Well, despite the shaky grammar and clumsy articulation, the writer's intention here seems fairly obvious: Obama is in secret sympathy with Muslims. And Muslims are terrorists.In this interview, [Obama] refused to link [M]uslims with terrorism. Well, in the country he lived in as a young boy, Indonesia alone, there are 19 million Muslims who support violent jihad. Barack Obama believes (and says) the “problem” is only with a few rogue Al-Qaeda terrorists. HA! What a load of crap.The “Religion of Peace” is one of the most violent on earth. It is against their very tenants of faith to be tolerant of any others. It has recruited thousands and thousands as suicide bombers and terrorists. --You can read the whole thing here.
So, what is a "terrorist," then?
Is a "terrorist" a person who commits wanton murder on random victims? If so, is Erik Ayala, the young man who, on January 24, opened fire on a crowd of teenagers outside a Portland nightclub, killing two and wounding seven, a "terrorist?" Or was he a mere murderer?
Or is a "terrorist" motivated by racial or religious hatred? What about Daniel Cowart from Tennessee and Paul Schlesselman from Arkansas? These were the two neo-Nazi skinheads who, back in October, hatched a plot (on Facebook, no less) to go on a cross-country rampage, killing 88 black people (the number is somehow significant to Nazis), culminating in a blaze-of-glory attempt on candidate Barack Obama's life? Are they "terrorists" or just racists?
Or is a "terrorist" motivated by political ideology? What about the men responsible for the deadliest attack ever in the United States before 911? When they plotted and carried out a 1995 truck bomb attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, were Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, two home-grown American boys, "terrorists?"
If we look at each of these cases, there is little to distinguish them from the attacks perpetrated by suicide bombers in Palestine or Iraq or anywhere else. The murders are random. In the latter two cases, they were politically motivated and planned out in advance. So, what's the difference?
The answer, of course, is that none of the perpetrators in the cases I've mentioned are Muslims. And now, we get to the heart of the matter: conservatives that are gnashing their teeth over President Obama's conciliatory tone are, in fact, nothing more than ignorant racists. It is not murder or lawlessness that they detest. It is Muslims.
Apart from this being offensive to me personally, as the spouse of a devout Muslim, I find it shockingly and depressingly ignorant. One wonders if any of these conservative ranters has ever actually known a Muslim.
I know many. I have stayed at their houses, visited their countries, and, of course, married a Muslim woman. I can state with certainty that I have never met a Muslim that would support suicide bombings.
I don't believe that the majority of conservatives hold the same views as the wing nut that I quoted above. But I believe that the faction represented by this person had become dominant within the conservative movement. Well, after two consecutive beatings at the national polls, there is going to be a shake-up and that faction is likely to get demoted.
The sentiments expressed by the writer I quoted above will persist for a while in the public debate. But without the neo-conservatives fomenting their irrational fears, those voices will fade. They are already being isolated and discredited. Soon, those holding such views will be exiled to political obscurity, there to rage like wild-eyed hermits.
Rant on, madmen! But when you pause for breath, take a look around. You're likely to find that no one is listening.
Answer: Hassan Qazwini is not a murderer. He is the top Imam in the US. He expounds on the commonality of the world's religions. (The others are, from left to right, Erik Ayala, Timothy Mcveigh, and Terry Nichols.)