-
I'm not sure I am, he's using "radical Muslims" to excuse sloppy use of Muslim earlier, but Muslim is nothing to do with it. It's radicals, of all or no faith who are the problem.
Khornight2-
Yeah, but in this case (and the ones he listed) it happens to be muslims. He didn't draw any conclusions other than that "freedom of speech is not an option with a large proportion of the muslim world", which sadly is true, even though its not unique.
Anyway, laying the blame on generic 'radicals' is like laying the blame on poltergeists or the alignment of the stars. You may as well just say 'bad people will be bad people regardless', which is true, but in these cases, they happen to also be muslim, and their motivations to that end have an awful lot to do with it. Whether they are politically radicalised or they're just mental or both, they chose Islam as the flag to wave over this atrocity.
IMO, making a distinction between these cunts and peaceful modern religious people is very important, and the way to do that is to address their misconceived motives as muslims, and their abuse of Islam or whatever, and completely discredit them. Passing the buck or considering them a random anomaly gets us no closer to addressing whatever caused this or allowed this to happen in the first place, because no-one feels responsible.
Playing devils advocate here a bit and i've had a couple beers btw.
Kidneys
Yeah, but he didn't say that it was inherently connected. You're putting words in his mouth a little there.