Colmes is an irredeemable liberal. I can’t stand him.

Hat tip: Yid with a Lid

By Colmes: Offensive to Call Terrorists ‘Islamic,’ Use ‘Books Not Bombs’ on Hamas

Brad Wilmouth, NewsBusters

If you thought the proper way to refer to terrorists who commit violence in the name of Islam was by using such terms as “Islamic terrorists,” “Islamic militants,” or even “Islamic extremists,” be on notice that you may be offending Alan Colmes. In fact, even if you refer to the terrorist group “Islamic Jihad” by that name, which is the name the group uses to refer to itself, you’re still not in the clear. Such was the absurd view expressed by the liberal FNC host on Friday’s “Hannity and Colmes” as he argued that the use of the word “Islamic” is an attack on the entire religion, and characterized the term “Islamo-fascism” as “hate speech” and as “demonization” of Islam. And, in response to a Hamas recruitment video targeting Palestinian children to become martyrs, Colmes further suggested that the best way to combat such terrorist groups is to use “books, not bombs,” and “better education, not war.” CONTINUE

October 16, 2007 | 3 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

3 Comments / 3 Comments

  1. Emerson has moved more and more away from the radicals-are-just-a-fringe position, whereas Colmes is still deluded. The debate is not merely semantic, but conceptual–and critical. Is the global terrorist threat rightly characterized as “Islamic,” or should we just politely leave off that adjective? You see, if we are able to use this adjective, then we in society would have come that much closer to recognizing the enemy. Note Emerson’s brilliant and worthy-of-copying technique here–he took Colmes step-by-step to a conclusion that thoroughly demolished Colmes’ argument, by asking Colmes if he had a problem with various alternative descriptions (he did), so then *wham,* Emerson pulls out the label “Islamic Jihad”–problems with that?–yes! but guess what? Colmes was busted, because that’s the jihadists own self-description. Colmes stutters around and says he has to go to break….yeah.

    This debate showed the power of using the Muslims own words, the power of exposing what they say, so critics can’t say we and our words are unfair. Masterful.

  2. What a strange debate. Colmes did not disagree with anything Emerson was saying about Islamic radicalism, except what one calls such radicalism. A debate over semantics?

    I do not think it is Colmes’ liberalism that was moving him into that semantical debate. I do not recall liberals getting worked up over this issue as Colmes did.

    Rather I think it was just one of those intellectual lapses one can have at times that leads one off on a tangent and one cannot find in the heat of the debate a way to get off without admitting they were wrong.

  3. I can just see it… The thug is heading toward you wielding his AK-47 so you make a grab for your book, hold it up, and say, “Hang on a minute old chap!”

Comments are closed.