Looking For Akbar

Evidence of Islamic terrorism is difficult to find. Especially if your mission is to avoid finding it. And yet when things went the other way (Giffords in Arizona for instance) it took a long time for the White House to chime in.

So maybe that is the rule for judging actual White House opinion. If they come out right away and say it is not terrorism or go to great lengths to avoid the obvious - it is terrorism. If they do nothing for a while or suggest it might be terrorism - it is not terrorism - of course that can be adjusted based on skin pigmentation.

H/T Libertarian Republican

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Welcome Instapundit readers. For something different may I suggest Why "Everyone" In India Is An Engineer.

posted by Simon on 03.04.11 at 01:22 PM










Comments

"If they do nothing for a while or suggest it might be terrorism - it is not terrorism - of course that can be adjusted based on skin pigmentation."

Heh. Lack of melanin means they are much more likely to suggest terrorism, of course (unless said lack coincides with eco-'activism'). But do keep in mind that we've got a LOT of melanin-deprived eco-terrorists around that don't get much notice from either side. (See ELF)

Kathy Kinsley   ·  March 4, 2011 6:41 PM

It seems to be that before arguing whether a particular act constutes terrorism, it would be useful to agree on a definition of what terrorism is.

I think I am not alone in believing that a religiously motivated murder, even when there are several victims, is not terrorism on its face. To qualify as terrorism, I think there must be a motive to pressure a third party into action.

So, for example, I don't think that someone who murders soldiers because he considers them to be the enemy is committing an act of terrorism. Murder, yes; terrorism no. That same act becomes terrorism, however, when the murderer says "I'll keep doing this until the associated army withdraws from Afghanistan."

Andrew Koenig   ·  March 5, 2011 10:01 AM

Andrew,
The problem with your definition is that all Islamic terrorism would be considered religiously motivated murder. This is the religion that preaches that if non-Muslims will not convert, it is Allah's will that you kill them. It is Allah's will that Islam rule the entire world, and those that do not agree, murder them.
Killing soldiers on the battlefield is neither murder nor terrorism, killing them in a medical center is a little different. When a husband comes home and catches his wife with another man and shoots them both, that is murder. When a man visits websites of terrorists, learning techniques to kill, or visits foreign countries to receive training, and then returns to the US and pre-meditatively chooses the time and place for his killing... If we don't call that terrorism, then nothing is terrorism.

Don Campbell   ·  March 5, 2011 11:40 AM

So, for example, I don't think that someone who murders soldiers because he considers them to be the enemy is committing an act of terrorism.... That same act becomes terrorism, however, when the murderer says "I'll keep doing this until the associated army withdraws from Afghanistan.

The "terrorists" might not be the one who committed the specific acts, but those who create the climate and incite the actions. The individual committing the act is just their tool. When someone yells "Allahu Akbar" he is not declaiming an original composition.

RAF   ·  March 5, 2011 1:11 PM

Kathy,
The first steps to appeasement, surrender and collaboration are the rationalizations that your enemy means you no harm......

You've taken the first step....

edward   ·  March 5, 2011 4:11 PM

Post a comment


April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits