* The common denominator is Islam. That is the take home message. No Muslims, little or no terror. So let’s not waste time trying to figure out who among the Muslim population is likely to blow people to bits. Instead, focus on keeping them out of our countries and repatriating those who are already here back to their ancestral desert kingdoms. My God, we dropped an atomic bomb on a civilian population in Japan. How morally difficult would it be to send the Muslim population back home safely?
* I’m late to this thread but IMO this reporter is putting his very career on the line by writing consecutive paragraphs like this:
“When researchers do come up with possible answers, the government often disregards them. Not long after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, for instance, Alan B. Krueger, the Princeton economist, tested the widespread assumption that poverty was a key factor in the making of a terrorist. Mr. Krueger’s analysis of economic figures, polls, and data on suicide bombers and hate groups found no link between economic distress and terrorism.
More than a decade later, law enforcement officials and government-funded community groups still regard money problems as an indicator of radicalization.”
That is way way outside the box of NYT thinking, far beyond the pale of what is acceptable to progressives. They could dump him in a heartbeat for that alone, notwithstanding the protective camouflage of the rest of the article.
* Chris Patten, the chancellor of Oxford University, told students campaigning to remove the statue of Cecil Rhodes in January that they might like to “think about being educated elsewhere”.
Roger Scruton’s latest piece in the Spectator is in the same vein:
“To show real respect for our Muslim citizens is to hold them to the same standard as we hold ourselves. And to those who seem to reject that standard we should put the vital questions: do you wish to belong to a civilisation in which women are in the public arena on equal terms with men? Do you wish to live under a shared rule of law, with those whom some of you regard as infidels? And what does your faith tell you about women and how they should be treated? Those questions should have been asked a long time ago and our welcome should have depended on the answers. But that is no reason not to ask them now and respect for our Muslim fellow citizens surely demands that we do so.”
* Scruton has gone full cuck. There was a time when he used to at least hover around the edges of race realism. What’s wrong with saying we like our country the way it is, and don’t want people who will change it? Non-whites will always change it, even if they promise “to live under our shared rule of law”, etc. First it was Americans that bought into this proposition nation nonsense, but now Europeans are also denying that their heritage has anything to do with race.
* Now take a look at the readers top pick, and note 167 Facebook recommendations.
Mark B Toronto 1 day ago
This article clearly — and painfully —avoids the elephant in the room. To say that there are no clues to uncovering potential terrorists is completely disingenuous. We know who *not* to be worried about.
Should we be worried the Amish? Jains? 5-year-old Icelandic girls? No, no, and no.
Most terrorists today are jihadists. 100% of jihadists are Muslims who really believe in doctrines such as martyrdom and Paradise. Beliefs are what matter. Not education, wealth, nationality or skin color. Beliefs.
Is it really so difficult to be this intellectually honest?
