Steve Emerson: The terrorists are winning

Why should they be condemned for the behavior of people they have never met, or in many cases, heard of?

Because they themselves don't seem to make much of an effort to condemn the violent actions of those who claim to be acting in the name of their fairth.

Do you know who many of the harshest and most vocal critics were of the reprehensible actions (or lack of action) on the part of many Catholic bishops during the sex-abuse scandal? Catholics -- both those who, like Rod, ended up leaving the Church, and others who stayed. Yes, there are many Catholics who didn't say anything -- in any organization there will always be a large number of people who will go along and not say anything about anything. But there were many Catholics who were ashamed, outraged, and offended by the way the bishops of their Church were acting, and who decided to say so publicly. Perhaps there should have been more, but they were definitely there and were speaking out. (Full disclosure: I'm Catholic.)

Where are the voices of Muslims who are ashamed, outraged, and offended? If there are speaking out, I'm certainly not hearing them. Perhaps the media aren't paying attention. But if even a small percentage of these "literally hundreds of millions who don't participate in terrorism at all" were to speak out against the extremists who claim to be acting in the name of their religion, I think they would be numerous enough that they couldn't be ignored.

What asinine reasoning, JPL. The Muslim terrorists define their goals in terms of their religion. Jack Abramoff didn't rip people off because he was a Jew. Tiger Woods isn't a sports star because he's biracial. The Mumbai terrorists are terrorists who kill in the name of Islam, motivated by their religion. Though I don't suppose anything will ever get you to admit what is plainly true.

"Remember, if all terrorists are Muslim, than all Muslims are terrorists."

That doesn't even rise to the level of asinine reasoning.

News shows often have one news caster ask an obvious question to set up the other news caster for an explanation. So asking why they would attack a Jewish center seems in line with that conversational style. The article doesn't mention if someone responded or if they let it drop.

Is his issue just the label used? NPR said a group called Deccan Mujahdin claimed responsibility and conjectured a likely Pakistani connection given the history of conflict. Unless you've lived under a rock for 25 years that pretty much spells things out.

No Rod, what you can't seem to get is the literal truth of your own statement. Yes, the terrorists define their goals in terms of THEIR religion. Absolutely correct. But THEIR religion looks very little like any form of Islam accepted by most Muslims. In the same manner, Reverend Phelps define his goals in terms of HIS religion, which looks very little like the Christianity most people would espouse.

Phelps isn't a CHRISTIAN bigot...he's just a bigot, who uses a twisted version of the Gospel to justify his evil. The terrorists aren't MUSLIM terrorists....they just use a twisted version of Islam to support their evil.

But since you hate and fear Islam, viewing even its most moderate form as an existential threat to your own faith, you choose to repeatedly pain them all with the same brush. For you, there seem to be only two kinds of Muslim...terrorists, and those who are partially responsible for the bad actions of the terrorists, and aren't doing enough to stop them.

As for Max, if you can't guess that my grotesquely failed syllogism was sarcasm, aimed at Rod's endless misrepresentations, more's the pity.

They are Muslim in the sense that Phelps is Christian, as was McVeigh. Meaning, in name only, sporting a twisted version of the faith designed to support their own evil acts, which would be disavowed by the vast majority of other members of that faith.

Meaning, in name only, sporting a twisted version of the faith designed to support their own evil acts, which would be disavowed by the vast majority of other members of that faith.

Except some of us have read the Koran and it seems pretty violent with repeated calls for death and so forth and unlike the Hebrew scriptures, the Koran doesn't have a NT saying ignore all that brutal stuff, peace and love man.

As an atheist, I prefer a christian society 10000000000 times more than an Islamic

I agree with most of what Joe H. and Freddie said above. Personally, I don't think the terrorists are winning, but they aren't going away anytime soon.

Did anyone hear about the intelligence report (Karl Rove was talking about it on the Today Show the other day) that said there is a high probability that there will be a biological or nuclear terrorist attack on American soil by 2013.

It doesn't much matter whether we are winning the battle of ideas if radical Islamic terrorists are able to kill hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans. I feel sorry for President Obama, since this attack (which could happen at any time, on anyone's watch) is likely to happen on his.

Yes, Aaron, some of us HAVE read the Koran, and agree with you that it's full of violence and calls to violence. Unfortunately for your argument, some of us have ALSO read that Bible, particularly the Old Testament, which is equally full of violence, calls for violence, murder, retribution, etc.

Fortunately, if one continues on to the New Testament, you find much more emphasis on love, peace, non-violence, forgiveness, etc. Nonetheless, even there, dire and terrible punishments are promised to sinners who don't repent and "join the flock."

Likewise, the Koran also has many verses about love, forgiveness, peace, and avoiding the incitement of violence. As to the Hadith.

The simple truth, for Christians, Muslims, and Jews, is what part of your holy book will you emphasize, and what part will you de-emphasize? What part will you decide belonged to cultural convention of the distant past, and what part is universal and eternal truth? What part reveals God's will, and what parts simply reveal the perceptions and opinions of ancient tribalism, whether Hebrew, Greek, or Arab?

Contrary to Rod's constant harping, I (and most others) fully acknowledge that terrorism is a significant problem in the Islamic world, and that an evil interpretation of that faith has become far more widespread than it should be. It is certainly more widespread than similar interpretations of Christianity and Judaism.

The reasons for this are a complex mix of theology, poverty, cultural hegemony and shame, education, etc. But the solution isn't the continued demonization of Islam, which simply alienates the many, many supporters of the faith who would AGREE with our position. It is emphasizing that the terrorists are NOT Muslims, that it is THEY who are the heretics, and hence they should be resisted by true Muslims around the world.

Rod's fearmongering simply makes the problem worse, and his blog hit counts better. He's not part of the solution...only part of the problem.

Islam does not adhere to eighth century ideas; Islam is eighth century ideas.

The inability to understand that,the inability to understand that Islam cannot modernize or humanize itself and remain Islam is at the root of our enlightened elites to oppose this essentially violent religion unconditionally