SUBSCRIBE:
Error: Unable to create directory uploads/2018/07. Is its parent directory writable by the server?

Why Is It That Even Accurate Commentary About Islam Seems To Involve A Disclaimer?

by
Posted on November 14 2009 1:30 pm
Divorced Dad of three. Collection A.V.P. by day, humor/political blogger after the evening dishes. Looking for hot/wealthy/uber-lifted Scottsdale Granny for hi-jinks, hiking, and Saturday-morning coffee. Is this e-harmony?
Be Sociable, Share!
Print This Post Print This Post

o'reilly1220541851

What happens when Islam comes up in the "No-Spin Zone"?

In what appears to be the latest socially acceptable way to condemn Islamo-Fascism while still appearing to be reasonable and inclusive, many commentators have taken to excoriating Terrorists while still reminding the rest of us that Muslims are “good people” who, when it comes right down to it, are “just like us,” with the same wants, goals, likes and dislikes.

Bill O’Reilly has been doing it a lot lately: In his November 11th Talking Points Memo he makes a reasonable case for why Nidal Malik Hasan should be called a “…Muslim terrorist, period. He killed out of blind hatred. He is a villain and there is no excuse for his rampage.”

All well and good.

But then Mr. O’Reilly takes great pains to make sure we comprehend what his central belief is:

“We do, however, continue to believe that most Muslims are good people, and I understand they must be protected, but not to a ridiculous degree”.

May I ask whom they need to be protected from?

He does the same thing later in the program in his Back Of The Book segment with Fox News Anchor Jane Skinner:

O’Reilly and Skinner are in total agreement that they disavow Reverend Pat Robertson’s thesis that “Islam is a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world.”

O’Reilly poses the following inquiry to Ms. Skinner:

“So Jane: Does that do any good for America, or for anybody, slamming Islam like that?”

“Certainly not”, she replies.

Even Rich Lowry, in an otherwise excellent post in the National Review Online (The PTSD Evasion) makes the argument that

“Obviously, Hasan isn’t a representative American Muslim, nor is his act an indictment of Muslims in the military. We can acknowledge both those things without laboring to obscure the nature of his crime in childish evasions.”

Far be it from me to dispute the efficacy of those types of statements: It’s not like I know a lot of guys down at the local Mosque and hang out with them when their prayers are done for the day.

But it is awful tough to believe a religion whose stated goal is to destroy or enslave anyone who is a non-believer is capable of putting out a lot of devout followers who want to co-exist peacefully with the rest of us.

There might be a couple, or even 10 or 20, or for that matter, more than 2,000. I wish them well and salute their bravery.

But to think that “most” Muslims don’t subscribe to the deadly theology that its Imams and seers and Mullahs advocate is to be, well… a tad naive.

Don’t you think?

Be Sociable, Share!
25 Responses leave one →

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

Copyright 2018 NewsReal Blog

The Theme Foundry