On September 11th: How do we combat terrorism?

One of the first steps would be to recognize from where the threat comes. Daniel Pipes of the Hoover Institution of Stanford University gets very politically incorrect, but politically incorrect or not, he tells the truth.

Translations of this item:

N.B.: National Review title is “Making Believe: our terrorism non-policy”; in addition, this text differs in many small ways from the published version

With trumpets and drum rolls, the White House in early August released a policy paper on methods to prevent terrorism, said to have been two years in the making. Signed personally by Barack Obama and with rhetoric vaunting “the strength of communities” and the need to “enhance our understanding of the threat posed by violent extremism,” the document looks anodyne.

But beneath the calm lies a counter­productive–and dangerous–approach to counterterrorism. The import of this paper consists in its firm stand on the wrong side of three distinct counterterrorism debates, with the responsible Right (and a few sensible liberals) on one side, and Islamists, leftists, and multiculturalists on the other.

The first debate concerns the nature of the problem. The responsible Right points to one immense threat, Islamism, a global ideological movement that has motivated some 23,000 terror attacks worldwide since 9/11. Islamists deny that their ideology spawns violence, and they categorize those 23,000 attacks as the work of criminals, crazies, or misguided Muslims. Western leftists and multiculturalists concur, bringing their formidable cadres, creativity, funds, and institutions to support the Islamists’ denial of responsibility.

Hearings held this year by the U.S. House of Representatives illustrate this difference. Peter King (Republican of New York), chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, insisted on dealing exclusively with radicalization of Muslims. The ranking Democrat, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, took exception, noting that “there are a variety of domestic extremist groups more prevalent in the United States than Islamic extremists, including neo-Nazis, environmental extremists, anti-tax groups, and others.” He requested that the hearings be “a broad-based examination of domestic extremist groups, regardless of their respective ideological underpinnings.”

King rejected this request, countering that “While there have been extremist groups and random acts of political violence throughout our history, the al Qaeda attacks of 9/11 and the ongoing threat to our nation from Islamic jihad were uniquely diabolical and threatening to America’s security.”

Peter King (left) and Bennie Thompson (right) symbolize the difference in counterterrorism policy outlook.

The second debate concerns how to identify the enemy. The Right and responsible parties generally talk about Islamism, jihad, and terrorism; thus, a New York Police Department report from 2007, Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat, refers in its first line to the “threat from Islamic-based terrorism.” Islamists and their allies talk about everything else – violent extremism, Al-Qaeda and Associated Networks (dubbed AQAN), overseas contingency operation, man-caused disasters, and (my favorite) a “global struggle for security and progress.” The forces of multiculturalism have made deep inroads: A U.S. Department of Defense inquiry looked into the 2009 Ft. Hood rampage by Maj. Nidal Hasan, killing 14, and its report, Protecting the Force, never mentioned the terrorist’s name or acknowledged his obvious Islamist motivation.

The third debate concerns the appropriate response. The Islamist-Left-multicultural crowd finds the solution in partnership with Muslims, together with an emphasis on civil rights, due process, lack of discrimination, goodwill, and avoiding a backlash. The responsible Right agrees with these goals but views them as ancillary to the full quiver of military and law enforcement methods, such as intelligence gathering, arrests, long detentions, renditions, deportation, prosecution, and incarceration.

Into these three debates waddles a 4,600-word, poorly-written, ill-organized White House report vehemently advocating the Islamist/Leftist/multiculturalist position.

  • Nature of the problem? “neo-Nazis and other anti-Semitic hate groups, racial supremacists, and international and domestic terrorist groups.”
  • Name the enemy? The paper itself never mentions Islamism. Its title, Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States, avoids even mentioning terrorism.
  • Appropriate response? “Just as we respond to community safety issues [such as gang violence, school shootings, drugs, and hate crimes] through partnerships and networks of government officials, Mayor’s offices, law enforcement, community organizations, and private sector actors, so must we address radicalization to violence and terrorist recruitment through similar relationships and by leveraging some of the same tools and solutions.”

Raising community safety issues reveals a severe conceptual deficiency which the Los Angeles Times dismissed as “implausible.” The report praises the Justice Department’s “Comprehensive Gang Model,” deeming it a flexible framework that “has reduced serious gang-related crimes.” Great news in the battle against gangs! But gangs are criminal enterprises and Islamist violence is ideological warfare. Gang members are hoodlums, Islamists are zealots. To compare them distorts the problem at hand. Yes, they both deploy violence, but applying techniques from one to the other is akin to asking pastry cooks to advise firefighters.

The lone sentence in Empowering that recognizes the danger of Islamism fixates on one small group, stating that “al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents represent the preeminent terrorist threat to our country.” This ignores the 99 percent of the Islamist movement unconnected to Al-Qaeda, such as the Wahhabi movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Iranian government, Hamas, Hizbullah, Jamaat ul-Fuqra, not to speak of so-called lone wolves. Rep. Sue Myrick (Republican of North Carolina) rightly notes that the policy paper “raises more questions … than it answers.”

The intellectual roots of Empowered go back to a George Soros-funded 2004 initiative, the Promising Practices Guide: Developing Partnerships Between Law Enforcement and American Muslim, Arab, and Sikh Communities by Deborah A. Ramirez, Sasha Cohen O’Connell and Rabia Zafar. These authors made their outlook clear: “The most dangerous threats in this war [on terrorism] are rooted in the successful propagation of anger and fear directed at unfamiliar cultures and people.” The most dangerous threat, they announced, is not Islamist terror, with its thousands of fatalities, but a supposed widespread bias by Americans against minorities. As I observed in 2004, “The guide might present itself as an aide to counterterrorism but its real purpose is to deflect attention from national security to the privileging of select communities.”

While the document unobjectionably emphasizes American constitutional values and the need to partner with Muslims, it says not a word about the need to distinguish between Islamist and anti-Islamist Muslims. Empowering finesses the dismal fact that Islamists dominate the organized American Muslim leadership and their objectives share more with terrorists than counterterrorists. Rep. King correctly worries that the White House document condemns “legitimate criticism of certain radical organizations or elements of the Muslim-American community,” something urgently needed to distinguish foe from friend.

Indeed, the Obama administration’s willingness to partner with Muslims who reject the Constitutional order accounts for Islamist organizations’ delighted responses to this paper. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a terrorist-supporting front organization, praised it as “objective and holistic,” while the likeminded Muslim Public Affairs Council deemed it “very useful.”

In contrast, Melvin Bledsoe, father of a convert to Islam, Carlos Bledsoe, who in 2009 shot and killed a soldier at a military-recruiting center in Little Rock, Ark., said of the report: “It’s never going to fix the problem when they’re trying to dance around the issues.” Ed Husain of the Council on Foreign Relations dismissed it for saying “worryingly little” and being primarily designed “not to offend Muslims.”

In brief, an organization connected to terrorists swoons over the administration’s pretend counterterrorism policy while the grieving father of a terrorist scornfully dismisses it. That tells us everything.

What now, with the enshrining of a fringe study as national policy? There are no shortcuts: Those who want a genuine counterterrorism policy must work to remove the Left and the multiculturalists from government.

Mr. Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2011 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.


Related Topics: Counter-terrorism, US policy
Receive the latest by email: subscribe to Daniel Pipes’ free mailing list
This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

Submit a comment on this item

I had written about this almost four years ago:

This is just more of the idiotic notion that our defense against Islamic fascism ought to be conducted as a criminal investigation, with all of the niceties of law enforcement followed, with some sort of eye to bringing the accused to a fair trial under the rules of evidence. It is the same kind of lunacy which thinks that prisoners caught on the battlefield, fighting against American soldiers, ought not to be held as prisoners of war, but as innocent men accused of crimes, who ought to have access to attorneys and the courts, and should be released if specific criminal charges cannot be proven against each one individually. (The Bush Administration is partially complicit in this, in deciding not to declare them prisoners of war, under which they could be held until the war is over, but preferring the idea of military tribunals to determine specific punishments.)

Another thing which has drawn ALa’s ire is a now-shelved proposal for the Los Angeles Police department to “to have its counterterrorism bureau identify Muslim enclaves to determine which might be likely to become isolated and susceptible to ‘violent, ideologically based extremism.’ ”

    Ya know, because if for 20 years short blondes were blowing up bridges . . . . I’d be pissed if they had the audacity to stop me and check my car before I crossed the Chesapeake Bay Bridge . . . .

Michael Smerconish, the morning drive time talk show host on Philadelphia’s WPHT-AM radio and an attorney, wrote the book Flying Blind, concerning the refusal to use reasonable techniques, including profiling, to prevent terrorists from boarding civilian aircraft.

(I had always respected Mr Smerconish’s intelligence and percipiency, but when our friends at Pandagon tried to make “Smerconish” into a derogatory adjective, my respect for him only increased.)

He has railed against the impracticality, the idiocy, and the complete lack of common sense, of stopping blue-haired little old ladies for expanded searches while allowing young Middle Eastern men to go through under only routine scrutiny, to keep the extended checks both random and politically correct. That’s the kind of thing the ACLU would support, because our friends at the ACLU are so concerned with the fine points of the law that the big picture completely escapes them: if the Islamists win, all of the things they find precious go out the window.

Let’s be clear here: we are not fighting Mennonite terrorism, and we are very much unconcerned with Buddhist rebels. Even the radical Episcopalians threaten only internal schism, not American security. If the Islamists manage to recruit a disaffected Ron Paulist to fly a jetliner into the Sears Tower, well then they’ll have more luck getting around the system and a better chance at success, but our enemies are almost exclusively Muslims of Middle Eastern extraction, and when surveilling for terrorists, that’s where sensible defense concentrates. If the Muslims who are not interested in bringing down this country don’t like being suspected of sympathizing with the extremists and the terrorists, it’s very simple: don’t hide the extremists and the terrorists, don’t give them cover, and don’t help them.

Of course, the biggest part of the problem is that so many of our friends on the left are unwilling to see the Islamists as enemies at all. They might not have come out in the idiotic manner of disgraced former professor Ward Churchill and directly blame 9/11 on the US, but too many of them have some sympathy for Mr Churchill’s arguments, that bread leavened, no doubt, by Bush Derangement Syndrome.

In fourteen months and three days, George Bush will no longer be president — but our enemies will still be out there. They need to get over their BDS now.

Fortunately, since that time, President Obama has given up on his cockamamie notions of closing the Islamists’ prison at Guantanamo and trying the prisoners there in Federal District Court. He has prosecuted the war against al Qaeda and their Taliban allies more strongly than did President Bush, which is to his credit, and he didn’t quit the job early in Iraq.

But the politically correct bovine feces that came from his Administration in Empowering shows that there is still a divide in his Administration, still a substantial group, who don’t want to offend anyone, just because they might be our enemies.

After all is said and done, I have used Dr Pipes’ last line as our new blog tagline:

There are no shortcuts: Those who want a genuine counterterrorism policy must work to remove the Left and the multiculturalists from government.

21 Comments

  1. The results so far speak much louder than all this highly partisan garbage you just put out, Dana. We have not been attacked, and we got ObL. Nothing Obama does will ever satisfy you and your ilk!

  2. You believe that defending our country and protecting our families is “highly partisan garbage”, Perry? And just so youu know we have been attacked: The Time Square Bomber, the Underware and shoe bombers, the plot at Ft. Dix and many more. Just because they were botched dosen’t mean they didn’t try.

    And I think Pipes point was that it’s the insanity over multiculturalism and ploitical correctness which left 13 Americans dead at Ft. Hood at the hand of a radical moslem who shouldn’t have been in the army to begin with. You should also know that there is one thing Obama could do to satisfy Dana and his ilk: resign.

  3. Hoagie wrote:

    You should also know that there is one thing Obama could do to satisfy Dana and his ilk: resign.

    Which gives us Joe Biden as President. I guess that he couldn’t be any worse than Barack Obama, but I doubt he’d be much better.

    So no, I don’t want President Obama to resign. I want the voters to have a clear choice in November of 2012, between the guy who was such a miserable failure as our 44th President, and the Republican nominee, and I want to see the voters decide to allow Mr Obama to start writing his memoirs four years earlier than he had planned.

  4. that’s a whole lot of words to step a very wide arc around mcveigh & clinic bombings & the assassination of Dr. George Tiller & dozens of other acts of domestic terrorism but shame on me if I imagine you could get objective long enough to understand that

  5. Timothy Mcveigh was not a huge, worldwide conspiracy; al Qaeda and Islamism is. The killing of George Tiller was not the work of a huge group, but the act of a lone man. The discerning man would note the differences, and the wise man would understand that you don’t always respond, properly, to different problems with the same solutions.

    Of course, the discerning and wise man would also be a conservative, so it’s unsurprising that you couldn’t see those differences.

  6. Pipes is a whiny, skittish hack, and I have absolutely no respect for him. You can’t fight terrorism effectively if you’re seeing attempts to implement global Sharia law behind your desk chair. If we charged him with shooting terrorists, he’d be out of bullets before he left his neighborhood.

    What we learned ten years ago is this: Islamist terror is a danger worth confronting, but it is not an existential one. The universe of people who possess the desire, means, and opportunity to inflict damage on us is blessedly small and, thanks to our dismantling of al-Qaeda over the past 10 years, getting smaller. We don’t need to become a paranoid, hostile-to-Muslims nation. Neither the nature nor the level of the threat warrant that. Rather, we need to learn to collect and analyze intelligence efficiently and effectively, and then act on that intel as surgically as possible. Treating the problem as Pipes does is (as Garfield would say) like swatting a fly with a Buick – yeah, you eliminate the fly, but you also risk damaging a perfectly good car when you could have just used a damn flyswatter.

  7. Hoagie: Captain Underpants, the Times Square Fail Bomber, and the Ft. Hood shooter have more in common with Breivik, McVeigh, and Rudolph than with the 9/11 perps. They were all lone wolves influenced by Islamist ideology, just as Breivik, McVeigh, and Rudolph were influenced by Christianist dominionism. I think it only harms our attempts at fighting terror if we see conspiracies where we ought to see people under the sway of toxic ideas. And finding such people requires gaining access to and the trust of vulnerable communities such as American Muslims.

  8. “We don’t need to become a paranoid, hostile-to-Muslims nation.”

    Jeff, your post is the voice of reason, and makes a lot of good old common sense, a characteristic which is not as prevalent here as one might hope it to be.

  9. Nah Jeff, they weren’t lone wolves. There was a particular dude in Al Qaida instructing them. Perhaps you’ve heard of him? He’s that American that spent a day or more in Yemen as a bigshot for Al Qaida. And your tying McVeigh into ‘Christianist Dominionism’ is bovine biproduct as well, since his own words put him outside the Christian sphere. But that is the talking point of the Left, isn’t it? Just like the socialist wackjob that flew his plane into the IRS office was “right-wing” or that ultra-Obama supporter professor wackjob who killed all those professors because she wasn’t going to get tenure was “right-wing” or how Sarah Palin and the TEA Party movement “caused” the Arizona shootings when the wackjob shooter was, by the accounts of the people who knew him, very Liberal.

    But keep recycling your memes if it makes you feel better. Honestly, Jeff, I seriously expected better from you as you are normally the sane Liberal amidst all the far-fetched radical Leftist loons around these parts.

  10. This is magnificent, Dana:

    (President Obama) has prosecuted the war against al Qaeda and their Taliban allies more strongly than did President Bush, which is to his credit…

    Culminating in the death of Osama bin Laden, something your beloved George W. Bush couldn’t do in seven years. Time to readjust your rankings, isn’t it?

  11. I no long have faith in the assumption that Liberals are particularly brighter than the Cons, er Conservatives. You both are making me lose faith in the capacity for common man to even use his humanity, united with his cognitive skills in harmony. Fear and false bravado trumps those qualities. Have you ever heard of, “If it was a snake, it would have bit you.” ??? Well, a snake bit, and you are feeding it, working hard not to remember, it’s a snake, the war machine, they’ve sacrificed humanity down through the ages, playing both sides, whose only allegiance is to the waterfalls of cash, compliments of having an interactive system going on within the system. They’ve spread out further too. They operate on the internet, media being garbage, most are on to in recent years, so they are moving their propaganda to the internet. Because the internet is showing their dirty naked war profiteering asses, so they get their people to proclaim, “those kooks on the internet” when it is those kooks that are laying open for all to see, their criminality, and its sources, who incidentally have their little suction devices deeply into our government. Recall, as Eisenhower, Lincoln, Madison, MacArthur, many former CIA, “Beware the influence of the military industrial complex.” There is basically a war profiteering mafia like network, working within our Pentagon, it’s connection all setting up their sucking machines as 911 happened.

    Well, you should start doing some research into its many roots infiltrating every cog in the wheels bringing about war. You won’t sound so woefully ignorant.

  12. The esteemed Mr Whistler wrote:

    This is magnificent, Dana:

    (President Obama) has prosecuted the war against al Qaeda and their Taliban allies more strongly than did President Bush, which is to his credit…

    Culminating in the death of Osama bin Laden, something your beloved George W. Bush couldn’t do in seven years. Time to readjust your rankings, isn’t it?

    I already have, Mr Whistler: where I once ranked President Obama as our second worst, I now rank him dead last. Getting one thing right, once, is still a worse performance than you get from a stopped clock.

  13. Funny how foreign policy and fighting terrorism is now “one thing.” On that:

    He is a Democratic leader who opposed the Iraq war and is pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan but has notched up a record as a lethal, relentless hunter of terrorists.

    He is a president who banned torture in the interrogation of suspected terrorists and pledged — unsuccessfully, so far — to close the military prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, but carried out more drone strikes in Pakistan in his first year in office than Mr. Bush did in his eight years.

    In the process, the White House said, it has killed more officials of Al Qaeda in the last two and a half years than were eliminated during the entire Bush administration. Among the big names: two top Qaeda managers, Sheik Saeed al-Masri and Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, and one of its most feared field commanders, Ilyas Kashmiri.

    “We have taken the fight to Al Qaeda like never before,” Mr. Obama said in his weekly address.

    Now as a lefty, I have me some serious quibbles with Obama’s continuance of far too many Bush policies and the cavalier attitude towards the civilians who have been in the vicinity of those al Queda targets, but you should be filling your shorts with happiness over President Obama’s performance. Yet suddenly defeating bin Laden and nearly wiping out al Queda, fomenting the Arab Spring and ousting Gaddhafi, all things Bush failed at, doesn’t even lift Obama off the bottom of your list?

    Considering that Bush spent his eight years doing what Tea Party people say they hated all along, spending us into massive deficits trying to do good with the government, and Obama has run a clearly superior operation abroad, what exactly was it that Bush did that earned him #2, besides having an R next to his name and talking tough? Torturing? Lowering taxes?

    Unfortunately, as disappointed as I am by this, I must submit it. You know how us liberals hate running up the deficit with tax cuts, since the Bush Tax Cuts are the single greatest contributor to the deficit explosion of the past decade:

    Crunching the numbers at the liberal think tank the Center for American Progress, analyst Michael Linden found that if one compares the cost of tax cuts in just the first four years of Bush’s term (2001–04) to the first four years of Obama’s (2009–12), Obama’s tax cuts are bigger. The value of the Bush tax cuts were about $475 billion in those first four years, or about 1.1 percent of GDP. Obama’s total about $1 trillion, or 1.6 percent of GDP.

    Obama has cut taxes to lower levels than Bush did, says Linden. This is because, of course, Obama thus far has extended all of the Bush tax cuts and then cut taxes on top of that. His original stimulus bill in 2009 had $290 billion in Making Work Pay tax cuts. His speech Thursday night before Congress advocated for another $175 billion in payroll tax cuts, which come on top of $110 billion from last December’s budget deal. Speeded-up expensing for business adds another $10 billion or so.

    All in all, Obama is responsible for many billions in tax cuts, yet the popular perception is that he has raised taxes.

    Erf. Sure, Obama wanted to raise taxes on the rich, but he loves compromising with Republicans more than anything. Unfortunately, just as the Bush Tax Cuts did nothing to improve our economy, Obama is also seeing poor returns for the tax-cut-laden stimulus bill. And yet he is doubling down with the American Jobs Bill, another package that is now over 50% tax cuts!

    So you love tax cuts and love prosecuting the War on Terror, but Obama’s done both better than Bush. Here’s Obama doing exactly what I’ve been telling you I expected of Bush when credible threats emerged before 9/11:

    The president played the spymaster role last week, after a “credible threat” surfaced of an al-Qaeda car-bomb plot against New York and Washington. He tasked the intelligence agencies to pulse all their sources, and decided on a quick, broad release of the information to law enforcement agencies around the country, so they could join in the dragnet.

    Is there anything really going on deeper than that R next to Bush’s name for you? Is it really all that you desire to see a president strut around on carriers and talk tough and torture Arabs?

    [released - pH]

  14. Whistler, you side with our enemies, traitor!

    2011.09.12 Iraq Anbar 22 0 Sunnis stop a bus, order about twenty Shiite pilgrims off, then machine-gun them to death.
    2011.09.12 Nigeria Misau 7 7 A suspected Boko Haram assault on a bank leaves seven dead.
    2011.09.12 Indonesia Maluku 6 80 Six people are killed when machete-wielding Muslims attack a Christian village on a false rumor.
    2011.09.11 Afghanistan Wardak 5 94 Children are among the casualties when Fedayeen detonate a truck bomb.
    2011.09.11 Afghanistan Charkh 6 0 The bodies of six civilian contract workers are found five days after being abducted by Sunni militants.
    2011.09.11 Iraq Baquba 1 7 A journalist at a cafe bleeds to death following a Mujahid bombing.
    2011.09.10 Afghanistan Ghazni 1 0 Religious radicals assassinate a police chief.
    2011.09.10 Nigeria Vwang 14 6 Fourteen Christian villagers from the same family, including a woman in labor, are hacked to death during a midnight Muslim raid.
    2011.09.09 Nigeria Barkin Ladi 9 0 A Christian father and his seven young children are among nine shot to death in a Fulani raid on their home.
    2011.09.09 Nigeria Kunsen Gashish 3 0 Three Protestant farmers are hacked to death by machete-wielding Muslims.
    2011.09.09 Somalia Mogadishu 5 10 An al-Shabaab bomb left on the street sends five souls to Allah.
    2011.09.08 Afghanistan Sangin 7 5 A Shahid suicide bomber takes out seven Afghans with a nail-packed car bomb.
    2011.09.08 Afghanistan Heart 3 0 Sunni bombers take down an engineer and two other employees at a construction company.
    2011.09.07 Pakistan Quetta 26 80 Twin suicide bombers send over two dozen souls to Allah including a woman and three children.
    2011.09.07 India New Delhi 13 89 Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami cadres use a suitcase bomb to murder thirteen others outside a packed courtroom.
    2011.09.06 Thailand Narathiwat 2 5 A 9-year-old boy is among the victims of two attacks by Muslim gunmen, one at a teahouse.
    2011.09.06 Thailand Yala 1 0 Islamists kill a 38-year-old Buddhist teacher, then set his body on fire.
    2011.09.06 Nigeria Zakaleo 4 0 Four Christians are burned alive when militant Muslims set fire to their house.
    2011.09.05 Pakistan Faisalabad 1 0 Islamic seminary students shoot an innocent member of the Ahmadi sect to death.
    2011.09.05 Iraq Kirkuk 2 0 Jihadis shoot a skilled neurologist to death along with his brother.
    2011.09.05 Thailand Pattani 2 1 Muslim prisoners target and murder two Buddhist inmates.
    2011.09.05 Nigeria Tatu 8 0 A Christian family of eight including the parents and six children are hacked to death by Muslim militants in their home.
    2011.09.05 Afghanistan Parwan 2 0 The bodies of two German hikers are found three weeks after they were abducted and shot to death.
    2011.09.05 Afghanistan Qaisar 5 0 Sunni militants take out five civilians with a well-placed roadside bomb.
    2011.09.05 Pakistan Humrang Beebak 2 0 Two brothers are abducted and murdered by Islamic terrorists.
    2011.09.05 Nigeria Dabwak 4 0 An elderly Christian couple and their two grandchildren are shot to death in their home by Muslim raiders.
    2011.09.04 Afghanistan Kandahar 3 21 A Holy Warrior detonates in the prayer area of a security office, killing three others.
    2011.09.04 Pakistan Mariamabad 1 0 A Catholic pilgrim is kidnapped and murdered while walking to a shrine.
    2011.09.04 Iraq Mosul 1 1 A man is shot to death in his home by Mujahideen.
    2011.09.04 Iran Ahvaz 3 0 Three people are hung for ‘forbidden acts against religion’.
    2011.09.04 Nigeria Zannari 1 0 Boko Haram Islamists assassinate a local scholar.

    That’s just so far in September.

    I could go on but why bother? All moslems, all murder, all okay to you, Perry and Pho. Cause you’d rather see them win than us cuse we’re the “bad guys”. Phuck you, the horse you rode in on and your phuckin’ commie friends. Pho’d rather see an islamic theocracy than a constitutional republic run by a conservative or Republican. He chooses death rather than freedom. That’s a true commie.

  15. “Whistler, you side with our enemies, traitor!”

    “All moslems, all murder, all okay to you…”

    “Cause you’d rather see them win than us…”

    The Republican Id, uncorked. Was that you cheering at the thought of letting an uninsured man die in the hospital during the debates last night, Hoagie?

    You know, I haven’t forgotten that your solution to the problem you are complaining about is to kill all Muslims, Hoagie.

    F*** me? Coming from a guy like you, that’s an honor.

  16. “I could go on but why bother? All moslems, all murder, all okay to you, Perry and Pho. Cause you’d rather see them win than us cuse we’re the “bad guys”. Phuck you, the horse you rode in on and your phuckin’ commie friends. Pho’d rather see an islamic theocracy than a constitutional republic run by a conservative or Republican. He chooses death rather than freedom. That’s a true commie.”

    Hoagie, you are allowing yourself to go over the edge. That said, I do wonder how I would feel if I had been in your place in Nam. But it’s been over 40 years ago. If it were me, I would seek help!

    What is your source of information about the Islamic terrorists listed in your post?

    For every act like those listed, there are perhaps a billion Muslims living in peace. Has that occurred to you, Hoagie?

    I don’t believe I’ve heard PiaToR calling for an “Islamic Theocracy”, therefore, citation please!

  17. “Is there anything really going on deeper than that R next to Bush’s name for you? Is it really all that you desire to see a president strut around on carriers and talk tough and torture Arabs?”

    Great post, Henry, and ended with a pertinent question which I doubt any of our resident Repubs will stand up to answer.

    One would think that the R’s would praise Obama, but not one peep, which is actually irrational. I can understand their criticism for social policies they have traditionally not liked. But Obama’s defense and tax policies – right up the Repub’s alley.

    So this irrationality about Obama has a logical speculation to me, and that is racially based hate. Would someone please stand up and offer an alternate explanation for the lack of praise for Obama’s defense of country and tax reduction policies?

  18. I don’t believe I’ve heard PiaToR calling for an “Islamic Theocracy”, therefore, citation please!

    Yup – give me a citation too, please.

  19. Whistler, you side with our enemies, traitor!

    Riiiiiight. It’s a simple binary choice between all out genocidal war to kill 1.5 billion Muslims, or a treasonous plot to turn over America completely to Zombie Osama bin Laden. There’s no way that Whistler could possibly have a position different from those.

Comments are closed.