Patterico's Pontifications

1/11/2015

Holder: We Are Not At War With Radical Islam, But Instead At War With Terrorists Who *Use* Islam

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:06 am



[guest post by Dana]

On this morning’s Meet the Press, host Chuck Todd asked Attorney General Eric Holder, “Would you say the United States is at war with radical Islam?”

Per Holder:

“I would say that we are at war with terrorists who commit these heinous acts and who use Islam. They use a corrupted version of Islam to justify their actions. We are bound and determined to hold them accountable, to find them wherever they are, and then to try, as you indicated, to come up with ways in which we prevent young people who become attracted to this radical ideology from becoming members of these groups and perpetrating these heinous acts.”

–Dana

40 Responses to “Holder: We Are Not At War With Radical Islam, But Instead At War With Terrorists Who *Use* Islam”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (8e74ce)

  2. Great idea Mr Holder, now please tell us who is going to bell the radical Islamic cat.

    ropelight (539464)

  3. Holder is at war only with white people and Republicans.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  4. As @2 ropelight says, terrific words. Unfortunately, Mr. Holder has a spotty record enforcing what he says and what he should. That said, his words are empty. Mr. Holder has proven himself a faithful Obama lieutenant, not a leader, not a defender and protector of lawful citizenry.

    LTMG (94c4c3)

  5. I notice how quick these “leaders” are to show solidarity. Meanwhile they
    do their best to thwart any real solutions and in fact much of the time
    do things that make the situation worse.

    Our own personal bane, The Occupant, is a prime example.

    The only real question is; do they do it on purpose with malice aforthought?

    Or is it just that they’re too stupid or ignorant to see their failures?

    jakee308 (f0aa61)

  6. == try, as you indicated, to come up with ways in which we prevent young people who become attracted to this radical ideology from becoming members of these groups and perpetrating these heinous acts.”==

    You might want to start this noble work by looking at what’s going on (re: radicalizing) within the U.S. prison population, Mr. Holder.

    elissa (371d62)

  7. They use a corrupted version of Islam to justify their actions.

    What’s sickening about leftists like Eric Holder is if extremism and terrorism were being practiced by a group of people whose general theology could be somehow saddled to Christian fundamentalism, they’d treat it the same way they dealt with Sarah Palin and her crosshairs-map literature right after the attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords.

    Mark (c160ec)

  8. I really didn’t expect such an intelligent answer from him, he must have practiced.
    I wonder if the use of ‘radical’ in the 2nd part of the answer was a slip up.
    Not so sure about the DOJ being involved in a international war though.

    As others have noted , good words now how about some matching actions.

    seeRpea (3524c3)

  9. Not to worry, Teh One, notably absent from Paris today, is having a summit in February to talk about all the social workers in Minneapolis, for instance, have stopped radical Islam. What? How many Somalis are over in Syria now?

    So he’s going to tell all the leaders he snubbed today how to get rid of that JV team that keeps attacking them. I hope they all refuse to come.

    BTW isn’t Holder supposed to be in Paris today? Did we send anybody?

    Patricia (5fc097)

  10. Eric Holder has the blood of Brian Terry on his hands. It was Holder’s Fast-in-Furious gun running operation that armed the Mexican drug smugglers who murdered Border Patrol Officer Terry. And it was Holder’s Federal Officers who covered up the circumstances of the murder. And, it was both Holder and Barack Obama who hid the records of that murder and who stonewalled Terry’s parents and then lied about White House involvement in their son’s murder.

    ropelight (539464)

  11. Patricia, see new post.

    Dana (8e74ce)

  12. “…to come up with ways in which we prevent young people who become attracted to this radical ideology from becoming members of these groups…”

    Also the challenge for conservatives who want to steer our young away from falling under the sway of miscreants like Holder.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  13. Holder was also on Face the Nation.

    He said there will be a summit on extremism on February 18.

    He said they sent their condolences, and they indicated solidarity and they agreed that they’ll do a better job of sharing information – and they are looking into the “root causes” of what attracts people to this – which doesn’t sound very good.

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  14. About Petraeus Holder he wouldn’t say who would make the final decision – if he would even still be here at that time.

    I think the decision is going to be made by Obama, (Holder’s answer is consistent with that)

    And it’s going to be no indictment. It’s been reported that David Petraeus has refused to agree to any plea bargain. But will he be precluded in some way from being nominated to any position, and what about his security clearance?

    Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham have said leaking the information was outrageous, and I think have attacked any kind of hesitation about not prosecuting Petraeus, and Senators in general are acting like this is a political decision. Now Senator Dianne Feinstein has come out against prosecution.

    2 senators say Petraeus investigation ‘grievously mishandled’


    Feinstein on Petraeus: ‘It’s done. It’s over.’

    his man has suffered enough in my view,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the former Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman, told Gloria Borger, CNN chief political analyst on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  15. I’ve been rethinking this whole “they don’t represent true Islam” thing. Maybe the Nazis didn’t really understand “true Naziism.” Or the communists didn’t understand “true communism.”

    Joe Miller (ff9b6f)

  16. A far-left racist like Eric Holder has no credibility with adult citizens.

    pst314 (ae6bd1)

  17. I heard a report the Algerians warned Paris about the coming attack. The French response was they didn’t have the resources to investigate. Sound familiar?

    ropelight (539464)

  18. Calling him a moron would be to insult the truly developmentally challenged, and would give him more credit than he deserves for intellectual acuity.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  19. #18: not to mention those of us who wear the title proudly…

    Holder is at war only with America, white people and Republicans.

    FTFY!

    redc1c4, proud AoSHQ moron (4db2c8)

  20. Holder needs to shut up and face the fact that Islam is a religion of hate. Those who kill and destroy in the name of Islam are the true Muslims. The sooner we face this fact the better. Islamists have an agenda of world domination and they are not hiding it. They first come in as peaceful moderates, then they multiply and thrive and soon the take whole territories and become a law to themselves, enforcing sharia law among themselves and teaching their adherents that the infidels are the enemies and must die. They are everywhere and soon they will strike again. The enemy is not out there friends, they are here among us, like a ticking time bomb waiting to explode.

    The Emperor (49dd50)

  21. If only. You’d think the real Muslims would be pretty ticked off at all these fake Muslims instead of cheering them on, wouldn’t ya?

    crazy (cde091)

  22. I’ve been rethinking this whole “they don’t represent true Islam” thing. Maybe the Nazis didn’t really understand “true Naziism.” Or the communists didn’t understand “true communism.”

    Communists will certainly tell you this. According to them, true communism has “never been tried”, and if the past is any guide it never will be tried, because every time it turns out the way it has always turned out, it will be retroactively declared not to have been true communism.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  23. My point exactly.

    The Emperor (49dd50)

  24. The thing about the No True Scotsman “fallacy” is that it’s not at all obvious when to apply it and when it’s just ridiculous. For instance, it’s perfectly true that no true Christian worships Krishna, and no true Moslem believes Jesus is god. No true hot dog is vegetarian, and no true ice cream is fat-free. There are traits that are fundamental to a category, and it is valid to make “no true X is Y” statements about them.

    Now Holder’s claim that No True Moslem supports the sort of violent jihad that the Islamists are waging is, in principle, plausible. It doesn’t seem very different from the argument we commonly hear from Christian apologists that the crusaders, inquisitors, cossacks, etc. were Not True Christians, and thus Christianity can’t be blamed for their crimes. So why shouldn’t the Moslem equivalent make the same claim?

    For one reason, and one reason only: it’s a fundamental principle of Islam that Mohammed led an exemplary life, which everybody ought to emulate (that’s what “exemplary” means). Islam is based not only on the text of the Koran, and on the hadiths that Mohammed taught, but also on the sunnah, which consists of “the practices of Mohammed that he taught and practically instituted as a teacher of the sharī‘ah and the best exemplar.” This is something every True Moslem believes and accepts.

    So if we want to know whether something represents True Islam, the first thing we should ask is What Would Mohammed Do? And looking at his biography the answer is clear: he personally committed and ordered many attacks which were indistinguishable from the attack on Charlie Hebdo. I don’t think there can be any question that he would have approved of this attack, and even joined it. Thus it does represent True Islam, and it’s those who condemn it who are Not True Moslems.

    Jesus, on the other hand, is not reported as having said or done anything that would indicate he would be less than appalled and outraged at what the crusaders, etc., did in his name. So it seems fair for modern Christians to disavow them and say that the Christianity they practise is more authentic than whatever those criminals did.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  25. Perhaps Obama is not a True Democrat, but is simply one who uses Democrats to further his own corrupt ends.

    Dirty Old Man (7a6dab)

  26. Milhouse (9d71c3) — 1/11/2015 @ 5:24 pm

    he personally committed and ordered many attacks which were indistinguishable from the attack on Charlie Hebdo.

    But did he authorize anyone to do such things on their own any time they felt like it?

    And did he do things like this 100% of the time??

    Things were always governed by reasons of state.

    This is the tack I think taken by the King of Jordan:

    Now Baghdadi claims to be caliph, or successor to Mohammed. How can just anybody make himself into a caliph? And if someone doesn’t claim to be, or doesn’t have a plausible claim to be a caliph, or following a caliph, or at least an emir or other Moslem ruler, or at least to be carrying out a sentence imposed by a court of shariah law, how can they justify killing people? How can they start a war on their own?

    And by the way, you know who has the best claim to be the caliph?

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  27. crazy (cde091) — 1/11/2015 @ 4:47 pm

    You’d think the real Muslims would be pretty ticked off at all these fake Muslims instead of cheering them on, wouldn’t ya?

    they’re complaining that the Islamicists are accusing other Moslems of not being true Moslems – the word is takfiris

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfiri

    A takfiri (Arabic: تكفيري‎ takfīrī) is a Muslim who accuses another Muslim (or an adherent of another Abrahamic faith) of apostasy.[1] The accusation itself is called takfir, derived from the word kafir (infidel), and is described as when “one who is, or claims to be, a Muslim is declared impure.”[2]

    The act of accusing other Muslims of being takfiri has itself become a sectarian slur particularly since the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War in 2011, as when used by Shi’a groups such as Hezbollah to refer indiscriminately to Sunnis.[3][4][5]

    In principle the only group authorised to declare a member of an Abrahamic religion a kafir (“infidel”) is the ulema, and this is only done once all the prescribed legal precautions have been taken.[2] However, a growing number of splinter Wahhabist/Salafist groups, labeled by some scholars as Salafi-Takfiris,[6] have split from the orthodox method of establishing takfir through the processes of the Sharia law, and have reserved the right to declare apostasy themselves against any Muslim in addition to non-Muslims.

    So, here, their biggest complaint about Original al Qaeda ® ™ and ISIS/ISIL/Daesh/”the” Islamic State/IS/whatchamacallit is that they read other Moslems out of the faith, when, as Wikipedia says, only the top religious scholars can do that,

    …. and now you want them to turn around and do the same thing themselves?

    But they should, and they need to.

    Or the religious scholars that Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi adddressed need to do that.

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  28. To add to what Sammy said above, everything in the way of atrocity, order to murder, etc. would have seemed par fir tge course to almost everyone in the 7th century. In fact, Mihammed was restrained compared to some of his contemporaries, and to much of what occurred both before and after his time. Actions such as that did not become unacceptable until Europe began to think them immoral in the wake of the Thirty Years War.
    Mohammed as pedophile is another instance. In the 7th century marrying a young girl to a much older man was normal. Sexual relations did not occur until the girl reached puberty, and the scant evidence we have lines up with the notion that Mohammed did just that…and that the woman he most loved, his first wife, was much older than him. Again, the idea that such marriages are wrong is a relatively modern one. (The rabbis of the Talmudic age and later saw no problem in teachin that Isaac married Rebekah when she was three years old.)

    kishnevi (a5d1b9)

  29. kishnevi (a5d1b9) — 1/11/2015 @ 7:10 pm

    (The rabbis of the Talmudic age and later saw no problem in teachin that Isaac married Rebekah when she was three years old.)

    they also would have assumed human nature wasn’t the same at that time as it was when they were living. Except that it should have taken even longer, not less time, to mature.

    This is based on the fact that the next thing right after it is written that Abraham received word of the descendants of his brother Nahor, is that Sarah lived 127 years. Since she was 90 when Isaac was born, that makes Isaac 37 when she died. And this is even connected to the Akedah (binding) by the idea that hearing of it caused her death.

    If you assume Rebekah was born right before that, it makes her 3 years old when she married Isaac because he was 40.

    But others have a more reasonable interpretation of how old Isaac was at the time of
    the binding. Rebekah’s age is not given at any time, nor her death directly mentioned.

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  30. Now Baghdadi claims to be caliph, or successor to Mohammed. How can just anybody make himself into a caliph? And if someone doesn’t claim to be, or doesn’t have a plausible claim to be a caliph, or following a caliph, or at least an emir or other Moslem ruler, or at least to be carrying out a sentence imposed by a court of shariah law, how can they justify killing people? How can they start a war on their own?

    The caliphs were not stupid.

    If nothing else, teaching that individual Muslims, on their own accord, coukld punish crimes against Sharia would give possible rebels religious cover for rebellion against “apostate” caliphs.

    Michael Ejercito (45f52b)

  31. @15

    I’ve been rethinking this whole “they don’t represent true Islam” thing. Maybe the Nazis didn’t really understand “true Naziism.” Or the communists didn’t understand “true communism.”

    Ahhh the no true Scotsman fallacy is quite annoying isnt it? Lets hope everyone keeps this in mind the next time we hear “A real Christian would never do that”….

    Gil (27c98f)

  32. @25

    So why shouldn’t the Moslem equivalent make the same claim?

    For one reason, and one reason only:

    Your post could have ended there with only two more words needed: Special Pleading.

    Gil (27c98f)

  33. Yes Gil, lets make sure the Christians don’t get all head chop-y, and ghey stone throw-y, as they’re prone to do, oh wait…

    hadoop (657247)

  34. Agreed hadoop

    Lets also add to the list:
    Witch Drown-y
    Jew Burn-y
    Abortion Clinic Bomb-y
    Abortion Doctor Murder-y
    Separatist Cult-y

    Gil (febf10)

  35. What took you so long, Gil? I was expecting you to show up three days ago. Have you been well?

    nk (dbc370)

  36. Whilst Messrs Holder and Obama (along with President Bush before them) have been telling us that we aren’t at war with Islam, have the Muslims ever said that they aren’t at war with us?

    It will be argued, of course, that “the Muslims” are not a nation, and there’s no one who has the authority to declare war on us for the Muslims as a whole, but Islamic State now claims to be a Caliphate, with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as the Caliph, and he has certainly said that IS is at war with all of the West, and the apostate Muslims as well. Our left seems to see this as a mouse that roared, but there are a whole lot of dead people who would disagree with them, if they could.

    The Dana pointing out the obvous (f6a568)

  37. I think Holder is mostly at war with reality.

    Gazzer (c44509)

  38. Under teh kilt, that’s where you’ll find gil.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  39. It is amusing to listen to our “friends” on The Left wail about the evil GOP plot to ‘shut down’ the DHS – this from a political party that has demonized every attempt to protect the homeland from terrorists ever since DHS was formed (say, didn’t some Democrat Senator from CT draw up the original consolidation bill that created DHS from some very disparate elements already existing within the Federal Leviathan?). Now that their party is in charge of the Apparatchiks, they decry any attempt to “risk” the security of the homeland (sounds like a speech from one of the many meetings of the Supreme Soviet lauding defense of Mother Russia), no matter how foolish the charge, while the borders are wide open, the Secret Service can’t even secure the front-door of the White House, and the only people the CPB are interacting with are American Citizens at internal check-points 75-100 miles inland from the border – and really painting an evil face on Big Government while they’re at it.

    askeptic (efcf22)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3625 secs.