The Los Angeles Times' Specious Editorial on Anti-Jihad Bloggers

The Los Angeles Times displays its anti-logic regarding the alleged role of anti-jihad bloggers in the Norway shootings.  Their specious reasoning is as follows:

What Spencer failed to address is the fact that his site, and others cited by Breivik such as The Gates of Vienna, make a habit of blaming all Muslims for the actions of a minority of violent jihadists. As an example of Spencer's thinking, he wrote in November that the Transportation Security Administration should profile and give extra screening attention to Muslim males at airports, because this is the likeliest group to commit acts of terrorism. One could as easily argue that special attention should be paid to white males. In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, the Unabomber's reign of terror, the Tucson shootings and, now, the mass murder in Norway, this population also appears prone to terrorist violence.

This editorial is seriously lacking in fairness and logic. First off, the Gates of Vienna, Jihad Watch and many other sites are not remotely responsible for the actions of a lunatic. Secondly, the anti-Islam sentiments of these sites are grounded in irrefutable proof that Islam is a highly intolerant and violent religion, that mass Muslim immigration into the west is undesirable and dangerous and has many negatives and few (if any) positives. These sites have nothing to apologize for.

Third, the Times mischaracterizes their opposition, saying that they oppose all Muslims when only some Muslims are violent. What they oppose is an ideology, namely, Islam itself, which does indeed preach violence and even murder as necessary to enter heaven. Read the Koran and the Haddiths -- I did. Since it is the religion itself that is violent, any Muslim could become violent at any time by deciding to get serious about his religion.  Many have.

White males are decidedly not terrorism suspects in the same light as Muslims. The former do not believe that martyrdom will buy them a ticket to heaven, whereas the latter do. The L.A. Times writer's logic on this subject is decidedly shallow and specious.

The Los Angeles Times continues to embarrass itself:

Conservative pundits are getting back some of what they've been dishing out for years, finding themselves being unfairly blamed for the actions of those who share their ideology but take it to violent extremes. Will this inspire them to treat Muslims more fairly? A defensive post from Pamela Geller, who writes the anti-Muslim Atlas Shrugs blog (also cited by Breivik), points to the answer. While failing to acknowledge an iota of responsibility for spreading distrust of even moderate Muslims, she instead blames the "Sharia-compliant media" for attacks on her and her site. Opportunity lost.

Again, a very specious conclusion.  It ignores the fact that it is the religion itself that is violent, intolerant and hateful.  Further, distrust of Muslims is based on the actions of Muslims, not bloggers who point out the unpleasant truths about Islam.  There was, remember, 9/11, Beslan, Madrid, London, Mumbai and Fort Hood, to mention only a few Muslim atrocities that were committed in the name of Islam.  After those horrific mass murders (by Muslims against non-Muslims), no one needs a blogger to tell them how untrustworthy the "Umma" is.  It is a truth well established by Islam itself, both in its written words and its recent deeds.

Read the Times editorial here.

Hat tip to Reflecting Light for the quote about Islamic immigration having "many negatives and few positives."

Update:  I decided to do a word search through Breivik's manifesto, and sure enough, he quotes the Los Angeles Times!  He quotes an L.A. Times article describing Muslim desecration of a Cathrolic church, the Hagia Sophia.  Et Tu, Brute?  Ah, the L.A. Times must have inspired mass murder with its truthful article about Islamic atrocities.