Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466
Khan's message has been one of acceptance.
That's false. Right after the attack he said:
Quote:
There aren’t words to describe the grief and anger that our city will be facing today. I’m appalled and furious that these cowardly terrorists would deliberately target innocent Londoners.
There can be no justification for the acts of these terrorists and I am quite clear that we will never let them win.
He
wrote an article today slamming the perverse ideology embraced by terrorists. "Acceptance"? lol, you read his "part of living in a big city" comment once upon a time on The Daily Caller or something and will thus never actually process another word he says for the rest of your life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466
Gee. What's the difference? Maajid Nawaz is a Muslim, ex-jihadist, and he's embraced by conservatives.
I find this surprising, here's what Wikipedia tells me about him:
Quote:
Nawaz has opposed racial profiling of Muslims, extrajudicial detention of terror suspects, torture, targeted killings and drone strikes. ...In a talk given at Marshall European Center for Security Studies, he suggested a revisit of UK Government's historical approach to deal with terrorism, and called for a more nuanced response to tackling the ideology of Islamism without breaching fundamental liberties of citizens.[31] According to him, security should never debase citizens of their civil liberties.
...In the aftermath of 2015 San Bernardino attack, in which the debate about profiling ensued, Nawaz explained his view that racial or religious profiling is a "terrible measure" that "does not prevent terrorism".
These aren't things conservatives agree with!
It's good to know that it's just the message that matters, though. Like, all those times Obama was criticized for being President when an attack happened in America - it was because of his
words, not his actions, he's not actually responsible for any of the attacks on this country, right?