New Pew Poll Undercuts Left’s “Islamophobia” Card


Pages: 1 2

By lashing out against imaginary Islamophobes and pretending that Sharia law (including punishment for apostasy and blasphemy) is perfectly compatible with core American values such as freedom of religion and expression, CAIR, the Center for American Progress and their fellow professional drumbeaters are justifying the very Islamic extremism that truly moderate Muslim Americans say they abhor.

When Rep. Peter King (R-NY), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, decided to hold hearings on the threat of Islamic radicalization within the Muslim American community, he was denounced by leaders of Muslim advocacy organizations and their supporters on the Left as an Islamophobe conducting a McCarthy-style witch-hunt. Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director for CAIR, said, “These hearings have the potential to demonize Islam.”

As Congressman King pointed out to Politico after the latest Pew survey was released, “I don’t rely on polls, but the fact that 21 percent have seen extremism in their communities reinforces the need for the hearings.”

King also made clear that “I’ve always said the majority of Muslims are good Americans. My concern is the small number of Muslims who can be radicalized.”

In trying to deflect attention from the real problem presented by such extremism, Hooper and his cohorts are out of step with the concerns expressed in the Pew survey of the American Muslim community they claim to represent.

The disconnect between national Muslim American organizations and ordinary Muslim Americans also shows up in the results of an August Gallup poll released by the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and the newly established Abu Dhabi Gallup Center titled Muslim Americans: Faith, Freedom, and the Future: Examining U.S. Muslims’ Political, Social, and Spiritual Engagement 10 Years After September 11. The Gallup poll found that just 12% of Muslim American men and 11% of Muslim American women say they feel like CAIR represents their interests. Other Muslim advocacy groups, such as the Islamic Society of North America, registered in single digits. When asked which of a list of national Muslim American organizations represents their interests, 55% of Muslim men and 42% of Muslim women say that none do.

But it is the advocacy group leaders’ strident voices, not those of ordinary Muslim Americans trying to live their day-to-day lives, we always seem to hear. It is these leaders who are invited to the Obama White House, which echoes their whitewashing by refusing to even use the words “Islamic extremism” and “jihad” in references to terrorism inspired by Islamic ideology.

These leaders and their enablers are failing the Muslim American community by not taking responsibility for combating the rising Islamic extremism in their midst. Instead, by defaming the critics of Islamic extremism, reports such as “Fear, Inc.” – and the Muslim advocacy groups and leftists who support its premises – are exacerbating the problem to the detriment of the Muslim American community and the great free country in which they live.

Pages: 1 2

  • http://madaboutmahound.blogspot.com/ Gary Rumain

    I'd rather there was more discussion of the koranimals' kafirphobia.

  • Chezwick_mac

    This story is dynamite! Those few Policy-makers and pundits who have the gonads to discuss Islam without apologia need to take notice of the numbers cited in this poll, memorize them, and then recite them as often as possible in public discourse. We are talking about tens of thousands of potential Jihadists right here in America.

    Our enemy has given us a gift. Let's get on with the job of further educating an already skeptical public.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      You see that's the difference between you and me, I could never be so naive and gullible that I would arbitrarily assume that Muslims who are not only obligated to maintain nothing but enmity in their hearts for non-Muslim unbelievers, but also to lie to non-Muslim unbelievers in the cause of Allah could be so stupid that they would spill their guts about their real agenda to a leftwing kafir infidel organization that uses terms like moderates, extremists, and radicals to describe Muslims because it is blinded by political correctness and thus buys into the ludicrous and absurd notion that Islam is a so-called Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists. Indeed, why don't you read Robert Spencer and see what he has to say about that utterly ridiculous political correct paradigm concocted by the left?

    • Chezwick_mac

      No, the difference between you and me is that you see the world through such a rigid ideological prism and that you presume that all the laws of human nature and statecraft must conform to that prism. This is why you believe in the preposterous notion that if Saddam Hussein had only taken over the Middle East, Islam's Jihad would have ended.

      Well friend, apparently 13% of those Muslims polled defied your rigid expectation of taqiyya and actually revealed their extremist inclinations. How do you explain that, Sherlock?

      Actually, I happen to believe – like you – that the percentage of extremist Muslims in America is actually much higher, but I'm content to let the poll results speak for themselves. 13% involves hundreds of thousands of avowed extremists living on our soil. Any rational non-Muslim would be alarmed at the prospect.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        No, the difference between you and me is that you see the world through such a rigid ideological prism and that you presume that all the laws of human nature and statecraft must conform to that prism.

        Nah…not really. I see the world as it really is. It's not my fault that Islam requires total, complete, and unconditional submission to the will of Allah and that it forbids the freedom of conscience, and thus as a result makes the punishment for blasphemy and apostasy being death. Indeed, I didn't create that ideological rigidity. Nevertheless, if you want to believe in political correct myths and fantasies, then more power to you! It's your prerogative.

        This is why you believe in the preposterous notion that if Saddam Hussein had only taken over the Middle East, Islam's Jihad would have ended.

        Uhm…no not quite. Unlike you I'm not delusional enough to blow Saddam's military strength way out of proportion the way you did in order to insinuate that he would somehow miraculously have taken over the Middle East despite America's enormous military power at the time, especially when Saddam's military at the time consisted mostly of untrained Shi'a conscripts who hated Saddam worse than Saddam's enemies and that were little more than cannon fodder, and especially when that military at the time consisted of 1950s era Soviet weaponry that had been repeatedly defeated by the Israeli IDF armed with American weaponry, while America's military might at the time, which was before the Soviet collapse and immediately following Reagan's second term, was at its apex of all time. Not to mention that Saddam's vaunted military couldn't even defeat a weakened Iran. Thus, please excuse me for not blowing Saddam's military strength and thus his threat astronomically way out of proportion the same way you did. Unlike you, I live in the real world.

        Well friend, apparently 13% of those Muslims polled defied your rigid expectation of taqiyya and actually revealed their extremist inclinations. How do you explain that, Sherlock?

        I thought I made myself perfectly clear, Jack, I don't subscribe to polls of Muslim immigrants conducted by leftwing lunatic organizations that use terms like extremist, moderate, and radical to describe Muslims because they buy into absurd political correct myths such as Islam is a so-called Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists. But hey…again if you want to subscribe to such political correct myths and fantasies, then again more power to you. In fact, I could care less what you believe.

        Actually, I happen to believe – like you – that the percentage of extremist Muslims in America is actually much higher, but I'm content to let the poll results speak for themselves. 13% involves hundreds of thousands of avowed extremists living on our soil. Any rational non-Muslim would be alarmed at the prospect.

        Sure you do….which is why you praised the poll and also this extremely naive article. Read your own post.

        In addition, once again I don't subscribe to political correct terms like “extremists” when used to describe Muslims because first of all such terms imply that the political correct myth that Islam is a so-called Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists is somehow legitimate and correct instead of being demonstrably false, and second because all jihadists – whether of the violent variety or the non-violent variety – are MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MULSIMS only, as opposed to terrorists, which are always political extremists only since jihad and terrorism are two completely different things altogether.

        Indeed, because institutionalized political correctness is so prevalent, violent jihad, which is mutually exclusive from terrorism and something else entirely different altogether, is almost always conflated with terrorism, which is also absurd as well. While non-violent jihad, on the other hand, which is employed astronomically far greater relative to violent jihad, unfortunately takes place completely unacknowledged and unopposed for the most part.

        In fact, mass Muslim immigration is a form of non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad that takes place totally unacknowledged and unopposed, as Muslim jihadists never migrate to the West or anywhere else for that matter to assimilate and integrate, but instead only to eventually subjugate and dominate to make Islam supreme via demographic conquest. Which is why in country after country wherever mass Muslim immigration is taking place, without a single exception the vast overwhelming majority of Muslim immigrants just like clockwork flat out refuse to assimilate and integrate and instead form segregated Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia and in direct contravention to the laws of the states in which they reside. Of course, in certain countries where mass Muslim immigration is still a relatively new phenomenon, that distinctive pattern is less discernible, but as time goes on the longer mass Muslim immigration occurs, the more discernible that pattern inevitably becomes.

        • Chezwick_mac

          1) We see Islam along similar lines. There is no moderate Islam. But Muslims are human beings. Some aren't terribly interested in religion,,,others can be bought…still others can be seduced…occasionally, some can even be enlightened. Only a rigid ideologue perceives all people as behaving identically.

          2) Your straw man argument on Saddam doesn't wash. I kept emphasizing the economic power of the oil trillions Saddam would have been bequeathed in his takeover of the Arabian peninsula…you keep trying to divert the issue to a military one.

          You apparently know little about statecraft or geo-politics. You divide and conquer your enemy, you don't facilitate his unity by helping him gather his separate parts into one large polity.

          Your advocacy on behalf of Saddam as the potentate of the Middle-East was as amateurish and sophomoric as any I've heard. You make no account of his mercurial nature…and worst of all, no account of what could come after him once he had united Iraq and Arabia. In your "genius", you may have just created the conditions for a reconstitution of the Caliphate.

          But by all means, advance your theory to Robert Spencer. See what he says about it.

          3) The clear inference of your distrust of the poll in the article is that Muslims are programmed to deceive infidels about their intentions. Even so, 13% disregarded that programming and openly endorsed mass murder. I think infidels could draw some pronounced conclusions from this, particularly those who are deluded into believing that Islam is peace. For some reason, you want to disregard the poll, even though it is ammunition for the anti-Jihad. Once again, the rigid ideologue in you trumps pragmatism.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            1) We see Islam along similar lines. There is no moderate Islam. But Muslims are human beings. Some aren't terribly interested in religion,,,others can be bought…still others can be seduced…occasionally, some can even be enlightened. Only a rigid ideologue perceives all people as behaving identically.

            No we don't see Islam along similar lines, and if your naive assumptions were true, then the vast overwhelming majority of Muslim immigrants in country after country and everywhere mass Muslim immigration is occurring wouldn't just like clockwork flat out refuse to assimilate and integrate and form segregated Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia. But nevertheless they do.

            2) Your straw man argument on Saddam doesn't wash. I kept emphasizing the economic power of the oil trillions Saddam would have been bequeathed in his takeover of the Arabian peninsula…you keep trying to divert the issue to a military one.

            Excuse me but if anyone's argument was a straw man argument, then it was your unhinged argument whereby you repeatedly kept inflating Saddam into some sort of omnipotent God like all powerful being capable of taking over the world. Yeah right! I believe in using propaganda during war because it is necessary, but I don't necessarily believe our own propaganda like you do.

            You apparently know little about statecraft or geo-politics. You divide and conquer your enemy, you don't facilitate his unity by helping him gather his separate parts into one large polity.

            Yeah right…please explain how the USA being duped and manipulated repeatedly like a useful idiot by the forces of Islam to fight its jihads for them constitutes a divide and conquer strategy? Give me a break!

            Your advocacy on behalf of Saddam as the potentate of the Middle-East was as amateurish and sophomoric as any I've heard. You make no account of his mercurial nature…and worst of all, no account of what could come after him once he had united Iraq and Arabia. In your "genius", you may have just created the conditions for a reconstitution of the Caliphate.

            Please, how is your advocacy of the venerable House of Saud and the Gulf States, which collectively are by far the biggest proliferators of the global jihad, not amateurish and sophomoric? Indeed, I'd rather empower a secular and incompetent lunatic like Saddam than the forces of global jihad with trillions of dollars of oil wealth at their disposal any day of the week and twice on Sundays, but that's me, not you.

            By the way, you never explained how Saddam would have morphed into this omnipotent megalomaniac seeking to take over the world. For instance, how could he have taken over the world with an antiquated 1950s era military and an untrained cannon fodder army?

            In addition, who would have been stupid enough to sell Saddam modern weapons capable of opposing ours? Who would have been dumb enough to train his backward ass troops? Nevertheless, had the secular infidel Saddam occupied the place of the two holy cities, he would have been occupied militarily for decades fending off jihadis and martyrs if and that is a mighty big if he could have managed to hold on to it at all.

            But by all means, advance your theory to Robert Spencer. See what he says about it.

            Where you think I got it?

            3) The clear inference of your distrust of the poll in the article is that Muslims are programmed to deceive infidels about their intentions. Even so, 13% disregarded that programming and openly endorsed mass murder. I think infidels could draw some pronounced conclusions from this, particularly those who are deluded into believing that Islam is peace. For some reason, you want to disregard the poll, even though it is ammunition for the anti-Jihad. Once again, the rigid ideologue in you trumps pragmatism.

            I don't know how many times I am going to have to repeat this like a broken record, but I don't subscribe to polls of Muslim immigrants conducted by leftwing lunatic organizations like PEW that use political correct terms like extremist, moderate, and radical to describe Muslims because they buy into absurd political correct myths such as Islam is a so-called Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists.

            In addition, forgive me if I'm not stupid and gullible enough to believe that Muslims are so dumb that they would arbitrarily spill their guts with respect to their agenda to useful idiot leftwing kafir infidels. But hey…again, if you want to subscribe to such political correct myths and fantasies, while at the same time believing that most Muslims are so mentally incompetent they can't keep their mouths shut, then, by all means, be my guess, more power to you. Again, I could care less what you believe. You can believe in the tooth fairy for all I care.

          • Chezwick_mac

            1) I'm long on record as being opposed to Muslim immigration. My reasoning is that there is no way to tell the difference between who is a Jihadi and who is not…or who is a Jihadi now, and who may become one down the road. But that is different than insisting all Muslims think and act identically. In other wordsm there is no nuance ib your thinking, You're a demagogue. Thus, anyone who disagrees with you even the slightest is PC.

            I recently wrote on these pages about so-called Muslim moderates…

            "They don't exist organizationally. Theologically, they have no leg to stand on. They may exist as individuals, but they do so outside the purview of Islam."

            That sure is PC, ain't it?

            2a) Yes, I believe that allowing Saddam to fuse the oil wealth of Iraq, Kuwait and the Arabian peninsula would have concentrated enormous financial resources in his hands. How utterly foolish of you to insist that it wouldn't.

            2b) I'm not an advocate for the House of Saud. I'm just nor stupid enough to advocate uniting Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq under one polity.

            Furthermore, I never contended Saddam would have taken over the world…that is the fantasy of your projections. I contended that ho would have become a regional super-power,,,and that he would have used his new-found oil trillions to further pursue his megalomaniacal impulses.

            As for "Who would arm Saddam"…YOU are the genius insisting we should have supported his conquest of Arabia.

            As for him being "occupied for decades fending off Jihadists and martyrs"…this is based on the incredibly naive assumption that Saddam wouldn't have – once he had become custodian of the holy cities – attempted to appease his new subjects (and the entire Muslim world, for that matter) by recasting himself in religious garb, just as he did after the first Gulf war to shore up his domestic support.

            You see friend, because you are a rigid ideologue, you see the world through an absolutely fixed prism. You make no provision for the vicissitudes of time and circumstance. For you, because Saddam was a secularist…therefore, no matter what his circumstance, he would always portray himself as such, even if – by your own admission – doing so would cost him "decades" of difficulties and challenges. Ir's much more logical to presume he would have imitated the House of Saud and bought off the religious establishment by granting them their prerogatives.

            If non-Muslim entities like the Mongols would convert to Islam after conquering Islamic lands in order to rule their subjects in relative peace, how much easier would it have been for Saddam – who was ALREADY a Muslim – to cloak himself in religion in order to legitimize to the entire Muslim world his conquest of the holy cities?

            Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge this probability can only be attributed – once again – to the rigidness of your world view.

            2b) Please document where Robert Spencer EVER wrote that we allow Saddam's conquest of Kuwait and the Arabian peninsula…and that then, the Jihad would end.

            3) Here we have a poll performed by a Left-wing organization that paints Muslims in a negative light, indicating that a full 13% of them are supporters of suicide bombers. Now, you and I both know the actual number is higher, but unlike you, I feel the poll numbers are sufficiently alarming that it would be a useful tool to help educate those who are ignorant of Islam's malevolence. You, on the other hand, are so ideologically rigid (once again) that because the poll is not reflective of an absolute reality (the ACTUAL percentage of Muslims who support suicide bombing), it should be ignored, even if it served the cause against Islam.

          • Chezwick_mac

            Sorry about the typos. I was in a hurry.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            1) I'm long on record as being opposed to Muslim immigration. My reasoning is that there is no way to tell the difference between who is a Jihadi and who is not…or who is a Jihadi now, and who may become one down the road. But that is different than insisting all Muslims think and act identically. In other wordsm there is no nuance ib your thinking, You're a demagogue. Thus, anyone who disagrees with you even the slightest is PC.

            I recently wrote on these pages about so-called Muslim moderates…

            "They don't exist organizationally. Theologically, they have no leg to stand on. They may exist as individuals, but they do so outside the purview of Islam."

            That sure is PC, ain't it?

            Like an adolescent you can resort to name calling and ignoring reality all you want. I don't care. Nevertheless, I didn't make up the rules of Islam, Muhammad did. Thus, it is not my fault that Islam in stark contrast to faith-based religions requires total, complete, and unconditional submission to the will of Allah, as the word Islam in Arabic means submission and the word Muslim in Arabic means one who submits. Thus, unlike in true faith-based religions whereby adherents are perfectly free to question and even challenge the texts and tenets of their respective religions or to freely leave their respective religion and to convert to another religion altogether if they so desire, in Islam, on the other hand, because the freedom of conscience is forbidden, those same actions, blasphemy in the first case and apostasy in the second, are punished by execution.

            Hence, if you think that Muslim adherents are free to pick and choose what it is they will adhere to and what it is they will not adhere to, as in faith-based religions, then you are not only ignorant, but you are also nave and gullible to the extreme, as Islam uses extreme peer pressure big time to enforce its dictates, as any devout Muslim is empowered to enforce the dictates of Islam, i.e., the execution of blasphemers, heretics, and apostates.

            Indeed, if a Muslim attempted to change just one word of the immutable text of Islam, that Muslim would not only instantly be recognized as a blasphemer, but he would also be subject to execution, lest he repent and make amends. On the other hand, if a Muslim insulted the Prophet of Islam, he would be subject to immediate execution without even being afforded the opportunity of repenting.

            In fact, these rigid strictures are also the reason why that just like clockwork in country after country and wherever mass Muslim immigration is taking place in the West and other non-Islamic countries, the vast overwhelming majority of the Muslim immigrants flat out refuse to assimilate and integrate and instead form segregated Muslim enclaves that in time eventually morph into Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia in perfect conformity to the rigid strictures of Islam. Thus, if what you claim were true, and it is not, then this phenomenon that is taking place simultaneously in country after country without even a single exception would be impossible.

            Indeed, in the history of the world, can you point to just one non-Muslim country anywhere that ever had a net positive from mass Muslim immigration where the vast overwhelming majority of Muslim immigrants matriculated into becoming contributing and productive citizens instead of turning the country into an Islamic state like what just happened in Cote D'Ivoire and like what is in the process of happening in Nigeria and several other North-Central African countries today, and like what will eventually happen in Europe and the rest of the world if we don't wake up? So if Islam doesn't force conformity on its adherents like you naively claim it doesn't, then how can this phenomenon be happening like clockwork in country after country without a single exception? Indeed, if you believe otherwise, then you are incredibly naive to say the least.

            In addition, the sixth and most important pillar of which Islam stands makes it an obligatory duty in Islam for every Muslim to fight jihad in the cause of Allah. No exceptions. In fact, the Noble Koran published in Saudi Arabia by the “King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur’an, Madinah, K.S.A,” says the following about surah 2.190.

            –continued below

          • ObamaYoMoma

            “Al-Jihad (holy fighting) in Allah’s Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands). Allah’s Word is made superior, (His Word being Lailaha illallah which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and His Religion (Islam) is propagated. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfil this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.”

            Hence, per the sixth and most important pillar of Islam, not only is it clearly commanded that no one but Allah is to be worshipped, but it also makes it an obligatory duty in Islam for every Muslim to fight jihad in the cause of Allah. Indeed, the sixth and most important pillar of Islam doesn't make it an obligatory duty only for extremists to fight jihad in the cause of Allah and it doesn't make it an obligatory duty only for radicals to fight jihad in the cause of Allah, while at the same time giving a free pass and exemption for so-called moderate Muslims to fight jihad in the cause of Allah. Instead, the sixth and most important pillar of Islam makes it an obligatory duty for ALL MUSLIMS to fight jihad in the cause of Allah. No exceptions!

            Hence, ALL MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MUSLIMS are jihadists, a few of them are violent jihadists, while most of them are non-violent jihadists, and the few of them that are not jihadists are not Muslims at all, but instead blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of Islam must be executed. Thus, don't shoot the messenger, whether you like it or not, ALL MUSLIMS are jihadists, not just some Muslims, but instead ALL MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MUSLIMS! I didn't just make that up.

            Your problem obviously is due to political correctness, as like most people blinded by political correctness you naively conflate jihad with terrorism. However, jihad and terrorism are mutually exclusive and entirely two different things altogether.

            As terrorism, in stark contrast to jihad, is always perpetrated by political extremists and always involves violence against civilian non-combatants for any number of political causes. Whereas jihad, on the other hand, is holy fighting in the cause of Allah and is never not in the cause of Allah, again in stark contrast with terrorism, which can be for any number of political causes; is always waged only by MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MUSLIMS, as opposed to political extremists as in the case of terrorism, again in stark contrast to terrorism, as ALL MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MUSLIMS, per the sixth and most important pillar of Islam, are jihadists; can be both violent and non-violent, again in stark contrast to terrorism, which is always only violent and which is why it is called terrorism; and is always fought against non-Muslim unbelievers, both civilian non-combatants and military combatants as in Afghanistan and Iraq, again in stark contrast to terrorism, which doesn't make any distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim non-combatants.

            In fact, because terrorism can be for any number number of political causes, terrorism is usually very brief as in the Brievik terrorist attack in Norway or the McVeigh terrorist attack in Oklahoma City, while jihad, holy fighting in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers, on the other hand, has been happening perpetually for almost the past 1400 years non-stop.

            Furthermore, because violent jihad is always conflated with terrorism, non-violent jihad, which relative to the violent varieties of jihad takes place astronomically far more prevalently, takes place totally unacknowledged and completely unopposed today. In fact, mass Muslim immigration to the West and other non-Muslim countries for that matter is one of those varieties of non-violent jihad taking place today completely unacknowledged and unopposed, and because Sharia forbids Muslims from living in the Dar al Harb (the realm of unbelief) unless it is for jihad in the cause of Allah, all Muslim immigrants aren't potential jihadists as you naively and ignorantly assume, but instead are indeed jihadists, as again ALL MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MUSLIMS are jihadists, per the sixth and most important pillar of Islam, and if you believe otherwise then you are just naive. Sorry, I didn't create the texts and tenets of Islam or its rigid strictures, I'm merely the messenger, so attack away like a delusional and immature leftist if it floats your boat. I don't care.

            –continued below

          • ObamaYoMoma

            2a) Yes, I believe that allowing Saddam to fuse the oil wealth of Iraq, Kuwait and the Arabian peninsula would have concentrated enormous financial resources in his hands. How utterly foolish of you to insist that it wouldn't.

            Okay…according to you, who would have been stupid enough to sell Saddam modern weapons capable of opposing ours and who would have been stupid enough to train his conscript cannon fodder Shi'a army that hated Saddam more than Saddam's enemies?

            Also, please explain how a secular Saddam, who was for all intents and purposes unhinged and more than just a little mentally incompetent, especially since he was a product of the Middle East, could possibly have represented an existential threat anywhere near to the existential threat that Islam with its global jihad represents to the free world today?

            2b) I'm not an advocate for the House of Saud. I'm just nor stupid enough to advocate uniting Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq under one polity.

            Yeah right! Obviously, because you are mentally handicapped enough to believe that Saddam would have somehow represented a greater existential threat to the freedom of the world than the global jihad, despite Saddam's extremely antiquated military that was 1950's era and his conscript army that was nothing but cannon fodder. Give me a break!

            Furthermore, I never contended Saddam would have taken over the world…that is the fantasy of your projections. I contended that ho would have become a regional super-power,,,and that he would have used his new-found oil trillions to further pursue his megalomaniacal impulses.

            Which is it? Now you are contradicting yourself. First, you insinuate that Saddam would somehow miraculously have inevitably become a greater threat than the global jihad, which is the greatest existential threat to freedom in the world today, and now you are all of a sudden crawfishng by contradicting yourself and claiming that Saddam would become only a regional super-power. Okay genius, which represents a greater existential threat to the freedom of the world, a regional warlord with a 1950's era military and a cannon fodder army that hates Saddam worse than Saddam's enemies, or the global jihad? And if your answer is the latter, then I'm sorry but you lost the debate by default. Thanks for playing! It was fun, but a little too easy.

            As for "Who would arm Saddam"…YOU are the genius insisting we should have supported his conquest of Arabia.

            Unlike you, I'm smart enough to figure out the lesser of two evils. While you couldn't figure that out even if your own life depended on it, but nevertheless thanks for playing! I just wish it would have been a little more challenging though.

            As for him being "occupied for decades fending off Jihadists and martyrs"…this is based on the incredibly naive assumption that Saddam wouldn't have – once he had become custodian of the holy cities – attempted to appease his new subjects (and the entire Muslim world, for that matter) by recasting himself in religious garb, just as he did after the first Gulf war to shore up his domestic support.

            If AQ and their many affiliates are waging jihad perpetually against the House of Saud and the Gulf State Emirs claiming they are apostate rulers, when those same rulers are devout Muslims that choose to pursue global jihad primarily through stealth, deceptive, and non-violent means, how could you stupidly assume that a secular Saddam who was really an apostate wouldn't have faced a relentless jihad, especially since his occupation would have amounted to reestablishing the Dar al Harb on what was formerly the Dar al Islam? Indeed, how could you even naively assume that Saddam in victory would have even converted to Islam and that such a conversion of convenience would even be accepted? In any event, I really don't care since you already conceded the debate above anyway.

            –continued below

          • ObamaYoMoma

            2b) Please document where Robert Spencer EVER wrote that we allow Saddam's conquest of Kuwait and the Arabian peninsula…and that then, the Jihad would end.

            You document it, since you already lost the debate, unless you want to debate that an incompetent regional warlord with a cannon fodder army that hates Saddam worse than Saddam's enemies could possibly be a bigger existential threat to freedom in the world than the global jihad. I have better things to do than to waste my time trying to appease you in a debate you already lost, like watching my football team kick ass, for instance.

            3) Here we have a poll performed by a Left-wing organization that paints Muslims in a negative light, indicating that a full 13% of them are supporters of suicide bombers. Now, you and I both know the actual number is higher, but unlike you, I feel the poll numbers are sufficiently alarming that it would be a useful tool to help educate those who are ignorant of Islam's malevolence. You, on the other hand, are so ideologically rigid (once again) that because the poll is not reflective of an absolute reality (the ACTUAL percentage of Muslims who support suicide bombing), it should be ignored, even if it served the cause against Islam.

            I tell you what man….take that poll and shove it! Like I said, I don't care what you believe. More power to you. If you want to believe in political correct myths and fantasies, then, by all means, do so. Its your prerogative.

          • Chezwick_mac

            CHEZWICK: "Please document where Robert Spencer EVER wrote that we allow Saddam's conquest of Kuwait and the Arabian peninsula…and that then, the Jihad would end."

            YOMAMA: "You document it, since you already lost the debate,…"

            RESPONSE: I KNEW IT!!! I KNEW you couldn't prove such an outright falsehood!

            I know Robert Spencer. We've corresponded by email. I've read almost everything he's ever written. And he's NEVER asserted that we should have encouraged Saddam to invade Arabia….not even remotely.

            I'm not going to waste my time reading the rest of your long-winded, turgid screed. And though your pronounced deficits in the art of disputation make it difficult, I'm going to try to be as magnanimous in victory as I can.

            Friend, you certainly have something to offer the anti-Jihad, such as your dedication and implacable hostility to Islam. Just try to work on your personal foibles, in particular, your defensiveness and intolerance of criticism. You'd be a little more convincing if you could maintain some poise and decorum in debate.

            Most importantly, try not to get stuck in a mindset of ideological rigidity. Islam is a fixed belief system, immutable in its essence, effectively inoculated from the virus of reform by its founder. All of us who are initiated know this. But even Robert regularly points out that many Muslims are unaware of the intolerance of their own creed…and many others disregard the worst of it. This doesn't make them allies, it just means that not all Muslims think and act identically.

            And I wouldn't go repeating your Saddam theory to others…it undermines your credibility as a serious thinker.

            Take care amigo…and enjoy football Sunday.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Sour Apples!

  • PatriotX

    People who are thinking and are off the drug of political correctness are the only ones who will publish this story. You won’t get this in mainstream media. The internet and vocally voicing this message is our only hope.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Some of those people aren't off the drug of political correctness as much as they assume.

  • Fred Dawes

    This is only the start, I thank God i am OLD, And will be dead i would not want to live under the feet of evil, if you want to see what the world will look life under the muslims watch "the movie the Grey Zone..2001"

  • montlasky

    There is no such thing as a benign Muslim or a tame Muslim or a Muslim that is not a Jihadist or is not extreme. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in cookoo land. The Muslims have to accept blindly the teachings of their beloved Mohammed who is admonishing all Muslims to rid the world of the infidel. There is so much written about their Mohammed that we are all duty bound to read the Quaran in it's condensed form available from many sources including FRONTPAGE through David Horowitz and others.
    We will then understand why we should rid the world of the scourge of Islam before they force sharia law on all humanity, which is their aim. Wake up!!!

    • PatriotX

      I honestly don’t know what to think about that. It sounds to much like their mentality, to generalize and wipe out a culture or people who believe one way. I don’t know if I’m comfortable with that. I am comfortable with exiling anyone and everyone who expresses any sentiment to these lunatics to include organizations. If they like shariah law so much they can live in countries where it’s the law of the land and not ours.

    • bkaseman

      you are correct in your observations and reality of islam. irradication is God's job. believers who follow Christ Jesus are to spread the His gospel and let the Holy Spirit do His job, convict sinners. Only Jesus can save mankind no matter what islamist think or do.
      be bold and brave but also correct in actions.

  • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

    Genetic resistance to prion diseases is present in all human populations, indicating that modern humans descend from cannibals. If humans across the board would resort to eating one another, can we really be worried that a small minority if people, when asked, would refuse to rule out suicide bombing? Also, if 60% surveyed are worried about a rise in Muslim Extremism, doesn’t that mean that it is going to be rejected, not accepted?

    • aspacia

      Flipper, you lack logic.

      • Joseph Klein

        Flipper flipped his lid a long time ago.

        • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

          I bet if blogging wasn’t free, we wouldn’t hear half as much about the Islamic Menace.

        • Chezwick_mac

          Let's see if I got this right? Because cannibalism existed in our primordial past, today's support for suicide bombing of 13% of American Muslims is nothing to be concerned about.

          Folks, you've just witnessed a classic example of the twisted, desperate, and non sequitur mentality of a liberal apologist for Islam. It's very, very instructive in terms of understanding who and what we are dealing with.

          • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

            I don’t apologize for Islam. It’s not my religion. Neither is Judaism. But remember, Israel has the Sampson Option as official nuclear policy. If Israel loses a conventional war, they plan to nuke the region, in essence making the whole country a giant suicide bomber.

          • Chezwick_mac

            "If Israel loses a conventional war, they plan to nuke the region, in essence making the whole country a giant suicide bomber."

            I see. And what is your source for this information about the "Sampson Option?" Undoubtedly some hysterical left-wing tract.

            But notice the corruption in your use of language…"they plan to nuke the REGION."

            It's certainly conceivable that Israel might resort to atomic weaponry if her very survival were threatened in war, but the recipient would be a specific attacking nation, not the entire region.

          • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

            Excuse me, Samson Option. From that left wing lunatic and obscure unknown guy, Seymour Hersh:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Samson_Option_(b

          • Chezwick_mac

            Has Seymour Hirsch ever written a book or an investigative story that wasn't critical of US foreign policy?

            But – for the sake of argument, let's accept his assertion. I'm still curious about your overall premise, that Israeli defense policy and the cannibalism in our primordial past somehow imply we shouldn't be concerned about radical Islam in our midst. It's a remarkable assertion!

          • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

            I am asserting that it makes Muslims no less human and no less savage than other humans. Muslims don't own an exclusive or stunning brand of barbarism. Barbarism is common to all human civilizations. I do think we should be concerned about Radical Islam, but in the same way as Radical Judaism, Radical Feminism, Radical Veganism, etc. I don't think we need worry that Islam or Judaism, or Christianity, or Luddism, or any of those ideologies really pose a tangible threat to most people. We are still at a much greater risk for carjacking, or a kitchen injury, or heart disease. The number one killer of bodies and culture is to sit at home and watch television. Fritos kill more people than the Ayahtollah.

          • Chezwick_mac

            A naive and ultimately destructive relativism. Suggesting that all strains of radical ideologies are equally threatening is tantamount to saying all radical ideologies are identical. Only a fool would assert as much. Truth is, there are dramatic and multiple variables that distinguish them….and that accordingly distinguish the relative threat that each one poses.

            Meanwhile, yes, barbarism is indeed common to all civilizations, but in the West – for example – we have evolved into a system of laws and ethics that aspire to achieve racial, gender and religious equality. There are no such laws or ethics in Islam. On the contrary, Islam aspires to a doctrine – Sharia – that is doctrinally antithetical to religious and gender equality.

            This is a fact, whether or not you wish to acknowledge it. But of course facts never prevented a relativist from existing within the confines of his comforting self-delusions.

          • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

            I agree with that fact, but I do not believe 6,000,000 Muslims can erode it no matter how hard they bang their pots and pans. They'll be listening to club music and driving tricked out Acuras and eating Burger King well before that. They already are.

          • Chezwick_mac

            They may be eating at Burger King, but they won't be eating pork.

            They'll continue doing exactly what they're doing now….demonizing those who engage in the exposition of Islamic intolerance, expanding their religious prerogatives at the expense of equality before the law (such as timely prayer breaks in businesses and schools not accorded to infidels), they'll be beating their wives as sanctioned in the Quran (4.34), and occasionally killing via "honor" or terror…in the name of Allah.

            And they'll have clueless lefties such as yourself running interference for them….insisting its all much to do about nothing.

          • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

            I am not a lefty. I am a Constitutionalist, Libertarian, proponent of the 2nd Amendment, not into cooperatives or mutual aid societies or samizdats. don't try to impose egalitarianism where none is possible. I am not a marxist, communist or socialist. I like John Adams, Ayn Rand, Teddy Roosevelt, Napoleon, and Nigel Farage. I don't support Labour, Third Way, Democrats, or Fabians. I don't know why you keep calling me a lefty.

          • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

            "What fashion will you wear the garland of?
            about your neck, like an usurer's chain? or under
            your arm, like a lieutenant's scarf?"

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Actually, you would have to be pretty damn gullible, as the writer of this article unequivocally is, to believe that a fifth column of Muslims living in America as stealth jihadists would be stupid enough to spill their guts about their real agenda to a leftwing kafir infidel organization that uses terms like extremists, moderates, and radicals to describe Muslims because it buys into the totally absurd political correct paradigm that Islam is a so-called Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists. Indeed, if you are gullible enough to believe that insane garbage, especially after Afghanistan and Iraq, which were both based off of that same stupid political correct premise and that because of it inevitably turned into the two biggest strategic blunders ever in US history, then I have a bridge I need to sell you.

  • angel

    Is it possible that Muslims may be waking up? Or is it just another deception. I sincerely hope it is the later. Maybe, The constant drumbeat is beginning, ever so slightly, to work.

  • angel

    Correction :-)
    Is it possible that Muslims may be waking up? Or is it just another deception. I sincerely hope it is not the later. Maybe, The constant drumbeat is beginning, ever so slightly, to work.

    I should never make comments before coffee

  • oldtimer

    a phopia is a fear. I don't fear Islam, I don't agree with Islam.

    • aspacia

      Islam call for its domination of all infidels. This I fear.

      • oldtimer

        In God we trust. Fight back, don't be afraid, you are not alone.

        • oldtimer

          Islam thrives on fear. We need to stick together and starve them. Don't let them win.

          • PatriotX

            The bottom line. We don’t budge an inch.

    • Silverstein

      I don't believe anything I read in the news…including the left and right news….I have no fear of Moslem's.

      I have met many, and traveled to areas where they could of killed me, and they knew of my Jewish name; I even met a Imam there, and they were all friendly, and begged me to come back to visit and too visit other Moslem areas.

  • sononthe_beach

    Islam needs to go back to its place of birth and stay there. Western democracies do not need it because the West is where reason and science prevail. Islam is incompatible with western culture. Islam is precicely why the muslim world stopped progressing shortly after the prophet died in the 7th century. His words, written in the koran and hadith, dictate the lifeways of Islam's true-believers. His words are nothing more than folklore and superstition, destructive to the mind and the enemy of freedom. Islam is a disease, a pestilence that hinders and degrades, and it needs to be quarantined forever.

  • StephenD

    The difficulty is in our attempts to inform folks. Suddenly, the charges are in the back of their heads as soon as the subject comes up. Immediately, you appear as an witch hunter and your arguments are hence seen through a tainted filter. Speaking with one of my grown daughters just last night and her defending American Muslims because of a woman her age that she knows who is Muslim. She explained how they are "just like us" and I tried to tell her of the fact of her lesser status in Islam. How her friend is worth 1/2 that of a man. She didn't want to hear it…because it isn't evident. It appears to her we are looking for monsters where only a few "misunderstanders" exist. I asked her where are these folks when something terrible happens? (Continued)

  • StephenD

    I asked her why is it that a lunatic gunman who identifies himself as Christian is condemned by all of the church elders and spokespeople. When it comes to Islamic terror the silence from the American Muslim community is deafening. There is never the outrage or condemnation or a verse from the Qur’an quoted against such acts.
    There is a need for the general populace to be informed to the point where this stuff is recognizable to them. THEN the term “Islamophobe” will loose all of its thunder.

    • Chezwick_mac

      Stephen, keep working on your daughter…as gently and logically as possible. I know one thing from growing up: I may have been dismissive at the time, but I remember much of what my folks said while counseling me when I was young…and – with whatever wisdom I've accrued in 50 years – I've come to embrace so much of what they believed.

      Your daughter will come around…but the less adversarial you are, the easier her epiphany will come.

      • StephenD

        Great advice. In fact, I got her to read this very article and to visit this web site yesterday. I'm not worried for her but what of those whose thoughts aren't challenged? This is my real concern.

  • effemall

    Stephen, the naivete of your daughter is frighteningly widespread and that is the greatest danger in and to the free world.

  • waterwillows

    Muslims may say what they wish in any poll, but their actions speak louder.

    One of those actions is the Friday night trip to the mosque to join in the chanting of asking allah to kill ALL the apes and pigs. If a muslim is against terror…..why does he pray for it?

    How can a muslim be an elected official and go to these chanting sessions against his constituents? They whole thing seems conflicted.

  • mrbean

    Islam enjoys a large and influential ally among the non—Muslims: A new generation of 'Useful Idiots,' the sort of people Lenin identified living in liberal democracies who furthered the work of communism. This new generation of Useful Idiots also lives in liberal democracies, but serves the cause of Islamofascism—another virulent form of totalitarian ideology.

  • Silverstein

    The ACLU was founded by pacifists….. today… my guess is the ACLU is staffed with wannabe lawyer-politicians, or politicians similar to the group in in that list.

    As a, liberal pacifist, I don't even go around them anymore, because they have simply hijacked the logo of liberalism, and liberty (civil liberties)…they don't even care about America, or freedom (liberty)..because most lawyer-politicians, are only worried about their legal fee, and the judge….a lawyer-politician would be worried about fundraising to get their fee.

  • esperantominoria

    Guys,
    What Muslims and their naive allies do not want to admit is that the Golden Rule,which is the Basis of Human Rights is Not the Ethical Heart of the Koran.But is is of the NT.

    Here is why it is so:
    http://www.antisharia.com/2011/09/08/the-specific

    Also,why Islamophobia(even if it really is an irrational fear, is NOT a Crime,contrary to what Muslims say ALL the time
    http://www.antisharia.com/2011/09/05/is-islamopho

  • Moishe Pupick

    Th., 09/08/11 common era

    Sadly, so many Americans' critical thinking skills are lacking enough so that they will either irgnore the poll alltogether or attempt to rationalize it away. Years of watching "Sesame Street" and playing video games have rotted their minds.

  • xlent

    I am an islamaloathest. I hate, despise and otherwise cannot stand islam. It is THE most evil, cruel, barbaric, presence on the earth today. The fools who do not know this are supporting their own certain and horrible demise.

  • Brujo Blanco

    We have been tolerating Muslim misbehavior long enough that we may have to pay in blood.

  • pole results flaw

    Even though the poles may say that the majority of Muslims are Americans with sensible values, it is embedded in their religion to side with their brothers in cases of Jihad. If faced with the challenge of either siding with and protecting America or joining the fanatic Muslims in taking over the world – they are enjoined by their culture and religion to help the jihad or die as infidels. That is why you won't find strong Muslim anti-Islamic voices – no matter what their opinion is on an anonymous survey. The lone people that speak up need 24/7 police protection!
    So therefore, we are not able to count ANY of the Muslims as "neutral" or friends. They might be friends in theory, but when it comes to the crunch, they will likely not stand with us.

  • christopherl

    Another ignorant article about Islam. Let me know when there is a major Muslim lead campaign against Sharia Law in America. "Moderate" Muslims are not coming to the rescue, it is time to end all Muslim immigration.

    Does the author know that Islam instructs Muslims to lie?

    For more on the issue…
    http://www.loganswarning.com/

  • tanstaafl

    Taquiyya remains taquiyya.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Personally, I could never be so naive and gullible that I would arbitrarily trust a poll of Muslims who are obligated to lie in the cause of Allah, and especially when that poll is conducted by a leftwing organization like PEW that couldn't be more blinded by political correctness and that uses terms like moderate, radical, and extremist to describe Muslims and that are products, as for as PEW is concerned, of the current ludicrous but political correct paradigm whereby Islam is assumed to be a Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists. Indeed, why should I be gullible enough to believe that Muslims would be so stupid that they would arbitrarily reveal their true agenda to leftwing kafir infidel pollsters blinded by political correctness? If the writer of this article chooses to be so gullible, well that's his prerogative. More power to him.

    truly moderate Muslim Americans say they abhor.

    Yeah right! That's totally hilarious.

    tWhen Rep. Peter King (R-NY), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, decided to hold hearings on the threat of Islamic radicalization within the Muslim American community…

    I hate to keep raining on the writer's extremely gullible parade, but the notion that Muslims can self-radicalize and somehow morph into so-called radical Muslims is a political correct myth based off of another political correct myth, whereby Islam is assumed to be a so-called Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists, which is about as true as the moon being comprised of cheese is true.

    Indeed, GWB like a loon based two absurd fantasy based nation-building missions in Afghanistan and Iraq off of that utterly absurd politically correct myth that inevitably turned into the two biggest strategic blunders ever in US history. Indeed, when are some of you so-called right wingers going to wake up from your slumber and figure out the score?

    Hence, since some of you so-called right wingers seem too blinded by political correctness to figure it out on your own let me spell it out for you, the truth is that ALL MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MULSIMS are jihadists, a few are violent jihadists, while most are non-violent jihadists, and the few that aren't jihadists aren't Muslims at all, but instead blasphemous apostates that should be executed per the dictates of Islam.

    In fact, the sixth and most important pillar of Islam makes it an obligatory duty in Islam for every Muslim to fight jihad in the cause of Allah. It doesn't make it an obligatory duty only for extremists to fight jihad in the cause of Allah and it doesn't make it an obligatory duty only for radicals to fight jihad in the cause of Allah, while at the same time giving so-called moderate Muslims a free pass and exemption from fighting jihad in the cause of Allah. Instead, the sixth and most important pillar of Islam makes it an obligatory duty for ALL MUSLIMS to fight jihad in the cause of Allah, no exceptions.

  • trickyblain

    This is perhaps the most confusing written item I've ever read. I understand the facts presented, I'm just not sure what the author is trying to say about them.
    1) It points out that the poll revealed that only a very small percentage (5) think suicide bombing is an acceptable redress of grievances. It also indicates that only a tiny percentage adhere to extremist viewpoints. That's good, right?
    2) The author seems to argue that the numbers mean Islamophobia isn't real because some groups he doesn't like use the term(?) .
    3) The very nature of the comments here vs. the numbers in the poll show us that people are, indeed, irrationally scared stupid about everyday Muslims (e.g., Islamophobic). Examples:
    "(W)e are not able to count ANY of the Muslims as "neutral" or friends."
    "I hate, despise and otherwise cannot stand islam."
    "… it needs to be quarantined forever."
    And the winner of the FPM Daily Irony Award:
    "There is no such thing as a benign Muslim or a tame Muslim or a Muslim that is not a Jihadist or is not extreme. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in cookoo land."

    • DuncanIdaho

      The rhetoric in the comments can be a little rough. But let’s try changing the word Islam to Nazism. Is the rhetoric still over the top? Now you can make the argument that not all Germans were Nazis. But how many Germans before WWII held similar views to all or part of the Party’s views. How many hated Jews for whatever excuse and didn’t care what happened to them? How many wanted the reestablishment of the German empire. How many were patriotic Germans just following orders? I don’t know of any polls conducted but I would guess millions of Germans fell into the latter categories. Are the comments still too harsh?

    • http://dikaesha.pbwiki.com Foolster41

      Tricky, yes comparatively 5% is small, but when you consider that means 150,000 potential suicide bombers (as the article says) that's a lot for a religion that supposedly assimilating in the land of freedom. How high do you think that number would be for polled Christians or Bhuddists?

      None of your quoted examples are "irrational" as you claim.

      "(W)e are not able to count ANY of the Muslims as "neutral" or friends."

      This is true, since authentic Islam preaches hate against the non-believer, it's impossible to tell the difference between peaceful "moderite" muslims and those who want to chop off us kuffr's heads. (See: Fort Hood Shooter, other Muslim terrorists in the US etc.)

      "I hate, despise and otherwise cannot stand islam."
      Hating Islam is not irrational. As DuncanIdaho (love your name BTW) said below, would it be over the top if it said the person can't stand Nazism? Islam is a toltarian political system that supresses non-believers. The person doesn't say in the quote they hate MUSLIMS, but the ideology of ISLAM, which is logical since Islam hates non-believers.

      "… it needs to be quarantined forever."
      I agree this is a bit over the top, and I disagree if they mean it should be US policy. There are plenty of muslims who are peaceful, but as I said before about the impossibility of telling peaceful and violent muslims, I can understand why this poster feels this way.

  • Asher

    There are no moderate Muslims, If they ruled America, the majority would go along with their Radical leaders. The New York Times says, Don't be afraid of Sharia Law…..This means women are subject to be beat up by their husbands or sometimes Honor Killings take place. The Left is trying to Islamatize the United States and we want no part of Sharia or Islamic Law. Wake up All Americans, do not keep voting for your destroyers!

  • Asher

    How in the world do you trust a race who uses Taqiyya which deems it obligatory to lie to dupe their enemies and go on a Tirade of Jihad? There will never be peace as long as people lie to win and believe their time has come to change the world into one big Islamic Caliphate.

    • http://dikaesha.pbwiki.com Foolster41

      i agree with one modification: the word "race" should be replaced with "religion" or "belief system". Islam is not a race.

  • Roberto Reardon

    I wish this article was presented in a plain English and simpler grammar.

    What is the meaning of the strange words like :exacerbating, fellow professional drumbeaters, white washing, etc.

    Also, the long vague wording such as :
    "In trying to deflect attention from the real problem presented by such extremism, Hooper and his cohorts are out of step with the concerns expressed in the Pew survey of the American Muslim community they claim to represent."

    That two things, make this article hard to digest by the people whose native tongue is not English. I do believe some soon to be "islamist" or "jihadist" will find this article hard to understand.

    • Joseph Klein

      Sorry that the words are too big for you to understand.

      • trickyblain

        Amateurs often use big words, thinking they are impressing somebody. They're wrong. And of course, the sentence he quotes is — by English standards — sick and wrong on a number of levels, Joe. No need to back into sentences. Especially like that!

        • Joseph Klein

          I appreciate the feedback but the sentence is grammatically correct and substantively accurate.

  • "gunner"

    and my response to allah's spreaders of terror is "ready right, ready left, lock and load, stand and fire."