Fighting Muslim Extremism...

[kalm]

It's islam people. If you think that the majority of US Muslims don't sympathize you're kidding yourselves. Yeah, they're smart enough not to say so. But if you don't think the overwhelming majority of their hearts aren't with the "cause" and they won't turn if and when they think the time is right I have some swampland down in Pointe a La Hache to sell you.

It's Islam. It's a religion based on conquest and violence. It's not a "Religion of Peace" at all. And it's a religion that believes in forcible conversion. Continue the egalitarian delusion at your own peril. Unfortunately it's also at mine.

Nice solution.

[death dealer]

Religious fervor of any sort is a threat to true democracy. As long as the true believers think their god can save mankind's collective souls, or that believers are better off or superior to non-believers, they are a threat. Religions foster and birth extremism. They should go.

[kalm]

Religious fervor of any sort is a threat to true democracy. As long as the true believers think their god can save mankind's collective souls, or that believers are better off or superior to non-believers, they are a threat. Religions foster and birth extremism. They should go.

[BDKJMU]

It's islam people. If you think that the majority of US Muslims don't sympathize you're kidding yourselves. Yeah, they're smart enough not to say so. But if you don't think the overwhelming majority of their hearts aren't with the "cause" and they won't turn if and when they think the time is right I have some swampland down in Pointe a La Hache to sell you.

It's Islam. It's a religion based on conquest and violence. It's not a "Religion of Peace" at all. And it's a religion that believes in forcible conversion. Continue the egalitarian delusion at your own peril. Unfortunately it's also at mine.

It's extremist Islam. Not a majority of US Muslims, but a majority from overseas.

Notice how Obama never has used the words "Islamic extremist", "jihadist", or "Muslim terrorist"? He won't call a spade a spade. I think Krauthammer hits the nail on the head in describing this.

Krauthammer: Obama’s reluctance to use ‘jihadist,’ ‘Islamist’ embarrassing

"....."The lengths to which he will go to avoid telling us the truth about the enemy is becoming comical and certainly embarrassing. For example, he will never — forget about use the word 'jihadist.' He'll never use that — but he refuses to use the word 'Islamist,' which is used throughout the Muslim world. It's used by journalists, by authors, on the street, in the parliament everywhere, in Egypt. It's used in Lebanon. It's used everywhere by Muslims. And yet, Obama won't touch it because he refuses to use any words that might imply a connection between radical Islam and terrorism, which as anybody who is over the age of nine knows is the single greatest cause of terror in the world today."

Mr. Krauthammer recalled a specific example when the president was giving a speech in Jerusalem, and he referred to the the rise of "non-secular parties."

"What a weird word to use," Mr. Krauthammer said. "The word is religious parties. The word is Islamist parties. Yet even in this trivial throwaway line in a speech in Jerusalem he refuses to use the obvious word."

"You have to be clear with your own people about who the enemy is," he continued. "Churchill did not speak about German extremists. He talked about the Nazi menace. He described it in detail. FDR didn't speak about extremists in Tokyo. He talked about the Japanese imperialism and its threat to the whole region. You have to be able to be honest with the people if you're going to get any support. Otherwise, you get an event here, an event there and you say we can't jump to any conclusions? Within three days everybody understands that these brothers were jihadists."

....."And every once in a while you get an attack in Boston, people say what's going on? I thought Obama said the tide of war is receding. I thought we don't even use the phrase the 'war on terror.' I thought the guy who killed 13 Americans in the Fort Hood shooting who jumped up on a table and yelled 'Allahu Akbar' — which is the signature of the jihad — is still today called by this administration officially 'workplace violence.'"...."
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/ ... mis/print/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AZGrizFan]

Krauthammer is a pretty smart fella.

[YoUDeeMan]

It's islam people. If you think that the majority of US Muslims don't sympathize you're kidding yourselves. Yeah, they're smart enough not to say so. But if you don't think the overwhelming majority of their hearts aren't with the "cause" and they won't turn if and when they think the time is right I have some swampland down in Pointe a La Hache to sell you.

It's Islam. It's a religion based on conquest and violence. It's not a "Religion of Peace" at all. And it's a religion that believes in forcible conversion. Continue the egalitarian delusion at your own peril. Unfortunately it's also at mine.

I'd love to take you out with my friends. Hell, we could even hit up a bar and have a few.

Shirley Temples?

[YoUDeeMan]

It's islam people. If you think that the majority of US Muslims don't sympathize you're kidding yourselves. Yeah, they're smart enough not to say so. But if you don't think the overwhelming majority of their hearts aren't with the "cause" and they won't turn if and when they think the time is right I have some swampland down in Pointe a La Hache to sell you.

It's Islam. It's a religion based on conquest and violence. It's not a "Religion of Peace" at all. And it's a religion that believes in forcible conversion. Continue the egalitarian delusion at your own peril. Unfortunately it's also at mine.

Nice solution.

The majority of Christians would support Christians against outsiders if push came to shove. The majority of Muslims would support Muslims if push came to shove. The majority of any group would support their group if push came to shove.

As social, pack animals, it is what we do.

[kalm]

It's islam people. If you think that the majority of US Muslims don't sympathize you're kidding yourselves. Yeah, they're smart enough not to say so. But if you don't think the overwhelming majority of their hearts aren't with the "cause" and they won't turn if and when they think the time is right I have some swampland down in Pointe a La Hache to sell you.

It's Islam. It's a religion based on conquest and violence. It's not a "Religion of Peace" at all. And it's a religion that believes in forcible conversion. Continue the egalitarian delusion at your own peril. Unfortunately it's also at mine.

It's extremist Islam. Not a majority of US Muslims, but a majority from overseas.

Notice how Obama never has used the words "Islamic extremist", "jihadist", or "Muslim terrorist"? He won't call a spade a spade. I think Krauthammer hits the nail on the head in describing this.

Krauthammer: Obama’s reluctance to use ‘jihadist,’ ‘Islamist’ embarrassing

"....."The lengths to which he will go to avoid telling us the truth about the enemy is becoming comical and certainly embarrassing. For example, he will never — forget about use the word 'jihadist.' He'll never use that — but he refuses to use the word 'Islamist,' which is used throughout the Muslim world. It's used by journalists, by authors, on the street, in the parliament everywhere, in Egypt. It's used in Lebanon. It's used everywhere by Muslims. And yet, Obama won't touch it because he refuses to use any words that might imply a connection between radical Islam and terrorism, which as anybody who is over the age of nine knows is the single greatest cause of terror in the world today."

Mr. Krauthammer recalled a specific example when the president was giving a speech in Jerusalem, and he referred to the the rise of "non-secular parties."

"What a weird word to use," Mr. Krauthammer said. "The word is religious parties. The word is Islamist parties. Yet even in this trivial throwaway line in a speech in Jerusalem he refuses to use the obvious word."

"You have to be clear with your own people about who the enemy is," he continued. "Churchill did not speak about German extremists. He talked about the Nazi menace. He described it in detail. FDR didn't speak about extremists in Tokyo. He talked about the Japanese imperialism and its threat to the whole region. You have to be able to be honest with the people if you're going to get any support. Otherwise, you get an event here, an event there and you say we can't jump to any conclusions? Within three days everybody understands that these brothers were jihadists."

....."And every once in a while you get an attack in Boston, people say what's going on? I thought Obama said the tide of war is receding. I thought we don't even use the phrase the 'war on terror.' I thought the guy who killed 13 Americans in the Fort Hood shooting who jumped up on a table and yelled 'Allahu Akbar' — which is the signature of the jihad — is still today called by this administration officially 'workplace violence.'"...."
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/ ... mis/print/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BDK, you were at least correct in using the term "islamic extremist" to differentiate. This indicates that had you been in Boston, you may not have been one of the bystanders tackling the innocent Saudi national on the scene.

Krauthammer raises an interesting point and I like calling a spade a spade. But this is a complicated issue.

[YoUDeeMan]

Krauthammer raises an interesting point and I like calling a spade a spade. But this is a complicated issue.

No, it really isn't.