Tolerance Is A One-Way Street
A British Muslim converted to Christianity, yet somehow missed out on his turn experiencing that fabulous "tolerance" the Muslims demand from the rest of their countrymen -- as they dot the country with mosque after mosque and preach the conversion, death, or dhimmitude of Christians, Jews, and atheists.
In fact, the "locals," as Times of London religion correspondent Ruth Gledhill calls them (and let's take a wild guess and assume they aren't a bunch of Protestants or Orthodox Jews), responded to news of the British Muslim's conversion to Christianity by threatening to burn his house down:
Nissar Hussein, 43, from Bradford, West Yorkshire, who was born and raised in Britain, converted from Islam to Christianity with his wife, Qubra, in 1996. The report says that he was subjected to a number of attacks and, after being told that his house would be burnt down if he did not repent and return to Islam, reported the threat to the police. It says he was told that such threats were rarely carried out and the police officer told him to "stop being a crusader and move to another place". A few days later the unoccupied house next door was set on fire.
Of course, it probably isn't fair to single out Islam for its treatment of apostates.
I mean, consider what Jews do to other Jews who convert to Christianity, or what Christians do to Christians who convert to Judaism or Islam:
Yes, that's right. Absolutely nothing.
Okay, come on, somebody tell me how unfair I am to Muslims.
(Just see to it that your smoke detector has new batteries before you do.)
Amy, keep up the good work on this. Recently Rush Limbaugh interviewed the guy who prosecuted the Blind Sheik who was the mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing. He's written a book about it and the threat we face. One of the things he talked to Rush about was how when he got involved with the case he believed that this guy had taken Islam and pervereted it for his own violent means but when he actually looked at the evidence he found that what the Sheik was preaching was based on Islam itself. Notice hopw it's the US Govt that is making the claims that Islam is a "religion of peace". Muslims must be laughing their asses off at us for believing that crap. Here is part of the trancript of the interview from Rush's web site:
MCCARTHY: Well, I was the lead prosecutor, and that informant turned out to be the main witness in the case, and he was my witness, so I spent, you know, quite a bit of time studying what he had done and also, you know, having to do the other odds and ends that you do when you do a case like this, one of which was to try to get prepared in the event the Blind Sheik decided to testify, which, you know, ultimately he didn't do but that didn't mean we didn't have to prepare for it. And that was an eye-opener. In fact, the whole experience in watching the dynamic of him and other people in the Muslim community throughout the trial was a real eye-opener for me. I wanted to believe in 1993 the stuff that we were putting out, you know, that he basically perverted who was otherwise a peaceful doctrine. But what I found was going through all of his thousands of pages of transcripts and statements, was that when he cited scripture to justify acts of terrorism, to the extent he was quoting scripture or referring to it, he did it accurately, which shouldn't be a surprise.
RUSH: So you went in thinking this guy might be a fringe little kooky and perverting Islam, and you were stunned to find out that everything he said or proclaimed had a root basis?
MCCARTHY: That's correct. There's no other way of putting it. And it shouldn't have been a surprise. I mean, he was a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence, graduated from Al-Azhar University in Egypt. Why in the world I would have thought that I or the Justice Department would know more about Islam than he would is beyond me now that I look back on it, but back then I was pretty confident that we must have been right when we said that he was basically perverting the doctrine.
Sean at May 10, 2008 6:51 AM
Thanks so much, Sean. It's incredible how many people talk about how Islam is a "religion of peace." Not a one has read anything about Islam, because you don't have to dig real deep to find out that the texts command the killing of the "infidel," and there are plenty of Muslims eager to carry those commands out.
Amy Alkon at May 10, 2008 7:03 AM
I often wonder why we spend so much time, money, and blood fighting invisible bogeys in the Middle-East when we are being consumed within our own borders.
Western civilization will be destroyed by its elites' love affair with borderless continents and multiculturalism. No Iranian nukes will be involved.
Cody at May 10, 2008 3:57 PM
A religion wants people to believe and contribute. The faithful are sad for one who leaves, because they lose his support and they feel his soul will not find heaven.
An army shoots deserters.
Andrew Garland at May 10, 2008 6:52 PM
True point Andrew. Cults are also not very kind to those who leave the fold. I've always thought of Islam as the worlds largest cult. It meets all the characteristics.
-isolation of members from the outside world
-teaching that members are selfish if they want to enjoy life, they must not enjoy their life but serve some higher authority, (guilt trip) this usually includes giving up much of your wealth and giving up your life if the cult wants you to.
-belief in a great reward in the future or the afterlife for sacrificing everything in this life
-constant repetition to re-enforce the cults tenants(praying five times a day)
-no acceptance, even sever punishment of any kind of challenge to the tenants or leaders of the cult
-extreme acts of violence in 'defense' of the cult such as suicide bombings
-severe punishment for leaving the cult
-enforcing paranoia that some great enemy is out to destroy the cult.
-the teaching that there is some great event in the future that will somehow destroy all the cult enemies and give the cult ultimate power.
Face it, Islam is no different than Heavens Gate, or Jim Jones Church or the Branch Davidians.
I was reading and article yesterday that said by the year 2035, England will be 50% muslim. What do you think life is going to be like for non-muslims in England when that 50% grows even larger and larger? I believe the muslims will start to openly slaughter the 'infidels' en masse, not just a few at a time like they do now. Those that don't get killed will flee in fear. This is what the idiocy of multi-culturalism has bred for our next generations.
Bikerken at May 10, 2008 7:58 PM
it's not that you're unfair, but just monotonous on the subject of islam. We get it! If we all spent more time trying to figure out how to dilute fundamentalist islam instead of simply pointing it out everytime it rears its ugly head, we'd be alot better off. That should be the only goal of the thinkers.
Leave the solutionless fingerpointing to people like hannity and orielly.
j.d. at May 10, 2008 10:26 PM
People have no idea how dangerous Islam is.
You have solutions? That comments form just below is white space just begging for your brilliance.
I think being vocal about Islam is the best defense I can muster.
Amy Alkon at May 10, 2008 11:44 PM
Shorter j.d.:
"I don't like to be reminded how powerless I really am."
George Bush is trying to dilute fundamentalist Islam by killing fundamentalist muslims, or at least having them killed. What are you doing, beyond plugging your ears and going "LA LA LA"?
brian at May 11, 2008 4:36 AM
Bravo pour voitre tolerance
Judaisme at May 11, 2008 4:52 AM
Frankly, as long as multicultralism is popular, there is little that can be done aside from continuing to point out the giant elephant in the room.
The plain simple fact is that the last time anyone had both the will, desire, & knowledge of the enemy that is required to confront Islam for what it is, there was a big red cross on a white robe of the one fighting it.
After that, the west kind of lost interest, which wouldn't have mattered except that in the last generation from the 60s on we've been so damned frightened of "judging" things, and so hung up on blaming ourselves for everything in the world, that we've lost sight of the real issues.
Its well past time for the west to have some pride in itself again & start standing up to these bullying, whining, and downright dangerous outside elements.
Robert at May 11, 2008 8:30 AM
I'm not a religious man by nature, I believe there is a God, it makes more sense to me than evolution. Moreover, I think that God as an idea, a hypothetical guide to morality has a far greater benefit to mankind than a godless humanist outlook.
Ironically fantacism of either side leads to the same result. Fanatical humanists under the likes of Stalin & Mao killed millions, fanatical Islamic radicals are working to match that score.
The difference is that radical humanist marxists/maoists etc, can be argued against on purely humanist terms. Whereas radical islamists cannot be. Humanist reasoning has little momentum against a devout mind. Ultimately is the threat of islamisation is beaten back, it will be done through the actions protestants or catholics far more than through secular humanists. The simple fact is that humanists make no value judgements against other cultures based on the values of the humanist, and as such can only either accept the "values" of a culture or religion centered around martyrdom, OR, attempt to debate it on its own terms, using that culture's stacked deck.
In short, a step forward for Miss Alkon's appeal to science against religion, is ALSO a step backwards for Miss Alkon's alarm raising efforts regarding Islamisation.
THAT ladies & gentlemen, is our quandry.
Robert at May 11, 2008 8:47 AM
>>>>The difference is that radical humanist marxists/maoists etc, can be argued against on purely humanist terms.
There is argument, and then there is conclusion and action. Did the West win any arguments with radical humanists? Or did they conclude we needed to be defeated, and act accordingly?
>>>>Humanist reasoning has little momentum against a devout mind.
You seem to be acknowledging defeat. You are admitting the devout mind has something the humanist doesn't, that the devout ironic mind cannot stand against the devout literal mind. Well, the humanist West better spool up some kind of successful strategy or we are toast. Amy's blog is a good place to start, and the white space below is another.
doombuggy at May 11, 2008 9:14 AM
J.D. I have to respectfully disagree with you a little. I don’t think we get it. Problem solving starts with acknowledgement of a problem, then moves to mulling possible solutions, after that you decide on a solution and finish with implementation. As far as the problem of Islamic violence, we haven’t really even reached acknowledgement yet. Maybe you and I and a few bloggers, maybe even millions of people in the country get it, but overall, there is still a lot of apathy both in America and around the world about Islam. Our own president stupidly proclaims over and over that “Islam is a religion of peace.” I wonder what kind of result we would get if someone polled Americans and asked them if it was actually a ‘religion of peace’ or a ‘terrorists breeding cult’. I would bet you would get a majority that think it is actually peaceful. Americans tend to embrace ignorance where the subject is politically uncomfortable. I don’t believe any American pollster would even ask that question. While there are many voices out there proclaiming the insanity of Islam, there are not enough. There will not be enough IMHO until the world decides this is a problem the rest of us are not willing to put up with anymore and starts reversing the current Islamic expansion.
As for figuring out ways to dilute fundamentalist Islam, I don’t believe that’s really possible or effective. That sounds like getting a child molester to always use condoms. Cults, or fanatics, do not accept dilution of their tenets. As a matter of fact, they teach that those who seek to who seek to soften or change even slightly the ideas of the faith are the worst evil ever. That is why they are so rigid in their beliefs. I’m not sure there is such a thing as Fanaticism light.
Bikerken at May 11, 2008 10:33 AM
Great comments Robert! I really agree with your statement about us not wanting to judge anything. It is consistent with your statement about god. I am not a religious person myself but I think I understand the concept of religion. I believe god is the human embodiment of what we think the perfect person is. While it may be admirable to try to be as close to perfect of a person as you can, true perfection for humans is not possible. The bible says over and over again that god is a spirit. A spirit is not a person or being. So to me, god has always been the spirit of being the most perfect person that you can be. Now, just because I don’t come anywhere close to being perfect, it doesn’t negate my right to judge the actions of others as unacceptable to society, or their right to judge me. The only way we can live together as non-perfect humans is to have a set of accepted morals and values that dictate how we treat each other. We judge people every day. It is a necessary part of our civilization. Those who constantly denigrate judgment often have much to hide.
I also think this concept ties in with the whole multiculturalists thinking: “Since our culture is not perfect, we have no right to judge others.” I believe a lot of American multiculti freaks think all cultures are just as valid as any other regardless of their extremes. I think it’s why so many of us turn a blind eye to Islam. It really is an American obsession. We even have tv shows with middle aged white guys “going tribal” and living with some South American rainforest tribe. Man, this is really stupid. I wonder if there genius tv producers have ever thought that those tribesman actually grew up with a whole different set of immunity strengths and weakness than a white guy from LA and this was probably not a smart thing to do. These guys could find out months or years down the road that they picked up some undetected parasite that’s been eating at their brain or some other organ since they brought it home. They could find out why most of the tribesman have a life expectancy a little over half of ours. But hey, it’s cool right?
Bikerken at May 11, 2008 11:08 AM
This might be slightly off topic but you GOTTA see this. First you laugh, then you cry.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020977.php
Bikerken at May 11, 2008 3:31 PM
Nice try on the woman's part, but it's all written in the Quran:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/women/long.html
Amy Alkon at May 11, 2008 4:44 PM
"If we all spent more time trying to figure out how to dilute fundamentalist Islam instead of simply pointing it out every time it rears its ugly head, we'd be allot better off."
This promises to be the most intractable dilemma of our age.
J.D., I appreciate the frustration you express above, but on balance I think Amy's response to your post was fair. I generally do not care for the tone of discussion about religion on this blog, but the discussions here of political and revolutionary Islam are in a different category. While the discussion sometimes goes a little overboard even on that topic, on balance Amy is right: Militant Islam poses a serious threat to peace, freedom, and security worldwide, and Amy is performing a public service by shining a bright light on it.
As to any silver bullets that might solve the problem at a blow, I am at a loss. Militant Islam presents us not just with a problem, but a dilemma, in that Islam today is Janus-faced. On one hand are millions upon millions of ordinary Muslims who want nothing more than to go about their business, living and letting live. I know this face of Islam well, having lived and worked in close proximity to it. I know a lot of Muslims and almost none of them are interesting in interfering with non-Muslims anywhere. On the other hand, however there is an emerging cadre of super-conservative (or, more accurately, super-radical) Muslim religious leaders that are growing more and more powerful and increasingly setting the agenda for the rest of the Muslim world. It is the power and influence of these radical leaders that is at the heart of our problem with Islam today.
Why are these radicals so dominant today? They haven't always been. Here are a couple of my theories:
1. Theology: Unfortunately, Islamic Radicals can muster a great deal of material from the Koran, the Hadith, and other sources in support of their interpretation of Islam. When modern, secular, or moderate Muslims propound a worldview consistent with Western democratic values, the Radicals can easily discredit such proposals as being derived not from the Koran but from Western philosophies, and can then counter with authoritative texts from acknowledged Muslim sources. Modern Muslims need to develop a rationale and message resilient enough to withstand the arguments of the radicals, and the confidence to assert that message.
2. Human Nature: I believe that Islam, as propounded by the Radicals, is in one respect more at harmony with human nature than Christianity or Judaism. Having evolved under circumstances that might best be described as duress, wherein a hostile environment perpetually confronted mankind, our species become habituated to struggle as a steady state. Collectively, striving is our natural state of being. Christianity and (so far as I understand it) Judaism more or less deliberately seek to counter this striving nature at lease so far as our interactions with our fellow man go. Christianity seeks to suppress our striving nature in the interests of peace and harmony. Islam takes a different approach. Far from attempting to suppress our striving nature, Islam embraces it through the concept of Jihad - struggle. Jihad takes many forms, but one of its forms is military struggle against non-believers. The impulse to struggle is inherent in our species and where Christianity seeks to suppress the impulse, Islam seeks to tap into and channel it. The advantage this conveys should be obvious. Moderate or modern Muslims might try to channel this impulse into the "internal struggle for personal betterment" as one commentator acidly phrases it, but the Jihadist will try to channel the impulse into action against non-Muslims: All while Christianity seeks to deny that the impulse even exists. These facts obviously convey a great motive power to Islam that is absent from Christianity today.
3. The Geopolitical Environment: With the collapse of communism, the secular/socialist model was discredited, leaving a vacuum which Political Islam filled.
While my hypotheses above might or might not explain the phenomenon of the growing power of Political and Revolutionary Islam at the expense of modern interpretations of Islam in the Muslim world, they do nothing to explain why we in the West are falling all over ourselves to accommodate a force that is so obviously incompatible with hostile to the values Western liberal democracy. For that, I offer one theory (about Islam) and one observation (about the West):
1. The Nature of Islam: Political/Revolutionary Islam has a seductive appeal much like that held by Communism before the end of the Cold War. The power of this appeal lies in the duality of movement. In each case, the movement cultivated an appealing public face as cover for the movement's ruthless, brutal, and repressive motives and methods. With communism, the appealing public face was the glowing rhetoric of a future classless society free from fear, hunger, want. The reality was the poverty and violence endemic to all communist regimes. With Political/Revolutionary Islam the appealing public face of the movement is a glowing rhetoric similar to that found in Christianity and Judaism at their best; the hidden reality is the repression we see in regimes like the Islamic Republic of Iran or, worse, Saudi Arabia and Taliban Afghanistan.
2. The Nature of the West: Another reason for our weakness in the face the Radical threat lies in our nature. We in the West have an appalling propensity to sympathize with and accommodate those who hate us. This may seem to conflict with my comments about the striving nature of man above, but actually I believe that this tendency in the West actually derives from it. The striving nature of man is still present in the West, but we westerners have so thoroughly conquered our environment that our urge to struggle is directed inward at ourselves. We flagellate ourselves mercilessly, wallowing in guilt and angst over perceived and real injustices past and present, straining at knats, obsessing over problems that by historical standards are trivial. We have turned our struggling nature inward and have, in the process, destroyed our confidence in ourselves -- which plays right into the hands of an aggressive political movement like Revolutionary Islam that retains a robust self-confidence and vigorously directs the human impulse to struggle against external targets including, among others, us. I believe that these forces interact to produce the situation we face today: Resurgent Wahabi or Salifist Islam aggressively asserts itself across the spectrum of human activity - social, legal, political, military -- and the West cravenly retreats before and accommodates these incursions.
This is not the first time in recent history that the Western Democracies have behaved so cravenly in the face of such a serious threat. The old adage "Nothing new Under the Sun" certainly applies. Recently I have been giving some thought to the fact that our response to the challenge of Radical Islam today has a strong historical parallel, and that being the well-coordinated and vigorously executed plan of British media during the years preceding World War II (as opposed to the efforts of Hollywood in the US during the war) to curry favor with and build support for the Nazi regime in Germany as well as to suppress any word of the true horrors of that regime prior to the accession of Winston Churchill as Prime Minister. Shockingly, this conspiracy of silence continued until well after the official opening of hostilities between Germany and Britain and occurred at the behest of, and not despite, the desires of Britain's political leadership. Lynn Olsen detailed this in her recent book "Troublesome Young Men," which is the story of a group of rebel Tories in Parliament who opposed appeasement and helped bring Winston Churchill to power.
What to do about all this is the hard part. I don’t have a coherent strategy to offer, except to say that we need cooperate with, support, and defend all Muslims that share our affinity for democracy and liberty; we need to contest every attempted incursion by the Wahabis by all appropriate means including legal, social, political, and where appropriate, military; that we need to roll back Wahabi Islam where possible; but before we can do any of this, we need to regain and reassert our faith in our own culture, in our own polity, our own contribution to the advance of mankind.
Dennis at May 11, 2008 9:54 PM
I wouldn't say doombuggy, that I'm acknowledging defeat, rather I'm merely pointing out that defeat comes about through a series of actions or perceptions which, unfortunately, the judge nothing relative morality outlook of the intellectuals of the west, is dead set on implimenting and perpetuating. What the devout mind has is faith. Faith, even when well reasoned by a sound mind, is not something that is easily persuaded by argument on terms other than its own. It would be like butter entering the skillet to argue the merits of heat. Amy's constant pointing to the giant elephant in the room is an excellent beginning, but it takes much more than that. It takes grass roots action by those who read and understand the problem at hand.
If we wish to confront Islam for what it is, and beat it on both our terms & its own, several serious actions will have to be undertaken.
A serious assault on intellectual dishonesty, i.e. misrepresenting Islam to make it appear peaceful, giving the boot to people who act as apologists, and extreme multiculturalists. No I'm not saying we tell them what to believe, that would destroy the freedoms we would rather defend. HOWEVER, we are not obligated to pay people for their views, nor publish them, no read them, nor provide them with a forum for their skewed outlook. Instead promote people who recognize a cultural war for what it is. This is what needs to happen in the educational & intellectual circles of the west, but it will not begin because the university ivory tower staff have opened their eyes. It will happen because parents do not send their kids to schools that promote a path of national self destruction, it will happen because donors & alumni speak out and demand things change, it will happen because we stop giving intellectuals without brains jobs & authority over the next generation.
On the religious side, churches, priests, pastors, etc. from more peaceful religions, will have to speak out about the difference between tolerance...and tolerating the intollerable. (An active effort to convert muslims wouldn't hurt either) A modern day great awakening if you will, that acts in opposition to the revisionists who would attempt to marginalize the heritage of our founders and the roots of our culture which, like it or not, are grounded in western religious thought) This branch of the nation must also make an active effort to PROTECT converts from Islam, and expose efforts at doing them harm.
The secular humanists that are NOT counted amongst the intellectuals at various educational institutions can do a great deal in the form of watchdog organizations, making real efforts to expose the teachings of radical islamic enclaves within the U.S. The sermons given at various mosques do not even TRY to disguise themselves. Expose radicals for what & WHO they are. "youtube" the sermons of radicals and don't do their listeners the dignity of anonymity. If there is a radical cleric preaching the overthrow of the government, demand that he be prosecuted, and remember...if someone is a patron of a radical cleric...he's probably not there for the fellowship.
When I was a boy, my parents went to a number of different churches, they were looking for one that "fit" with them. Eventually, they found one. If someone goes to a mosque and hears a sermon calling the nation evil, calling for the overthrow of the government, calling for the deaths of infidels, and the establishment of sharia law...and that someone goes back for sermon after sermon, he's not there for the coffee.
All levels of citizenry can take action to ensure that the destructiveness of Koranic beliefs and writings are exposed to the light of day, most people who will hear someone say Islam is a religion of peace, will believe it because they've never READ the Koran.
Organize friends and neighbors in "townhall" meetings, neighborhood discussion groups on politics, government, etc. REVIVE the art of rhetoric, and read so that they can hear with their own ears that radicals are not just isolated extremists, but the "true" believers.
At the end of the day, we can read Amy's blog all day long and remark without end on how accurately she points out the big elephant in the room, but if we do not take action of our own accord, we are...to steal a metaphor from the Christian mythos, like a candle hidden away, where its light can do no one any good.
Robert at May 11, 2008 10:52 PM
Nasty Muslims! Not like those nice Christians in another part of the UK who spent 30 years murdering each other, innocent bystanders, police officers and soldiers (about 3,500 in total) and almost wiped out the entire British government in the Brighton bomb attack. One side was even helped financially by you good old Americans, collecting cash for the poor downtrodden Oirish. No objection to terrorists back then, was there, when it was London being attacked and not New York?
And the US still refuses to deport suspected Irish nationalist terrorists to the UK because they might not get a 'fair trial' and, after all, they are really just political prisoners. Wither Guantanamo? Jeez.
mike power at May 12, 2008 12:32 AM
Priests do not stand up before their congregations and tell their flock that they'll go to heaven and get 72 virgins if they murder people. Islam is an evil and backward religion. I'm no fan of the evidence-free believe in god of any kind, but of all the religions, Islam is the one that is the worst and a great danger to our western way of life.
Amy Alkon at May 12, 2008 1:20 AM
My mom is very involved with her church (she's presbyterian, if that makes a difference to anyone), and she and I went out for dinner last night for Mother's Day. I asked her what she tought of the current Islamic "situation."
Given she isn't exactly fond of my particular "religious" bent (I'm a witch), she is simply astounded that more people don't understand how pernicious Islam is to Western culture and our way of life. This is a woman who does not have a prejudiced bone in her body, and yet she gets it. She says most people are being tolerant of Islam for all the wrong reasons; and because they're not taking the time required to investigate it, because it's too involved, people are going to be led to the slaughter willingly, before they even realize what's happening. She says way too many people are just taking others on their word that Islam is a peaceful religion. She doesn't want to see Obama get elected (we are agreed that Shrillary is out of it now, yes? I mean the presidntial race; we all knew she was out of her mind to begin with) because she thinks it will be the beginning of the end for the safety of this country. She's been around a long time, and has seen a LOT. I agree with her.
Flynne at May 12, 2008 5:49 AM
Islam is not just a religion: it's a complete politico-religious system, much like communism was, or Orwell's 1984 Party was. It claims to be a religion when that cloak suits it, ie when it is taking advantage of liberal democracies. The problem is that in our democracies we have given religion an easy ride, just as Richard Dawkins describes in The God Delusion.
The danger is therefore that if we continue to give religions a free ticket, we must, if we are true to our principles, give the same free ticket to Islam, which is a different beast altogether.
The solution is to revoke the free ticket for all religions now. No more seats for bishops in parliament; no more dispensation from equal opportunity laws; no more anti-blasphemy laws; no more reduced water charges for church buildings; no more kow-towing to a person just because they're a minister of religion. Now is the time to establish complete secularity where all religions are on the same footing as none and have no special say in public life.
This is not a plan to eliminate religion; and it is not anti-Islamic. People should be free to believe or not believe whatever they like, and to change their minds, and to practice and preach - all within the same, secular, law. That is the principle that I value.
Norman at May 12, 2008 9:16 AM
mike power,
Is there some point to your statement? I don't believe the IRA every attacked the US. There is no papist conspiracy to enslave us. There is no Irish fifth column telling us to submit to the Blarney Stone or die. Even the Irish don't face Dublin five times a day to pray. No haji to Cork for us - (full disclosure, I'm half Irish by ancestry, never been there, probably never will, never gave a cent to Irish anything.)
You seem upset that the US didn't deport some "suspected Irish terrorists." I'm going to plead ignorance - I don't know who these people are, what proof exists that they broke the law, and whether or not they are US citizens. Politicians do stupid things sometimes. The only people who never get it wrong are the critics.
Gitmo? Didn't we just read about the latest guy we released going back and doing a suicide bombing? My solution to illegal enemy combatants captured on the battlefield is to follow the rules. Interrogate, then shoot them.
MarkD at May 12, 2008 10:20 AM
Tell ya what, Mike - when England (and the rest of Europe, for that matter) no longer places a condition of "take the death penalty off the table" on extraditions to the US, you can have your little IRA boys back.
Otherwise, have some cheese to go with your whine.
brian at May 12, 2008 4:32 PM
Obama isn't Muslim. His dad was a lapsed Muslim. He went to a Muslim school briefly. But he was never actually a Muslim.
Nicole at May 20, 2008 1:37 AM
Muslims themselves may not see it that way. And their religion demands that they kill apostates.
Amy Alkon at May 20, 2008 5:12 AM
Why oh why do they feel it's necessary to put little hearts, flowers, and butterflies all over the tampon wraper? It's not as if it's not literally already painfully obvious that I am a chick!
calibration at August 24, 2011 12:22 PM
Leave a comment