Source: CBS Still Pushing False Narrative About ‘Right-Wing’ Terror
Fake statistics die hard, especially when they’re being pushed by the so-called “real news” cartel.
Take, for instance, CBS News host Norah O’Donnell, who claimed on Twitter earlier today that so-called “right wing” terrorism is a greater threat than Islamic terrorism:
Between the end of ’01 & Dec. ’16 there were nearly 3 times as many fatal attacks by right-wing extremists than Islamist extremists in U.S.
The first clue that you’re being manipulated? O’Donnell begins counting terror incidents AFTER the 9/11 attacks, the most lethal terror attack in modern history. Understandably, people grinding an agenda to push “right wing” terrorism as some great threat to Americans HAVE TO exclude 9/11 to make such a point.
Also, note that O’Donnell refers only to the number of incidents — not how lethal they were.
Why is that? Because Norah O’Donnell is trying to avoid having to say this: Since 9/11, Islamic terrorists have killed CONSIDERABLY MORE than “right wing” terrorists.
Jihadist: 95 killed.
“Far Right Wing”: 67 killed.
The only way to conjure up a “right wing” terrorism bogeyman is to count “by fatal incident,” and not by the actual number of people killed.
That being said, as I noted here at PJ Media more than a year ago, there are serious issues with how New American counts acts of terrorism:
Since when are bank robberies acts of terrorism? They aren’t, unless you’re trying to inflate your “right wing” terror stats to mislead the public for political motives.
I also noted that — in addition to 9/11 — several Islamic terror attacks are simply left out of their count, such as the D.C. sniper case.
Richard Dawkins has been disinvited from a speaking engagement in Berkeley, hosted by public radio station KPFA, because of remarks he made about Islam. The topic of his speech wasn’t related to Islam, but his voiced opinions on the religion have rendered him unclean.
Source: Left-wing radio station KPFA cancels event with noted atheist Richard Dawkins because of his harsh criticism of Islam – The Washington Post
It’s tempting to call this an example of “The Left Eating Its Own”. Dawkins was welcome when he offered his blistering critiques of Christian religions, but criticizing anything even remotely related to Islam is off limits and enough to make him persona non grata.
As a regular platelet donor, I’ve watched the grounds for deferral expand over the years. They do sometimes contract, as for example when the ban on male donors who have had sex with another male was changed from lifetime to 12 months. Obviously, the more potential donors you screen out, the fewer people you’re going to have donating blood.
I wonder if I’m not seeing something similar in the Leftosphere: Keep expanding the number of ways to declare someone beyond the pale, and before too long you don’t have anyone to supply new blood.
Source: New Ways of Responding to Extremist Islam
A discussion of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book, on a site recommended by The Morning Jolt
Source: In Morocco, the apostate no longer faces death
Cyclically, intellectuals, ulama, Muslim jurists and politicians go back to the question of whether the apostate deserves an earthly punishment or the punishment is the sole prerogative of God in the hereafter. While in many moments of history the first interpretation had prevailed, today other interpretations exist that question the traditionally imposed penalty for the apostate (murtadd), but also the very meaning of the term.
In this sense, the statements made a few days ago by the high scientific Council of the Moroccan Ministry of Habous (Religious Affairs) are unprecedented. In Sabīl al-‘ulamā’ (The way of ulama), a volume of over 150 pages, it distanced itself from the traditional meaning of apostasy and of the penalty given for this offense. According to this document, Murtadd would not be the one who leaves Islam for another religion, but the one who betrays the group he belongs to.
“The most correct understanding of the apostasy issue resides in the spirit of the tradition and of the biography of the Prophet, who, by apostate, means the traitor of the group (khā’in al-jamā‘), the one who reveals its secrets and hurts it with the help of its opponents, what is equivalent to high treason under international law,” the document states.
The commission in fact offers a new interpretation of the two hadīth (Prophet’s sayings) traditionally cited in support of apostasy, framing them within the historical circumstances in which they would have been revealed: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him,” and “He who abandons religion is the one who breaks away from the group.” In the context of endemic wars, as was the period when Islam was born – the document explains – abandoning Muslims meant joining the nonbelievers. Apostasy was therefore political, not doctrinal.
According to the ulama, this meaning of apostasy would be evident in some historical facts of the time. Abū Bakr, the first of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs, according to the tradition used to wage war against the apostates, understood them as political traitors because, in refusing to submit to the imam, they were dividing the unity of the group and undermining the understanding of religion, destroying its pillars.
Source: Four Dead in Stockholm Truck Attack – WSJ
The Islamists have successfully weaponized trucks the way they weaponized airplanes on 9/11. You can’t put truck barriers everywhere, and you can’t screen truck drivers the way you screen people at airports. Situational awareness may help — have a place to dodge to if a vehicle heads toward you.
A man drove a heavy truck into a crowd in Stockholm’s busiest shopping area, killing four people in what authorities called a “terror attack,” and highlighting how exposed European cities are to the low-tech tactic of mowing down pedestrians with a vehicle.
The rampage, which came a day after Sweden’s police, military and security services jointly practiced their terror-response capabilities, underscored the formidable security challenge posed by isolated attackers turning vehicle into weapons.
“It’s very difficult,” said Magnus Ranstorp, a professor at Sweden’s National Defense College. “If you put barriers in one place, they can attack somewhere else.”
Islamic State claimed responsibility for those attacks, and has called on sympathizers to use vehicles to kill.
I suspect if this continues, people will start taking matters in hand at the scene of vehicular attacks, and the results won’t be pretty.
I also suspect people who aren’t aiming to kill and maim pedestrians should resolve to drive carefully. Take a defensive driving class and learn how to avoid accidents.