Heavens, what a grave situation, this feeling "uncomfortable."

Once again you have a Muslim group's meta message is one of whining about how non-Muslims are treating them. Again and again on television that is the message. If as much time and energy was spent on criticizing and protesting the Jihadists they might one day gain some respect from more non-Muslims in this country.

Until then they are just shooting themselves in the foot.

Posted by: amana39 at September 2, 2006 10:03 AM

"If our major concern is security, security of this country, this is a term that has very bad resonance in the Muslim majority world and makes us feel uncomfortable here."

Yeah. And we know what you do when you feel uncomfortable. Strap on a bomb and blow up some people.
you are uncomfortable because the truth is reaching a larger audience.
Infidels - Turn up the heat on Muslims.

Posted by: The Pig Loving Maldivian at September 2, 2006 10:14 AM

During the attempted takeover of American ports by Dubai Ports World, Gordon England was supportive of the deal:

"The terrorists want our nation to become distrustful. They want us to become paranoid and isolationist, and my view is we cannot allow this to happen. It needs to be just the opposite."

Can you imagine a Saudi Defense minister saying:

"The najis want our nation to become distrustful. They want us to become paranoid and isolationist, and my view is we cannot allow this to happen. It needs to be just the opposite."

Mattson: "If our major concern is security, security of this country, this is a term that has very bad resonance in the Muslim majority world and makes us feel uncomfortable here."

Veiled, but still threatening. Muslim discomfort threatens your security, so don't upset us.

Perhaps if she and others would go back to "Muslim Majority World", and teach them not to try to take over "Infidel Majority World", then there would be no need for the term Islamic fascists.

While she's at it, she could teach them that there are a few terms they use for infidels over there that have "bad resonance" here in "Infidel Majority World", that also leave Infidels in Muslim Majority World feeling uncomfortable, too.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 2, 2006 10:14 AM

Mattson said her group would argue to eliminate the use of the phrase

Funny, "ELIMINATING" special sentences or words has been a typical element of fascism !
Mussolini wrote long lists of words that had to be expunged from Italian, and so did Hitler with German.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Posted by: POITIERS-LEPANTO at September 2, 2006 10:23 AM

Not a bad article on the use of Fascism in educating the public:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTkxNzhlZDBmZTI0ZTc1ZDlmNjRkYTZiNzM1NTI4NjY=

Posted by: amana39 at September 2, 2006 10:26 AM

Mattson said her group would argue to eliminate the use of the phrase

I'd be curious to learn what her opinion of Khalid Duran is. Khalid Duran being the muslim scholar who coined the phrase 'Islamic Fascism' back in 1990, and who is referred to by Daniel Pipes as possibly an American Rushdie:

http://www.gamla.org.il/english/article/2001/july/pipes1.htm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/SStephan/intellectual_cesorship.htm

http://www.answers.com/topic/khalid-duran

Posted by: Gary at September 2, 2006 10:27 AM

Who is distorting Islam? There are still many who cannot see the forest thru the trees as of yet.

As long as the so-called moderate Islamic community continues to deal with words rather the obvious non action behavior of many Muslims throughout the world and those who are living in western nations, your ever constant protests will more and more begin to fall on deaf ears.

Another words "Actions speak louder than words"

Take a few moments and look at some if not all of this collection of 148 photos when it comes to dealing with this violent jihadist Ideology and the abuse of children.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/PalestinianChildAbuse/?imgIndex=3&autoShow=6

Mr.and Mrs UMMA -Renounce this! condemn this!

Posted by: Mackie at September 2, 2006 10:35 AM

Ingrid Mattson is a pious fraud who intentionally misrepresents the "religion" of a false prophet. To understand the violence, the Jihad, the terror in Islam all one must do is study the life of Mohamed. Because he did all the above and then some more. Mohammad advocated Jihad and terrorism. It's all spelled out in Koran and Hadith no matter what lies Ms Mattson spurts forth.

BTW She's married with two children and lives in Connecticut near her phony theological seminary. About 33% of the 12 course offered are on Islam and one is for training Muslim chaplains which must be a growth sector. Her seminary has caved into the Mo cult but was originally Congregationalist. Founders must be spinning in their graves.

Posted by: dennisw at September 2, 2006 10:44 AM

Ingrid Mattson is correct. Terrorism is not Islamic fascism. Terrorism is the tool of "Islamo-Imperialism." We are actually threatened by an existing Islamo-Imperialism. "Islamo-Imperialism" is confrontational conduct of evil expanding religious Moslems! By using the term Islamo Fascists we understate the character of the vicious sickening conduct of the enemy. This is not a war of ideas or ideology. This is a real war in which infidels need to take up arms in their protection! The mere fact that Islamo-Imperialism is not associated with any single nation state does not change its character or the fact that it advocates the murder and plunder of other non-Moslems adjacent to where ever its religious adherents are located. Islamo-Imperialism is not just a socio- political ideology that intends by free elections to have sharia enslave the rest of the globe. We must confront Islamo-Imperialism as one would an attacking state. The mere fact the Islamo-Imperialists are not attacking from a clearly identified geographic Caliphate is consistent with its strategy to use of cunning, guile and treachery. Infidels of the world unite.

Posted by: David England at September 2, 2006 10:49 AM

Who really cares if they are offended, when you are at war many offences are committed! The jihadi's have declared war on every race and religion in the world that is not their own and in particular with the west. If they are offended they should use their western democratic and constitutional right to leave.

If you dont like us in the west leave. Go, begone!

What part of leave do you people not understand? We in the west have had enough, it is time for us all to tell them how it is.

No more anti propaganda, no more mosques or demonstrations on our soil with islamic v for vendetta. If you dont like us leave. Go, now, I'll even pay for your ticket, we all will.

Man I'm angry with the way we are all namby pamby about their hurt feelings, its f***ing pathetic.

The sooner GWB does us all a favour and takes out these scum the better.

The world cannot go on being held to ransom by childrens taunts of my religions going to be biggger than yours and we'll have a bomb soon too, nah nah nah nah nah.

Get a grip.

I've just read what I've written and I sound like a mad looney right wing fascist myself but I'm not racist or anti anyones religion just fed up with people from islam greeting (crying).

You dont hear the Sikhs or Hindu's doing this, thats because they are sane, good hard working people.

No one likes muslims anymore, especially me!

Posted by: M at September 2, 2006 10:53 AM

Check out this article by the ISNA that introduces Dr.Mattson as the new head of the ISNA

http://www.isna.net/index.php?id=35&backPID=1&tt_news=769

Posted by: Mackie at September 2, 2006 10:53 AM

hello people, i think we need become a bit more strategic in our fight against islam. we need to put the truth out there.
Believe me this religion is satanic nd we must pull it down.
maybe setup our own islamic school and summer course on islam and stuff like tha. print pamplet and distribute at occasions.
You will not believe this but virtual every muslim i speak to on the yahoo(IM) believes that the apostate must be killed, i was shocked to my bones, its more urgent now than ever we must fight islam and win.yeah i was muslim but not anymore.

Posted by: ismail at September 2, 2006 11:02 AM

Offended Ms Mattson? Too bad! You know what you can do and don't let the door hit you in the a** on the way out of the country.

Oh, and take your little playmates with you. You're all so pathetic.

Posted by: samhein at September 2, 2006 11:08 AM

"...makes us feel uncomfortable here." - Ingrid Mattson

In other words, the truth is striking a nerve in allah land. Once again, we have classic example of taqiyya - playing the victim of discrimination - in an attempt to shift the focus away from the mohammedan evil. The problem for these ancient cult worshippers is that people are beginning to see them for what they are. Here is news for them: We'll call it like we see it, and it is up to you to change your followers' 7th century ways and adapt to the 21st century. Humanity in reverse is not an option. Evolve or become extinct. Lose the burkha and quit hiding behind the lie that is islam (submission) and the failed system that is fascism (totalitarianism).

Posted by: Kreuzueber Halbmond at September 2, 2006 11:24 AM

Ingrid Mattson is just one more Nordic name clamoring for en masse suicide.

Way to go Ingrid. But, had you been named Inge Mattson the snuff porno video woulda been more of a turn on.

Maybe you and your brown lovers should do an academic up here in Minnesota to understand your options.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at September 2, 2006 11:27 AM

I confess myself confused.

"Mattson acknowledged that terrorist groups "do misuse and use Islamic concepts and terms to justify their violence.""

So they misuse them...as Bush 'misuses' them, one supposes, as if it were him and not islam - I mean, the terrorists - who were the problem.

But according to her statement, they also "use" Islamic concepts.

So the terrorists "use" and "misuse": if the latter be an incorrect interpretation of islam, then the former be - what? Correct, one supposes.

""But I think that when we then bestow that term upon them we only make the situation worse and somehow give validity to their claims which we need to deny and reject," she said at the opening of the group's 43rd annual convention."

Deny. Reject. Use and misuse.

Excuse me, my head hurts. I think I need to go take a fatwa.

Prophet Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at September 2, 2006 11:31 AM

Pig farmer: there is no relevance to the brown comment. Please desist.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at September 2, 2006 11:34 AM

Use and Misuse

That's it in a nutshell - the two faces of islam! Think about it and apply it to anything that mohammedans have ever touched. . .

Posted by: Kreuzueber Halbmond at September 2, 2006 11:44 AM

ismail,

Let me ask a few questions.

In what part of the world were you born?

What is your level of education?

Did you convert to Islam?

How much of the Qur'an, ahadith and sira have you personally read?

How do you interpret the following sura:

5:33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

How did the clerics that you knew address that sura?

Before you left Islam, would you have considered yourself to be a moderate Muslim?

While you were a Muslim, did you believe that Muslim fundamentalists were wrong in their interpretations of Islam's teachings and commands?

Why did you leave?

Sincerely,

PRCS

Posted by: PRCS at September 2, 2006 11:47 AM

The use of a women to perpetuate a mysogonistic death cult only serves to underscore the vile nature of islam.

The cowardly men of islam hide behind women and children. But, hey, it's all good. As long as islam is being spread, the treatment of women or their use as tools is encouraged. And the children, well they make convenient storage containers for explosives. And we all know how muslims love to spread islam by killing children... even their own.

Then Enemy: islam and the muslims that spread it.

Posted by: mtriviso at September 2, 2006 11:51 AM

Let 'em whine. Who gives a rat's ass what they think? I don't.

Posted by: bonncaruso at September 2, 2006 11:55 AM

Bush backs off 'Islamic fascists'
Tones down war rhetoric to appease Muslim groups

Posted: September 1, 2006
4:00 p.m. Eastern

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51785

Looks like I stand corrected; I said George would back off in a week after making his bold statement, looks like it was three.

Posted by: witness at September 2, 2006 12:20 PM

l hope Bush, and the rest of the GOP keep on using the word "islammofacists", let the mulsim horde feel unconfortable with the term. Rumsfield is really pissing off the Democrats, they want to shut him up.
Rummie is calling Democrats and liberal media "appeasers" and it is really hurting their feelings!
so much the Democrats want to censure him next week!
so much for free speech for those who appose the liberal view!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at September 2, 2006 12:28 PM

Mrs. Mattson:

Would you prefer this title? Islamo-Fascist, Imperialist, Psycho, Anti-Religionist, child-raping, wife-beating, throat-cutting, butcher-devils.

Posted by: n.a. palm at September 2, 2006 12:30 PM

Bashir on ABC's Nightline called President Bush insulting for using Islamofacist.If the shoe fits....

Posted by: Carolyn2 at September 2, 2006 12:38 PM

its more urgent now than ever we must fight islam and win.yeah i was muslim but not anymore.
Posted by: ismail

May God bless and protect you.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at September 2, 2006 12:42 PM

Have any of these Muslim groups or their leaders --- Mattson for instance --- claimed that men like Osama bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hassan Nasrallah are not Muslims in good standing or they are un-Islamic? My guess is Bush would characterize these as "Islamo-fascists?"

Posted by: monk at September 2, 2006 12:44 PM

Bush said that this is a "war against Islamic fascism."

OUCH -- the truth hurts!

Posted by: champ at September 2, 2006 12:49 PM

The creepiest Muslims are, in the Western world, very often those who convert voluntarily to Islam, not those who are simply, through no fault of their own, born into the belief-system, and raised in families or societies suffused with its attitudes and atmospherics. Ingrid Mattson is one such convert.

The notion that we are to discuss what the Infidel world faces without discussing Islam, without aluding to metonymically, or even directly naming, as some -- especially the defectors from Islam such as Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Walid Shoebat -- are entirely unafraid to name, in the clarity of comprehension born of their total familiarity, from birth, with Islam -- have no trouble doing, is dangerous nonsense. Of course it not a vague "war on terror" that is being fought. Of course that "terror" has its ideological promptings in the Qur'an and Hadith, and in what the biography of Muhammad, that Perfect Man, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, offers by way of emulation for the Believer.

And just as important, "terror" is only one of the instruments of Jihad, and though the Bush Administration seems incapable of framing things correctly so as to make the true nature of the threat from Islam clear, terror is neither the most effective nor most insidious of all the instruments of Jihad.

The formulation "Islamic fascism" was hardly good enough, and left much to be desired. But it was better than the mental pap we have been fed, pap that confuses and demoralizes Infidels, when they need to understand, more and more, what is contained in the texts of Islam, what attitudes naturally arise from people who grow up in societies suffused with Islam, or what can be expected even of those isolated Muslims in the West who, continuing to identify themselves as "Muslims," may suddenly suffer a lapsus or a raptus and then -- in the manner of "Mike" Hawash, that Intel engineer, or Taheri-reza, the UNC/Chapel Hill student, or any number of others, the formerly "moderate" Muslims who, for all kinds of reasons, not necessarily having a thing to do with politics, become "immoderate" Muslims. And we all know that unlike "immoderate" Christians -- you know the kind, the kind that emulate Christ too much, are too meek and too mild and too kind and too damned good -- "immdoderate" Muslims are a danger to all Infidels.

Islam is totalitarian. It presumes to dictatet to Believers a Complete Regulation of Life. It presumes to offer a Total Explanation of the Universe. It presumes to know best what Believers should do, and will not allow them, once they are Muslims, to leave Islam, on pain of severe punishment, even death. It is not interested in saving individual souls, but in obtaining more recruits for the Army of Islam. It is not interested in having everyone live together in harmony, but rather, it inculcates in Believers a firm conviction in the superiority of Islam that withstands any scrutiny (and critical scrutiny is discouraged in every way by the belief-system of Islam, and by its adherents), and teaches them that the universe is divided between Believers and Infidels. And it further teaches them not to leave Infidels alone, but to insist that they drop all obstacles to the spread of Islam, and that Islam indeed be spread, until it everywhere dominates, and everywhere Muslims rule.

Not all Muslims do this. But a great many do. Not all Muslims participate actively in violent Jihad, but a great many support such activities, defend and justify them. And a great many Muslims -- almost all -- have singularly failed to denounce violent Jihad or for that matter the goal of Jihad itself, which is not to accept the permanence of Infidels and their nation-states, but to insist upon their impermanence, and to work to islamize them.

If the Administration, which does not know where to put its feet and hands, cannot speak even with the tiniest bit of candor -- that "islamic fascism" for now will have to do -- it will have added to the fiasco of the effort, since the beginning of 2004, to messianically introduce "freedom" and "democracy" to Iraq, and to misread, at every step, everything the people in Iraq -- not the "Iraqi people" who do not exist -- have done, then it will be final straw.

We can hardly endure the continuing squandering of men's lives, of money, of materiel, of morale civliian and military, that the tarbaby Iraq has become, and will continue to be as long as the Administration remains impervious to the most obvous argument: the argument that the Camp of Islam will be most effectively weakened by leaving Iraq, by permitting the sectarian and ethnic conflicts to widen within Iraq, and what's more, to be the focus of efforts by co-religionists of both Sunnis and Shi'a outside Iraq, who will now be expending their men, their money, their materiel, to support their fellows inside Iraq.

Was the Iran-Iraq War a good thing? If you were a Muslim, in Iran or Iraq, it wasn't good. It managed to use up the aggressive energies of the Islamic Republic of Iran for eight of the first nine years of its existence. It managed to kill or maim a great many of the most fanatical Iranians. It did the same for Saddam Hussein and his regime. It used up not only all of Iraq's financial reserves, but also $60 billion lent to Iraq by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the U.A.E., all of whom may have worried about Saddam Hussein's threat to them, but were eager to make sure that Iran was prevented from winning that war.

But if you were an Infidel, that Iran-Iraq War was a very Good Thing indeed.

Well, are we Infidels interested in weakening the Camp of Islam? Or are we now so very different from the way we were when the Iran-Iraq War was going on, and now we have chosen to believe The Great Hallucinator, George Bush, as he chooses to believe, as he stubbornly insists, that the "Iraqis" (who do not exist) chose "freedom" (no they didn't -- the Shi'a took eager part in elections because they were well aware that they constituted 60-65% of the population, and knew that they would gain power more easily that way, and bask in the glow of American support, which would translate into even more tens of billions lavished on that country, and more years of American training and supplying of largely Shi'a forces, and more American fighting, on behalf of "Iraq" as the Americans saw it, but really on behalf of the Shi'a as the Shi'a understood, the Sunni "insurgents" of both kinds, the Al-Zarqawi-led non-Iraqis, who despised the Shi'a as "Rafidite dogs," and the much larger group of indigenous Sunnis who have no intention of acquiescing, ever, in their loss of power and in the domination of Iraq by Shi'a Arabs.

The Administration has to finally see the sectarian and ethnic conflics within Iraq, or within the Camp of Islam generally, as something highly desirable, something to be encourageed. It further has to see that by withdrawing the Jizyah of foreign aid from all Muslim states, the Infidel lands can force the poorer Muslims to go, hat in hand, to the rich Arabs. And this will help to encouarge economic resentment, resentment when the requests are met, for whatever requests are made will never be quite enough to satisfy the poorer Arabs and Muslims who will resent the rich Arabs, and insist that they observe that supposed unity that belonging to the umma al-islamiyya, the Community of Believers, demands. And the rich Arabs and Irnaians will not wish to support Pakistan, or Jordan, or Egypt, or the so-called "Palestinians." At this very moment, in deed, Iranians are full of resentment at the billions of dollars being spent to supply and now to re-supply Hezbollah. That resentment is a good thing. It needs to be encouraged, the sums that the Islamic Republic of Iran is giving to Arabs needs to be publicized by those Farsi-language radio stations beaming into Iran.

The Arabs have managed for the past 30 years to encourage a split between Western Europe and its most important ally, the United States. It has done so by appealing to, and playing on, pre-existing mental conditions -- anti-Americanism and antisemitims" and by enrolling an army of Western hirelings to promote the Arab and Muslim line. The ruling elites in the Western world have failed to recognize this. But some may now be doing so. And their task is not only to repair that split, and to bring greater unity to the Western, Infidel world that is now so obviously threatened by those engaged in Jihad, and using all the varied instruments of Jihad, but also to do somethning else: to split the Camp of Islam, to do to Islam what Muslims have had such success, because for so long so unopposed, in the Western world. Iraq is the perfect place to begin.

But it will not begin if this Administration does not come to its senses.

It only takes an Army of One -- one political leader, one Senator or one Congressman -- to start saying what has been put up here at JW for the past 2 1/2 years. The reaction of the public to someone calling for withdrawal from Iraq because -- and here things may have to be hinted at, or stated obliquely -- because the Americans have much to gain by leaving Iraq (obviously no political leader can say openly that he relishes the prospect of sectarian and ethnic conflict, so sentimental and false has everyone been required to become, at least in public), and to say something like this"

"It was rational, it was not unjustified, to enter Iraq to make sure it did not possess, or was not on the verge of possessing, weapons of mass desctruction. It was reasonable to remain for about a year, in order to throroughly scoure the country. It was not reasonable to remain after that period. It was not reasonable to ignore the grievances and resenments and hatred that split Sunni from Shi'a, and Arab from non-Arab, in Iraq. It was not reasonable to believe that "democracy" in the most important, Western sense -- a "democracy" in which the victors are required to be solicitous of those defeated at the polls -- simply had nothing to do with the aggressiveness, and utter inability to compromise, that is exhibited by all Muslim peoples, and that comes out of Islam itself. It is important to fight the Jihad, and that is why I am opposed to the squandering of men, money, and materiel in Iraq. I am deeply disturbed at the damage to the morale of the troops and to civilians, who must be prepared to fight what some have called a "long war" and which will go for a very long time. I find that the application of money and men to be ill-thought out. I deplore the inability of this Administation to figure out ways to prevent the spread of this ideology of Jihad, by limiting the number of its adherents permitted into the Western world. I deplore the inability of this Administration, which appears to recognize the gravity of the threat, but cannot quite bring itself to recognize, much less identify publiclly, with any conviction or clarity, that threat, or its promptings in certain immutable texts. I deplore, above all, the obstinacy with which this Administration -- perhaps out of nothing so much as an inability to recongize that it was wrong, wrong in its conception of a "war on terror" and not a war of resistance to the forces of Jihad, wrong in its belief, promoted by many plausible and attractive Shi'a in exile, that the terrorist threat could somehow be ameliorated, or even made to disappear, if Iraq were to become Iraq the Model, Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations. No one in the Administration saw fit to point out, or to realize, that any elections would merely guarantee a transfer of power from Sunni Arabs to Shi'a Arabs. No one saw fit to recognize that while the Sunnis constitute 19% of the population, they believe -- and in Muslim societies, where any free and critical inquiry is discouraged at every level, conspiracy theories, and outlandish rumors, and belief in whatever one wishes to believe that makes one more powerful, are far more prevalent even in the most debased and mentally lazy of Infidel socities -- that they constitute 42% of the population, and furthermore, they have a right to rule, as Sunnis, and the Shi'a have no such right. There was not, and will never be, a possiblity of the Sunnis of Iraq permanently acquiescing in their loss of power to the Shi'a.

Similarly, the Administration failed to see, all along, that it was absurd to think that Sunni Arab states would ever find attractive, in any way, an Iraq in which power had been transferred from Sunni Arabs to Shi'a Arabs. Not a single Arab state ever uttered a syllable of sympathy for the Shi'a Arabs massacred by Saddam Hussein. In Bahrain a Sunni Arab rules over a population that is 70-75% Shi'a, and has no intention of allowing them to have power. In the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, where all the major oil fields are to be found, there are hundreds of thousands of Shi'a who have felt, for the entire history of "Saudi" Arabia, the Wahhabi sting, the contumely, the discrimination, the persecution. In far-off Pakistan, for years at least one Sunni terrorist group has aimed its attacks on Shi'a professionals. In Lebanon, the resentment of the Shi'a is not directed only at Christians, but at the much better-off Sunni merchant class, and the Sunnis, like the Christians and Druze, are in a rage at Hezbollah, now seen as a loose Katyusha or Fajr or Zelzal missile, capable of endangering all of Lebanon, would be delighted to see Hezbollah troops siphoned off, as volunteers, to go to help fellow Shi'a in Iraq. In Kuwait, as in other Sunni Arab countries, the Shi'a are sometimes maligned as untrustworthy, and not only the Al-Zarqawis regard Shi'a as less than full-fledged Muslims, even if his denunciation of them as "Rafidite dogs" is not everywhere repeated. Mubarak's denunciation of the Shi'a as untrustworthy was remarkable not for its unexceptional content but for its public candor.

It is maddening to see an Administration refuse to recognize that has accomplished, that it long ago accomplished, a significant victory, by doing nothing less, but also nothing more, than removing Saddam Hussein and the pillars of the Sunni despotism in Iraq. By refusing to see what it had accomplished, and apparently unable to allow itself to derive satisfaction from having set in motion a course of events that will inevitably lead to further divisiveness among the Muslims of Iraq (not the "Iraqi people"), the Administration shows that what should have been the product of deliberate planning happened quite inadvertently.

The Administration may or may not come to its senses in time and remove American troops from Iraq. If it does so soon, it can win back disaffected Americans -- Americans, that is, who are against the American presence in Iraq, but who may, unjustifiably but not irrationally, decide that they will not support other, far more legitimate measures (such as destroying, from the air, as much of Iran's nuclear capacity as can be destroyed without a land invasion -- and that is a lot, for it is not at all equivalent to those 13,000 missiles hidden here and there, and moved constantly from civilian hiding-place to hiding-place, by Hezbollah -- here there are large, often underground, but fixed plants, that can be attacked, and that will not steal off in the night, like Birnam Wood to Dunsinane.

If only one person -- Democrat or Republican -- would try to explain this, in public, the Administration might at long last be shamed into doing what it should be doing. Civil war in Iraq is not a problem for Infidels. It is part of the solution. And the spectacle of intra-Muslim violence, like the complete collapse in Gaza -- which has nothing to do with Israel, and everything to do with the natural tendencies of fully Islamic societies, where either there is ruthless despotism or something like anarchy, and sometimes there can be both (see Pakistan today)-- would be useful in helping to bring more Infidels to their senses, about the nature of Islam, the menace of Islam.

Posted by: Hugh at September 2, 2006 1:18 PM

Islam
Islamo-Imperialism
Islamic fascism
Islamio fascism

It’s all the same;
If it long and slender like a viper,
If it slithers about like a viper,
If it flashes a forked tongue like a viper,
It is a viper - don't play with it - kill it you fool!!

Posted by: THSIMJ at September 2, 2006 1:18 PM

Bush was being KIND, Ms. Mattson!

What he should've said was that this is a "war against 'NAZI' Islamic fascism."

Posted by: champ at September 2, 2006 1:26 PM

I concur with David England but would suggest a slight nuance on his insight. We should use "Islam" as a noun rather than as an adjective.

"Islamic Fascism" implies that the fundamental problem is "Fascism" in a new form, "Islamic". This is a better description than the ludicrous "Terrorism", but it still evades the nub of the problem, that "Islam", per se, Islam understood Islamically, is the problem. This may be an intentional misdirection by our leaders, to acknowledge the Islamic character of our adversary while trying to avoid antagonizing the hundreds of millions of not-yet-violent Muslims who we can claim to not be speaking of when we use the term "Islamic Fascist".

I think that "Islamo-imperialism" has the same drawback, that it implies "imperialism of an Islamic form." The label could be understood to imply that the problem is Imperialism, which modern democratically minded people of goodwill can oppose in all its forms. Naturally, we oppose its Islamic form, but not because of the Islam. We aren't against Islam per se; we're against Imperialism and when Islam behaves that way, we oppose it. David doesn't intend it in this way, I sure, but it could be understood that way.

Perhaps a plainer rubric would be:

"Imperialist Islam"

or

"Supremacist Islam"

This makes it clear that the problem is Islam itself, inasmuch as authentically Islamic Islam is imperialist and supremacist. At the same time, it leaves a small wedge of possibility that there may be a "non-imperialist/non-supremacist Islam", which could be a useful rhetorical device to delay angering the hundrends of millions of Muslims that are not yet shooting at us and that we hope will not start soon. Dissembling and deception are tools of jihad; it would be foolish for our leaders to not employ them also. One hopes that they will use these tools against the Islamic world and not against us infidels.

We can coexist in peace with an "Islam" that is content to not seek to conquer the world. Of course, an Islam that surrendered that aspiration would probably not be truly Islamic --- the problem of the inconceivability of an authentically Islamic "moderate Islam," the virtually impossibility of which Messrs Spencer and Fitzgerald have tirelessly explained.

But I suppose that we can regard "Islamic fascist" as an improvement on "terrorist." In the future, perhaps our leaders will speak more plainly. And as more and more authentically Islamic Muslims in American and Britain undertake their own personal violent jihads, the non-Muslim public will draw its own conclusions and elect leaders who understand the problem.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at September 2, 2006 1:27 PM

The only thing I want to hear out of Ingrid Mattson's mouth is a denunciation of the Qu'ran and the names, addresses, and phone numbers of those who she thinks should be monitored.

Posted by: limes at September 2, 2006 1:29 PM

I see that Hugh Fitzgerald has put up a much fuller critique of the rubric "Islamic Fascism". Thank you, Hugh.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at September 2, 2006 1:30 PM

The creepiest Muslims are, in the Western world, very often those who convert voluntarily to Islam, not those who are simply, through no fault of their own, born into the belief-system, and raised in families or societies suffused with its attitudes and atmospherics. Ingrid Mattson is one such convert.

The notion that we are to discuss what the Infidel world faces without discussing Islam, without aluding to metonymically, or even directly naming, as some -- especially the defectors from Islam such as Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Walid Shoebat -- are entirely unafraid to name, in the clarity of comprehension born of their total familiarity, from birth, with Islam -- have no trouble doing, is dangerous nonsense. Of course it not a vague "war on terror" that is being fought. Of course that "terror" has its ideological promptings in the Qur'an and Hadith, and in what the biography of Muhammad, that Perfect Man, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, offers by way of emulation for the Believer.

And just as important, "terror" is only one of the instruments of Jihad, and though the Bush Administration seems incapable of framing things correctly so as to make the true nature of the threat from Islam clear, terror is neither the most effective nor most insidious of all the instruments of Jihad.

The formulation "Islamic fascism" was hardly good enough, and left much to be desired. But it was better than the mental pap we have been fed, pap that confuses and demoralizes Infidels, when they need to understand, more and more, what is contained in the texts of Islam, what attitudes naturally arise from people who grow up in societies suffused with Islam, or what can be expected even of those isolated Muslims in the West who, continuing to identify themselves as "Muslims," may suddenly suffer a lapsus or a raptus and then -- in the manner of "Mike" Hawash, that Intel engineer, or Taheri-reza, the UNC/Chapel Hill student, or any number of others, the formerly "moderate" Muslims who, for all kinds of reasons, not necessarily having a thing to do with politics, become "immoderate" Muslims. And we all know that unlike "immoderate" Christians -- you know the kind, the kind that emulate Christ too much, are too meek and too mild and too kind and too damned good -- "immdoderate" Muslims are a danger to all Infidels.

Islam is totalitarian. It presumes to dictatet to Believers a Complete Regulation of Life. It presumes to offer a Total Explanation of the Universe. It presumes to know best what Believers should do, and will not allow them, once they are Muslims, to leave Islam, on pain of severe punishment, even death. It is not interested in saving individual souls, but in obtaining more recruits for the Army of Islam. It is not interested in having everyone live together in harmony, but rather, it inculcates in Believers a firm conviction in the superiority of Islam that withstands any scrutiny (and critical scrutiny is discouraged in every way by the belief-system of Islam, and by its adherents), and teaches them that the universe is divided between Believers and Infidels. And it further teaches them not to leave Infidels alone, but to insist that they drop all obstacles to the spread of Islam, and that Islam indeed be spread, until it everywhere dominates, and everywhere Muslims rule.

Not all Muslims do this. But a great many do. Not all Muslims participate actively in violent Jihad, but a great many support such activities, defend and justify them. And a great many Muslims -- almost all -- have singularly failed to denounce violent Jihad or for that matter the goal of Jihad itself, which is not to accept the permanence of Infidels and their nation-states, but to insist upon their impermanence, and to work to islamize them.

If the Administration, which does not know where to put its feet and hands, cannot speak even with the tiniest bit of candor -- that "islamic fascism" for now will have to do -- it will have added to the fiasco of the effort, since the beginning of 2004, to messianically introduce "freedom" and "democracy" to Iraq, and to misread, at every step, everything the people in Iraq -- not the "Iraqi people" who do not exist -- have done, then it will be final straw.

We can hardly endure the continuing squandering of men's lives, of money, of materiel, of morale civliian and military, that the tarbaby Iraq has become, and will continue to be as long as the Administration remains impervious to the most obvous argument: the argument that the Camp of Islam will be most effectively weakened by leaving Iraq, by permitting the sectarian and ethnic conflicts to widen within Iraq, and what's more, to be the focus of efforts by co-religionists of both Sunnis and Shi'a outside Iraq, who will now be expending their men, their money, their materiel, to support their fellows inside Iraq.

Was the Iran-Iraq War a good thing? If you were a Muslim, in Iran or Iraq, it wasn't good. It managed to use up the aggressive energies of the Islamic Republic of Iran for eight of the first nine years of its existence. It managed to kill or maim a great many of the most fanatical Iranians. It did the same for Saddam Hussein and his regime. It used up not only all of Iraq's financial reserves, but also $60 billion lent to Iraq by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the U.A.E., all of whom may have worried about Saddam Hussein's threat to them, but were eager to make sure that Iran was prevented from winning that war.

But if you were an Infidel, that Iran-Iraq War was a very Good Thing indeed.

Well, are we Infidels interested in weakening the Camp of Islam? Or are we now so very different from the way we were when the Iran-Iraq War was going on, and now we have chosen to believe The Great Hallucinator, George Bush, as he chooses to believe, as he stubbornly insists, that the "Iraqis" (who do not exist) chose "freedom" (no they didn't -- the Shi'a took eager part in elections because they were well aware that they constituted 60-65% of the population, and knew that they would gain power more easily that way, and bask in the glow of American support, which would translate into even more tens of billions lavished on that country, and more years of American training and supplying of largely Shi'a forces, and more American fighting, on behalf of "Iraq" as the Americans saw it, but really on behalf of the Shi'a as the Shi'a understood, the Sunni "insurgents" of both kinds, the Al-Zarqawi-led non-Iraqis, who despised the Shi'a as "Rafidite dogs," and the much larger group of indigenous Sunnis who have no intention of acquiescing, ever, in their loss of power and in the domination of Iraq by Shi'a Arabs.

The Administration has to finally see the sectarian and ethnic conflics within Iraq, or within the Camp of Islam generally, as something highly desirable, something to be encourageed. It further has to see that by withdrawing the Jizyah of foreign aid from all Muslim states, the Infidel lands can force the poorer Muslims to go, hat in hand, to the rich Arabs. And this will help to encouarge economic resentment, resentment when the requests are met, for whatever requests are made will never be quite enough to satisfy the poorer Arabs and Muslims who will resent the rich Arabs, and insist that they observe that supposed unity that belonging to the umma al-islamiyya, the Community of Believers, demands. And the rich Arabs and Irnaians will not wish to support Pakistan, or Jordan, or Egypt, or the so-called "Palestinians." At this very moment, in deed, Iranians are full of resentment at the billions of dollars being spent to supply and now to re-supply Hezbollah. That resentment is a good thing. It needs to be encouraged, the sums that the Islamic Republic of Iran is giving to Arabs needs to be publicized by those Farsi-language radio stations beaming into Iran.

The Arabs have managed for the past 30 years to encourage a split between Western Europe and its most important ally, the United States. It has done so by appealing to, and playing on, pre-existing mental conditions -- anti-Americanism and antisemitims" and by enrolling an army of Western hirelings to promote the Arab and Muslim line. The ruling elites in the Western world have failed to recognize this. But some may now be doing so. And their task is not only to repair that split, and to bring greater unity to the Western, Infidel world that is now so obviously threatened by those engaged in Jihad, and using all the varied instruments of Jihad, but also to do somethning else: to split the Camp of Islam, to do to Islam what Muslims have had such success, because for so long so unopposed, in the Western world. Iraq is the perfect place to begin.

But it will not begin if this Administration does not come to its senses.

It only takes an Army of One -- one political leader, one Senator or one Congressman -- to start saying what has been put up here at JW for the past 2 1/2 years. The reaction of the public to someone calling for withdrawal from Iraq because -- and here things may have to be hinted at, or stated obliquely -- because the Americans have much to gain by leaving Iraq (obviously no political leader can say openly that he relishes the prospect of sectarian and ethnic conflict, so sentimental and false has everyone been required to become, at least in public), and to say something like this"

"It was rational, it was not unjustified, to enter Iraq to make sure it did not possess, or was not on the verge of possessing, weapons of mass desctruction. It was reasonable to remain for about a year, in order to throroughly scoure the country. It was not reasonable to remain after that period. It was not reasonable to ignore the grievances and resenments and hatred that split Sunni from Shi'a, and Arab from non-Arab, in Iraq. It was not reasonable to believe that "democracy" in the most important, Western sense -- a "democracy" in which the victors are required to be solicitous of those defeated at the polls -- simply had nothing to do with the aggressiveness, and utter inability to compromise, that is exhibited by all Muslim peoples, and that comes out of Islam itself. It is important to fight the Jihad, and that is why I am opposed to the squandering of men, money, and materiel in Iraq. I am deeply disturbed at the damage to the morale of the troops and to civilians, who must be prepared to fight what some have called a "long war" and which will go for a very long time. I find that the application of money and men to be ill-thought out. I deplore the inability of this Administation to figure out ways to prevent the spread of this ideology of Jihad, by limiting the number of its adherents permitted into the Western world. I deplore the inability of this Administration, which appears to recognize the gravity of the threat, but cannot quite bring itself to recognize, much less identify publiclly, with any conviction or clarity, that threat, or its promptings in certain immutable texts. I deplore, above all, the obstinacy with which this Administration -- perhaps out of nothing so much as an inability to recongize that it was wrong, wrong in its conception of a "war on terror" and not a war of resistance to the forces of Jihad, wrong in its belief, promoted by many plausible and attractive Shi'a in exile, that the terrorist threat could somehow be ameliorated, or even made to disappear, if Iraq were to become Iraq the Model, Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations. No one in the Administration saw fit to point out, or to realize, that any elections would merely guarantee a transfer of power from Sunni Arabs to Shi'a Arabs. No one saw fit to recognize that while the Sunnis constitute 19% of the population, they believe -- and in Muslim societies, where any free and critical inquiry is discouraged at every level, conspiracy theories, and outlandish rumors, and belief in whatever one wishes to believe that makes one more powerful, are far more prevalent even in the most debased and mentally lazy of Infidel socities -- that they constitute 42% of the population, and furthermore, they have a right to rule, as Sunnis, and the Shi'a have no such right. There was not, and will never be, a possiblity of the Sunnis of Iraq permanently acquiescing in their loss of power to the Shi'a.

Similarly, the Administration failed to see, all along, that it was absurd to think that Sunni Arab states would ever find attractive, in any way, an Iraq in which power had been transferred from Sunni Arabs to Shi'a Arabs. Not a single Arab state ever uttered a syllable of sympathy for the Shi'a Arabs massacred by Saddam Hussein. In Bahrain a Sunni Arab rules over a population that is 70-75% Shi'a, and has no intention of allowing them to have power. In the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, where all the major oil fields are to be found, there are hundreds of thousands of Shi'a who have felt, for the entire history of "Saudi" Arabia, the Wahhabi sting, the contumely, the discrimination, the persecution. In far-off Pakistan, for years at least one Sunni terrorist group has aimed its attacks on Shi'a professionals. In Lebanon, the resentment of the Shi'a is not directed only at Christians, but at the much better-off Sunni merchant class, and the Sunnis, like the Christians and Druze, are in a rage at Hezbollah, now seen as a loose Katyusha or Fajr or Zelzal missile, capable of endangering all of Lebanon, would be delighted to see Hezbollah troops siphoned off, as volunteers, to go to help fellow Shi'a in Iraq. In Kuwait, as in other Sunni Arab countries, the Shi'a are sometimes maligned as untrustworthy, and not only the Al-Zarqawis regard Shi'a as less than full-fledged Muslims, even if his denunciation of them as "Rafidite dogs" is not everywhere repeated. Mubarak's denunciation of the Shi'a as untrustworthy was remarkable not for its unexceptional content but for its public candor.

It is maddening to see an Administration refuse to recognize that has accomplished, that it long ago accomplished, a significant victory, by doing nothing less, but also nothing more, than removing Saddam Hussein and the pillars of the Sunni despotism in Iraq. By refusing to see what it had accomplished, and apparently unable to allow itself to derive satisfaction from having set in motion a course of events that will inevitably lead to further divisiveness among the Muslims of Iraq (not the "Iraqi people"), the Administration shows that what should have been the product of deliberate planning happened quite inadvertently.

The Administration may or may not come to its senses in time and remove American troops from Iraq. If it does so soon, it can win back disaffected Americans -- Americans, that is, who are against the American presence in Iraq, but who may, unjustifiably but not irrationally, decide that they will not support other, far more legitimate measures (such as destroying, from the air, as much of Iran's nuclear capacity as can be destroyed without a land invasion -- and that is a lot, for it is not at all equivalent to those 13,000 missiles hidden here and there, and moved constantly from civilian hiding-place to hiding-place, by Hezbollah -- here there are large, often underground, but fixed plants, that can be attacked, and that will not steal off in the night, like Birnam Wood to Dunsinane.

If only one person -- Democrat or Republican -- would try to explain this, in public, the Administration might at long last be shamed into doing what it should be doing. Civil war in Iraq is not a problem for Infidels. It is part of the solution. And the spectacle of intra-Muslim violence, like the complete collapse in Gaza -- which has nothing to do with Israel, and everything to do with the natural tendencies of fully Islamic societies, where either there is ruthless despotism or something like anarchy, and sometimes there can be both (see Pakistan today)-- would be useful in helping to bring more Infidels to their senses, about the nature of Islam, the menace of Islam.

Posted by: Hugh at September 2, 2006 1:39 PM

Hugh, in my country we have a saying - "the new Muslim prays 5 times a day"

ie. the converts are the most zealous zealots.

Let's face it, Islam is a totalitarian ideology.

Posted by: sanman at September 2, 2006 2:12 PM

They feel uncomfortable? I feel uncomfortable knowing they are in our country plotting and planning. Get out and do not come back. I don’t care what they say, empty words, that is all they are. Who here is going to believe what they say? To me listening to the muslims BS(its all in their book) is a complete waste of time and innocent life. They target our children and they are angry about being called Fascists? Don’t believe the lying jihadi collaborators, they laugh at those who are fool enough to fall for it. Do they really think we love Pepsi more than we love our children? Complete morons all, we will see who laughs last.

Posted by: tgusa at September 2, 2006 2:14 PM

One would think that a moderate Muslim like her would stand up and condemm the radicalism. Guess she is no different then one who is born Muslim.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 2, 2006 2:15 PM

Bush has been 'distorting' Islam for the last 5 years by calling it "the religion of peace" and "peace-loving" and all sorts of nonsense. Islam, in any form, is the umbrella theology for a timeless form of confessional warfare that knows no restrictions, no morality, and no surrender.

The only thing worse than this Mattson woman is the legions of foot soldiers supporting her in the US and abroad with cash, propaganda, and...... designer burqas by Al-Armani.

"The pen is mightier than the nuke-tipped Tomahawk."

- anonymous JW thinker

Posted by: MadrassasippiBurnin at September 2, 2006 2:15 PM

Well the pubic people are simply saying what us private folks have been saying for a long time, that we are dealing with Islamofacism.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 2, 2006 2:16 PM

yes the muslims do look pubic dont they? lol

One sentence sums up what we all feel "Muslims LEAVE OUR COUNTRY NOW while you still have time".

Posted by: M at September 2, 2006 2:27 PM

Hugh-

Excellent comments. Too bad you don't advise the president.

I'm sure Frau Ingrid will be a good fascist and remain silent re genocide in Sudan, the cruel intolerance in Saudi Arabia, etc. I'll bet she's a regular Jew-hater too. Wanna bet?

Posted by: Frank at September 2, 2006 3:20 PM

Bush does distort Islam. He distorts it every time he describes it as a religion of peace.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at September 2, 2006 4:11 PM

I try to never appear in pubic myself.......

Posted by: n.a. palm at September 2, 2006 4:14 PM

If it makes her feel uncomfortable, we must be doing something right.

Now if we could only get her to remove her islamic ass out of the West.

Posted by: dgene at September 2, 2006 4:40 PM

Uncomfortable? UNCOMFORTABLE?...our job..our purpose in life should be..will be, to make these lunatics so "uncomfortable" that they get out of this land of the still free and back to a special man made hell where they may practise their theology among each other until they kill every last one of themselves. Even when the last one is taking his last breath he will be cursing Israel for his demise.

Posted by: pismopal at September 2, 2006 4:51 PM

The reactionary and intolerant Miss Mattson and ISNA have responded to the accurate "islamic fascism" term by trying to censor the President of the United states, and suppress all opposition to the cultural imperialism of islam (islamic fascism.)

The irony is as ridiculous as her organization.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at September 2, 2006 5:14 PM

Unfortunately, Hugh isn't advising the president.

Instead, Dan Bartlett, who believes the enemy believes in a "violent and radical version of Islam", does.

The president is a busy guy. That's why he has advisors. That he is so ignorant about Islam is, at least in some measure, a result of the advice he receives.

The information buck may stop at his desk, but it started out as a one hundred dollar bill.

I'm afraid that he gets what his advisors want him to get.

Posted by: PRCS at September 2, 2006 5:47 PM

Anbody who believes the President is going to publicly admit that mainstream islam is an evil cult bent on world domination is politically naive.

It ain't gonna happen. Not at this time.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at September 2, 2006 6:15 PM

A lot of what I'm reading here is what I gotta call wishful thinking--wishing a problem would go away. Ever know that to work?

Multiple 'solutions' are needed. O.K., I have to be very careful now. Authorities that should be totally on our side will not stand with people that actually offer solutions.

So let's call them 'random acts of kindness'. The great thing about truly random acts of kindness is just how very difficult they are to track back to the 'kindness offerers'.

And when enough kindnesses have been offered, we can expect kindness back from the recipients of such kindness--in the form of getting the f**k out of our country.

Posted by: turn at September 2, 2006 6:39 PM

Why how dare the Bush administration tell the truth when it makes terrorists feel "uncomfortable". No wonder they become terrorists!

Posted by: OLDPUPPYMAX at September 2, 2006 6:50 PM

The truth hurts, but it still liberates. Also cannot wait for the book about Mohammed which could end up being a bombshell of a book by Robert to come out in next month. Got to find out what the response will be.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 2, 2006 7:40 PM

True, President Bush said islam is a "religion of peace". He's wrong.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at September 2, 2006 9:20 PM

Muslims in America feel uncomfortable? That's
great! Leave now.

What can we do to make them feel more
uncomfortable?

Posted by: root_cause at September 2, 2006 9:28 PM

Ms. Mattson isn't the only islamic mouthpiece expressing concern and displeasure at Mr. Bush's choice of words to describe islamic terrorists. There was a half-page editorial in my local newspaper last week written by none other than the mendacious, unctuous, America-hating seditionist, Mr. Nihad Awad, Executive Director of CAIR. It was replete with the usual whining, accusations of bigotry and persecution; an utterly disgusting diatribe depicting muslims as innocent victims and islam as the epitome of peace, love, and goodwill. It begged the question: how could the president of the United States, who has reiterated that islam is a religion of peace, associate fascism with islam? How could he insult American muslims in such a cruel and blatant manner?

Mr. Awad was actually reproaching the president and demanding that he retract his implication that islam is "fascist." I suppose the ACLU will now file a lawsuit against the president for invoking hate speech against muslims.

Posted by: Susanp at September 2, 2006 10:53 PM

As a Catholic, I am aware that for some time, particularly in the 19th and early 20th centuries, a lot of Catholics in this country felt "uncomfortable." They were discriminated against. Convents were being burned down. They lived in slums. They were hated and some Americans considered them sub-human and violent.
How did they tackled this problem? Well, admittedly, some were violent. But in general they busted their arses and worked hard to become real Americans - to prove themselves patriotic.
In the 1950's I remember the nuns (Many of whom were themselves immigrants from Communist lands) STRESSING the importance of being a good citizen. We pledged allegiance daily. Every classroom had a prominently displayed American flag - not far from the image of Jesus and that of the Blessed Mother.
We prayed in a foreign -even dead! - language. We had funny surnames. Our parents had fought in WWII. We were taught (again largely by immigrants) that this was the greatest country in the world because of our FREEDOMS. In our Catholic-ghetto neighborhood there were Jews. Orthodox Jews, who celebrated their holy days. I don't believe we hated them, but to us they were strange and different. We played stick-ball with them. We dated them. We would go to their festival and they would go to ours.
I wonder of the midrassas in the USA have teachers who stress what a great country this is. Do they pledge allegiance to the flag? Do they teach the children to respect the president and the government? On civil holidays do the families display the US flag on their front lawn? Do they sing "My country 'tis of thee" and "God bless America"?
I am glad that I grew up in the Eisenhower, Kennedy era. I am glad that I didn't listen to my Mom and Pop whine about how we were persecuted.
If we were uncomfortable because of prejudices against our religion or our ethnicity, the remedy was to "get over it."
We used to chant "Sticks & stones can break my bones but names can never harm me."
Ms. Ingrid and the coven over at CAIR are afraid of the names they are called. I am afraid of THEIR sticks and stones. Especially since our august Western leaders are bending over backwards to try not to offend those who are intent on wreaking havoc on our world.
Grandma had a great phrase: "If you're mad, scratch your ass and get glad."
Amen.

Posted by: Sansantiago at September 2, 2006 11:52 PM

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/09/01/1793012-cp.html

"She said terrorists misuse Islamic concepts and she rejects that."

You have to love those indirect quotes...

Posted by: baraka66 at September 3, 2006 1:02 AM

Bohemend:

If you think President Bush believes that islam is "the religion of peace," you're a fool. Personally, I don't think you do believe that. I think you're just saying anyway because you hate Bush.

Thank God someone like you isn't President.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at September 3, 2006 2:31 AM

Bohemend:

If you think President Bush believes that islam is "the religion of peace," you're a fool. Personally, I don't think you do believe that. I think you're just saying anyway because you hate Bush.

Thank God someone like you isn't President.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at September 3, 2006 2:31 AM

Bohemend:

If you think President Bush believes that islam is "the religion of peace," you're a fool. Personally, I don't think you do believe that. I think you're just saying anyway because you hate Bush.

Thank God someone like you isn't President.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at September 3, 2006 2:31 AM

I believe that fundamentalism always reflects the true depth of any religious faith rather it be Christian, Muslim, etc. I have more respect for the "true believers" (even though they cause more trouble in the world) than those who just rely on a secularist, namby-pamby religious "faith". This is why we are in so much trouble in Iraq. We are caught between the "true believers" of the Shia and Sunni factions. What this will entail in the future is anyone's guest. We worry about Iran having a nuclear arsenal, but I would be more worried if I were Sunni Saudi Arabia. When the Prime Minister of Iraq today stated that they may have to rely on "outside forces" he may have meant inviting in the Shia-dominated military of Iran. What would we do then if the democratically-elected government of Iraq turned to its larger Shiite neighbor? Then again, the Shia believers are only a small percentage of the world's Islamic population of mostly Sunni believers. We have to decide who is the lesser of our enemies, and support them. And, as a last ditch strategem, we should consider holding Mecca hostage to nuclear annihilation if we are attacked by WMDs. At least, we would then know who our "true believer" enemies are so we can annihilate them in their beliefs.

Posted by: Larry T at September 3, 2006 12:30 PM