The New York Times, fresh from its alarmist campaign to intimidate New York City officials into dropping all attempts to tell the truth about the stealth jihad in America, is running a piece today about how the violent jihad is nothing to worry about, either -- featuring a new "study" by a dhimmi academic and numerous omissions of fact and leaps of logic. Clearly, for the Times, "Islamophobia" is a much greater threat than jihad -- after all, what's a few, or a few hundred, or a few thousand murdered Americans?
On the journalistic integrity of Scott Shane, see here.
"Radical Muslim Americans Pose Little Threat, Study Says," by Scott Shane in the New York Times, February 8 (thanks to Hussam Ayloush of Hamas-linked CAIR, who gleefully tweeted this link today):
WASHINGTON - A feared wave of homegrown terrorism by radicalized Muslim Americans has not materialized, with plots and arrests dropping sharply over the two years since an unusual peak in 2009, according to a new study by a North Carolina research group.
The study, to be released on Wednesday, found that 20 Muslim Americans were charged in violent plots or attacks in 2011, down from 26 in 2010 and a spike of 47 in 2009.
Only 20? Relax!
Charles Kurzman, the author of the report for the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, called terrorism by Muslim Americans "a minuscule threat to public safety." Of about 14,000 murders in the United States last year, not a single one resulted from Islamic extremism, said Mr. Kurzman, a professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina....
These figures are jimmied to start with: by "Islamic extremism," of course, the Times is referring only to terrorist acts, but take another example of Islamically justified violence: honor killing, and specifically the honor murder of Jessica Mokdad. If one follows mainstream media practice (and that of dhimmi pseudo-academics) and ignores all the evidence that honor killing is broadly sanctioned by many Muslim authorities, and then also ignores all the evidence that Jessica Mokdad was murdered for not being Muslim enough, then one can conclude that her murder was not related to "Islamic extremism."
And so voila, no murders due to "Islamic extremism" in 2011. Then there were all the foiled plots: if a few jihad plots had succeeded, such as this one or these three that were revealed in one week recently, there would have been murders -- possibly even hundreds or thousands of deaths. But Scott Shane and Charles Kurzman do not consider that a possibility worth entertaining.
Forty percent of those charged in 2011 were converts to Islam, Mr. Kurzman found, slightly higher than the 35 percent of those charged since the 2001 attacks. His new report is based on the continuation of research he conducted for a book he published last year, "The Missing Martyrs: Why There Are So Few Muslim Terrorists."...
It would be interesting to hear Kurzman explain why so many converts to Islam misunderstand their peaceful new religion -- and why all do so in the same way. But Kurzman would probably consider the question itself to be "Islamophobic."
The 2011 cases include just one actual series of attacks, which caused no injuries, involving rifle shots fired late at night at military buildings in Northern Virginia. A former Marine Corps reservist, Yonathan Melaku, pleaded guilty in the case last month in an agreement that calls for a 25-year prison sentence.
More on that one, including video, here.
Other plots unearthed by law enforcement last year and listed in Mr. Kurzman's report included a suspected Iranian plan to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States, a scheme to attack a Shiite mosque in Michigan and another to blow up synagogues, churches and the Empire State Building....
That scheme to blow up the Shi'ite mosque came from a white American convert to Sunni Islam. Since it wasn't initially reported that he was a Muslim, Hamas-linked CAIR initially trumpeted the plot as more evidence of "Islamophobia." Whoops!
And consider once again: if the plot to blow up the Empire State Building had succeeded, would even someone as willfully blind and compromised as Scott Shane of the New York Times dare to publish this twaddle?