Sri Lanka massacre: the victims who must not be named, the likely perpetrators who must not be named
Any specific news that actually exists regarding the perpetrators of the deadly Easter Day bombings in Sri Lanka points here:
The government has blamed a little-known local jihadist group, National Thowheed Jamath, although no-one has yet admitted carrying out the bombings…
Late on Sunday, Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said security services had been “aware of information” of possible attacks but that the information had not been acted upon.
A local Islamist group known as National Thowheed Jamath is believed to be behind the attack, said cabinet spokeman Rajitha Senaratne…
Sri Lankan authorities were warned about a bomb threat from National Thowheed Jamath a full two weeks before the attacks, cabinet spokesman Rajitha Senaratne said at a press conference.
He said that the warnings were not passed on to the Prime Minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, or his cabinet. Mr Wickremesinghe acknowledged that security services had been “aware of information” but had not acted on the information.
Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando told the BBC that the intelligence “never indicated it was going to be an attack of this magnitude”.
“They were talking about isolated, one or two incidents. Not like this,” he said.
He said “all important departments of the police” were informed about the warning, but acknowledged that no action was taken.
Mr Senaratne said that authorities believed the bombers had international support. “We do not believe these attacks were carried out by a group of people who were confined to this country,” he said, adding: “There was an international network without which these attacks could not have succeeded.”
That’s what we know so far. It’s not definitive, of course, and subsequent reports may change something, but everything—the history of attacks such as this, the logic of attacks such as this, and the specific background of this particular attack—points to the likelihood of a radical Islamicist group as perpetrators.
But press coverage of two facts about the bombings—the religious group identity of many victims (Christian) and probable radical religious group identity of perpetrators (radical Islamicist)—is strangely muted, filled with hemmings and hawings and delays and omissions, as well as insertions of distracting irrelevancies. It is at least somewhat understandable if the probable Islamicist perpetrator angle isn’t played up much—after all, the actual perpetrators are still unknown. But the church victims are not unknown: they were Christians worshiping on Easter Day, the holiest day of the Christian calendar.
And yet much of the media has been reluctant to use the obvious and appropriate word “Christians,” substituting the rather odd circumlocution “Easter worshippers.” As Sarah Hoyt points out at PJ Media:
Baldilocks might be absolutely right when she thinks they’re avoiding pronouncing the word “Christian” because there’s power in the word “Christ.”
On the other hand, for those of a less mystical disposition, it’s easier to believe they’re trying to avoid saying the word “Christian” for the same reason they’re not naming the religion of the attackers — because their idea of citizens are mushrooms who are kept in the dark and fed… er… the end product of digestion.
The title of that Hoyt post is “Shhh… Someone Did Something to ‘Easter Worshippers’ in Sri Lanka.” It’s hard to avoid the idea that the MSM has taken Ilhan Omar’s now-famous formulation about 9/11, “some people did something,” as a good guide to media coverage of all Islamicist terrorism.
Several commenters also called my attention to this column by Mark Steyn entitled “Taqiyya for Easter,” in which Steyn writes:
…[T]hroughout Sunday the UK, Aussie, Danish and the rest of the world’s media saw their job as thorough obfuscation of the truth. I heard about yesterday’s attack from the BBC, which had extensive rolling coverage with correspondents on the ground – and yet seemed mainly to be trying to tell us as little as possible. A lady think-tanker from Chatham House was keen to focus on the brutality with which the Sri Lankan government had ended the Tamil insurgency a decade ago: a fascinating topic no doubt, but utterly irrelevant to the mound of Christian corpses in Colombo that morning. In the entire hour, hers was the only mention of Islam – when she cautioned that it would be grossly irresponsible and “Islam-phobic” even to bring up the subject.
…As one of our Oz Steyn Club members, Kate Smyth, put it, the media have advanced from dhimmitude to full-blown taqiyya.
The lights are going out on the most basic of journalistic instincts: Who, what, when, where, why. All are subordinate to the Narrative – or Official Lie.
Those lights went out quite some time ago, actually.
As many are probably aware, the President tweeted “138 million”, causing the media “fact checkers” to instantaneously huff and puff. Was it an actual typo. Or was Trump baiting them? Much of the MSM would love to bury this tragedy. But if Trump says something incorrect, they can’t help but dive in. I think his tweet was deliberate, clever and effective.
The absurdity of “Easter worshippers” is lighting up my Facebook page after I posted about it. It seems that a lot of people can see through the obfuscation.
They don’t want to mention the religion of the victims or the perpetrators because then people might face some facts. At Legal Insurrection, Vijeta Uniyal, who regularly scans Indian news sources, pointed out on Sunday that one of the suicide bombers was named Abu Mohammed, not precisely a Hindu or Buddhist name, and reports today that the Sri Lankan government suspects the terrorist group which carried out the bombings may have foreign backing.
This reluctance is seen also in the French announcement, while Notre Dame still burned, that it was an accident. Well, maybe so, but after a wave of attacks on churches (and synagogues, it should be added), French people are not wrong to have questions about this. It would be much better to say the cause has not been determined until they are sure.
As to not saying openly that hundreds of Christians were slaughtered on the holiest day of their year in their houses of worship, this is disgraceful.
Just remember the left, led by folks like Hillary & Obama, hate the very idea of Christian people living their faith. While Hillary weeps for Muslims killed by a madman of near-psychotic eco-fascism, she doesn’t feel an emotional ripple for Christians massacred by the hundreds because she sees the Christian as her enemy. Obama? Lather, rinse, repeat.
Their public responses are boilerplate political non-statements simply because they’d put Christians in the famous “re-education camps” or snuff you themselves. They hate you. Act accordingly.
Impossible, to avoid.
All that posturing they do about freedom of speech, and about “democracy” dying in darkness. A darkness which they themselves cause by the veils they throw over the facts in their reporting of events.
Yeah, so, a breathless, concerned, collaborationist talking head, a big screen behind them with essential images blocked out by text, and the information that: ” ‘some people did something,’ ”.
As one of the resident non-Christian/not-exactly-a-pagan visitors on this forum, I find the term “Easter worshipper” to be a combination of absurd, offensive and duplicitous. These people were not worshipping Eostre. The people murdered were Christians, murdered in a series of attacks that were intentionally coordinated and planned and therefore, committed by people who set out to murder Christians, for no other reason than to attack random strangers because of their religious affiliation. The attackers were either people who hate Christians and want to kill them, or, if you have tin-foil-hat inclinations, by really cold and dedicated maniacs who want to make people think that people who hate Christians and want to kill them committed the act. There is no other possible explanation, and any squirming by the media is their refusal to name the victims and likely perpetrators. It ultimately makes them as evil as those who perpetrated the act.
We know for sure who was killed. There is no explanation or excuse for glossing over this. And I had heard yesterday specific identities of at least a couple of Islamist suicide bombers who attacked specific sites – I don’t know if that has since been retracted or found to be false, but if there is confirmed information out there and reporting it does not compromise the investigation, it needs to be reported.
A great bumper sticker for the 2020 campaign:
“Some People Did Something”
Commentator by edward is correct: “Some people did something”.
We may ever know the motive for this “something” — whatever it was.
A report I heard a couple of hours ago on FOX mentioned that, while the warning about an immanent attack was sent to the government in Sri Lanka some two weeks ago, some sort of political disagreement between high government officials in Sri Lanka resulted in that warning not really being widely/fully disseminated or acted upon.
Yeah. A poster, or better, video, of some of the carnage and slaughter caused by Islamists; accompanied by the sly, smirking, feral face, of the hellishly ungrateful and malevolent moral alien Ilhan Omar, and text reading: “Somebody did something”
Any sympathy for her as a human being went out the window when I saw her offhand, elevator hall remarks, about Trump not even being – by implication -human.
You called the tune “Sis”. Now enjoy the dance. No excuses, no backtracking, no explanations accepted.
edward,
This should be followed up with pictures of congressional Dems (Shiff, Waters, Nadler, Pelosi, Hoyer, etc) and of the border caravans with the saying These People Did Nothing, And We Are Paying Them.
Rep. Omar had a sad but not for the American men killed and wounded in the “Blackhawk Down” battle: https://www.investigativeproject.org/7894/ilhan-omar-slammed-us-soldiers-involved-in-black
For those who wish the see the true carnage of “something” by those “sombodies”
Take a peek at this URL:
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
9/11: 2,977 innocents murdered. More than 6,000 wounded.
“Some People Did Something” Minn. Rep. Ilhan Omar
PAC ad:
Since 9/11, there have been 34,887 “deadly terror attacks” by “some people” against Christians, Jews, Yazidis, Hindus, Buddhists, and other “infidels,” which have resulted in… hundreds of thousands of deaths.
How many more people have to die before the denial stops?
It’s not just the left that has a problem with using the word “Christian” — Pres. Trump’s tweet on the massacre:
Ann:
At least he used the word “church.” Who goes to a church? Not mosque or synagogue or temple or house of worship.
What he said is more specific than what was said by most of the media.
Some things are not to be spoken or known.
I can’t think of any reporting on this that hasn’t used the word “church”.
Building on comments by Ackler and Michael:
if the Dems had simply said “Christians” NOBODY would be talking about their tweets.
Own goal in action.
From comments at Sarah’s post:
Philip • 4 hours ago
“the Christians were first called Easter-worshippers at Sri-Lanka…”
-Acts of the Progressives
By the way, here’s a NY Times headline from yesterday: “Blasts Targeting Christians Kill Hundreds in Sri Lanka”
Why the surprise at these attacks? Allah commanded the Muslims to kill, conquer or convert the unbelievers. When the Muslims invaded India they killed millions of Hindus. Why do you think the Indians, Chinese and Burmese dislike (hate?) Muslims?
I’ll have to look that up Ann.
Good for the NY Times, if that’s their actual headline.
Why aren’t they doing this over here? Let me take a guess…
Kate — If you click on the link I provided, you’ll see it’s the actual headline.
Again, here’s the link: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/21/world/asia/sri-lanka-bombings.html?emc=edit_th_190422&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=205250422
Easter worshippers.
How pathetically “woke” can one be?
“Easter worshippers”
Does this mean they worship the Easter Bunny and marshmallow peeps?
Yes, I will have a laugh at the MSM’s abuse of the English language; but, as Neo said: “Those lights went out quite some time ago.”
True, very true – and not just with left vs. right politically. I remember way back in my college days (the mid 1970s) and my college roommates and I laughing at the Washington Post for an article describing a local robbery which used the words “and the alleged gunman was seen running away with the gun in his hand.”
Just how could he be an “alleged” gunman if he was seen with the gun in his hand – isn’t he then the gunman?
Honestly, they are in such a group-think bubble that they don’t know how absurd they sound to those who are not a part of their group think bubble.
And that is part of Trump’s success – he calls them out on their absurdity and the common – can see through the smoke – folks love him for it.
Beto O’Rourke’s tweet today: “These acts of terror against Christians in Sri Lanka are unspeakably tragic. Our hearts are with the victims and their families. We owe them our commitment to making our world a place where no family lives in fear of persecution because of how they worship.”
Makes me think he may have picked up on the criticism of “Easter worshippers”.
the alleged gunman was seen running away with the gun in his hand.”</i
If it was Chicago, he would be a “youth.”
If it was London, he would be a “South Asian.”
Reading between the lines is just like the old Soviet Union,
news that a top police official had alerted security officials 10 days earlier about a threat to churches from a radical Islamist group, National Thowheeth Jama’ath.
…
The bombings came as Christians and other religious groups have been increasingly targeted in South Asia, where a mix of surging nationalism, faith-based identity politics and social media rumor mongering has created a combustible atmosphere.
…
The country has struggled with sectarian divisions, including last year, when the government temporarily shut down Facebook and WhatsApp in an effort to curb anti-Muslim violence.
“Blasts Targeting Christians Kill Hundreds in Sri Lanka”, NYT
Old English cirice, circe “place of assemblage set aside for Christian worship; the body of Christian believers, Christians collectively; ecclesiastical authority or power,” from Proto-Germanic *kirika (source also of Old Saxon kirika, Old Norse kirkja, Old Frisian zerke, Middle Dutch kerke, Dutch kerk, Old High German kirihha, German Kirche).
https://www.etymonline.com/word/church
On a related note, when people, secular factions, and religious sects inject the phrase: “separation of church and state” into The Constitution, they are only making a poor effort to hide their anti-Christian bigotry. The actual language binds Congress from establishing a religion (i.e. moral philosophy) as law, which was central to progressing the concept of a “living” Constitution and a Twilight Amendment that established Pro-Choice (e.g. age discrimination, witch trials, cruel and unusual punishment, diversity, political congruence).
“Easter worshippers
Does this mean they worship the Easter Bunny and marshmallow peeps?”
No, seriously, there is a goddess of spring, Eostre, typically worshipped on the vernal equinox by those so inclined. For media to go so far out of its way to avoid referencing Christians by calling them “Easter worshippers” deserves every ounce of mockery it generated. I am not sure if 21st century media personnel are simply so far removed from the topic of religious belief that they are unaware of what “Easter worshipper” means, or if they are aware of what they’re doing and think it’s clever or funny.
The targets of the attacks were were not just Christian. They were also hotels owned by Western companies and frequented by Western tourists.
It is my opinion that the conflict being waged is not primarily religious in nature, but cultural. Of course, the narrative of the Islamic terrorists is religious. But religion is part of the language and narrative of culture. The Islamic cultures once spanned most of Eurasia and dominated the civilized world and created significant advances in science and mathematics. Unfortunately, for them, their culture and their fortunes waned. What took their place on world stage was not Christianity, per se. It was the entire European Western Christian culture that emerged from the European Renaissance. It was the science, the philosophy, and the technology. When seafaring technology opened the way to trading over vast distances cheaply and colonization became practical, it was done by Westerners. And it was Westerners who then dominated the world, while most of the Islamic world became a pathetic backwater.
I think that the sympathy that the extremists garner in the the Islamic world has much more to do with their shared envy and hatred for the West than religion. If you look at the attacks, they don’t attack just Christian symbols. More commonly, they attack symbols of Western modernity and culture.
To sum up, my point is that, in naming the perpetrators and victims, we should be more nuanced than simply calling it Muslims vs. Christians.
As usual, there is far greater fear by the Dem media about a unified Christian voting block voting against increased Muslim immigration because of fear of Islamic terrorism.
Fear of terrorism is demonized as Islamophobia.
Each year, Muslims kill more Muslims than they kill of other religions, but they kill far more Christian and non-Muslim civilians in non-Muslim countries than their Muslim civilians suffer from Christians.
Oh, FFS, Ann. We get it: you hate Trump and will bend over backwards to criticize him. The way people were bending over backwards to avoid mentioning Christians.
The reason people keep zeroing in on ‘Easter worshippers’ is because it’s obviously a concerted effort to not mention Christians. Trump’s tweet didn’t mention Christians but it wasn’t an obvious and concerted effort to avoid the word. Trump uses the word frequently and has been one of Christianity’s better public defenders.
Ann, thanks for the link. I didn’t doubt you; I merely have a personal policy of not clicking on NY Times links.
“Easter worshippers,” repeated over and over in a variety of leftist tweets, did bring up the vision of ancient people venerating a stone idol. Poor choice of words, and the later switch to “Christians” means they realized how dumb they looked.
It is both religious and cultural for Islamists; there is no separation, for them. Islam did not so much “create significant advances in science and mathematics” as it served as a transfer vehicle from Greek and Indian cultures. At about the year 1000 AD, however, Islamic authorities definitively rejected any cross-cultural exchanges and turned inward. This persists to this day. See “The Closing of the Muslim Mind,” by Robert Reilly.
Roy Nathanson:
I’ll defer to Steve57 for expertise regarding Islam and what it says about the infidels, which includes you BTW.
om,
Believe me, I don’t dismiss the danger of Fanatic Islamic Terrorism. And you are right that, as an “Infidel”, by their definitions, I am in more danger than most.
However, to define all Muslims as “the enemy” would be a gross error. We would be counting our enemies as 1.8 billion strong! While, the percentage that have extremist tendencies is on the order of 20% of that total. That percentage includes those that think honor killings are acceptable, think that homosexuals should be killed, and that infidels and anyone leaving the faith should be killed.
So, the real enemy to modern society is on the order of 360 million, of which only another much smaller fraction is actually willing pick up a weapon or plan and carry out attacks.
In any case, the challenge is devise a name for the enemy that does not inadvertently sweep up the other approximately 80% of Muslims who do not live by or accept Sharia Law.
I would propose the label, “Shariaists”, to define those who reject modern legal codes and values in favor of Sharia Law. In as much as such a thing is possible, this defines those who are the terrorists as well as those who defend and support them.
As for defining the victims as “Easter Worshippers”, that was clearly a ridiculous obfuscation. Obviously, the churches were targeted as “Christian”. But, as I said earlier, their targets are not just religious. They are opposed to all of Western Culture including its secular values, not just its religious ones.
By defining the terrorists as Shariaists, we can separate secular Muslims from the extremists and even include them as equally victimized by the fanatics, which is very often the case.
Roy Nathanson, “shariaist” doesn’t roll off the tongue as easily as “Islamist,” so I doubt it will catch on. (Plus, I would continue to be irritated by the way American news people say it. The Arabic pronunciation is, more or less, “share-ee-ah,” with the accent on the first syllable. On American TV they keep putting the accent on the second syllable.) “Strict Islamist” might be a better phrase. You would be hard put to get many Muslims to deny the shariah in public, even if they are not especially observant in their own lives.
Or maybe a better phrase would be “fanatic Islamists.” In both Egypt and Turkey I have met Muslims who condemn “religious fanatics,” their term.
When atheists become identifiable by outward behavior or appearance (going to church or synagogue, or temple, wearing a crucifix, etc.) I might consider them more at risk from Islam than those groups that are historically and currently targeted. So no, you aren’t more at risk beyond being a westerner. And then of course there are the animists who receive Islam’s attention. So it seems that Islam is against all the rest of the world, so we must be careful what we call them and give them a new name? Otherwise they will be angry and attack (again)? As steve57 has pointed out the problem is Islam not all Muslims.
Anyone get the chance to read the Slate article that dismiss those who have an issue with the usage of “Easter worshippers” while justifying those that do use it?
See: https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate.com/human-interest/2019/04/easter-worshippers-obama-hillary-conservative-backlash.amp
Well, we can concede that in the phrase “Easter worshippers,” Easter modified worshippers (except for those of us familiar with ancient pagan history). In this sense, it meant people worshipping in churches on [western] Easter Sunday. Its repeated use, over and over, looked like avoidance of using the correct term for who was in church that day, to wit, Christians.
Orthodox Easter is this coming Sunday. Christians in Egypt and elsewhere will be at risk.
According to Pew Research, the percentages of Muslims who believe that suicide bombings are sometimes or often justified range from 1% in Azerbaijan to 40% in the Palestinian Territories. (It should be noted that the research lumps together in the balance of the respondents those who believe suicide bombings are rarely justified with those who think that suicide bombings are never justified. Obviously, we don’t know how rare and in what circumstances suicide bombing is “justified” in the minds of those respondents.) https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/
I don’t have time to do an analysis by populations, but Roy’s figure of 360 million jihadists seems reasonable enough. If 5% of those are actually willing to pick up a gun or strap on a suicide vest, that’s 18 million people ready to kill and die for Islam. Even if it’s only 1%, that’s 3.6 million terrorists! That’s not a minor problem.
Richard Saunders,
I did qualify my numbers as being “on the order of”. Those numbers were based on an aggregate of three different surveys I found on the internet.
The point is that 3.6 million is better than 1.8 billion! Which is why the Western governments are desperate not to name all Muslims as enemies for that very reason. In avoiding doing so, they often blunder into absurdity.
Kate,
And this is why we need better (more precise) terminology. As long we all understand who the real enemy is, I am open to anything that doesn’t disenfranchise moderate muslims and drive them into the enemy camp.
Roy Nathanson:
This train of thought “What to call them?” has been kicked around since 9/11/2001 at least. Dancing around the semantics of what to call them so as not to offend, well we see how that has played out (Boston, Fort Hood, Orlando, Calcutta, Mumbai, Nairobi, ….). For some reason those who follow Islam and who don’t have scruples about murder for Mo only care if we don’t call them master (IMO) and submit to their god.
They are Islamists, not Islamicists. None are “radical”; they merely carry out the dictates of Allah as told to his scribe Mohamed: “Kill the Christian, kill the Jew”.
Islam made converts with the sword:convert or die. That is the foundation of their success.They seized much of the Mediterranean basin in the first hundred years of the “religion of peace.” Spain became al- Andalus. The Pyrenees stopped them.
So they built a few remarkable buildings, including the Alhambra and Taj Mahal. So what?
The conventional wisdom that Muslims were productive scholars and generated great intellectual benefits to Western Europe is poppycock.
That maybe only some 300 million now favor vigorous jihad should not put us off, but instead alarm us and arm us and get them all out of the country. Pacifists are losers, and there has never been a pacifist Muslim leader, ever.
Roy says, “I am open to anything that doesn’t disenfranchise moderate muslims and drive them into the enemy camp.”
Disenfranchise?
You mean let them have the right to vote and thus give us an Omas and a Tlaib? And an Ellison, now high in the DNC? Yeah, let’s have them teach kindergarten too. We already have a Muslim “chaplain” in every prison, converting the violent felons that Dems want free to vote.
Individual Muslims can be just as kind and polite as individual Nazis, but so what? When push comes to shove they love death more than their children.
We should carve out a big chunk of central NV and fence them in there.
Sri Lanka now proposes to ban burkas, says some bombers were women: https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/23/sri-lankan-lawmakers-propose-burqa-ban-following-reports-large-number-of-women-involved-with-easter-bombing/
So what was the total population of Germany and Japan at the start of WW II? Right.
What was the total of fighting men raised by these nations in WW II? Just over twenty million counting air force and navy.
A difference is that we knew where the enemy was. Today, we don’t. He hides among the moderates. Is a Muslim “moderate” if he refuses to report a radical to the authorities?
Are the church vandals in France completely unknown to their co religionists?
Is a Muslim “moderate” if he knows that some of his charity goes to terrorists?
Much of any large military is devoted to keeping the sharp end in business. WRT Islamic terror…the tooth to tail ratio is far more favorable since they can count on help, cover, and funding from those not in any survey as “radical”.
After the Bali night club bombing, a phone survey in Indonesia found that ten percent of the population thought it was a justified defense of the faith. It was a response to the UN, with Australian lead, stopping the slow-motion ethnic cleansing of Christians on East Timor. IOW, slow motion ethnic cleansing of Christians is a legitimate manifestation of Islam and opposing it is an attack on the Faith.
One would expect that, in Indonesia, those reachable by phone would be a bit more moderate and reasonable than the average view of the population on this subject.
om & Cicero,
You are both lumping all Muslims in the same pot with the jihadists, and that is dangerous. That is the path toward having 1.8 billion enemies instead 3.6 million.
Roy Nathanson;
You seem to have a reading problem. Islam instructs followers to do certain things to infidels and apostates (see steve57’s comments). Not all Muslims, (possibly most Muslims) place those instructions above their own aversion to murder for Mo or to the oppression of other people based on their faith.
I don’t speak for Cicero.
When you come up with magic name for Muslims who will kill infidels and apostates let us know. Islamic terrorists, Islamic fanatic mass murderers, those names just don’t roll off the tongue; highly offensive to some I’m sure. Those murderous folk (“some people”) seem to find many reasons to shed blood, almost like they look for a pretext or justification however remote.
Have you paid attention to the “name problem” since 9/11/2001? Maybe you need a safe space.
Roy Nathanson:
Be careful using the word “jihadi” because as you know some Muslims consider jihad to be a spiritual struggle, not physical. Calling someone a jihadi murderer could alienate 1.8 billion people.
They aren’t “Radical Islamists”. They are “Traditional Islamists”. Read up on the Armenian Genocide. It was only 100 years ago and well in keeping with ISIS and the slave markets in Lybia. A slave there goes for some $400.
Roy Nathanson, thank you for your stunningly stupid comment. I despise Islam. I as a Christian hate the ideology known as Islam. And here you are like clockwork with your, “Not all Muslims” non sequitur.
I’m criticizing a text and the ideas promoted by that text and you make the category error that I must hate a subset of human beings. When the exact opposite is true. I want to see my fellow human beings freed from enslavement from that ideology.
Wowza. Are you proud of yourself, Roy Nathanson?
I hope and endeavor to comply with the house rules, Neo. But these are the times that try a man’s soul.
Steve57, Roy Nathanson, et al:
There’s nothing “stunningly stupid” about trying to make a distinction between peaceful Muslims and jihadist extremist Muslims (and their many supporters), while recognizing that Islam itself very easily and almost seamlessly encourages the jihadist extremist Muslims and that the number of their supporter are way way too high.
What you’re fighting about here doesn’t need to get personal, either. It’s a very real quandary and conundrum that’s been going on at least since 9/11 and really much earlier.
Some humans did something to some humans.
Story of Earth