President Obama is always saying, of ISIS/ISIL, that “they’re not islamic,” that they’re only “perverting a great religion.”
What in the freakin’ world has happened to the press?!? Can you imagine a Republican administration trying to assert that, as if the speaker were some kind of learned islamic theologian?!?
You and I both know that the sneering questions from the Washington press corps to those very assertions from a spokesperson for a Republican President would have followed … rapid-fire:
- Who in the world are you to tell anyone what islam is and is not?
- Oh? Prove it. Tell us — chapter and verse, please — what parts of Islam these people are violating in doing what they do.
- What are your credentials for saying the murderers are not islamic?
- What are the President’s credentials for saying the murderers are not islamic?
- If the President is not an islamic theologian, then what are the credentials of the people telling you that these people are not islamic? Who are the people telling you or the President about what is Islam and what is not? Where are their sympathies? There are plenty of people saying this, but it’s plain that for many, their sympathies lie with the murderers. Are you using any of those people as sources?
- Whenever anyone perpetrates violence ostensibly in the name of Christianity, or of Judaism (<– has that ever happened in your recollection?), the very first people to leap to condemn the violence are Christians and Jews. Furthermore, by far the most vociferous condemnation of the violence comes from Christians and Jews. They always move immediately to expunge the perpetrators of violence from their midst, and from their faith. Where are the so-called moderate muslims you say are so worried about the offense to their faith?
- Why are all these so-called “moderate muslims” not leaping forward with detailed explanations as to why all these beheadings and other gruesome murders are against their faith? Where are they?
- What is the wording in Islam’s texts that expressly forbids them from what they’re doing?
- In Christianity, the Bible expressly commands the Christian to love his enemy. Everyone knows that. Can you quote me something like that in the text of the Koran that forbids a muslim from killing someone else?
- Judaism is legendary for being on the wrong end of whatever weapons a society has used through the ages. Islam is legendary for being on the business end of those weapons. Again, throughout the ages. The notorious thuggees of india murdered hundreds of thousands over a span of nearly 500 years, all in the name of Islam. Are you saying that muslims have been “perverting Islam for more than a millennium?“
- It’s been more than 1,000 years. This is more than a little ridiculous. At what point is this bloody murder spree no longer a perversion of Islam, but the actual religion itself?
I remember when George W. Bush was the President, the form of the questions to his spokespeople (like the above-mentioned Snow and Perino) was adversarial, combative and preachy… similar to my examples above. The questioner would often begin with a long introductory preamble, designed to box the spokesperson in, setting a stage, and drawing conclusions with which the respondent does not agree, then leading into a question demanding to know why the administration has done something that, in light of all the beginning of the question, was plainly wrong, evil, or at best, idiotic. Whew!
It would be something like: “We know that this that and the other thing, and we also know that blah, blah and blah are true. Furthermore, we know that blah did this and blah did that. It’s clear from all that, that blah, blah and blah. In light of all that, why does the Administration continue to follow this policy that sure seems to be a failure?(1)
Now, however, with the Obama Administration, I’ve never in my life seen a President or an Administration go so un-scrutinized, so un-tested, so un-questioned. Following, as it does, the Administration of George W. Bush, which was scrutinized at the proctocological level, it’s all a bit surreal. How could it happen? Only one way: The press are herd animals. bleating, mindless sheep, who follow the leader docilely. Their leader, the one who must be followed and protected, is Obama.
I was listening to National Public Radio on the ride home from work on Friday, when Audie “Eeyore” Cornish was interviewing some spokesdoofus for some islamic grievance group or other. You know the type: as soon as some gibbering muslim baboon perpetrates some hideous atrocity somewhere, people like this moron come out of the woodwork decrying an imaginary “backlash” against muslims or against islam itself. A backlash that never happens; that never has happened.
Well this spokesdoofus said something like this: “Only 7% of all extremist violence is done by people calling themselves muslims.” The quote is approximate; the statistic is not. The plainly brainless Eeyore just let that assertion sit there without follow-up! Can you imagine that? Holy mackerel! Only seven percent of all “extremist violence” is perpetrated by people calling themselves muslims?!? How did the spokesdoofus get there?!?
We’ll never know, because that statistic — plainly an Obama Administration-friendly statistic — just sat there, unquestioned, unchallenged, unexamined. Good ol’ NPR! You can always count on them to give you a “news” broadcast that leaves you less informed than before you heard it!
Gibbering baboons from ISIS are surely coming here, are already here, to kill you and me — without qualm or reservation. Obama is using his conclusion that they’re not real muslims as one of his many excuses for inaction. Okay. It’s kind of important, then, that Obama tell us in detail just why he thinks that the ISIS is not islamic. Then, when he can’t, at least you will know that he doesn’t consider ISIS to be a real enemy, but rather at worst an inconsequential group that he has to call an enemy for purposes of political expediency.
Some have long suspected that Obama secretly sympathizes with the islamist agenda. That number is growing. Rapidly.
(1) Or:  Assertion #1 that might or might not be true.  Assertion #2 that might or might not be true.  Assertion #3 that might or might not be true.  Consequently, conclusion #1 — resulting inevitably from the previous three assertions — that therefore might or might not be true.  Will you now admit that what the Administration has been [insert bad thing here]? The spokespeople for Republican Administrations have always faced that template for questions during press briefings.