So, a brother tries to blow up a holy place of worship and kill everyone in it, you might call him a ‘bloody terrorist’. So I’m a bit intrigued as to why the LA Times decided to simply call Earl Krugel a ‘Jewish radical‘ when he was sentenced to 20 years for trying to blow up a Los Angeles mosque and the office of a US congressman of Lebanese descent. Reuters goes as far as calling him a ‘militant Jewish activist‘. Don’t push it too far guys!
So the question is, when does he make the jump to being a terrorist? Or is that a term exclusively reserved for Muslims these days, just in case people get confused? Anyway, he got 20 years so its not all bad news.
But there is another comparison to make, as Brett Lock does. When Krugel and his comrade Irv Rubin were arrested in 2001, calling themselves the Jewish Defence League, the Anti-Defamation League of America condemned them unequivocally. They accused the two of promoting a “gross distortion of the position of Jews in America” and of fear-mongering.
They did not, like the MCB, or Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, or the monkey who runs the Birmingham Mosque (aka Mohammed Naseem), try to justify their actions by trying to make excuses for what might have motivated them. Point well made.
|Post to del.icio.us|
Filed in: Current affairs,Religion,The World