HuffPo ignores Islam in report on three British terror attacks

Here’s today’s Puffho piece on the terror attacks in London last night (click screenshot to go to article).

We do not yet know for certain whether the latest attacks these were committed by Islamists, but it seems likely, and the New York Times reported this:

Britain’s home secretary, Amber Rudd, said on Sunday that the government was confident the attackers were “radical Islamist terrorists.” Speaking on ITV television, Ms. Rudd said, “As the prime minister said, we are confident about the fact that they were radical Islamist terrorists, the way they were inspired, and we need to find out more about where this radicalization came from.”

PuffHo also mention the Westminster Bridge attack and the Ariana Grande concert bombing, clearly instances of Islamist terrorism. There is not a single mention of “ISIS”, “Islam”, or “Muslim” in the whole article. That, of course, is deliberate, as the HuffPo wants to avoid at all costs—and may be under instructions about that— connecting terrorism with Islam. But as Ali Rizvi said in his excellent talk last night, “We need to speak up about these things.”

Oh wait. . there is one mention of Muslime in this report; here it is; it’s a denigration of Trump:

The president appeared to use the unfolding chaos in London as a hook to reissue his internationally condemned call for a travel ban affecting several Muslim-majority nations.

And there’s one recent addition of “Islam”:

As police raided several locations in the U.K. capital and arrested 12 people, May promised to step up the fight against Islamic terrorism and review the country’s counterterrorism strategy.

We need to speak up. We can’t count on Regressive Leftist rags like HuffPo to call it like it is.


  1. Eric Hayman
    Posted June 4, 2017 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    Who invented the word “Islamist”? Every Muslim is, by definition, Islamist. Stop separating the mass murdering Muslims by giving them a special name. All Muslims believe it is their duty according to the Koran to kill all non-Muslims. Just because most do not obey those parts of the Koran does not make them non-Islamist.

    As for Islamophobia (another newly made-up word), I am an Islamophobe: I am afraid of what Muslims believe and what an unending number are doing to non-Muslims and fellow Muslims. Is that a crime?

    • Posted June 4, 2017 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

      All Muslims believe it is their duty according to the Koran to kill all non-Muslims

      I’d like you to substantiate that claim. I know a few Muslims, none of whom think I need to be killed.

      • Historian
        Posted June 4, 2017 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

        Well put. Eric’s rant is nothing less than a call to take some sort of action against all Muslims, perhaps including violence, on the grounds that it is better to get them before they get us. This kind of rabble rousing is reminiscent of how the KKK and other racists, past and present, has attempted to scare all whites to hate blacks because one never knows when one will attack a good white citizen. It also similar to how certain Christians over the centuries advocated violence against Jews because they were supposedly “Christ killers.” But another example is the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. In times of high anxiety, it is very tempting to lash out at all members of a group for the bad behavior of a small minority of members in it. In the long run it is counterproductive and ultimately redounds to the shame of the panic stricken.

        • Filippo
          Posted June 5, 2017 at 5:57 am | Permalink


      • Craw
        Posted June 4, 2017 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

        That’s not what he said. He did not say they think it their duty to kill you. He said they think it is their duty *according to what the Koran says*.

        Now the argument is often made on this site, and by Coyne, that the Bible really does teach that you should kill a lot of people for a lot of gormless reasons. Rightly argued I think. The Bible does do that; read Leviticus. (most Christians and Jews have learned to ignore large parts of what the book says, so they don’t see it as their duty to actually kill disobedient children.)Isn’t the same true of the Koran? Are there not injunctions to kill unbelievers?

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted June 4, 2017 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

          That’s all well and good, Craw; but Eric Hayman’s claim that that, therefore, makes all Muslims “Islamists” is obtuse.

          • Craw
            Posted June 4, 2017 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

            Yes that is obtuse. Eric says much that is wrong.

        • Posted June 4, 2017 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

          No. I quoted exactly what he said. I want him to substantiate it.

          Most Christians believe the Bible has a statement in it that says “kill adulterers”. They do not believe it is their duty according to the Bible to kill all adulterers. Neither, in my opinion, do most Muslims believe it is their duty according to the Koran to kill unbelievers. They might believe it says that, but they do not believe it imposes any kind of duty on them to do so, which is what Eric has claimed.

          • Posted June 4, 2017 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

            I find Eric’s words over the top – understandable, I think, under the circumstances.
            But now I feel compelled to defend him. By all reports, the majority of people in Pakistan approve the death sentence of Asia Bibi. And in Afghanistan, when Farkhunda was reported – wrongly – to have damaged a Koran, i.e. to be an unbeliever of the worst kind, a lynch mob gathered and killed her on the spot.
            So, when the law does not protect the unbelievers, it turns out that too many Muslims indeed think that it is their duty to kill the unbelievers.
            On the contrary, at some point the Christians stopped thinking that it is their duty to kill witches and adulterers. Which explains why everyone, including Muslims, prefers to live in Christian-majority than in Muslim-majority countries.
            Anyone who thinks that the majority of Muslims are just like everyone else and there is “bad behavior” only of a “small minority”, should try and explain why every single Muslim-majority country is highly problematic.

          • Craw
            Posted June 4, 2017 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

            No you did not quote him. You left out part and I corrected you. I know a Christian who agrees the Bible tells him to kill people who wear cotton polyester blend shirts. He rejects that command. It is false for you to say “Craw says his friend thinks it his duty to kill over fabric. It is correct to say “Craw says his friend agrees the Bible commands him to kill over a fabric.” See the difference? One is a statement about what he thinks he ought to do, and one is a statement about his understanding of a book.

            • Posted June 5, 2017 at 3:43 am | Permalink

              You did not correct me, you misrepresented my post. Eric’s thesis is that all Muslims are Islamists (want me to point out exactly where he said that?) as exemplified that they believe art is their duty to kill unbelievers.

              If he had meant merely that all Muslims believe the Koran says certain things, that would have been a trivial and irrelevant point. I believe the Bible tells us to kill adulterers but I do not believe we should kill adulterers.

              Anyway, I see I’ve just had to more or less repeat my previous point, which is treading on thin ice with respect to Da Roolz, so this will be my last word on this thread.

          • Eric Hayman
            Posted June 5, 2017 at 6:04 am | Permalink

            If a person says he or she is is a Muslim, then that person knows all the Koran should be obeyed. A Muslim may fail to carry out the killing of non-Muslims, but he or she knows that the duty is there. It is in the book.

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted June 5, 2017 at 8:18 am | Permalink

              And by dint of that fact alone, all Muslims are militant fundamentalists?

    • Ullrich Fischer
      Posted June 4, 2017 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

      That’s only true if you only consider people to be Muslim if they fully adhere to all the absurd bullshit in their holy books. If you consider anyone who says they are Muslim to actually be Muslim, this is not true. It is the same with Christianity. The big problem is that far more Muslims fall in the first category of their religion than do Christians in theirs. Those Christians who do follow the Bible more literally are also dangerous, just not as much so as Islamists who have the power of Saudi Arabia or Iran or Turkey or a huge part of the bureaucracy of Pakistan behind them.

      • Craw
        Posted June 4, 2017 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

        Ullrich, I think you just agreed with what he actually said. He actually said that they believe that killing unbelievers is what the Koran teaches as a duty.
        Now maybe he meant something else. But that’s what he said.

      • somer
        Posted June 4, 2017 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

        Pakistan is more or less a failed state and its organised aggressive energies are focussed on its neighbour, India. Technology and education in these countries is a joke. These states are not capable of mounting serious attacks against the west – they can though use “asymmetric warfare” – through promoting radicalisation of muslims in and going to the open, democratic necessarily fairly globalised hi tech West. Most of these attacks are very low tech or no tech. The effect is disruptive and very costly but relatively low level so long as lots of energy is expended (e.g. community radicalisation prevention programs like Quilliam advocates etc, airport security, Also some necessary internet surveillance and searches, to keep it so). Hence the police make arrests hours after the last two attacks.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted June 4, 2017 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

      “Islamist” denotes a militant fundamentalist form of Islam. The term self-evidently does not apply to all Muslims. Acceptance of this usage is long-standing and near-universal (except by you, and perhaps some other outliers, apparently).

    • Posted June 4, 2017 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

      There are many people who are called Muslims by themselves and by others because they happen to be born in Muslim communities and have sucked the culture. Many of them know and care little about the Koranic commandments, and some are agnostics or atheists but think that “Muslim” sounds better, the same way as many North European atheists call themselves “Protestants”. These people live and let live. We in Bulgaria have an old minority of them – our ethnic Turks and the Bulgarian Muslims. A handful got radicalized recently, but the hundreds of thousands are happy to live secularly in secular Europe.

      I call “Islamist” every Muslim who wants to spread Islam, be it peacefully or by force. Most Muslim-majority countries and communities are, unfortunately, dominated by Islamists. Other people are right to be wary of them. But even Saudi Arabia has Raif Badawi and Waleed Abulkhair.

    • Posted July 21, 2017 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

      Hi, I am a muslim, I don’t want to kill you, my morals as a human being and my religion forbids me to do it. you must not generalize to all a population what few crazy people among them do. Americans, French and other Western governments killed thousands of people in the Middle East and Africa, but I don’t think that all Europeans and Americans wants us dead.

      • rickflick
        Posted July 21, 2017 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

        Thanks for not wanting to kill me. I’m glad to see you’ve incorporated morals as a human being. But, if your religion is embodied by it’s texts, there are passages that would exhort you to kill me. I know you probably ignore them, but I’m curious if you are aware of them and if so what reasoning you use to ignore them.
        I would never overgeneralize, but polls show many Muslims across the world support Sharia Law, and advocate misogyny among other archaic principles. These are not a few crazy people.

        • Posted July 21, 2017 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

          Rickflick, its me, “apprehendit”.
          I see that you made yours all the stereotypical views about Muslim society. you pick up some concepts or words that you heard in the media, and you repeat them without any critical mind. I don’t think that my comment will change your mind because your opinion about the subject is completely irrational since you put 1.5 billion people with their very different cultural background under the same umbrella. The parts of the Quran that you are talking about are history related. they do not exhort us to do harm to non Muslims, they allowed the prophet Mohamed to respond in a violent way to those who raised an army against him and his people.
          you have to understand that the crazy people who claim that they do all these atrocities in the name of Islam, stop being Muslims the second they kill a person. And no one hates them more than we do, because we are the first victims, not you.
          I hope I made myself clear despite my poor English level.

          • rickflick
            Posted July 21, 2017 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

            I’m glad to hear the exhortations to kill me are history related. That means I can visit Saudi Arabia and campaign to overturn the law prescribing severe punishment or death to atheists and apostates. As soon as the royal family hears from you they will reconsider the sentence of 10 years and 1000 lashes for Raif Badawi, and atheist blogger. I am aware that the Muslim clerics are responsible for keeping religion pure in that country, so there should be no problem updating the law. If the laws there are history related, then all will be forgiven, right?

            • Posted July 21, 2017 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

              please don’t use fallacious arguments, we are not on a TV show.
              it’s not because of Islam that the Saudi government do what they do. it’s because Saoudi Arabia is a dictatorship. all dictatorships are to be fought against because of these kind of things.
              I advice you read a great book to understand a little bit more about non western cultures / peoples. it is called “orientalism” and it was written by Edward Said.

              • rickflick
                Posted July 21, 2017 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

                I have not read Edward Said, but it might be of interest. I have read books on the rise of Islamism over the past century and something about the history and basis for Saudi Arabian society. So, I’m not completely ignorant of these things. My only advice to you is that if you think Islam is a force for freedom and democracy in the modern world I think you are deluding yourself. I’m sure you are one of those Muslims who are comfortable in a moderate understanding of Islam. That’s just great. However, Islam is clearly often a facilitator of violence and antidemocratic forces across the world. Just read the headlines. If you have time read the ISIS web site/magazine and take notice of how much they depend on a rather literal interpretation of the Koran. It seems to me ISIS is espousing a version of Islam which is closer to the text and the history of Islam than the average Muslim living in the West.

              • Posted July 22, 2017 at 4:48 am | Permalink

                rickjflick, I disagree with you. I don’t think that islam is a force for freedom and democracy, I think that Islam, like other religions, is what we make of it. if a person is violent, he would have a violent interpretation of islam, if he is peaceful, he will have an interpretation which is peaceful. and the history of Saudi Arabian society is not the history of Muslim societies or Islam itself. Muslim societies are so diverse that any attempt to generalize an idea which comprehend them all would be met with failure.
                I think that Edward Said would help you to see us, “us”, the barbaric inhabitants of the Orient, in a different manner.
                PS. I am from an ethnic group which is called Berber (literally barbarian), our ancient history with the Roman empire would let you understand why you have such a vision about islam and the Orient peoples.

          • rickflick
            Posted July 21, 2017 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

            Here’s an example of where your “history related” idea could really do some good:


  2. jay
    Posted June 4, 2017 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    I was just reading an article criticizing (correctly) the Pope for similar cowardice. He refuses to call the attacks on Catholics (isn’t that his job?), other Christians or Jews ‘Islamic’, claiming that all were roads to God. He is as weak about this a Obama was.

    Sheesh, the other day terrorists stopped a bus in Egypt, and one by one executed the passengers who would not ‘convert’ to Islam.

    But it’s not about religion.

    • Posted June 4, 2017 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

      Hitchens once complained that Christian leaders abhor atheism so much that they prefer Islam to it. He was talking about the Archbishop of Canterbury, but it is apparently the same with this Pope.

  3. rickflick
    Posted June 4, 2017 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    I suspect the motive for not mentioning the “I” word or the “M” word is the fear of triggering a nut-job taking his AK-47 down to the local mosque and killing a few dozen American citizens (Uber-Islamophobia). In the current tense political atmosphere it is a real possibility. Now, if a civilized discussion of the Islamic issue had already been established the danger of that happening would be low. Perhaps the solution is to start educating the public gradually during a dwell in terrorist activity.

    • Posted June 4, 2017 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

      You mean a “lull”? Well, they wasted those 12 whole days since Manchester.

  4. GM
    Posted June 4, 2017 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    I tend to just shrug it off when I see yet another round of coverage of terror attacks that neglects to mention the motivation of the terrorists (and it’s not just HuffPo, many other “liberal” news sites do it, although not to such an extreme), because I would like to think that everyone can easily see through the charade.

    But then I realize that there is in fact a sizable group of people who get all their information from such sources, and who are biased accordingly.

    Making this a real problem.

  5. craigp
    Posted June 4, 2017 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    Given that multiple eye witnesses interviewed on television quoted the perpetrators as saying “this is for Allah” as they stabbed people, it’s a safe bet they were Islamists.

    • Barney
      Posted June 4, 2017 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

      And HuffPost reports that too. But that’s not a magic word that some people scan articles for before they complain about the words used, so that’s not mentioned …

      • somer
        Posted June 4, 2017 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

        It was not in the original version of the article

  6. Ken Kukec
    Posted June 4, 2017 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    “… the HuffPo wants to avoid at all costs—and may be under instructions about that—connecting terrorism with Islam.”

    Under whose instructions?

    • Posted June 4, 2017 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

      The managing editors.It is my suspicion, which I think is a good one based on PuffHo’s coverage, that the writers are instructed to always put a good spin on Islam. I’ve put up, for instance, many of their articles extolling the Confederate Flag Headgear hijab.

  7. jay
    Posted June 4, 2017 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    So they arrested about a dozen.

    According to MI5, there are about 23,000 jihadists in UK, with only enough resources to track about 3000.

    This is not the end the problem.

  8. Ullrich Fischer
    Posted June 4, 2017 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    Ms. May is a slow motion disaster for all but the richest 1% of the UK population, but she’s not wrong on the connection between Islam and terrorism, or on the need to be less tolerant of intolerance NO MATTER WHERE it comes from. If Labour and the regressive left continue to stick their heads in the sand and deny those points, they are handing Theresa the next election and thereby exacerbating another underlying cause of terrorism: huge numbers of unemployed and unemployable youths who are disconnected from society and are therefore more likely to turn to Islam’s false certainties to give meaning to their lives. A Universal Basic Income and free, meaningful, University education (as opposed to Evergreen College’s identity studies “education”) for all who qualify academically would go a long way to reducing the size of the pool of young men who are potential recruits to Islamism. As someone whose name I’ve forgotten pointed out recently, the problem isn’t just radicalizing Muslims, but the Islamization of radicalism. Young people who might have joined the Communist or Maoist parties in the 1970s are now joining the Islamists as the only group that is taking direct action against those thought to be responsible for or complicit in the ongoing attack on the living standards of all but the top 1% in terms of wealth of the population. Unfortunately, that makes them susceptible to the simple interpretation of Islamic dogma which justifies all manner of atrocities against non-Muslims and “not Muslim enough” Muslims.

    • jay
      Posted June 4, 2017 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

      “.. A Universal Basic Income and free, meaningful, University education (as opposed to Evergreen College’s identity studies “education”) for all who qualify academically would go a long way to reducing the size of the pool of young men who are potential recruits to Islamism. .. ”

      Great idea, who pays for it?

      But realistically, many terrorists are college educated, and employed (with a disproportionate number of them being engineers). To believe that you can buy them out of this with freebies is a liberal pipe dream. Plenty of us normal citizens have worked our way through life without going either the criminal or the terrorists route.

      • somer
        Posted June 5, 2017 at 12:12 am | Permalink

        and the religion itself, because it tends to balkanise its community from interaction in the west education wise and economy wise – especially when the intake is from less educated backgrounds – keeps people from doing well in the West. Whilst I’m sure in some cases prejudice adds to this the exclusivity of the religion dozens help a la Trevor Phillip and that survey of UK muslims

    • Craw
      Posted June 4, 2017 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

      Sigh. They believe in the duty to conquer for Allah. Paying them a pension won’t stop them. These are religious fanatics,not paupers.

    • Posted June 4, 2017 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

      Are moslem young men the only ones affected by those social woes you enumerate? Cuz they’re the only ones doing the murdering of their fellow citizens.

    • Posted June 4, 2017 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

      Current unemployment rate in Britain is low, < 5%. Our emigrants and guest workers do not complain of any difficulties finding work. Such difficulties seem to exist only for some Muslims. Indeed, if somebody wants his employer to supply him with a prayer room and a half day-off on Fridays, this may jeopardize the job hunt.

    • somer
      Posted June 5, 2017 at 12:16 am | Permalink

      Secular isms are western ideas. Religion never really went away in Muslim countries – Western influences and briefly the cold war suppressed its overt forms for a while.
      The pan Arabism and communist and maoist parties of the 70s lost out to Arab nationalism and dictators alliance with rural tribes and religion plus the reawakening of religion that the Iranian Revolution stirred.

    • Mike
      Posted June 5, 2017 at 8:11 am | Permalink

      Well ISIS for instance consider themselves the only true Muslim,because they follow the Q’uran literally, and there is nothing they do that is forbidden in that damned book.

  9. Posted June 4, 2017 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    On a parallel note, lets hope that as the investigation digs deeper, that someone does not leak sensitive and confidential information to the press this time!

  10. Randy schenck
    Posted June 4, 2017 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    We do not yet know that this last attack was by Islamist terrorist? I’m pretty sure we do. Reports said all three were wearing suicide belts, although they carried no bombs. They did this to make sure the police or whoever killed them. The only thing that we over here do not understand is, where were the guns. Well, republicans, give a little credit to the gun laws of Britain. These terrorist were all dead 8 minutes after they started.

    • Posted June 4, 2017 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

      I work in a city centre and there were cops with automatic weapons outside my office last week, walking along, chatting to the public.

      Most British police don’t carry weapons. Those that do are extremely competent. It’s rare that they are ever called to use their weapons at all.

      • Randy schenck
        Posted June 4, 2017 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

        In many parts of the country here, you could find other office workers packing heat. Many of the cars on the road have drivers with guns. There is nothing safe about this environment. I’ll take the officers with guns every time.

        • somer
          Posted June 4, 2017 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

          Yes compare what happened in Orlando – armed guards couldnt stop entry and 58 people dead. Or 7,000 African Americans dead in gun wars in Chicago in a period of 7 years

  11. Torbjörn Larsson
    Posted June 4, 2017 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    I was gladly surprised yesterday when a party leader candidate for Liberalerna (Liberals) wrote much the same as Ali Rizvi said, in a leading newspaper.

    • Perluigi Ballabeni
      Posted June 5, 2017 at 7:11 am | Permalink

      Torbjörn, are you talking about Sweden? If yes, are Liberals there politically right or left? I am asking this because parties that call themselves liberal are usually right-wing in continental Europe.

  12. Posted June 4, 2017 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    I ❤ that Jerry uses the inversion PuffHo.

    Posted June 4, 2017 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    Huff Po is politically correct to the extreme. Of course we should avoid painting Islam with a broad brush. However, the Islamist are a relatively small but influential force in the religion and a percentage of these folks are willing and able to perform violence. I am not sure a travel ban is in order from the six countries but certainly extreme vetting as well as enhanced scrutiny of the existing population especially where hate is preached in Mosques and madrassahs in the country. B

    —————————————–From: “Why Evolution Is True” To: Cc: Sent: 04-Jun-2017 17:35:40 +0000 Subject: [New post] HuffPo ignores Islam in report on three British terror attacks

    whyevolutionistrue posted: “Here’s today’s Puffho piece on the terror attacks in London last night (click screenshot to go to article). We do not yet know for certain whether the latest attacks these were committed by Islamists, but it seems likely, and the New York Times rep”

  14. Posted June 4, 2017 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    I told Jerry over email that I wouldn’t email him again while he’s at his conference.

    So, I’ll share here that I’m thinking of Hitch and made this tweet:

  15. Jenny Haniver
    Posted June 4, 2017 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    This article from Spike, thoug written in response to the Manchester bombing, gives a cogent analysis (at least to me) of the psychology behind such a mightily Huffing Post.

  16. Tim Harris
    Posted June 4, 2017 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

    Are you directing us to the correct HuffPo article, because the one we are directed to makes it very clear what the provenance of the terrorists is, and it certainly mentions ISIS more than once, as the following quotations show (these are apart of course from the paragraph, which you say was added, on Trumpf’s disgusting and dishonest attack on the mayor of London):

    ‘The Islamic State group claimed responsibility.’  

    ‘A witness named Gerard said the men had shouted “This is for Allah.”’

    ‘The Islamic State group claimed responsibility for Saturday’s violence via its news agency Amaq. The group said in a statement on Amaq’s page that “a detachment of Islamic State fighters” had executed the attack. However it is unclear to what extent, if any, the group’s leadership was directly involved.’

    ‘Saturday’s killings closely follow last month’s deadly suicide bombing at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester and an attack at Westminster Bridge on March 22 that also began with a car driven into pedestrians. Those attacks were claimed by ISIS as well.’

    I hold no brief for PuffHo, but… 

    • somer
      Posted June 4, 2017 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

      They updated the original article which had no reference to these things – but it is explicit now

    • Tim Harris
      Posted June 4, 2017 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

      Well, surely the fair interpretation was that at the beginning the fscts were, unsurprisingly, not clear, but as things became clearer, they updated the article. Is that not good journalistic practice?

      • mikeyc
        Posted June 4, 2017 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

        Have you ever read Huffington Post (serious question)? If not, it is not a place well known for good journalistic practices – there are reasons for the derision here. If you have, then I can only surmise your question was rhetorical as you should be aware of why PCC made this post.

        • Tim Harris
          Posted June 4, 2017 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

          Yes, I have – rather occasionally. I find it rather silly, and prefer other more thoughtful websites. I must say I do wonder at the amount of energy expended in some quarters on excoriating the HP, and in this case, having carefully read the page that was called attention to, wondered what those reasons for derision that you call attention to were in this case.

          • mikeyc
            Posted June 5, 2017 at 12:02 am | Permalink

            Heehee good response. I bow to you sir. Well done.

        • Tim Harris
          Posted June 5, 2017 at 4:39 am | Permalink

          If people claim to be interested in truth and are willing to indulge in creating a fuss about the Puffington Host’s supposed misrepresentation of important matters, I am surprised that the same people seem to feel no sense of outrage about Donald Trump’s despicable misrepresentation of the words of Sadiq Khan,the Mayor of London. I speak as one born and brought up in London, though I do not live there at present.

          • darrelle
            Posted June 5, 2017 at 8:39 am | Permalink

            What makes you think they don’t and how could you possibly know?

            Your penchant for attributing negative things to people, apparently based on nothing but your desire to position them on the low ground and yourself on the high ground, and denigrating peoples’ integrity because they don’t agree with you in all particulars or exhibit the same fervor as you is really distasteful. It is a form of lying in my opinion.

      • Craw
        Posted June 4, 2017 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

        Much as I loathe PuffHo I think this is right. We see people leaping to conclusions all the time. Trump does and we rightly slam him for it. now when PuffHo does not do so we slam them too?

        • Tim Harris
          Posted June 5, 2017 at 5:54 am | Permalink

          I was pleased to see this headline,and the following article, in the Puffington Host:

          ‘While Trump Slams London Mayor, Other World Leaders Send Support’

          Even the US Embassy in London has made it pretty clear that they have small time for DT’s twitterings.

          • Craw
            Posted June 5, 2017 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

            Trump has a point. Khan is part of the “nothing to see here” crowd, and his remark is a bit silly tbh. I saw cops in body armor with guns drawn in my parking lot a few years ago. Was I crazy to find that a bit worrying?

            One man was accidentally shot in the head by a cop in this attack. No worry?

            Khan’s attitude is part of the larger see no evil say no evil that was spectacularly on display here. We now know one of these killers was on TV and had links to other ISIS killers. But the Brit authorities were too prissy to actually even keep a close watch on him.

            Trump is trying to gain advantage for sure, but he actually does have a point this time.

            • Tim Harris
              Posted June 6, 2017 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

              He certainly does not have a point. And Khan is certainly not one of the ‘nothing to see here crowd’. The remark is not silly at all.

  17. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted June 4, 2017 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    There are many who argue that most acts of terrorism are committed by members of the Wahhabi sect of Islam. Why not just save your opprobrium for them, and you can avoid being labeled as an Islamophobe??

  18. Posted June 4, 2017 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

    No condolences for those injured or killed and their friends and families? Just a rant about the Huffington Post?

    We get it…You don’t like the Huffington Post.

    • mikeyc
      Posted June 4, 2017 at 10:07 pm | Permalink

      What about you? Where are your condolences? Just a sophmoric whataboutery rant?

      We get it….You don’t like people who don’t think exactly like you.

    • Posted June 5, 2017 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

      Condolences for the victims of Islamist terror will not do anything to prevent new acts of terror, while harsh criticism of HuffPo and other Islamophiles may help. Because it is the Islamophiles who have dragged the West into this hole and push it further down.

      • Eric Hayman
        Posted June 5, 2017 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

        As for ” Because it is the Islamophiles who have dragged the West into this hole and push it further down”, it is the whole Western idea that we have a duty to help the rest of the world – taking in refugees, sending billions
        of pounds to Africa and Asia when famine, disaster or wars occur – that is behind the millions of Muslims now living in Europe and being housed, etc at the native taxpayers’ expense. We are told we have a duty to help those worse off than ourselves, and this is the result: mass murder by Muslims who have no intention in integrating. And still the politicians want to follow the softly-softly path.

  19. somer
    Posted June 5, 2017 at 5:23 am | Permalink

    I really don’t envy the British the choice of parties/politicians on offer. Maybe the Libdems are better under Tim Farron and they are against secular schools, but they want to scrap the Prevent anti extremist program that Quilliam supports. Under Nick Clegg they were not supportive of the One Law for All anti-sharia courts campaign either. Maajid Nawaz was a member but in 2014 another Lib Dem member, Islamist Mo Shafiq made seriously threatening allegations against him for saying he was not offended by the Jesus and Mo cartoons but the Lib Dems admonished him rather than Shafiq! Likewise between Nahla Mahmoud and Salah al Bandah because “as a party we urge all candidates to be sensitive to cultural and religious feelings and to conduct debate without causing gratuitous or unnecessary offence”.

    And someone in the political establishment needs to stand up to creeping sharia powers in UK (the comments from muslims are an eye opener too)

  20. Posted June 5, 2017 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    The fact that these people are extremists is very worrying.

    A small increase in average religiosity means that people who were 5 standard deviations from the mean will become only 4.5 standard deviations from the mean.

    That will result in about a 10 fold increase in radical terrorism.

    Every hijab which moves the mean religosity will cause a correlated increase in extremism.

  21. Posted June 5, 2017 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    Any party which is not prepared to state that its values are better than those of a religion should not be voted for.

    Why should we vote for a party that won’t even defend its own values?

    • Tom
      Posted June 5, 2017 at 11:18 am | Permalink

      One consequence of today’s over the top attack by Mr Corbyn and the Guardian on Mrs May intending to divert blame from the terrorists amongst us, has been to finally end any lingering respect I had for either and decided my vote on Thursday
      The Met has the largest Police force in the country by far and both Mr Corbyn and the Guardian have not explained how any force can stop a van mounting the pavement or maniacs slashing about with knives.
      And if they believe that the police are somehow capable of detecting potential terrorists when the families and neighbours of these people seem incapable of noticing anything of the sort
      C&G should carefully explain how.

      • Eric Hayman
        Posted June 5, 2017 at 11:29 am | Permalink

        There was a saying during World War Two that despite all the fighters and anti-aircraft batteries “the bomber will always get through”. When the enemy living in the same country, same town, same road – even same block of flats or house – as the target, what hope is there of stopping Muslims mass murdering fellow citizens? What hope is there when Islam is still be treated as just another religion? When Muslims can go about with their identities partially or totally obscured and Sharia law councils are allowed to replace civil advice centres? And “hate preachers” are not arrested and imprisoned? The answer is very little.

  22. jrhs
    Posted June 5, 2017 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    Statistically, an extremely small percentage of Muslim population commits terrorist acts. Yet, given a person commits a terrorist act, there is more than a 70% chance that this person is a Muslim.

    So can we conclude that Islam causes or motivates or fuel (or whatnot) terrorist acts? I cannot seem to come up with a satisfactory answer to this question.

    • Eric Hayman
      Posted June 5, 2017 at 11:52 am | Permalink

      “So can we conclude that Islam causes or motivates or fuel (or whatnot) terrorist acts? I cannot seem to come up with a satisfactory answer to this question.”

      Do you have a copy of the Koran? If the answer is no then buy a copy, with an English translation. Then read these suras – verses:

      Koran (sura 5:51) Do not take Jews or Christians for friends. If you do, then Allah will consider you to be one of them.

      Koran (sura 8:12) I will strike terror into the hearts of the unbelievers so cut off their heads, cut off every fingertip of them.

      Koran (sura 8:39) Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.

      Koran (sura 9:5) Kill the nonbelievers wherever you find them.

      Koran (sura 9:6) Those who submit and convert to Islam will be treated well. (Those who don’t submit will be killed. See previous verse.)

      Koran (sura 9:12-14) Fight the disbelievers! Allah is on your side; he will give you victory.

      Read the above, and then can you say you do not know what makes Muslims kill non-Muslims and other Muslims?

      • jrhs
        Posted June 5, 2017 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

        So, what differentiate my Muslim friends (colleagues and students) from the terrorists?

        What motivates my friends to be kind and peace-loving? If I show you some Koran verses about peace and kindness, would that prove Islam has motivated or caused them to be peace-loving? That is, by your reasoning, Islam can motivate both peace and violence. Right?

        • Eric Hayman
          Posted June 6, 2017 at 2:25 am | Permalink

          Your “friends” are simply ignoring what is written in the Koran about the whole world being Muslim and any non-Muslim should be killed. Ask them why they are ignoring the suras that say just that.

          The Koran was written by a man who wanted power 1400 years ago. That is the simple truth. And those killing today are just in the same frame of mind.

          Making babies and children members of any religion should be seen as child abuse, and made illegal. But there is too much money and control involved in all religions for that to happen. Imagine making a baby a member of a political party at a week old, and making that membership compulsory for life.

          • Kev
            Posted June 6, 2017 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

            Old testament explicit incitement to genocide not as an option but as a direct order from God through Moses:

            “But of the cities of these peoples which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them—the Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite—just as the Lord your God has commanded you, lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God.”

            Any Abrahamic religion can quote this as a justification that God approves and even demands violence. There are many similar passages in the old testament.

            Christianity based only on the new testament may seem to incite peace, unfortunately its actual history as practiced is in contradiction somewhat.

  23. Posted June 5, 2017 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    Another argument from authority on the islamism/islam distiction. Tilman Nagel, professor emeritus, and author of standard works on Islam considers this distinction as meaningless, stating (Nagel, 2005, my translation):

    Islam and Islamism cannot be separated as long as Quran and Sunna are seen as absolute truth

    He points out that Islamism essentially means Orthodox Islam, and that Islam is by default orthodox and fundamentalist, with the exception of the Mu’tazila. Unlike Christianity, Islam isn’t conceived to complement a (secular) state, and is from the outset about domination of other groups.

    Another criticism against “Islamism” is that various individuals or groups under that umbrella are not similar enough, i.e. there are not two different takes on Islam, one radical, one less so. There is one Islam, with a multitude of traditions, and interpretations, where some are more radical and totalitarian than others, but where even the extremists do not converge on the same “Islamism” or “Jihadism”.

    • Kev
      Posted June 6, 2017 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

      “Unlike Christianity, Islam isn’t conceived to complement a (secular) state, and is from the outset about domination of other groups.”

      Christianity has survived because it was the official state religion of the Roman Empire. During much of its history, open non-adherence was not tolerated.
      The Roman intention was definitely about domination of other groups.
      Much of the territorial and political bickering in European history has religion as part of the powerplay.
      My view is that religion is not the actual determinator, it serves as a tribal identifier for the teritorial and political interests of the group concerned. Take the religion out and those issues will still be there.

      • Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

        It can go any direction, and probably even in several ways at once. Otherwise you cannot explain why conflicts often, but not always, converge towards religious factions at conflict with each other.

        Religion, culture, and group-thinking complete bleed into one another, and all of this leaves a fuzzy mental landscape in each person. Every direction is not only possible, but it seems as if there is no pattern at all. Sometimes believers engage in self-serving cherrypicking and motivated reasoning. Another time they seem to prefer a self-destructive, self-punishing interpretation. What exactly controls the direction (inwards, accepting inconvenience from outside vs outwards, self-serving benefits inform cultural-religious interpretation) is pretty much unknown as far as I know.

        But in the kind of simplified view we all have, looking for “causes” (which might be illusion), there is no rhyme or reason with religion, or culture. Take religion away and the “same” factions would not emerge, but this would be the case for any major change you’d make.

        Bottom line, there are plenty of examples where religion is slave to other concerns, and many others, where it is the master as well. Sometimes other concerns trigger, but religion gives meaning, and direction to the conflict, and vice versa.

        It might be that the cognitive-socio-culture interdependencies are far, far, too complex to understand what is going on in a simple cause-and-effect kind of way. I thus believe that it never is “just” religion, not even the jihad, nor do I believe that religion (or convictions) play never a role — of course they do. Every model or approach invariably says more about the model-inventor than the subject.

        • Tim Harris
          Posted June 7, 2017 at 8:59 am | Permalink

          Well said.

  24. Posted June 6, 2017 at 6:17 am | Permalink

    Reblogged this on The Logical Place.

One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […] via HuffPo ignores Islam in report on three British terror attacks — Why Evolution Is True […]

%d bloggers like this: