How’d you like to be running a presidential campaign dependent on Muslims not acting up again between now and Nov. 8? It’s getting awfully hard for the media to keep being indignant about Trump’s proposed Muslim ban, as long as Muslims keep blowing things up and shooting people.
I’m assuming here that The Washington Post has not already ruled the Muslims who blew up the Istanbul Airport to be self-hating gays infected by America’s culture of homophobia.
Western governments have devoted incalculable resources to developing some diagnostic test other than “Muslim” to predict terrorism. As the New York Times reported earlier this year:
“What turns people toward violence — and whether they can be steered away from it — are questions that have bedeviled governments around the world for generations. Those questions have taken on fresh urgency with the rise of the Islamic State and the string of attacks in Europe and the United States. Despite millions of dollars of government-sponsored research, and a much-publicized White House pledge to find answers, there is still nothing close to a consensus on why someone becomes a terrorist.”
I have a possible indicator! M-U-S-L- …
After the July 7, 2005, London subway bombing by Muslim terrorists that killed 52 people, the British MI5 undertook its own highly sophisticated study, examining hundreds of cases. But the UK’s security agency discovered that terrorists are a wildly diverse lot. They worshipped at a variety of different mosques, for example.
Some terrorists were very religious Muslims and some barely practicing. Most were men, but some were women. There were young and old terrorists, highly educated as well as uneducated, some loners and some married with children.
So, according to MI5, the predictive power of every factor is very low — other than: Is a Muslim.
The researchers claimed their work would “challenge the stereotypes” about who becomes a terrorist, but it pretty much confirmed mine.