It's not the moderate Muslims one should be concerned about, is it ?

Submitted by Silicondoc (United States), Jan 15, 2008 at 20:16

You make a point, the point that moderates won't have a problem with Obama's part. Good enough, but that never was the point, was it.

Nor should it be. If the democratic claim is Obama can make a sea change and connect with the Muslim world, and soothe the frayed nerves and feelings, then attendence to the notion that his past may be a very large spike in that propostion, espeically concerning those radical elements we are war with, and their powers of recruiting more to their cause, then it is very important indeed.

Why merely say we shoudln't worry about moderate Islam ? That's a plain and already understood given. I wonder what the radicals in Pakistan will do if he is elected, since he already once publicly claimed he would invade and kill them. As an apostate, a traitor to Islam, those set to die might be a more upset, and it is easy to see that they may indeed claim it is an unfair attack because of his past and his "conversion" to Christianity, and use that quite effectively to rally many more would be otherwise moderates to their cause.

I guess I can't really say even the moderates would be free from persuasion, given the situation I outlined above.

How many times have we heard Bush is waging an Armageddon for his judeo-christian Bible belief system, and armagedddon that is wholly unjust and unfair ? I'd say it numbers easily in the thousands, and is a commonly used theme on the democratic side.

So Obama has the added disability, that he may in fact be percieved as not only a judeo-christian Bible believeeron a world ending armageddon mission, but one who has rejected the MUslim faith personally, and now has some "NEED" to crush it relentlessly and purge it from the world. I'l tell you, I can certainly see the cast majority of democrats splaying that idea forh with pretend or real full throttled "belief" if they were talking about a republican, or God forbid, the "dreaded neocon" or "pnac cabal" - including such nicknamed nemesis' as Richard Pearle - "The Prince of Darkness: - and also assigned prior apparently to Bob Novak.

How is it that when we have our "open minded" and "always well meaning" and "reasonable and nuanced" DEMOCRATS of the USA no less, labelling their political opponents as devils or even commonly the anti-christ - and screeding they are on a world ending Biblical and religious war mission, that we can even have a half-baked idea that the "unfairly opressed" masses of the Middle East, with a litle prodding fro the radical elements won't indeed do the same ? Didn't Chavez say he smelled sulphur on the podium fro Bush being there a day or days before ? lol

Maybe the idea that moderates won't do anything is not such a great idea right now, since the Democrats of the USA, supposedly moderates of clear and open minds, already have their devil labels applied to many republicans (they call neocons - and claim they aren't republicans) as widespread and common knowledge among the US masses. Huh. I wonder how many that were "offended" by Mr. Pipes article fall under that category - I'd say probably 99%.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".