The New York Times tells us that the killings in Denmark, the killer in Copenhagen, Had Nothing To Do With Islam.

We are expected to forget that the killer, Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein, a Muslim born and raised in Denmark, was not motivated by Islam but, rather, by his intense hatred for Denmark. But where did this "intense hatred" for Denmark come from? It came from this: there he was, Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein, in Denmark was going about its business being Denmark, non-Muslim in thought, word, and deed, and the Danes themselves did not apparently realize that not to accord to Muslims, not to accord to this Muslim, Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein, the deference in every way due to him as one of the "best of peoples," was maddening. And every time Danes behaved as if they could go about their lives without exhibiting deference to Musliims such as this man, who wasn't given the positiion, the wealth, the everything, he deserved, deserved because was a Muslim, his resentment increased.

And his resentment was directed not at others he might have blamed, of all kinds. When non-Muslims find something goes wrong -- a loss of spouse, a loss of status, a reveral of fortune or a failure to make one's way, depression, low-level or severe, that non-Muslim can blame his parents, his siblings, his spouse, his ungrateful children, his cholesterol level, his serotonin level, Amerikkka, the stars, fate, and a hundred other things. He can even blame -- it's been known to happen -- himself. But when something goes wrong for a Muslim, living in a non-Muslim society or, amazingly, even in a Muslim society, it is always the Infidels who are to be blamed. Look at all the crazed conspiracy theories that are standard in Muslim lands -- consult the last year or so of videos at www.Memritv.org for a sample. And for Muslims who live in Europe, or North America, it is always easy to blame the Infidels for everything that goes wrong.

When this Muslim born and raised in Denmark, but not a Dane in any sense that matters, felt himsel to be a "loser" he was never able to analyze his own problems. He instantly, and naturally, hated the Danes, the people who had taken in his family, lavished every conceivable benefit -- free or subsidized medical care, housing, education -- upon them, and yet they, so many of them, exhibited none of the gratitude that other, but non-Muslim, immigrants exhibited. What they were given was theirs by right, a kind of pre-emptive Jizyah. What they wanted was always more, and did not think they should be required to work for it, or exhibit any of the characteristics that might make them worthy of rising in such a society.

And when Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein decided to kill people, because he was so angry, this man whom this "expert" Aydin Soei -- a 34-year-old journalist-sociologist quoted with deep respect in the New York Times article -- believes was "not motivated by Islam" chose not random Danish targets, but the two targets that had everything in the world to do with the outrage and hate that are inculcated by Islam. There were two. First was the meeting to discuss freedom of expression, a meeting where Lars Vilks, the man who had "blasphemed" by drawing a cartoon of Muhammad, and therefore an Enemy of Islam, would be in attendance. The second was a synagogue, that is a place where Jews were an easy target, because the Qur'an and Hadith are full of phrases describing Jews as particular enemies, resistant to Muhammad's call, and the long series of attacks on Jews in the Sira, from Muhammad's mass decaptiation of the Banu Qurayza, to the attack on the unsuspecting Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, to the murders of individual Jews whom Muhammad thought should be killed -- all that explains why this man, "not motivated by Islam," went after spraying the free-expression-meeting with bullets, sped off to the synagogue to kill, as he hoped, as many Jews as he could find gathered in one place. It was exactly like the two targets chosen in Paris: the first was Charlie-Hebdo, the second a kosher market. Those who dare to "blaspheme" according to Islam's rules, rules which Muslims wish to enforce everywhere, if they an, and those who, as Jews, are Enemies of Islam and must be killed.

The article is not merely absurd. It is palpably absurd. And the question to be asked now is not "what motivated the Muslim killer in Copenhagen" but what motivates those who, like the "expert" Aydin Soei quoted, and the writers of the piece, and, above all, The New York Times itself, are determined to minimize or even ignore even the most obvious cases of murderers prompted by the texts, teachings, attitudes, and atmospherics of Islam.