Maybe it's all a lie? A giant cover up by the Bush adminstration? A black-ops plot to punish the people of San Francisco for electing a mayor who allowed gay people to get married? Ya think Rosie? I mean, what other explanation could there be? You told us fire couldn't melt steel!
No,I'm not talking about a traditional IQ test, I'm talking about a little "quiz" to test your recollection of statements made by members of the Senate Intelligence Committee in the run up to and immediate aftermath of the decision to go to war in Iraq.
No peeking at the answers (in the extended post below)! (Hint: If you flunk this, you're not alone. The people who spoke these words don't even remember doing so) [Hat tip to Powerline for this one]
1. September, 2002: "[Saddam] has ignored the mandates of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."2. October, 2002: "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons. And will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years."
3. March, 2003: "Bill, I support the president's efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein. I think he was right on in his speech tonight. The lessons we learned following September 11 were that we can't wait to be attacked again, particularly when it involves weapons of mass destruction. So regrettably, Saddam has not done the right thing, which is to disarm, and we're left with no alternative but to take action."
4. September, 2002: "Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the President's approaching this in the right fashion."
1. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)
2. Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV)
3. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)
4. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
If the words of Joe Lieberman today weren't enough to convince the Senate that voting for the Iraq Withdrawal Provision in Supplemental Appropriations Bill Declaration of Surrender was inadvisable at best, evidence of mental illness at worst (but more likely)...If his arguments weren't enough to WAKE THEIR ASSES UP, like a quadruple-shot Cafe Americano, then it's clear to me the Senate is occupied by (at least 51) corpses.
Because only the walking dead could be unmoved by points like this:
For most of the past four years, under Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the United States did not try to establish basic security in Iraq. Rather than deploying enough troops necessary to protect the Iraqi people, the focus of our military has been on training and equipping Iraqi forces, protecting our own forces, and conducting targeted sweeps and raids--in other words, the very same missions proposed by the proponents of the legislation before us.That strategy failed--and we know why it failed. It failed because we didn't have enough troops to ensure security, which in turn created an opening for Al Qaeda and its allies to exploit. They stepped into this security vacuum and, through horrific violence, created a climate of fear and insecurity in which political and economic progress became impossible.
For years, many members of Congress recognized this. We talked about this. We called for more troops, and a new strategy, and--for that matter--a new secretary of defense.
And yet, now, just as President Bush has come around—just as he has recognized the mistakes his administration has made, and the need to focus on basic security in Iraq, and to install a new secretary of defense and a new commander in Iraq--now his critics in Congress have changed their minds and decided that the old, failed strategy wasn't so bad after all.
What is going on here? What has changed so that the strategy that we criticized and rejected in 2006 suddenly makes sense in 2007?
Indeed. But as I've always said, irony is lost on liberals. It's like they are missing that part of their brains that allows humans to recognize it.
And yet the Senate heard Joe speak these words, and they voted 51-46 in favor of surrendering. But you know what they also ignored (or never considered)? They ignored the fact that when you "lose" a war, you "lose" TO someone. You don't go to war and "lose" to yourself. Have these Democrats drunk so much of the Kool Aid they've been pouring down our kids' throats for the past decade, the sticky goo that convinces them that competition is bad, that winners should feel guilty and losers should feel OK about themselves? I can't reconcile it any other way. Why isn't anyone else in the Senate asking Harry Reid the question: "TO WHOM have we lost this war?"
Dems talk around what it will mean to lose, usually concluding it will mean nothing more than our troops coming home, nothing less than a reason for celebration when we'll all fire up the bongs (as Alois would say), sing Kumbaya and party like it's 1979. And (they seem to be saying) if it doesn't go down that way, no harm done, it will just be one more thing to blame on George Bush! A "win-win" out of a "loss" I guess?
But they're not talking about who else will be celebrating (i.e. the WINNER of this war). And who might that be? Let's take a look at our options shall we:
1) Al Qaeda: Do the American people want to be told that in "losing" we have lost to Al Qaeda? Even with all the 9-11 "Truth" nuts trolling around, the vast majority of Americans would be likely to say "Say WHAT?" if Reid and Pelosi and the other Surrender Monkeys were to put it this way: "The war in Iraq cannot be won militarily AGAINST AL QAEDA. We have lost TO AL QAEDA"
Yeah, I'm guessing the American people wouldn't be too jazzed about our troops coming home sooner if it meant conceding defeat to that particular "winner."
2) Iran: The other power working so hard to foment civil war, the country most likely to seize power (and control over oil) in the region in the power vacuum left by our withdrawal...Are these guys the "winners" too? How would the American people feel about that? How would that sound? "The war in Iraq cannot be won militarily AGAINST IRAN, the same group of people who held our Embassy personnel for over a year have just defeated the best we have to offer. We got our hostages back, now they get a whole country. Even trade I guess..."
Yeah, I'm guessing the American people wouldn't be too pleased with that notion either!
I mean, no one seriously thinks we're fighting against the Iraqis do they? And even if they did, what would THAT say about our military prowess? A nation whose Dictator we unseated in a matter of days, whose military was physically decimated and dismantled by us in roughly the same amount of time, has "defeated" us? Huh? How does that work exactly?
How is it possible that Joe Lieberman is the only Senator--and a Democrat at that--who "gets" that when there's a loser, there's a WINNER? Or, if he's not the only one, what does that say about the "leadership" we have right now?
Next time you hear Harry Reid trying to invoke YOUR name to justify his "leadership" decisions, his defeatist rhetoric, remember what he's saying you want. Remember that--between the lines--he's saying that YOU, "the American people" WANT to lose to Al Qaeda, or Iran, or even the Iraqi's themselves. Then ask yourself, "Is he right?"
If he is, then Lord help us, we--no YOU, because that's not what I want--deserve every awful thing that happens to us as a result of this vote. If he's not, then why are you just sitting there reading this crap? DO SOMETHING! Write to your Senator, call him (or her), bang down the door and make sure they know that YOU are not a loser, especially not to the likes of those particular "winners!"
Drink YOUR cup 'o Joe and maybe there's hope for us all.
I just read this article in the WSJ (pasted in the extended version of this entry) and it made me realize that it was time for a good ol' fashioned naming contest! Celebs, Zoos, Aquariums and others have them all the time, why not countries?
Who coined the term "Cold War" anyway? I mean, it was pretty darn "hot" someplace everyday, millions of people died in this so called "cold" conflict, but the name stuck like glue for over 40 years, and the war itself defined a generation.
As the article points out, this "whatchamacallit" we're in the middle of now, with an enemy we dare not concisely (never mind accurately) name will certainly define the lives of these two little girls:
And your kids, and their friends and if we don't wake up soon, possibly even THEIR kids too.
But what should we call this war? We need something catchy, something that will not only stand the test of time, but capture the imagination of Hollywood enough that they start actually making movies with the REAL bad guys as the bad guys (so they can stop digging up the last war's bad guys and reusing them, it's just not scary enough anymore).
We need a name that will--first and foremost--grab the liberal nutroots by the throat and make them realize it *is* a war in the first place, not some little "insurgency" to rid some noble culture of the evil USA's influence. We need a name that will forever cast them as EQUALS in this fight, so those who insist on burying their heads in the sand can stop pretending they are victims and we are oppressors.
Hey, maybe that's the problem! Maybe those of us who do realize it's a war need to let go a little, maybe we need to take our own pride down a notch. Maybe it is not that liberals hate their own too much, but that we hold ourselves up too high, paint ourselves as too big, too invulnerable, too great, and unintentionally make the nutroot's case for him! Those poor put-upon Islamists, what choice have they BUT to lash out and attempt to take the human race back seven centuries in time? It's all clear to me now...
OK, so you go first, NAME THAT WAR! A war by any other name would still smell like charred flesh and plastic explosives, but it would be harder to WIN.
Better make it good. My little girls are counting on you!
Name That 'War'
By MAX BOOT
April 25, 2007; Page A15
Admiral William Fallon has just made his first major move as Central Command chief. He's begun his tenure by ostentatiously banning the term "Long War" that was coined by his predecessor, Gen. John Abizaid. Yet, so far at least, he has not offered up any superior alternative to describe the "whatchamacallit" that we're in the middle of.
The change of nomenclature was first reported by the Tampa Tribune, Centcom's hometown newspaper, which quoted an email from a spokesman, Lt. Col. Matthew McLaughlin, who wrote that the old vernacular gave the impression that the U.S. was planning to keep forces in the Middle East for a long time. This is at odds with Adm. Fallon's determination to make progress fast in Iraq and presumably to start withdrawing ASAP. Any suggestion that the U.S. is in for the long haul has also been deemed offensive to Muslim sensibilities. "One of our goals is to lessen our presence over time, [and] we didn't feel that the term 'Long War' captured this nuance," Lt. Col. McLaughlin explained.
Trying to achieve results as fast as possible in Iraq is all well and good -- at least in theory. In practice, however, the "results now" mindset has led the Defense Department and Centcom in the past to slight some time-consuming steps, such as conducting a census of Iraqis or enlarging the U.S. Army, that would have borne major dividends by now, because no one thought that we would still be in Iraq in 2007.
The reality, as we're learning, is that there is no such thing as a quick counterinsurgency. The average full-blown insurgency takes 10 years to defeat; many last decades. (FARC has been battling the Colombian government since the mid-1960s.) It would, of course, be possible to end American involvement in the Iraq War in a few months' time -- but only at the cost of defeat. And American withdrawal wouldn't end the fighting; it would probably expand it.
It's hard to see why dropping the "long war" label would speed up the agonizing, time-consuming process of pacifying Iraq. In fact, the more we speak of our desire to leave, the less likelihood there is that we can do so, because it causes friends and enemies alike to doubt our resolve. This is something that senior administration officials and senior generals have a hard time understanding. For years they've been talking about plans to start withdrawing troops. Even though those plans are always shelved, their very public existence does serious damage to American credibility.
Talk about drawing down the U.S. presence in the entire region is just as counterproductive as talking about exit strategies from Iraq. Just because the leaders of al Qaeda and the Islamic Republic of Iran call for our withdrawal doesn't mean that we will reduce tensions by taking their advice. The gains from any such move would be ephemeral, as we learned after we pulled troops out of Saudi Arabia following the liberation of Iraq. Note that this didn't lead to any fall-off in al Qaeda attacks; Islamist propagandists simply found new excuses for their reign of terror. The only result of a general drawdown of U.S. forces in the region would be to cause our friends to seek accommodation with our enemies.
If we're serious about prevailing against Islamist extremists, of both Sunni and Shia cast, we'll be in for a long, difficult fight -- and it's better to speak frankly of that unpleasant reality, if only to prepare our own populace for the setbacks and sacrifices that lie ahead. Yet it's hard to find the right words if you don't even know what to call the post-9/11 period.
The administration started off labeling this the Global War on Terror, even though we had no intention of fighting the IRA, ETA, Tamil Tigers or lots of other terrorists. A more accurate appellation would have been something along the lines of "the War on International Islamist Terror Networks," but that was deemed politically incorrect. Some conservatives, such as Eliot Cohen and Norman Podhoretz, lobbied for "World War IV," on the theory that the Cold War was World War III, but that hasn't caught on.
While unpopular on the right for being too mealy-mouthed, "GWOT" became even more unpopular on the left, where the prevailing dogma is to argue that we shouldn't be at war, at least outside of Afghanistan. The Democratic-controlled House Armed Services Committee even banned the use of "war" to describe whatever it is we're doing against al Qaeda and its ilk. It's not clear what term the Democrats would prefer, but they obviously want to view this as police work or an intelligence operation. In other words, the pre-9/11 mindset.
Donald Rumsfeld, the left's favorite villain, was actually in agreement with the Democrats on this point, largely for parochial bureaucratic reasons. He didn't like calling it a war because this implied that the primary role would be taken by the Department of Defense. Mr. Rumsfeld wanted State, Justice, the CIA and other agencies to step forward. So he tried to call it the "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism," a clunky name with an even clunkier acronym (GSAVE, pronounced "gee save") that was promptly and mercifully deep-sixed by the president.
That seemed to leave Mr. Abizaid's coinage "the Long War," redolent of the "Cold War," as the official term. It was presumably more descriptive than "GWOT" and less offensive to (certain) Muslims than, say, the "War on Islamofascism." But that decision has now been thrown into doubt, because Adm. Fallon apparently has concluded that even "Long War" is too inflammatory.
Perhaps Centcom can sponsor a contest to "name this war." Oops. Sorry. Can't call it that. Maybe "name this thingamajig"?
Mr. Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is author of "War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History, 1500 to Today" (Gotham Books, 2006).
As I sit her today thinking about the British sailors and marines held hostage in Iran,I find myself blaming not just their Revolutionary Guard captors, but their accomplices in the West--their NON-Islamic accomplices, the appeasniks and conspiracy theorists. From Rosie O'Donnel and Charlie Sheen, to Nancy Pelosi (our self-appointed new Secretary of State apparently), Dick Durbin and John Kerry, and even our own President (coiner of the delusional term "Religion of Peace" and misnomer "War on terror"), we are surrounded by messages of appeasement, messages that give aid and comfort and (most importantly) LEGITIMACY to the most brutal and totalitarian ideology since Nazism. Some (I) would argue that Islamism is MORE brutal and MORE totalitarian in its aims than Nazism was or ever even hoped to be. It touches every continent on the globe save Antarctica, its adherents (by best guesstimates) probably number in the tens of millions, and unlike Nazism, it is not motivated by secular "negotiable" objectives or incentives, but by religious devotion which is inherently IRRATIONAL.
This makes it nearly impossible to combat Islamism with "diplomacy" or even threats of economic reprisals. How do you "negotiate" with those who answer not to a worldly leader, but rather to God above and no other? How do you entice those who believe there is nothing in *this* life to lose by remaining steadfast and devoted to their "cause?"
These 'progressives' frequently cite the need to examine "root causes." In this they are correct: Terrorism is only the manifestation of a disease and not the disease itself. But the root-causes are quite different from what they think. As a former member of Jemaah Islamiya, a group led by al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, I know firsthand that the inhumane teaching in Islamist ideology can transform a young, benevolent mind into that of a terrorist. Without confronting the ideological roots of radical Islam it will be impossible to combat it. While there are many ideological "rootlets" of Islamism, the main tap root has a name--Salafism, or Salafi Islam, a violent, ultra-conservative version of the religion.
So-called "progressives" prefer instead to live in a fantasy world of cultural and moral relativism in which everyone is "just like me," or, as Rosie says, "they're mothers and fathers too" as if parenthood is a deterrent to hatred and violence. A nanosecond spent contemplating the sum of all human history would be enough to debunk that myth (heck, just turn on the nightly news to hear about some atrocity perpetrated on a child by its own parents), but people like Rosie and Charlie and even our most powerful leaders in government don't stop and THINK, at least not about what is true, not about what is simply obvious, so obvious in fact it must take herculean EFFORT to ignore it as they do.
Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals--who unceasingly claim to support human rights--have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah's inhumanity. They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western "progressives" pave the way for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.
That is The Trouble with Islam. Our "liberal" elites in the West would prefer to either blame their own country, their own culture and their own belief systems. Some (I think) do it because it's easy and safe, it keeps them feeling "in control" of the situation. After all, how can they--non-Muslims--change the Muslim faith, or any version thereof? Others (again, in my opinion) find it expedient to blame everyone other than the Islamists. They gain "street cred" as thoughtful progressives, tolerant to the point of self-destruction perhaps, but less likely to be accused of being "racist" or worse...CONSERVATIVE! (Oh no, not THAT!) In short, it's the easiest way to ensure that the little "clique" of "We're better PEOPLE than you are" will accept you. Simply find no inherent flaws in Islam, blame not the religion itself, or (Godforbid) it's adherants, and somehow you are "cool," you are kind, nice, giving, understanding, loving, etc...And anyone who disagrees, well, THEY are the worst of the worst.
So I wonder what they'd say to Dr. Hamid? Would they dare to accuse him (as my Dad supposes) of being "inauthentic?" I mean, after all, black leaders accuse people from Thomas Sowell to Condi Rice of being "house niggas" simply because they don't subscribe to the same race-baiting blame whitey M.O. that people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do (gee, I wonder if they still plan to put the Duke rape accuser through college?). It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Dr. Hamid's column is met with a loud and drowning chorus of "SELL-OUT TO THE BUSHIES!"
The tendency of many Westerners to restrict themselves to self-criticism further obstructs reformation in Islam. Americans demonstrate against the war in Iraq, yet decline to demonstrate against the terrorists who kidnap innocent people and behead them. Similarly, after the Madrid train bombings, millions of Spanish citizens demonstrated against their separatist organization, ETA. But once the demonstrators realized that Muslims were behind the terror attacks they suspended the demonstrations. This example sent a message to radical Islamists to continue their violent methods.Western appeasement of their Muslim communities has exacerbated the problem. During the four-month period after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in a Danish magazine, there were comparatively few violent demonstrations by Muslims. Within a few days of the Danish magazine's formal apology, riots erupted throughout the world. The apology had been perceived by Islamists as weakness and concession.
Worst of all, perhaps, is the anti-Americanism among many Westerners. It is a resentment so strong, so deep-seated, so rooted in personal identity, that it has led many, consciously or unconsciously, to morally support America's enemies.
It is this appeasement behavior and self-blame tendency that has made Western liberal progressives accomplices in the kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment (and torture by the way) of the 15 British navy personnel. And I suppose it is this mentality that is causing the Iraqis to pressure the US to free the "detained" Iranian "officials" who (unlike the British sailors) were not only intentionally where they were not supposed to be, but were actively working to KILL Iraqis and Americans! Why prolong the agony of eventual defeat? If this is how we are going to behave--to consistently embolden our enemies by sending messages loud and clear that "terrorism WORKS"-- why not bring the troops home now? Chances are, we'll need them at home soon enough when the enemies within stop working as freelancers and unite to create a civil war here just as they did in Lebanon.
If brave souls like Dr. Hamid are unable to get their vital message out, if the self-proclaimed standard-bearers of "freedom" "civil rights" and "human rights" continue to work overtime to either marginalize him (or worse, ignore him outright), we will be blaming them again for their WILLING complicity in our own captures, murders, tortures, etc...
Sad thing is, if they somehow manage to escape, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will go on blaming us--the victims--and probably say it just goes to show that we didn't listen to THEM well enough.
So friends, it will not be Islamism alone that destroys Western Civilization, it will be this fundamental unrecognized irony, this one grotesque example of hypocrisy. In short, misguided and misunderstood "liberalism" will be the death of TRUE liberalism.
That is, unless the rest of us do something about it in time!
Go read the whole article, then send it to all your friends (and I do mean ALL of them--if we can forward snopes-worthy crap about poison shampoo and hotel organ-robbers, we can surely spread this around effectively!)
Full article:
COMMENTARYThe Trouble With Islam
By TAWFIK HAMID
April 3, 2007; Page A15
Not many years ago the brilliant Orientalist, Bernard Lewis, published a short history of the Islamic world's decline, entitled "What Went Wrong?" Astonishingly, there was, among many Western "progressives," a vocal dislike for the title. It is a false premise, these critics protested. They ignored Mr. Lewis's implicit statement that things have been, or could be, right.But indeed, there is much that is clearly wrong with the Islamic world. Women are stoned to death and undergo clitorectomies. Gays hang from the gallows under the approving eyes of the proponents of Shariah, the legal code of Islam. Sunni and Shia massacre each other daily in Iraq. Palestinian mothers teach 3-year-old boys and girls the ideal of martyrdom. One would expect the orthodox Islamic establishment to evade or dismiss these complaints, but less happily, the non-Muslim priests of enlightenment in the West have come, actively and passively, to the Islamists' defense.
A Shariah official canes a woman after she was convicted of unlawful contact with an unmarried man, Indonesia, January 2006.
These "progressives" frequently cite the need to examine "root causes." In this they are correct: Terrorism is only the manifestation of a disease and not the disease itself. But the root-causes are quite different from what they think. As a former member of Jemaah Islamiya, a group led by al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, I know firsthand that the inhumane teaching in Islamist ideology can transform a young, benevolent mind into that of a terrorist. Without confronting the ideological roots of radical Islam it will be impossible to combat it. While there are many ideological "rootlets" of Islamism, the main tap root has a name -- Salafism, or Salafi Islam, a violent, ultra-conservative version of the religion.It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the "end of days." The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.
The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah. Unlike Salafism, more liberal branches of Islam, such as Sufism, typically do not provide the essential theological base to nullify the cruel proclamations of their Salafist counterparts. And so, for more than 20 years I have been developing and working to establish a theologically-rigorous Islam that teaches peace.
Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals -- who unceasingly claim to support human rights -- have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah's inhumanity. They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western "progressives" pave the way for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.
Politicians and scholars in the West have taken up the chant that Islamic extremism is caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. This analysis cannot convince any rational person that the Islamist murder of over 150,000 innocent people in Algeria -- which happened in the last few decades -- or their slaying of hundreds of Buddhists in Thailand, or the brutal violence between Sunni and Shia in Iraq could have anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Western feminists duly fight in their home countries for equal pay and opportunity, but seemingly ignore, under a façade of cultural relativism, that large numbers of women in the Islamic world live under threat of beating, execution and genital mutilation, or cannot vote, drive cars and dress as they please.
The tendency of many Westerners to restrict themselves to self-criticism further obstructs reformation in Islam. Americans demonstrate against the war in Iraq, yet decline to demonstrate against the terrorists who kidnap innocent people and behead them. Similarly, after the Madrid train bombings, millions of Spanish citizens demonstrated against their separatist organization, ETA. But once the demonstrators realized that Muslims were behind the terror attacks they suspended the demonstrations. This example sent a message to radical Islamists to continue their violent methods.
Western appeasement of their Muslim communities has exacerbated the problem. During the four-month period after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in a Danish magazine, there were comparatively few violent demonstrations by Muslims. Within a few days of the Danish magazine's formal apology, riots erupted throughout the world. The apology had been perceived by Islamists as weakness and concession.
Worst of all, perhaps, is the anti-Americanism among many Westerners. It is a resentment so strong, so deep-seated, so rooted in personal identity, that it has led many, consciously or unconsciously, to morally support America's enemies.
Progressives need to realize that radical Islam is based on an antiliberal system. They need to awaken to the inhumane policies and practices of Islamists around the world. They need to realize that Islamism spells the death of liberal values. And they must not take for granted the respect for human rights and dignity that we experience in America, and indeed, the West, today.
Well-meaning interfaith dialogues with Muslims have largely been fruitless. Participants must demand -- but so far haven't -- that Muslim organizations and scholars specifically and unambiguously denounce violent Salafi components in their mosques and in the media. Muslims who do not vocally oppose brutal Shariah decrees should not be considered "moderates."
All of this makes the efforts of Muslim reformers more difficult. When Westerners make politically-correct excuses for Islamism, it actually endangers the lives of reformers and in many cases has the effect of suppressing their voices.
Tolerance does not mean toleration of atrocities under the umbrella of relativism. It is time for all of us in the free world to face the reality of Salafi Islam or the reality of radical Islam will continue to face us.
Dr. Hamid, a onetime member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group, is a medical doctor and Muslim reformer living in the West.