Islam

CPAC Panel Says Political Correctness Makes It Harder to Fight Radical Islam

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: 'Political correctness is our weakness.'

|

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Fox News

The Conservative Political Action Conference's panel discussion on national security put a great deal of emphasis on political correctness as an obstacle in the fight against radical Islam. 

All three panelists—Rep. Steve King, the Center for Security Policy's Jim Hanson, and ex-Muslim speaker Ayaan Hirsi Ali—lamented that political correctness prevents the West from articulating what's at stake in the conflict with Islamic extremism. 

"Political correctness is our weakness," said Hirsi Ali, who noted that other countries place much stricter limits on offensive speech. 

Hanson and King seemed grateful that at least Donald Trump was "sweeping away" liberal political correctness. 

previously wrote that resistance to PC—which is becoming so broad a term that it's rapidly losing meaning—animates many of Trump's supporters. [Related: How Political Correctness Caused College Students to Cheer for Trump] 

It's certainly true that people should not face legal consequences for making offensive claims about Islam—on college campuses, or anywhere else. But we should not pretend that excess sensitivity actually threatens our national security.

NEXT: Dave Navarro: "I Consider Myself Libertarian"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. In their defense, PC culture makes it hard to fight against anything. Especially the AD’s!!!!

  2. But we should not pretend that excess sensitivity actually threatens our national security.

    If excess sensitivity prevents you from clearly communicating about, and even clearly thinking about, a national security issue, then its a threat to dealing with that issue.

    If you don’t think radical Islam is a national security threat, then refusing to speak or think about clearly is irrelevant to our national security. If you think it is a threat, it is much more of one because our ruling class is incapable of discussing it or thinking about it in rational terms.

    1. True. Saying that radical Islam is a thing is not offensive. I can understand disagreement about how to address it, if to address it, and all the rest. But treating it as some benign force is being wilfully ignorant.

    2. The ruling class doesn’t see radical Islam as a national threat in terms of toppling THEM. I’m sure they see radical Islam a threat to the lives of citizens. But they largely don’t care. If they REALLY thought there was a “going concern” threat to the USG, they’d destroy the threat. But it’s only some number of civilians who are in danger, so nothing gets done, and it’s better to not piss of the SJW in the process. And they get to expand surveillance as it benefits THEM. In short, the cabal that controls this country is walking the line between making people THINK they are safer, when they are not, while not pissing off SJW’s, all in interest of preserving their positions and privilege. They will succeed for another century or so, until everyone is swarmed under an Islamic tide. I don’t say this in an alarmist, pants shitting way, just a projection of what “future history” will be as an educated guess by someone who has done a lot of historical reading. And I really don’t care what the planet is 100-150 years from now as I struggle against the Statists in my own time. The assholes who think taking 50% of my income is a “good start” are of much greater concern to me than a Muslim Planet circa 2120.

    3. Ask the young women of Rotherham whether PC poses a material threat.

  3. What it does is make it hard to actually discuss things honestly. When a lot of people fear being publicly shamed for saying what they actually think, communication just doesn’t work very well.

    1. No zeb it doesn’t. And it doesn’t even help achieve the goals Robby would endorse. It makes people hate Muslims more. If people could honestly criticize Islam, they would feel their opinions are being heard and be more likely to listen to the other side. When they are told to shut up, even about things that are obviously true, that just causes them to resent Muslims and believe the worst. Lies and silence never make things better.

    2. If you can’t be honest about important issues because everyone will call you a bigot, then those issues will never be addressed.

      If that issue is national security, then political correctness can absolutely harm national security interests by making honesty about the issues impossible.

      1. I hate when the news puts out a description of a suspect but leaves out race because it could be offensive. It’s not racist to accurately describe someone.

        Also, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, would.

      2. If you can’t be honest about important issues because everyone will call you a bigot, then those issues will never be addressed.

        Oh, but they will. Look at how trying to smother discussion about immigration in Europe has led to the rise of radical parties.

        1. trump is a similar reaction

  4. But we should not pretend that excess sensitivity actually threatens our national security

    There are several hundred women who were raped as young girls in Ratherham, UK who would disagree with that statement. Excessive sensitivity is a threat to not just our national security but our entire civilization. Once sensitivity is more important than the truth, then no one can voice any truth that makes someone uncomfortable. And the truth always makes evil uncomfortable.

    1. “National Security” != “Special Victims Unit”

      Sorry, bro. Rape is horrible, but it isn’t an intrinsic threat to the nation.

      1. It is when they’re systematic and culturally-approved-of by the largest immigrant group in a nation.

      2. Rape may not be a threat but the systematic refusal to enforce the law against an entire group because of PC sensitivity most certainly is a threat. And that is what is happening in the UK. Ratherham is just a symptom of the larger problem.

      3. so how far should a particular group of predators be allowed to go before obvious truths about those predators are noticed? Every klansman is not an intrinsic threat to anyone but that does not stop us from calling that person out.

      4. “Sorry, bro. Rape is horrible, but it isn’t an intrinsic threat to the nation.”

        No, but the forces that allowed it to occur could just as easily allow other crimes to occur for the same reasons.

      5. Sorry, bro. Rape is horrible, but it isn’t an intrinsic threat to the nation.

        When the rule of law and equality before it take a backseat to appearing tolerant and inclusive, yes that is a threat. It represents the erosion of social institutions bequeathed to us by our forefathers, people far greater than you or I that lived and died to give us the endowment of western civilization that is presently taken for granted.

        1. erosion of due process rights is more of a threat (I know it’s just some stupid colleges now but that’s how that shit would start)

          1. maybe my perspective is distorted by my (admittedly unwieldy) penis, but im much more scared of being convicted of a crime I didnt commit than being assaulted by an individual.

      6. “Sorry, bro. Rape is horrible, but it isn’t an intrinsic threat to the nation”

        Repeat that at a NOW gathering. Dare ya.

  5. Yes, we shall never be truly safe until we wish each other “Merry Christmas” in our coffee shops and shopping malls again.

    1. It must be made *mandatory*.

      After all, if oyu have vampires you don’t dick around – you mandate noontime naked parades to be sure!

      1. Yes please!

    2. That’s not the kind of PC thinking that Ayaan Hirsi Ali (an atheist) is criticizing in this situation.

      1. Who said anything about Ali? I think it’s obvious to whom I’m referring.

        1. I think it’s obvious to whom I’m referring.

          Uhm… Trump?

          1. Christ, no! I was referring to America’s Sweetheart, Taylor Swift.

            Jesus, you people.

            1. YOU LEAVE T-SWIZZLE OUT OF THIS.

            2. I literally can’t rite now u gais. 🙁

  6. Sorry, but in this case i believe it does. The enlightened crowd falls all over itself to tell us how we are all Muslims inside and we all want peace. Or how Islam was fundamental to our country’s founding. Or how Boko Haram, ISIS, Al Qaeda et al have nothing to do with “real” Islam.

    People have the right in this country to believe whatever the hell they want. And considering I am hardly in the majority in my personal beliefs, obviously I feel very strongly about that. But, there isn’t a single religious view that is claimed by as many brutal people all around the world, and acts of terror done in its name as Islam. I am not saying Muslims are a problem. There are plenty of good Muslims, just like athiests, Christians, Jews, etc. But there is a problem in Islam.

    1. someone else asked and it’s worth asking again – what society benefited from the importation of large numbers of Muslims?

      1. “what society benefited from the importation of large numbers of Muslims?”

        Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Spain, Sicily, Italy, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan

        In fact, nearly every country that went Muslim back in the day benefitted from doing so. Which is why they did it.

        Would most benefit now from moving away from it?

        Resoundingly yes. Things don’t have absolute eternal values.

        1. Considering Islam was spread by the sword back in the day, I don’t know that it provides a good example of “benefiting” from Muslim immigration..

          One could, I suppose, make the arrgument that the primitives in those countries actually benefitted from being conquered by a more advanced ideology. But, again, not a good example of how Muslim immigration is a good thing.

          1. “Considering Islam was spread by the sword back in the day”

            This is an extreme reduction of actual history.

            Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq and Iran were far from “primitive” countries when they converted to Islam. They were disaffected from Roman and Persian rule and essentially opened the doors to their invaders, as the people of the City of Rome had done two centuries before.

            At its height, the Land of Islam was the most scientifically advanced, socially tolerant, politically and ethnically diverse civilization the world had ever seen, and it lasted many centuries.

            It lapsed into arrogance and decadence, as civilizations will tend to, and has spent the last century or so falling apart, which is why the Islamic world is largely chaotic at the moment. It doesn’t really have to do with the ideological content of anything – it’s just the forces of history playing themselves out.

            1. “it’s just the forces of history playing themselves out.”

              Thank you, Mr Marx

          2. Its not like Christianity wasn’t also spread by the sword back in the day.

          3. the sword probably had something to do with it, but it wasnt the only thing. “babylon” was the epicenter of civilization for a long, long time. they spread their ideas through trade too (they were such successful merchants BECAUSE they were so free)

        2. Oh, and Western Civilization as a whole – as Muslim libraries were pretty key to jump-starting the Renaissance.

          1. This is true, after conquering some civilizations they didn’t burn all the books. Kind of like how Stalin contributed to the prosperity of Russia by not killing everyone. We owe a great debt to them.

        3. Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Spain, Sicily, Italy, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan

          These are victims of a conquering Islam. Their cultures were destroyed and an ersatz ‘arabism’ was imposed upon them. It mars many of them still.

    2. “But, there isn’t a single religious view that is claimed by as many brutal people all around the world”

      SURE there is!! We just need to generalize more. Theism. There, that’s a single religious view that by virtue of vagueness is claimed by more brutal people all around the world than simply Islam. I could probably invent words for even more commonly-held beliefs to make an even larger category. I should probably stop thinking like an engineer for picking apart this statement.

      On the topic of “specificity” and “vagueness” I wonder if Islam itself is too general to properly discuss this effectively. The big names “Boko Haram, ISIS, Al Qaeda”, all follow the Wahhabi school of thought, which in turn is Salafist and Athari. The Deobandi in Afghanistan and common in the UK also have high terrorism rates.

      Meanwhile Ahmadiyya have no terrorists whatsoever, and a Caliph that denounces the notion of terrorism. I believe the Ismailis have no problems with terrorism either, though I can’t find any hard statistics. Trying to do research on this, it seems like not a lot of people are interested in examining the specific sects that terrorists tend to identify with.

      Seems to me like the best dialog would be to compare the sects without terrorism to the sects with high levels and examine the differences between the two to best isolate the issue. The biggest sect with the biggest issue looks like, at least without harder research into the issue, the Salafists and their Wahhabi sub-sect.

      1. ^ Get a load of this guy!

        I have it on good authority that *no* Muslims condemn terrorism.

      2. There’s the ones that conduct terrorism, the ones that support terrorism but only support blasphemy laws, and criminalizing apostates, and the moderates that don’t support terrorism but still want to criminalize blasphemy and apostates.

    3. There are plenty of good Muslims

      The less zealous they are about Islam, the better person they are, all else being equal.

  7. Aaaaaand we’re back to working Trump into everything.

    1. Yeah, that was kind of disappointing.

    2. Indeed, should the scare quotes have been on Donald Trump and not Sweeping Away?

    3. Online search metrics equate to “fungible assets” for our illustrious scriveners, so it is in their best economic interests to;

      “Lump with Trump”
      “Pump with Trump”
      “Sump for Trump”

      It’s just paying the bills, Loki. The bills.

  8. Didn’t the SJW crowd used to love Ali? They’ve dropped her like a hot potato, right?

    1. Didn’t the SJW crowd used to love Ali?

      That would have been on Earth-44, where Doctor Will Tornado invented a metal Justice League to be heroes for his world, such as Platinum Wonder Woman, Gold Superman, Lead Green Arrow, etc..

    2. No, they haven’t liked her since she opened her mouth 15 years ago. She was the writer for Fitna and SJWs didn’t give two fucks about the director getting murdered, beyond “he was asking for it”.

    3. Probably when she started criticizing Obama and popping up on Hannity.

  9. “It’s certainly true that people should not face legal consequences for making offensive claims about Islam?on college campuses, or anywhere else. But we should not pretend that excess sensitivity actually threatens our national security.”

    Except the Obama administration put a policy in place that stopped people from looking at applicants’ social media posts when they were applying for visas. That policy no longer exists, but it’s a politically correct policy that could potentially allow dangerous people into the country.

    In America Alone Mark Steyn also mentions that one of the airport security screeners said after 9/11 that one of the hijackers appeared ‘off’ to him, but he didn’t press the issue because he thought he was being racist. I’d have to find the exact quote.

    Then there are the child rape issues Britain has had with Pakistani immigrants and which the police ignored out of fear they’d be called racists.

    It is not unreasonable to point out that PC thinking causes people to ignore warning signs by refusing to acknowledge reality when reality conflicts with their leftist sensibilities.

    1. And lets also not forget that PC sensitivity drives the desire to see anyone with a Ron Paul bumper sticker as a potential “domestic terrorist”. It is not so much that they want to clamp down on such people. It is that they have to pretend terrorism doesn’t primarily concern Muslims. So they invent “domestic extremists” as a way of denying that reality.

      1. and ron paul supporters are a safely small crowd to vilify

    2. Re: the Steyn reference – I saw a doc on 9/11 with the guy at the airport where Mohammad Atta started his trip. In Maine, I think. Anyhow, the guy was clear that looking at Atta he saw pure menace looking back at him but, as you point out, taking action would have resulted in the usual.

      1. Yet everyone who knew Syed Farook said he was sweet and lamb-like and no one ever suspected he would do anything to harm anyone.

        Sometimes people are simply confirming their biases in retrospect.

  10. OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!

  11. If anyone knows from extremists and terrorists, it’s IRA bagman Peter King.

    1. That was so rich in irony, having him chime in on terrorism, that I can skip spinach for a month.

      1. It was so rich in irony that my pants are now permanently creased.

  12. “PC?which is becoming so broad a term that it’s rapidly losing meaning”

    I’m not sure that’s the case at all.

    I think its rather becoming far more relevant to the average person than it was in the past, when it really was *exclusive* to college campuses (and where it mostly remains centered)

    but now you see “politicizing the mundane” spreading into every aspect of life – and people in mass-media making ridiculous claims about otherwise neutral language

    The definition of “PC” isn’t becoming more broad – its just that the areas of life it appears in have expanded.

    1. Yeah. Robby implies that the term has gotten so broad because its critics are just applying it to anything they don’t like. No, it has gotten so broad because its adherents keep applying it to more and more things.

      1. Why can’t it be both?

        1. It could but I can’t think of many or any examples of its critics just using it to describe something they don’t like. And I can think of an enormous number of examples of it being applied to restrict more and more speech.

        2. it can’t be but doesn’t that cause it to lose meaning after a while?

          1. can’t = can

      2. When both the Super Bowl halftime show and the Oscars are both obsessed with slavishly, ostentatiously genuflecting to ginned-up Progressive Political ‘Crises-Du-Jour’?….

        …you really have to have some combination of ignorance and hubris to pretend, “C’est Normale”

        Its not about ‘racism or rape’ anymore when things reach that level. Its about mass psychosis. And, contra Robby’s shtick, it *should* bother people and get on their nerves.

  13. Are we arguing that political correctness doesn’t shut down debate? Debate is the first step to fighting anything one feels worthy of a fight. Except spiders and circus peanuts. Debate is helpless against those things.

    1. Don’t forget candy corn and fruitcakes.

      1. I will confess to enjoying the occasional handful of candy corn. But never fruitcake.

        1. Most fruitcakes are bleh.

          A good fruitcake can be really good.

    1. Lol. How have I missed that?

      1. You’d probably run away, you racist.

        1. Probably would. But only because I’m afraid of ghosts, not because I’m a racist.

        1. I like how it doesn’t occur to any of the victims that “some schmoe at a bus stop” isn’t exactly gonna be a high-level target for al Qaeda.

          1. It’s the most ordinary schmoes that deserve a nice hard lesson in Allahu Akbar.
            *winks*

    2. Holy crap, the guy trying to run up the escalator!

      That is amazing.

      1. I have frustration dreams like that. Nightmares, really.

        I’m trying to run away from something, and the ground is really slippery, my legs don’t work, or I keep tripping.

        Add the escalator to the list.

        1. Same here. I think what’s happening is my subconscious is actually trying to run but can’t because i’m asleep.

        2. My frustration dream usually involves a firearm malfunction. Luckily haven’t had one since I changed jobs.

          1. I’ve had those, and ones about my kids.

            Last night, it was about a 13 year old pepper spraying my baby in the face and I couldn’t kick his ass because he was a minor. That went on for about an hour.

            1. Why do our dreams like to fuck with us? Although, we do get the sexy kind too so, it’s a wash?

        3. My dreams all end in nuclear holocaust.

          1. Show off.

            My bad ones are mere small arms combat gone bad, no nukes.

        4. You guys need to stay away from Jamiroquoi videos at bedtime then.

          1. But i got canned heat in my heels tonight, baby!

    3. That was hilarious.

      The Jackass guys wish they had ever thought to do something that funny.

      1. The stunt they did at the end of the movie with Jay Chandresekhar (spelling is almost certainly wrong but reason has a character limi for individual words) was pretty fucking hilarious.

        1. True, true.

  14. I like Ali but she’s totally wrong about ‘hate speech’. She thinks that islamic rhetoric will incite the kids to violence. That’s pure nonsense. Teach your kids right and wrong, then you don’t have to worry that they will get ‘radicalized’ over the youtubes by an ‘extremist cleric’ explaining how to achieve ‘eternal glory’. Any kind of free speech restrictions will ultimately be co-opted by the bullies and used against the most vulnerable. So of course, Trump would love this, despite his contempt for PC. (Also beware the new calls for ‘cyber bullying’ legislation which will suffer the same fate.) If you don’t believe it, just look to Europe and see how well they’re doing there.

    1. Wasn’t Osama bin Laden’s family just a bunch of builders with no radical past?

      1. No “radical” past is kind of a funny term when you are one of the most influential families in Saudi Arabia outside of the royals. Average Joe Moderate in Saudi terms is still batshit-insane jihadi by our standards.

        1. But I mean ZERO radicalism. They just built buildings and led a pretty secular life till the crazy fuck OBL came along.

            1. I as unaware. Thank you.

          1. Sounds like Trump. Just built buildings till he went Nazi.

        2. Also, your comment isn’t very PC and its that kind of talk that causes the Muslims to hate us so much.

          -Social Justice Major at _____________ University

          1. -Social Justice Major at _____________ University

            (University name redacted because university is named after some old white guy who may have owned slaves)

            1. But Loretta Lynch is named after killing blacks!

              And she is BLACK!

              Better find me a black trans lesbian to intersectionate this oppressogarchy before my pea brain overheats and I have to go back to college for an 8 year Arts degree.

      2. Almost all terrorists, whether foreign or domestic, have something in common: permissive parenting. They were told, “You’re a good kid, now trust your conscience.” Yes, even the FBI profiles say this. The problem gets worse when they are taught, “You’re a good kid but you have a mental illness. Now take this drug and then you won’t go on a shooting rampage.” That’s the real threat to this country. The hysteria over ISIS is mostly a diversion from that. FYI, this is why the FBI is recruiting for ISIS. Did I just say the FBI is recruiting for ISIS? You betcha.

        1. Where do the lizard people fit into all of this?

          1. “Hi, I’m Jim Comey. I’m the director of the FBI. We’re talking to you today because we are facing a crisis, a crisis that is killing far too many people?prescription drug and heroin abuse.”

            Chasing the Dragon: The Life of an Opiate Addict

            1. Just what are you on about?

              1. A dragon is like a lizard. Sorry, was just trying to answer your question. Please be more specific next time.

          2. Between the Jooooos and the Greys?

            1. This is a good example of why hate speech should not be criminalized – because then the bullies will accuse the truth teller of it and if he complains they all will pile on and call him ‘crazy’ and ‘inciting hateful rhetoric’ and say “I saw him speak hate speech!” and another will say, “Yeah, I heard it too!”

              1. Yes, bullying is the issue.

        2. “Almost all terrorists, whether foreign or domestic, have something in common: permissive parenting.”

          Yeah, when I think of people raised in the Middle East, where most terrorism takes place in 2016, the first thing I think is ‘permissive parenting.’

          Saudi Arabia is well known for having a very laissez faire approach to raising kids, especially the girls.

          1. Good point. In fact, Islam as a religion teaches the same lesson: “You’re a good person, now just do what your heart tells you and that will make you pious and righteous.”

            1. “”You’re a good person, now just do what your heart tells you and that will make you pious and righteous.””

              You think the primary lesson of Islam is ‘do whatever you want?’

              What Koran have you been reading?

              1. “Experts have suggested that overly permissive or uninvolved parents of these children bear some responsibility.” FBI – Addressing School Violence

                1. School violence is not terrorism, idiot.

                  1. “School violence is not terrorism, idiot.” It certainly is, and I would point out that your use of the insult ‘idiot’ reveals your insecurity about this issue. Bullies resort to name calling when they lose the argument. And then accuse the truth teller of ‘bullying’:

            2. Good point. In fact, Islam as a religion teaches the same lesson: “You’re a good person, now just do what your heart tells you and that will make you pious and righteous.”

              Uhhhh more like do what the Koran/Imam/Hadiths/Prophet tells you to do. Follow your heart is more a philosophical maxim to be found in Disney movies. Close though.

          2. when I think of people raised in the Middle East, where most terrorism takes place in 2016, the first thing I think is ‘permissive parenting

            Some cultures spoil the shit out of sons, eldest sons, etc. Dunno about MENA backwaters, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this happened there.

        3. You betcha.

          YAH HEY DERE YOU WANT SOMMA DIS LUTEFISK UFFDA

  15. But we should not pretend that excess sensitivity actually threatens our national security.

    Way to reframe it. I think the point is that failure to articulate a problem because it’s unpopular to speak candidly can lead to a misdiagnosis.

    1. it’s worse than misdiagnosis; it’s refusal to diagnose at all. That bodes poorly for the patient.

    2. It’s like every idiot in the world is given the sort of kid gloves handling that should be reserved for senile grandmothers and children with birth defects.

  16. “Robby Soave”

    waiting for it …

    waiting for it …

    not gonna happen? …

    But we should not pretend that excess sensitivity actually threatens our national security.

    Bam. Of fucking course.

  17. It’s important to not let excessive “sensitivity” to cloud judgement here, considering the stakes. I just think it’s also important to not shut off one’s critical faculties and just react when someone says “MOOZLUM TURRURISTS!!11!”. That’s how we wind up with shit like the Patriot Act.

    1. ^ This.

      It *is* possible for oversensitivity to make people blind to real problems. But that’s not the biggest thing we have going on right now.

  18. This comment thread is a good example of why ‘hate speech’ laws would be counterproductive: after failing at insults and ridicule, the bullies will use them to try to suppress dissent.

    1. Hey, bigoted conspiratorial dork, shut up.

      1. Yes, bullying is the issue. People think that Hitler rose to power through the use of a brilliantly evil manifesto. No, in fact he used bullying to suppress dissent and then people used the manifesto as an excuse for all types of evil. The same for Islam – the Koran doesn’t incite violence, nor do radical clerics posting youtube videos from the levant. What incites violence is the bullies that suppress the criticism of the people who point it out. Then they are free to interpret the Koran as they see fit. And considering the main message is “God is great” there is a lot of leeway there.

        1. “What incites violence is the bullies that suppress the criticism of the people who point it out. Then they are free to interpret the Koran as they see fit.”

          ^ Exactly this.

      2. I tried but couldn’t find a way to make this sexual. Dicks?

  19. Political correctness should never be extended to religion.

    You can argue about culture, but religion is something people choose to believe in. If that religion is completely nuts and advocates criminal behavior, then you should be able to criticize it.

    And yet, it seem mostly Islam that gets free from criticism. You can criticize Catholics for being a bunch of pedophiles (and rightly so), but say the same thing about Islam and you are a “racist”.

    Islam is not the native culture of most the places it dominates. Even in Arabia, it had to convert people by violence. Before it, they were moon goddess worshipers.

  20. As bad as terrorism is, it’s the social system that it’s trying to establish that is the real threat. Sharia law should be up there with apartheid or Jim Crow in terms of the worst systems of institutionalized evil. Terrorists will only ever hurt thousands, but a state that begins to resemble other Muslim states will hurt millions.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.