The instant response of normal people to acts of Islamic terrorism is horror and grief. The instant response of our leftist friends, however, is a desperate attempt to play down or outright conceal any Islamic component to those acts of terrorism.

A second strategy is to sympathise with the terrorist’s fellow Muslims. As Mark Steyn noted, Twitter leftists launched a love campaign before last December’s Martin Place siege had even ended.

“Usually the Muslims-fear-backlash crowd at least waits till the terrorist atrocity is over. In this case the desiccated multiculti saps launched the #I’llRideWithYou campaign even as the siege was still ongoing — while Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson were still alive,” Steyn wrote.

“Muslims are not the victims here. Ms Dawson and Mr Johnson are the victims. And yet the urge to usher Muslims into the victim chair and massage their tender sensibilities is now so reflexive the narcissists on Twitter don’t even have the good taste to wait till the siege is over and the corpse count is known.”

Similar tactics were employed last Friday following 15-year-old Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar’s cowardly murder of NSW police accountant Curtis Cheng, shot in the back of the head as he left work. Parramatta real estate agent Edwin Almeida spotted the killer and offered this perfectly accurate description to reporters: “I saw the man wielding a handgun, dressed in black robes.”

This newsworthy line was deliberately omitted from the Guardian‘s online coverage, presumably because the murderer’s clothing may have hinted at a certain unmentionable faith. “I won’t go into reports about what the man identified by eyewitnesses as carrying a gun was wearing or what he looked like,” the Guardian‘s Calla Wahlquist decreed, which is an unusual approach to journalism.

If clothing and appearance are deemed Islamic identifiers and therefore now off-limits, what might be next? Australia’s violent Islamic extremist community tends to be male, armed and from Sydney’s west. A future Guardian report could run something like the following:

“A person with a non-specific grievance has taken actions causing injury to another person in an area of Australia noted for its vibrant multiculturalism.” And then it could end with this evasion, from one of the earliest ABC reports on Friday’s murder: “The ABC understands that the incident is not terror-related.”

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/commen...

This attack is the fault of the police.

It was not a terrorism incident.

The killer played on the fact he was a Muslim, and attacked a police officer.

Because he had a problem with the police. Not because he was in support of a hostile ideology or similar.

This is the fault of the police.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Oct 6^th, 2015 at 8:18pm:


We also have to remember that no other religion is going around the world killing people like Muslims are.

The proportion of Muslims and Buddhists in Australia is roughly equivalent, yet you never hear of any Buddhist terrorist attacks.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 6^th, 2015 at 8:28pm:


In what way?

Also I am pretty sure that none of Tori Johnson, Katrina Dawson or Curtis Cheng were Muslim.

Yes.

He was not a terrorist. His sister fled to the middle east due to persecution by the Australian government, according to family friends who are familiar with the situation. She could have stayed and radicalised. Instead she left.

This kid was pushed too far. Killed a police officer. And was not a terrorist. Because he had a problem with the police. Not because he was supporting a hostile ideology.

This is the fault of the police.

He needed a bit more practice - that special constable on the door outgunned him without trying too hard... he should get a medal....

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Oct 6^th, 2015 at 8:38pm:


He wasn't trying to engage the special constable. He was in the open, no cover, not even aiming. Just stood there and got shot.

I wouldn't say the special constable was Jason Bourne or especially brave. He was firing from almost a totally protected position. He was actually rather safe from where he was.

He did his duty appropriately and killed the kid. However, he is not worthy of some kind of awesome commendation.

He did his duty. He did not dive on a grenade or place his life at extreme risk.

double plus good wrote on Oct 6^th, 2015 at 8:41pm:


Analogy.