“…the difference between Islam and radical Islamists…”
Islam is a written ideology; a complete way of life in which there exists no separation between the sacred and the secular. Islamists–those who would reconstitute the caliphate and impose the shari’ah upon the entire world, as Islam teaches–are its literalist adherents; the radical label being irrelevant and misleading.

From the article you cited (among several of which I read at that time):

“intimidated by Islamist extremists”

Would they be less intimidated by mere Islamists?

Moderate Muslims?

Moderate Muslims are like Catholics who use artificial birth control methods. Neither is in full compliance with the teachings of their respective belief systems, and their selective compliance does not negate those teachings.

“They wanted to portray the Islamists in a way that would represent them as being the truer strain of Islam, the truer representatives of Islam.”

They are.

“And we said they represent a very virulent, aggressive form of Islam…”

They are literalists.

“but the moderates within Islam…have an equally valid voice within Islam.”

Their collective voice, loud by its silence, is NOT valid. It obfuscates the truth.

The essential problem with such labeling (by journalists, politicians, retired generals, and others) is their erroneous inference that ‘radicals’ and ‘extremists’ have hijacked and perverted Islam’s true, peaceful teachings.

Islam teaches what it does. The degree of the acceptance and interpretation of those teachings by individual Muslims–from strict literalism to mere self identification as a Muslim–is what needs to be identified in these articles.

Muslim literalists are not extremists. They are devout.

How often have you heard of Orthodox Jews being called extremists?

Regards.

Take a look at this article – http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=26134

On the bright side, delivering their message will help the American public–including those who write articles for this blog–understand that there is no such thing as ‘radical’ jihad.

There is jihad (struggle). That some aspects of jihad have involved brutal and bloody actions against ‘unbelievers’ over the last 1400 years–and do so to this day–does not make those actions ‘radical’.

Those who label Islam’s very teachings and the behavior of Muslim literalists–as all Muslims are expected to be–simply do not know what Islam really teaches.

So, those of you who persist in such labeling: how about telling us what you think separates ‘radical’ jihad from its everyday, run-of-the-mill variety.

Or, to take it a step further, define ‘radical’ Islam.

Everyone knows what is wrong in Washington, and now we must find someone who has the courage to refuse the bribe, who puts the group ahead of the individual, who stands behind his words, and who isn’t narcissitic.

I have no doubt because the case has already been tainted. The president has all ready confirmed them guilty in public. No trial yet and he has pronounced them guilty. The attorney’s will claim the inability to get a fair trial in America. Unless he of course gets a fellow Muslim on the jury. Then he’s guaranteed a misstrial. And if there are no Muslims on the jury then how does one say he’s had a jury of his peers? Does that mean we have to recruit perspective jurors from the Taliban? This whole monstrosity, win, lose or draw, will only end badly what ever the outcome. Why do you think the MSM and the Associated Press focus on Sarah Pailins hotel bills? Got to cover for O.

Today’s political correctness and political meandering and corruption will be the downfall of the U>S>A>.

God save the USA…