Bill Clinton’s Strange Non-Ideological Islamic Terrorist

Bill Clinton’s Strange Non-Ideological Islamic Terrorist

A number of people are linking to this video because Bill Clinton does say one startlingly correct thing in it.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/15/bill_clinton_muslim_leaders_have_to_do_more_but_i_dont_think_you_can_blame_the_religion.html

“To advocate the world’s greatest double standard — if you come to our country, we won’t let you worship the way you want, we won’t let you say what you want to say, we won’t let you do what you want to do. However, we have come to your country, therefore we have the right to do whatever we want to do, including kill you if you make us mad.”

That’s something you expect to hear more from Geert Wilders than Bill Clinton. It’s common sense populism, but it’s drowned in a lot of quotes about the whole thing having nothing to do with Islam.

 I agree that Muslims leaders have to do more to combat extremists, but I don’t think that you can blame the religion. These people are politicians, guerrillas, stone-cold killers. They are just throwing the religion out to try to lure more and more converts in and legitimizing cold-blooded murder…

You read the profile of these two guys who were most prominently involved in the killing and how they got sucked into this by somebody essentially using religion, and religious politics…

“Using religion” is the new Islamo-apologist meme.

It’s also completely meaningless as it once again makes a distinction between real and fake Islam that has no serious basis in anything except wishful thinking.

Clinton’s comments about the Paris Jihadists could just as easily apply to the armies of Mohammed. And why don’t they?

And why is Clinton trying to make the case for some sort of non-ideological terrorist who doesn’t really believe in anything but is willing to blow himself up for no particular reason or to send others off to die.

Guerrillas and politicians also believe in things. Maybe Bill Clinton doesn’t, which would explain quite a lot.

This “using religion” argument takes us down a rabbit hole of True Scotsmen in which the only real Muslim is too unreal to exist. Are we to believe that a religion which expanded worldwide through conquest has nothing in common with its modern day expansion through conquest?

Was Mohammed a true Muslim then? I would like to see Bill Clinton answer that one.


by Daniel Greenfield