Everyone is focusing on the person or faith instead of the ideal. It is ok to hate the ideology of terrorism and for me there is not enough hate for it and if those people happen to be Muslim that is of no consequence.

The problem here is generalization. We all do it at times because it’s the stereotypical members of any group that get the press and those that oppose that group vocally are few and far between.

Islamo-fascists and normal people of the Muslim faith.

The ones that do speak out are ignored or vilified.

Blacks and Bill Cosby.

When I read the comment in question, I read it as hating extremists. I believe that unless you are sensitive to the offended group, a person is going to use generalized ideals when expressing yourself. IE: Ni**er, Towel Heads, Muslims, Iranians, or Palistinians. Especially when the huge majority of the reporting of those groups are extremely negative in nature.

Now as to Connie hating Islam and Communism, this is not an evil hate. As in the Old Testament/Torah, when it speaks of God hating something, the Word ‘hate’ is not like the murdering hate hate that we see in the Jihadi’s, but an accurate translation of the Hebrew word is being against something completely and wholly; like being against something with all your againstness.

- The Cat

P.S. Calling for hate for a person or a people will lead to nothing less than calling for murderous thoughts for that person or people.

Having said that, I would like to have someone, anyone, stand up and point to a moderate Muslim group that is worth backing. If there is an Anti-Terrorist, pro-Islam group out there, they aren’t making enough noise.

As much as I appreciate Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin sticking it to CAIR, I think the reason Hooper plays the “Republicans are bigots” card is that most journalists will pass that on without a second thought. C’mon, how many journalists are actually going to check out if CAIR has terror ties? They’re just going to buy the “Republicans are bigots” line because it suits their prejudices.

CAIR sucks.

Hate is an emotion, you can’t “ban” it. Look at the left … they pretty much ooze hate. On the other hand, I also understand the need for us to raise the level of discourse, but to somehow think that we can’t say “I hate” something or someone is going a little too far down the PC path for me.

“He said the forum “opens up an important dialogue about global public opinion concerning the United States.”

How about this on Capital Hill, just a suggestion, someone might just want to bring it up:

“He said the forum “opens up an important dialogue about global public opinion concerning the United States Islamo-Facisim,( or otherwise known as “Our Enemy in this War).”

“we don’t have enough anti muslim hate around here” certainly seems like it might be in the ballpark of “Nuke Mecca”.

Lehosh on March 12, 2007 at 4:46 PM

Maybe. If he intended it to “wish death”, but do we know that? Did he say that? It was a vague statement that he could have meant as a belief that Americans do not seem to fear Islam as much as they should. And I would agree with that belief. I would say that all the a$$ kissing by government officials would validate the feeling that many are not taking the threat seriously. For me, the rest of his comment indicated that he was speaking of a lack of fear and a sense that people are not taking the threat seriously. It definitely wasn’t clear enough to assume the worst and ban him.

As for the “nuke Mecca” comment. I did not see the context that it was used, so I’ll refrain judgment on that one. If it was used simply to insult Muslims, then he should have been banned right there on the spot. I would agree with that. But if it was used in the context that the writer believed it to be a legitimate defense strategy in war time, then I don’t even believe that to be a reason to ban someone. Should a person be banned for saying we should drop a daisy cutter on any mosque being used by terrorists to stage attacks?

I do not Hate anyone. I will have a clear head when I see a muslim walking down the street. I may be watching him closely, and if he pulls out a weopen shouting “allahu allah akbar” I will drop him, but it won’t be from hate.
Get rid of Hate and you can see your enemies for what they truly are.

He said nothing that deserved a banning and what he said does did not even violate the terms of service for HotAir. Unless of course we have now added the “H” word to the list of illegal words.

He said nothing that deserved banning? I let him slide on the “raghead” thing, which I shouldn’t have done, and then he comes back with a demand for more “anti-Muslim” hate? Are you joking?

I’m sure that sort of thing is welcome at Free Republic. It’s not welcome here.

I don’t like seeing anyone getting banned, but commenting on HotAir is a privilege not a right. I don’t want the rants of a few to taint the image of the many.

Michelle, AP, Ian, Bryan, and company are trying to build a respected media source. “Raghead” and “hate the Muslims” isn’t going to cut it.

Regardless of personal feelings, a little common sense goes a long way.

Wow. That’s just wrong.

I got the impression that this was sort of a “last straw” situation – the hate comment on top of the “raghead” comment on top of what was apparently a bogus email address.

I’ll forgive Ibrahim Hooper if he’ll agree to do a little oil wrestling with Michael Moore.

Pay Per View millions, baby.

ew.

You can have my seat. I’ll be busy washing my my brain out with bleach thanks to that mental image.

Pay Per View millions, baby.

Ok, maybe it’s not that fine a line.

“we don’t have enough anti muslim hate around here”

vs

I don’t think there is enough hate aimed at terrorists, and terrorist enablers.

However, that’s just me, and I could be completely wrong…. beyond not politically correct.