lsvtec
GNU/Linux Evangelist
An interesting piece of almost news, but they forgot a couple of things. We will start with their first story, Paulos Eskandar.
Yes he was kidnapped and a ransom was demanded, but your "news source" is the only one out there to claim that they know the kidnappers were Muslims. How would they know this when no one else in the media does?? Several Christian News outlets claimed that nobody knows who the abductors were. Don't you think it is a little pre-mature to assume they were Muslim?
Next, IED kills Georges Zara. Even your post does not claim that Muslims were responsible, nor does any other source online. Why would you assume that the bombers are Muslim, besides your prejudice, I mean.
The same holds true for the next item and the last two items.
The story of Ayad Tariq is the only one there where other media outlets also claim Muslim. So I will address this one alone. Here we have to ask, what did they mean by "Muslim"? You see the media outside of Arabia has taken to making "Muslim" and "Arab" synonymous like we do with "Israeli" and "Jew". And just as in "Israeli" and "Jew" they are not even close to the same. Not all Arabs are Muslim, not all Muslims are Arab. In this case "Muslim" is an assumption made to be inflammitory. There is no way for the media to have known that the men who were responsible were practicing Muslims. The CIA factbook claims that 90% of Italians are Catholic, but having spent time in Italy I know I met some Catholics. but I also know that it didn't come anywhere close to 9 of every 10 people I met. Most are Catholic in label only, so you cannot judge Catholocism by their example. The same holds here, just because a person claims they are something does not mean that you can judge the entire group or its philosophies by the actions of that one person.
All of this is fine, but you are avoiding the questions I asked you. Do you actually know anything about Islam? Have you ever read a Qur'an? Have you ever been to a Mosque or a Masjid?
Yes he was kidnapped and a ransom was demanded, but your "news source" is the only one out there to claim that they know the kidnappers were Muslims. How would they know this when no one else in the media does?? Several Christian News outlets claimed that nobody knows who the abductors were. Don't you think it is a little pre-mature to assume they were Muslim?
Next, IED kills Georges Zara. Even your post does not claim that Muslims were responsible, nor does any other source online. Why would you assume that the bombers are Muslim, besides your prejudice, I mean.
The same holds true for the next item and the last two items.
The story of Ayad Tariq is the only one there where other media outlets also claim Muslim. So I will address this one alone. Here we have to ask, what did they mean by "Muslim"? You see the media outside of Arabia has taken to making "Muslim" and "Arab" synonymous like we do with "Israeli" and "Jew". And just as in "Israeli" and "Jew" they are not even close to the same. Not all Arabs are Muslim, not all Muslims are Arab. In this case "Muslim" is an assumption made to be inflammitory. There is no way for the media to have known that the men who were responsible were practicing Muslims. The CIA factbook claims that 90% of Italians are Catholic, but having spent time in Italy I know I met some Catholics. but I also know that it didn't come anywhere close to 9 of every 10 people I met. Most are Catholic in label only, so you cannot judge Catholocism by their example. The same holds here, just because a person claims they are something does not mean that you can judge the entire group or its philosophies by the actions of that one person.
All of this is fine, but you are avoiding the questions I asked you. Do you actually know anything about Islam? Have you ever read a Qur'an? Have you ever been to a Mosque or a Masjid?
