When Obama Refers to 'My Muslim Faith,' Slip or Not, It's Fair to Ask Questions

I know this much:  You'll never hear the words "my Muslim faith" coming out of my mouth by accident.

So how is it that Barack Obama had this exchange with George Stephanopoulos (a Bill Clinton administration Democrat-turned-broadcaster):

The exchange came after Mr. Obama said that Republicans are attempting to scare voters by suggesting he is not Christian, which McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said was "cynical."

Asked about it on ABC, Mr. Obama said, "These guys love to throw a rock and hide their hand."

"The McCain campaign has never suggested you have Muslim connections," said Mr. Stephanopoulos, who repeatedly interrupted Mr. Obama during the interview.

"I don't think that when you look at what is being promulgated on Fox News, let's say, and Republican commentators who are closely allied to these folks," Mr Obama responded, and Mr. Stephanopoulos interrupted: "But John McCain said that's wrong."

Mr. Obama noted that when Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin "was forced" to talk about her pregnant 17-year-old daughter, he issued a forceful statement to reporters that the line of inquiry was "off limits." But he said the McCain campaign tried to tie him to "liberal blogs that support Obama" and are "attacking Governor Palin."

"Let's not play games," he said. "What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you're absolutely right that that has not come."

Mr. Stephanopoulos interrupted with, "Christian faith."

"My Christian faith," Mr. Obama said quickly. "Well, what I'm saying is that he hasn't suggested that I'm a Muslim. And I think that his campaign's upper echelons have not, either.

Here's the video:

Allahpundit at Hot Air is quick to point out that Obama didn't "admit" he is Muslim.  Of course not.  But Obama did refer to "my Muslim faith."  Allahpundit's assumption, and that of many, will be that Obama's reference to his Muslim faith was simply a mindless substitution of "Muslim" for "Christian."  But how does that even happen?  How does a professing, practicing Christian ever say on autopilot, before catching himself, "my Muslim faith"?

If I'm not mistaken, Allahpundit is an atheist or is in religious "search" mode -- so it presumaby is unimportant to Allahpundit whether Obama is Christian or not.  But to most Christians, it's at least a relevant topic for discussion.  And it's not a smear to ask the question of whether the slip of the tongue was revealing or not.  Allahpundit is right to try to seize the high ground that the left has systematically ignored in its smears of Palin, McCain, and many others, but something is missing in the analysis here.

Given the subject matter Obama was discussing with Stephanopoulos -- the recurring issue of whether Obama is Muslim -- it's possible that Obama merely transposed one word for another without any Freudian slip involved in the accident. It's also possible that it was a Freudian slip.  There is simply no evidence one way or the other.

What to do, then, when the evidence of how a slip of the tongue came about is uncertain?  Do we discard the evidence completely, or do we file it away as a  "no immediate action" item, but keep it in mind should it turn out to be relevant later?

Of course we don't throw the evidence away.

Convictions in criminal cases have depended, in part, on evidence of damning slips of the tongue.

And I'll tell you what:  The latest slip of referring to "my Muslim faith" fits in awfully well with many other pieces of the puzzle.

Like this one:  Barack Hussein Obama also said that America is "no longer Christian" (even though about 80% of Americans still identify themselves as Christian, with only about 1% identifying themselves as Jewish and 1% as Muslim).

Does declaring America "no longer Christian" (when 80% of the country is still identifies itself as Christian) sound like something a bona fide Christian would do?  Every Christian adult is aware of the "great commission" to "go and make disciples of all nations."  It would seem rather a step in the opposite direction to start declaring nations "no longer Christian" -- starting with a nation with 80% Christian identification (and only 1% Jewish identification and 1% Muslim).  Whose side is Obama on?

Forgive me if I wonder why the pastor Obama chose as his spiritual mentor for 20 years (a former Muslim himself who still uses Nation of Islam bodyguards) who spouts hatred for America instead of love for all. Forgive me if I take a closer look and ask just how deep are this man's roots in the religion he currently professes.

Forgive me if I ask why Obama has lied about having been raised Muslim. 

Daniel Pipes has pulled the evidence together in once place.  Key points:

1. Obama's Muslim birth father:  Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (1936–1982) was a Muslim who named his boy Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Only Muslim children are named "Hussein".
2. Obama's Muslim Indonesian family: His stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was also a Muslim. In fact, as Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng explained to Jodi Kantor of the New York Times: "My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim." An Indonesian publication, the Banjarmasin Post reports a former classmate, Rony Amir, recalling that "All the relatives of Barry's father were very devout Muslims."
3. The Catholic school: Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press reports that "documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim" while at a Catholic school during first through third grades. Kim Barker of the Chicago Tribune confirms that Obama was "listed as a Muslim on the registration form for the Catholic school." A blogger who goes by "An American Expat in Southeast Asia" found that "Barack Hussein Obama was registered under the name ‘Barry Soetoro' serial number 203 and entered the Franciscan Asisi Primary School on 1 January 1968 and sat in class 1B. … Barry's religion was listed as Islam."
4. The public school: Paul Watson of the Los Angeles Times learned from Indonesians familiar with Obama when he lived in Jakarta that he "was registered by his family as a Muslim at both schools he attended." Haroon Siddiqui of the Toronto Star visited the Jakarta public school Obama attended and found that "Three of his teachers have said he was enrolled as a Muslim." Although Siddiqui cautions that "With the school records missing, eaten by bugs, one has to rely on people's shifting memories," he cites only one retired teacher, Tine Hahiyari, retracting her earlier certainty about Obama's being registered as a Muslim.
5. Koran class: In his autobiography, Dreams of My Father, Obama relates how he got into trouble for making faces during Koranic studies, thereby revealing he was a Muslim, for Indonesian students in his day attended religious classes according to their faith. Indeed, Obama still retains knowledge from that class: Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times, reports that Obama "recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them [to Kristof] with a first-rate accent."
6. Mosque attendance: Obama's half-sister recalled that the family attended the mosque "for big communal events." Watson learned from childhood friends that "Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque." Barker found that "Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers." One Indonesia friend, Zulfin Adi, states that Obama "was Muslim. He went to the mosque. I remember him wearing a sarong" (a garment associated with Muslims).
7. Piety: Obama himself says that while living in Indonesia, a Muslim country, he "didn't practice [Islam]," implicitly acknowledging a Muslim identity. Indonesians differ in their memories of him. One, Rony Amir, describes Obama as "previously quite religious in Islam." 

[Update added 9/8/08] Driving home the point, there's this longer except from the New York Times article posted at Obama's own website:

On March 6, 2007, Nicholas D. Kristof at the New York Times wrote an article about Barack Obama's upbringing, "Obama: Man of the World," where Obama discussed his Muslim upbringing in Jakarta:

"I was a little Jakarta street kid," he said in a wide-ranging interview in his office (excerpts are on my blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground). He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics -- and more likely to be aware of their nationalism -- if he once studied the Koran with them.

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."

Moreover, Mr. Obama's own grandfather in Kenya was a Muslim. Mr. Obama never met his grandfather and says he isn't sure if his grandfather's two wives were simultaneous or consecutive, or even if he was Sunni or Shiite. 

Why does it matter?

It matters because religion affects world view, which affects policy.  It matters because Christianity and Islam are not two alternate brands of the same product. They are not Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola. Look at the fruits that each religion is producing today.  One religion has produced the most free, prosperous, tolerant nation in the history of the earth -- one where Christians, Jews, and Muslims can indeed worship side by side in peace, and agnostics and atheists have the freedom not to worship or to explore spirituality in other ways. 

The other religion -- Islam -- has produced countless hot spots for bloody religious conflict around the world. Count up the countries where innocent non-combatant civilians minding their own business are most likely to be bombed, kidnapped, beheaded, or otherwise slaughtered in the name of a deity in the past 10, 20 or 30 years. The contrast is clear.

If you are to know a religion by its fruits, then one knows enough of Islam's fruits, as Islam is actually understood and practiced in most parts of the world today, to know that there is something deeply wrong. From the running tote at TheReligionofPeace.com:

Should there be a religious test for the presidency?  No such test is imposed by America's Constitution, for reasons based in the founders' experience.  But individuals are free to determine for themselves whether a man's religion, or lack thereof, or weak commitment thereto, might make a difference in their vote.  If you understand anything about religion, you know that it affects a person's world view and values.  If you think that Christianity embodies positive values and a helpful world view, then of course you care whether Obama is Christian or not.

In this age of the global Islamic jihad, it is of course highly relevant even to non-practicing Christians, agnostics, atheists and others whether a person who wants to be commander in chief of a country is Muslim.  To state that it would have no bearing on election to the presidency is absurd.

Yes -- I could see myself voting for an agnostic, atheist, Hindu, Muslim or Jew.  I probably have done so many times without even thinking about it.  But given that America is currently in the cross-hairs of the Islamic jihad -- the Great Satan -- the one Islamic jihadists want most to destroy -- yes, I care whether we elect a Muslim to the presidency.  If we do so, it had better be a Muslim who has been a strong American patriot from Day One.  That does not describe Mr. Barack "Won't-Wear-a-Flag-Pin" Obama. 

It is not exactly reassuring that Obama wants to sit down without preconditions with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinajad -- who openly longs for a world without America and openly threatens its destruction (as do crowds in Iran routinely, and as did the Iranian legislature on the day it voted to resume uranium enrichment).

If something seems iffy to voters -- if a man has a Muslim father or stepfather, a Muslim elementary school registration, an agnostic mother, and no Christian roots except in a black liberation theology church -- it's fair to ask questions about faith, and it's fair to test the answer for accuracy and re-test it if warranted.

So allow me to recap what I've written, just to avoid a lot of flying to conclusions by the reading-comprehension-impaired:

1.  Is it possible that Obama's reference to "my Muslim faith" was a revealing Freudian slip?  Yes.

2.  Is it possible that it was a just a momentary brain freeze, with no meaning?  Yes.

3.  Do we have definitive evidence either way at this point?   No.

4.  Does that mean that the reference to "my Muslim faith" has no evidentiary value on the question of Obama's religious beliefs?  No; it does have evidentiary value even though it's not conclusive by itself.

5.  Has Obama made other statements and engaged in other actions that seem incompatible with being a sincere, devoted Christian?  Yes.  He has stated that America is no longer a Christian nation, which seems rather odd considering that Christians are about 80% of the population and Muslims only 1% and Jews only 1%.

6.  Does America have a religious test for the presidency?  No.

7.  Is it acceptable for individuals to take religion into account in casting their votes?  Absolutely, just as individuals are free to take into account political beliefs, values, likability, presence, hair styles, and any other factor they deem relevant.

8.  Must we conclusively assume that Barack Obama is Christian because he says he is and attended an anti-American black liberation theology church for 20 years?  Of course not.

9.  Are Americans who continue to raise questions about whether Obama is secretly a Muslim out of line?  No.  If Obama has to prove his sincerity again and again between now and election day, let him do so.  Let him get out there and do it.  If he's not sincere about his faith or is still searching or is sympathetic to the religion of his childhood, then let him explain why we should trust him and vote for him anyway.  But trying to make questions off limits is unacceptable.  That's not what religious freedom means in America -- treating all religious questions as irrelevant.  If religion matters -- and it does -- then a candidate had better be able to answer questions about it as often as necessary -- without whining. 

10.  Is there such a thing as being a religious phony?  You bet.  I remember that George W. Bush welcomed a question in a debate that asked him to name a figure he admired: he named Jesus Christ, to the squirming discomfiture of his interrogator.  I remember John Kerry struggling with a debate question about religion, rapidly switching the subject from his professed Catholicism to some sort of Native American spiritual ceremony he had attended.  I remember the Clintons, in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, picking up Bibles and prominently carrying them to church.  I know which of these professions of religious faith seemed phony or tentative to me, and which seemed sincere.

11.  Do some conservative commentators, whether they are Christian, atheist, or agnostic, think that whether a politician is Christian or Muslim doesn't matter?  Absolutely.  To some of them, Obama's slip is a non-issue.  Others do care, but hesitate to be seen as applying some sort of a religious test to a candidate.

But to most practicing Christians, it is at least of passing interest whether a president shares the same faith.  To reiterate, don't get me wrong -- I could see myself voting for Joseph Lieberman, a Jew, in a hearbeat.  I could even see myself voting for a strong-national-defense, fiscally conservative Muslim.  But, all other things being equal, I'd prefer a president who shares my religious beliefs or who is in the same general ballpark.  Wouldn't you?

12.  Do I think that Obama secretly kneels on a prayer mat five times a day?  I doubt it.  But when a man argues that America is no longer a Christian nation, I'm not sure whether to put that guy down in the "worships a Christian God" column.  Are you?

Will I and other Americans continue to watch Barack Obama closely?  You can count on it.  Will religious faith control my vote entirely?  Of course not.  But don't expect me to look away, and don't dismiss questions about religious faith as irrelevant.  America doesn't.

1. Obama's Muslim birth father:  Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (1936–1982) was a Muslim who named his boy Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Only Muslim children are named "Hussein".
2. Obama's Muslim Indonesian family: His stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was also a Muslim. In fact, as Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng explained to Jodi Kantor of the New York Times: "My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim." An Indonesian publication, the Banjarmasin Post reports a former classmate, Rony Amir, recalling that "All the relatives of Barry's father were very devout Muslims."
3. The Catholic school: Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press reports that "documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim" while at a Catholic school during first through third grades. Kim Barker of the Chicago Tribune confirms that Obama was "listed as a Muslim on the registration form for the Catholic school." A blogger who goes by "An American Expat in Southeast Asia" found that "Barack Hussein Obama was registered under the name ‘Barry Soetoro' serial number 203 and entered the Franciscan Asisi Primary School on 1 January 1968 and sat in class 1B. … Barry's religion was listed as Islam."
4. The public school: Paul Watson of the Los Angeles Times learned from Indonesians familiar with Obama when he lived in Jakarta that he "was registered by his family as a Muslim at both schools he attended." Haroon Siddiqui of the Toronto Star visited the Jakarta public school Obama attended and found that "Three of his teachers have said he was enrolled as a Muslim." Although Siddiqui cautions that "With the school records missing, eaten by bugs, one has to rely on people's shifting memories," he cites only one retired teacher, Tine Hahiyari, retracting her earlier certainty about Obama's being registered as a Muslim.
5. Koran class: In his autobiography, Dreams of My Father, Obama relates how he got into trouble for making faces during Koranic studies, thereby revealing he was a Muslim, for Indonesian students in his day attended religious classes according to their faith. Indeed, Obama still retains knowledge from that class: Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times, reports that Obama "recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them [to Kristof] with a first-rate accent."
6. Mosque attendance: Obama's half-sister recalled that the family attended the mosque "for big communal events." Watson learned from childhood friends that "Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque." Barker found that "Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers." One Indonesia friend, Zulfin Adi, states that Obama "was Muslim. He went to the mosque. I remember him wearing a sarong" (a garment associated with Muslims).
7. Piety: Obama himself says that while living in Indonesia, a Muslim country, he "didn't practice [Islam]," implicitly acknowledging a Muslim identity. Indonesians differ in their memories of him. One, Rony Amir, describes Obama as "previously quite religious in Islam." 

Comments

[Yes but truthfully]

Just commentating on your assertion (or whoever said it) that 80 % of the US is Christian and the Christian/Muslim/whatever topic in general:-

I can see your point and understand it.

I also think that if you asked God, He doesn't worry about that! He only cares about the heart and whether we loved on this earth - not whether we were Christian, Muslim or otherwise.

In my opinion - which I know has little bearing on the topic (!) - I think that we will judge ourselves when we die and it will have nothing to do with any man-made religions.

As far as I know all religious books have been written by men/women that walked this earth, including the bible.

I do believe that God tries to point us in the right direction often, but mankind just does goes his own way and then says it's in the name of Allah/Jesus/God/etc.

What suprises me most of all about Christians is that they do not 'see' that they are just as fanatical as Muslim's.

You could say that is ok, but just as a fanatical Muslim does does not 'see' the 'error' of his ways, which seems obvious to the rest of us, so too many fanatical Christians refuse to even consider that their ways may be in error, because for example, they bundle it behind a verse from the bible.

I really am not having a go at you Gina (this time!)
I am being honest and serious.

I give an example - when Janet Jackson showed her breast on stage at some US football game the USA went ballistic. It was top story for weeks. The outcry was a total over-reaction.

I DO NOT see the same response to (and I know I mention it often) the innocent people that the US has killed in Iraq or Afghanistan for instance.

The measuring scale is NOT level in the US, especially in Christian circles, unfortunately.

I think that if we really knew God we'd find that we all look pretty much the same to him - no matter what the religion.

[Chris_RC]

For what little it is worth, this is how the comment struck me.

Barrack Obama being a muslim is the line of attack being used (attack, based on the discussion with Stephaopolous). That is the meme. There would be no point for John McCain to refer top Obama's Christian faith. What as being discussed is the muslim faith, if McCain had made reference to Obamab being a muslim, or having a muslim faith. Obama was admitting that McCain hadn't taken part in these pot shots, that he made no reference to Obama being a muslim, or having a muslim faith. Obama, instead of talking about it in the third person, said McCain made no reference to "my muslim faith," he could of said "made to reference to me being a muslim."

To illustrate, imagine some one frequently (and erroneously) being described as gay. But one person, lets use the name Tammy, in the office wasn't bringing that up in discussing him. If the person being accused said something along the lines of "Tammy never made mention of my homosexuality," it wouldn't be admitting to being gay, it would merely be discussing the meme that he is gay.

I don't think it was transposition. I believe the words were exactly what Obama meant, that he simply meant it as a means of discussing the meme of "obama the muslim."

Don't get me wrong, none of this makes me any more inclined to vote Obama, just in this case, it seems like willfully taking something in a bad way. The same kind of empty political maneuvering (were to be used on its own) as the Obama camp uses when they describe John McCain's belief that you aren't rich unless you make more than 5 million a year, which was obviously just a wise crack joke in the context of the saddleback forum.

[Gawfer]

"...You could say that is ok, but just as a fanatical Muslim does does not 'see' the 'error' of his ways, which seems obvious to the rest of us, so too many fanatical Christians refuse to even consider that their ways may be in error, because for example, they bundle it behind a verse from the bible..."

LOL! you're right you know. The Amish are just waiting to launch an assault on downtown Philadelphia, and those Baptists have developed their own martial arts using a bible as a weapon to subdue their foes, ROTFLMAO. Your assertions are absurd. Did you not read the post that referred to 'Meekness' which was defined as 'absolute power under absolute control' and was considered a virtue?

"...I give an example - when Janet Jackson showed her breast on stage at some US football game the USA went ballistic. It was top story for weeks. The outcry was a total over-reaction..."

And you really have an unhealthy obsession with Janet Jackson's breast; this is like the 3rd time you've brought it up on this forum. That's a bit creepy. BTW, it wasn't the Christian right that made such a show; it was the main stream media that was embarrassed because their "5 second delay" failed.

[Bart]

Questions about religious faith are relevant. Is John McCain a Christian? Why are some Christians unsure of how central Christ is to his life? He does not talk about his faith much. Why did he critcize Rev. Falwell and Rev. Robertson? Does this make him a bad person? Sarah Palin is a professed Christian. Must all Christians agree with her views and support her? Obama is a Christian, but came to faith in his 20's in a black church, and is more liberal in his theological understandings than many of us. You certainly can disagree with his political positions and not like him, but it is disingenuous to contend he is a Muslim. His political positions are attractive to many, so folks like you try to stir things up with gossip and innuendo.

[Gawfer]

"...You certainly can disagree with his political positions and not like him, but it is disingenuous to contend he is a Muslim..."

"Let's not play games," he said. "What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith..."

He's not making it any easier, Bart. One minute he's a christian, the next he's professing his muslim faith. Ya can't be both.

I think it's disingenuous for you to criticize Gina for presenting facts based on his own presentation.

[Yes but truthfully]

Gawf I knew that you woulden't be able to resist adding insults where you could to my post.

GINA - I've noticed that you have, at times, requested people to keep their posts polite.
I'd ask that you keep tabs on ALL people adding posts here - i.e. - including people like Gawfer and conservatives. You know - level scales...

Just as a side point Gawfer - I find it interesting that you seem to align yourself with Christians and like to add posts, as you have done here, in favour of Christianity.

I see that your website has a daily devotion. That is commendable. However I think that you'd probably find that true Christians would shy away from visiting Hooters - as you did on your boys day out. From the hooters website: "The element of female sex appeal is prevalent in the restaurants,..." I mean - you either are or arn't a Christian right?

Prehaps it's a more general problem in the USA - people calling themselves Christians but not really walking the walk.

Ányway, lets check how absurd things really are Gawfer, in numbers:-
More than a million deaths in Iraq - by more than one independent report - which was invaded by 80% Christian USA. We won't count Afghanistan.
Under 3000 people killed possibly by a bunch of radical Muslims. Terrorism will always be there - but it is not between Muslims and Christians - it is radical people.
Which country is the ONLY country to have dropped TWO nuclear bombs on another? Christian USA...
Nope - not so absurd.

I think that you would find that there probably wouldent even be terrorists if the USA and the west had never been meddling in the middle east from the very beginning. Most people don't just wake up one day and say lets go and kill someone - usually there is a reason - and especially if brothers, sisters, parents or children have been killed...

From that perspective then perhaps people shoulden't judge so harshly, it's not like either McCain or Obama are radical killers - but they seem pretty good human beings to me - with good morals.

[george]

WOW!!! I didn't think people's ignorance could reach any higher pitch. But it continues to spiral upwards and out of control. The man is not a muslim. Get over it and stop this fear-mongering over that issue. Additionally, last I looked, it was a core value of the founders (have any of you people heard of Jefferson or Adams, especially Adams) that America not have any state supported religions and that America, in fact, be a place of great religious tolerance. So, those of you who think you have a corner market on the views of the founding fathers cannot have it both ways. Quite simply, whether Obama is a muslim or a christian is immaterial in this pluralistic country where we do not discriminate on the basis of religion and, furthermore, profoundly do not support the concept of a state-supported religion. Christianity is not our state-supported religion. Therefore, it does not matter what Obama's religion might have been. That said, he is a Christian and has consistently said so. In fact, he took tons of flack because of the statements of his firey pastor. Interesting how the same people who took him to task for the words of his ex-pastor are those trying to paint him as a muslim. Shame on all of you. Go after his views on the issues and skip the silly fear-mongering stuff.

[Mike]

Just like with Obama, McCain has not talked about my muslim faith.

Because it's nonexistent, and this is a non-issue.

[Palerider]

If you want to make the claim it was a freudian slip, maybe there is something thre. But, to claim he was professing his Muslim faith by taking his words out of the context of the interview is ridiculous.

I believe reasonable people understand exactly what he was saying.

[tropunlim]

Who is the real Sarah Palin?

Sadly, my friends, there is evidence to believe that she is secretly a muslim.

I have it on solid authority that Sarah Palin, when she took the oath of office, placed her hand on a Koran, not a bible.

She doesn't stand and place her hand over her heart when the national anthem is played.

What's more, she's secretly a terrorist.

She attended a terrorist training camp in Jakarta when she was 16, and was also responsible for spying on American officials, giving the terrorists vital information that is possibly linked to the tragic terrorist attacks on America on September 11th, that took 3000 American lives.

She doesn't believe that Jesus died for our sins, and only joined her church six months ago, when it became clear that McCain was going to choose her.

She opposed the Surge strategy in Iraq, only recently declaring that it was a "wild success." This means that she doesn't support American Troops, including her own Alaskan National Guard.

Sarah Palin. Muslim, terrorist, secret democrat. What kind of choice is SHE for vice president?

[yes but truthfully]

Great one Tropunlim.

I love it when liberated, thinking, intelligent people add reality and clarity to the one sided, extreme neocon, pro republican, propoganda on this site!

[Gawfer]

LOL!
You have ventured into personal attacks. Typical liberal behavior so, OK.
Here’s a virtual Kleenex to wipe your nose. Since you provide so much in the form of fodder, you really make commenting fun.

As far as hooter’s goes, by your comments, it is clear to discern that you have never been to one. Hooter’s has the best Buffalo wings in the area and provides great sports coverage… the women, not so much. But dude, thanks for visiting my site! Don’t be afraid to leave a nugget. I’ll only scold you if your comments are as ridiculous as they are here.

Now, this may fly over your head, so stand up when you read this. Since 1921, there have been more than 60 terrorist attacks that resulted in 100 or more deaths; the sum of which is 13,556 and is reflected below. The problem is those attacks were mostly against unsuspecting civilians like yourself. You’ll also note that there are many attacks that didn’t make this list simply because there were less than 100 fatalities.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/globalterrorism1.html
1. 13 Dec 1921: bombing of Bolgard palace in Bessarabia (modern Moldova) (100)
2. 16 Apr 1925: bombing of cathedral in Sophia, Bulgaria (160)
3. 18 May 1973: mid-air bombing of Aeroflot airliner, Siberia (100)
4. 4 Dec 1977: crash of hijacked Malaysian airliner near Malaysia (100)
5. 20 Aug 1978: arson of theater in Abadan, Iran (477)
6. 20 Nov-5 Dec 1979: hostage taking at Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia (includes 87 terrorists killed) (240)
7. 23 Sep 1983: crash of Gulf Air flight following mid-air bombing over the UAE (112)
8. 23 Oct 1983: truck bombings of U.S. Marine and French barracks, Beirut, Lebanon (301)
9. 14 May 1985: armed attack on crowds in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka (150)
10. 23 Jun 1985: mid-air bombing of Air India flight off Ireland, and attempted bombing of second flight in Canada (331)
11. 18 Apr 1987: roadway ambush near Alut Oya, Sri Lanka (127)
12. 21 Apr 1987: bombing of bus depot in Columbo, Sri Lanka (106)
13. 29 Nov 1987: mid-air bombing of Korean Air flight near Burma (115)
14. 21 Dec 1988: mid-air bombing of Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland (270)
15. 19 Sep 1989: mid-air bombing of French UTA flight near Bilma, Niger (171)
16. 27 Nov 1989: mid-air bombing of Avianca flight in Bogota, Columbia (110)
17. 3 Aug 1990: armed attack at two mosques in Kathankudy, Sri Lanka (140)
18. 13 Aug 1990: armed attack at mosque in Eravur, Sri Lanka (122)
19. 2 Oct 1990: crash of hijacked PRC airliner in Guangzhou, PRC (132)
20. 12 Mar 1993: 15 bombings in Bombay, India (317)
21. 22 Sep 1993: crash of airliner struck by missile in Sukhumi, Georgia (106)
22. 19 Apr 1995: truck bombing of federal building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA (169)
23. 14-19 June 1996: hostage taking in Budennovsk, Russia, and two failed rescue attempts (143)
24. 23 Nov 1996: crash of hijacked Ethiopian Air flight off Comoros (127)
25. 29 Aug 1997: attacks at Sidi Moussa and Hais Rais, Algeria (238)
26. 22 Sep 1997: attack at Ben Talha, Algeria (277)
27. 30 Dec 1997: attack at Ami Moussa, Algeria (272)
28. 4 Jan 1998: attacks at Had Chekala, Remka, and Ain Tarik, Algeria (172)
29. 11 Jan 1998: attack on movie theater and mosque at Sidi Hamed, Algeria (103)
30. 8 Aug 1998: truck bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Saalam, Tanzania (303)
31. 13 Sep 1999: bombing of apartment building in Moscow, Russia (130)
32. 31 Oct 1999: intentional crash of Egypt Air flight off Massachusetts, USA, by pilot (217)
33. 10 Aug 2001: attack on train south of Luanda, Angola (152)
34. 11 Sep 2001: crashing of hijacked planes into World Trade Center, New York City, New York, Pentagon in Alexandria, Virginia, and site in Pennsylvania, USA (2,993)
35. 12 Oct 2002: car bombing outside nightclub in Kuta, Indonesia (202)
36. 26 Oct 2002: hostage taking and attempted rescue in theater in Moscow, Russia (includes 41 terrorists killed) (170)
37. 29 Aug 2003: car bombing outside mosque in Najaf, Iraq (125)
38. 1 Feb 2004: two suicide bombings of political party offices in Irbil, Iraq (109)
39. 21 Feb 2004: armed attack and arson at refugee camp, Uganda (239)
40. 27 Feb 2004: bombing and fire on ferry near Manila, Philippines (118)
41. 2 Mar 2004: multiple suicide bombings at shrines in Kadhimiya and Karbala, Iraq (188)
42. 11 Mar 2004: bombings of four trains in Madrid, Spain (191)
43. 24 Jun 2004: multiple bombings and armed attacks in several cities in Iraq (103)
44. 1-3 Sep 2004: hostage taking at school in Beslan, Russia (includes 30 terrorists killed) (366)
45. 28 Feb 2005: car bombing outside medical clinic in Hilla, Iraq (135)
46. 14 Sep 2005: multiple suicide bombings and shooting attacks in Baghdad, Iraq (182)
47. 5 Jan 2006: bombings in Karbala, Ramadi, and Baghdad, Iraq (124)
48. 11 Jul 2006: multiple bombings on commuter trains in Mumbai, India (200)
49. 16 Oct 2006: truck bombing of military convoy near Habarana, Sri Lanka (103)
50. 23 Nov 2006: multiple car bombings in Baghdad, Iraq (202)
51. 22 Jan 2007: multiple bombings in Baghdad area, Iraq (101)
52. 3 Feb 2007: truck bombing in market place in Baghdad, Iraq (137)
53. 6 Mar 2007: two bombings and other attacks on pilgrims, Hilla, Iraq (137)
54. 27 Mar 2007: two truck bombings in Tal Afar, Iraq (152)
55. 18 Apr 2007: bombings in Baghdad, Iraq (193)
56. 3-10 Jul 2007: hostage taking and subsequent storming of mosque in Islamabad, Pakistan (102)
57. 7 Jul 2007: bombings in Baghdad and Armili, Iraq (182)
58. 14 Aug 2007: multiple truck bombings in Al-Qataniyah and Al-Adnaniyah, Iraq (520)
59. 18 Oct 2007: bombing of motorcade in Karachi, Pakistan (137)
60. 17 Feb 2008: bombing at dogfighting festival in Kandahar, Afghanistan (105)
These fatalities were not a result of collateral damage, but resulted from being the targets.

Allow me to bring 3 specific attacks that occurred in 1992 and 1993, but are not listed. 2 bombings in London in 1992 and the first World trade Center attack in 1993 had peculiar similarities. The blast patterns revealed no scorching and all three registered on Richter scales. To register on the Righter scale, a bomb must have a certain payload, specifically .1 kiloton or greater. To achieve that level of detonation would take an extraordinary amount of explosives, but those explosives would leave scorching patterns.
The only way to achieve that kind of detonation without leaving scorching patterns would be a small nuclear weapon. Some folks believe terrorists have been able to gain possession of a quantity of the former Soviet Union’s portable nukes that were deployed up to the early 1990s. They also believe the two attacks in London and the first WTC attack were results of suitcase nukes also known as SADMs or Special Atomic Demolition Munitions.

You can argue as you have done on countless occasions that the collateral damage in Iraq was unacceptable, and I’ll argue that because the western world lead by the United States is standing up to terrorism around the globe, we can still enjoy a certain level of security, though, as I’ve said on numerous occasions, ‘Londonistan’ will soon be under Sharia Law.

Cheers.

And as a side note, y'all continue to go after Sarah Palin. The more you talk about her, the more people will get to know her. That's called 'free publicity'.

[Gottasayit]

Is Barak Hussein Obama a muslim? Mu'ammar Al'-Quadhafi thinks so. Is this a case of "it takes one to know one?" Watch the video for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2737QUBxFY

[Yes but truthfully]

Here you go gawfer - the LATEST US TERRORISM.

What is the difference dude - you can call it what you like - 90 innocent people were killed - 90....
Doesn't matter what is said - that is what happened.

There is no differenece - call yourself moral terrorists then.

http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/3028235/All+Categories

VIDEO: Afghan civilians, including 60 children & 15 women, killed in U.S.-led raid
by BBC

Global Research, September 9, 2008
BBC

Since October 2001, extensive war crimes have been committed in Afghanistan by US-NATO troops. These war crimes have not been acknowledged by the mainstream media.

The crimes committed by the US-NATO occupation are invariably obfuscated or presented as "colateral damage". Civilian deaths are "accidental".

The following Video report, which details the massacre of Afghan civilians, was broadcast by the BBC.

It reveals the true nature of the US led "war on terrorism". It is by no means an isolated event, as conveyed in the press reports.

The two videos, obtained by The Associated Press, "give weight to Afghan and U.N. findings that scores of civilians, including 60 children and 15 women, died in the Aug. 22 U.S.-led raid in the village of Azizabad. U.S. special forces and Afghan commandos carried out the operation."(Huffington Post, September 8, 2008)

Meanwhile, public opinion is led to believe that the coalition forces are in Afghanistan as part of a peace-keeping operation. And that the US- NATO forces are involved in the reconstruction of Afghanstan. We are led to believe that the occupation forces have the support of Afghan people, whose lives are endangered by Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

We are told that the "peacekeepers" are being attacked by "terrorists". The recent deaths of Canadian and French forces in Afghanistan are highlighted. The deaths of Afghan civilians are rarely acknowledged.

The occupation forces are presented as the victims rather than the perpetrators of war crimes.

The media never mentions the "resistance" to foreign occupation.

French public opinion should understand what is meant by "La Resistance". Ironically, the US and its NATO partners, including the government of President Nicolas Sarkozy, are using the same justification for their occupation of Afghanstan as that used by Nazi Germany in relation to the German occupation of France during World War II.

A country of 34 million people is invaded and occupied and we are led to believe that somehow the Afghan people have endorsed and accepted this occupation and that those who are against the invaders, a small minority, are "terrorists".

Let us not forget that the US-NATO led October 2001 invasion of Afganistan was announced on the 12th of September 2001.

Afghanistan was tagged, without a shred of evidence and prior to the conduct of an investigation, as the "state sponsor" of the 9/11 attacks. The invasion was presented as part of a counter-terrorism operation directed against the perpetrators of 9/11 and their state sponsors.

Trade unions, NGOs and many "progressive" intellectuals endorsed the US-NATO led invasion.

The war on Afghanistan was prepared prior to 9/11. War preparations were already in an advanced stage.

The press reports failed to reveal a fact which is known and acknowledged by military analysts: a major theater war cannot, under any circumnstances, be planned and carried out in a matter of 4-5 weeks.

9/11 was used as a justification to carry out a "humanitarian war".

Known to military analysts, the war on Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

[Gawfer]

Ah, so you are calling the United States terrorists? LOL!

LOL! LOL! LOL!

Hey, you’re right, that is kinda fun to write.

Anyway, rather than credit your comments with a response for which they don't deserve, I will say ironically, this statement in part is correct:

The press reports failed to reveal a fact which is known and acknowledged by military analysts: a major theater war cannot, under any circumnstances, be planned and carried out in a matter of 4-5 weeks..."

...Known to military analysts, the war on Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of the tragic events of September 11, 2001..."

That is what military strategists are paid to do: develop strategy and tactics for ALL potential threats. We knew the activities of the Taliban and connections with Bin Laden during the Clinton administration. Welcome to the real world of grown ups where people actually plan ahead. Once again you have 'lifted your skirt' (colloquialism) and revealed your simple adolescence.

[Vladimir Samarin]

Dear Mr. Gawfer,

Sometimes the military strategists (like strategists in any ither field, e.g. business) fail to plan really ahead, even being well paid.

WHo is Osama, where did he appear from? Here is an answer from Ottawa: http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc0310/osama.htm

He is a product of the USA anti-Soviet policy. When he was fighting Soviet Army (and in fact the USSR) he was a good boy, even if his activity caused many civil deaths and sufferings of Afghan people.
When the jihadists made things in Checnya (and former Yugoslavia), they were also not too bad, as they were weakening evil Russia, which was, being a heir to the USSR, always to blame for everything bad happening worldwide.
Now they turned out to be bad guys - what a surprise, yeah?

We Russians also prey for thousands innocent souls lost in the unprecedented terrorists attacks of 9/11. Alas, in the real world of grown-ups even the good American plans can have unforeseen consequences...