The Associated Press: Apologists for Islamic terrorism and the worst Tweet of the day

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Nov 1, 2020 at 07:41

Dr. Pipes,

There seems to be a pattern following any Islamic atrocity and it goes as follows:

1. The atrocity is reported and initially you will never find any mention of "Islam", the name of the terrorist or that he shouted Allahu Akbar (sometimes the report might mention that he said: "God is the greatest").

2. Then the international press will link the atrocity to Islam and terrorism and that the terrorist is Muslim and will mention his country of origin and his name.

3. Next, the fools at the NYT and PBS will tell us that they are worried about retaliations by infidels against Muslims despite the fact that no retaliations take place.

4. Then fools the likes of the Associated Pres, as you shall see below, will blame the victim or victims

5. And within a few days the atrocity is forgotten

Imagine if a Christian or a Buddhist or a Jew or a Hindu would commit such atrocity! I can assure you we will be hearing about it for ever.

Now, here is the tweet:

"AP explains, Why does France incite anger in the Muslim world,? Its brutal colonial past, staunch secular policies and tough talking president who is seen insensitive toward the Muslim faith all play a rule."

And to paraphrase: "The entire non Muslim world explains: Why does Islamic terrorism incite anger in the non Muslim world? It is the brutal imperialist and colonialist past of Islam in the past 1400 years and staunch 7th century vile Islamic law and tough talking by Muslim presidents in failed states the likes of Pakistan who are seen as insensitive towards the non Muslim faiths and the victims of Islamic terrorism, all play a rule."

And the AP tweet was badly ratio'ed

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".