Originally Posted by GUWonder
You seem to have perhaps missed something I wrote:
Rajiv Gandhi -- head of government -- was killed by a muslim? Nope.
"Islamofascist". Sounds "good" and helps keep it simple for those whom find it challenging to deal with complexity in the world. But the term's use fails to note that the plurality of 9/11 hijackers -- including Mohammad Atta -- were less "Islamofascists" and more pan-Arab chauvinists. The majority were not even orthodox muslims -- including hiring prostitutes and drinking alcohol and being fans of McDonalds.
Depends how "highest profiled targets" are defined. Personally I think 9/11 trumps Rajiv Gandhi, especially with respect to travel in the United States.
Describing the 9/11 terrorists as "pan-Arab chauvinists" rather than Islamofascists is a distinction without a difference. They acted at the behest of Osama bin Laden, leader of al Qaeda, a fundamentalist Islam group seeking to topple the impure West. The facts are that these 19 thugs managed to kill almost 3,000 innocent people. These 19 terrorist thugs were not born in the United States and were not Christian, Jewish, Buddhists, Hindus, but were Muslims. We ignore the fact that much of the world's terrorism, especially that directed against the West, has for decades now been perpetrated by Muslims at our own risk. Finite security resources for more intensive scrutiny should be allocated to those most likely to be risks, not wasted on Americans with tools, scissors, or other pointy items. Millions of these objects were on airplanes without incident until Mohammed Atta and his minions used boxcutters. To paraphrase the NRA slogan, "Boxcutters don't kill people, (Muslim) people kill people."