February 22, 2005
Then what the hell are we supposed to call them, Charlie...'Teletubbies?'
(Rangel said,) "To call it Islamic terror is discriminating, it's bigoted, it is not the right thing to say."Unbelievable.Rangel even questioned whether, in fact, a worldwide Islamic terrorist movement even existed, saying, "We just take for granted that there is an Islamic terror movement because we do have some fanatic people who come from Islamic countries."
The Harlem Democrat complained: "When we had the Ku Klux Klan we didn't call them Baptist terrorists. When Hitler was killing Jews, we didn't call it Christian terrorists."
What the hell are we supposed to call the terrorists (for lack of a better term), then?
Posted by mhking at February 22, 2005 03:53 PMThe man's district is a stone's throw away from a gigantic hole in the ground from the results of Islamic terrorism.
Perhaps he should be taken on a tour of the hole in the ground where the U.S. Embassy in Beirut used to be. Or the Marine barracks. Or have they razed them and turned the land into mosques already?
A hole in Manhattan. A hole in Beirut.
And yet Charlie's proving to be the biggest hole of all.
Posted by: Laurence Simon at February 22, 2005 04:08 PMCharlie Rangel has just designated himself as a blithering idiot! I'm sure there's a hoard of Islamic Terrorists, who would be more than happy to express their gratitude to whichever side of Mr. Rangel's neck that he is talking from today while
expressing his sympathy for mass murder in the name of Islam.
Democrats like him make my day, they keep painting the picture of an idiotic party.
And Hitler was NOT Christian.
Posted by: Scooter at February 23, 2005 11:00 AMthink the point is that yes they are terrorists but they are NOT ISLAMIC terrorists. Majority of Muslims abhorr violence as it is forbidden in the Koran. The nutcases like Bin Laden are terrorists but as truly muslim as michael or Dubya.
Call em terrorists as that label is accurate but leave their religion out of it.
2nd time the Library at Alexandria was burned it was done by fanatical christians (the third was fanatical muslims under caliph omar of damascus). Would it have been fair to label the group Christian terrorists and with all the implications that go with it?
Posted by: Nick Saunders at February 23, 2005 07:11 PMYou can't leave the Islamic part off the label. Yes they are terrorists, but their motivations are defined by attacking those that they see as the enemies of Islam. So you have the phrase Islamic terrorists.
An accurate descirption of the klu klux klan would be racial terrorists, playing religion in there is not really accurate since they based their hate on race not religion.
And as Scooter said, Hitler was not a Christian, one of the first things the Nazis did was curb the influences of the church.
Nick - if the library was burned by fanatical Christians who acted like terrorists then the correct label for them would have been Christian terrorists. Even though it is not really an act of terrorism but an act of a mob, so I guess the label would have been a Fanatical Christian Mob.
Fair points i guess.
Posted by: Nick Saunders at February 25, 2005 06:42 PM