Stay classy, Jane:

Colorado Senate hopeful Jane Norton (R) has given her campaign website a facelift. And as part of that facelift she's hitting Barack Obama for...not going to war against Islam.

The site.. features a still frame from a new ad, attacking Obama and Washington liberals for abandoning the War on Terrorism.

The ad includes a May 26, 2010 Reuters headline saying "Obama doctrine to make clear no war on Islam."

This is supposed to be a bad thing.

As ColoradoPols put it, it's utterly tasteless:

We got to thinking about it, and it occurred to us that a "war on Islam" would actually be a very bad thing. Somewhere between leading off with that particular headline and the violent interruption of Norton's "never forget" boilerplate by the screeching of jet engines, we begin to realize that a terribly low road has been taken here.

Gee, ya think?

DOWNLOADS: (1191)

PLAYS: (1276)

Embed

Bill O'Reilly's been on a tear lately in pushing the notion that Islam itself is the Enemy of America. Last night -- while sneering that "the media" gave Muslims a break by not blaming Islam for the failed Times Square bombing attempt -- he declared that there are "millions of jihadists" out there

"Millions of them!" he shouted.

Well, no doubt there are large numbers of radical Islamic jihadists -- and more every time O'Reilly opens his mouth on the subject. But millions? I don't know of any expert on the subject who would put the numbers that high.

This continues a recent theme for O'Reilly of demonizing Islam generally. The night before, he had this segment with Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes:

DOWNLOADS: (927)

PLAYS: (1283)

Embed

O'Reilly: Why is it important? The goal of the United States should be to protect its citizens, No. 1, and to defeat the enemy, No. 2. Why is it important to pinpoint that it's Islam? Why is that?

Crowley: Because when you have this inability to call the enemy what it is, then there's no hope of defeating that enemy.

O'Reilly added that "I wanna name Islam", but wasn't sure it would do any good.

Alan Colmes brought some sanity to the discussion by pointing out that Islamic fundamentalist radicals are no more representative of Islam than the Hutaree Christian Militia are representative of Christianity.

Of course, this blew the minds of O'Reilly and Crowley, who promptly short-circuited and dismissed Colmes as "babbling".

What O'Reilly and Crowley can't seem to understand is that it's not only a crude, bigoted smear to declare "Islam" the Enemy, it flies in the face of our many Islamic allies who play critical roles in the "war on terror" (e.g., Turkey and Pakistan).

Oddly enough, a visibly angry Crowley wraps up by explaining: "We're not in a war against a religion, but we are in a war against terrorists who are acting in the name of Islam."

Um, yeah. And that would differ from what Obama has said exactly how?

We are at war. We are at war against al Qaeda, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, and that is plotting to strike us again. And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them.

And we've made progress. Al Qaeda's leadership is hunkered down. We have worked closely with partners, including Yemen, to inflict major blows against al Qaeda leaders. And we have disrupted plots at home and abroad, and saved American lives.

And we know that the vast majority of Muslims reject al Qaeda. But it is clear that al Qaeda increasingly seeks to recruit individuals without known terrorist affiliations not just in the Middle East, but in Africa and other places, to do their bidding. That's why I've directed my national security team to develop a strategy that addresses the unique challenges posed by lone recruits. And that's why we must communicate clearly to Muslims around the world that al Qaeda offers nothing except a bankrupt vision of misery and death –- including the murder of fellow Muslims –- while the United States stands with those who seek justice and progress.

Forgive me for going Godwin-esque from the get-go, but in reading this article, I couldn't help but think of Europe in the 1920's, with the word "Muslim" replacing "Juden":

Switzerland approved Sunday a ban on new minarets from being built, with the referendum initiated by far-right politicians picking up strong support.

To the dismay of the Muslim minority here, some 57.5 percent of voters who cast ballots and 22 out of 26 cantons voted to ban the towers or turrets attached on mosques from where Muslims are called to prayer.

Far-right politicians across Europe celebrated the results, while the Swiss government sought to assure the Muslim minority that a ban on minarets was "not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture."[..]

They said that the minarets -- of which Switzerland has just four -- were not architectural features with religious characteristics, but symbolised a "political-religious claim to power, which challenges fundamental rights."

Having won a double majority on turnout of 53 percent, the initiative will now be inscribed in the country's constitution.

"The Federal Council (government) respects this decision. Consequently the construction of new minarets in Switzerland is no longer permitted," said the government, which had firmly opposed the ban, in a statement.[..]

Switzerland has had an uneasy relationship with its Muslim population, which makes up some five percent of its population of 7.5 million people. Islam is the second largest religion here after Christianity.[..]

"The most painful for us is not the minaret ban, but the symbol sent by this vote. Muslims do not feel accepted as a religious community," said Farhad Afshar, who heads the Coordination of Islamic Organisations in Switzerland.

The Conference of Swiss Bishops also criticised the result, saying that it "heightens the problems of cohabitation between religions and cultures."

It's a little disconcerting to me that memories in Europe could be so short as to forget another generation--not that long ago--when this kind of of fear-based bigotry became institutionalized. And sadly, with the success of this Swiss ban, conservatives in the Netherlands are considering a similar ban.

David Neiwert has written about this institutionalized fear of the other, and if I may be so lazy as to co-opt his (and Orcinus blogging partner Sara Robinson's) breakdown of the construct to make some group the feared "Other". Read and see how familiar this sounds:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1297)

PLAYS: (2339)

Embed

The meme had been brewing for a few days among some of the Fox News guests -- particularly Michelle Malkin -- brought on to talk about the Fort Hood shootings, but it was Bill Sammon, during the broadcast of the memorial for the slain soldiers, who apparently made it official at Fox: The Fort Hood shootings were a terrorist attack -- comparable to 9/11 and Oklahoma City -- by a radical Islamist engaged in Muslim "jihad."

Now, it's not only the conventional wisdom at Fox News, it's one of their major attack points -- they're claiming that because President Obama and the rest of the media aren't adopting their presumptuous and hysterical meme, they're being "soft" on terrorism.

The meme gained momentum when Glenn picked up Sammon's ball and ran with it the next day, declaring: "If you don't call [Hasan] a terrorist, it clears a path for ... an extremist terrorist plan." That night, Sean Hannity explored the question at length with Michelle Malkin, as you can see from the video atop this post.

For Malkin and Hannity, "political correctness" -- which they blame for the military's failure to stop Hasan -- is actually code for "the refusal to engage in ethnic and religious profiling". Because such profiling, it's clear, is what they think the military (and the government generally) should do to prevent future such shootings.

The worst offender, though, has been Bill O'Reilly, who -- as you can see below -- not only harangued Sally Quinn for her reluctance to declare Nidal Hasan a "terrorist," but then devoted his leadoff Talking Points Memo segment last night to chastising the president and the rest of the media for their reluctance to embrace the meme.

DOWNLOADS: (530)

PLAYS: (1487)

Embed

This exchange with Quinn was especially revealing:

O'Reilly: But you have a hard time saying the words "Muslim terrorist," and so does Obama. He has a hard time saying it. I don't know why you guys aren't saying it. You know, why, why?

Quinn: Well, I think, first of all, there are different kinds of terrorists. As I said, Timothy McVeigh --

O'Reilly: He's a Muslim terrorist! What do you mean, different kinds of terrorist? He killed people under the banner of jihad! That's who he is! What do you -- look, what do you want, him to come to your house with a strap-on bomb? The guy did it for jihadist reasons! "Allah Akbar!" That's the slogan! He mails Al Qaeda! Miss Quinn, you're a brilliant woman, and I'm not saying that facetiously. You are. A third-grader gets this, and you're resisting it! I wanna know why!

Quinn: Bill, you're making a very good case. I mean, he's Muslim, and he may well end up being a terrorist. We don't know for sure --

O'Reilly: I know for sure! Ninety percent of the people watching me know for sure! I don't know why you don't know for sure! What else do you need?

Quinn: I mean, you can call the guy who blew up -- you know, who shot up the Holocaust Museum a terrorist --

O'Reilly: Did he yell "Allah Akbar?" If he yelled "Allah Akbar," and he e-mailed Al Qaeda in Yemen, I'd call him that, Miss Quinn!

Quinn: OK, he's a Muslim terrorist.

O'Reilly: Thank you.

O'Reilly seems to have a peculiar idea of what constitutes "terrorism." His definition of the word seems to be "any act of violence by devout Muslims", or something along those lines.

That, of course, is quite a distance from the the legal definition of terrorism (from U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)):

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

This term, in fact, perfectly describes Holocaust Museum shooter James Von Brunn, who was, beyond any serious doubt, a classic right-wing "lone wolf" terrorist.

It is in fact still not clear, however, whether the description fits Nidal Hasan's motives in shooting 13 people to death. It is true that all kinds of evidence is emerging showing that Hasan was increasingly becoming politically radicalized.

What that evidence doesn't establish, though, is that he engaged in this horrendous act on behalf of those radical beliefs, or whether those beliefs simply formed part of the context in which he acted. There certainly haven't been any organizational ties established. We probably won't have any idea until Hasan himself starts talking, or at least his attorneys begin preparing his defense.

It's important to remember what mass-murder profiler Pat Brown told Fox's Brian Kilmeade:

Continue reading »

Associated Press:

Omar Osama bin Laden bears a striking resemblance to his notorious father — except for the dreadlocks that dangle halfway down his back. Then there's the black leather biker jacket.

The 26-year-old does not renounce his father, al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, but in an interview with The Associated Press, he said there is better way to defend Islam than militancy: Omar wants to be an "ambassador for peace" between Muslims and the West.

"It's about changing the ideas of the Western mind. A lot of people think Arabs — especially the bin Ladens, especially the sons of Osama — are all terrorists. This is not the truth," Omar told the AP last week at a cafe in a Cairo shopping mall. Read on...

(Nicole:) One of the things that has always annoyed me about the current demonization of Muslims by many in the press and GOP as silently complicit with the "Islamofascists" (a word that makes no sense) is that they are not silent. But rarely does the press give air time to someone who believes in peace.

Thanks to all for the positive response to my first-ever round-up here on Crooks and Liars yesterday! Not one person sent me an email calling me a "m**************r" without appending a "j/k" to it! Once again your humble blog round-up narrator is me, Alex that is, from Martini Revolution. Sunday is typically a slow day in the blogosphere, but I think we have enough material to keep the round-up going. If you have prospective material for tomorrow's round-up, I can be reached at alexde AT gmail DOT com.

The Washington Post ran an article about melancholy Bushinistas leaving the White House. Are the departed walking automatons of felony? Or simply trying to avoid depression? Meanwhile, a conservative blogger can't see how this is any different from departures during the Clinton administration, so I provide a couple of hints.

Rob deconstructs Hitchens most recent attempt at reclaiming humanity, along with Hitch's Orwell fetish. While initially sympathetic, he finds a predictable self-serving slant and lack of honesty in Hitch's endeavor. Rob writes great stuff, check this out.

It seems Barrack Obama didn't wear a flag lapel pin the other day, leading at least one blogger to post a gallery of scumbag faux-patriots sporting the required enamel flag in lieu of possession of any personal integrity. Of course, none of them were falsely accused of attending a radical madrasah and being indoctrinated into radical Islam -- just convicted of toe-tapping his way into a vice squad bathroom bust.

Meanwhile, strangely familiar parallels emerge in Iraq between the construction of our new embassy and the rest of the TARFU-afflicted neocon misadventure over there. Despite recent proclamations of victory from wingnuttia, people continue to die in numerous incidents daily over there.

If you're anemic and in need of your daily dose of irony, Mike took a couple minutes off from playing music to email a link to this gem about Larry Craig's "super tuber" from wonkette. Although this looks like something Sara Silverman might have made up, it seems to be real.

BONUS! Good lord: an atheist rapper.

For a variety of conservatives, most notably Rudy Giuliani and Joe Lieberman, supporting aggressive counter-terrorism measures isn’t enough. Credibility on national security is based largely on whether someone is willing to use the words “Islamic” and “terrorism” next to each other.

According to former CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid, Giuliani & Co. are wrong. Indeed, during a discussion yesterday on the role of the military in counterterrorism, the general told at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that Giuliani’s preferred rhetoric makes diplomacy in the Middle East “very, very difficult.”

“[E]ven adding the word ‘Islamic extremism,’ or qualifying it to ‘Sunni Islamic extremism,’ or qualifying it further to ‘Sunni Islamic extremism’ as exemplified by government such as Bin Laden, all make it very, very difficult because the battle of words is meaningful, especially in the Middle East to people. And so, I do think, and I had a chance to get to know many of the regional leaders out there. They clearly understand that we, collectively, are fighting a problem that they don’t want to win, that we don’t want to win. The problem that we have to face is how do we work together to keep this problem from becoming mainstream.

To hear Giuliani tell it, those who don’t connect Islam with terrorism are “politically incorrect” and unwilling to acknowledge the seriousness of the terrorist threat.

Go ahead, Rudy, tell us Gen. Abizaid doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I dare you.

CNN's Christiane Amanpour has produced a new series of documentaries titled "God's Warriors" which "examines the intersection between religion and politics and the effects of Christianity, Islam and Judaism on politics, culture and public life." In this preview, Amanpour talks with the late Rev. Jerry Falwell shortly before his passing, about his fight against abortion and confronts him on his disgusting claim that 9/11 was caused by America's tolerance of homosexuals. It also looks at other christian zealots who have bombed abortion clinics and murder doctors who perform them in the name of religion.

Download | play Download | play (thanks to Scarce for the video)

Christiane will be taking questions regarding the series, you can submit your questions and find out more here. The documentaries are set to air beginning Tuesday, August 21 through Thursday, August 23, at 9 p.m. ET.