Video: Panelist answers Muslim student with non-PC answer to cheers, roaring applause

A conservative think tank’s panel on the Benghazi attack of 2012 erupted into applause this week when one of its members fielded a question from a Muslim law student with a scathing shredding of politically correct blindness.

During the discussion Monday at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, a Muslim American woman asked how the war on terror could be won “with bullets” when it’s a battle over ideology – and whether the idea of “war” was even correct in the first place, given that the majority of the world’s Muslims are not hijacking airplanes, kidnapping civilians or otherwise attacking Western civilization.

Lebanese   Christian author, journalist and CEO of ACT! for America Brigitte Gabriel knocked the ball out of the park.

“There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world today – of course not all of them are radicals!” she began, after thanking the law student for her question.

The majority of every population that has been victimized by murderous tyrants has been peaceful, she said, from the Russians and Chinese massacred in the scores of millions by their own rulers to Europeans who died in the millions because a relatively small group of German Nazis took over a nation at the heart of Europe.

And on Sept. 11, 2001, only 19 Arab Muslims brought down the World Trade Center, attacked the Pentagon and killed more than 3,000 Americans.

“The peaceful majority is irrelevant!” Gabriel repeated after making each point.

It’s that murderous minority that’s the problem.

Check out the video here. (Gabriel’s answer starts about four minutes in.)

Meanwhile, fans of tempests in media teapots might get a kick out of full and frank exchange of ideas between Washington Post columnist Dana Millbank and Politico media reporter Dylan Byers over Millbank’s coverage of the incident.

Millbank, who was in the room, found the panel unremittingly hostile and threatening to the student, conforming to the worst prejudices he no doubt carried with him into the event. Just to give an idea of the flavor, his report was headlined, “Heritage’s ugly Benghazi panel.”

Byers, who watched the video, found Millbank’s coverage somewhat lacking. The piece was headlined “Dana Millbank’s Heritage disaster.”

Millbank, in turn, found Byers’ coverage of Millbank’s coverage also a tad lacking. His riposte was headlined “Politico’s reporting disaster.”

Media hawks might want to watch it all, read it all, then ask themselves this:

Who you gonna believe, Millbank or that lying video?

H/T: The Blaze

Comments

Latest Articles