And I pointed out, how we react to a certain event, depends on their context. People judge Jared as a part of an irrelevant organisation, that are not really a serious threat. When a islamic gunman massacres in the name of Allah. He's associated to a global Jihad-movement that are deadlier. An idea, intent can be a lot more threatening and right now, Islamic supremacy is a lot more threatening idea than anarchism.
Really? Are Muslims a bigger threat than 'lone nuts' based on history?
Lincoln, US radical. McKinley, US Anarchist. Teddy Roosevelt, lone nut/anarchist. JFK, RFK, 'lone nut' radicals. Ford, Reagan, lone nuts. Truman, non-Muslim radicals. FDR, corporate conspiracy.
Timothy McVeigh, David Koresh, Jonestown...
And to my point if it had been an illegal Mexican immigrant - no real history of violence against US leaders, but the reaction would have been huge.
What we have is the pairing of the words 'terrorism' and 'Muslim' very closely in the media, to where it seems a large majority of the uses are used together, creating this fear.
As I've pointed out, when people are looking for something, they notice it more, creating bias and distortion.
For example, a second NFL player involved in animal cruelty soon after Michael Vick would have gotten a lot more attention because of Vick than it otherwise would have.
That distortion is what's being noted. You are merely parroting the distortion.
There is some threat of radical Muslim terrorism, but the level of fear created, as the very word Muslim immediately makes most people react 'terrorism', is exaggerated.
Ask Juan Williams.