| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Apparently Alex Salmond holds to the Muslim Council of Britain's view (via IslamOnline, with thanks to LGF) that the terrorists in Britain could just as well be Buddhists. The problem with this is that, while no innocent people should be scapegoated, Salmond is just one of a long list of officials who refuse to face the fact that attackers such as those we have seen in Britain over the last few days couldn't just as well be Buddhists, but rather arise from the Islamic community, and base their actions upon Islamic principles. Until officials get over their fear of "scapegoating" and deal with that realistically, we are going to see many more attacks.
"Salmond: Not Looking For Scapegoats," from SkyNews:
Scotland's new First Minister, Alex Salmond, has promised that no community will be "scapegoated" because of the terror attack on Glasgow Airport.After praising the response of the emergency services after a burning Jeep was rammed into the airport's terminal building, he said the police would not be looking for scapegoats.
"Community bonds will remain strong," he said.
He added that terror attacks were opportunistic rather than discriminatory and repeated calls for the public to remain vigilant.
Opportunistic rather than discriminatory? I'm not sure what that means, but perhaps Salmond is trying to say that Muslims might have been killed too, had all the plots been successful. And that is true, but they were nevertheless jihad plots, and ultimately can only be dealt with effectively as such.
Posted by Robert at July 1, 2007 3:42 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
"...opportunistic rather than discriminatory..."
Is he trying to reassure non-Muslims that it had nothing to do with the fact that they aren't Muslims?
If so, I would ask him the first question that one of my college teachers said reporters should ask themselves: "Who says?" (The second question was, "Who cares?")
Posted by: Josephine![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 1, 2007 4:00 PM
Just saw one of Brown's minions on CNN. He was angrily denouncing right wingers as being just like the "radical extremists" who highjacked one of the world's great religions.
Dollar to a doughnut this dumbass went to Oxford. Pretty much have to gone to such a place to be such a pompous dumbass.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at July 1, 2007 4:09 PM
These people care more about protecting jihadists then they care about protecting British citizens. They care more about a theorectical backlash then the actual terrorist attacks. They worry more about the BNP then the muslim brotherhood.
Perhaps if there were a backlash then the authorities would get serious about stopping terrorists, since the backlash is all they seem to care about.
Posted by: GuitarBob at July 1, 2007 4:14 PM
Are you blind too?
http://www.corstoker.nl/Icartoons/Are-You-Blind-Too.gif
at July 1, 2007 4:23 PM
Maybe he should move to give the poor, oppressed Londonistanians/Birminghamians a separate state so they could be protected from the crazy and radical British. The Hijab Department from the US will back him up on that for sure.
Posted by: SerbInfidel at July 1, 2007 4:25 PM
Well . Im guessing the muslim community is please they will be safe to plan and execute jihad operation with virtual impunity now that the are free of suspicion.
Kind of makes you sad they didnt get a couple of free dead since they are above suspicion.
at July 1, 2007 4:28 PM
Since when do Buddhists yell "allahu akbar"???
An eyewitness to this latest Islamic greeting, as he ran over to help one of the first responders, was nearby enough to hear one of these kooks say it.
Posted by: DCWatson at July 1, 2007 4:36 PM
""Community bonds will remain strong," he said."
"community bonds"? What community bonds, Mr. Salmond? They're trying to kill you, and bring down your government, sir.
Posted by: rational at July 1, 2007 4:44 PM
GuitarBob posted: These people care more about protecting jihadists then they care about protecting British citizens.
Exactly. The same thing is happening in the coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The officer commanding is more mindful of any casualties among the Jihadis and those that shield them, then of his own soldiers. Melanie Phillips has the story
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/
And look at these cliches that still keep coming out, some 6 years after 9/11.
Gordon Brown said this was a battle of "hearts and minds" and that it was just a small minority of people with a corrupted view of their faith that did this kind of thing.
We will leave the "tiny minority" for the moment. Winning "hearts and minds" is from the Vietnam war, and fat lot of good it there. The Israelis have been trying to win "hearts and minds" for 60 years, with the same degree of success. Then we have Indians trying to win "hearts and minds" in Kashmir with Muslims with all sorts of appeasement, and wow, what success. Recently Thailand has been doing the same "hearts and minds" routine with ttheir Muslims. Same rate of success. And now we have a spanking new PM of the UK. He is going to make a great success of "hearts and minds" policy. Any takers?
Posted by: DP111 at July 1, 2007 4:50 PM
Serbinfidel-
'Birminghamians'
You give me a good chuckle there ;-)
We call them 'Brummies' mate.
Posted by: Wishbone at July 1, 2007 4:58 PM
Diplocrap speak,
He doesn’t want to scapegoat the islamists, so he goes ahead and provides a scapegoat for them instead, the rest of us. He and most other pols have no problem in including the rest of us every time the islamists commit or attempt to commit an atrocity. The islamists tried to blow somebody up, ok, we are all bad and under suspicion we are all potential islamist time bombs, WTF is he talking about, has he lost his mind? He says to remain vigilant, vigilant against what, being used as scapegoat’s maybe? Quit scapegoating the rest of us you politicians, put the blame where it belongs and deal with the problem. We are not you pawns to be used as you see fit to apologize for islamist extremism.
at July 1, 2007 5:09 PM
tgusa posted: WTF is he talking about, has he lost his mind?
As far as I'm concerned, it is not the "hearts and minds" of the Jihadis that concern me; what concerns me is that we, or our leaders, seem to have lost our collective "minds".
Posted by: DP111 at July 1, 2007 5:16 PM
DP111,
Who do you think the he of Diplocrap speak is that I was talking about? Do you think I am concerned about the islamists hearts or minds? How did you come to that conclusion? What concerns me is exactly what concerns me that the powers that be have lost their minds. I don’t call them leaders it seems like an insult to leaders throughout time to do that.
at July 1, 2007 5:26 PM
Correction,
What concerns you is exactly what concerns me
at July 1, 2007 5:29 PM
tgusa
You misunderstood. I was only quoting from your post, and actually agreeing with you. We, or our collective leadership seems to have lost their minds.
Posted by: DP111 at July 1, 2007 5:43 PM
Opportunistic rather than discriminatory? I'm not sure what that means, but perhaps Salmond is trying to say that Muslims might have been killed too, had all the plots been successful.
by Robert
They're opportunistic because there's no need for a terrorist to be discriminatory. He views those killed in different ways. The non-Muslims would be mourned by their families while the terrorist would celebrate their deaths as a victory for the jihad and any Muslims killed (be they perpetrators or "victims") would be celebrated as martyrs. It's win-win where the terrorists are concerned.
Posted by: PMK at July 1, 2007 5:54 PM
Oh, ok, nevermind then.
Regards
at July 1, 2007 6:04 PM
Oh, I see how it works...Muslims can make bogus 911 cals for Islamophobia or vandalism to Mosques which never seem to net any arrests and yet CAIR uses those reports as part of their Rise in Islamophobia attacks and anti-Islam racism, and the Police instantly scapegoat White-Christians as the vandals to appease Muslims
and enable the victimhood mind set to continue.
But when Muslims are actually caught on video and confess to wanting to murder civilians for Allah, the MSM must avoid assigning blame to Islam or the Quranic Teachings from Muhammed.
Innocent until proven non-Muslim .
I no longer listen to the whines from CAIR or any Imams that cite the standard verses from the Western Qurans about Islam meaning Peace and how killing Innocent Civilians is unIslamic.
What they don't tell the media is that Muhammed defined innocent civilians as Muslims caught between two tribes of Muslims killing each other for Allah, Muhammed made it clear that all non-Muslims are at war with islam and therefore valid targets for murder as guilty enemies of Allah.
at July 1, 2007 6:14 PM
I hear a couple of the suspects are doctors. Don’t they have some nasty infections they just cant seem to get rid of in many UK hospitals? Hmmmm. Just trying to put myself in the mind of an islamofascist, wooh, I better not try that too often.
Posted by: tgusa at July 1, 2007 6:33 PM
Scotland's First Minister: No community will be "scapegoated" after jihad terror attacks
The only ones that can be scapegoated are the non-muslims.
Shariah law again trumps British Common law, and common sense -- the muslims reign supreme as always, having the exclusive luxury of being both terrorists when it suits their ambitions, and victims when they are caught.
at July 1, 2007 7:14 PM
Just BOYCOTT every muslim product. It will solve a lot. While we can do nothing,let's do the legal things. Do not use their taxis, or any store. NOTHING.
Posted by: Theyloveus at July 1, 2007 7:21 PM
“He [Salmond] added that terror attacks were opportunistic rather than discriminatory and repeated calls for the public to remain vigilant.”
Opportunistic rather than discriminatory? I'm not sure what that means, but perhaps Salmond is trying to say that Muslims might have been killed too, had all the plots been successful. [Robert’s comment]
I’d guess he means they weren’t acting out of a belief that they belong to a community which is different (and superior) to ours – i.e. Salmond was trying to articulate the usual claptrap that we’re all one big happy “community” (awful word as used by modern PC-junkies)
at July 1, 2007 7:40 PM
I have said it before and i will say it again:if a horrible terrorist attack were to happen anywhere in the west,the government will bring in the army and the police to protect the mosques and mulsim communities,they will not hesitate to arrest anyone who will make the slightest comment against muslims and they will have their weapons trained against the local population.
Anyone who will raise any question about muslims,muslim immigration or the necessity to deport muslim terrorists,will be labeled a racist and dealt with...mark my words.
We will be in the position to protect ourselves agains both our government and the muslim murderers.
at July 2, 2007 1:03 AM
"Opportunistic" versus "discriminatory" means about as much as the previous craptastically dismissive formulation by these political b.s. artistes ("more aspirational than operational") that they used to try to muddle the brutal clarity of these jihadist attacks on the infidels.
The terrorists' bombs kill without this kind of hair-splitting.
But with another kind entirely.
Posted by: profitsbeard at July 2, 2007 1:53 AM
Community bondage remains strong.
Posted by: Lili at July 2, 2007 1:56 AM
Scotland's First Minister: No community will be "scapegoated" after jihad terror attacks
My dictionary defines "scapegoat" as a "person or thing made to bear the blame for the sins of others". That certainly doesn't fit here. The moslems are the sinners, and they should bear the blame.
Posted by: ebonystone at July 2, 2007 2:40 AM
It was a Las Vegas gay group called 'give em da shaft.' I just know these things.
Posted by: mustang65 at July 2, 2007 6:30 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)