The unvarnished truth comes from the people, it is too bad that the so called educated elites are still trying to explain how a tiny minority has hijacked islam.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at July 21, 2007 6:55 AM

(s)News(t)week? HA!..islamist suckups.
One would only get numbers like that from places like Dearborn, Michigan. PUHLEASE!
No wonder their circulation sux.

This droll poll can be shot down in flames.

Posted by: jcom972 at July 21, 2007 6:57 AM

It would be interesting to see the results of a similar poll here in the UK, that is if anyone had the balls to conduct such a poll.

Posted by: grobari at July 21, 2007 6:58 AM

Key is simple...ask the right questions, which they don't-their's is vague as hell.
Even here in the proto-marxist state of the peoplez republik of kalifornia, the one question they DON'T want to ask is, for example:

"If you don't favor detention, then what is your preference?"
They are NOT prepared for THE answer, as it would prove draconian as hell.
(bank on it being along the lines of: the choice of deportation or death,
to commence in 5 minutes, US national or not,
no exceptions,
no reprieve,
and not up for discussion)
...and the heartland US would prove even LESS forgiving that THAT-they're not known for "sensitivity"-they're known for the adage: talk's cheap.

Like it or hate it, there it is.

Posted by: jcom972 at July 21, 2007 7:08 AM

There is room for error. And any error will go only one way: for some have been bullied into thinking they must never ever offer an answer that, they fear, smacks of "discrimination" -- even when what is really being talked about is an intelligent understanding of what Islam inculcates, and a further intelligent apprehension of how, in time and in space, what Islam teaches (or with all the technological advances appropriated from the West, hammers into Muslim minds, through audiocassettes, videocassettes, the Internet, and especailly satellite television) is reflected in how Muslims have behaved, in their attempts at Jihad-conquest, and their subjugation of non-Muslims whose lands have been conqured, rapidly by warfare early on, and in some places more slowly, by steady and inexorable demographic conquest.

Posted by: Hugh at July 21, 2007 7:24 AM

Muslims deserve discrimination.

If the Aztecs were still around would the left make excuses for them in the name of multiculturalism? Islam is as moraly bankrupt as the Aztecs religion and does not deserve toleration.

Posted by: Ruebacca at July 21, 2007 8:08 AM

"40 percent tend to believe the Qur'an itself does not condone violence"

I guess they never bothered to *READ* the Qur'an!

Posted by: Lady Predator at July 21, 2007 8:18 AM

46% seems like a surprisingly small number, particularly given that 9/11 was only six years ago. I guess people's attention span here leaves much to be desired (Paris Hilton is more important, to most, than the encroachment of radical Islam).

Also, why this bashing of the Aztecs? A bit random, isn't it?

Posted by: GetBornAgain at July 21, 2007 8:51 AM

So, according this poll, if another massive attack occurred, 60% of Americans would oppose mass detentions of Muslims. I assume that the majority would also oppose mass deportations. Is this the news Jihad Central has been waiting? A massive attack, without any government interventions, would allow the US Muslim communities to stay in tact, supporting and hiding jihadists, and enabling more Muslim immigration through family reunification. Again and again, through our openness, our democracy, a Muslim theocracy will form to confront our laws and our way of living. Winner takes all, and they are the winners.

Posted by: maryrose at July 21, 2007 10:09 AM

Prior to 911 most Americans were unfamilliar with Islam, even the 'Nation of Islam' variety. Al-Qaeda was unheard of. Now, 'Islamophobia', (I look at that as a positive concept) is becomming a household word. While the educating of America about Islam is happening, it is too slow. That's because of the appeasing gov, and MSM, have confused the issue.
The percentage of Americans who believe that Islam is the ROP, is something to continue working on.
Most of these are leftists/liberals, who have a hard time digesting anything other than holding hands, and sharing some cheese and crackers, with the enemy.
Eventually even these fragmented people will become 'enlightened', Islam itself will see to it.

Posted by: duh_swami at July 21, 2007 10:57 AM

I hope those digits will soon switch to 64%.

Posted by: sceptico at July 21, 2007 11:02 AM

Political correctness is killing us!

Posted by: The Resistance at July 21, 2007 11:13 AM

I can see why people would be upset at such a poll, but I think the positive said is that we are slowly reaching to at least a 50 percent agree that Islam should be a concert of the American public. I also agree that understanding among the American public is going at too slow of a pace, but it is moving, albeit at a snails pace, in the right direction. I myself have an automatic twinge against mass detentions - thanks to the PC education regarding the Japanese Internment Camps during WWII. I remember hearing about them from my grandparents and never understanding how they could even consider them in the slightest bit needed or moral, but after 9/11 - although I still cringe at the thought of such an action - I have begun to understand how there was at least a certain grim logic about it. (Especially if one puts off the PC crap and learns to think as a person during WWII). Personally, I'd favor mass deportation, or the 1 strike against this country and you're given the death penalty via military justice.

Again, ironically, if I felt that our government was actually concerned about the security of its citizens, I wouldn't be so open to such draconian measures, but let's be honest - Islam has shown that it will not play by the rules of the gentlemen and have, repeatedly, declared a "religious war" on us. I am more and ready for the gloves to come off and for us to defeat them in whatever way is needed. For the sake of this great country and for the sake for the world and its future.

I would agree that people do need to actually read the Qu'ran. The notion that it "doesn't condone" violence is beyond stupidity.

Posted by: Monkeywho at July 21, 2007 12:16 PM

"40 percent tend to believe the Qur'an itself does not condone violence"

I guess they never bothered to *READ* the Qur'an!

No Lady Predator, the majority of people haven't even read their own religious text. They have heard it's the Religion of Peace® and assume that to be a truthful statement. Most people are still concerned with what they are going to fix for dinner, what the kids are doing, etc. Most people still do not understand the gravity of the declaration of war that was pronounced on the civilized world. I do not know what it will take to get them away from the television sets....maybe house to house battles?

Posted by: interestinconundrum at July 21, 2007 12:52 PM

If the 46% statistic is anywhere near accurate, and I have reason to think it is because a lot of Americans have simply not taken the time to learn about Islam and 9/11 has unfortunately been largely forgotten by many (including, it seems, all the Democratic candidates for President), then this country is still in deep trouble. We need a much higher percentage than 46% before we can seriously address the issue of Muslim immigration to the US. As an aside, I wonder what percentage of Americans would say there should be no Muslim immigration to America, something that I personally would welcome very much.

Posted by: Wellington at July 21, 2007 1:09 PM

Of the 40% who believe the Quran does not incite violence, I wonder how many of those were leftists/liberals. Stating unqualified opinion as fact, is one of their hallmarks.
I bet none of the 40% read the Quran, and know little about it. So how do they come to this stupendous conclusion? It is probably the same 40% who think muslims loyalty is the same to the US, as to Allah/Islam. It's hard to get the word out to people who's head's are stuck in the sand...

Posted by: duh_swami at July 21, 2007 1:46 PM

Forty percent of those surveyed believe Muslims in the United States are as loyal to the U.S. as they are to Islam. (Thirty-two percent believe American Muslims are less loyal to the U.S.)

The actual question Newsweek is referring to in the quote immediately above asks not about "Muslims," but about "most Muslims."

But close to half (46 percent) of Americans say this country allows too many immigrants to come here from Muslim countries.

The poll reports that another 15% "don't know." That 15% needs to be persuaded.

A solid majority of Americans (63 percent) believe most Muslims in this country do not condone violence,

In the UK, though most Muslims polled are against violence, huge numbers of UK Muslims support jihad violence against the UK -- perhaps 7 percent, which might be close to 100,000 UK Muslims in support of jihad violence against the UK. Perhaps 16,000 or more UK Muslims, according to polls of them, are willing or even eager to actively participate in violent jihad against the UK. And close to half of UK Muslims, according to polls of them, want Islamic law to replace UK law. Too bad Newsweek didn't have the courage to mention such facts, or construct their poll to explore questions about such Muslim attitudes in the U.S. Nope, they do what Muslims do: instead of focusing on the need to reform Islam, stop jihad violence, criticize the totalitarianism of Islamic law, disavow the parts of the Quran that demand the subjugation or destruction of non-Muslims, Newsweek focuses on what non-Muslims believe about Muslims.

40 percent tend to believe the Qur'an itself does not condone violence (28 percent feel it does).

Only 28% believe the Qur'an condones violence. That suggests that Muslim propagandists and PC defenders are having some success in keeping people uninformed.

But 41 percent of Americans feel Muslim culture glorifies suicide.

From the above Newsweek question, a Martian visiting the planet Earth for the first time could get the impression that when the average Muslim locks himself in the bathroom and slits his wrists, the Muslim world celebrates.

But we all know that Islam does not glorify suicide. It glorifies using suicide as a means to kill others. But Newsweek chose to bite its toungue and ask that weasel question instead of an honest one.

Yet if a 9/11-style terrorist attack were to occur again, only 25 percent of Americans would support mass detentions of U.S. Muslims; a solid majority (60 percent) would oppose such detentions.

Another weasel question. What needs to be asked is, what percentage of Americans would support mass detentions of Muslims in the event of an attack WORSE than 9/11. Several levels of casualties could have been asked about, up to and including the detonation of a small nuclear weapon in New York. But again, Newsweek goes all weak-kneed when it has the chance to ask a question that will piss some people (Muslims) off.

With anything political, Newsweek and Time both have to be brilliantly weasely in how they formulate sentences so that those sentences will appeal to the largest possible audience and offend as few people, conservatives or liberals, as possible. Often each sentence in a Time or Newsweek article will be conceived with a subtle double-face: a face with features that liberals can read as agreeing with them or not disagreeing, yet a face with other features that conservatives can read the same way, but the whole thing is done so artfully that neither conservatives nor liberals need notice that the sentence speaks out of both sides of its mouth.

Posted by: traeh at July 21, 2007 2:01 PM

In my above comment, I mistakenly put one of my own thoughts in blockquote form as if it had been said by Newsweek:

"Only 28% believe the Qur'an condones violence. That suggests that Muslim propagandists and PC defenders are having some success in keeping people uninformed."

Posted by: traeh at July 21, 2007 2:06 PM

They say ignorance is bliss. Does this mean that by being ignorant of what the Koran really says, you will be safe from attack? I guess I should bet on the statement from HL Meinken when he said, "No one has ever gone broke underestimating the stupidity of the Amemrican people". This also means that when the time comes to put down the beer and pick up the gun, these unfortunates will be the ones we will be protecting. Freedom, what a concept.
"Islamophobes of the world, Unite!"
"Stop Muslim immigration now!"

Posted by: OregonJake at July 21, 2007 3:16 PM

this poll is highly suspect for many reasons (some very obvious and some not...): start with the proclamation that it is a poll representing opinions of all Americans - very very unlikely - (do "unbiased" leftist jounalists really include anyone (real American or "progressive" American with different opinions in their definition of "American"); it was commissioned by whom? (...of course in no way were "unbiased" leftist editorial staff of old media "NewSpeak" influenced by sources linked to saudi whabbi lobby to create, poll, and publicize such propaganda...); of course "NewSpeak" will not reveal; exact wording of poll questions nor will such be published or ever made available for criticism (wording or lack of -can,will, and very often does skew any poll to/or away from desired results; nor will "unbiased multi-culti-elite-1960's-doper-anything-goes-reject-"NewSpeak" editorial staff reveal its statistical analysis of data (i.e. what was the true (likely carefully targteted) demographic polled for such an obviously skewed and phony poll; ... no, "NewSpeak" old "progressive" media leftovoer, "media" rag will publish (and for the right price - damn near anything) only what the elites want people to when to think and what and how to think ...this is pure pro-islamonazi propaganda and should be ignored by real Americans (and already is).

Posted by: TINBH at July 21, 2007 4:12 PM

"Religion of Peace" should be an immediate tip-off to anyone with more than three functioning synapses. It's kinda like introducing your friend to your neighbor:

"This is my neighbor, Rick, a friendly, non-violent type of guy."

Wouldn't that sound alarm bells for most folks? The information that would prevent most people from giving Muslims a passing grade (as a group) is in plain sight but they are still wearing rose-colored glasses.

I thought the 25% supporting detention was an optimistic sign. Picture the "worse than 9/11" aftermath, together with a different President, increase in jihadist violence (a foregone conclusion) and (hopefully) increase in awareness among Americans of the Islamic threat, and that figure would quickly double at least.

Even if it never came to pass, just getting mass detention of Muslims on the table would have a positive effect.

Posted by: lycaste at July 21, 2007 4:40 PM

Newsweek credibility is dropped significantly, expecially in the past few years from some of the takes they've done...this poll is suspect at best.

When people out here in a state as leftist as California say "Oh, please!" to these stats, that's saying something as to the credibility of this poll.
I've not heard ONE person agree with this poll, or say anything even remotely close to what's being suggested by this.
The numbers don't add up...at all.
I stand on my take...locals here make it pretty clear they won't CARE what ANYONE thinks, and will be telling the "stay restrained" orders to FOAD, ...they'll vote with their guns.

This poll is BS.

Posted by: jcom972 at July 21, 2007 9:21 PM

Did a Fareed Zakaria sign his name to this poll?

Fareed is an Islamo-agit-prop par excellence, a true infil-traitor and does his islamic duty to disseminate disinformation.

But on the other hand...

As long as 90% of Americans don't know where to find Bagdad on the map I don't have any hope that something changes...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at July 21, 2007 11:30 PM

Sometimes I think these so-called "polls" are completely fictitious and the questions, answers, and number of participants are imaginary. Do they call people on the phone, stop them on the street, send them questionnaries in the mail?

I would love to participate in one of these "polls" but nobody ever calls me! It would also be interesting to know where it was conducted; was it a random selection of people throughout America, just one or two states, or what?

I am frequently amazed to discover that people I thought were apolitical, apathetic, ignorant, or otherwise oblivious to the worldwide jihad and related issues, are quite well-informed about islam, muslims, Eurabia, immigration, and terrorism! That is always a pleasant surprise because it proves that Americans aren't all self-absorbed and indifferent to what's going on in the world, and it also shows that Americans are slowly but surely becoming aware of the threat of islam. I'm encouraged with the progress of average people, but very disillusioned with the politically correct morons running our country who would rather see another terror attack than be accused of profiling or islamophobia.

Posted by: Susanp at July 21, 2007 11:39 PM

Things have moved little since the poll last year asking Americans what they thought of Muslims/Islam. Also, while it may be comforting that 46% would like Muslim immigration to be reduced, that number would go down considerably if proposals like eliminating Muslim immigration altogether, let alone deporting all Muslims already here, come up. It's still an uphill ride.

Some good news - 75% - as of this writing - disagree with the CAIR contention that American Muslims are unfairly singled out by law enforcement. OTOH, it is disturbing that 57% of those between 18-40 (my age group) say that they'd vote for a qualified Muslim at the ballot - higher than older respondents.

Similarly, when 2/3 state that they have no objections to a son/daughter dating a Muslim, they don't have a clue as to the repercussions. While I happen to agree with Dr Laura that interfaith marriages are a bad idea due to the inherent incompatibility of values driven by different faiths, the idea of a Muslim-Infidel dating relationship is even more problematic than that. It requires the Infidel in the relationship to convert to Islam, particularly if he's a man, and if it is a Muslim guy-Infidel gal, it signifies a conquest of an Infidel by a Muslim (since the wife is a tilth, as per the Quran). I however think that this high number is due to the lack of honor killings so far in the US - I'd wager that in Europe, should a similar question be asked, the figures would be reversed.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 21, 2007 11:49 PM

Newsweek
Live Vote

Do you think American Muslims are unfairly singled out by law enforcement? * 4089 responses

Yes
16%

No
75%

Not sure
9.1%

© 2007 Newsweek, Inc. | Subscribe to Newsweek

Posted by: Prickzilla at July 22, 2007 12:08 AM

wellington:
"We need a much higher percentage than 46% before we can seriously address the issue of Muslim immigration to the US."

Maybe a dirty bomb or two, a beheading here or there, perhaps a school atrocity or a couple of downed jet liners will get Americans to seriously address Muslim immigration. Too bad but that's just what it will take...then watch the fur fly.
Keep the powder dry folks, the day is at hand.

Posted by: solomonpal at July 22, 2007 3:43 AM

I'm amazed by how much liberal-bashing goes on here, particularly since I believe Mr. Spencer's claims of this not being a partisan website. For the record, I'm liberal on many issues, yet it doesn't stop me from wishing death on every Jihadist alive. Lest everyone forget, it was Dinesh D'Souza--hardly the paragon of liberal thought--with whom Mr. Spencer so sardonically (and delightfully) sparred recently. If anything, I would say that conservatives--who hate women, homosexuality, and non-Christians almost as much as Muslims--are very often taken in by the supposed "moral purity" of Islam. All of us here, regardless of political views, oppose jihad; that's all that should matter. Let's leave the partisan squabbling to lesser minds (Jihadists?).

Also, comparing the Aztecs to what was done by the likes of Mao and Pol Pot is ridiculous. Mao and Pol Pot were brutal dictators who slaughtered untold numbers of their own people in the name of Marxism; the Aztecs were an ancient people with a complex culture who were slaughtered in the name of Christianity. There is absolutely no similarity between their fate and those of the Marxist regimes.

Posted by: GetBornAgain at July 22, 2007 10:06 AM

They must have done the poll in Dearborn, Mich.
Closer to 90% of the people I know say stop muslim immigration altogether. Wake up, America!

Posted by: imamerican at July 22, 2007 12:48 PM

GetBornAgain: Just a few comments here for you. First, I distinguish old-fashioned liberals from a half a century ago from those of today. The former held to ideas many conservatives disagreed with, mostly revolving around how much the government should get involved in peoples' everyday lives, but they, like the conservatives, understood that civilization must be very tough and exacting at times as well as decent and compassionate. Today's modern liberals are suffused with notions that force is wrong, deferring to international bodies is a good thing, that all cultures all equal except that rapacious, avaricious culture known as Western Civilization and, respecting America per se, tend to think the major ills of the world are largely America's fault.
Second, your broad brush of conservatives as hating women, homosexuals and all non-Christians is patently absurd. There are millions upon millions of conservative women in this country who are strong, forthright, tough and insightful. I personally know many such women. And there are millions upon millions of conservative men who have the highest regard for those of the opposite gender. I personally know many such men. And aside from the fact that there are numerous homosexuals and lesbians who are conservative through and through (Tammy Bruce is one such prominent lesbian), the idea that conservatives hate homosexuals is a damn lie. Reactionaries hate homosexuals, not conservatives, not that you seem to know the difference between the two. Just listen to someone like Dennis Prager or Michael Medved to have your delusion on this matter efficaciously countered. As for Christians hating non-Christians, this is a libel of the highest order. Are you not aware that some of Israel's most ardent supporters anywhere in the world are American Christians? Are you oblivious to the fact that Christian charities in this country contribute vast amounts to so many unfortunates around the world irrespective of these downtrodden peoples' religious convictions? Just look at the Salvation Army or Catholic Charities as examples here. And by the way, your implicit assumption that all conservatives are Christians is also dead wrong. I myself am an agnostic and a conservative. And, yes, I know many more such as me. Your generalizations are pathetic all around.
Finally, repsecting the Aztecs, don't try sympathizing with them too much. They were brutal in so many repsects and even practiced human sacrifice. That helps to explain why Cortez met so many non-Aztecs Indian tribes who were only too glad to aid him in the conquest of a people despised by so many others. And, oh yes, also please note that when Christians did kill in the name of their religion centuries ago, they were violating the tenets of their faith, not fulfilling them. When Muslims kill in the name of their religion, and they've been doing this pretty much non-stop for 1400 years now, they are fulfilling a major dictate of their creed. Huge difference. Couldn't be any bigger. I'm done here.

Posted by: Wellington at July 22, 2007 1:51 PM

Solomonpal: I think you're probably correct it will take a calamity or two for the vast bulk of Americans to finally wake up and see that Muslim immigration to America is pretty much a negative across the board. I fear for my country, as I'm sure you do, watching more and more Muslims come here. Just as I wouldn't want Marxists or neo-Nazis immigrating to America, so I do not want Muslims. All three adhere to ideologies inimical to the Constitution and true democracy.

Posted by: Wellington at July 22, 2007 2:05 PM

This survey seems odd because after I watched Michael Moore's mock-u-mentary FRHT-9/11 I notice that Moore portrayed Arab's a Savages and killers while he attacks Pres Bush for NOT rounding up all the Muslims to hold them until they proved they had NO ties to Osama and the attack in N.Y. .

I say this because Moore makes it very clear that he thought Bush was an idiot for allowing Arab's to leave the USA just days after 9/11/01 and the audience cheered during many parts of the movie which I took as agreeing with what they saw.
So according to Moore and the Caan festival Gold Palm award plus HollyWood's support of Moore in general , the USA should have had a higher number of people agreeing to enturnment Camps if there is another mass slaughter by Muslims on US soil.

Ibrahim Hooper and CAIR have yet to see what REAL backlash is because the American tolerance is also forgiving up to a point and then you either agree to accept the Freedom and Peace in the USA or get the hell out from a swift boot in the A$$ all the way to the Plane to take you to that Utopic Nation you miss so much.

Hooper was a useful idiot for the Islamists and no doubt was a failure as an American and needed a bigotted group of people to bring out his true identity as a bitter angry person wanting revengeful Justice which he found within
the Islam meted out by the Saudi's and Whahabi doctrine.

Posted by: ala-sux at July 22, 2007 4:28 PM

This survey seems odd because after I watched Michael Moore's mock-u-mentary FRHT-9/11 I notice that Moore portrayed Arab's a Savages and killers while he attacks Pres Bush for NOT rounding up all the Muslims to hold them until they proved they had NO ties to Osama and the attack in N.Y. .

I say this because Moore makes it very clear that he thought Bush was an idiot for allowing Arab's to leave the USA just days after 9/11/01 and the audience cheered during many parts of the movie which I took as agreeing with what they saw.
So according to Moore and the Caan festival Gold Palm award plus HollyWood's support of Moore in general , the USA should have had a higher number of people agreeing to enturnment Camps if there is another mass slaughter by Muslims on US soil.

Ibrahim Hooper and CAIR have yet to see what REAL backlash is because the American tolerance is also forgiving up to a point and then you either agree to accept the Freedom and Peace in the USA or get the hell out from a swift boot in the A$$ all the way to the Plane to take you to that Utopic Nation you miss so much.

Hooper was a useful idiot for the Islamists and no doubt was a failure as an American and needed a bigotted group of people to bring out his true identity as a bitter angry person wanting revengeful Justice which he found within
the Islam meted out by the Saudi's and Whahabi doctrine.

Posted by: ala-sux at July 22, 2007 4:29 PM

This survey seems odd because after I watched Michael Moore's mock-u-mentary FRHT-9/11 I notice that Moore portrayed Arab's a Savages and killers while he attacks Pres Bush for NOT rounding up all the Muslims to hold them until they proved they had NO ties to Osama and the attack in N.Y. .

I say this because Moore makes it very clear that he thought Bush was an idiot for allowing Arab's to leave the USA just days after 9/11/01 and the audience cheered during many parts of the movie which I took as agreeing with what they saw.
So according to Moore and the Caan festival Gold Palm award plus HollyWood's support of Moore in general , the USA should have had a higher number of people agreeing to enturnment Camps if there is another mass slaughter by Muslims on US soil.

Ibrahim Hooper and CAIR have yet to see what REAL backlash is because the American tolerance is also forgiving up to a point and then you either agree to accept the Freedom and Peace in the USA or get the hell out from a swift boot in the A$$ all the way to the Plane to take you to that Utopic Nation you miss so much.

Hooper was a useful idiot for the Islamists and no doubt was a failure as an American and needed a bigotted group of people to bring out his true identity as a bitter angry person wanting revengeful Justice which he found within
the Islam meted out by the Saudi's and Whahabi doctrine.

Posted by: ala-sux at July 22, 2007 4:29 PM

This survey seems odd because after I watched Michael Moore's mock-u-mentary FRHT-9/11 I notice that Moore portrayed Arab's a Savages and killers while he attacks Pres Bush for NOT rounding up all the Muslims to hold them until they proved they had NO ties to Osama and the attack in N.Y. .

I say this because Moore makes it very clear that he thought Bush was an idiot for allowing Arab's to leave the USA just days after 9/11/01 and the audience cheered during many parts of the movie which I took as agreeing with what they saw.
So according to Moore and the Caan festival Gold Palm award plus HollyWood's support of Moore in general , the USA should have had a higher number of people agreeing to enturnment Camps if there is another mass slaughter by Muslims on US soil.

Ibrahim Hooper and CAIR have yet to see what REAL backlash is because the American tolerance is also forgiving up to a point and then you either agree to accept the Freedom and Peace in the USA or get the hell out from a swift boot in the A$$ all the way to the Plane to take you to that Utopic Nation you miss so much.

Hooper was a useful idiot for the Islamists and no doubt was a failure as an American and needed a bigotted group of people to bring out his true identity as a bitter angry person wanting revengeful Justice which he found within
the Islam meted out by the Saudi's and Whahabi doctrine.

Posted by: ala-sux at July 22, 2007 4:33 PM

This survey seems odd because after I watched Michael Moore's mock-u-mentary FRHT-9/11 I notice that Moore portrayed Arab's a Savages and killers while he attacks Pres Bush for NOT rounding up all the Muslims to hold them until they proved they had NO ties to Osama and the attack in N.Y. .

I say this because Moore makes it very clear that he thought Bush was an idiot for allowing Arab's to leave the USA just days after 9/11/01 and the audience cheered during many parts of the movie which I took as agreeing with what they saw.
So according to Moore and the Caan festival Gold Palm award plus HollyWood's support of Moore in general , the USA should have had a higher number of people agreeing to enturnment Camps if there is another mass slaughter by Muslims on US soil.

Ibrahim Hooper and CAIR have yet to see what REAL backlash is because the American tolerance is also forgiving up to a point and then you either agree to accept the Freedom and Peace in the USA or get the hell out from a swift boot in the A$$ all the way to the Plane to take you to that Utopic Nation you miss so much.

Hooper was a useful idiot for the Islamists and no doubt was a failure as an American and needed a bigotted group of people to bring out his true identity as a bitter angry person wanting revengeful Justice which he found within
the Islam meted out by the Saudi's and Whahabi doctrine.

Posted by: ala-sux at July 22, 2007 4:33 PM

Wellington, I appreciate your attempt to clarify the conservative perspective, but there was no need to refer to my post as "pathetic." If you disagree with it, you could've said so without resorting to nastiness.

Posted by: GetBornAgain at July 22, 2007 9:44 PM

Wellington

Thank you for sizing up GBA's disingenuous comments and taking out the Leftist multicultural twists and knots. I was inspired but was low on energy.

I can't help but wonder if the Left's loathing of centrists and conservatives will translate to sympathy with the Islamic program. Wouldn't surprise me at all.

Posted by: lycaste at July 22, 2007 11:22 PM

GetBornAgain: You aver that conservatives, and I quote, "hate women, homosexuality and non-Christians" and then accuse me of "nastiness?" Oh, this is rich. As I've long known, liberals can dish it out but they can't take it.

Posted by: Wellington at July 22, 2007 11:24 PM

Oh...we "hate" women, homosexuality,and non-Christians"????
Brownshirtspeak, plain & simple;
Classic buzzwords of those who rely on far-left websites for their "news"-it's a dead giveaway of the typical "I am not a leftist militant!" leftist militant.
Someone needs a new beverage since their Kool-Aid isn't makin' it...not even a good try.
I would ask by what *ahem* expertise such conclusion was reached, but I already know that answer...and it's not by knowledgable people.
Wise up.

Posted by: jcom972 at July 23, 2007 3:45 AM

"Forty percent of those surveyed believe Muslims in the United States are as loyal to the U.S. as they are to Islam."

.....contrast that with:

"What hasn't been talked about much in the just released Pew poll is that 47 percent consider themselves Muslim first and American second..."

or

"The poll found 53% of American Muslim voters say they believe Muslims should vote as a bloc for a presidential candidate."

or

"black Muslims are almost twice as likely to say suicide bombings are an acceptable means."

...I have not seen any Muslim loyalty to the US...zero...absolutely zero....

..Ban Muslim Immigration

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 23, 2007 5:58 AM

Wellington, I'd assumed you would be able to debate like a mature adult. I was wrong. Forgive the error.
As for the assumption that liberals are to blame for the encroachment of jihad: last I heard, neither Bush I nor Clinton nor Bush II knew anything worth a damn about jihad, nor did they care to know (Reagan funded the mujahideen, and he was no liberal). This is not a liberal-conservative issue--it's an issue of utter stupidity at the topmost levels of government that has been allowed to go on for too long (CAIR's intimidation tactics have worked all too well, I'm sorry to say).

Posted by: GetBornAgain at July 23, 2007 9:34 AM

And for those who keep claiming that liberals are dishing it out but not being able to take it: typical behind-the-keyboard machismo. I've yet to hear a conservative say this to my face, and there's a good reason for that--you don't want to insult someone bigger than you. And this is no behind-the-keyboard machismo speaking. Want to schedule a meeting outside this screen? Contact me and I'd be more than happy to. Then we'll see who here "can't take it."

Posted by: GetBornAgain at July 23, 2007 9:45 AM

But for those content to debate like mature adults instead of making empty insults from behind their keyboards, here's a little something to break the tension:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS4v_kj9rw4

Posted by: GetBornAgain at July 23, 2007 9:56 AM

Newsweek lied. People died.

Posted by: atheling at July 23, 2007 2:16 PM

Good stuff, Posted by GetBornAgain

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at July 23, 2007 2:25 PM

GetBornAgain: You are one sad puppy. You write that I'm immature and then challenge me to a face-to-face meeting with you, the implication being that some kind of physical action would ensue if I could dare summon up the courage to say that "liberals can dish it out but can't take it."
Oh brother. For the record, and I don't care if you believe me or not, I've had untold, face-to-face conversations with liberals over the years, occasionally heated ones. Anyone who knows me well knows that I don't back down from anyone.
And I never maintained that liberals are responsible for the encroachment of jihad. What I did write was that the modern liberal mindset seems incapable of comprehending that civilization must not only be sophisticated and decent, but tough and muscular as well. There are still a few old-fashioned liberals out there who think as Harry Truman and Clement Attlee did, Joseph Lieberman and Christopher Hitchins are two good examples, but most modern liberals today are full of PC nonsense, insipid multiculturalism and inclined to look at events like 9/11 as a subject for criminal investigation rather than as evidence that we're in a war to the death between Western Civilization and radical Islam. Let me put it another and blunter way: today's liberals, for the most part, have their head up their collective ass where national security and winning the war we're in is concerned. The recent elimination of the "John Doe" provision by Democrats, whereby Americans who report on possible terrorists would be legally immune from being sued, is a case in point.
Also, Reagan did indeed fund the mujahadeen, just as we funded, backed and allied ourselves with Stalin during WWII to defeat the enemy du jour. So what? Realpolitik sometimes demands such unsavory alliances. It's called living in the real world.

Posted by: Wellington at July 23, 2007 2:28 PM

Wellington, I see. When conservatives screw up, it's "realpolitik." When liberals screw up, it's because they have theirs "heads up their collective ass." How about admitting that BOTH sides don't have a clue when it comes to the real nature of the Islamic threat? "most modern liberals today are full of PC nonsense, insipid multiculturalism and inclined to look at events like 9/11 as a subject for criminal investigation rather than as evidence that we're in a war to the death between Western Civilization and radical Islam." True--and so are most conservatives. Democratic and Republican presidents alike have been asleep at the wheel while Islam makes inroads into the West. Of course, most would rather blame a bogeyman (in your case "liberals," in other people's case "conservatives" or "blacks" or "the homos" or whatever).

As for me being one sad puppy: again, typical conservative behind-the-keyboard cowardice. It's funny how not a single conservative has had the courage to call me a coward to my face. Until one does--and it won't happen--I will keep on believing that most so-called conservatives on this website (including you, punk) are little more than snivelling pimple-faced teenagers hiding behind their daddy's keyboard. Prove me wrong--or shut your mouth.

Posted by: GetBornAgain at July 23, 2007 3:32 PM

"How about admitting that BOTH sides don't have a clue when it comes to the real nature of the Islamic threat? "most modern liberals today are full of PC nonsense, insipid multiculturalism and inclined to look at events like 9/11 as a subject for criminal investigation rather than as evidence that we're in a war to the death between Western Civilization and radical Islam." True--and so are most conservatives. Democratic and Republican presidents alike have been asleep at the wheel while Islam makes inroads into the West."

GBA: If the Republicans are asleep at the wheel, the Democrats are PROACTIVE in aiding and abetting the enemy, as the latest provision protecting John Doe was eliminated by the Democrats. Funny, I don't see you responding to that point...

Posted by: atheling at July 23, 2007 3:50 PM

I'll respond to the point by saying that the elimination of the provision was the stupidest thing the Democrats have ever done (short of voting to support the war in Iraq). Trust me, I'm no fan of the Democrats--or either side of the divide, for that matter. I don't think either one really "gets" it when it comes to the threat of Islam.

Posted by: GetBornAgain at July 23, 2007 3:54 PM

One side (Democrats) are appeasing Muslims by viewing them as discrimination victims under constant siege (untrue, as Mr. Spencer has pointed out many times); the other side (Republicans) think they can bring capitalism and democracy to Islamic countries by force--as if Islam wasn't diametrically opposed to both. Neither side "gets" it, with the exception of some individuals on both sides. Jihad isn't a left-versus-right issue, it's a stupidity issue--and there's plenty of that on all levels of government right now (and under Clinton, and under Bush I, and so on).

Posted by: GetBornAgain at July 23, 2007 3:57 PM

Some people get it. Tom Tancredo (a Republican Congressman from Colorado) gets it big time!

Congresswomana Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FLA) gets it (you'd have to search to find her story on this site).

Sorry, but I don't know of a SINGLE Democrat who gets it. Not a one.

Posted by: atheling at July 23, 2007 4:01 PM

GetBornAgain: Well, let's review here. You paint with a very broad brush and say conservatives "hate women, homosexuality and all non-Christians." I point out this is absurd on its face (and, among other things, pathetic) and you accuse me of nastiness. Then I indicate that you seem typical of liberals who can dish it out but can't take it (memo: calling conservatives those who hate women, homosexuality and all non-Christians is the dishing out element; accusing me of nastiness for indicating this is pathetic is the not being able to take it element) and then you say I'm immature while at the same time challenging me to say to you in person what I've written, thus demostrating your own immaturity in spades. Then, you maintain something that I never said, which is that you are a coward. Where exactly did I say that? I don't think you're a coward, but I do think you are both nasty and immature, which ironically is what you've accused me of being. You don't reason very well either, as demonstrated by your several posts. Incidentally, I am not a punk nor do I intend to take you up on your PATHETIC physical challenge (running out of ideas, eh?) and there is no way in hell that you will get me to stop posting here no matter how many hissy-fits you have. Here's an idea, though: Grow up.

Posted by: Wellington at July 23, 2007 4:56 PM

Wellington, there you go again, using that word "pathetic." You really need to expand your vocabulary. And as for your not posing here again, god (that's the Christian god, not Allah) forbid! Why would I dream of depriving myself of such entertainment? But all you've said only proves my point: conservatives talk a good game, but do they ever say it to someone's face? No, more often than not. You can talk trash all you want from behind that laptop; it doesn't change the fact that you're a snot-faced teenage coward cowering behind daddy's laptop knowing full well you'd never say any of this to my face. Here's a good rule of thumb: if you're unwilling to say something to someone's face, don't do it from behind those keys. It really makes you look bad, kid. And yes, you ARE a punk. Nothing but.

Posted by: GetBornAgain at July 23, 2007 5:41 PM

...and now, time for yet another comedic interlude! (a funny video, not a recap of that cowardly batty-boy Wellington's life)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlTKSZlYpNM

Posted by: GetBornAgain at July 23, 2007 5:44 PM

But seriously, all the partisan stuff aside: DEATH TO THE JIHADISTS!!! Liberal or no, that's the goddamn truth, and I'm sticking to it.

Posted by: GetBornAgain at July 23, 2007 6:57 PM

GetBornAgain: I'll use a new word to describe your rantings, including the one that maintained that conservatives "hate women, homosexuality and all non-Christians" and that word is "stupid." How's that for a new word?
You are tedious in the extreme and also a bully. You have real issues, buddy, and I'm done with you. Get some help.

Posted by: Wellington at July 23, 2007 7:35 PM

Wellington, so my replies are too much for you? Well, welcome to the real world, kid. In the real world, when you call someone "pathetic", you WILL get a response--every single time. You obviously thought that, since I am a liberal, I won't object to your attacks. Well, you were WRONG. I made a statement that you felt was overgeneralized. Fine. You could've said, "You are wrong, and here's why." Instead, you called me "pathetic." YOU began this--and now that I've dished it right back (so you see, liberals CAN take it), you've had too much? Please. You're just an arrogant, sardonic punk who gets off on insulting others. Frankly, it is YOU who needs help. My advice? Get out from behind your daddy's computer and GET A LIFE--maybe you'll manage to get a date in time for junior prom. And another thing: next time you feel like talking trash, make sure you don't do it to someone who can respond in kind--and if they DO respond in kind, don't whine about them being a bully. In your own words: don't dish it out unless you can take it. Looks like in the end it was you for whom the heat was turned up a bit too high.

All that aside, you're obviously an angry young man with issues, and I feel sorry for you. I'll say a prayer or two for you, and may you find the peace you so clearly don't have at the moment. In the end, nothing personal--not on my side.

Posted by: GetBornAgain at July 23, 2007 9:11 PM

GetBornAgain

You know, if you'd hadn't thrown such a hissy fit over his allegedly calling you pathetic, you'd notice that he didn't call you pathetic, he didn't call your post as a whole pathetic, what he called pathetic was your generalizations.

Of course, you could have simply been ignored the barb, as any "mature adult" would have done, and instead done such things as defending the factual accuracy of your statements, but why bother when you can resort to personal attacks?

"little more than snivelling pimple-faced teenagers hiding behind their daddy's keyboard"

"that cowardly batty-boy Wellington's life"

"snot-faced teenage coward cowering behind daddy's laptop"

"arrogant, sardonic punk who gets off on insulting others" (Projection here, much?)

"Get out from behind your daddy's computer and GET A LIFE--maybe you'll manage to get a date in time for junior prom."

Short version: You started it, not him. Stop pretending otherwise.

Posted by: Audacity at July 24, 2007 4:11 AM

Audacity, it's simple: he thought I was just some cowardly liberal who'd buckle under his barbs. He was wrong. Now, he might think twice before making such a generalization again. In the end, it was he who buckled.

Posted by: GetBornAgain at July 24, 2007 8:58 AM

And yes, in retrospect I could've been more diplomatic. It's the first time I've had to resort to sharp language on this site--and, hopefully, the last. I don't take kindly to being called "pathetic," or being told I can dish it out (which is true) but can't take it (which, as I proved, is false). I don't know Wellington or pretend to know him; unfortunately, he thought he knew me. He was wrong. He may be a decent guy, for all I know, but he did make an assumption about me, and I had to disprove it--and did.

Posted by: GetBornAgain at July 24, 2007 9:27 PM