'The idea that as a Muslim in this country that you don't have the freedom to express your religion or your views, I mean you've got far more freedom in this country than you do in most Muslim countries,' Blair told Observer columnist Will Hutton... 'The reason we are finding it hard to win this battle is that we're not actually fighting it properly. We're not actually standing up to these people and saying, "It's not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn't justified."'...Normally chooses his language carefully. Maybe he still is. "Absurd" is sometimes the right word.
Blair added: 'How are [we] oppressing them? You're oppressing them when you support the people who are trying to blow them up.'
Blair, who normally chooses his language carefully when he talks about Islamists, also takes a swipe at critics who accused him of undermining civil liberties. 'When I'm trying to change the law in order to make it easier to deport people who engage in terrorism - the idea that that's an assault on hundreds of years of British civil liberties is completely absurd. Some of what is written on this is loopy-loo in its extremism.'
July 1, 2007
"Your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn't justified."
That's what Tony Blair thinks needs to be said to Muslims in the U.K.:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
53 comments:
This is what I wish I had heard one of the Dem candidates say at the Howard University debate the other evening (substitute black for the word Muslim).
"I mean you've got far more freedom in this country than you do in most Muslim countries"
Blair is factually correct, but misses the point. Islamists don't want freedom, they demand submission.
"He asked how it is possible to claim that Afghanistan's Muslims are being oppressed when the Taliban 'used to execute teachers for teaching girls in schools'."
Doesn't he know that it was the little girls' choice to have their schools blown up, as a deep expression of their religious conviction? God, Blair is *such* an orientalist.
Seriously, this is wonderful. Blair has always been one of the most eloquent voices (especially compared to Bush) against islamic oppression, I am really thrilled to see him keep it up after he leaves office! Might make negotiating a mid-east peace a tad awkward, though...
"'The reason we are finding it hard to win this battle is that we're not actually fighting it properly. We're not actually standing up to these people and saying, "It's not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn't justified."'..."
His sense of timing is impeccable. No reason to rush to judgment, is there? No reason he couldn't have said this, oh, about a week ago, or earlier, while he was still in power. Part of the reason we are finding it hard to win this battle is that our leaders are not actually fighting it properly, notwithstanding the fact half us don't think we're at war, or should be, at all.
I am impressed with Blair here. But I agree with tjl; I fear he misunderstands them.
They don't talk about rights, freedom, and democracy because they believe in those words, but because we do. We are held to an unmeetable standard of perfection (and they to none at all), and our institutions are used against us to destroy the West from within.
Islamists don't want freedom, they demand submission.
There is no doubt in my mind that Blair understand that point very well.
Pogo: Who is the "they" there? I think Blair is trying to drive a wedge between radical and moderate Muslims. Some people just want the freedom to follow their own religion without forcing it on others. Unless you mean to say that all Muslims count is as their religion to force it on others, there isn't a monolithic "they."
Ann said...Some people just want the freedom to follow their own religion without forcing it on others.
The problem of course is that the definition of Islam is submission. The religion is based on the concept that there is only one final "word of God", unalterable. That makes alternative viewpoints within the religion very difficult and modernization would be heretical. Further, when you have all that God mandated talk of holy war against the infidel by the sword and torch until the infidel submits, that doesn't leave much room for co-existence.
It is refreshing to hear a politician castigate the adherents of a religion. Now, if they would only do that for all religious people and not just silly Muslims perhaps we'd get somewhere.
John Edwards and those he would represent call this a "bumper sticker war!"
His bumper sticker just burned up and was about to be blown sky-high on the bumper it was attached to.
Key the sound of crickets from the left as their cherished beliefs cower at the feet of Islamic dhimmitude!
As ever, in Trafalgar Square today we will be treated to the tepid expressions of dismay at the terrorist attacks in the U.K. followed immediately by the inevitable "but..." and cartoons of the west fatally beating up Farfur in Muslim schools.
How long before IED's/VBIED's, and suicide murderers wearing explosive vests return to the U.S.? Time to stop pussy-footing around and call a spade a spade!
That didn't take long, they just evacuated JFK account of a suspicious package disrupting holiday travel.
Ann, I guess I am no longer convinced there is much of a moderate Muslim presence in the US or the UK or anywhere. That recent poll of American muslims found a huge number were okay with such violence.
I think the only helpful wedge will be that which separates the Muslims willing to accept a diverse society in which they will never have sharia law and those who won't.
Right now, I think the onus is on their religion to prove it's fit to be in the West. We ask very little of them, mostly to be left alone. And even that seems to be asking too much.
When I see loud vociferous and immediate rejection of these acts by Muslims, I'll believe there is such a moderate community. I ain't seen that yet, however. Those that do speak out are threatened with death.
Yes, AJ, if only someone will stand up and say something to stop this awful wave of terror attacks by blacks in this country.
Beth; my guess is that you missed the rise of the Black Muslim Brotherhood in our prisons and ghettoes?
Chuck Colson has some personal observations from his encounters with them during prison visits. Many of the NBA players glorify Muslim religion by changing their name to a virtual who's who of Islamic worshippers. Muhammad Ali, aka Cassius Clay, comes quickly to mind from the not-to-distant past.
Pogo, what is a "huge number"? Here's the question you're referring to, from a Fox news story on the report:
"While 69 percent of Muslims under 30 say homicide bombings are never justified, 2 percent say they're often justified, 13 percent say bombings are sometimes justified and 11 percent say they are rarely justified. Only 9 percent of older U.S. Muslims said homicide attacks are at least rarely justified."
Even among the younger, more volitile group, 26 percent express some degree of justification for suicide bombings. That number worries me, but it's not a huge number (and nearly half of those fall in the "rarely justified" group), and it doesn't add up to there being no moderate Muslim influence in this country, as you claim.
Blair's remarks are smart, and he's right to throw that challenge to the part of the Muslim community that is mostly invested in mainstream social values.
vet66, the Muslim Brotherhood isn't much of an entity. It isn't blowing up nightclubs and driving exploding cars into airports. I don't think the Aryan Brotherhood is a good thing, either, but I'm not concerned about it day by day, either. And I'm not worried about NBA players with Muslim names. Why should I be?
Vet, your phrase "glorifies the Muslim religion" tips your hand. I suspect your concerns aren't about actual threats to our safety, you're just bothered by Muslims in general.
I don't know Beth. That 26% "express some degree of justification for suicide bombings" is a huge number to me.
If 26% of US evangelical christians expressed some degree of justification for bombings of say, abortion clinics, I don't think others would find this a small proportion. Heck, you get 20 people to march with placards at Planned Parenthood and the leftward blogs scream that the christofascist godbags are stoning women.
26% is a huge number.
1% would be a huge number to accept suicide bombings as justified.
I think it's pretty simple. The way to stop terrorism is by kicking all of the Hispanics out of the country.
I'm certain that 26% of evangelicals DO think abortion bombings are fine.
Including Pogo I might add, although he probably won't admit it. You know he secretly cheered when abortion clinics were bombed.
Pogo, I agree it's a worrisome number but I'm more inclined to view it as a reason to be much more direct in engaging the moderate Muslim community--which is clearly in the majority, according to this poll--and pushing them to actively reject the rhetoric that Blair points to. The problem isn't that there is no moderate Muslim presence, it's that that community is too disengaged.
When I see loud vociferous and immediate rejection of these acts by Muslims, I'll believe there is such a moderate community. I ain't seen that yet, however. Those that do speak out are threatened with death.
If it is true that those who speak out are threatened with death (and I think it is) and actually murdered (and that has happened, too), then I can understand why those who value their own lives and livelihoods speak softly. As I haven't had to walk in those shoes myself, I'm not so keen on judging their response (or lack of it), given that they are unlikely to obtain a lifetime private security detail as a result.
1% would be a huge number to accept suicide bombings as justified.
Really? I wouldn't be all that surprised if the percentage of non-Muslims who believe suicide bombings are justified exceeds that.
Re: "You know he secretly cheered when abortion clinics were bombed."
You're reprehensible.
Be fruitful and multiply; but not in those words.
Re: "it's that that community is too disengaged"
Beth, if a quarter of Catholics suddenly began to express the acceptibility of killing Muslims per se, would you not think it awful that the remainder, though still the majority, remained disengaged?
How can they fail to be engaged? If among them are many young men willing to kill off total strangers because of their faith or non-faith, or because they are gay, or are women who show their faces in public, I do not think it is acceptable for them to be on the sidelines here. What more needs to happen for them to decide to be engaged?
It's a sin to be disengaged right now, and implicit approval can be surmised when bad deeds done in their name repeatedly go unchallenged in any community.
Beth, 2 comments:
The problem isn't that there is no moderate Muslim presence, it's that that community is too disengaged. I think that there are some moderate Muslims and using the term of art generally applied to Jews, some "cultural Moslems" (course they can't admit that without subjecting themselves to a theoretical death penalty for apostasy). However Beth, I would describe the silence as being based on intimidation from their peers rather than disengagement.
it's a worrisome number what I find amazing is that 26% would admit to that position. I actually think based on my understanding of polling bias on sensitive topics is that many more that hold that position, reported a "No Opinion" viewpoint.
More than half of the pro-lifers I have met has expressed sympathy for abortion bombings at some point, usually along the line of "while I'd never advocate that myself, the abortion doctors are asking for it, etc."
And 100% of evangelicals I have met, thinks that gay people deserve to die. Because the Bible says so - and evangelicals believe the Bible word for word.
Let's stop this nonsense that only Muslims favor terrorism.
All of the world's major religions, except maybe Buddhism, favors violence. Just read their religious texts (Old Testament, New Testament, etc.) and you will hear a bunch of raving lunatics advocating death for those who are different than them.
Look no further than Northern Island, where Catholics were killing protestants and vice versa. Look to Nigeria where Christians are killing Muslims and vice versa.
Every religious person has some kind of psychological problem, because they are incapable of thinking for themselves.
OK, we all know how polls can be used to present a skewed view of things. Maybe that poll is right but if so, why did Muslims abandon CAIR after 9/11? The various reports suggest that membership went from around 30K to less than 2K.
That speaks a lot more to the moderate Muslim than a poll, IMO.
"If it is true that those who speak out are threatened with death (and I think it is) and actually murdered (and that has happened, too), then I can understand why those who value their own lives and livelihoods speak softly."
It is true, Ronin, and this film (http://freethefilm.net/) tells the story of many such Muslims. I saw about 15 minutes of it, and it is excellent; however, PBS pulled it, as it is not "balanced," meaning PBS's advisors--why again does public TV need advisors with veto power?--like CAIR objected to it and provided the basis for the film's replacement.
When radical Muslims and the kowtowing media partners are against you, you stay hidden.
As to Blair, I'm glad he's finally speaking out, but I would have been more impressed had he done more when he was in office.
Beth;
I like most Muslims. It is Islam that I don't trust. Moderate Muslims understand that to be labeled an apostate, unbeliever, or infidel there is a fatwa against you that any jihadist bent on martyrdom can enforce.
Radical Islamics can either kill you or consign you to a life of dhimmitude. Black muslims in prison are but one cut in a death of a thousand cuts that radical Islamists are waiting to visit on the west in general and you in particular.
They are desensitizing us to the threat they pose by introducing our culture to their 'special' needs and names.
Pogo has it correct;
Speaking of huge numbers, the estimated worldwide population of muslims is over a billion.
1 percent of a billion is a large number to be taken seriously.
I mean you've got far more freedom in this country than you do in most Muslim countries...
As said above, that is so the wrong point. But then this guy disappeared so far into his delusion that he knew best for the world, that he went way beyond not being able to comprehend that many people see the world differently, right into the totally deluded belief that actually everyone must agree with him because he believed something to be so.
He knew it so. He said it so: "I only know what I believe."
And that because that was all there was for him AND everyone else to know in his mind.
A complete babylike identity with the world outside the self: my world = the world.
A mutant Big Brother. A real head-f*cker.
Pogo is right. The jihadists do not believe in human rights, freedom or democracy. Unfortunately, their number is increasing.
But what to do about it? Christopher Hitchens' solution is to attack the major principles of Islam (as well as those of other religions). But will this approach persuade non-jihadist Moslems or will it just create more jihadists?
What about engaging non-jihadist Moslems with secular arguments? The problem here is that purely secular arguments, for the most part, are based on enlightened self-interest or else some notion of a social contract. Such arguments are not likely to persuade someone with a non-secular world view.
Then there is Nietzsche's observation: "God is dead" political theories and arguments tend to devolve into relativism and relativism into the ubermensch (if there is no truth, why not my "truth"?).
Perhaps the answer lies in the first few sentences of the Declaration of Independence. Here we might find some common ground.
tjl said...
"I mean you've got far more freedom in this country than you do in most Muslim countries"
Blair is factually correct, but misses the point. Islamists don't want freedom, they demand submission.
AND
POGO - They don't talk about rights, freedom, and democracy because they believe in those words, but because we do. We are held to an unmeetable standard of perfection (and they to none at all), and our institutions are used against us to destroy the West from within.
TWO GREAT POINTS!
And why Blair and Bush failed so horrifically in Iraq. They didn't understand. "Here lads, we have liberated you from a brutal dictatorship, given you new civil rights you never had before, and glorous freedom-loving purple-finger Democracy!" Oh. Blow us up? Bleed us? Make it so no Westerner is safe unarmed anywhere in your country? Hey, where's the gratitude, darn it!!!"
Ann Althouse is, in this, I believe, off target when she and Beth cite differences in attitude between the radical and the famous largely missing "moderate Muslim" community as proof "they are not monolithic". Beth and the usual Leftists then add the glass more than half full of "hopeful Muslim attitudes" to show lower threat exists.
That is off target. The moderates don't matter if others call the shots. Or when moderates sent mixed signals that they of course disapprove of the violence by some of the "deeply faithful".
The same thing could be said when 10% of the Apache Indians went off the reservation and began slaughtering - with the 90% saying they disaproved of the sincere convictions and deep faith of the Young Braves of the tribe being channeled into violence while of course all blaming the slaughter on "white man who speaks with forked tongue". And of course for the slaughtered farmers family's, such nuances were never really savored by the slaughterees and their grieving neighbors and friends.
I imagine if polling existed in Bolshevik Russia, the vast majority of peaceful communists would have opposed dynamiting Orthodox churches and liquidating priests. They would have strongly disapproved of Gulags, starving Ukranians, executing dissenters, and so on - deeds committed by the most fanatic of the Bolshies.
But the opinions of the "vast majority of peaceful, moderate communists" didn't matter. They weren't calling the shots. Bloodthirsty fanatics were, while others stood by.
Same could be said of the noble, civilized, democracy loving German people in the late 1930s. They, if they could be polled, deeply opposed violence as unecessary to address Germany's legitimate grievances. If a 1938 poll was done of Nazi Party members - vast majorities likely would have opposed fighting England, imprisoning and killing "the overly influential Jewish Bolshevik menace", and listed their top priority "a better, safer, and more prosperous Germany for our children."
Like with Apaches, Muslims, Commies...the fact that the "vast majority" of Germans and even Nazis were "moderate" mattered not at all when they stood by and let the bloody fanatics call the shots.
Blake,
Indeed, the huge decline in CAIR's membership is most encouraging, and strongly hints that--at least here in the US--there is a real possibility for that fabled wedge. Now, if the MSM would just notice and stop talking to CAIR...
DTL,
So--both evangelicals you know are fine with abortion-clinic bombing? What that mostly says is you really need to get out more often.
Why would I want to associate with more evangelicals?
They have low a low IQ, are bigots, closed-minded, are missing teeth, actually think Jesus is going to rise from the dead.
They are wackos.
I don't hang out with Christian Scientists for the same reasons (they are wackos).
Okay Pogo, vet, etc.: where is the impending dhimmitude of America at right now, on a scale of progress? We're not experiencing the riots of the Paris suburbs, the bombings that England and Spain have endured. We don't have large groups of young, unemployed Muslim men in segregated ghettos, so I don't think we'll ever see the type of riots Paris faces. And while I'm not saying we won't experience anything like we've seen in Spain and England, i.e., isolated acts of terrorism by small cells, overall, Muslims in America are pretty much soundly invested in our system. They vast majority are in our workplaces, schools, grocery stores, hospitals--throughout public life--and are neither involved with jihad nor cowering from jihadis. If you think otherwise, you need to provide some evidence of actual widespread problems in the American Muslim population.
We don't have nearly the degree of cultural dissatisfaction we see in the UK and other parts of Europe. Why is that, if not for the influence of moderate Muslims all over America?
We also have a whole lot more guns and we are not afraid to use them if attacked. The British police tell the populace to give up their guns and if attacked give in to whatever the criminals want. Try that in fly-over country and see what happens. There is also the situation that the Muslims in the US are spread much farther apart because of the sheer size of the country. We also when attacked on 9/11 showed that we were not going to say sorry we bothered you so much that you attacked us. Big difference in attitude of the majority of the country as opposed to the Euros. That is why the Muslims don't pull the same stunts here that they do in Europe.
Our LLL dems try to do it but they can't pull it off. Wearing pink t-shirts and bleating Communist slogans is not a good way to get a lot of support here.
We also, in this country, give a lot of freedom to religions that the Euros have a history of not giving so that people, regardless of what the LLL dems think, are far more accepting of other religious faiths.
When you combine all those factors you are far less likely to find the majority population of the Muslims in the US pulling the stunts they did in France and Britain. They tried a couple of times here at Fort Dix and JFK but that did not work out so well. They also tried in bringing that stuff over the border from Canada and got caught.
Where we need to have some action is in the courts and the cases that the LLL dems are bleating about. If those get settled, then I think we will be way ahead.
DTL,
The point wasn't to have you hang out with more evangelicals, but for you to see how provincial and wrong your estimate was. But your response, bigoted as it is, serves an equally useful purpose in demonstrating just how separated you wish to be from the vast majority of the country (who may not be evangelical, not by a long shot, but are certainly quite happy to have them as fellow-citizens.)
Beth;
I am having trouble getting over the 9/11 attacks replete with araps dancing in the streets, Khobar, Bali, Munich, Bobby Kennedy, Anwar Sadat, U.S.S. Cole, Various wars involving Israel and Arabs, WTC 1 in 1993, Washington Space Needle, Chicago Sears Towers, Fort Dix, Beslan, Rushdie, Cartoons, Theo Van Gogh, Spain/Aznar, various airplanes that crashed/hijacked, blown up on the tarmac, rape/torture rooms in Iraq, genocide in Kosovo, Darfur, Rhodesia, and the list goes on for decades ad nauseum.
I am seeing a pattern here. Tell me I am wrong. Maybe overreacting? Message to the moderate muslims; "Hey folks, I'm not feeling the love here!"
"And 100% of evangelicals I have met, thinks that gay people deserve to die. Because the Bible says so - and evangelicals believe the Bible word for word."
DTL, I'm reasonably sure my church would qualify as evangelical, and I have absolutely no desire for you and your brethren and sistren to die except of natural causes at a ripe old age. And even if some in my church chose to believe that (I hope not), I wouldn't start blindly following them in lockstep, and they wouldn't be excommuncating me for not doing so. (And if the elder board made something like that a policy statement, I'd be finding a new church right away.)
So I realize that we've only "met" over this blog, but that does lower your percentage a bit. (And my last look in the mirror revealed that all my teeth were present and accounted for.)
vet66, you have quite a list of grievances there. No one's asking you to forget attacks on our country or our allies. You might want to be a little more critical in how you categorize those grievances, though, and not just react to the "arabs" or "muslims" in general. The people dying in Darfur are, by a large majority, Muslim. In Kosovo, both sides have perpetuated mass killings, but the Catholic Serbs pretty much take the crown.
I won't agree that a generalized animus to Arabs and Muslims is the right answer to Islamist terror. That kind of thinking would lead us to stupid actions.
DTLs points are, as usual, inflammatory. But underneath the rhetoric I see some truth. I am acquainted with lots of fundamentalists (a more useful term here than evangelicals), and some of them are sympathetic to the abortion clinic bombers and shooters. They couch it in terms like "I don't agree with what they did, but I understand their frustration..."
I'd bet some of that 26 percent of young Muslims in America who answered that question about suicide bombings are expressing the same reticence to wholly disavow terrorist violence. They're not signing up to do it themselves (only 2 percent said suicide bombings are "always justified" while 11 percent said they are "rarely justified"); and there's nothing in that question that asks if they mean would such an action be justified against an American target. I think there's a lot of sympathy for Palestinians behind the answer to that question. A number of people had to help Eric Alan Rudolph evade capture for a couple of years. They didn't go so far as to set off a bomb, but they bought the damn T-shirts that glorifed him.
Beth;
What will it take to get you to be more cynical when it comes to Islam and Muslims?
What if you are wrong?
When does appeasement become dhimmitude?
When do the statistics become personal?
What is your Rubicon?
It is beginning to look like Ahmadinejad in Iran is hooked on the horns of a dilemma. Lots of oil but no gasoline due to a lack of refining capacity. Economics brought down the Soviets and may bring down the Iranians.
Do you feel lucky?!
By the way, you make my point about Muslim on Muslim killing. That was one of the righteous reasons we went into Iraq twice. Tough being an apostate. I have no illusion that being an infidel and an unbeliever would be any better.
Beth - The vast majority are in our workplaces, schools, grocery stores, hospitals--throughout public life--and are neither involved with jihad nor cowering from jihadis.
And the vast majority of Nazi Party members wanted peace, never personally harmed a Jew, or came within 10 km of a death camp.
What's your point, Beth?
Like with Apaches, Muslims, Commies...the fact that the "vast majority" of Germans and even Nazis were "moderate" mattered not at all when they stood by and let the bloody fanatics call the shots.
Cedarford, I haven't heard a better description of you than the one you just gave yourself.
BTW, I don't know how you can so distort what happened to the Apaches. The U.S. Army literally interned the entire Apache nation to starve the warriors out of the mountains.
Beth - (only 2 percent said suicide bombings are "always justified" while 11 percent said they are "rarely justified")
Given there are 2 1/2 million young Muslims here in the US,
that's 50,000 Islamoids who feel suicide bombing is "always justified".
Thats 275,000 that consider suicide bombings "rarely justified".
Why, unlike you Beth, do I seem to take no comfort in those numbers?
Why, unlike you Beth, do I think we must strictly limit the number of Islamoids coming here, and seek to encourage the worst radicals to leave America - citizens or not??
Freder - Cedarford, I haven't heard a better description of you than the one you just gave yourself.
BTW, I don't know how you can so distort what happened to the Apaches. The U.S. Army literally interned the entire Apache nation to starve the warriors out of the mountains.
And it worked. Without their sympathizers succor, the braves were starved out of the mountains, defeated, children interned realized how bad it would be if Apaches started more massacres - easchewed from that lesson taking up the warpath, and countless American farmer families and small towns out in the Southwest were saved.
Terrorists or Apache warriors are just the tip of the spear - unsustainable without the support of a good portion of the civilian population. To win, you must either win over those hearts and minds, or stick those hostile, unchangable civilian hearts and minds behind barbed wire, kill them (the main historical method), or wreck their infrastructure and ability to sustain a large hostile force in the field (Sherman's march, US sub war against Japan and strategic bombing of Jap cities)
cedarford, rest assured I never measure my thoughts against yours. Don't bother asking "why"; just move on.
vet, don't put arguments in my mouth. I haven't said anything that can be characterized as "appeasement" and I'm quite cynical about al Queda, Hamas, et al. I'm just not shitting my pants every night think the "dhimmitude" is about to knock on my door. I fully expect we'll be engaged with Islamic terror for a long time. And I sincerely doubt a bunch of us chatting in a blog thread are going to solve it.
jap cities? are you serious?
Re: "...the "dhimmitude" is about to knock on my door."
Beth, I hope you're right. When is one appropriately alarmed? Churchill repeatedly warned of the Nazi threat, but England slept, and nearly succumbed by waiting too long to respond.
In Europe now, Islamists have a closed system of education (which fosters the same miltant methods seen under Hamas), abuse of women, and honor killings. There is now ongoing violence in larger cities, including care burnings and anti-Semitic acts.
I think it prudent to ask if we are not also asleep to their threat in much the same way. Is this mere pants-shitting, or a vital task deferred?
I hope and hope and hope you are right, but I am not banking on it.
Blair is factually correct, but misses the point. Islamists don't want freedom, they demand submission.
Oh no, he got the point alright. The meaning of Islam at it's core is submission. Submission by muslims to Allah and Sharia, and submission of the west and any other deemed infidel to Islam. Absurdity upon absurdity.
Bravo for Tony Blair! He was a great leader. Sorry to see him go.
Pogo: re: 26%...
The problem is that the question didn't specify WHERE.
I suspect that you'd be shocked at how many non-muslim Americans think that the suicide bombing of Israelis by Palestinians is "justified".
Now, if even 5% or 10% of muslims in America supported the use of suicide bombings against Americans... I'd be right there with you.
Re: "I'd be right there with you."
It appears there are that many in England and Scotland, by recent events. But I suppose Islamists look more favorably on the US than, er, hmmm.
Well, anyway, not to worry, right?
It can't happen here.
Post a Comment