Tuesday, December 6, 2016   

  Home     About     Guest Editorials     Advertise     Blog     Site Map     Links     Contact      Subscribe RSS      Subscribe Email  
Home » Spencer Watch

Terrorists Not Muslim?…Then “Police Blotter Bob” Doesn’t Care

27 December 2010 Spencer Watch No Comment Email This Post Email This Post

Terrorists Not Muslim?…Then “Police Blotter Bob” Doesn’t Care

I am sure that “Police Blotter Scholar” Robert Spencer was salivating at the news: Parcel blasts occurred at two embassies in Rome. I’m sure he was quick to type up a long screed on his hate site about how Muslims are a threat, that Islam is all about “jihad” and violence, that all Muslims are radicals and if they are not, they are lying to you…etc, etc. I mean, what a perfect, mouthwatering scenario for Spencer: Muslim terrorists attack the capital of Catholic Christianity! Why, I bet his keyboard was soaked with his saliva!

But, it must have all come to a screeching halt when it was learned that the terrorists behind the attacks were “Anarchists-insurrectionists”:

An Italian anarchist group said it was behind the attacks in a note found on the clothing of the injured Chilean.

The message, written on behalf of the Informal Anarchist Federation (FAI), said: “We have decided to make our voice heard with words and with facts, we will destroy the system of dominance, long live the FAI, long-live Anarchy.”

The Italian intelligence services said in a report to parliament last year that the FAI was “the main national terrorist threat of an anarchist-insurrectionalist type”.

In fact, according to the BBC article:

Responding to Thursday’s blasts, the Mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno, said: “It’s a wave of terrorism against embassies, something much more worrisome than a single attack.”

The terrorists in this case are not Muslim, and thus it explains why Robert Spencer has no mention of the attacks on his hate site. You see, news such as this does not fit into Spencer’s narrative about Islam’s evil, its violence, its threat to the West, and so on. Thus, he simply omits the evidence that refutes his hypothesis. Why, how scholarly of him!

Share/Bookmark




Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>