O.J.’s glove: If the narrative don’t fit, you must acquit….

Andrew Bolt:

Or maybe he just wanted stimulating reading for the flight

No, nothing to worry about at all:

A SUSPECTED Australian terrorist was dragged from a plane at Melbourne Airport by Border Force officials after allegedly trying to fly to Syria to join a jihadi group…

The Melbourne man, who is an Australian citizen, was flying to Beirut in Lebanon with three family members when he was detained aboard a flight on a Middle Eastern airline on Monday.

He was searched by Australian Federal Police officers, who discovered he was carrying around $30,000 in Australian currency.

He was also allegedly in possession of terror-related images including photographs of beheadings, and images of the flag flown by the murderous terror group ISIL, which is rampaging across Syria and Iraq.

The man must be presumed innocent. After all, he could have been so horrified by the images that he was flying over on a peace mission.


Why are we stopping them? Let them go never to return.

AT least five suspected jihadist recruits have been detained at Australian airports and prevented from travelling overseas in recent months, amid suspicion that they intended to travel to fight in Syria and Iraq.
“Backlash” Fears:

We are so often told to be wary of the backlash that we perhaps don’t pay enough attention to what some might (unfortunately) lash back over. From the US:

For two bloody months, an armed jihadist serial killer ran loose across the country.

At least four innocent men died this spring and summer as acts of “vengeance” on behalf of aggrieved Muslims, the self-confessed murderer has proclaimed. Heard about this horror? Probably not.

The usual suspects who decry hate crimes and gun violence haven’t uttered a peep. Why? Like O.J.’s glove: If the narrative don’t fit, you must acquit.

(Via Tim Blair, who has more.)

We don’t need their BS taqiyya. Enough is enough.

If you ask me, I will tell you that we should never ask “Muslim leaders” to condemn anything. Knowing what we know, they are a mortal danger to all of us. They should be rounded up and shipped out. That would be the humane way of reversing this awful invasion. The alternative will be too horrible to contemplate. At this point, our humanity prevents us from doing what they would do to us if they had the upper hand.

The real reason we keep asking Muslim leaders to condemn terrorism

Julie Szego in The Age:

What I can understand is Muslim leaders’ frustration in having to constantly condemn – and thus, by implication, own – the barbaric atrocities of their communities’ fringe dwellers. The obsessive demand for Muslim leaders to “condemn terrorism” borders on bullying.

Many Muslim leaders make the same complaint, not understanding that simply in doing so they fail in an important duty.

When Australians demand such “leaders” condemn jihadist atrocities they aren’t wanting them to “own” the horrors. They aren’t even wanting only that these leaders use their great influence to try to stop jihadism.


Perhaps more importantly, Australians also want reassurance that these leaders actually share their moral values and have the same reaction to atrocities which threaten us. They want reassurance from those who claim to best represent Islam that these atrocities are not part of their faith. They want to know they share a common morality, without which there is no community.

That is why the demands to “condemn terrorism” – tiresome though they may be – are critically important in building trust. And it’s why the reactions to those calls are so frightening, leading to ever more anxious calls for condemnation.

Even Szego concedes: 

But the way [these leaders] respond to these calls can be revealing.

In a statement condemning the image of a young boy, thought to be the son of Australian Khaled Sharrouf, holding up what appears to be the severed head of a Syrian government soldier, the Australian National Imams Council said: “Just as ANIC denounces the unspeakable atrocities committed in Gaza, so too do we speak out against the brutality carried out in Syria and Iraq…” The statement included the oblique rider: “The current trend by many world leaders… for injustice, unilateral aggression, duplicitous foreign policies and infringements on basic human rights, will only aggravate the state of global fear and violence.”

The Islamic Council of Victoria, in a release explaining its refusal to meet with Abbott last week, put the case more explicitly. “The question of why young Australians would willingly put themselves in harm’s way is much more complex than some spurious notion of religious extremism,” said the Council, which claims to represent 150,000 Muslims. “We would point the Government to its own foreign policies as a starting point. The government stance on the issue of Israel and the massacres in Gaza over the last four weeks has done more to ‘radicalise’ people than this boogie monster of radicalisation that it uses to periodically scare the community… and divert attention away from reality.”

…the leaders’ persistent deflection to Israel, a tendency shared by some on the hard Left, suggests an inability, or reluctance, to look reality in the face.

To follow the Islamic Council’s logic, some Muslims are so angry about the Australian Government’s support for Israel’s actions in Gaza that they head to… Syria and Iraq, where they butcher, with orgiastic delight… other Muslims, Sunnis as well as Shiites. I don’t get it….

And I wonder what it would take to keep aspiring jihadists in the fold? …  If next week the Government miraculously engineered the establishment of a Palestinian state, would the caliphate’s appeal rapidly dissolve? Or would that require the complete dismantling of Israel? And if the Abbott Government even managed to pull that off, are we there yet? Would this fix the “unilateral aggression” and “duplicity” the Imams complained of? Would this be enough to calm the bloodlust of young men yearning for the caliphate?

We keep asking Muslim leaders to keep condemning terrorism because we so often get the “yes but” answers that imply a great threat. Given that, it’s a fair question to keep asking. Indeed, the real trouble starts when non-Muslims conclude it’s pointless to keep asking for an unqualified answer.

2 thoughts on “O.J.’s glove: If the narrative don’t fit, you must acquit….”

  1. Get it once AND for ALL
    The Imans are THE ones who are in charge of organising Terrorism ALL the Jihads and Jihadis – Period.

    Organising Terrorism is what the Imam is “Paid” to do.
    Organising Terrorism is what the Imam “Does”.
    Organising Terrorism is a major item in the Imam’s Job description.

    Understand/Know this fact – The Key to STOP islam.

  2. Bolt vacillates between getting it and then slipping back into the typical assumptions expressed by his colleagues although never to the moronic degree exhibited by one S O’B at the HeraldSun. He still seems to think that imams turn slack Muslims into fundamentalists so by changing their message they can stop the process but it is the example of their prohphet Mohammed which is what they follow not words of their local imam. and that Australian “… want reassurance from those who claim to best represent Islam that these atrocities are not part of their faith.” Sorry Andrew that is self delusional and speaks to your own lack of appreciation of what people want which is nothing to do with imams and everything to do with leaders of the government. Likewise saying “…the real trouble starts when non-Muslims conclude it’s pointless to keep asking for an unqualified answer” is silly because when that happens isn’t a sign of trouble but of the light of reason breaking through the fog.

Comments are closed.