And since Muslims are so fearful and afraid of this mythical ‘backlash’ there are literally thousands of useful idiots Â who will write anything to portray Muslims as victims. Â SELWYN CRAWFORD Â from the The Dallas Morning News is only too happy to oblige:
3 cases of willful blindness:
“Being a Muslim in America today is not easy,”
said Hadi Jawad, a longtime Dallas business owner and a volunteer at the Dallas Peace Center. “We feel under siege. There is open season on our faith. Muslims are painted with a broad brush.”
You can write Â SELWYN CRAWFORD Â from the The Dallas Morning News Â here:
firstname.lastname@example.org if you think this kind of reporting sux.
Here, the enlightened progressives from “Harry’s Place” on Wilders UK visit:
One would be forgiven for thinkingÂ Wilders paid this rent-a-crowd of nutsÂ to stand there appearing to prove his point in front of assembled MPs, journalists and the world’s TV cameras? He may as well have!
It must be repeated though that these ‘Islam4UK’ types are not representative of the average British Muslim. They are the mirror image of the far-right. So their provocative act was not an own goal at all. They are not trying to improve relations between Muslims and wider society. They are not trying to address anti-Muslim bigotry. In fact, they’re trying to exacerbate it. They also see a “clash of civilisations” and are anxious for the war to begin. They are also fascists.
You see, the enlightened progressives just know that these Â ‘Islam4UK’ types are not representative Â of the ‘average British Muslim’. They just know. One of the posters on Harry’s goes even further: “This is a cover to try and recruit some of the 99.99999999% of British Muslims who entirely reject al-Muhajiroun’s message of hate.” You really wonder who does the research for them….
Some go even further, as we can see in the third article from Andrew Bolt’s blog:
Gerard Henderson on the excuse-makers:
Last week the ABC 702 radio presenter Deborah Cameron referred to the ”so-called terror trial in Parramatta”. On Friday, after deliberating for over a month, a jury at the Supreme Court returned guilty verdicts against five men on terrorism charges. The jurors were unaware that four other men, charged following the same police investigation, had already pleaded guilty and had been sentenced.
Clearly the jury was convinced, beyond reasonable doubt, that the five men acted in the preparation of a terrorist act. Certainly the evidence, albeit circumstantial, was overwhelming. There were numerous intercepted conversations and telephone buggings and some of the men had collected large quantities of weapons and ammunition, along with chemicals that could be used in constructing explosive devices.
What was a “so-called terror trial” to an ABC presenter in Ultimo was the real thing to the men and women of the jury in Parramatta.
In her initial report of the jury’s decision on The World Today on Friday, Philippa McDonald, even after the guilty findings, was still referring to what had been “alleged” against the men. She editorialised the case was “hugely circumstantial” and maintained it “had to be said that, for a lot of the Crown case, the defence came back with something else”.
There is considerable evidence that members of what is best termed the civil liberties lobby – including some journalists, lawyers and academics – do not want to accept that a few men in Western societies want to engage in violent jihad.
Henderson goes on to name Phillip Adams and some person of even less consequence.