Top Menu

New York Times Article Understates How Overstated Islamic Terrorism Threat Really Is

The New York Times recently reported on a study that showed how exaggerated the threat of “Islamic” terrorism is–how “Radical Muslim Americans Pose Little Threat.”  The article is a good one, but in fact, it doesn’t adequately convey how truly minuscule the threat is.  I’ll reproduce the article below and then briefly recount why Americans (and Europeans) shouldn’t fear Islamic terrorism at all:

Radical U.S. Muslims Little Threat, Study Says

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.

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.

The report also found that no single ethnic group predominated among Muslims charged in terrorism cases last year — six were of Arab ancestry, five were white, three were African-American and two were Iranian, Mr. Kurzman said. That pattern of ethnic diversity has held for those arrested since Sept. 11, 2001, he said.

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.”

The decline in cases since 2009 has come as a relief to law enforcement and counterterrorism officials. In that year, the authorities were surprised by a series of terrorist plots or attacks, including the killing of 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., by an Army psychiatrist who had embraced radical Islam, Maj. Nidal Hasan.

The upsurge in domestic plots two years ago prompted some scholars of violent extremism to question the conventional wisdom that Muslims in the United States, with higher levels of education and income than the average American, were not susceptible to the message of Al Qaeda.

Concerns grew after the May 2010 arrest of Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized American citizen, for trying to blow up a sport utility vehicle in Times Square. Mr. Shahzad had worked as a financial analyst and seemed thoroughly assimilated. In a dramatic courtroom speech after pleading guilty, he blamed American military action in Muslim countries for his militancy.

The string of cases fueled wide and often contentious discussion of the danger of radicalization among American Muslims, including Congressional hearings led by Representative Peter T. King, a Long Island Republican and chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

But the number of cases declined, returning to the rough average of about 20 Muslim Americans accused of extremist violence per year that has prevailed since the 2001 attacks, with 193 people in that category over the decade. By Mr. Kurzman’s count, 462 other Muslim Americans have been charged since 2001 for nonviolent crimes in support of terrorism, including financing and making false statements.

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.

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.

“Fortunately, very few of these people are competent and very few get to the stage of preparing an attack without coming to the attention of the authorities,” Mr. Kurzman said.

Here are some key points that the article could have included to have truly conveyed how absolutely minuscule the threat of Islamic terrorism is to Americans (and Europeans):

1.  According to the FBI’s own database (available from 1980-2005), less than 6% of terrorist attacks in America were committed by Muslims.

2.  Europol has been documenting terrorism for the last half decade.  Their annual terrorism reports show that less than 1% of terrorism in Europe involves Muslims.

3.  Since 9/11–which was over a decade ago–zero civilians in the U.S. have been killed by Islamic terrorists.

4.  Similarly, zero civilians in Europe have been killed by Islamic terrorists in the last half decade.  In fact, the only injuries incurred from Islamic terrorism were to a security guard who “was slightly wounded.”  Perhaps the “anti-jihadist” blogosphere should find this one security guard and give him a medal of honor and declare him a martyr for the cause.

Putting this into perspective, you as an American have a much greater chance of being struck or even killed by lightning than being killed by an Islamic terrorist.  Using conservative estimates, at least 300 Americans are struck by lightning every year, and of them, 67 die–way higher than the whopping zero Americans that die every year from Islamic terrorists.

Another way to think of this is that you as an American have a much higher chance of dying from a peanut than an Islamic terrorist: at least 120 Americans die from an allergic reaction to peanuts every year.  Should we wage a War on Peanuts?

The NYT article also fails to mention that many of those people arrested on charges of Islamic terrorism were in fact goaded into terrorism by the FBI, which has a habit of using entrapment as a means to orchestrate–and then foil–its own terrorist plots.  (See Glenn Greenwald’s article: The FBI Thwarts Its Own Terrorist Plot.)  That could explain why the number of arrests for Islamic terrorism do not match up with actual attacks and casualties.

Dr. Charles Kurzman is quoted in the article as saying of the would-be Islamic terrorists: “Fortunately, very few of these people are competent and very few get to the stage of preparing an attack without coming to the attention of the authorities.”  But, it’s not just that they happen to come to the attention of the authorities in the nick of time: it’s the fact that the authorities are the ones who fed them the idea of being terrorists in the first place.  That’s why so “few get to the stage of preparing an attack,” since they are being monitored even before the thought comes to their mind.

Even more worrisome is the fact that the vast majority of Muslims arrested on terrorism-related offenses have been accused of, as the article says, “non-violent crimes in support of terrorism, including financing and making false statements.”  Many of these arrests have been widely criticized by civil rights groups because six-degrees of association are used to incriminate American Muslims.

One other interesting aside: the NYT article mentions the Fort Hood Shooting, which was labeled as an act of Terrorism.  The shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, was charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and the Army’s prosecutor is seeking the death penalty.  Hasan’s victims were all soldiers (aside from one, who was part of the U.S. Army Reserves).

Meanwhile, Staff Sargent Frank Wuterich was responsible for butchering 24 Iraqi civilians in what is called the Haditha Massacre: under his command, American soldiers systematically exterminated Muslim civilians, killing them execution-style.  This has been corroborated by eyewitness account, forensic and photographic evidence.  Yet, not only did the Army prosecutor not seek the death penalty for this war crime, but instead charged him with “involuntary manslaughter” and sought a maximum penalty of 90 days in the brig.  Even this Lindsay Lohan-style punishment was dropped in a plea bargain, with Wuterich let off with zero jail time and just a pay cut and demotion.  He didn’t even get fired.  Imagine walking into your job and shooting another employee and not getting fired!

Eight U.S. soldiers were charged for the Haditha Massacre.  Charges were dropped for six of them, and the seventh was acquitted.  Only one, Frank Wuterich, was held to account and all he got was a slap on the wrist: a pay cut and demotion.  Meanwhile, when it comes to acts of Islamic terrorism, it’s not just the perpetrators who are sought out and punished, but rather, their financiers, their supposed financiers, those who “harbored” them, those who made “false statements”, those who even gave them a pair of socks to wear or ponchos and raincoats to use, etc. etc.  Whole religions, nations, and civilizations are blamed for such acts.  Countries are bombed because they are held to be responsible.  But, the United States government could not find any responsibility or guilt in the men who actually held guns in their hands as they blasted a couple dozen Iraqi civilians–men, women, and children–to death.

Haditha Massacre

Imagine the comparison between these two men: Hasan is a Muslim and is therefore a Terrorist, even though he only acted against soldiers.  Meanwhile, nobody in the media (or anywhere for that matter) has called Wuterich a Terrorist, even though he slaughtered civilians.  Wuterich committed this act of terrorism “negligent dereliction of duty” (that’s the euphemism we use to refer to the butchering of 24 Muslim civilians) as a retaliation for the killing of an American soldier (a soldier who was on Iraqi soil and part of an occupying force) by an IED.  If Hasan had killed 24 American civilians in Meriden, Connecticut (Wuterich’s home city) in retaliation for the death of a Muslim civilian from a U.S. drone strike, would anybody be calling this anything other than Terrorism?  Had that been the case, the right-wing and the media would be on a continuous spin cycle talking about how Evil and Dangerous those Moozlums are.   Muslims would be bending over backwards issuing apology after apology and uttering the mandatory serial condemnations of Terrorism.

A friend emailed me a comment made on Facebook by someone in the U.S. military, who said (in defense of Frank Wuterich):

Is it hard for me to believe that a human being lost his mind at the sight of the man fighting to his left being blown to pieces? No. It absolutely is not.

Why is it then so hard for you to believe that a human being lost his mind at the sight of seeing his entire family, neighborhood, village, and country being blown to bits by Americans (or Israelis)?  That he would then want to retaliate by killing Americans (or Israelis) just as Wuterich took his vengeance out on Iraqi civilians?  Palestinians have had their entire villages wiped off the face of the earth, yet I do not think this person (or the average American) would be so forgiving when that Palestinian would then take it out on Israelis.

Nidal Hasan, a Muslim, killed 13 soldiers on a U.S. military base, whom he specifically targeted because they were about to be dispatched to join an occupation force in Iraq and Afghanistan, two Muslim countries that have been savaged by the United States.   Meanwhile, Frank Wuterich was part of an occupying force and killed 24 Muslim civilians–civilians in a country that was occupied and savaged by the United States.  The former is an act of Terrorism; the latter is “negligent dereliction of duty.”  If you’re a Muslim, then it’s Terrorism; if you’re fighting Muslims, then at most it’s “negligent dereliction of duty.”

This is, as Glenn Greenwald always says, the true definition of the word “Terrorist”:

It means:  anyone — especially of the Muslim religion and/or Arab nationality — who fights against the United States and its allies or tries to impede their will.  That’s what “Terrorism” is; that’s all it means.

I’ve been inspired by an image I saw here to create this image to properly depict the situation:

Wuterich killed 24 Iraqi civilians in retaliation for one U.S. soldier being killed (a soldier, mind you, who was part of an occupying force on Iraqi soil).  Why are we so amazed at how primitive and backwards those Muslims are when they get angry about the over one million civilians we have killed of theirs?

Hasan’s act of violence is troublesome from a moral point of view because it occurred on U.S. soil, but Greenwald points to an example that occurred on Iraqi soil: this is the case of Faruq Khalil Muhammad Isa, an Iraqi born man who was officially accused of “Terrorism” for “the Murder of Five American Soldiers” on Iraqi soil.  Greenwald notes:

Isa is charged with “providing material support to a terrorist conspiracy” because he allegedly supported a 2008 attack on a U.S. military base in Mosul that killed 5 American soldiers. In other words, if the U.S. invades and occupies your country, and you respond by fighting back against the invading army — the ultimate definition of a “military, not civilian target” — then you are a . . . Terrorist.

Putting that in graphic form, we have:

Were the civilians of Haditha not “terrorized” by Frank Wuterich and his men?  Wasn’t that exactly the point of the massacre: to terrorize the Iraqi population to the point where they would no longer resist American soldiers?  Were the Muslim civilians killed in Haditha any less in a state of terror–terrorized–than the soldiers on the Fort Hood base?

One last point: the NYT’s article fails to make the logical conclusion: it’s not enough to say that the threat of Islamic terrorism is overblown.  Rather, the real question is why it is so: it’s to justify our many wars in the Muslim world and our occupations of their lands.  It’s war propaganda.

Addendum I:  

I would like to apologize for comparing Lindsay Lohan to Frank Wuterich: prosecutors sought much longer jail sentences on her than him, and she spent more time in jail than he did.  Does anyone want to create a side-by-side image comparison of Lohan and Wuterich?  I’ll update the article and put it up if it’s worthy enough.

Update I:

Here’s another “fun” graphic I just created:

Danios was the Brass Crescent Award Honorary Mention for Best Writer in 2010 and the Brass Crescent Award Winner for Best Writer in 2011.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Aboboohoo

    Those bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan, you’re talking of, are in a war zone. In war nobody is normal. People do things they do not normally do. Witness the Russian and Allied armies in WW2 after Germany fell, they raped and plundered at will. Heck, look at the behaviour of your own troops, check out MRFF

    If Mexico or China invaded USA, and decided to depose a rogue nation which has WMD, you can rest assured ever worse would be happening in the US, than suicide bombings don’t you think?

    Enzo

    Your wife was an ex Muslim from a madrassa? LOL, nobody can accuse you of not having an imagination, you’re pathetic.

  • Sam Seed

    @Enzo says

    “Besides the fact that Mohammad fought in 26 battles (warlord) and is considered a prophet to them, if you listen to the terrorist themselves they often quote the motivating verses.”

    Have you listened to the terrorists? Are you some kind of an expert on telling us what motivates terrorists? Muhammad(pbuh) is a prophet not a warlord. He engaged in defensive wars not aggressive.

    Do you think the Crusaders were terrorists? Were they inspired by the Bible?

    “Here are some motivating verses for the radicals, just a few of literally thousands.”

    Qur’an:8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.

    Qur’an:7:3 “Little do you remember My warning. How many towns have We destroyed as a raid by night? Our punishment took them suddenly while they slept for their afternoon rest. Our terror came to them; Our punishment overtook them.”

    A few out of literally thousands? A bit of an exaggeration perhaps on your part or utter BS?

    Allah punished those who fought against the prophet. These are the same people who used to bury young girls alive, but let me ask you, would you side with those who buried infants alive? If you side with the enemises of God, than you are indeed evil yourself. God punishes, and who are we to judge? The same is in the Bible which you may be familiar with, do you condemn those verses too?

    Example from Wikipedia:-

    “The Bible also contains the horrific account of what can only be described as a “biblical holocaust”. For, in order to keep the chosen people apart from and unaffected by the alien beliefs and practices of indigenous or neighbouring peoples, when God commanded his chosen people to conquer the Promised Land, he placed city after city ‘under the ban” -which meant that every man, woman and child was to be slaughtered at the point of the sword.

    Thus we read in the Book of Numbers that the Jews “waged the campaign against Midian, as Yahweh had ordered Moses, and they put every male to death… the sons of Israel took the Midianite women captive with their young children, and plundered all their cattle, all their flocks and all their goods. They set fire to the towns where they lived and all their encampments… Then, when they took the captives, spoil and booty to Moses…, Moses was enraged…. ‘why have you spared the life of all the women…? So kill all the male children. Kill also all the women who have slept with a man. Spare the lives only of the young girls who have not slept with a man, and take them for yourselves”.Num 31:7-19.

    Similarly in the Book of Deuteronomy, when the Jews attacked Sihon’s Amorite kingdom, “Yahweh our God delivered him over to us… We captured all his cities and laid whole towns under ban, men, women and children; we spared nothing but the livestock which we took as our spoil”.Deut 2:33-35

    Likewise in the Transjordanian kingdom of Og, king of Bashan: “We captured all his towns at that time… Sixty towns… We laid them under ban… – the whole town, men, women and children, under the ban”.Deut 3:4-7.

    Sometimes, the ban could vary; for in a later chapter of the same book, we read that “if (a town) refuses peace and offers resistance,… Yahweh your God shall deliver it unto your power and you are to put all its menfolk to the sword. But the women, the children, the livestock and all that the town contains, all its spoil, you may take for yourselves as booty”.Deut 20:12-14.

    In the Book of Joshua, we read about the most famous case of all – the fall of Jericho: “Then Yahweh said to Joshua, ‘Now I am delivering Jericho and its king into your hands”. So, when “the walls of Jericho came tumbling down”, the Jewish warriors “enforced the ban on everything in the town: men and women, young and old, even the oxen and sheep and donkeys, massacring them all”.Joshua 6:21

    The same for the people of Ai; for “Yahweh said to Joshua… “You are to do with Ai and its king as you did with Jericho and its king…”Joshua 8:2 And “the number of those who fell that day, men and women together, was twelve thousand, all people of Ai … All to a man had fallen by the edge of the sword”.Joshua 8:24-25

    The same in southern Canaan, which “Yahweh gave into the power of Israel; and Israel struck every living creature there with the edge of the sword, and left none alive”.Joshua 10:30 The same at Lachish where “no one was left alive”.Joshua 10:33″

    All you have proved to me that you are an Islamophobe.

  • AbuBooBoo

    Now the Tamil Tigers are not Muslims but rather Marxist/Leninists. So no Islam does not far exceed any other group.

    Take outdated statistics from twenty years ago and ignore that there’s been more than 2,000 suicide bombings in Iraq and nearly a thousand in Afghanistan.

  • @Enzo

    Please listen to Ilisha and Believing Atheist. Stop using websites like Religion of Peace as a source. In fact Religion of Peace is one of the Most misleading anti Muslims sites out there, since they deliberately cherry pick stories from other websites, often mainstream news websites, which creates the illusion that they are far more reliable and trust worthy than they really are.

  • Believing Atheist

    @Enzo,

    Part 2 of my response to Enzo aka the victim of the hate site Religion of Peace.

    Let’s be logically consistent Enzo, you claim that over 18,000 terrorist attacks by Muslims have been committed after 9/11, however you fail to condemn the CIA, which killed 6 million people in secret wars against third world countries.
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm

    Furthermore, the number of Iraqi civilians slaughtered by the US is over a million. (1,455,590).
    http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq

    So do you really want to do a body-count? If you do you will lose the argument.

    You condemn Muslim terrorism but why don’t you condemn State-sponsored terrorism as well, for the sake of logical consistency?

    I for one condemn both. Join me.

  • Enzo

    You have got to be kidding you belive all terrorism acts and people killing themselves is because of Tamil Tigers, insane!

    For one there is more than one site listing all the acts by date and place, secondly my wife is a former Muslims and know what happens in the madrassas, people don’t kill themselves unless they really belive in something, we are talking about giving up their life for something..

    Terrorism has been happening since the inception of Islam, not some recent guy. Pretty pathetic how clueless Americans are to the world. Go ask any Greek, Bulgarian, Sicilian or Spanish citizen, they know.

    Live in your North Amerian bubble that is about to burst or go seek some facts.

  • Believing Atheist

    @Enzo,

    Our dear Enzo is just another victim of the hate site, Religion of Peace.
    What Enzo doesn’t know, (or perhaps doesn’t care to know) is that the leader in suicide terrorism is the Tamil Tigers according to this report by Dr. Pape of the University of Chicago
    http://danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf

    Now the Tamil Tigers are not Muslims but rather Marxist/Leninists. So no Islam does not far exceed any other group.

    I also urge you to read this book by Charles Kurzman who asks:

    “Why are there so few Muslim terrorists? With more than a billion Muslims in the world–many of whom supposedly hate the West and ardently desire martyrdom–why don’t we see terrorist attacks every day? Where are the missing martyrs?”
    http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/Islam/?view=usa&ci=9780199766871

  • Enzo

    @ Ilisha the population in the USA is 1/2 a percent the 6% number is a national number not Internationale. If you take all terrorist acts in the world Islam far exceeds any other group.

    Us Italian remember the Islamic invasions of our country, you Americans never dealt with that yet. There is a reason our cathedrals in Italy where it has Mohammad as painted as Satan, the Greeks, Spanish and Yugoslavians feel the same. The Greeks still have half their Island in Cyprus closes by invading Muslims, gorgeous hotels with silverware still out for 30 years empty. The last crusades Muslims occupied parts of our country and others as the marched at the gates of Wein, Austria.

    18,408 is the number of terrorist attacks committed by Muslims since 9/11/01 (a rate of about four or five a day) this number is incomplete because not all such attacks are picked up by international news sources, even those resulting in multiple loss of life.

    @Sam Seed Besides the fact that Mohammad fought in 26 battles (warlord) and is considered a prophet to them, if you listen to the terrorist themselves they often quote the motivating verses.

    Here are some motivating verses for the radicals, just a few of literally thousands.

    Qur’an:8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.

    Qur’an:7:3 “Little do you remember My warning. How many towns have We destroyed as a raid by night? Our punishment took them suddenly while they slept for their afternoon rest. Our terror came to them; Our punishment overtook them.”

    Ishaq:461″Muhammad besieged them for twenty-five nights. When the siege became too severe for them, Allah terrorized them. Then they were told to submit.

  • Sam Seed

    @Enzo.

    Please show me in Islamic teachings where it justifies terrorism?

    There is no such thing as Islamic terrorism, in the name of Islam maybe, but certainly not Islamic. Anyone can be a terrorist.

    And I don’t understand this point you raised ‘Plus Hasan whom has links by email to Al Qaeda was branded as ‘workplace violence’ and not terrorism’.

    By whom?

  • Enzo

    Islamic terrorism is common in the middle east were Muslims are majority. In the USA Muslims are a mere 1/2% of the population, considering that and the fact that 6% of the attacks are Muslims that is concerning inside itself. Plus Hasan whom has links by email to Al Qaeda was branded as ‘workplace violence’ and not terrorism. If we refuse to acknowledge the true root to their inspiration then the numbers stay low.

    Radicals specifically target civilians, military personnel try to not target civilians, there is a difference you know.

    Peanuts, cancer or Islam do we really need to compare the three as one?

  • Your response only reiterates my point: a “classic” terror attack, as defined by the United States and Israel, is one committed by “Al-Qaeda” or “Hamas” or some other known Islamic extremist group. In other words, it is not the action that matters . . .

    I have been referring to arguments made by others and I mentioned another element of what some might consider the “classic” terrorist attack: the soft target.

    Had John Allen Muhammad been linked to Al-Qaeda and had he committed the exact same act, you would have said this is terrorism, right?

    I hate debating with people who put words in my mouth.

    As for Faruq Khalil Muhammad Isa, I really don’t think I’ll take your word for it that nobody in the media mentioned “terrorism” with him

    I didn’t say that. I hate debating with people who misrepresent my statements.

    Or are you arguing that using a suicide bomb attack to kill five U.S. soldiers on Iraqi soil is an act of terrorism?

    At least that’s a question. I don’t know if I would so glibly use the phrase “on Iraqi soil” as if that settles it. I think the motivations and affiliations of the attacker matter. If he was affiliated with forces that also dispatched suicide bombers against Shi’ite funerals and was hoping that driving out US soldiers would give them freer reign to mount similar attacks, that might make a difference. The widely-used term “terrorism” has all sorts of vagaries, and the phenomenon of terrorism itself exerts an interesting gravitational pull on language. You don’t seem to notice examples that don’t help your agenda. The English-language version of Gaddafi’s official news agency used to call the IDF the “Zionist Terrorist Army Organization Forces.” Asa’ad Abu-Khalil is constantly using phrases like “Israeli Terrorist Army.” I remember some Air America radio hosts who used to keep referring to “the Neocon Death Cult.” Some websites seem to like the phrase “martyrdom-seeking operations.” Etc.

  • Danios

    @ Yitzchak:

    Your response only reiterates my point: a “classic” terror attack, as defined by the United States and Israel, is one committed by “Al-Qaeda” or “Hamas” or some other known Islamic extremist group. In other words, it is not the action that matters: the same act may be committed, but if it is associated to those groups, then it’s terrorism. Otherwise, it’s not. If it’s carried out by the American or Israeli governments, then it’s never terrorism, by definition.

    As for John Allen Muhammad, the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the death penalty for him specifically because they said it was an act of terrorism. That one guy on earth argued otherwise is to me irrelevant. But the way you stated it does underscore how it’s not the actions that qualify as terrorism for you but who does them. Had John Allen Muhammad been linked to Al-Qaeda and had he committed the exact same act, you would have said this is terrorism, right?

    As George Orwell said: “Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them.”

    In John Allen’s case, because he had a Muslimish name, he was of course convicted of terrorism.

    As for Faruq Khalil Muhammad Isa, I really don’t think I’ll take your word for it that nobody in the media mentioned “terrorism” with him; his story simply hasn’t received that much press coverage to begin with. But in any case, he is charged with “terrorism”:

    http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/508

    You can see there that he is charged with “terrorism” for killing five U.S. soldiers on a military base on Iraqi soil.

    Or are you arguing that using a suicide bomb attack to kill five U.S. soldiers on Iraqi soil is an act of terrorism? So, if he had used an Apache helicopter to fire a missile into their rooms, then this would have not been terrorism?

    This is effectively the same argument: the method used by the enemy, suicide bombing, is by default terrorism, even if it creates the exact same result as the weapon of choice by the entities you are an apologist for (the United States and Israel).

    I’m glad you posted though, because your comment underscores the reality: violent acts committed by certain groups are “terrorism” whereas when other entities (such as America and Israel) commit the exact same act, then it’s not terrorism.

    What a meaningless term indeed…at least the way it is used by the defenders of Israel and America’s wars.

  • I never said his actions were justified.

    I think I was addressing your exact point. You were focusing on the application of the term “terrorism” to Hasan’s actions, but his attack had a lot in common with the “classic” terror attacks–the al-Alawki connection, for instance, which counts as an Al-Qaeda connection. I saw it argued, in contrast, that John Allen Muhammad should not be considered a terrorist because he lacked an affiliation with a terrorist group although he attacked civilians.

    Furthermore, the second example I gave–of Faruq Khalil Muhammad Isa–was an Iraqi-born man who killed 5 U.S. soldiers on Iraqi soil, so what do you have to say about that?

    He helped suicide bombers get into the country and facilitated in other ways. The first news article I turned up on him–from CNN–doesn’t use the word “terror” or “terrorism.” News agencies often shy away from using those terms nowadays because of all the associated baggage.

  • khushboo

    Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t Hassan on anti-depressants? Also, his captain said that he was in too much stress and that he didn’t want to go to war again but had no choice?! Isn’t there any leniency on that? or is that not allowed for Muslims?! Yet the other soldier gets away for murdering civilians. Interesting.

  • NI4NI

    Q. In response to one 911 on US soil, how many 911s has US rained on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen ?

    A. Hundreds.

  • Maybe the peanuts industry is engaging in jihad!

    As far as Hasan goes, when I was in it was a well known secret that Army psychiatrists were crazy to begin with…

  • Shango

    Over two thousand black men were lynched prior to the end of the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century according to statistics and published documents. This was clearly an example of state sponsered and vigilante violence; however, none of the individuals involved were and have been labeled as terrorists, this could be classified as another example of “negligent dereliction of duty” on the part of civilians or blatant racism. Different actors, same script.

  • Danios

    @ Yitzchak Goodman (JudeoPundit):

    Hasan attacked soldiers, but they were a soft target for him because he was still accorded the privileges of a trusted soldier himself.

    I agree. I never said his actions were justified. In fact, I argued the exact opposite. But, the point still stands: he still killed soldiers, not civilians–not civilian women and children. He killed U.S. soldiers en route to join an occupying force in Afghanistan and Iraq, whereas Frank Wuterich killed civilian men, women, and children. Certainly, these were “softer targets” than the soldiers Hasan killed.

    Furthermore, the second example I gave–of Faruq Khalil Muhammad Isa–was an Iraqi-born man who killed 5 U.S. soldiers on Iraqi soil, so what do you have to say about that?

    Wuterich’s prosecutors tried him on lesser charges because they felt the evidence fell short of what was needed for a conviction on the greater charges. I don’t think they argued that the greater charges involved acts that were merely negligent dereliction of duty.

    Riiiiiight. I wonder why it is that the American and Israeli military always finds enough evidence for everyone else–for Muslim terrorists and those who fund them, support them, give raincoats to them, etc.–but simply can’t get that conviction against the men who actually picked up a gun and blasted women and children. Funny thing, ain’t it.

  • Hasan attacked soldiers, but they were a soft target for him because he was still accorded the privileges of a trusted soldier himself. Wuterich’s prosecutors tried him on lesser charges because they felt the evidence fell short of what was needed for a conviction on the greater charges. I don’t think they argued that the greater charges involved acts that were merely negligent dereliction of duty.

  • The Cake Is A Lie

    And yet Muslims are continously asked to denounce terrorism, and blamed endlessly for not doing so. How can Muslims denounce something that barely exists? On the other hand, how can anyone blame civilians for conducting attacks against military targets that are illegally occupying their countries? What would Americans do if Iraq had invaded them?

    This hypocrisy knows no end.

  • good job danios if the Fbi had shown the same zeal they show muslims the war on gangs and crime would be over

  • QualifiedAgnostic

    RON PAUL 2012!

  • QualifiedAgnostic

    The US policy of manipulation-manipulating it’s citizens through such means as doublethink is abhorrent. According to the US, invading and initiating aggressive war with a nation equates to measures increasing national security. Aggressive barbaric offense is actually defense. The Department that is responsible for war is actually responsible is actually called the Department of Defense.

    People need to speak out against doublethink and manipulation, all of which is to primarily serve as agents of propaganda is order to garner support for Imperialism, which is in turn mainly to satisfy the one percent. It is the right of citizens to not be manipulated and to make informed, rational decisions. People must not be controlled/Manipulated, but must be left to think for themselves and to challenge the Government on these issues. The one percent in this country have a policy of ignoring the rest of the population because in their view, the Master (them) reigns and is free to do what it wants, while the near-unanimous decision of the people is disregarded.

    I ask the American people to stand against doublethink and all forms of control and manipulation, to stand up against Imperialism and it’s hypocrisy, to stand up against the oppression and control of the one percent, to stand up against fear mongering, and to stand up against emotional war mongering propaganda and to embrace logic, open-mindedness, pacifism, and rationality.

  • QualifiedAgnostic

    The fact that Faruq Khalil Muhammad Isa attacked 5 US soldiers on Iraqi soil and faces life in prison for fighting back against an invading is so hypocritical and insane there is not a word to describe it in the English language.

    What the US has done in the Muslim world is unspeakable. The US now needs to own up to it’s actions. The US does not have the right to attack anyone or invade any land it pleases. Period.

  • JD

    Shafia Murders: Imams Issue Fatwa Against Honour Killings, Domestic Violence

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/02/04/honour-killing-imams-fatwa-against_n_1254697.html?ref=religion&ir=Religion

    MISSISSAUGA, Ont. – Controversy surrounding the Shafia murder trial prompted imams from across Canada and the U.S. to issue a moral ruling Saturday officially condemning honour killings, domestic violence and misogyny as “un-Islamic.”

    Thirty-four imams belonging to the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, including a handful of American members, signed the fatwa in an effort to counter misinterpretations of the Qur’an, they said.

    While it has no legal teeth, the fatwa is “morally binding” for all Muslims, said Syed Soharwardy, a Calgary-based imam who founded the council.

    “So if anybody is thinking that honour killing is allowed in Islam, or domestic violence is OK or misogyny is OK, we are saying no, you are dead wrong,” he said Saturday in announcing the measure.

    The ruling comes after a verdict was delivered last weekend in the Shafia murder trial, in which a Montreal couple and their son were convicted of killing four female relatives.

    The Crown alleged three teenage Shafia sisters and their father’s first wife in a polygamous marriage were killed in an effort to restore the family’s honour.

    The trial captured worldwide attention and cast a shadow over Canada’s Islamic community, prompting many religious and community leaders to speak out against domestic violence.

    For months, imams worked together to denounce honour killings and educate Muslims about the call for gender equality at the heart of their faith.

    The fatwa “puts some weight” on those efforts by clearly and unequivocally refuting any interpretation of the Qur’an that would allow domestic or honour-related violence, Soharwardy said.

    It’s a rare step, one the 12-year-old council — which includes mosques and chapters in major Canadian cities — has taken only twice before to oppose terrorist attacks and Taliban rules prohibiting girls from going to school, he said.

    With a combined congregation of roughly 10,000 people throughout the country, the organization has more clout than a single imam or scholar might have in issuing a fatwa, Soharwardy said.

    The actions of one misguided family have revealed the need to take a stronger stand against domestic violence, he said.

    “What happened in the Shafia home … The crime was not committed because Islam says so. The crime was committed because that is the way they understood what they think is right,” he said.

    Mohammad Shafia, his son Hamed and his wife Tooba Yahya were each found guilty of four counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of sisters Zainab, 19, Sahar, 17, and Geeti, 13, and Rona Amir Mohammad, 52.

    The four bodies were found June 30, 2009, in a car submerged in a canal in Kingston, Ont., in a multiple murder the Crown asserted was committed after the girls shamed the family by dating and acting out. Rona was simply disposed of, the Crown said.

    First-degree murder carries an automatic life sentence with no chance to apply for parole for 25 years. Those convicted in the case have been behind bars since their arrests on July 22, 2009.

Powered by Loon Watchers