The correct answer to the question
 

In the future my job will be to read Belmont Club posts and just summarize and repost them.

In his latest he skewers the Reuters article that summarizes yesterday's terror attack in Saudi Arabia. Most of the below is cribbed directly from his text.

--

In the terror attack in Saudi Arabia yesterday, gunmen asked people a question before deciding whether to kill them:

"Are you Muslim or Christian? We don't want to kill Muslims. Show us where the Americans and Westerners live."

[But] the shooting "rampage against Westerners" included Indians, Filipinos and Sri Lankans. The Deccan Herald reported eight Indians killed, mostly janitors. The other dead included three Filipinos, identified by the Arab News as an accountant, driver and cook. The victims were neither particularly Western nor obviously Christian. The actual breakdown of deaths was:

Indians 8
Filipinos 3
Saudis 3
Sri Lankans 2
Americans 1
Britons 1
Italians 1
Swedes 1
South Africans 1
Egyptians 1
TOTAL 22

...the [correct] response was not 'I was a just a poor Muslim with a family. Spare me' or 'I am just a Filipino cook who prepares food' or even 'I am a Swedish European who is on your side'. The gunmen at the Oasis Housing complex, weighed each of these lives and decided to pull the trigger, not according to the human worth of their victims, but according to the column inches they would provide. The cooks and drivers were killed the better to hammer home the implacability of terror. Saudi staff were killed to convey the penalties for associating with the kuffar. The assorted Europeans to provide variety. The American Muslim was pointedly spared so Reuters could emphasize the magnanimity of Jihad.

Now isn't that much more civil than random bombings that kill indiscriminately.:rolleyes:

I don't get your point. They said they wern't targetting muslims, they didn't, they killed people that wern't white that wern't musilms or at least we have no evidence of being musilms. Ok. So?

They're trying to rid the country of indifels, I don't see why that is limited to westerners and christians or why that would not include any of the counties in that list (minus egypt)

The only thing of note here is this idiot's astounding ability to know exactly what went though the minds of a bunch of radical islamic militants while he pontificates from middle america. Even more remarkably he can do so before we really know even what happened.

Let me correct that, there is one amusing thing I hadn't noticed before, the incredible incestous right-wing blog circle-jerk, kind of amusing, kind of distrubing. I guess it makes you feel better if they can all trackback across each other for moral support or something.

Many years ago now I read a very good article about the evolution of media and the net which discussed in detail the way customisation would lead to further political polarity as people insulated themselves against ideas that might challange their point of view, god I bet they never thought it'd be this bad.

you're funny, jag. you always talk like you're old. You've been reading for what, 14 or 15 years? I've got neckties that old. and i'm only 33!

'Coz I feel old :P

My guess is it was 5-6 years ago now. Yea, should've used few. Anyway the relationship between time perceptoion and age has already been well hashed here.

You need new ties.

Apparently ties are really dangerous.......no really..I mean aside from their obvious nooselike tendencies, there was a news report on radio4 about Neckties having been deemed dangerous to health as they have soooo many germs on them.

But they did kill muslims, Jag.

I don't see that anywhere in there.

They killed 3 Saudis. And an Egyptian. There is next to no chance these folks weren't muslim.

Saudis, yes, Egypt is more diverse than you might think. As I said before, we still don't know what happened, did they they resist? Did they try to break free? Were they killed in crossfire when the place was stormed? We don't know, this guy is just wanking, and badly at that.

Now I think about it, even if it was intentional, so? It's hardly the first time and the justification is obvious enough, terrorists know how to play PR, amazing, next he'll discover they have websites. I think more than anything he's pandering to that odd reputation reuters has amongst that clique of far right hate sites you frequent.

Or find a blog that agrees with their point of view, which is getting easier, not matter what you believe.;)

I thought it was just the pressure on your eyes.

A more coherant report was given by THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR which says:

"Hurting the US economy is a longtime Al Qaeda goal and is one of the reasons the World Trade Center in New York was targeted. They're now striking these oil- related sites in Saudi Arabia in an attempt to keep oil prices high and hurt the US economy," says Saud al-Sarhan, a Saudi writer and researcher who follows Al Qaeda closely.
A statement posted on the Internet and signed by the Saudi Al Qaeda leader, Abdul-Aziz al-Miqrin, claimed responsibility for the Khobar attack.
"Our heroic fighters were able, by the grace of God, to raid the locations of the occupying American oil companies ... which are plundering the Muslims' resources," it said. Mr. Miqrin also criticized the Saudi government for "supplying the United States with oil for the cheapest prices, according to their master's wish, so that their economy does not collapse." A Westerner killed during the operation was dragged though the streets, the statement said."

The article then goes on to explain that 2 of the Saudi's killed in the attack were actually guards manning one of the gatehouses. Makes sense to shoot the guys carrying the guns.

Perhaps they worded the question differently to the guards.