NY Times Finally Admits That Islamic Terrorists Are Islamic

Now that Mr. Obama isn’t in office making pronouncements that Islamic terrorists aren’t Muslims, despite the Islamic terrorists stating they are Muslims, the Times is free to call Islamic terrorists Islamic

Terror in Barcelona

There are always many questions after a terrorist attack, some never to be answered. Why a promenade in Barcelona and the seaside town of Cambrils? Why now? Were the terrorists compelled to act hastily after a more insidious plot collapsed when a bomb they were making in a nearby town exploded prematurely on Wednesday?

Why? Terror. As pushed by the Koran, the Islamic schools, and the mosques. The Washington Post is running an article which describes how the 12 young men were radicalized by a visiting cleric, who was preaching the extremist view of Islam

But the hard truth is that there is no sure defense against young men filled with resentment and fired up with the lethal propaganda of militant Islam, especially as they turn to rudimentary weapons like the vehicles in Barcelona and Cambrils, or before that in Nice; the Christmas market in Berlin; Westminster Bridge in London; or Drottninggatan, a major pedestrian street in Stockholm.

It’s not the young men that should be focused on: it’s the ones who are teaching the radical views, the views that women are second class citizens, that slavery is A-OK, that women can be whipped for being raped, that gays can be thrown from buildings, that going on jihad will earn them 72 virgins. Now, wait for this one

Though the Islamic State claimed responsibility, it does not require a global network or intricate training to drive a van into a crowd. Just blind hatred. So we know there will be more attacks, more shaky images of people fleeing and screaming, more candles burning on bloodstained sidewalks so long as terrorist organizations like the Islamic State or Al Qaeda continue to spread their murderous blend of religious extremism, victimhood, vengeance and violence among disaffected youths.

I just have to wonder if the entire NYTEB was replaced, or if someone slipped this into the paper in place of something else, because this is nothing like what we’ve seen from them since 9/11, and especially during the Obama years. Perhaps they’re finally coming around to the notion that assigning blame to this part of Islam doesn’t mean that the entire religion is to blame? Perhaps they’re finally shaking off the fog and realizing that extremist Islam is growing larger every year, and that it’s not going to magically disappear by wishing it away?

Give the Times a hand for joining us in reality, though, it probably won’t last long.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

25 Responses to “NY Times Finally Admits That Islamic Terrorists Are Islamic”

  1. Jeffery says:

    So what’s your point? Are YOU finally admitting that not all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers? Anyway, one doesn’t have to be a Google expert to find NYT articles discussing “militant Islam” and “Islamic terrorists”. This is a straw man so that you can declare victory.

    We’ve noticed you often referring to memes that are untrue, e.g., did you ever straighten out your ignorance on the BLM Manifesto?

    And racist and violent American neo-Nazis, Klansmen and white supremacists practice a form of militant christianity. The white supremacist who drove his car into a crowd in Charlottesville was a christian terrorist.

  2. Dana says:

    Must’ve been a low-level intern; the professional staff were away for the weekend, perhaps traveling to see the total eclipse. Not to worry, his internship will be revoked come Tuesday, when the professional staff return.

    Can he get unemployment compensation for being fired from an internship?

  3. drowningpuppies says:

    How long do you think it will take for the NYT to admit that there was no Russian “hacking” of the DNC server last year?

    There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

    • Zachriel says:

      As already pointed out to you on another forum, there are a variety of reasons to discount the anonymous report, if only because there is evidence that the hack occurred before July 5, as Julian Assange had announced he had “upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton” before July 5.

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Y’all never actually addressed the July 5th intrusion of the DC server described and proven in the Nation article.
        Stop lying.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          The FBI has never examined the DNC’s computer servers—an omission that is beyond preposterous. It has instead relied on the reports produced by Crowdstrike, a firm that drips with conflicting interests well beyond the fact that it is in the DNC’s employ.
          ………….
          CrowdStrike argues that by July 5 all malware had been removed from the DNC’s computers. But the presence or absence of malware by that time is entirely immaterial, because the event of July 5 is proven to have been a leak and not a hack. Given that malware has nothing to do with leaks, CrowdStrike’s logic appears to be circular.

          Much like yours, kidz.

          https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

          • Zachriel says:

            In June 2016, Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, claimed to have “upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton”. In late July, WikiLeaks released emails from the DNC, which only included emails up to May. That is evidence that the hacks occurred before July.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Still not addressing the July 5th intrusion of the DNC server described and forensically proven in the Nation article.
            Like Crowdstrike your logic is circular and somewhat dishonest.
            Keep tap dancing around the facts, kiddiez…

          • david7134 says:

            z,
            Let me explain some adult lesions. When you take a stupid, wrong position on a topic, such as this. Then all your brilliant discussions of stats in respect to climate shows you to be a liar in general. Give it up on Hillary and the Russians, Hillary will go to jail if we have a country left, the Russians did nothing.

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: Still not addressing the July 5th intrusion of the DNC server described and forensically proven in the Nation article.

            We directly addressed the claim.

            david7134,

            Instead of waving your hands, you may want to directly address the argument. Independent cyber-security experts reject the findings. The dates don’t line up, and the metadata may just indicate the files were copied more than once before release.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Independent cyber-security experts reject the findings.

            Cite your source.
            You’be been asked that several times and all you cited was the NYT article.

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: You’be been asked that several times and all you cited was the NYT article.

            That was presented as evidence that Assange had knowledge of the hacks before July 5.

            drowningpuppies: Cite your source.

            CrowdStrike

            ThreatConnect

            SecureWorks

            Fidelis Security

            U.S. Intelligence Community

          • Had too many links. Had to moderate. Hopefully they’re all there

  4. jl says:

    “And neo-Nazis, Klansmen and white supremacists practice a form of militant Christianity…” He says, again, without any proof.

  5. jl says:

    Some liberals didn’t get the memo-the key word to work into every conversation is “white supremacist”, not “the Russians” anymore. As before, no proof required.

  6. Jeffery says:

    tRump’s perfidy is multidimensional! He can run business scams and cooperate with the Russians, use the presidency to enrich his family AND defend neo-Nazis, the Klan and white supremacists!

    What a guy! What a leader! Fire AND Fury!! Fake News!!!

    He’ll be gone by Kwanzaa.

  7. jl says:

    And the militant form of Christianity would be…..what? About the same amount of “proof” he has for AGW. And nice try, J, but he didn’t defend Nazis, the Klan and white supremacists (still waiting for proof), he defended their right to march peacefully, which of course didn’t happene becease left wing thugs don’t seem to believe in the first Amendmemt.

  8. jl says:

    James Woods had a good tweet that sums up the intellecual capacity of liberals. “Climate climate climate wait. Russians Russians Russians wait. Nazis Nazis Nazis. More name-calling to follow

  9. Jeffery says:

    The militant form of x-tianity is what the Klan, neo-Nazis and white supremacists practice. Duh.

    • Dana says:

      Let’s see, the militant form of Islam kills innocent civilians, bombs airliners, beheads captives and throws homosexuals off of tall buildings; the militant form of Christianity carries firearms in a protest march, but doesn’t use them. To Jeffrey, the latter are somehow worse than he former.

      Then again, what can we expect from a guy so stupid highly educated that he can’t tell the difference between males and females?

      • Jeffery says:

        dnaa,

        We didn’t compare the two. Clearly militants Islamists have committed more vile acts the past couple of decades. You forgot to mention that a militant christian drove a car into a crowd, killing Heather Heyer.

        We are still stunned at the support tRump and his supporters show for neo-Nazis, white supremacists and Klansmen.

        Then again, what can we expect from a guy so stupid indoctrinated that he can’t tell the difference between Nazis and good people?

  10. jl says:

    So in other words, you gave no examples of their militancy in the name of Christianity from today’s world.

Bad Behavior has blocked 3541 access attempts in the last 7 days.