Posted on 02/15/2007 11:28:06 AM PST by Mobile Vulgus
I have been watching the "reportage" on the regrettable incident of a teenaged killer's rampage in a Utah shopping mall with mounting interest. In nearly every story of this crime the fact that this youngster is from a Muslim background is either muted or ignored altogether.
The AP, for instance, avoids identifying the boy as a Muslim in all their stories that I saw. In one, they merely identify the region in Bosnia in which he lived as the "northeastern enclave where up to 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered in 1995" but do not even speculate as to the boy or his family being Muslims. It is all rather dutifully avoided. In another story, the AP doesn't even use the word Muslim at all.
Even in the local press, like the Utah Desert News, the issue of his background is ignored or made entirely incidental. The Desert News, in fact, makes just one mention that the "family are Muslims from Bosnia who had lived in the vicinity of Sarajevo" in a rather lengthy and otherwise complete story of the incident.
Worse, the New York Times is making the wild assumption that it is "Bosnian immigrants", not the rest of America, that should be afraid for their lives in theirs titled "Anti-Bosnian Backlash Feared in Utah".
In the Times' story the Muslin issue is given scant notice and the focus is put on how we ignorant Americans are sure to start beating up "Bosnians" right and left. The word Muslim seems to have been replaced rather ridiculously with "Bosnian", as if Americans will seek out "Bosnians" upon which to take out their anger instead of Muslims. The fact is, though, "Bosnians" do not loom as the enemy in the minds of Americans, but Muslims do. How many Americans would instantly become wary if someone were to tell them they are "Bosnian"?
In the Times' story the word Muslim is used exactly once:
The number of Bosnian refugees in the Salt Lake City area has been estimated to be 3,000 to 7,000, most of them Muslims fleeing violence by Serbs in the early 1990s.So, the Times seems to feel regular Americans are the threat not rampaging Muslims. And, even if this boy was not a practicing Muslim, something we do not know as a factor because of the current deficient state of reporting, the fact that he is from a Muslim family is quite germane to the story.
I would find it perfectly reasonable to include in these stories language that could benignly bring up the issue without fanning the flames of anti-Muslim sentiment. It would not be beyond reasonability to say something such as "It is not known if the boy's Muslim background is a factor in his rampage", or some such rhetoric.
But to wholly ignore the issue seems rather un-journalistic, wouldn't you say? It would also seem to be out of character for the MSM in the normal scheme of things.
The 18 year-old killer, Sulejmen Talovic, was driven from his home with his Mother at four, he lived in the aforementioned refugee camp until he was about 9 and then he moved to the USA with his family in 1998. He was thought to be a "loner" with no friends, but wasn't thought of as a trouble maker, being generally a quiet youngster.
That all ended this week with his murderous trip to the mall.
Of course, it isn't possible with what is known to say that his Muslim background directly led to this rampage, or that it was a result of religious extremism. It is wholly possible that this kid was so mentally traumatized by his young life in a war zone that he snapped.
But, here are some interesting facts. The USA is the good guy in the story of Bosnia's Muslims. In fact, Bosnian Muslims today are one of the few Muslim communities who have thus far violently opposed the kind of religious hatred funded by the Saudis with their exportation of Wahhabism and one of the few that are vehemently pro-American because of the advocacy the US offered them in the efforts to stop Slabodon Milosevic's campaigns of ethnic cleansing.
So, it seems somewhat unlikely that he learned any hatred of the USA from his familial traditions.
But the boy is still a Muslim and he wouldn't be the only one to stray from his family's traditions and ideals to take on a radical ideology.
So we are left with at least two possibilities as to the boy's motives.
The question is, why is his Muslim background being completely ignored?
Is it just a question of not knowing the facts and the MSM doesn't want to speculate? This would be a hard thing to believe since speculation is one of their favorite games. Remember how Timothy McVeigh was immediately called a Christian, a White Separatist, or that he was part of a militia, etc.? There was little waiting for facts to emerge with McVeigh. Another incident that showed the MSM's willingness to run with any point no matter if it is proven or not was the Richard Jewel bombing story. That poor guy was so hounded by the MSM that it ruined his life as he was convicted in the press before anything was ascertained.
So, are we to believe that the MSM suddenly got a conscience and decided to go cautious on this boy's Muslim background?
It's doubtful!
But as to the MSM's real motive on this one... well, I'll leave that to each of you.
Listen to the sound on the mall video for yourself and decide.
Sure sounds like the kid yelled "allu akbar" several times when the cops confronted him, but the tape is poor quality and there are lots of echoes.
But, but, but...don't you understand? If they just gave you the facts you might think or do something they don't like!
Doesn't that make sense to you? /s
From another thread:
A video has become available, taken by someone hiding in a gift shop:
http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_044000331.html
A bit past midway through, does anyone else hear what sounds like "Allah-hu akbar! Allah-hu akbar!" - just after one of the cops shouts "Police"?
That's the problem. Muslims DO belong to a group that advocates violence - Islam. The prevalence of the jihadi teachings in Islam, and the absence of meaningful and widespread denouncement therein, make the lack of individual statement of intent meaningful.
Lack of absolute knowledge does not preclude one from acknowledging plausibilities.
Because Muslims have a codified doctrine on the use of violence for the purpose of extending their influence and Christians and Jews do not. Your question is as self-refuting as asking why we should legitimate businessmen and racketeers be held to different standards.
If islam were not a religion, what would you call those who practice it?
Yes, but there's always a lot of selectivity in fact-reporting. The Columbine killers were most likely from families that were at least nominally either Christian or Jewish, but I don't recall the MSM specifying their religious background in regular reports (in-depth article like NYT magazine features, etc., probably did). In that light, I find it hard to see an MSM conspiracy to minimize the threat of extremist Islam, in the fact that few articles about this incident mention the family's religion.
Studying to become a mullah.
This is a statement that is so fuzzy it can neither be proven nor refuted, therefore it has no legitimate purpose except to "spin" in the direction that is favorable to your thesis.
The Columbine killers were most likely from families that were at least nominally either Christian or Jewish, but I don't recall the MSM specifying their religious background in regular reports (in-depth article like NYT magazine features, etc., probably did). In that light, I find it hard to see an MSM conspiracy to minimize the threat of extremist Islam...
But let's examine that "light."
It is the assumption that Islam is, in some sense, interchangable with Christianity and Judaism. This is an assumption in need of support.
There are certain extremist groups with Christianity and Judaism that have codified their endorsement of violence to achieve their theologically driven objectives. At this particular point in history, those are quite small subsets of those larger religious traditions, but Christianity in particular once had a widespread devotion to violence as a means of extending its influence. Islam can change too, but we can help or hinder the pace of that change, by our choices in how we treat moderate and liberal Muslims -- the more we alienate the moderates and liberals, the more susceptible they become to the welcoming advances of the extremists. Personally, I don't want to help the extremists in any way.
Until we know more about this particular family and young man, I think it's important to keep in mind that "Muslim" is just the default religious identity of the entire Bosnian ethnic group, and the fact that a Bosnian identifies him/herself as "Muslim" when asked what his/her religious affiliation is, doesn't imply any serious level of belief in the teachings of the Bosnian brand of Islam (which is a notably non-extremism-prone brand to begin with). It's sort of like asking a native Englishman what religion he is -- if he doesn't give a whit one way or the other about religion, and hasn't been to church in years except to attend a few weddings and funerals of friends and relatives, he'll generally say "Anglican" -- but trying to make a connection between Anglican theology and any particular acts of this individual (good or bad) would be groundless.
That's good. You are on to something....
No, there are not. I can claim to be a major league ball player but my claim has nothing to do with professional baseball.
Islam can not divorce itself from violence without becoming something else. Christianity used violence in spite of it's universally accepted doctrines, not because of them. "Moderate" muslims can't denounce the extremists because they don't have a doctrinal leg to stand on.
Great list.
Note the CNN (i.e. MSM) article at this link http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1785542/posts?page=1 which mentions the Serbian massacre of thousands of Bosnian Muslims, while neglecting to mention that the Serbs are Christians.
Would it be groundless to entertain the idea a man may be Catholic if he makes the sign of the cross before and after short periods of silence?
Were they or weren't they? That is a provable/disprovable assertion, and I think I would have researched it further before making any statement about its probability if I were you.
In addition, I would like to see some compelling evidence for your earlier claim that most murderers are from "at least nominally" (nice wiggle room) Christian families.
And that is not sympathetic to muslims because...?
Never mind the "thousands" is under dispute.
It is concealing the involvement of Christians in heinous crimes, just as many of you are claiming the MSM is concealing the fact that the teenage shooter in Utah was a Muslim.
you are not answering the question that I asked.
well said
The Columbine killers were an anomaly.
These Muslim boys are a dime a dozen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.