Refusing to Name the Enemy.

Steven Simpson has a powerful article over at American Thinker regarding our leaders' continuing refusal to identify the Mohammedan religion as prime motivator of what we euphemistically call "terrorism." Even more interesting than the article itself are some of the comments, several of which I reproduce here:

"As long as we are going to speak straight, why not refer to the challenge as that of "Islam". It is understood that not every Muslim is a suicide bomber, and that any generality can be attacked as being imperfect. Yet nobody denies that the Crusades were carried on by Christians. Here we do not address what the true interpretation of a doctrine is, but how it has operated. ... Today Islam is at war with all civilization, and aims at establishing Dar al Islam (the world of Islam) over Dar al Harb (the non-Islamic world). It makes no more sense to deny the terminology of Islam, jihad, or sharia, than it did to deny the terminology of communism, fascism, Russians, or Germans. Nor is it sensible to place Islam in the same category as Judaism or Christianity, but as their antithesis." — Allen777.

"Here in England I remember our big terrorist attack-7/7- on London's buses and underground trains.Victims were still being pulled out of the wreckage, when the chief of police and the Prime Minister appeared, seeming most concerned that, above all, we should not link these events with any particular religious group-certainly not Islam, f or as we know, it is a peace-loving religion ... However at the same time ... ''moderate'' Muslims warned us that if we in the West carried on with our foreign policies then we would suffer more and more outrages!" — Mike Harris.

"Islam is on the move again after a long quiescence and they have the numbers and, much more importantly, the will to remake the world. The liberal/progressive/socialist left in North America and Europe no longer has the will to defend Western civilization, having been for so long ambivalent about its value. While those on the left desperately seek to find some accommodating middle ground, no such common ground exists where the two such diametrically opposing civilizations could easily blend together. They are mutually exclusive and over time only one will prevail. One side realizes this, and the other side, our side, does not and has its proverbial head in the sand. ... . It certainly does not help to have a president who, if not a practicing Muslim, is certainly an active sympathizer and by extension basically anti-western." — Redhawk.

"As Andrew McCarthy and others have reported, there seems to be no doctrinal line of separation between "radical" and "moderate" branches of Islam. The Koran calls all the faithful to spread the rule of Islam throughout the world. The people we think of as "moderate" are merely among that branch of humanity as a whole that prefers not to murder. But there appears to be no ideological distinction from radicals, nor have we seen any willingness among the moderates to "police" their religion. Indeed, what doctrinal basis would govern such self-regulation? There appears to be none." — Rightman.

"Even the term "radical Islam", which is not PC, is too soft a term. Islam is the enemy, because wherever it goes, the radicals are there because the proportion of muslims who are radical is too high. It's a highly bigoted, intolerant, controlling, manipulative, and conformist religion, far more so than Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or Buddhism. It recognizes no difference between religion, government, politics, military, and society." — AvgDude.

"The war on terrorism should have been an Air Force mission over Mecca September 12, 2001." — Standing Wolf.

Some, as the expression goes, "get it" — The question is whether enough of us will get it individually ere we all get it collectively. Tick, tick, tick.