Woolwich video edited for PC?

[ChurchSoldier]

I came across this less edited version of the Woolwich attacker. Transcript below. As you can see there are references to “Allah” and Islam being the reason for the attack. Plans to start “bustin our guns in the streets” Why does the press continue to edit out references which point to the Islamic faith and hostility towards westerners as the reason behind these attacks?
Unedited video here.

Transcript: “The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers. And this British soldier is one. It is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. By Allah, we swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. So what if we want to live by the Shari’a in Muslim lands? Why does that mean you must follow us and chase us and call us extremists and kill us? Rather you lot are extreme. You are the ones that when you drop a bomb you think it hits one person? Or rather your bomb wipes out a whole family? This is the reality. By Allah if I saw your mother today with a buggy I would help her up the stairs. This is my nature. But we are forced by the Qur’an, in Sura At-Tawba, through many ayah in the Qu’ran, we must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your governments, they don’t care about you. You think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? You think politicians are going to die? No, it’s going to be the average guy, like you and your children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so can all live in peace. So leave our lands and we can all live in peace. That’s all I have to say. [in Arabic:] Allah’s peace and blessings be upon you.”

 

[TheRealJuliane]

And people continue to insist that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Really? “Allah’s peace and blessings be upon you!” Really? After you’ve just slaughtered a man in the street like a sheep?? So that’s the same God? NO.

 

[sedonaman]

… Why does the press continue to edit out references which point to the Islamic faith and hostility towards westerners as the reason behind these attacks?
…

Because they are unabashedly liberal. What does that mean? Liberals have an ideology, and truth * must fit that ideology. Anything that contradicts it, is not deemed to be truth, no matter how much evidence to the contrary is piled up.

This leads the modern liberal to be non-discriminatory, a moral imperative. Because an act of discrimination is a reflection of personal bigotry, the only way to be moral is not to discriminate, between anything, not even between right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lies. Indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated. When we fail to discriminate between good and evil, right and wrong, and the behaviors that lead to success and those that lead to failure, we do not end up objective, neutral, tolerant, or even indifferent; we end up hating what is good, right, and successful.

We have seen this pattern over an over. The idea that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter has led to more terrorism; a successful person is not a testimony of the opportunities in America; it is an indictment of American greed; the belief that America is no better than any other country has led to hatred of America. Equal rights for women in the marketplace has led to stay-at-home moms being scorned. Concern for the rights of criminals has led to hatred of their victims.

These inversions of decency and sanity are not the work of anarchists. They are the logical consequence of the central credo of modern liberalism: that all intolerance and discrimination must be eliminated. In a society dedicated to that proposition, the good itself must ultimately be seen as evil, because the good discriminates against evil, while evil must be blessed with victim status, because it is excluded by the good.

---

“The progressive nature is to pocket concessions and move on to the next set of demands.” – Tod Lindberg, “What Is the Future of Conservatism?”*

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I came across this less edited version of the Woolwich attacker. Transcript below. As you can see there are references to “Allah” and Islam being the reason for the attack. Plans to start “bustin our guns in the streets” Why does the press continue to edit out references which point to the Islamic faith and hostility towards westerners as the reason behind these attacks?
Unedited video here.

Conversely, why are they editing out the (also true) parts about Western bombs killing Arab families?

Does that mean that they’re both “unabashedly liberal” AND “unabashedly conservative”?

 

[LilyM]

What purpose does it serve to include them though? I’d never heard them before this minute but it was obvious enough from what I have seen and heard already that the killers were motivated by Islamic extremism. It was hardly any sort of secret to anyone…

 

[sedonaman]

What purpose does it serve to include them though? …

Why do abortion supporters object to pictures of its victims all cut up? If there is nothing wrong with abortion, which is what they maintain, then they shouldn’t object any more than they object to the grocery meat ad in the local newspaper. A pro-abortion editorial appearing in the September 1970 issue of California Medicine contains a revealing statement on lying in the service of killing:
“Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent."
Remember, this is from a pro-abortion publication. How does that separation apply in the case of the bloody hands of the terrorist? Liberals are obsessed with non-discrimination; it is a moral imperative. The greatest sin is to discriminate [observe a difference] because an act of discrimination is a reflection of personal bigotry, so the only way to be moral is not to discriminate, not even between right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lies. This gave us multiculturalism, the idea that all cultures are equal and none are better than others. When faced with reality that suggests his ideology might be wrong, the liberal is faced with a conflict in which he has to do one of two things, abandon his ideology by admitting to the world that it is wrong, or denying the truth of reality that he sees. Banning photos of aborted babies and editing out the bloody hands of a terrorist helps the liberal convince himself of the second choice and avoid the first.

There is a by-product of this. When we fail to discriminate between good and evil, right and wrong, and the behaviors that lead to success and those that lead to failure, we do not end up objective, neutral, tolerant, or even indifferent; we end up hating what is good, right, and successful.