Jihad has a story about a girl who got involved with a terrorist. Apparently he just supported them, so he must be innocent of trying to blow up hundreds of people.
Anyway, she is making much here about the distinction between jihad and terrorism, and that is an excellent illustration of why this is “Jihad Watch” and not “Terrorism Watch.” Zeba Khan says: “Just because he supports them (violent jihadists) in theory is not actually proof of his involvement as such.” Indeed. But if they want to survive (which cannot be said to be completely clear at this point), Canada and other Western countries are sooner or later going to have to shift focus away from “terrorism” to the ideology that drives that terrorism, which is jihad and Islamic supremacism. And that ideology is not being spread today solely by bombs and terror attacks, but also by numerous other initiatives that have nothing to do with violence at all.
And at some point Western countries are going to have to ask whether those who support violent jihadists in theory are welcome here at all, any more than those who supported Nazis in theory would have been welcome in Canada or the United States in 1943.
Oh, and the victims of 9/11 were unintentional. Apparently.
But her credibility with the court likely suffered when she said the nearly 3,000 people murdered on 9/11 were unintentional victims – “collateral damage” – of what was intended as an economic assault against the United States and an act she compared to the Allied bombing of Dresden, Germany during the Second World War. The Dresden bomber crews were not terrorists, she said. “Some things happen in war, innocent people get killed. In America you call it collateral damage, I don’t see this as much different.”