Somali-American accused of plotting to bomb Oregon tree-lighting event

Sounds very similar to the guy that tried to detonate the bomb near Wrigley Field a couple of months ago.

 

The good news is that many of these "terrorists" have proved to be inept.

 

Better detail here:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/11/fbi_thwarts_terrorist_bombing.html

Raises some interesting questions about entrapment.

 

Was warned several times of the severity & offered a chance to back out.

Had thought about it since he was 15 -- well before the FBI was on to him.

Contacted "an associate" in Pakistan.

The FBI just "helped" him accomplish his mission, which if real, would have been extremely deadly.

 

just another terrorist who happens to be Muslim, but please don't paint all Muslims with the brush of terrorism. Just because most terrorists who want to kill Americans are Muslims doesn't mean that most Muslims want to kill Americans. Do most Muslims who are not terrorists care if Americans are killed in terrorist bombings?

 

Wait, he's Muslim? Where does it say that?

The headline said he was a Somali-American.

The CNN article I linked to mentions something called Jihad, but it certainly never said that he was Muslim.

Do you think something about his religion motivated him?

 

If you're the copy editor, is the religion something you'd insist on having in the story?

 

I think Yankee Fan is sick. He hasn't found a way to link to and denigrate the NY Times yet in this thread.

 

It's off topic, but while I've given the Times their fair share of abuse, I've also said -- repeatedly -- that it's the best paper in America. It's just a shame that it's so liberal editorially and that their liberalism too often creeps into their news coverage.

At some point, isn't it just insulting the intelligence of your audience when you don't say it?

Maybe they couldn't confirm his religion right away, but why not write something like:

"The AP has been unable to confirm his religion or his motivation at this time. However, his native Somalia is a country that is 98.5% Muslim. Mohamud shouted "Allah Akbar" as he struggled to avoid arrest. "Allah Akbar" means "God is Great" in Arabic and is a frequent rally cry of radical Muslims. (it was also shouted by the Ft. Hood Shooter, Maj, Hassan, when he opened fire on his fellow soliers.)

Additionally, Jihad, which means struggle in Arabic, is a religios duty in Islam. While can be interpreted as something as benign as a personal struggle to better yourself, among a small group of Muslims who follow a radical version of Islam, it has been interpreted as a duty to wage a Holy War against the perceived enemies of Islam."

Without something like this, there is no context.

We've discussed this with sports terms like "Tommy John" surgery, and the consensus has been that while most baseball fans would know what it is, you should still not use the term without a brief description.

So, why doesn't the same rule apply to "Jihad"? Why isn't it put into context?

Why do you write that he shouted "Allah Akbar" and only give it's strict interpretation without any context?

You wouldn't write that someone yelled, "Remember the Maine" and not provide context. "Allah Akbar" is more than just a benign phrase, it's a war cry and should be described as such.

 

Slightly off-topic, but if the story was about somebody with an Hispanic name, should the person's citizenship or immigration status be included in the story?

 

It shouldn't be mentioned just because someone has an Hispanic name, but if someone is in the country illegally, it should be mentioned.

And, if you did that, there'd be no reason to question whether an Hispanic who was not identified as an illegal immigrant was in fact illegal.

 

It's a war cry? Really?