Every attack on a Muslim person is always “Islamophobic.”
An Algerian immigrant stabs a bunch of kids outside a Catholic school in Dublin and the response is that only bigots jump to conclusions.
A landlord-tenant dispute in Chicago spins into violence and somehow, even though the landlord isn’t Jewish, this is blamed on Israel’s campaign against Hamas.
A Jewish man is assaulted and killed by a Muslim man at a pro-Israel rally in California. The media and local authorities spend weeks spinning and denying everything while churning out surreal headlines like, “Arrest made in death of man who fell and hit his head.”
Now, three Muslim men were shot and wounded near the University of Vermont. And the media, egged on by Islamist groups, are describing it as a “hate crime”. Burlington, Vermont being known as a major hub of right-wing politics and anti-Muslim sentiment.
Now we don’t, as of this writing, know what really happened. But the double standards are fairly obvious.
Any crime committed by a Muslim is tagged, “let’s not jump to any conclusions”. While a crime against a Muslim is immediately and permanently set as a hate crime and no amount of evidence otherwise will ever change that.
Take one of the more outrageous cases: the murder of Nabra Hassanen by an illegal alien after an altercation with her pals. There was and is zero actual evidence that the crime was motivated by her ideology.
Darwin Martinez Torres pleaded guilty to multiple charges related to the rape and murder of Hassanen.
Torres attacked a group of Muslim teens as they were walking back to the mosque after picking up food at a nearby shopping center, police said. He drove his car over the curb and the teens scattered. According to police, Torres allegedly grabbed Hassanen, hit her with a baseball bat, raped her, killed her and dumped her body in a pond.
Torres was an illegal alien and linked to MS-13. The evidence for it being a hate crime?
The Washington Post’s Petula Dvorak nsisted that it might still a hate crime because “hitting a 17-year-old girl with a bat and dumping her body in a pond would be an act born of hate.”
As opposed to your average murder which is motivated by love.
Vox insisted that, “the killing of a 17-year-old Muslim girl may not officially be a ‘hate crime’, but it sure functions like one.”
Whatever that means.
Islamist groups include Hassanen’s death in their list of Islamophobic acts of violence and add it to their tainted statistics.
Every attack on a Muslim person is always ‘Islamophobic.’ But Muslim attacks on everyone else are never ‘Infidelophobic’.
somehistory says
There are a heck-of-a lot of murders of young people…female and male.
Many of the young females are raped; some have knife wounds, such as stabbing or having throats cut, many strangled and thrown into bodies of water. (water washes away DNA…sometimes.)
I could name some crimes which fit this description. None of those were listed as “hate crimes.”
Hate is sometimes a reason for a crime being committed. Many murderers will claim innocence based on the fact that they “loved” the person and “would never hurt” her. But, at the time of the murder, they may have felt a hatred, a jealousy, or some emotion that is not love.
Related to how the media report is the word propaganda. The media was once a way we were told about what we should think. What was important enough to be in a paper or on television? Reporters would find out and tell us. But, they didn’t begin with telling us **what** to think about what they told us.
Now, most of them do tell us what to think about the things they report.
If we read or hear that a mozlum has been killed, we are told that it was an infidel who hates mozlums who committed the heinous crime.
Even when it is one mozlum murdering other mozlums….such as happened a year or two ago…we are told by media and it’s honey-pot of information on such things, c.a.i.r., that it was a “hate crime” of the fake ‘phobia’ variety. Until they discovered the murderer was mozlum. Then it was no longer a “hate crime” and his “motive was unclear.”
Could it be that he “hated” his fellow mozlums? Or were they infamous “honor killings”?
We are told how to think about what we are told to think about. If a mozlum is the victim of a real crime, it’s about “hate.”
Well, to be truthful, many of us have come to “hate” islam, even if we have no such thoughts about individual people. That may translate for mozlums who know good and well that we have an abundance of reason to hate what they believe, but will insist that it is hatred of them….like they have such hatred for us.
When a mozlum murders an infidel, it is a “hate crime.”
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/11/us/albuquerque-muslim-men-killings-thursday/index.html
Blougeoisie says
Wait wait wait. We need to slow down.
Remember that Spain was occupied by Arabs for more than 700 years. Generational trauma is real. We must excuse this like we excuse hamas.
These are just reparations. Remember what kendi says about past discrimination….
Huapakechi says
Why aren’t mullahs prosecuted for “hate speech” when they call for the murder of Jews and infidels?
The world wonders…
davidafoot says
If we described Islam in the terms which Islam describes us we would be deemed to be Islamophobic
The warlord Muhammad / the quran insult and threaten us.
Islam needs to re-write their texts in order to be able to request respect, Islam should not complain if the non Islamic describe Islam with the same words and concepts which Islam uses to describe them.