So when a Jew or a Christian in America commits a crime he's simply a criminal and it's simply a crime. When a Muslim commits a crime it's jihad and he's a jihadi.

Have you the slightest idea how ridiculous you (and CFI, and Cinnamon Stillwell, newly-appointed purveyor of imaginary jihad to the youth of America) are?

Rob, in all these cases the perp explicitly cited Islam or jihad as a motivating factor, or in the case of Sirhan Sirhan, the Palestinian cause. Read the cases before you mouth off.

It's interesting to compare the victims to those in cases where a a nut freaks out and goes postal. It points further to this being "individual Jihad" and not our usual psychopaths.

Most of the time, the target of a "sudden outburst" multiple murderer is selected for very personal reasons. The Columbine kids targeted their classmates, McVeight targeted a government he considered himself "at war" with, and various loons have targeted their co-workers.

The "Happy Land Social Club" was torched- with many dead- by a guy who was pissed off that his ex-girlfriend was dancing there.

Andrew Kehoe, the first "mad bomber" blew up the school at which he was a board member.

The point being, there's some twisted form of selection going on.

In the Jihad cases, the target selection appears to be "any available Americans" or "any available Jews"- there is no specific connection to be found. To fail to see the mental difference is to prefer willful blindness. There is obviously SOMETHING about Islamic "sudden outburst" murderers in the US that causes this disparity in profiles. The very fact that this pattern emerges makes it clear that Islam is a factor- if it wasn't, we'd expect to find identical patterns of behavior.

Now this is not an indictment against all Muslims calling them potential murderers. All dumped boyfriends, disgruntled workers, or humiliated teenagers are not potential murderers either. It merely says that we have no logical choice but to accept the fact that it is a factor. Being Muslim simply happens to be, like being a dumped boyfriend, one of those things that can provoke certain people past the edge of reason.

Ben

Judith, Cinnamon (on her own site but cross posted here cites as an example of jihad a taxi-driver who may have made anti-semitic comments (his victimes weren't Jewish, BTW) but falls a long way short of citing Islam or Jihad as a factor. (And who in any case was responding to violence initiated by one of his drunken passengers against him).

On her own site (not cross-posted here) Cinnamon posted this rubbish. Even she doesn't pretend he was citing jihad as a motive: she accepts that police had no motive, so she invents one out of her own bottomless hatred for Muslims.

Read your own co-bloggers before YOU mouth off.

This whole Invented Jihad Syndrome stuff is simply the old anti-semitic Blood Libel turned around and used on a currently weaker target. That you promote it says a lot about your ethics.

No, Rob, they did not by any means "initiate" violence, you're lying again to protect evil.

1)Argument.
2)After Argument, they Paid and LEFT.
3)Irate Muslim Cabby attacks following payment and seperation of parties.

But you know all that. You're just lying.

Jihad wasn't cited as a factor. Of course not. That wouldn't be PC. That's the whole point of this issue. So explain it, then, without lying: Why would he attempt to murder two men who did not harm him, who paid him, who parted company with him? It's on you. Come up with another explanation. If Islam is NOT a factor, explain the extreme disparities.

No non-Muslim would have argued, accepted payment and THEN turned on those guys. That is not a "fit of rage" or a "reaction to violence". That is deliberate plotting of murder in retalation for someone questioning your religion- which, if you don't understand to be a Muslim issue today, is solely due to dishonesty on your part. Unless you know of any consulates torched after South Park mocked Jesus, in which case, let's hear about it.

So why do you have to lie about it? Why pretend it's not really there? People are attacked, some are dead, you call it "imaginary"?

Do you honestly think that if your turn comes, you'll be able to say "hey, sahib, it's me, I've been on your side all along" and they'll buy it?
You're a good little revolutionary, take heed: When revolutions come, the first up against the wall is the old regime. The second is the good little revolutionary.

Ben

Oh, Ben, responding to you is like shooting fish in a barrel, but without the sporting challenge.

Read the original report of the case, linked by one of the commenters on Cinnamon's site.

Do you see the bit in big letters where it says,

"He was outside the vehicle and just paid the driver when he noticed things getting heated between Ahmed and his friend, who was kicking the back of the driver's seat, Nelson said."

But that isn't violence, oh no. Maybe because it isn't a Muslim doing it. Or maybe because you're not the one sitting in the seat being kicked by a drunken bum.

So which of us is "lying again to protect evil"? As I'm not lying, and you are (again - see below), that would be you.

Yes, the "Jihad" is wholly imaginary, and only someone as desperate as you are to smear Muslims without regard for the facts would say otherwise.

1) Things Ben is good at: Lying. False accusations of lying. Unsubstantiated slanders.

2) Things Ben is useless at: reading, even of his own posts (oh, I beg your pardon, Ben: his "essays").

Examples of all the above collected here for ease of reference, in case you think I'm being hard on the poor schmuck.

3) Things Ben is best at: making everyone laugh at him. I hope you're practising frisbee-throwing for when you demonstrate your throw from end to end of St James's Park, Ben.

4) Things Ben thinks he is good at but isn't: Personal abuse. "Good little revolutionary". "Tool of the neofascist kleptocrat machinery". (I have yet to meet anyone who doesn't crack up at that one.)

Do keep posting things on KT, Ben. Grown-ups like Judith post comments (and "essays", which the rest of us call "posts") which have a point and aren't solely filled with lies. You aren't ready for that yet, but your little attempts provide endless amusement, like those TV shows of embarrassing home videos ("...and watch what Ben says now...WHOOPS!")

Oh, and Ben, if "the whole point of this issue" was that Jihad wasn't cited as a factor in this case, why do you think Judith was at pains to point out (in comment # 2 above) that her identification of case of "Individual Jihad" was based on the fact that it HAD been cited in the cases she referenced? Are you saying that Judith is missing the point of her own post?

You'll keep up with the grown-ups much better when you learn to read. But you are funny!

Rob, you stupid liar.

Kicking the back of a seat is not initiating violence, liar. Seats are inanimate objects, liar. Every four year old does it- You would approve of their parents running them down in retaliation. But that's because you're an Idiot. The point is, seperation occurred, then the attack. I understand you are far too dishonest to deal with the meaning of that, and instead you have to call the victims "bums"- how charitable. Do have any evidence of their bum-ness? You're lying, and you know it. But then again, what else do you do? I've seen nothing from you but lies, distortions, whining over pointless details or a bit of rhetoric, and a recurring inability to demonstrate any level of comprehension. Rob is clearly too stupid or dishonest to have read:

"Ahmed admitted to running down the customer and said he did it because he was angry and found it difficult to control his temper."

Goodness me, and the factors leading to a loss of control of temper were what? Did one of the guys just screw his girlfriend? Fire him? Or maybe... criticize Islam?

And violence used to avenge a criticism of Islam... fits the Jihad mold close enough.

Stupid Rob, it's all just imaginary. The bombs, the murders, it's not really happening. You know what? Global Warming, the war in iraq, Bush, Blair, Putin, all just as imaginary. Don't let it concern you. Go back to sleep. Your rants are tiresome.

Ben

Ben, you hilarious buffoon.

The seat had a person in it, buffoon. Car seats are not made of Kevlar, buffoon. Sit in a car seat while I kick the back of it, buffoon, and you'll have a helluva sore back, buffoon. And then the seat will break and you'll have an even sorer one, buffoon.

Separation occurred because the non-violent drunk pulled the other one away: it's hard to run someone over while they're still half in your car, buffoon. You insist that I note that Ahmed lost control of his temper, in which case separation does not imply cold, calculated violence such as might constitute a Jihad, but a loss of temper, woolly-thinking buffoon.

I accept, however, that I have no evidence of the attackers' bumness and will therefore substitute "drunken oafs" instead.

Factors leading to Ahmed's losing his temper include having been set about by a drunken oaf.

Losing one's temper and flying into a murderous rage aganst a violent drunken oaf is not Jihad, buffoon.

Buffoon Ben, every Muslim is out to get you. Look out on the street: all those brown faces. Eeek! Veils! Keffiyehs! Argh! Taxi drivers! Better stay indoors where it's safe and warm and you don't have to deal with anybody who looks different from you, or believes anything different from you.

Not a single lie in my comment; nothing but buffoonery in yours.

Keep posting: your comments are a hoot. Made up any good slanders about the UN recently?

Rob, you continue to lie. You really are an idiot. Kicking the back of a seat? Funny, really funny. You can't get any good leverage from a back seat.

Show me a reference, somewhere, to a person in a front seat ever being injured by a kick to the back of it. Dope.

And, you seem to know, based on one comment, how hard the seat was being kicked. Psychic Rob! I stand in awe of your powers.

Your racist tirade against all Muslims is despicable, and typical for a fascist tool like you. Note that I wrote THIS:

"Now this is not an indictment against all Muslims calling them potential murderers. All dumped boyfriends, disgruntled workers, or humiliated teenagers are not potential murderers either. It merely says that we have no logical choice but to accept the fact that it is a factor. Being Muslim simply happens to be, like being a dumped boyfriend, one of those things that can provoke certain people past the edge of reason."

While you wrote: "...every Muslim is out to get you" followed by "Not a single lie in my comment"
Don't tell me you were waxing satiric, you have already demonstrated that you don't accept satiric exaggeration as legitimate.

Which makes you a serial liar AND a racist. and an idiot, whose rants are not even amusing (as mine appear to you) but merely, pathetic and tragic, like a dying leper. You can't even do funny, just sick and whiny.

And as for "inventing" slander about the UN, the UN invents them for me. Enlighten us, what do they actually accomplish these days?

Ben

Perhaps wrongly, I assumed the drunk was standing alongside the car kicking in through the door. You can get a fair amount of power into a kick like that. And do you imagine American drunks are so much more gentle than Scottish ones when it comes to their kicking? Ever seen a drunk?

Inconsistent Ben. You say you're not calling all Muslims potential murderers, but you consider that being a Muslim is, in itself, enough to provoke some people past the edge of reason. If it's just their religion rather than, say, some provocation, attack, mental illness or other excuse (good or bad) which makes them wig out, tell us please what makes one Muslim different from another in this regard. Then I'll believe that you aren't lying when you claim not to be targetting all Muslims with your abuse. You are the one, after all, claiming that the "deliberate plotting of murder against someone questioning (their) religion" is a "Muslim issue", without any qualification. You clearly do view every Muslim as a threat: no satirical exaggeration intended whatsoever.

Can't be a serial liar until I've lied the first time, Ben. Try to keep up. Arithmetic not your strong point either?

Do tell me how I'm a racist. I'm dying to hear that one. I hope it's as good a slanderous lie as the one about the UN workers refusing to help tsunami victims because of insufficient service in their hotels.

"Dying leper". Hmm, not as good as the neofascist kleptocrat riff, but keep trying.

And I'm deeply sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you could "do" funny. Never have I seen any sign of a sense of humour rattling round in that otherwise vacant cranium. No, you "are" funny, unintentionally but unavoidably. Nobody is laughing with you, Ben, we're all laughing at you.

Glad to clear that up.