it is not legalize gay marriage. What should we do about Jews and Christians? Oops. That can't be legal. Could we do that in America? I know they do it in Pakistan with no consequences but here? Who do they kill will when all the Jews and Christians are gone like in Saudi Arabia? Where did they go anyway? Do they like secular progressives? So many questions. How about wayward teenagers? What the hell is an honor killing? How do we beat our wives? Look out Michelle. It is time to get off your fast food high horse. Hold on to your hate DRed. The enemy of your enemy is your friend. Punish your enemy. Make the terrorist filled Baptist church pay. My lip hurts. That Decerega is going to pay. Axlerod told how it works and he wasn't complying. He is the Washington Generals and I am the Globetrotters. I was supposed to make the steal. Instead I get a foul and a fat lip. Today we hit the reset button with the North Koreans. They didn't get the memo either. We are going to put Muslims in space, baby.
DRed| 11.28.10 @ 11:24AM
Muslims in spaaaaaaaaaace is old news, my friend. St. Ronnie and 41 sent a Saudi Prince up in the 80s.
The One Who Runs Like a Duck| 11.28.10 @ 3:10PM
We took a shellacking, DRed. Not all of them. We're closing Gitmo and then we're bugging out of Iraq any day, baby.
gsr| 11.27.10 @ 6:44PM
Gee, I wonder if the "enlightened, elite, Ivy League" geniuses inside the Beltway (from both parties), have ever thought of this solution to our terror problem?
Either stop or greatlly reduce immigration from Islamic nations. Period.
Why no, we can't have that. Why we are a 'nation of immigrants', or 'we're all immigrants' or 'we have no right to stop others who want a better life', yadda, yadda, yadda.
It's the immigration, stoopid.
rongordo | 11.27.10 @ 7:31PM
But even the Elite readers of the New York Times assume Muslim. They might claim they don't, but THAT's lib's for ya.
WL| 11.27.10 @ 11:11PM
Now that ANOTHER Muslim decided to try and blow up a Christmas gathering...
I wonder if Obama and Janet Nepala-idiot are going to mandate that the Waffen TSA start doing anal probes on us before we go into Midnight Mass????
Will| 11.28.10 @ 6:52AM
In a nasally, snide tone repeat: "I don't know, maybe it was someone opposed to healthcare?" Ha-ha, here we go again, the mad search, the litany of sad excuses to call it something, anything but what it is.
beebop| 11.28.10 @ 7:56AM
If the left could find a connection to the Tea Party movement, they could write their happy ending.
martin j smith| 11.28.10 @ 8:12AM
Use all social networks and other media to allow as many Americans as possible--this guy was a terrorist and his motives were of a religious nature and coupled with hatred for our way of life. Identify the liars, their motives and its time to go beyond reporting to rather attack those who put our lives in danger !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dale Cord| 11.28.10 @ 10:45AM
We need to kill these Muslim vermin as soon as we catch them, before this Muslim run government we are suffering under, sets them free to prey upon and kill more Americans. Is anyone out there with an ounce of common sense? The enemy is at our door and their name is "MUSLIM"
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.28.10 @ 12:52PM
Watch it play out, folks.
If you want a "sneak preview of the movie"...go to
www.texassaidno.com You just might save your family's life.
Oh, PS: Oklahoma said no! as well, (to Sharia Law).
Sharia Law is our existential enemy. Terrorists are simply its foot soldiers.
Oldefarte| 11.28.10 @ 2:00PM
In addition to my comments on your other editorial, we are also in danger from the MSM of this country from their POLITICAL CORRECTNESS from which they attempt to brainwash us daily concerning this problem [and others]. The solution is to cancel your subscriptions to each/every newspaper/magazine that they issue, and instead obtain your daily news needs from online alternative news locations [of which there are many]. If you read/view this MSM propaganda, then you're only self-brainwashing your mind and assisting their liberal efforts!!!!
martin j smith| 11.28.10 @ 5:01PM
Oldefarte I concur --I rarely read a newspaper. Reading the Left is like reading Pravda--a total waist of time so read the Right Blogs,Fox News,Drudge and other sources where you will get closer to the truth. Anytime you have a D ( Democrat, really Socialists,Marxist etc Party ) you know you will get from their mouths LIES. Another good example: Mayor Bloomberg of NYC: Favored civilian trials of terrorists,supports the Ground Zero Mosque, etc. This is the worst kind of "leader possible" they must be exposed.
Andolin| 11.28.10 @ 9:14PM
There is absolutely no such thing as "objective" news, and I really wonder if such a thing ever existed. These days the shaping of stories is in corporate hands and editors who must kowtow to retain their jobs.
Given one set of 15 facts, the ultimate outcome will depend on what philosophy is accepted. For instance, illegal aliens are now only called undocumented workers, immigrants or students by media, or in the wisdom of Harry Reid: undocumented Americans.
I would prefer to have the list of facts with no adjectives and adverbs tossed in so I can draw my own conclusions.
But I do giggle that the little punk was kicking and screaming when he was arrested. So much for being a martyr for the cause and the 72 virgins awaiting in heaven.
martin j smith| 11.29.10 @ 8:09AM
I will know things are changing for the better when shouting out a Liar with " you lie" right out and it is applauded. It may not be of decorum, but to hell with that--sometimes you have go above the rukus and tell the truth. This goes for PC talk about anything terrorism included of course.