"Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether or not there is "something about Islam," the term "Islamic terrorism" does not suggest that "Muslims, all 1.5 billion of them" are "related to terrorism" any more than the term "Italian fascist" suggests that all Italians are fascists..."

From Robert above
-------------------------------------------

Exactly! Not every single person who joined the Nazi Party was an anti-semite murderer. Some joined for economic or career reasons, but only a fool would deny the Nazi Party's anti-semitism or their murderous record.

Equally, not every Communist or Anarchist was a terrorist, yet clearly the individuals who committed acts of "Red Terror" or "Black Terror" were inspired by their Communist or Anarchist ideologies. To deny the link is willful blindness.

Posted by: Provoslavni at January 27, 2008 7:55 AM

You Go, RS!

We gotta keep our "srict Christian faith in the government" and keep those long-suffering oppressed Muslims in their place and out of "mainstream society."

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 7:58 AM

If anyone is to be outraged and insulted by the term "Islamo-fascism", it should be the fascists.

Posted by: ebonystone at January 27, 2008 7:59 AM

Islam - sharing it's warped logic for 1400 years - but I think it is starting to think that it's days are numbered.

Keep up the good work Robert and Hugh. Don't stop the pressure. KJ

Posted by: KJ-North-in-Canada at January 27, 2008 8:16 AM

These Republican candidates are scaring the Clitman-Obama kidz who want nothing more than kumbayah and free healthcare...

America needs a caring, progressive democratic government!

Why Can’t We All Just Get Along:

http://sheikyermami.com/new-album-out-soon/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 27, 2008 8:28 AM

ebonystone, great comment concerning the fascists. Anyone who bother to dig into history will find what Daniel Pipes and others have discovered, that fascism used to be a fully legit, socialist-inspired ideology envisioning the 'Total State' and widely viewed as an interesting alternative to plain democracy during the 1920's. Only when Mussolini teamed up with Hitler did it fall (deservedly) from grace. I still think fascism is a throughoutly stupid system, but it ain't evil.

Regarding Islamophobia, I believe Tariq Ramadan has duped us. No surprise here, of course, but it's worth discovering and adressing.

What the word really should signify, and I'm starting to use it like that, is to describe a person so scared by Islam that he abstains from saying and doing anything that might provoke the Muslims. Islamophobia, properly understood, is something to get rid of. Robert and the other great minds are doing one hell of a job for that to happen and for the West to regain its sanity :)

Posted by: Henrik at January 27, 2008 8:29 AM

"Here again, Cole's implication here is contradicted by simple English usage and every compound term that has ever been used since the beginning of time. Try it at home, kids! Try to think of any compound term that implies that everyone in the first part of the term is part of the second part. Green coffee mugs: does that imply that all coffee mugs are green? Nope. Cute babies -- all babies are cute? Sorry. Islamic scholars -- all scholars are Islamic? Nope. Just keep going -- you'll never find one".-Robert

Robert-your mind reminds me of Lincoln. Lincoln had a precise mind that headed straight to specificity in defining terms. That pattern of mind and Lincoln's love for truth made him very formidable as per attorneys who opposed him in court. Such people are rare.

Defining terms is a about 90% of logic and reasoning. However, most people you deal with are afraid to do that or do not desire to do that, or can't do that. Fibrahim Hooper, for example, falls into all three categories. He and CAIR-style liars have clever rat-like minds but they are not intelligent in the use of the full gift of reasoning.

Posted by: Frank at January 27, 2008 8:32 AM

Not being a Nazi or a Fascist didn't save the German or Italian people from the horrors of war. The people's failure to remove these leaders or to resist their calls to war led to their destruction. How many Germans were secretly proud of their country's domination over Europe prior to D-Day, seeing it as payback for what happened in Versailles?
Not every Muslim is a terrorist. How many of them will openly and loudly disassociate themselves from al Qaeda and actively work toward its destruction? How many of them are secretly proud of what was done on 9/11, 3/11, etc.? Though they would never stoop to violence themselves, their failure to condemn the violence done in their name and to work to destroy its perpetrators makes all Muslims culpable. Their silence in the face of indiscriminate violence speaks volumes...about them.

Posted by: PMK at January 27, 2008 8:55 AM

" ... the future president may open the door wider for Muslims to enter mainstream society."

Doctrinally, Muslims have no authority to enter mainstream society. They must remain separate, free of infidel contamination in every aspect of life and living--including even such things as holiday observance, everyday dress, and bathroom habits. This quest for doctrinal purity is fascist.

Operationally, Muslims, whose identity is defined by the collective Umma and whose loyalty is to that Umma and to that Umma alone, have no purpose in entering mainstream society except deceptively as the crew of a Trojan Horse, in order to undermine society from within--in preparation for subjugating the infidels under their self-serving sharia law. This quest for domination by the collective will of the Ummah--in their own definition the master race destined to rule the planet--is fascist again.

Islam is fasicst through and through. There is no "conflation" here.

Posted by: Stendec at January 27, 2008 9:48 AM

Excellent response Robert.

Isn't it funny how these people will get all upset and righteous about a phrase but don't show a quarter of the righteousness when Islamic jihadists (oops) blow innocent people (oops again)to pieces?

If they're so correct, then all they have to do is provide the examples of ative peaceful muslims (oops, sorry) who condemn unreservedly those Islamic terrorists (oops I'm getting giddy) as being bad muslims (oh no) who misrepresent the true, faithful muslims (oh what the hell) and shame the Islamic faith.

Oh look - tumbleweed.

Posted by: Lionheart at January 27, 2008 10:02 AM

Mohammedan Trojan Horses are known as Kitman.
Try the word on them, along with the word Taqqiya, it will send them into convulsions as they sputter and stammer over the fact you not only caught them in the act, but called them out on it.

Posted by: senor doeboy at January 27, 2008 10:04 AM

...it is about time someone in the political arena began to associate a name to all those bombings and terrorist activities around the world that have killed so many people and ruined whole countries...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 27, 2008 10:05 AM

Here lately, I believe I'm starting to feel the tiniest whiff of change in the air. I dare to say that I think some people are actually starting to very slowly wake up to the TRUTH about Islam and Muslims.

And I do have faith that we (in the 'West') WILL eventually wake up and recognize the evil that is Islam... but I do worry that it will be too late, that it will be after the scales have tipped.

I believe Muslims worldwide are pushing their hand too soon. They THINK they have more power and influence than they actually do. They are not only being caught up in the lies of taqiyya, but more and more people are starting to SEE it. Even the most liberal of multiculturists are starting to get irritated by the Muslim push for a parallel - and privledged - society. My brother, who unfortunately is a Ron Paulian, simply cannot argue the PLAIN, PURE LOGIC I tell him when we talk about this exact thing... he emphatically believes that it is US linking terrorism to Islam, that terrorism comes in all religions, etc... and when I point out that it is in fact the terrorists, all of them - all of them MUSLIM in fact - who are linking their terrorist actions to Islam, he has nothing to say, because he recognizes it is the truth. When I show him speeches Osama bin Laden gave 3 years before 9/11 where he is declaring war on the US, where he is continually quoting the Koran and using it as justification for his actions, where he is holding up Mohammed the warrior as his role model... there simply IS no arguing with that, because it speaks for itself and clearly demonstrates that yes, it is in fact the Muslim terrorists who are using Islam to justify their actions and beliefs. Period.

We may be losing some battles, but in the end I believe we will win the war. Especially with our enemy becoming sloppy from his big ego.

Posted by: JenBee at January 27, 2008 10:27 AM

If playing with words is one's obsession, one can have plenty of time to create non-sense. Politicians know that it's easier to coin words than to find real solutions.

If Muslims are so touchy by the hearing of the word, "Islamo-Fascism," then they need to draw comfort from etymology. In fact, the word, Islamo-Fascism, is constructed of two words of two distinct origins. Islam, in Arabic, means submit, and Fasci, of Italian origin, means "Street Fighters." Combining these two words, we derived the word, Islamo-Fascism, which we may take it as "Submissive Street Fighters."

Now Islamo-Fascism is not a hostile term, but a euphemism.

Posted by: ssa at January 27, 2008 10:37 AM

I too object to terms like "Islamic terrorism" and "Islamo-fascism." They are redundant and PC. "Islam" and "Muslim" are perfectly correct terms as in: "we were attacked by Islam/Muslims." "Islam is at war with us." "Muslims want to kill us." Of course it is true that not all Muslims really do want to kill us, but then their status as true Muslims is suspect. And such "moderate Muslims" know better than to raise any objections they may harbor to lesser Jihad for fear of their own lives.

As for so-called "Christian terrorists" - this is an oxymoron. Any self-proclaimed Christian who practices terror does so in strict opposition to Christian teachings. However any Muslim actively (or passivley) engaged in terror is practicing the very sacraments of his creed.

Posted by: BunrattyBill at January 27, 2008 10:52 AM

Maybe it was Muhammad himself who made the link between Islam and terror?

Straight from the Bukhari hadith at the USC website:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.220

Posted by: Caroline at January 27, 2008 10:59 AM

The ummah care a damn for non-believers. And why should it? Steps to victory are laid out:

- Defend Islam as a religion.
- Destroy by waging war.
- Punish thru Sharia.
- Convert thru Da'wa.
- Decieve thru Taquiyya.
- Any / all combinations of the above.
- Kill those who resist.

Victory is guarenteed!

Posted by: Alert at January 27, 2008 11:00 AM

From article: Cute babies -- all babies are cute? Sorry.

Reminds me of a scene from an old cowboy movie where
the cowboy father sees his child for the first time. and says, 'that's one ugly baby', The old, and wise, Chinese houseboy/man nearby said, 'There is no such thing as an ugly baby, must grow up first'.

Ron Paul is not only unrealistic on the subject of Islam, he appears to be in a void. I would hope if he accidentally, somehow, gets elected , 'Allah willing', he will take a crash course and get some smarts, there are free ones laying around everywhere. Right now, he ain't got no smarts.
The other Republicans got a little smarts, not enough, but at least some. The question is, will they become 'fully informed' as prez, and act accordingly or will they be impotent, by firing blanks. No democrat has any smarts about Islam and probably wont get any. Democrats have nothing to fire but blanks...

Posted by: duh_swami at January 27, 2008 11:01 AM

WASHINGTON, Jan 27 (KUNA) -- In the 2008 presidential race, White House hopefuls, mainly Republicans, are linking Islam with terrorism as a tool to scare up support among US voters, an election style experts describe as "shameful", as Muslims are still too absent from the scene to make the contenders re-consider.

Yeah, just wait until they get more moslems here in the US..."make the contenders re-consider."

Posted by: interestinconundrum at January 27, 2008 12:01 PM

Well ladies and gentleman, the next word for definition is:

Islamophobia.

I have been suffering with Islamophobia.

I is this a natural disease that we suffer from, that is spread by the efforts of Jhidists? And liberal Islamo-Nazis?

Posted by: credit man at January 27, 2008 12:01 PM

The term 'Islamic terrorist' suggests there is something about Islam," he said.
(Do not respond with Deuteronomy or Leviticus, they were written for a distinct time, not for all time.)

Qur'an:2:216 "Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you , though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not." [Another translation reads:] "Warfare is ordained for you."
Qur'an:8:12 "I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle."
Qur'an:8:57 "If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned."
Bukhari:V4B52N44 "A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, 'Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.' He replied, 'I do not find such a deed.'"
Bukhari:V1B2N25 "Allah's Apostle was asked, 'What is the best deed?' He replied, 'To believe in Allah and His Apostle Muhammad.' The questioner then asked, 'What is the next best in goodness?' He replied, 'To participate in Jihad, religious fighting in Allah's Cause.'"

Posted by: interestinconundrum at January 27, 2008 12:10 PM

"If playing with words is one's obsession..."
- from a poster above, who dismisses such people

But these are the most wonderful people in the world.

Posted by: Hugh at January 27, 2008 12:16 PM

Dear Robert,
Thanks for the invitation to debate, but I couldn't stoop to your level. I'm not going to mix it up with someone who shamelessly quotes verses from the liturgy out of context, and then tries to imply that just because there are hundreds of seeming calls to do violence against non-adherents of the Islamic faith, that there is anything violent or even intolerant about one of the world's greatest faiths. And so what if there have been thousands of terrorist attacks since 9/11? There are 1.5 billions Muslims, so 10,000 is a tiny percentage.
Anyway, if I debate you I could jeopardize my whole career. Where do think I work, the Republican National Committee? I've got a mortgage, you know.
So thanks, but no thanks.
Yours Truly, Juan

Posted by: jewdog at January 27, 2008 12:27 PM

Well the "borg" of Star Track fame and Islam do have one thing in common: the former believes in what is called the "collective" and the latter, "the ummah".

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at January 27, 2008 12:36 PM

Islamophobia

I have been suffering with Islamophobia.

I is this a natural disease that we suffer from, that is spread by the efforts of Jihadists?

I had been wondering too, and toyed with defining Islamophobia something like this:

The healthy reaction to learning the true nature of Islam and Jihad

However, I think this is wrong. First, the root 'phobia' means irrational and unfounded fear. This is obviously mistaken, as the fear is rational and well founded both in scripture and in actual events. Second, fear easily leads to a state of paralysis, where lots of critics spend a lot of time debating issues, writing articles, networking and informing. This is hardly paralysis, and thus the 'fear' theme doesn't play out very well. While justified, I don't hold this definition to be sensible and useful.

It is worth remembering that the word is coined by Brother Tariq Ramadan exactly to smear Islam-critics as suffering from irrational and unjustified fear, thus contributing to dismissing said critics as alarmist scaremongers. This tactic has worked all too well. 'Islamophobe' has a ring similar to 'racism', which (particular in the US - we European generally dismiss racism as crap) bears quite a stigmata.

A more useful definition of 'Islamophobia' would address something that's quite a problem:

Fear of Islam so intense it makes people lose heart and abstain from standing up for their culture and values

This is a real problem we're facing on a daily basis. The fear somewhere between rational and not. Islamists have done sufficiently to justify getting scared and taking action. Yet the fear is exactly what confuses people ("It cannot be *this* bad. Please, pretty please...") and paralyses them, too, because it takes courage to leave behind fear, and courage has been unneeded in Europe since somewhere around 1945.

The cure, of course, is courage. To recognize courage in others, too, and to appreciate and support this courage, eventually emulating the greater hero and do useful things.

Islamophobia needs to be eradicated. Citizen participation is encouraged.

Posted by: Henrik at January 27, 2008 1:22 PM

To bad we wont have the money to prosecute the war,
Im sure planes are a foot for china to go after Taiwan so we can send in a carrier they can sink , they we can demand the forgive our debts.

Posted by: GrennBeck at January 27, 2008 1:23 PM

BunrattyBill:
I too object to terms like "Islamic terrorism" and "Islamo-fascism." They are redundant and PC.

They are useful, which is what really matters. Anyone who has read Roberts' books and the Hadith/Quran would know that Islam *is* the problem, but the general public does not, and in particular all those bad Muslims who are good people are blissfully unaware of the true nature of the religion.

Using "Islamic Terrorism", "Islamofascism", "Totalitarian Islam" etc. leaves a door open for the non-violent Muslims not to be offended by criticism, and it leaves a (hypothetical) possibility that some variety of Islam could exist that is compatible with democracy and freedom. But the burden of proof shifts to the Muslims, where it belongs.

Unfortunately, the British government - apparently inspired by Orwell's "1984" - are now moving to ban even "Islamic Terrorism" and the like from the language, leaving those who still use the terms outside legal protection, as Lionheart has recently experienced. This is a problem. We need our governments to protect us against Islamists, not protect the Islamists from the sharp light of reason and intellect.

I stick with "Totalitarian Islam", "Islamofascism" etc. until it has been utterly proven that Fascism is better than Islam anyway, and that Islam has many other bad qualities than simply being Totalitarian.

Posted by: Henrik at January 27, 2008 1:33 PM

"Maybe it was Muhammad himself who made the link between Islam and terror?"

It was. And it's a *lot* more authentic quoten than the single Bukhari you list above. Quran, Sirat, Hadith - all of them show Muhammad use terror on a regular basis without being the least bit repentant about it.

There's nothing 'blasphemic' about pointing out the connection. It's a given straight out of their own scripture.

Posted by: Henrik at January 27, 2008 1:37 PM

Henrik - your points are well taken, but they belie a concession. I think your post should have "Muslims" in quotes when you speak of "non-violent Muslims." Are these really Muslims? Isn't that kind of like saying "pro-abortion Catholics" or "bacon-cheeseburger-eating Jews?" You can't have it both ways. You can be a Muslim, but if you pretend to eschew violence, you will be deemed an "innovator" or "heretic" and we all know the penalty for those....

Posted by: BunrattyBill at January 27, 2008 1:45 PM

Islam is a political entity. Why don't we just refer to it as the Islamic Party? It sounds wimpy, now--but I feel certain that it will start to take on darker undertones, with each passing year.

It looks like an Islamic Party is going to be necessary, for both Democrat and Republican parties to understand this political aspect. Let's be inclusive! Let's be PC! Let's give Islam its own political party!

Maybe doing so will drag the more ambitious among them out of their silent support of terrorism (by those terrorists who happen to be Muslims, and use the Noble Qur'an to justify their blood soaked activities). Imagine an OBL style candidate. Wouldn't that be a wake-up call? Knowing that there's even a remote chance of such a person being elected, even for a schoolboard seat?

Posted by: Abscedere at January 27, 2008 1:51 PM

Spencer wrote:

the term "Islamic terrorism" does not suggest that "Muslims, all 1.5 billion of them" are "related to terrorism" any more than the term "Italian fascist" suggests that all Italians are fascists

Both Cole and Spencer are being disingenuous here, though the former rather obtusely, and the latter adeptly.

Cole is obtusely setting up a Straw Muslim -- "all Muslims". But Spencer is being rather sophistical in his rejoinder: "No, I didn't say all Muslims" -- which is strictly accurate, but neglects to add the important caveat that Spencer is massively raising the problem of too many Muslims, dispersed around the globe and not easily identifiable.

It is at the level of that caveat where Spencer and Cole could have the most fruitful and enlightening disagreement.

Even the caveat may be too soft on the problem, however, given that any given Muslim, by definition and ipso facto is liable for his allegiance to an ideology that specifically and clearly states, through the idea of the fard al-kifaya, that he is responsible for supremacist jihad whether he participates or not.

The doctrine of the fard al-kifaya imputes responsibility to all 1.5 billion Muslims.

In light of the deadly threat we face, there is no pragmatic reason (other than PC-dominated public relations) for categorizing any given population of Muslims as harmless; for we cannot know whether any Muslims are harmless (much less do we have the capability of precision to even begin to delineate such populations).

(The indeterminate number of Muslims among that totality who don't want to be part of the supremacist ambitions of Islam should not be our main concern, however tragic their plight might be.)

The doctrine of the fard al-kifaya:

Majiid Khadurri notes, "The jihad... is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim community. It is regarded as fard al-kifaya, binding on the Muslims as a collective group, not individually. If the duty is fulfilled by a part of the community it ceases to be obligatory on others; the whole community, however, falls into error if the duty is not performed at all." (Majid Khadduri, "The Doctrine of Jihad". (From War and Peace in the Law of Islam, Book 2: The Law of War: The Jihad, 1955). In Andrew Bostom (Ed.) (2005), The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (p. 309). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books).

Also in Reliance of the Traveler (09.1): "Jihad is a communal obligation. When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others"

Posted by: cantor at January 27, 2008 1:59 PM

Juan Cole is just another morally bankrupt liberal apologist for Islam.

Remember when those earthquakes that hit Indonesia and Pakistan? Well it was well known the oil kingdoms gave a pittance compared to Europe and America. And when some folks pointed it out he made up the excuse the oil kingdoms don't have that kind of money to give. That is the west that must take care of these disasters.

Though what really amuses me about Cole, is that he is a Bahai and the Bahai are despised by Muslims as apostates or heretics. And here he is defending and making excuses for Islamic thuggery and hypocrisy.

Posted by: waltc at January 27, 2008 1:59 PM

From above: And so what if there have been thousands of terrorist attacks since 9/11? There are 1.5 billions Muslims, so 10,000 is a tiny percentage.

Is this guy for real? Must be a liberal.
That's an example of liberal math. Liberals count like that. The 'so what' part gives away any credibility. So what? Apathy in action. The ten thousand + murders in behalf of Islam, only impresses liberals with a 'so what'?
There is no point debating a fragmented mentality that can only utter 'so what' to thousands of murders. How many murders does it take for a liberal to comprehend reality? The exact number please. I want to know at what number of murders does a 'so what' turn into a horrifying reality? How many terrorist murders are acceptable to the one quoted above? If 10,400 + are acceptable to this liberal, who utters 'so what', exactly at what number do they become unacceptable?
Inquiring minds want to know...

Posted by: duh_swami at January 27, 2008 2:00 PM

I believe the term "Italian fascism" as a rhetorical in this situation comes from Steve Emerson in his retort to Alan Colmes. I realize he was on the spot, but a more apt term would have been "American imperialism".

It makes the point more effectively.

Posted by: saturnine at January 27, 2008 2:45 PM

I don't know if this has been posted before. It is a paper for Homeland Security about the use of the internet by Jihadists as presented to call for the same kind of information war that was used against Communisum.

Very quickly into it the points that will be made include declaring right up front that the common usage of the word Jihad is wrong.
With this kind of intelligence work how is anything going to get accomplished?

Read it

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/ciag/publications/NETworked-Radicalization_A-Counter-Strategy.pdf

Posted by: Aunt Bea at January 27, 2008 3:36 PM

interestinconundrum -

I, too, saw what you saw. When I read the article what stood out to me, as to you, was the line - "as Muslims are still too absent from the scene to make the contenders re-consider".

Running that phrase through my jihadwatch/dhimmiwatch Enigma machine for the translation of Muslim-speak it came out like this: "as Muslims are not yet strong enough in America to frighten everyone into silent submission".

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 27, 2008 3:39 PM

I think your post should have "Muslims" in quotes when you speak of "non-violent Muslims." Are these really Muslims?

These persons are Muslims, but they're bad Muslims. They're the ones branded 'Hypocrites' by Muhammad, and the deepest levels of (Islamic) Hell is reserved for these people. Their sin? Declaring themselves Muslims ino order to protect their life and property (from whom? Easy guess..), and not sacrificing their life and property for "Allah's Cause", preferring well-tilled land and the comforts of family.

These people are Muslims mainly by their own declaration, but they are bad Muslims.

But the day they discover this, all hell breaks loose. They read the Quran, they read the Sirat, discover that they've broken a lot of rules, and decide to make up for it. If they do so literally, they become bad human beings, dictatorial with the laws of Islam. And, in the worst case, decide to join the Jihad brigades.

Worse, there are two seals to break for those either born or declare Muslims in the first place. First, openly declaring apostacy incurs capital punishmen. Second, trying to change Islam incurs - apostacy. This is one evil trap to get out of, and many simply accept the situation and linger on, trying to stay out of trouble.

The self-declaration of being a Muslim has severe consequences. It's a deceitfully easy thing to do, but a hard thing to break out of.

Thus, we have a lot of Muslims by birth or declaration who are not actively so, and largely behave reasonably. They might beat their wives, cheat on the taxes, but they're not Jihadis. Unfortunately, there's no good way to discern who may be chose to become one, and this is a security problem.

Showing these bad Muslims that Islam is worse than they fear is worthwhile.

Posted by: Henrik at January 27, 2008 3:41 PM

I, too, saw what you saw. When I read the article what stood out to me, as to you, was the line - "as Muslims are still too absent from the scene to make the contenders re-consider".

Dumblesdorearmy and interestconudrum

My Enignma saw is it as a call for action.
Like the AQ tapes embedded messages.

Posted by: Aunt Bea at January 27, 2008 4:52 PM

On that Homeland Security paper. Go to the end and check who briefed them. First in line, since his name starts with an A is Parvez Ahmed.

For fairness I will check to see if the department of justice has the ACLU brief them on the sensitivity of handling gang members so as not to offend their sensibilities. (A subject mentioned many times in the paper)

Posted by: Aunt Bea at January 27, 2008 4:57 PM

On that Homeland Security paper. Go to the end and check who briefed them. First in line, since his name starts with an A is Parvez Ahmed.

For fairness I will check to see if the department of justice has the ACLU brief them on the sensitivity of handling gang members so as not to offend their sensibilities. (A subject mentioned many times in the paper)

Posted by: Aunt Bea at January 27, 2008 4:58 PM

Robert, you are nothing but a white supremicist.

Oops, did I indict all white people? Did I link white races to supremicism?

Sorry. There is no such thing as white supremicists. The KKK, the BNP, or neo-nazi groups do not exist.

You are a racist if you say otherwise.

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at January 27, 2008 5:06 PM

This poster was recently banned from a popular Australian MSM blog (generally perceived as 'right wing') for using the term 'Islamofascism' and for asserting that Islam is, in its core essence, a criminal organization.

The 'criminal organization' thing makes the politically correct wankers throw hissy fits almost like the Muhammedans do...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 27, 2008 5:13 PM

Use of the phrase outraged Muslims worldwide, including Saudi Arabia, which reportedly issued a plea to the US to stop using the term.

I have only one thing to say -"When pigs fly".

Sometimes, we Islamophobes just can't stop ourselves.

Posted by: tanstaafl at January 27, 2008 5:17 PM

There it is once again FROM THE TROJAN HORSE'S MOUTH:

"Muslims are still too absent from the scene to make the contenders re-consider."

For those - mainly the Leftards and their minions in the MSM - who need help breaking this down:

"still too absent from the scene" = not enough moslem immigration in the USA.

[my feelings on that are the exact reverse but that's another matter]

"to make the contenders reconsider" is mospeak for pressure tactics [as employed by the likes of CAIR] to dhimmify the candidates and silence them on the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE of our collective lifetimes.

In other words they are encouraging the savages to storm the gates via immigration [slow jihad] since they cannot do it by open military warfare [fast jihad].

Lesson for US: They are in a permanent state of War against us which will only end when every last one of us has been murdered OR we obliterate their evil cultish creed once and for all.

The future has one of these two outcomes in store. We can choose to defend ourselves or jump down the cliffs like lemmings with the herd.

Bleat.

Posted by: Allah Schmallah at January 27, 2008 5:19 PM

It bears repeating that the term 'Islamofascism' is an insult to any decent fascist :)

Posted by: Henrik at January 27, 2008 5:25 PM

Henrik, islam is an insult to any person with a heart and a brain.

Posted by: Allah Schmallah at January 27, 2008 5:36 PM

What is the certain "something about Islam"?

Maybe that: it is trying to establish a global theocratic tyranny which is anti-Constitutional, anti-the secular state, and anti-Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

What more does Islam need to threaten us infidels with to be considered dangerous and unsavory?

Ask Theo Van Gogh.

Just try.

Posted by: profitsbeard at January 27, 2008 7:07 PM

Henrik,

I say that you have a severe case of Islamomisia. There is no known cure; but, while it is chronic, it is neither fatal nor debilitating.

I S L A M O M I S I A. Catch it. Embrace it. Spread it.

Islamomisic is mystic.

I am an enthusiastic Islamomisiast who is enthusiastically Islamomisic.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 7:44 PM

Not, however, to be confused with Islamofauxbia.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 7:48 PM

Jimmi the dhimmi: "There is no such thing as white supremicists. The KKK, the BNP, or neo-nazi groups do not exist."

Good one. Maybe we should take a cue from the British who have relabeled Islamic terrorism "anti-Islamic activity" and refer to all these groups as anti-white supremacists!

Posted by: Caroline at January 28, 2008 5:26 AM

jimmi the dhimmi;

The KKK is real. I met one. Back in the sixties I arrived at one of my regular babysitting jobs to find the family very upset.
Their sister-in-law had been arrested. She was a High School History teacher and had been caught in the act of placing two sticks of dynamite under the bedroom window of a family's home.

A Jewish family.

Posted by: Aunt Bea at January 28, 2008 6:33 AM

Alert:
A post without a cheap shot at the President or a Google link to a Bush bashing website. How refreshing!

Posted by: HereticInfidel at January 28, 2008 9:57 AM

What does the the esteemed Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of State until 2001 (that fateful year) have to say on the subject? She wrote a commentary a few days ago, with the very original title "The Politics of Fear".

She goes on about the corrosive effects of fear-mongering at length, and then says this:

"We are 4 percent of a planet that is half Asian, half poor, one-third Muslim and by and large more familiar with America's recent actions than with our country's past accomplishments. To many, the Bush administration is America. Our reputation is in disrepair. We will not recover by acting out of fear but by educating ourselves about the world around us, learning foreign languages, appreciating other faiths, studying the many dimensions of historic truth, . . .and looking beyond simplistic notions of good and evil."

Firstly, Islam now seems to have ballooned in Ms. Albright's mind to about 2.2 million adherents ( a world which is one-third Muslim). Then, we are not sensitive enough--we need to "appreciate other faiths", even if an alarming number of one faith's followers seem to wish us ill. But that is the ultimate problem--if we can only get "beyond simplistic notions of good and evil", then things like the taking of American hostages, or the bombing of the USS Cole, or especially that old bug-a-boo, 9/11, wouldn't really seem that bad after all.

Posted by: gravenimage at January 29, 2008 12:36 AM

Of coruse, I meant "billion", not "million".

Posted by: gravenimage at January 29, 2008 12:39 AM