ISIS Has “More In Common With Mao’s Red Guards or the Khmer Rouge Than It Does With the Muslim Empires of Antiquity”

Top Muslim Leaders Worldwide Say ISIS Is Not Really Islamic

ABC News’ Laura Ingraham, Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Fox & Friends and other U.S. media commentators say that Muslims are silent and complicit in the barbarian crimes of ISIS. Fox News host Andrea Tantaros said that all Muslims are the same as ISIS, and implied that all Muslims should be met “with a bullet to the head”.

Why don’t we hear Muslims condemning the barbarian ISIS terrorists?

Turns out they are loudly condemning ISIS … but our press isn’t covering it.

Father Elias Mallon of the Catholic Near East Welfare Association explains:

“Why aren’t Muslims speaking out against these atrocities?” The answer is: Muslims have been speaking out in the strongest terms, condemning the crimes against humanity committed by ISIS (or, as it is increasingly called, IS) and others in the name of Islam.

Father Mallon is right …

Vatican Radio – an official Vatican news site – reports:

Two of the leading voices in the Muslim world denounced the persecution of Christians in Iraq, at the hands of extremists proclaiming a caliphate under the name Islamic State.

The most explicit condemnation came from Iyad Ameen Madani, the Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the group representing 57 countries, and 1.4 billion Muslims.

In a statement, he officially denounced the “forced deportation under the threat of execution” of Christians, calling it a “crime that cannot be tolerated.” The Secretary General also distanced Islam from the actions of the militant group known as ISIS, saying they “have nothing to do with Islam and its principles that call for justice, kindness, fairness, freedom of faith and coexistence.”

Meanwhile, Turkey’s top cleric, the spiritual successor to the caliphate under the Ottoman Empire, also touched on the topic during a peace conference of Islamic scholars.

In a not-so-veiled swipe at ISIS, Mehmet Gormez declared that “an entity that lacks legal justification has no authority to declare war against a political gathering, any country or community.” He went on to say that Muslims should not be hostile towards “people with different views, values and beliefs, and regard them as enemies.”

***

Gormez said death threats against non-Muslims made by the group, formerly known as Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), were hugely damaging. “The statement made against Christians is truly awful. Islamic scholars need to focus on this (because) an inability to peacefully sustain other faiths and cultures heralds the collapse of a civilization,” he told Reuters in an interview.

120 top Muslim scholars – including top religious leaders from Nigeria, Bosnia and Egypt –  have written a letter condemning ISIS as unIslamic.

The Independent notes:

Muslim leaders in Britain have condemned the extremist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis), expressing their “grave concern” at continued violence in its name.

Representatives from both the Sunni and Shia groups in the UK met at the Palace of Westminster and relayed their message that the militant group does not represent the majority of Muslims.

***

Shuja Shafi, of the Muslim Council of Great Britain, said: “Violence has no place in religion, violence has no religion.

100 Sunni and Shiite religious leaders from the U.K. produced a video denouncing the Islamic State, saying they wanted to “come together to emphasise the importance of unity in the UK and to decree ISIS as an illegitimate, vicious group who do not represent Islam in any way.”

Breitbart notes:

Two prominent Muslim leaders are urging Muslim men not to join the radical jihadists.

“The public have to be critical. This is not about [establishing] a Caliphate [Islamic State]; but [a group] working for its own cause and gains from a sectarian issue,” said Nahdlatul Ulama executive council chair, Slamet Effendy Yusuf.

The Nahdlatul Ulama is one of the largest Islamic organizations in the world and concentrates on traditional Islam.

***

Muhammadiyah, an organization with 29 million members, is more modern, well-known for educational activities, and avoids politics. Secretary Abdul Mu’ti said ISIS does not represent Islam.

“That’s my point, this [movement] is not in the context of religion [Islam],” Abdul said. “We all need to question the group’s goals. Don’t just follow radicals who tried to win their own wars in other countries; we will be the ones to suffer losses.”

***

These men are not the first Muslim leaders to denounce the Islamic State. The International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS) spoke out against IS’s expulsion of Christians in Mosul. The group claimed the rejection served to “violate Islamic laws, Islamic conscience and leave but a negative image of Islam and Muslims.”

Al Arabiya News reports that the Arab League Chief denounced acts committed by the Islamic State in Iraq as “crimes against humanity,” demanding that they be brought to justice, and he:

Strongly denounced the crimes, killings, dispossession carried out by the terrorist (ISIS) against civilians and minorities in Iraq that have affected Christians in Mosul and Yazidis.

The Daily Star writes that Egypt’s highest religious authority – Al-Azhar’s Grand Mufti Shawqi Allam – denounced the Islamic State as a threat to Islam and said that the group violates Islamic law:

[They] give an opportunity for those who seek to harm us, to destroy us and interfere in our affairs with the [pretext of a] call to fight terrorism.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) – the largest Muslim group in the U.S. – called ISIS un-Islamic and morally repugnant,” notes that the Islamic State’s “human rights abuses on the ground are well-documented,” called the Islamic State “both un-Islamic and morally repugnant” and called the killing of American journalist James Foley “gruesome and barbaric”. See this, this and this.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) – the largest Muslim organization on the continent – released a statement denouncing the Islamic State “for its attacks on Iraq’s religious minorities and the destruction of their places of worship.” ISNA President Imam Mohamed Magid said, “ISIS actions against religious minorities in Iraq violate the Quranic teaching, ‘Let there be no compulsion in religion’ … ” adding, “Their actions are to be denounced and are in no way representative of what Islam actually teaches.” INSA condemned the vicious execution of Foley at the hands of the terrorist group ISIS, terming it as “un-Islamic behaviour”, and said:

ISIS actions have never been representative nor in accordance to the mainstream teachings of Islam. This act of murder cannot be justified according to the faith practiced by over 1.6 billion people.

The head Shia religious leader in Iraq and Sunni religious leaders in Iraq have all condemned – and called for war against – ISIS.

Al Jazeera reports:

Saudi Arabia’s highest religious authority has condemned the armed groups Islamic State and al-Qaeda as apostates and labelled them the “number one enemy of Islam”.

***

“Extremist and militant ideas and terrorism which spread decay on Earth, destroying human civilisation, are not in any way part of Islam, but are enemy number one of Islam, and Muslims are their first victims” ….

The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) released a statement condemning “the barbaric execution of American Journalist James Foley by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).” MPAC urged “all people of conscience to take a stand against extremism” and offered condolences to Foley’s family. MPAC also noted the importance of countering ISIS and other extremist groups by working “to empower the mainstream and relegate extremists to the irrelevance they deserve.”

ISIS and Al Qaeda Are FAKE Muslims

The Intercept points out that ISIS has “more in common with Mao’s Red Guards or the Khmer Rouge than it does with the Muslim empires of antiquity“.

The 9/11 hijackers used cocaine and drank alcohol, slept with prostitutes and attended strip clubs … but they did not worship at any mosque. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. Hardly the acts of devout Muslims.

Huffington Post reports:

Can you guess which books the wannabe jihadists Yusuf Sarwar and Mohammed Ahmed ordered online from Amazon before they set out from Birmingham to fight in Syria last May? A copy of Milestones by the Egyptian Islamist Sayyid Qutb? No. How about Messages to the World: the Statements of Osama Bin Laden? Guess again. Wait, The Anarchist Cookbook, right? Wrong.

Sarwar and Ahmed, both of whom pleaded guilty to terrorism offences last month, purchased Islam for Dummies and The Koran for Dummies. You could not ask for better evidence to bolster the argument that the 1,400-year-old Islamic faith has little to do with the modern jihadist movement. The swivel-eyed young men who take sadistic pleasure in bombings and beheadings may try to justify their violence with recourse to religious rhetoric – think the killers of Lee Rigby screaming “Allahu Akbar” at their trial; think of Islamic State beheading the photojournalist James Foley as part of its “holy war” – but religious fervour isn’t what motivates most of them.

In 2008, a classified briefing note on radicalisation, prepared by MI5’s behavioural science unit, was leaked to the Guardian. It revealed that, “far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could . . . be regarded as religious novices.” The analysts concluded that “a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation“, the newspaper said. [Here’s the Guardian report.]

For more evidence, read the books of the forensic psychiatrist and former CIA officer Marc Sageman; the political scientist Robert Pape [Pape found that foreign occupation – and not religion – made certain Arabs into terrorists; the CIA’s top Bin Laden hunter agreed]; the international relations scholar Rik Coolsaet; the Islamism expert Olivier Roy; the anthropologist Scott Atran. They have all studied the lives and backgrounds of hundreds of gun-toting, bomb-throwing jihadists and they all agree that Islam isn’t to blame for the behaviour of such men (and, yes, they usually are men).

Instead they point to other drivers of radicalisation ….

When he lived in the Philippines in the 1990s, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, described as “the principal architect” of the 11 September attacks by the 9/11 Commission, once flew a helicopter past a girlfriend’s office building with a banner saying “I love you”. His nephew Ramzi Yousef, sentenced to life in prison for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, also had a girlfriend and, like his uncle, was often spotted in Manila’s red-light district. The FBI agent who hunted Yousef said that he “hid behind a cloak of Islam”. Eyewitness accounts suggest the 9/11 hijackers were visiting bars and strip clubs in Florida and Las Vegas in the run-up to the attacks. The Spanish neighbours of Hamid Ahmidan, convicted for his role in the Madrid train bombings of 2004, remember him “zooming by on a motorcycle with his long-haired girlfriend, a Spanish woman with a taste for revealing outfits”, according to press reports.

And alleged Boston marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was a pothead. And his brother Tamerlan looked more like an ego-driven hustler than a devout Muslim (that’s his Mercedes in the background).

I agree with Bill O’Reilly when he said that it is unfair to call the Norwegian mass murderer a “Christian”. Likewise, we shouldn’t call Arab terrorists “Muslims”.

Postscript: I am not a Muslim. I am, however, American. And knee-jerk hatred of any group of people based on their religion – including Christians, Jews or Muslims, – is deeply anti-American.

And the most crazed, radical Islamic terrorists would never have gained power if the U.S. and our allies hadn’t overthrown the more moderate Arab leaders.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • M&M

    BS

    • jandr0

      Really? Which parts specifically? And where is your evidence?

      • M&M

        I guess my point is .. in all the instances it is these peoples religion (“ism’s are religious in scope) Trying to dissuade that this is an exception is a straw-man argument… good catch my oversight

  • Lana

    “the Moslem Empires of Antiquity”

    What “antiquity”?

    The Mohammed lived in the 600s A.D. I wouldn’t call that antiquity.

    And for your information, the moslems were the worst, barbaric HORDES there EVER were.

    They conquered the entire middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, north India, South Asia, on to the Philippines, and ALMOST the WHOLE of Europe, in just over 100 years.

    They didn’t do this by pussy-footing around, they hacked their way, across all points of the globe. It was a mass rape, and slaughter!

    So much so that, you couldn’t compare the Crusades with it. The Europeans efforts to take back their lost territories was just a kindergarten enterprise.

    (See Youtube: ” “Why We Are Afraid of Islam” )

    As a matter of fact, while the Western attention is on the Middle East, the islamics are advancing on the rest of India, the Philipines (a large island has just been ceded to them by the Philippine gov.) Thailand, a part of Serbia was given to the islamics: Kosovo) and they’re doing what they do best in Sweden, France and Italy: harrass, threaten, rape women and girls, and cut off heads.

    Their old habits of forced marriages AND Female Genital Mutilation, has traveled with them, ALSO, into the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the U.S.

    So, NO, the moslems are NOT poor, innocent, little angels!

    • JimboSlice

      What do the acts of people 800 to 1,000 years ago have to do with what’s going on TODAY. You say that, “They conquered the entire middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, north India, South Asia, on to the Philippines, and ALMOST the WHOLE of Europe, in just over 100 years.” So tell me, what has the US conquered in just the last 20 years? Last time I checked we were occupying more of the world than anybody else.

      Just giving some fair-thinking is all it takes. That’s all.

      • Tom Tan

        Haha oh wow. I haven’t seen such ignorance of history in a while (thank the public education system for creating such morons as the above poster!). I’m going to go over a couple of things. Not for you dimwit, because I doubt you even have the literacy to read it, but for the general readership that might happen upon your travesty of a post.

        1. Muslims were hardly the worst barbaric hordes. Before them Celts ravaged much of the Mediterranean, and several centuries later Germanic tribes devastated the breadth of the Roman Empire. Again, a few centuries after the fall of Rome, another Scandinavian nation looted, burned and raided countless cities along the settled coasts they traveled all over the known at the time, world. Then there were periodic invasions by Huns, Magyars, Turks, Mongols and Manchu. Basically whenever there was a major ethnic migration of nomadic/seminomadic tribes encountering a civilized region they wanted to settle, they displaced, exterminated or forcibly assimilated the former inhabitants, leading to great instances of mass violence. The Arab one was really just one such great migration, accompanied by much bloodshed, but hardly exceptional in its scale and scope.

        However the civilized world didn’t lag behind much in its record of brutality. The Roman Empire massacred entire populations of cities and enslaved millions more. It also conducted the largest genocide of the Jews prior to the 20th century. The Spanish Empire likewise looted and sacked Italy and the Netherlands for decades, two of the wealthiest and most cultured areas of Europe at the time, and established an incomparably vast intercontinental empire founded on the back of slave labor and ethnic genocide. The British Empire took over its reins and considerably expanded its mode of operations.

        Finally modern Germany outstripped by far just about any invading force in history in its brutality and human rights abuses. Yes my uneducated friend, Muslims were indeed heinous, but as great was their heinousness, they only marginally competed in it with the rest of the world, so your argument that they somehow stood out in their cruelty is null and void.

        2. Regarding their military expansion, again you show a staggering level of ignorance. Your claim that they invaded much of Europe is patently false. They only occupied the entirety of Spain, and even then for a relatively brief period of time (the christian Spanish kingdoms quickly re-established themselves leaving only the south of Spain in Muslim hands, and that south part happened to be far more culturally and economically advanced for many centuries). Second, centuries later, the Ottomans managed to very briefly occupy South-central Europe during their military campaigns. But the Ottoman Empire wasn’t exactly representative of all of Islam – rather it was an independent Turkish political entity pursuing the imperialist policies of its own court, whose dominance was deeply resented by its non-Turkish subjects. That would be like blaming modern Chinese for the actions of the Mongols because both at one point adopted Buddhism.

        2. Regarding the claim of how Islam conquered territory from the Atlantic to far off Philippines, again a half truth steeped in the thick gravy of ignorant BS. It implies Islam acted as a sole political, ever expanding entity throughout the centuries, which in fact, was never the case since a few generations after Muhammad’s death. Islam was a spiritual faith, a political movement, a social ideology. On occasion it was spread by the sword by certain nations wanting to impose political control over a newly conquered area, but when you look at the entirety of its history, Islam was most often willingly adopted through religious proselytism. As a case in point, when Turks and Mongols invaded Muslim lands, instead of displacing Islam with their own native religion, they instead converted to it. Islam’s appeal was simplicity, ease of legislature, a good deal of permissiveness and most importantly, lack of a priest caste which appealed both the common folk already burdened by taxes and the rulers who despised the yoke of the clerical class. There were priests of course, in the form of Muslim clerics, but there was no huge organized Church as in the case of most religions prior, and neither did Muslim clerics ever exercise vast, independent political power as a group. The Muslims offered a good deal – upon conversion you get lower taxes, simple inheritance and exchange laws, and equal legal rights for all, regardless of societal class. Also let me not forget to remind you that the reason why Christianity is present all over the world is the result of an often brutal legacy left behind by colonial occupiers. The fact that Christians all over the world, genuinely and devoutly believe in Christ speaks volumes about the spiritual appeal of Christianity as a religion, regardless of the way it was introduced. The same reasoning applies to Islam as well.

        3. Regarding the brutal and savage customs of certain Muslim populations such as genital cutting and female abuse as proof of Islam’s backwardness and “evil nature”. Honestly, does any of it have anything to do with Islam’s teachings? If so, then prove it. Or rather don’t bother, because such proof is like everything else in your hateful world view, BS. This completely ignores the existence benevolent cultural traditions (i.e. poetry, chivalry, literature, language, philosophy, music and arts) that throughout its history, Islamic culture readily adopted. In fact, the accumulated sum of Persian and Semitic knowledge and literature led to the economic and cultural boom that characterizes the Islamic Golden Age. What happened was that upon the conversion of a new tribe or a nation, Islamic clerics would often look the other way to some of the newly adopted tribe’s native customs, provided they didn’t conflict too much with the main points of the religion, such as for example worship of more than one God. That is why a student of Islamic history would be shocked to learn that in Islamic countries, music was held in high regard, visual arts and sciences flourished, and women walked openly in the street without a full head veil. In addition to that, the Quran expressly prohibits persecution of other Abrahamic religions, which is more than could be said about Christianity which always sought to exterminate any religious competition. In fact there’s an entire school in Islam which recommends tolerating some of the local customs and tradition, so long as the major tenets (i.e. tawhid) are obeyed. If anything this implies that Islam, during its main stages of expansion, tended to behave more liberally and tolerantly towards the newly converted nation’s established customs and ways, rather than utterly destroying their culture and forcing them to adopt religious customs to the letter, such as in the case of newly arrived Puritans’ and Jesuits’ policy towards Native Americans.

        So, given that rich historical legacy I just described, why did Islam turn into such a mess? Why is ISIS the spokesman of modern Islam? What went wrong? Let’s go back to the 1800’s Arabia which had just obtained its independence from the Ottomans. The Arabs believed the source of their problems was Islam’s adoption of foreign (non-Arabic) ideas and the legal flexibility and gradual evolution of Islamic law, so they went ahead and founded Wahhabism, a fanatical sect of Islamic puritanism which rejected 1200 years of Islamic philosophy, cultural heritage and legal jurisprudence and sought to return to a literalist interpretation of the Quran as it was penned during Muhammad’s times. Since nobody could clearly define what such a “literalism” approach means or should entail legally wise, disputes were unfortunately often settled by whoever was the strongest. This meant that interpretation was left up to whatever the sheiks and their tribal lackey clerics wanted Islam to be. That is to say their view was, either everything’s like we imagine it was in the good old 600’s or we’ll behead you.

        Shortly afterward the British artificially drew up borders, lumping different religious and ethnic groups in a typically British fit of whimsical arbitration, without any rhyme or reason given to the potential consequences of such a policy. Some ethnic groups were separated by borders, like in the case of Kurds and some, such as Palestinians for instance were denied political representation altogether. This led to ethnic tension which spiraled out into violence. One of these British doodles on the map had the name Saudi Arabia, and it also had the largest reserves of oil. Meanwhile the British Empire’s grip on the Middle East loosened and all those oil reserves went into the hands of aforementioned Wahhabist sheiks with a mind of their own in forcing their twisted interpretation of religion all over the (Muslim at least for now) world. And best of all, they now had tons and tons of moolah to do it with! In this way they succeeded in creating a highly effective, world wide network of religious propaganda and cult indoctrination that serves the interests of the Saudi state. Coupled with the low cultural and intellectual level of most of the Middle Eastern population as a result of severed political and ethnic identity, this helps explain the rise of fanatical fundamentalist Islam, with all its beheadings, woman beatings and terrorist blowing-ups.

        I hope that at least one reader found this text educational and informative, and helpful in changing or enhancing his or her opinion. I also hope that people would understand that the enemy of mankind is never Islam, or religion, but stupidity and ignorance. People who try to lump entire groups together in guise of their feared bogeymen, or accuse entire nations with their populations of collective complicity in some plot or conspiracy against the rest of “good mankind”, and agitating for violence and discrimination against said groups, are just as bad as any backward Islamic terrorist, or a Neo Nazi antisemite, because their reasoning stems from the same black hole of human consciousness, the source of bigoted prejudice.

        • JimboSlice

          Thank you for writing this. This clears up a lot of stuff.

          I may not have known this history in detail. But I at least have half the common sense to not believe in manufactured boogeymen. I’m Russian, so am I a communist? Some ignorant people would think so! As a matter of fact I’m the farthest from anything like that. If you happen to be German does that make you a Nazi? And if you happen to be born a Muslim, is your DNA automatically bred with hatred against the US? Are all Pit Bull dogs vicious beasts who ravage innocent kids?

          Only stupid people believe this kind of garbage.

  • I love the Al Sharpton collectivist mentality that many conservative warmongers like Ingram have developed in regards to Muslims. I though cons believed in the individual not the collective (obviously libertarians know that conservative words of believing in the individual are full of shit). Replace muslim with white or christian and you get Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakahn or hell even Richard Dawkins.

    • JimboSlice

      You’re right.

  • Rightwing media is on a JIHAD against Islam and Muslims. Ever listen to Hannity or FOX? They are dedicated to reporting about “scary muslims” 24×7, and all their idiotic listeners actually are getting brainwashed by this and they constantly talk about and are in fear of “scary muslims”.

    Just tune into any rightwing media show, particularly Hannity & FOX, and guaranteed within seconds they are talking about “scary muslims”.
    I was wondering this: can Muslim Americans SUE rightwing media for perpetrating a HATE CRIME by their constant 24×7 demonizing their religion? Can you imagine if there was a swath of the mainstream media 24×7 attacking and demonizing Jews? Or any religion or certain type of people 24×7. How can that go on in this country?

    • Bill G Wilminton NC

      The Muslims are about 1.2 billion with about 25% agreeing with radical views. Well if you take 25% of 1.2 billion that is 300 million maniac muslims. They do not adopt to the culture of the country they are in and with the Muslim marriage customs men have 3 and 4 woman along with a wife. This extended family is on welfare and having kids by the truckload. So their population is burgeoning in whatever countries they reside in…. that is not by accident but by design. Give them enough time once in your country and their plan is to outpopulate the original population.

      I believe the Prime Minister of New Zealand who is a woman has given speeches on TV telling the Muslims that the culture of NZ is over 200 years old and is not going to change for them. Also NZ is a Christian country and will remain so and if they do not like that she requested that they leave.

      Lastly it is not the Irish chopping heads off, and not the Irish killing Christians……

  • Rehmat

    ISIL or ISIS was created by US and Israel to demonize Islam and destabilize the Middle East for Israel’s benefit. The ISIS actions are no different than the actions of European Jewish terrorist militias in British mandated Palestine. These terrorist groups received their training from Nazis.

    http://rehmat1.com/2009/08/10/terrorism-theirs-and-ours/

  • cletus

    This article is total BS.

    While they’re exploring how much time the radical muslims spent in a mosque, how about exploring how much time the so called moderate muslims, numbering close to a billion, spend in mosques. How about exploring how many prostitutes the moderate muslims go out with. How about telling us of the literacy of the moderate muslims when it comes to the intricacies of the koran.

    They didn’t explore these, and for a reason. Can you guess what that reason is.
    Because they might not like what they find.

    • Peter Elliot B

      Somewhat incoherent and mostly irrelevant….

  • Fred

    The neo-cons aren’t going to like this article one bit.

  • Yep

    I really doubt that all Muslims are bad but whether you are Muslim, Christian, Jew or some other religion and you sit back knowingly letting radical groups exist you are as guilty as they are. To twist what Andrea said on the Five is typical of the way so many try to make a point. I tend to agree that several Arab states helped finance ISIL to help overthrow none Sunni regimes. Now that things have gotten out of control you want the GODLESS WEST to come kill your little home grown monster. And please stop blaming the Jews for everything. I realize Israel is aggressive but everyone knows where the money came from for ISIL and the 9/11 and that is on the Saudis head not Israels. Personally I don’t believe in war or genocide but I wouldn’ t lose to much sleep if God turned that whole region into a sheet of glass

  • BillNM

    The Secretary General said……”have nothing to do with Islam and its principles that call for justice, kindness, fairness, freedom of faith and coexistence.”
    As the common denominator in Islam is the Koran perhaps someone familiar with the Koran can find where exactly these principles are enshrined? Dubious.

  • This article is excellent refutation of the hate-filled and ahistoric garbage spewing from the neo-con hate machine 24/7. It is especially ironic that so many neo-cons are Jews, a group that was itself the victim of these tactics at the hands of the Nazis. One would think that they, of all people, would understand the danger involved in whipping up a mob of frightened and angry people who know nothing of geography and who have been lied to by the U.S. government for decades.

    Saddest of all are those manipulated folks who imagine themselves to be religious Christian patriots but who fail to understand that their fanatical hatred of another religion makes them indistinguishable from the hate-filled fanatics of Wahhabism. They really are brothers under the skin. The only differerence is their choice of targets.

  • Jim

    Why would the press cover it? The message doesn’t help to foment a war.