Over six years have gone by, and we STILL are confronted with this inane question? How infuriating!

Posted by: John C at December 4, 2007 5:11 PM

Oh, boy! I just can not wait for one these mental giants to be elected to the highest office in the Land!

Biden - an experienced Senator who has sat in his precious office in D.C. totally oblivious to the world around him.

John "I'm just a poor trial lawyer from NC" Edwards - this stooge just hates anything pro-American (and the Bush family).

Barack Hussein Obama - The Mayor says the correct thing, and BHO wonders why they think we don't want to talk?? Oh, but don't worry: He lived in "overseas" while a youngster, so he understands foreign policy (his own words).

Chris Dodd - why is this idiot still around?

Methinks the safety and freedom of the Western world will be decided in the next two and half months.

Posted by: boneshack at December 4, 2007 5:12 PM

The REAL question is, "WHY DO MUSLIMS HATE--period."

Posted by: John C at December 4, 2007 5:12 PM

And what had the Hindus done to muslims to incur their wrath?
Over 80 million Indians butcherd (and counting) to quench the islamic anger!

What had the tribes of North Africa done, what had the Parsees, what had the Jews?

US has only recently came into the islamic radar wait till it releases its full onslaught, then you'll have something to talk about.

Posted by: Hermit at December 4, 2007 5:13 PM

I am so tired of hearing about the not understanding thier culture hoopla. Whats to understand?It's not like there are many different cultures.Islam is Islam.

When they keep saying it is because we do not understand thier culture that means that they STILL don't understand Islam.Again what the hell is there to not understand?

Here it is in a nut shell:

1)Islam is to be dominate.

2)There can be no other ANYTHING

All those who can't follow 1&2 are removed from the face of this earth in a most horrific way.

Thier culture:

1) Women are nothing

2) Men rule all

3)Children are raised with only hate in thier hearts and the love of death over the love of life.

4) Anyone who thinks differently about 1-3 are removed from this earth in a most horrific way.

Peace in or with Islam:

1) There can be no peace between Islam and infidels

2) The only peace spoken of in Islam is to be amongst muslims only.

3) There is no peace even amongst muslims since Muhammads death (God bless that great day)

Numbers 1-3 above cause muslims and infidels to leave this wolrd in a most horrific way.

Why don't all the nimrods slapping the face of thier own great Country just stand up and be men and women about it and say "I do not understand MY culture,and thats why i balme MY country."

Send them all packing to the nearest ME hell hole of thier choosing and let them get to know that culture first hand.If the Teddy bear fiasco doesn't have them understanding "thier culture" nothing will.Thats NOT just Sudans culture.

Refreakingdiculous

Posted by: Dar al-harb at December 4, 2007 5:21 PM

I know why muslims hate me...because I will not convert to Islam, nor will I pay any special "tax", or submit to a lower status. Also, I will be fighting back, with every fiber in my being, and subverting Islam at every opportunity. I have over a billion enemies...I must be a formidable warrior, no?

Posted by: AmericanTiger at December 4, 2007 5:23 PM

Because no one said anything like, "They hate us for reasons of their own. They hate us for reasons arising from their core values." No, instead they assume that their hatred for us is entirely our fault and our responsibility. It never enters their mind that Muslims might be free agents who act on their own initiative, and not just as passive reactors to American actions.

Posted by Robert at December 4, 2007 4:48 PM

Robert, as you know, that question "Why do Muslims Hate us?" is the wrong question to ask. The right question should be "How to respond to Muslim hostility?". Tom Tancredo addresses that quesrtion here (warning: not appropriate for for politically correct Americans): http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/05/tancredo-defends-threat-to-bomb-muslim-holy-sites/

and here.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf3JunNAQQw

Tom Tancredo, before it is too late..........

http://www.teamtancredo.typepad.com

Posted by: Alert at December 4, 2007 5:24 PM

I agree with Robert's premise, and believe that all the analysts and pundits act from a position of ethnocentricity. We claim that everyone shares the values of freedom, democracy, tolerance, prosperity. Oh, coincidentally, those just happen to be our values. We are unconsciously projecting our values onto the rest of the world. If we took the time to actually listen to what other cultures, such as Islamic cultures, tell us, we would find out that they have a different interpretation of our values, and in fact they have their own set of values which are very different from our own.

We say they are "evil" because they beat their wives or have sex with children or murder unarmed people. From a Judeo-Christian or Hindu point of view, that is certainly true. But if Allah has ordained that women are the property of their husband, or that as soon as a girl menstruates she is ready for marriage, or non-Muslims are spreading corruption by their mere existence, then Islamic behavior is by their standards rational.

We currently take the view that all people share our values, and we must force all people to follow those values (see the thread on FGM, see our misadventures in Iraq). Consider the exact opposite view, that different cultures have different values, and that we are responsible only for preserving our own cultural values.

This is the number one change that must occur before we can respond properly to jihad. Once we accept that other cultures have different values, and respect their right to have different values, we can ask if it is possible to reconcile the two sets of values. Can these two sets of values co-exist within our country? If so, how? If not, what does that mean? Does it mean we are evil monsters if we desire to keep our own values? We need to have that national debate, about what our values are, what Islamic values are, and whether we want to integrate the two in our country (trust me, they will not be integrated in Islamic countries).

This is not an endorsement by any means, but Senator Dodd came the closest to reality, when he simply said "We don't know their culture". At least he is admitting that they have a culture, and it is different from our own. The other candidates are responding as if they were inside the Muslims' shoes, inside the Muslims' brains. They are not. They cannot even understand how different those brains are from their own, which is no longer acceptable for a Presidential candidate.

BTW, how did Hillary answer the question?

Posted by: special_guest at December 4, 2007 5:35 PM

Vote Democrat. Vote Jihad.

Posted by: omvi at December 4, 2007 5:35 PM

I'm confused by this. I think we can all agree that democracy will never work in Iraq, that Islam teaches to be hostile towards non-muslims and women, and an important step to fighting jihad is to get away from foreign oil and move towards alternative fuel and energy. But President Bush says Islam is a peaceful religion, all the Republican candidates think that we are doing the right thing in Iraq (excluding Ron Paul, who is the only Republican, in my mind, that has the slightest clue about Islam's hostility), and Bush and other Republicans continue to support deals with Saudi Arabia. So why is it that people seem to hold the Republicans far above the Democrats?

Posted by: Patriot_1/17 at December 4, 2007 5:37 PM

These talking horses backsides make me want to upchuck my chicken and potatoe lunch! AARRGHHH! What in the name of carries corset are they thinking? Oh wait, that's the point, they are NOT thinking at all! For an American politician, or anybody else in power for that matter to blame US for Muslim aggression shows the total and complete lack of understanding of the world today, let alone Islam. How is it that these cretins (sic) can and do remain in control when the only thing spewing forth from their respective pie-holes is equivalent to "dhimmi-talk"? Excuse me, had to wipe the spittle from the screen......there, better. As much as I believe that we (America) will win this war on fundamental Islamism, I cannot help but wonder how much longer it's gonna take with these yahoos in power. They don't realise the danger they and their families are in much less care about the common folk like you and me. When push comes to shove I can here them now....."Whaaa? How did this happen? Why didn't somebody warn me about this?!?" To para phrase Seinfeld....."No freedom for you!!!" Our reward for ignoring the real threat will be a long, protracted fight with many killed and a different American landscape, if these pathetic wannabe leaders get their way. I love my country but fear my government, and this proves why.

"Kuffirs of the world, Unite!"
"Islam, abusing women since 622AD"

Posted by: OregonJake at December 4, 2007 5:40 PM

And listen to democratic stragists, psychiatrists and other "intellectuals", which explains John Edwards, Barak "Hussein" Obama and Dodd above.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvQzzwsJkg8&feature=related

All the more reason America needs Tom Tancredo... before it is too late.

Posted by: Alert at December 4, 2007 5:41 PM

I saw Bushes speach this morniing when he was forced to comment on the convition of a woman whom was gang raped in Saudi Arabia by seven men. She was convicted of the crime of comming foreward. All Bush had to say about it was that he would be mad if it happened to his daughters! What a perfect moment to comment on Shariaa law Islam, Hadith, Sura, the Koran, and the contraindication of Islam and therefore Muslims in western society.

Posted by: ethoman at December 4, 2007 5:47 PM

What a bunch of maroons!! Neither Joe, John, Barack or Chris have a clue, just to name a few.

The Muslim mindset is void of **any** PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, but is completely eclipsed by a victim mentality.

Robert Spencer for President!

Posted by: champ at December 4, 2007 5:52 PM

Patriot_1/17 said

So why is it that people seem to hold the Republicans far above the Democrats?

When it comes to Islam and jihad, it's not that the Republicans are are far above the Democrats, it's that the Democrats are even lower than the Republicans (spoken as a Democrat).

BTW, you mentioned Ron Paul. If you're Republican, you might want to check out Tom Tancredo.

Posted by: special_guest at December 4, 2007 6:10 PM

Follow-up question:
Why do you love Muslims?

Posted by: crusader rabbit at December 4, 2007 6:21 PM

From "Why do Muslims Hate us?"

Islam. But it's not just us. It is all over the world. The truth is they lead off with their hate of Jews-but that's only the beginning. "Islam is the engine of Arab Imperialism" as one of the Outdoor cats on this site (hard to herd) has said.

Posted by: Frank at December 4, 2007 6:32 PM

Myth of your own omnipotence alert...

Posted by: jsla at December 4, 2007 6:34 PM

"Why do Muslims Hate us?"

I'm guessing for the same reasons they hate Buddhist monks in Thailand.

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at December 4, 2007 6:36 PM

May God help us all...if a Democrat moves into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave next year.

Dems are more worried about providing government healthcare to the victims of Jihad violence than to stop the violence in the first place.

Posted by: Xero G at December 4, 2007 6:39 PM

so obama still wants to invade pakistan? or is that different?

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at December 4, 2007 6:46 PM

From what I've seen and heard, motivations of most Muslims are mixed. I don't think they hate us, but they consider us as culturally inferior for not following the true faith and permitting open sexual immorality--and their idea of immorality is much broader than ours. In regard to Western imperialism, including our current occupation of Iraq, Muslims directly affected by it, like people whose families are blown to bits by American bombs, have legit grievances. A good past example is the CIA helping the 1953 (?) coup that overthrew Iran's prime minister to entrench the Shah so the Brits could keep pocketing profits from Iran's oil. Look at the blowback we got from that one in 1979. But within "imperialism" I don't include funding and cooperating with those corrupt governments that Muslim populations (or elites) have inflicted on themselves. Wanna get rid of Mubarak? Or the House of Saud? Or Musharraf? Well, stop complaining about American influence and get rid of them. If we wouldn't send in the Marines to save the Shah, we won't save those guys either. You want the Muslim Brotherhood to bring peace, prosperity and freedom to your country? Enjoy! Non-legitimate grievances are those we have seen as to Danish cartoons, apostasy from Islam and blasphemous teddy bears. As for the hotter Muslims in the West who demand we remold our society to comport with Sharia--education, taxi service, workplace prayer, bathrooms and all--go away or else we'll start giving our teddy bears names you won't like!

Posted by: sceptico at December 4, 2007 6:48 PM

If Edwards were elected, he would close Gitmo and release all of those terrorists to the US court system!

Posted by: CTYankee at December 4, 2007 6:52 PM

Because of “the bullying, selfish, abusive behavior” of President Bush and his administration. - John Edwards

So Bush was President in 1979 when the US Embassy in Tehran was overrun? And in 1993 when the WTC was bombed the first time? And when the USS Cole was bombed? etc. etc.? My goodness he's been President a long time. I didn't think one could be Presidet 20+ years.

/sarc

What a moron.

Posted by: walterc at December 4, 2007 6:57 PM

She seems kind of liberal maybe the Democrats can answer her questions, or maybe at the Summit in turkey they can have a youtube debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbAk2uEjsw0

Posted by: ethoman at December 4, 2007 7:04 PM

I can't wait for the NPR Republican candidates' debate. When pigs fly? NPR certainly doesn't want the fairness doctrine to be brought back.

Posted by: CTYankee at December 4, 2007 7:18 PM

"Why do they hate us?" Because of “the bullying, selfish, abusive behavior” of President Bush and his administration. - John Edwards

Democrats accept readily that some groups of people can't be responsible for their emotions/behavior because our actions are assumed to be at the root of it. Be it domestic problems or terrorism, if it is a 'reaction' it is conflated with being justifiable and therefore excusable.

Coincidentally, most Muslims believe 'terrorism' is those things. The democrats can't realize that their ideas are ethnocentrist because ethnocentrism has a negative connotation only when the people who are the object of it don't happen to support its conclusions.

Posted by: sci_ at December 4, 2007 7:19 PM

The answer is simple. They don't like us because they're big meanies.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 4, 2007 7:23 PM

If I lived in the US, I'd only vote for someone who actually understood the elements of Islam which give rise to, and which justify violence. Anything else would be a wasted vote, given the current situation the West is in.

Posted by: Rogster at December 4, 2007 7:34 PM

Questions to be raised every time this "they hate us because we do this or we do that" business rears its idiotic head:

1) Why have Muslims been beating to death Hindus walking by mosques after Friday Prayers in Bangladesh? Why has the Hindu population, relative and absolute, gone from 15% to 1.5% in Pakistan, and from 34% to 7% in Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan)? Why, in that same period since Partition, has the Muslim percentage of the population in India gone, on the other hand, steadily up?

2) Why are Christian Assyrians and Chaldeans massacred in Iraq? Why were 100,000 Assyrians killed in 1933, six months after the British left, taking with them a guarantee from the local Arabs that no harm would befall the Assyrians?

3) Why did Muslim Turks (and Kurds) kill hundreds of thousands of Christian Armenians, not during the "wartime conditions" that the apologists for Turkey like to invoke, but twenty years before, in 1894-96?

4) Why did the Muslim Turks mass-murder Christian Armenians and Christian Greeks in the period 1915-1920?

5) Why did the Muslim Turks commit the Bulgarian Atrocities that so inflamed Gladstone and others in the advanced Western world, in 1876?

6) Why did Muslims massacre Maronites in Damascus in 1860?

7) Why did Muslims massacre every last Jew in Grenada in 1066, during that supposed "convivencia" in Islamic-ruled Spain that we hear so much about? Why did Muslims continue to massacre Jews, in Spain and then in Fez and Marrakech? What led Maimonides to write his "Epistle to the Yemen" in which he described the murderous hatred of Muslims for Jews as worse than anything else they had ever endured?

8) Why have Copts enjoyed the only relative freedom, and semi-equality, in modern Egypt during the period of Lord Cromer's adminstration, and then during a few decades after, when the European, and especially English influence and power, were at their height, and ever since Nasser and the other colonels overturned Farouk it has been steadily downhill, as first pan-Arabism (a subset of Islam) and then Islam itself, without the intermediate step of pan-Arabism, has taken over -- so that the meretricious and corrupt regime of Mubarak, with his Family-and-Friends Plan, is almost certain now to be replaced by the forces supporting the Ikhwan, the Muslim Brotherhood. Why, when Copts enjoy the freedom of living in the advanced West, do they often throw off the islmochristian mentality and start telling the truth about Islam, and about Egypt -- that they find so difficult and dangerous a thing to do in Egypt itself?

9) Why did Pakistani and Saudi engineers help the Taliban blow up the Bamiyan Buddhas?

10) Why before the blowing up of the Bamiywan Buddhas had there been the wholesale desturction of Buddhist statues, and of stupas, all over Central Asia and India, at Muslim hands?

11) Why did Muslim conquerors kill between 60 and 80 million Hindus, even after they had conquered India and there was no danger of a revolt? Why did Muslims destroy Jain and Buddhist and Hindu temples and temple complexex, by the thousands, and often build mosques right on top of the ruins?

12) Why did the first Umayyad caliph deliberately choose Jerusalem as the site of the "furthest mosquye" (al-masjid al-aksa) mentioned, without more, in the Qur'an, from which Muhammad is said to have travelled to, and back from, seventh heaven on his magic steed al-Buraq?

13) Why did the Caliph Al-Hakim in 1009 order that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem was to be razed? Why did Muslims attack Christian sites and Christian pilgrims with increasing boldness throughout the eleventh century, culminating in the ferocious attacks by the Seljuk Turks, a century of attacks that led, in the end, to the calling of the Crusades to recover the Holy Land, and not any other part of the vast lands that had been conquered by the Muslims over the previous four hundred years?

14) Why did Muslim Turks destroy so many of the churches in conquered Constaninople? Why did they leave Hagia Sophia, but vandalize all of its Christian pictures inside, and turn it into a mosque? Why has it not, even to this day, been turned back into a church?

15) Why was the population of Turkey 20% non-Muslim in 1900, and today is far less than 1% non-Muslim?

16) Why did people in Western Europe, over the past thousand years, build watchtowers on their coasts? Who was Thomas Pellow, and why does it matter? What was the extent of Muslim raiding up and down the coasts of Christian Europe, and how many Christians were taken in slavery back to Muslim domains? (Note: an estimate will do). How many slaves were seized by Muslims on raids in the Slavic lands, and in the Caucasus and Georgia, for women to be taken back to harems?

17) When did the Arab slave trade in Africa begin, and when did it end? How many victims did it claim, and what was the relative size of the Arab slave trade as compared to the Atlantic Slave Trade? Why was it mostly young black males who were seized, and what made their rate of survival so small?

18) In what respect have the canonical texts of Islam, the Qur'an, and the Hadith, and the Sira, been changed, or re-interpreted, so as to conform more with the moral sense of the modern world, and with the need to live in peace with the 85% of the world that is non-Muslim? List specific verses in the Qur'an, or stories in the Hadith, that have either been eliminated altogether, or been made subject to radical re-interpretation, or downgraded, in the case of certain Hadith, to a much lower level of "authenticity" based on a revisiting of the relevant isnad-chain?

19) What is the status, at present, of the concepts of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb? What is the duty of Jihad? What is the goal of Jihad? What are the permissible instruments of Jihad, in the state of permanent war that Muslims are taught exist between Believers and Infidels?

20) What, in all that has been written in the previous 19 questions, has to do, has anything at all to do, would not exist but for, the admittedly wasteful, naive and sentimental, administration of George Bush, and its dreamy belief that the problem with the Islamic states and peoples has absolutely nothing to do with Islam, a perfectly peaceful and splendid "religion" (and all "religions" are to be respected, are they not?) that has been so badly misrepresented by a handful, or possibly just more than a handful, of "extremists" who have "hijacked a great religion" for their own nefarious purposes?

I could list another 80 questions, but I think this is quite enough for today. After all, the presidential candidates have so much campaigning to do. And during the past six years and three months, since 9/11/2001, they just haven't had a minute to spare to begin to study, really study and thing about, either the texts and tenets and attitudes of Islam, or to find out very much, anything in fact, about the 1350-year history of Muslim conquest of non-Muslim lands, and about the subsequent subjugation of so many different non-Muslim peoples -- Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, and others from smaller and less well-known communities -- who are in the end treated, at best, in remarkably similar, and often unendurable ways.

Is it really too much to expect that the candidates would have done this studying, and done it a bit more seriously than buying some work by a known, and venal, apologist for Islam, such as the ridiculous Karen Armstrong, or the sinistrer John Esposito?

If candidates are unwilling to do the absolute minimum amount of study necesary to understand the contents, and menace, of Islam, when they have had more than six years to prepare, then how can they ask to be supported, how can they presume to be capable of instructing, and protecting us?

What nerve. What self-satisfied ignorance. What intolerable nonchalance.

Posted by: Hugh at December 4, 2007 7:34 PM

If any Democrat gets elected, we're screwed. If anybody votes for a Democrat, you get what you deserve. The problem is, everybody else gets the same result. Depending on who the Republicans nominate, I just may sit this one out.

Joe Biden - vain idiot with a bad hair transplant

John Edwards - ambulance chasing shyster

Chris Dodd - gun grabbing apportunist

Barack Obama - a recent nobody who stands for nothing

Posted by: Pelayo at December 4, 2007 7:41 PM

Like so many have commented here,it just continues to amaze me as to how flat out ignorant some of these presidential hopefulls are.

Folks; this is the most serious issue facing America and we have candidates who don't even bother to study up on the problem. Some of them I fear may even be getting their advice from those folks that operate 4 blocks from the Capitol CAIR; god forbid!!

Many of us I'm sure have admired many of the skills these politicians appear to demonstrate but when it comes to this dangerous ideology that is,and has been threatening and destroying other societies all over the world as their populations grow for hundreds of years, why can't these presidential hopefulls open a book listen and see what has been happening? Why can"t they realize that this is what their religion teaches them. It teaches hate,antisemitism,intolerance of all who are not Muslim and still they don't get it. I'm afraid that we are going to end up with a dummy, I mean dhimmi for a president.

At least it was good to see that one candidate has a highly respected Islamic scholar on his advisory committee, Daniel Pearl is with Rudy Guilani. I wonder if some of the other candidates have an Islamic advisor like a Daniel pearl as well?

Posted by: Mackie at December 4, 2007 7:50 PM

The problem for the dhimmicrats is that Muslims prove each day that the problem is with "them" not "us".Cartoon riots, 200 lashes for a rape victim, teddy bear executions, suicide bomb attacks, attacks on school children and the list goes on and on and on. I was watching "Morning Joe" today when the panel was talking about the latest Teddy Bear Jihad.Footage of lunatics waving machetes and demanding death over a teddy bear was shown. Joe Scarborogh talking about the protesters said that there are people in the world who don't need understanding but need to be killed. I did a double take after hearing what he said, this was on MSNBC (Will unindited co-conspirator CAIR issue an action alert about Scarborogh?).Also neither of the other two panelists (an AA female and a white male) disagreed with Scarborogh. People are tired of Islam and the excuses being made for Muslim violence and intolerance.

Posted by: Roxane at December 4, 2007 7:51 PM

No, Mackie, I'm afraid "Daniel Pearl" is not advising Giuliani. And you know why. But I know what you meant to write.

Posted by: Hugh at December 4, 2007 8:01 PM

The Dem presidential candidates are a joke.

Choose your candidate carefully and well - our safety and well being depends on it.

Posted by: dgene at December 4, 2007 8:12 PM

Hugh
That is quite an impressive list of questions. I just want to ask these dimwits what they think of Sharia law. A few follow-ups such as what they would do to prevent the spread of it or if they think it is or is not compatible with democracy.

Please tell me that they are not really THAT stupid.

Posted by: dentalque at December 4, 2007 8:22 PM

I despise the lot of them, but John Edwards is the worst. His election will mean that the 'Trial Lawyers of America' will be running this country...(even more than they currently do).

Posted by: Cornelius at December 4, 2007 8:35 PM

Good editorial in today's jpost.com on Christians in the PA:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1195546804104&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Here's a quote:"It's highly doubtful that Dr. Justus Reid Weiner's chilling forecast of the impending demise of Christian communities under Palestinian Authority jurisdiction will generate much outrage or uproar in Christendom."
Or among the Democrats, I might add.
The Islamic strategy of ethnic-cleansing towards Infidels in the region, and elsewhere, proceeds with impunity.

Posted by: jewdog at December 4, 2007 8:44 PM

Not only tragically uninformed, but pathetically inept.

They can't even talk their way out of an inane and absurd and (mis)leading question with the least semblance of finesse or cunning or wit.

May they all be sitting in their bathrooms- sobbing- next November 5th.

Instead of the rest of us.

Posted by: profitsbeard at December 4, 2007 8:45 PM

This is what Washington does to people, the people that "govern" this country. Isn't it beyond despicable?

God help us.

Posted by: Susanp at December 4, 2007 9:10 PM

Amazing conclusion: The least indefensible of the answers to questions skirting, ever so delicately, at this NPR-sponsored debate, the problem of Islam, were upon first listening those given by Hillary Clinton.

Aiuto!

Posted by: Hugh at December 4, 2007 9:17 PM

Consider me a long-distant alienated stranger.. If all the others are complete idiots - including Hitlery who kissed Arafart's wife and helped the Arafart fam to Billions of Western taqiyya funds - one Barack Obama really ought to KNOW better!

After all.. he DID go to islamic school in Indonesia which was then and still is now under islamist attack..

Please Mr. Obama - or your loudmouthed wife - please do step forward and tell us why mohametans hate us... we are dying to hear your version of it.

No need to lie.. WE already KNOW.

Posted by: DhimNukeU at December 4, 2007 9:20 PM

Think Republicans don't get it? Try Democrats.

Posted by: Wellington at December 4, 2007 9:22 PM

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html
JOHN SAVAGE SUES ISLAM!!! READ THIS

Posted by: ElizaDoolittle at December 4, 2007 9:32 PM

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html MICHAEL SAVAGE SUES ISLAM!!! READ THIS
(correction)

Posted by: ElizaDoolittle at December 4, 2007 9:34 PM

The above posts had me looking for info on Richard Perle. Read the comments after the article, the left just does not get the threat.
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/scarier_giuliani_foreign_polic.php

Posted by: interestinconundrum at December 4, 2007 9:39 PM

The Democrats can explain and justify why 'muslims' hate us.

Why is it legal for muslims to hate me, but it is illegal for me to hate muslims?

What happened to justice or equality?

If hate and love are natural emotions, how come we have laws against one and not the other?

Posted by: alaskan1000 at December 4, 2007 9:50 PM

An amazing spectacle, too, of so many candidates simply accepting a just-released intelligence report on Iran. They have not had time to read the whole thing, to digest it, to think about it, to wonder about what such phrases as "high degree of confidence" might or could mean, yet they seem unwilling to express any doubts, reservations, any "I have to study it further." No, they've all jumped on board the juggernaut, so as to avoid being run down by it, and only Hillary Clinton seemed to hold back a bit. The initial unlimited enthusiasm for this "intelligence estimate" is very strange. Should not those who a few years ago refused to believe any intelligence estimate by the same body, now tell us why it is so quick to believe a different intelligence estimate? Is it because the methods of data collection and analysis have, they know, dramatically improved? Or is it, rather, that now they are being told what it is most convenient for them, politically, and really as a matter of faith, to believe?

Posted by: Hugh at December 4, 2007 9:53 PM

I wonder if 40 lashes and six months in an Islamic prison could break through the thick skulls of any of these candidates.

Posted by: rational at December 4, 2007 9:57 PM

Who cares and why is that grounds to kill us? I just think back to the 100 reasons they hate us as posted by Robert/Hugh on this site.

Posted by: HOV Dummy at December 4, 2007 10:03 PM

The bottom line is that in World-2007, you cannot offer entitlement programs without iron-clad national borders. The combination of billions in the world who live on less than $1/day, airplanes, universal suffrage, and organized leftists make our system unsustainable.

The upcoming election is not important. No candidate is willing to address the issue that will shape the 21st Century-the entitlement bubble. The way I see it:

-Ron Paul could save us if he could get elected and get gold standard legislation passed through Congress. He can do neither.

-Romney or Giuliani could delay the collapse by being relatively conservative on money issues. But neither would have the ability to slash Medicaid, Medicare, or Federal pensions.

-Obama or Hillary would accelerate the collapse by expanding social programs.

Using big-boy accounting, we are $70 trillion in the hole, growing by $3 trillion a year. The house of cards will fall, and in my opinion the sooner the better because the sooner it happens the easier it will be to recover. There will be plenty of pain for many good people. But the domestic Islam problem will end quickly.

I just don’t know if I have the strength to pull the lever for Obama though.

Posted by: pez at December 4, 2007 10:23 PM

The xenophobia in the Muslim would give even a Frenchman reason to pause. People naturally are drawn to the familiar and are repulsed by the strange. What is strange is why this xenophobia is considered virtuous in the way the Brahmin feelings about "untouchables" or Japanese feelings about Ainu are not?. What is also very strange is how Arab feelings about foreigners have been replicated in the non-Arab Muslim world.

Posted by: Jerry M at December 4, 2007 10:31 PM

I think you have to remember what the Ambassador from the Barbary States told Jefferrson and Adams.

Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. Jefferson and Adams asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Posted by: DavidE at December 4, 2007 10:33 PM

JW/DW Anti-dhimmi of the year for 2006, John Bolton isn't buying the new intelligence regarding Iran's nuclear program and their ultimate intentions.

Listening to Mr. Bolton is usually a very safe bet, in my estimation.

Posted by: awake at December 4, 2007 10:35 PM

I sure don't care what the Demos think about anything.

As things now stand, I will probably never vote for a Democrat AGAIN anyway.

The fools that do vote Democratic nowadays are unwittingly voting for George Soros and his band of Communists who are bankrolling the 'new' Democratic party. And while they are at it, they will be pushing Islam right INTO the US government where no one needs it or wants it (or can get it out).

So who cares? Democrat politicans are almost certainly going to be wrong before they say whatever it is they are going to say (which nowadays is virtually ALWAYS wrong about everything anyway).

But, alas, whatever they say might just play in Peoria, much to our chagrin...

Posted by: pythagoras at December 4, 2007 10:44 PM

"So Bush was President in 1979 when the US Embassy in Tehran was overrun? And in 1993 when the WTC was bombed the first time? And when the USS Cole was bombed? etc. etc.?"

Actually it was during Democrat administrations. I guess Carter and Clinton were big, mean, abusive bullies.

Posted by: Elric66 at December 4, 2007 10:47 PM

“This has been a vacuum for a long time.” We don’t know their culture. - Chris Dodd

Aint that the truth Sen Dodd, aint that the truth.

Posted by: Elric66 at December 4, 2007 10:55 PM

What I would have loved if one of the candidates said, "Thank you for that very important question and the answer is right here". And he or she pulled out the Qur'an and the Hadiths and start pulling quote after quote.

Posted by: Elric66 at December 4, 2007 11:04 PM

I'd like to know what Israeli intelligence has conclued about Iran, for one suspects that their knowledge of Iran, and sources in Iran, are superior to those of the American services, even if America has the better spies-in-the-sky satellites.

The Israelis never urged the Bush Administration to attack Iraq, and always regarded Iran as the bigger problem. And certainly they have been alarmed at Tarbaby Iraq, having never agreed with that crazy scheme, of which Bush is the chief believer and promoter (now joined by a confused Rice), to bring "democracy" to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East, as if somehow that will magically change or soften Islam, when there is no evidence to suggest that.

There is one Israeli who still remains wedded to this democracy idea, and also remains a naif about Islam, getting what he knows from his conversations with "Palestinian" friends and with Bernard Lewis. Sharansky now says that he never thought democracy could be imposed, but had to be slowly cultivated, from the bottom up. Sounds plausible, even sounds good, except for one thing: Islam. Believers in Islam cannot naturally support anything like an advanced Western democracy, because the very idea that what mere mortals want should count is offensive. In Islam, the individual is unimportant, a mere slave of Allah and member of the world-wide Umma, or community of Believers. Political legitimacy, in Islam, is located not in the will expressed by the people, but in the expressed will of Allah, found in the Qur'an and glossed by the Sunnah. How Sharansky thinks that the doctrine, or practice, of Islam would allow for advanced Western democracy is beyond me. He is forgetting that the constraints on Islam came not from "democratic" regimes, but always and everywhere from autocrats, such as Mohammad V (to a very slight degree), and Habib Bourguiba and the Shah of Iran (to a slightly greater degree), and Ataturk (to a much greater degree).

Hmm. I see I've strayed from the initial topic, which is -- justified doubts about intelligence estimates, that may merely be policy masquerading as intelligence. Since we have no idea what the sources of those making these assessments may be, we can only ask: do the Iranians look as if, over the past four years, they haven't been working at all on a nuclear project, haven't imported any eqiupment, haven't been busy at Natanz and elsewhere? How good is American intelligence in Iran? Or that of other European powers, including the French, who seem to have their own ideas about the threat from Iran? And what about Israel, whose very survival depends on its not being mistaken in such matters -- mistaken either one way, or another.

Posted by: Hugh at December 4, 2007 11:05 PM

Why do they hate us? It's not a hard question to answer. They hate us because we dare to question it...

Posted by: eloivsdiablo at December 4, 2007 11:09 PM

No, Mackie, I'm afraid "Daniel Pearl" is not advising Giuliani. And you know why. But I know what you meant to write.

By Hugh above

Hugh:

thanks for pointing that out, for some reason I have mistakenly made that name error before. The person that I was naming as I think you surmised was Daniel Pipes. I'll just have to practice pneumonics more often.

Posted by: Mackie at December 4, 2007 11:15 PM

"Hatred of the non-Muslim is the pivot of Islamic existence." - Anwar Sheikh

Posted by: wallyUK at December 4, 2007 11:16 PM

Slightly OT, but extremely relevant to this point. From the same NPR debate comes this gem of a statement from Senator B.O. with reference to Americans taking "self-help" action in regard of illegal citizens.

"We do not deputize the American people to do the job that the federal government is supposed to do," Obama said.

Kucinich (mental midget from Ohio) agreed, saying, "We don't encourage vigilantism in this country."

--------------------------------------------------

Let's change the object of such imagined vigilantism to "Muslims".

Last time I studied the Constitution of the United States of America, I guess I missed the part about a suicide pact with Arabian 7th Century cultism/fatalism.

Stupid me. But let's be real here:

Senator Obama, you [The Congress] might not deputizie the American people to the job [you were appointed to do], but if the failure [of The Congress] to do such tasks [that the Citizens have appointed you to do] is beyond your means/intelligence/capability, then WE, the CITIZENS will surely remind you of your duties.

That is why we live in The Republic of the United States of America!

Got that??

Posted by: boneshack at December 4, 2007 11:17 PM

To add to the above comment, and to point out that States have the trump card, in case the proverbial "excrement hits the oscillating cooling device," let's review the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights:

“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ”

I am sure that CAIR would spend $$$ refuting this, but any Governor (with any guts) would take his/her own 'self help' to prevent any such Constitutional suicide. Then, see the circus that would erupt in the Supreme Court because any State would actually invoke this Amendment.

"The board is set. The pieces are in motion."

Refutations, anyone?

Posted by: boneshack at December 4, 2007 11:48 PM

Hugh said

Or is it, rather, that now they are being told what it is most convenient for them, politically, and really as a matter of faith, to believe?

So now the Democrats are subject to criticism for believing the latest and most accurate national intelligence estimate? Tough crowd. If we are to ignore our (admittedly fallible) intelligence agencies, and instead make policy based purely on politician's hunches, I have no idea where we're headed, but I'm pretty sure it won't be towards a rational foreign policy.

Is it because the methods of data collection and analysis have, they know, dramatically improved?

It's because the blatant manipulation of the raw intelligence by the Administration is no longer politically possible.

Iran is enough of a threat based on what they are doing in Iraq, and what they are threatening to do in Israel. There is no need to invent danger.

Posted by: special_guest at December 4, 2007 11:56 PM

I've just about decided to support Ron Paul. I like his stance on American sovereignty and border (and coastal) control. He also seems to be less than enthusiastic about multiculturalism and "diversity", both of which have had a weakening effect on the US.

But... I have Libertarian leanings, and if I plan to vote Republican, there's no getting away from their fantasy of overturning Roe v. Wade.

I've heard a rumor that Giuliani would like to take firearms away from the American public. I say rumor--I haven't actually read anything to that effect anywhere (yet). Does anyone know anything about that one?

Posted by: Abscedere at December 5, 2007 12:29 AM

The Chairman of the Iran intelligence workgroup was Thomas Fingar of the State Department. He’s also the guy who gives the President his daily intelligence briefing. Exempts from Fingar’s bio:

Dr. Fingar is a graduate of Cornell University (B.A. in Government and History, 1968), and Stanford University (M.A., 1969 and Ph.D., 1977 both in Political Science). He is a career member of the Senior Executive Service. His principal foreign languages are Chinese and German. Dr. Fingar has published dozens of books and articles, mostly on aspects of Chinese politics and policymaking.

Stanford. State Department.

It would be illogical for Iran to give up its weapons program. Mahmoud wants us to bomb him to unify Iran against the Great Satan. He wants to have nuclear weapons. It makes no sense for him to stop. Reportedly the ‘source’ of the new information is a single Iranian diplomat in Europe. Why would Mahmoud stop development?

Fingar worked to torpedo Bolton’s appointment to the UN.

http://www.dni.gov/aboutODNI/bios/fingar_bio.htm

Posted by: pez at December 5, 2007 1:01 AM

Here’s his picture. As a general rule, based on life experiences, I’m really skeptical of men with influence who smile.

http://www.state.gov/cms_images/tompic_asst-sec_fingar_150.gif

Posted by: pez at December 5, 2007 1:11 AM

"Because we are trusted so little" - Joe Biden

WRONG ANSWER!!

"Because of “the bullying, selfish, abusive behavior” of President Bush and his administration." - John Edwards

WRONG ANSWER!!

"John’s point is right, but I want to broaden it a little. If you were a Muslim overseas listening to Rudy Giuliani saying they want to come over here and kill you, you would get the impression that we don’t want to talk." - Barack Obama

WRONG ANSWER!!

"This has been a vacuum for a long time. We don’t know their culture." - Chris Dodd

WRONG ANSWER!!

4 wrong answers adds up to 4 wrong candidates!!

Posted by: champ at December 5, 2007 1:27 AM

special_guest

Since when did it become axiomatic among Democrats that such intelligence reports can now be trusted because,

“. . .the blatant manipulation of the raw intelligence by the Administration is no
longer politically possible.”

I guess it only takes one report which says what they want to here for the intelligence agencies to be rehabilitated in their eyes. Quite literally, intelligence has become an overnight darling.

What proof do you have that “blatant manipulation of raw intelligence” is no longer possible? Is it perhaps a hunch?

Posted by: patagonianplato at December 5, 2007 2:08 AM

Why do Muslims hate us?

They don't hate Bush, Giuliani, Reagan, et al, they RESPECT them.

They hate and despise Biden, Edwards, Obama, et al, because they're all a bunch of dhimmi wusses.

Especially Kucinich. Remember him? He's the one who went on Syrian TV and told everyone what a criminal and a failure Bush was.

http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1550.htm

Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at December 5, 2007 2:14 AM

To add to the above comment, and to point out that States have the trump card, in case the proverbial "excrement hits the oscillating cooling device," let's review the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights:
“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ”
I am sure that CAIR would spend $$$ refuting this, but any Governor (with any guts) would take his/her own 'self help' to prevent any such Constitutional suicide. Then, see the circus that would erupt in the Supreme Court because any State would actually invoke this Amendment.
"The board is set. The pieces are in motion."
Refutations, anyone?

Posted by: boneshack at December 4, 2007 11:48 PM

Yes. Unfortunately, the 17th Amendment was passed, which eliminated the power that the states had to defend their rights under the 10th Amendment.

Originally, the US Senate was the state legislatures' voice in Washington. The states could defend their rights in the Senate.

With the passage of the 17th Amendment, however, there is no one but a fickle judiciary to defend the rights of the states.

Nice try.

Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at December 5, 2007 2:45 AM

"Because we are trusted so little” - Joe Biden

It is the Muslims who are not to be trusted. The prophet himself was such.

The Koran says that it is all right for a muslim to cheat a Kafir.

It is just right that we don't trust Muslims.

Arafat's signatures with Western powers had no integrity.

If muslims think that they can carry on like this, well, their comeuppance is coming too soon in a big way.

Posted by: proud-hindu at December 5, 2007 3:48 AM

It is difficult to digest the fact that this is the level of USA'Presidential' candidates. And imagine one of these will be on the 'nuclear' button. This way it looks that USA is going to have a 'proxy' President doing the biddings of muslims. Make sure that the US Intelligence is OK and sanitised. The likelyhood of wrong estimates are there. Are average Americans also like that ?. It looks that Americans after 9/11 are still in overwhelmed state of mind. One wonders how the US forces are fighting overseas .The 'nukes' are useless in the hands of non-muslims. They are never going to be used.They are as good as zero. It is only the muslims who will use nukes at first oppurtunity at non-muslims or on themselves. Anyway is very bad.But first have a good President in 2008. Bush will be going out. He may be having some ferocious fearsome type of required impressions still over the muslim idiots worldover.

Posted by: Kash225 at December 5, 2007 4:39 AM

4 wrong answers adds up to 4 wrong candidates!!

Posted by: champ at December 5, 2007 1:27 AM

Good process of elimnination. Really! Now those who remain, see how they pass the litmus test of illegal immigration. Islamic terror and Illegal immigration are not only issues of national security but also of our life/death. What good is socual security if we are raped/murdered by Mecixan ceiminals, our presisent tells us. are here to work? What good is health care if muslims like Taher run us over with SUV or Haq opens fire in a mall? muslim terror and illegal immigratin should be the litmus test for presndential candidates. Already 4 failed miserably and more to go. Besides Hillary sees why driver's licenses to illegal immigrants "make sense". Probably Monica also makessense, doesnt she. Hillary? In my humble opinion, Tom Tancredo is the only presidential candidate who is firm, clear and consistent on national security issues:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn_8Jjo_Zc0 and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P5AMwQlNsA
Tom Tancredo, before it is too late:
http://www.teamtancredo.typepad.com

Posted by: Alert at December 5, 2007 5:44 AM

Speaking of presidential candidates, here is a breath of fresh air: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJNHIUrKqR8&eurl=http://www.teamtancredo.typepad.com/

Posted by: Alert at December 5, 2007 5:53 AM

I'm with Hugh on this one.

I'm very skeptical of the new NIE report. John Bolton urged caution in an interview with O'Reilly. He said he knows many of those who put this report together and

1) the NIE is much more sure of when the program was suspended (2003) than whether or not it has been restarted since

2) the report is analysis; it is not driven by cold, hard facts, which in this case are extremely hard to come by

3) many of those who wrote the report are known by Bolton to be proponents of a negotiated settlement with Iran

I don't want a new war, but truth be told, the release of this report has been a public-relations disaster. The consensus-building for sanctions has completely unraveled.

Posted by: Cornelius at December 5, 2007 6:36 AM

"11) Why did Muslim conquerors kill between 60 and 80 million Hindus, even after they had conquered India and there was no danger of a revolt? Why did Muslims destroy Jain and Buddhist and Hindu temples and temple complexex, by the thousands, and often build mosques right on top of the ruins? ".......

....no reason to doubt Muslims will repeat their violent history in any country they gain control of......Hugh points to many examples....all are historically factual and are availiable to the leaders of every free Non Muslim controlled land.....Muslims have not changed in 1400 years....the leaders of the free countries should think of the futures of their people and move immediately to ban Muslim Immigration....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 5, 2007 6:53 AM

"Democratic presidential candidates explain why Muslims hate us"

...after hearing their answers, I have concluded: the candidates don't have a clue....

Ban Muslim Immigration...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 5, 2007 6:56 AM

"the release of this report has been a public-relations disaster."

That was its goal

Posted by: Elric66 at December 5, 2007 6:57 AM

....the leaders of the free countries should think of the futures of their people and move immediately to ban Muslim Immigration...

the leaders have long ago rejected the substance of the concept of "people" - especially "their people". How can they consider "the future" of a thing they don't believe in?

But the rot goes much deeper than "the leaders". The tragedy is that people themselves are not sure they exist in a historical sense. If they did they would have never elected these "leaders".

Posted by: thomas. h at December 5, 2007 8:13 AM

It would appear that most Republican presidential candidates are skeptical of the NIE as well.

In particular, I like Fred's logic about the "thin line."
http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071204/APP/712040854&template=apart

Posted by: JSobieski at December 5, 2007 9:02 AM

These pretenders to the Presidency respond as an abused child would respond. They are thoroughly bewildered and have thus concluded that all this outpouring of hatred and venom MUST be our fault. "If I can just try harder to be a good girl, daddy will stop hurting me" That is the degree of control they perceive America to have over this mortal threat. Read Diane West's new book. Their responses are explained perfectly.

Posted by: Infidel33 at December 5, 2007 10:56 AM

Hugh said:

"I'd like to know what Israeli intelligence has conclued about Iran, for one suspects that their knowledge of Iran, and sources in Iran, are superior to those of the American services, even if America has the better spies-in-the-sky satellites."

I suspect our first clue will be when those Israeli GBU-28's begin their descent toward Natanz and other locales.

Posted by: Infidel33 at December 5, 2007 11:00 AM

I do not understand the need some feel to "understand" why they hate us, as if reaching some level of "understanding" is going to mollify their hatred. It will not. Hatred of non-muslims is part and parcel of their religion, you know, the "religion of peace". I see nothing peaceful about their irrational hatred. I understand them all too well, well enough to know that they cannot be trusted, and that is enough for this infidel!

Posted by: HereticInfidel at December 5, 2007 11:24 AM

Anything less than conversion to Islam is not going to stop them from hating us, and even then I think they would find some other reason to hate us. Look at how the muslims of the world treat each other. Hatred seems to be the driving force behind the "religion of peace".

Posted by: HereticInfidel at December 5, 2007 11:36 AM

patagonianplato said

Quite literally, intelligence has become an overnight darling.

An overnight darling? What else do we base policy on, other than the best estimate of our intelligence agencies? They have been the eyes and ears of the government since they were formed in WWII.

What proof do you have that “blatant manipulation of raw intelligence” is no longer possible? Is it perhaps a hunch?

Uh, yes, it is my hunch that if the current Administration tried again to create false "proof" of WMD's in Iran, that the Congress and the American people would not fall for it this time. I guess your hunch is that the Administration can fool all of the people all of the time?

Iran has, to the best of our knowledge, temporarily stopped their nuclear weapon program. Iran remains a danger.

Posted by: special_guest at December 5, 2007 12:33 PM

I think those that believe that the Iranians ever halted their nuclear weapons program are deluding themselves. Most likely they have buried the program's activities so deeply underground that they are no longer detectable by the meager intelligence assets we have in place to monitor them. I also find it amusing that those who thought the NIE estimates regarding Iraq's WMD programs should have been disregarded as so much rubbish are now trumpeting the NIE estimates about Iran's nuclear weapons program as gospel, indisputable truth. The only thing preventing the Iranians from developing usable nuclear weapons is their own lack of technological sophistication, not sanctions or "international pressure".

Posted by: HereticInfidel at December 5, 2007 12:47 PM

I think the bigger questions are:

Why do they hate their own?

If they have never demonstrated an ability of anything but hate even of their own people and families what makes you think that an enlightenment will make then capable of love?

Posted by: alaskan1000 at December 5, 2007 1:04 PM

Muslims hate us for the same reason that a male dog licks his testicles --- because they can. (Dog...their favorite animal!)
however, in spite of this proclivity,I think that the majority of us are programed to feel and think exactly what the people "on top" want us to; that is, what will benefit them. If it is advantageous to the "Men of the Board" for people ---- the general population, the politician's constituency, the leaders' "charges", etc. --- to hate each other that's what will happen. Someone now, I believe, is capitalizing on all the negative feelings that we "little people" have for one another. I know that this doesn't excuse Islam's behavior, but there must be some reason why generation after generation of that religion, (or that RACE---of BARBARIANS --- this is technically correct)hate Westerners. Someone is benefitting from it, but it ain't any of us "wee folk". We are just the tools by which the mob-leaders of all nations can eventually gain from, financially and in political power. I am convinced of that. Historically, there have always been demagouge's who've exploited the masses.
I will say this, though, in support of the opinion that the mid east, in particular, hasn't contributed anything worthwhile for centuries; the majority of muslims are genetically directly from this area, and by virtue of the fact that other recent, former, facist cultures, like Germany and Italy, have produced immense doses of intellectual and cultural acheivements, in spite of these conuntries' brutal political leanings, leads me to believe that there is something genetically lacking in mid-eaterners.

Posted by: ElizaDoolittle at December 5, 2007 4:54 PM

Muslims hate us for the same reason that a male dog licks his testicles --- because they can. (Dog...their favorite animal!)
however, in spite of this proclivity,I think that the majority of us are programed to feel and think exactly what the people "on top" want us to; that is, what will benefit them. If it is advantageous to the "Men of the Board" for people ---- the general population, the politician's constituency, the leaders' "charges", etc. --- to hate each other that's what will happen. Someone now, I believe, is capitalizing on all the negative feelings that we "little people" have for one another. I know that this doesn't excuse Islam's behavior, but there must be some reason why generation after generation of that religion, (or that RACE---of BARBARIANS --- this is technically correct)hate Westerners. Someone is benefitting from it, but it ain't any of us "wee folk". We are just the tools by which the mob-leaders of all nations can eventually gain from, financially and in political power. I am convinced of that. Historically, there have always been demagouge's who've exploited the masses.
I will say this, though, in support of the opinion that the mid east, in particular, hasn't contributed anything worthwhile for centuries; the majority of muslims are genetically directly from this area, and by virtue of the fact that other recent, former, facist cultures, like Germany and Italy, have produced immense doses of intellectual and cultural acheivements, in spite of these countries' brutal political leanings, leads me to believe that there is something genetically lacking in mid-easterners.

Posted by: ElizaDoolittle at December 5, 2007 4:55 PM

From Special Guest above

Uh, yes, it is my hunch that if the current Administration tried again to create false "proof" of WMD's in Iran, that the Congress and the American people would not fall for it this time. I guess your hunch is that the Administration can fool all of the people all of the time?

As I recall, George Tenet, Clinton hold-over CIA director, was the one who told Bush that it was a "slam-dunk" that Saddam had WMD. IF you are the president and your chief of intel tells you it is a slam dunk, what would you do? Ignore it? Tenet's buffoonery however now gives Bush good reason not to jump on the NIE report bandwagon, especially considering its authors - state department bureaucrats Bolton has cited as being anti-Bush and incompetent in Middle East affairs. It is a fact that the State Department's foreign service is basically anti-American.

From pez above - Thomas Finger is the one who gives Bush his daily intel briefing! Wow! How can this be happening? Reminds of Alger Hiss and Roosevelt! Bush should send this guy back to the dungeons at Foggy Bottom. How can he be trusted?

Recommended read:

Bat Ye'or Eurabia: How far has it gone?
November 23,2007
http://www.vigilantfreedom.org/910blog/2007/11/23/bat-yeor-eurabia-how-far-has-it-gone/

This is a preview of what CAIR, etc., has in store for us. Basically the same model.

Posted by: Jimmy Bones at December 5, 2007 6:38 PM

special_guest

My point, was certainly not that intelligence agencies are or should be irrelevant to the policy making process. It was that until two days ago intelligence reports were nothing but the butt of criticism and derision and had been so for at least three years. Until a few days ago, who expressed confidence in such reports? All of the sudden, a new report comes along and states what many sectors want to here, and poof, they are trust-worthy. Are you not even remotely surprised by this overnight about-face?

As for hunches, I do not believe in them.

Posted by: patagonianplato at December 5, 2007 6:58 PM

Islam has a LONG legacy of hatred -- it's almost their obligation to hate just as Muhammad the hate monger did.

Posted by: champ at December 5, 2007 7:14 PM

To PersonoftheBook:

Thank you! I have been reprimanded, and sent back to school. The 17th did indeed "abrogate" the 10th Amendment. (I really hate that word, "abrogate")

What then, my friend, what power(s) do our Governors have in the defense of our Nation when the federal "elected" leaders fail us?

Posted by: boneshack at December 5, 2007 11:10 PM

lol @ topic
simple question, simple answer:
because we exist

everything else is just details

Posted by: jcom972 at December 6, 2007 12:24 PM

special_guest said:

"This is the number one change that must occur before we can respond properly to jihad. Once we accept that other cultures have different values, and respect their right to have different values,"

You're confusing 'rights' with 'things best to leave alone', and 'cultures' with 'individuals'.

Cultures don't have rights different from those composite of the individuals that make them up.

While people have rights to "value" child rape and murder of apostates, no one has the right to act on these. Whatever their culture.

What the critical difference is is: should we stop policing the world on the grounds that people have the right t oppress those nearest to them on the grounds of "culture" (I say no; this is not a valid ground) OR should we stop policing the world because it hurts us, our interests, and the overall state of affairs for oppressed people generally.

I'm with the latter.

No one has the right to rape children and kill apostates, etc., no matter if they can point to culture or not.

That's very, very different from saying we have to go and police all rights infringments in the entire world.

Posted by: hope_and_justice at December 6, 2007 12:50 PM

Robert, the point in your article is a winning point. Thank you for it. It would be helpful if it were to become a theme among people concerned about jihad.

These candidates are systematically denying the agency and independance of thought of those in other cultures. They are self-obsessed Westerners, they can't believe that a world of thought exists beyond their own.

They seem so self-obsessed that they don't really believe Islamism poses a real threat. Nothing beyond themselves is seen to have potency. Nothing from beyond the West could possibly challenge our position or way of life, such as the freedoms of women and homosexuals, and the relative secularism of our government.

They are the heirs of the worst bigots in Western culture.

Posted by: hope_and_justice at December 6, 2007 12:58 PM