Is the Associated Press writer Ahmed Mohammed biased? Didn't mention Nigeria's Jos Muslims were settlers. Christian natives as discriminators. History began when Muslims got attacked. Floats politics, ethnicity & economics as causes of violence.

Words in block quote or squeezed in the middle are from the Associated Press story written by Ahmed Mohammed. NOTE: Associated Press writer Njadvara Musa in Maiduguri, Nigeria also contributed to the Associated Press story written by Ahmed Mohammed.

It was not immediately clear whether the Christmas Eve attacks had a religious motive. Two of the bombs went off near a large market where people were doing last-minute Christmas shopping. A third hit a mainly Christian area of Jos, while the fourth was near a road that leads to the city's main mosque.

The explosions came on the same day that members of a Muslim sect attacked two churches in the northern city of Maiduguri, killing at least six people. Police have not said whether they believe the bombings were related to the church attacks. The two areas are about 320 miles (520 kilometers) apart.

It is not clear that Christmas attacks had a religious motive?

Duh! Can't he take a hint? Can't he guess or at least suspect that it might have something to do with Islamic terrorism against Christians, given that Muslims, who are globally well know for terrorism are involved?

Playing DUMB?

This is typical. Those who have had experiences with Muslims or have read about them will instantly notice something like this.

Religious violence already has left more than 500 people dead this year in Jos and neighboring towns and villages, but the situation was believed to have calmed down before the weekend bombings. The explosions Friday were the first major attack in Jos since the state government lifted a curfew in May.

Minimizing? (Down-playing?)

The figure of 500 is lower than the 1500 that local rights groups claim, according to AFP.

Ahmed may be using different sources but everyone should be alert for both Muslim and non-Muslim minimizers, who likes to cover-up, or down-play Islamic terrorism, while magnifying even minor problems that Muslims face.

The curfew had first been imposed in November 2008 during postelection violence but it was extended in January following clashes between Christian and Muslim groups. More than 300 people — mostly Muslims — were killed in the January violence in Jos and surrounding villages.

Delusion of persecution?

Many Muslims (Don't know about Ahmed here but this is typical and so something which has to be watched out for) have distorted views of life and the world (see WikiLeaks US' UK embassy cable) and believe in conspiracy theories (Even the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan according to WikiLeaks).

They also suffer from delusion of persecution ('Islam is under attack'. See Somalis convicted of terrorism in Australia for the latest case) and so would be happy to mention or hear that "mostly Muslims" were killed in January violence, as it reinforces their delusion.

The other issue is the micro-context or narrow view or time frame, that Islamic terror apologists and delusion of persecution suffers have.

For them, history began when Muslims got attacked and lost or suffered damage. The usual tired example is the Crusades. Muslims and ant-Christian haters like to complain and demonize Christians for the Crusades. For them history began when Christians launched the crusades and ended when the crusaders were defeated.

They completely ignore the time before the crusades, when Muslims, starting with Muhammad himself, attacked Christians and non-Christians unceasingly for centuries and conquered their lands to create the Islamic empire.

They also ignore the Muslim attacks after the crusades that only stopped when they were too weak for more jihads.

The situation is also the same here in Nigeria. They like to magnify the fact that Muslims on this one occasion in January suffered more causalities (after provoking it by going and butchering Christians with terror attacks in the first place?), while ignoring the time before and after that, when Muslims (not all 100 per cent of them of course), who are well know globally for barbaric terrorism, committed far worse atrocities against Christians and probably animists too.

Nigeria, a country of 150 million people, is almost evenly split between Muslims in the north and the predominantly Christian south. The blasts happened in central Nigeria, in the nation's "middle belt," where dozens of ethnic groups vie for control of fertile lands.

Ethnicity-card? (Because Islam and being Muslims have nothing to do with it.)

Can't use race-card because they are all Blacks so try ethnicity-card?

The anything-but-Islam-or-Muslims explanation for anything bad. In this case ethnicity appears to be the scape goat used by the Muslims.

If there is something good then Islam and Muslims would get credit for it. Only the bad stuff gets explained away, excused and blamed on something else.

Ahmed also failed to mention (he forgot?) that Christians are the native indigenous people and that Muslims are the settlers. (Look at what Muslims terrorists do to the alleged Jewish Israeli settlers for comparison, even though Arabs are the real settlers from Arabia.)

The violence, though fractured across religious lines, often has more to do with local politics, economics and rights to grazing lands. The government of Plateau state, where Jos is the capital, is controlled by Christian politicians who have blocked Muslims from being legally recognized as citizens. That has locked many out of prized government jobs in a region where the tourism industry and tin mining have collapsed in the last decades.

Socio-economic excuses?

Local-politics, economics and rights to grazing lands are the scape goats here while Christians are demonized by Muslims for what is essentially a different position on immigration policy.

Muslims, who are legal citizens or born and raised in Western countries, with education, money, wife or wives, children, career and so on still chose to become terrorists and attack the same countries that foolishly offered them so much, thinking naively that such bribery and appeasement would work. The attempted underwear plane bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian, wasn't a poor disadvantaged kid.

So those socio-economic excuses are easily refuted. The fact is that Islamic terrorists always have an excuse for terrorism. Take away their alleged excuse and there will always be something else. So don't bother.

Even if Muslims suffer some discrimination, this is no excuse for terrorism. Non-Muslims suffer much worse discrimination and terrorism from Muslims and yet they do not resort to terrorism (or if they they it is minor both in terms of number and savagery).

Also, if Muslim settlers are clashing with local Christians and animists, and bombing and hacking them with machetes to death, would it not be wise to be careful about appointing those Muslims settlers into influential positions (see infiltration) or granting them citizenship en-mass (see treachery by Muslim citizens. Not saying all. That would be too easy.)? Remember Kosovo and also think of Eurabia.

---

Source: AP

---

Comments: Remember, WikiLeaks US embassy in UK cable said that the media incites and excuses Islamic terrorism.

Could the same thing be happening with the Associated Press?

Who are the Associated Press editors approving these stores that Ahmed is writing? What are their political-religious affiliations? Atheists liberal left?

Just the other day, another Associated Press writer Jon Gambrell wrote a story about the Nigerian Boko Haram terrorists that included poverty-excuse for them, given by Murray Last, a professor emeritus of anthropology at the University College of London.

What is going on at the Associated Press headquarters?

---

Some previous similar or related stories:

Incoming US Homeland Security Committee chair Peter King condemns PC, media terror apologetics, Muslims acquiesce-ignoring terror, conspiracy theories, double standards & treachery

WikiLeaked UK cable: Distorted Muslim view of life-world, blame game, double speak, 'moral equivalence' and, left-wing and media incite-excuse terrorism [Muslim delusions and media inciting and excusing terror.]

At least 38 dead, 74 injured in Nigeria Christmas terror attacks on Christians in Jos by Muslim settlers, Baptist pastor and 2 young men practicing choir killed, church burnt by Boko Haram, 1500 dead this year from clashes

Muslims with machetes kill 6 Christians - 2 women & 4 children - burn homes, crops and kill cattle in Nigerian

Brief Boko Haram history and ['Islam has nothing to do with it' so there must be] a 'poverty excuse' for their terrorism (many allegedly sympathized with previous Maitatsine extremists) [Excuses and blame games]

Deadly dysfunctional Muslim culture, past, present, future, and why democracy and modernization fail [Blame game throughout history.]

ISLAMIC TERROR 101: A case study in race-card, victim-card, blaming victims & isolated explanations, using UK 'anti-terror' police John Larkin [Blame game with different cards]

Multiculturalism utterly failed in Germany, say German Chancellor Merkel [Muslims do worse compared to others.]

WikiLeaked US embassy UK cable: Muslims most unemployed and disabled, some supports killing for Islam, and apostates (6 percent)

For similar or related stories posted after this article (if any), copy the title of this article and paste it in the search box on top of the page and click search or click on the 'Lables' below.

Abdel Kareem Nabil (aka Kareem Amer), the first Egyptian blogger jailed for criticizing Islam, al-Azhar and the government freed after a 4yrs sentence

Abdel Kareem Nabil, 26,² who wrote under the name Kareem Amer, was the first Egyptian blogger jailed specifically for his writings as part of a crackdown and to serve as a warning to others.¹

In his writings, Nabil called President Hosni Mubarak "a symbol of tyranny"¹ and Al-Azhar

"the university of terrorism," the "other face of the coin of al-Qaida" that "stuffs its students' brains and turns them into human beasts ... teaching them that there is not place for differences in this life."¹

For expressing his opinions online, Babil was expelled from the state-run religious al-Azhar University² where he was studying law¹ and arrested in 2006.²

The judge at his trial said that he also insulted Islam by writing in an article that

Muhammad and his seventh century followers were "spillers of blood" for their teachings on warfare.¹

The article was written after Muslims rioted and attacked an Egyptian Coptic Christian church in 2005 over a play deemed offensive to Islam.¹ He also wrote in it that

"Muslims revealed their true ugly face and appeared to all the world that they are full of brutality, barbarism and inhumanity."¹

 In a later article not cited by the court, Nabil clarified his comments on Muhammad saying he was "great" and that he should be viewed in the context of the seventh century.¹

After his release, he said that he has no regrets and would not be deterred from future activism.²

Gamal Eid, head of Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI) which had supported Nabil said,²

"We defend opinions regardless of whether we agree or disagree with them."²

"We would [also] protect (religious) extremists' right of freedom of expression on condition that their thoughts remain thoughts and are not coupled with implementation,"²

Sources: 1. AP, 2. Reuters


Comment:

Gamal Eid is not entirely correct by supporting the religious extremists here. He has made the usual 'moral equivalence' error.

Those who argue for freedom to criticize oppression and repression are not equivalent to the Islamists who abuse freedom of expression in order to destroy it. Unlike others, Islamists want freedom only for themselves and are using freedom in order to deny others their freedom.

Freedom comes with the proviso that it be not used against freedom. Using freedom to destroy freedom is a perversion of freedom. Freedom is not meant for such purposes and therefore can and must rightly be denied to those who abuses it.

As Abraham Lincoln said

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.

Islamists wish to deny others freedom and so they do not deserve any and so should not have any.

Nabil also went to far in trying to excuse Muhammad with the usual 'out of context' explanation. The quick reply to it is that if one looks at all of what Muhammad did, a lot of his actions are inexcusable even by the contexts and standards of the seventh century or even the stone age. And if each individual cases are looked at closely, the excuses given for the violence and extremism of Muhammad can also be questioned. 

Like Nabil, Walid Husayin, who is now in custody facing a possible life sentence, recently said

Allah has attributes of a "primitive Bedouin."

and called Islam a "blind faith that grows and takes over people's minds where there is irrationality and ignorance."

The fact that even supposedly secular and 'moderate' Muslim governments in Egypt, the Palestinian West Bank ( Walid Husayin facing life in prison for blasphemy) and Pakistan (Asia Bibi's death sentence for alleged blasphemy) are like this shows that depth of Islamic problem despite politically correct lies.

It is also ironic that while Human Rights activists in Muslim countries like Egypt are calling for freedom of expression, the politically correct elites in the West are trying so hard to bring in blasphemy laws, disguised as 'hate speech' and 'Islamophobia', to censor, silence and punish any criticism of Islam or Muslims and turn it into a taboo.


Some previous similar or related stories:

Ex-Muslim Atheist Palestinian, Walid Husayin, facing life sentence for “insulting” Islam as some call for his death for apostasy

Death sentence for Christian woman Asia Bibi, accused of blasphemy in Pakistan

Finally some PROOF: German studies find religious and cultural roots to Muslim propensity to violence, PC excuses can't explain all – like so DUH!!!

Muslims angry Coptic Bishop Bishoy said they were guests in Egypt and questioned Koran 5:7

Muslims burn Christian homes in the Egyptian village of Nawahid over rumors of relationship between a young Christian and Muslim girl

For similar or related stories posted after this article, copy the title of this article and paste it in the search box on top of the page and click search.

For even more similar or related stories, click on the 'Labels' below.

ISLAMIC TERROR 101: A case study in race-card, victim-card, blaming victims & isolated explanations, using UK 'anti-terror' police John Larkin

Detective Superintendent John Larkin of the West Midlands counter-terrorism unit told BBC Radio 5 Live that²

In some areas, we have evidence that once they have gone and the high-profile policing of the event has occurred, there's fertile ground for those groups who would come in to encourage people to have this reality - this is the way white Western society sees us¹

And that's a potential recruiting carrot for people and that's what some of these radicalisers look for - they look for the vulnerability, for the hook to pull people through and when the EDL have been and done what they've done, they perversely leave that behind.¹

 He also claimed that [The following is not a direct quote by him but only as reported in the Daily Mail]

there is evidence that violence or damage towards Muslim property associated with the protests encourages extremist retaliation afterwards² 

 The English Defence League (EDL) was formed last year after Islamists protested against British soldiers returning from tour of duty, calling them “murderers” and “rapists.”³

 They have carried out numerous anti-extremism demonstrations, some of which have

often turned violent with clashes breaking out not so much between the EDL and Islamists, but with the left-wing group Unite Against Fascism (of which Prime Minister David Cameron is a supporter).³

 Nick Lowles, from the anti-racist group Searchlight told the Guardian that

"For the [Muslims Against Crusades] the presence and activities of the EDL prove how white British society is the enemy. For the EDL the Islamist extremists are proof of the violent nature of Islam. They are two sides of the same coin of hate."⁴

 In reply to Larkin, EDL leader Tommy Robinson sarcastically said that they could not have been responsible for all of 9-11, 7-7 attacks on London, the 17,000 terror attacks since 9-11 and “1,400 years of history, where Islam's been at war with non-Islam.”^1,3

 He explained that,

The root cause of the problem is the Koran, it's Islam and no one has got the balls to admit it and say it and talk about it. We will.³

The problem is when someone takes a 7th century book and tries to implement it in its barbaric way.³ [Emphasis and hyperlinks added]

Sources: 1. BBC, 2. Daily Mail (U.K.), 3. International Business Times 4. The Guradian (U.K.)


Analysis: Larkin engaged in the now well know 'blame game' and used 'race card' - "this is the way white Western society sees us" - and 'victim card' - "violence or damage towards Muslim property" - as an excuse for terrorism. He also made a 'blame the victim' argument by blaming victims of terrorism speaking out in protest and calling for action as causing terrorism.

 Non-Muslim White Britain can not however use the exact same reasoning and use the race card - 'this is the way Muslim Arabs, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians sees us' - or - victim card -'brutal and sadistic terrorism against civilians, including women and children' to justify even mere protests.

 This shows that Muslims can be angry and aggrieved for even minor issues, but non-Muslim victims can not feel the same way for deadly major issues like the murder of civilians by terrorists. It is a typical double standard that privileges Islamic supremacists and deny non-Muslims the same rights.

 It is good to see that Robinson seems to have recognized the 'isolation' or limited 'context' strategy that tries to portray each cases of terror on it's own and isolated in a narrow limited micro-context, like the protests. He made an excellent counter reply by showing the 1,400 year long trend of Islam in the macro-context.

 The problem of Islamic terrorisms is not isolated or related to this or that particular issue. Instead, it is part of a bigger picture. Out-of-context and localized explanations fail to consider this fact.

 As it had been argued before in a previous article here, such explanations can be challenged at the micro level. But they can also be challenged by showing macro-level trend where there will be violence and conflict but for different reasons.

 Race and the West can be eliminated to show that terrorism exists even then. The clashes in Nigeria have nothing to do with race as both the Christians and Muslims there are Blacks. The persecution of Christians in Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan or Indonesia by Muslims have nothing to do with the White race or the West. It is also the same for Muslim on Muslim violence all over the world as well.

 In the 'victim-card' case, Christians victims in those countries mentioned before are suffering from daily violence, discrimination or terrorism from Muslims. Yet they do not become radicalized or extreme and join terror groups – since there are none to join.

 This shows the fallacy of the 'race card' and the 'victim card' explanations.

 Take away race and you will still see Muslims fighting other Muslims or non-Muslims of the same race. Look at non-Muslims victims of Muslim persecution and you won't see them using it as an excuse for terrorism like the Muslims do.

 This quote by Walter Rodgers from a previous article posted here illustrates the point clearly.

Bernard Lewis, the renowned Princeton scholar of Islam, has called attention to the Arab tendency to play “the blame game.”[Emphasis added]

He notes Arabs traditionally blamed the Mongols, the Ottoman Turks, the colonial powers, and now the Jews and the Americans for everything that has gone awry

 As for Lowles, he made the tired old 'moral equivalence' argument that equates the victim with the perpetrator. It is an improvement on 'blame-the-victim' argument from Larkin but is still false.

 Even if EDL and their opposition are the same as he claims, the Islamic extremists started it all and caused the formation of EDL. He confuses cause with effect. The effect will disappear once the cause of it is eliminated.

 If there was no Islamic extremism, there would be no EDL. But if there was no EDL, there would still be Islamic extremism. It was already there before the formation of EDL and it exists in other places where there is no EDL.

 Finally, if Larkin is concerned about violence at demonstrations, he should also focus his attention on the left wing pro-Islamic extremists who contribute to it. And of course even if the protests were entirely peaceful, there would still be Islamic extremism as he well knows.

 Larkin may modify his argument and say that EDL and other anti-Islamic extremists do not cause extremism but make the situation worse.

 But even then, free speech and the right to protest should not be sacrificed to appease extremists. Instead, Muslims should learn and accept that in a free and open society, people have the right to challenge and criticize them. There is no place for Sharia blasphemy death penalty laws or hypersensitivity that gets offended by everything and quickly turns to terrorism.

PS: There is no need to agree with EDL's actions for the arguments made here to be valid. Even if EDL was wrong, the arguments here against excuses for terrorism would still hold.


Related story: EDL Leister protest, stones bricks thrown at them, Rabbi will join next protest

Similar stories:

ISLAM 101: A must read article by Bob Siegel refuting tired old politically correct myths about Islam - Share it!

(Bad) Muslim psychology: The blame game

Deadly dysfunctional Muslim culture, past, present, future, and why democracy and modernization fail