Aseel al-Omari is a self-described "close friend" of Mohammed Asha, a suspect arrested in connection with last week's failed terrorist attack on Glasgow Airport in Scotland.
The Associated Press reports that al-Omari said the following in defense of her friend:
The Associated Press reports that al-Omari said the following in defense of her friend:
"He was a good Muslim but never a terrorist or involved in such activities," she added.Emphasis mine. Apparently, al-Omari thinks it's noteworthy for a good Muslim not to be a terrorist. Hey, she said it, not me.
Surely you'll agree by considering these examples:
``He was a good Jew but never a terrorist or involved in such activities.''
Does this, to you, imply that whoever wrote it is suggesting that, normally, a good Jew is a terrorist?
``He was a good Republican but never a bigot or involved in such activities.''
It is beyond dispute that the word ``but'' is used draw contrast between the two allegations: 1. that the suspect was Muslim. 2. that the suspect is a terrorist. As gaijinbiker notes, but seems to misunderstand, the sentence was uttered ``in defense of her friend.'') Clearly, there was no intent to draw a contrast between expectations and reality.
That gaijinbiker would draw such an obviously wrong inference is an excellent example of how badly anti-Muslim bias colors his perceptions.
Langtry: no one refuses to take Islamists at their word. I defy you to provide a single example of that.
Perhaps what you mean is that most Americans decline to generalize the words of radical Muslims to all Muslims. Perhaps you are confused by the right-wing GOP spin that, sadly, ironically, pretends that bin Laden speaks for Muslims in general, rather than the tiny minority of extremists he actually represents.
How many Americans has this Administration made to feel apologetic?
The comparison is an amusng one, no?
"But" is properly used to link two things when the second one comes as a surprise given the first. Such as:And so on. When one thing understandably follows from another, however, we don't usually link them with "but". Consider how weird these examples sound:The use of "but" in such examples is obviously illogical. As is your comment.
``Galil is a Muslim terrorist.''
``No, he is a Muslim, but not a terrorist.''
For good measure, we can come up with plenty of similar examples:
Gaijinbiker is a rational blogger.
``He is a blogger, but not rational.''
Your claim that "but" means surprise is pure projection. Perhaps you aren't aware of how thoroughly your anti-Muslim bias colors your perceptions, but it clearly has in this case.
One would have hoped that these two categories were mutually exclusive — that if one is a terrorist, one is, by definition, not a good Muslim. But if that were the case, al-Omari could have simply said, “He’s a good Muslim”, and the fact that Asha was not a terrorist would logically follow. Instead, al-Omari apparently thinks it’s quite possible for a good Muslim to also be a terrorist. Yes, Asha is a good Muslim, according to al-Owari, but he's not one of those good Muslims.
Again, if this troubles you, blame al-Omari for her thoughtless slip of the tongue. I'm just the messenger. The only bias on display here is yours, against me. I remeber it quite well from your previous comment accounts; how is the new alias treating you?
The performance was marred by the reedy singing of Madonna and uninspired dancing.
Not everyone agreed: ``She's a mediocre singer, but a fabulous dancer.''
The New York Post reported that devout Zoroastrans such as Mr. Kahane burned down the mosque. Mr. Kahane's friend and associate Irv Rubin said: "He's a good Zoroastran, but not a terrorist."
Gaijinbiker was named on the blog "Campaign of Hate'' as a prolific blogger of anti-Muslim material. His friend Langtry said: ``He's prolific blogger, but not anti-Muslim.''
As we can see, adding the modifier "good" before "Muslim" does nothing to change the essential fact that al-Omari is responding directly to an allegation that her friend is a Muslim terrorist. If we set aside an assumption that a Muslim is a terrorist, her comment makes perfect sense in that it explains that one of the characterizations is true, (he is a Muslim) BUT the other is false, (he is not a terrorist.)
Only when we assume any Muslim is likely to be a terrorist does your interpretation of the sentence make any sense.
GB, I share your concern with Muslim fanaticism and failed development, but where does that lead us? Has our effort in Iraq been worth its many costs and do we need to compound them by starting another war? What are really our best (and least costly) strategies for dealing with Muslim societies?
A user account is required to post comments. If you do not have an account, please feel free to create one. Accounts with obscene or offensive user names will be rejected.
I always have time for a well-articulated opposing viewpoint, thoughtfully and politely expressed in good faith.
However, I have no time for name calling, personal attacks, rudeness, or other types of hostile behavior, whether directed at me or at other commenters.
Therefore, comments I find to be rude, abusive, profane, annoying, or otherwise inappropriate may be deleted. Comments may also be deleted if they are redundant or off-topic.
The maximum comment length is 3,000 characters. Longer comments broken into multiple parts to circumvent this policy will be deleted. If your comment is too long, please edit it down, link to the full text on your own blog, or both.