At least according to Brian Kilmeade, that’s how it is.  According to the Huffington Post:

On both TV and radio Friday, Kilmeade said that, while not all Muslims are terrorists, “all terrorists are Muslims.”

Keith Olbermann responded with the following:

“There is stupid and there is bigoted and there is paranoid and there is Islamophobic, but it takes a big man to combine all four of them,” Olbermann said of Kilmeade.

Olbermann also rattled off a list of non-Muslim terrorists, including several murderers from the radical right and Oklahoma City bomber. Timothy McVeigh

“So, here’s one for Mr. Kilmeade: not every unamerican bastard is Brian Kilmeade, but all Brian Kilmeades are unamerican bastards,” Olbermann said.

I don’t know what either of them are thinking.  Certainly we can all think of terrorists who aren’t Muslims. I immediately thought of the man who charged into the Holocaust Museum and killed a guard and Scott Roeder who assassinated Dr. George Tiller while he was attending Sunday church service.  Keith Olbermann also knows better than to call someone an unAmerican bastard. 

Shame on both of them.  Both men need to be setting a better example.  Has the world gone mad?

To his credit, Brian Kilmeade did apologize. Case closed:

 

 

31 Thoughts to “All Muslims aren’t Terrorists but All Terrorists are Muslims?”

  1. Olbermann was just taking an good opportunity to take a shot at the enemy, FOX, that’s all.

    I mean, if I was losing that badly to another network, I’d take shots too, just to get noticed.

    I can understand Kilmeade’s statement, though. The other terrorists do get lost in the crowd of muslim terrorists.

    Let’s see…NON-Muslim terrorists……

    FARC
    Shining Path
    IRA (what’s left of it)
    assorted lone nut jobs
    ETA
    Assorted anti-Muslim Serb gangs
    Earth First!
    Tamil Tigers (some Muslims)

    Now, lets see the Muslims

    Muslim Brotherhood
    Al-Queada
    HAMAS
    Al-Fatah
    Hezbollah
    Moros
    Chechens
    Muslim terrorists – Thailand
    Muslim terrorists – China
    Muslim terrorists – Nigeria
    Libya government
    Iranian gov’t
    Syrian gov’t
    Assortied Pakistani groups including their secret service ISI
    Black September (now dead, good job Israel)
    assorted lone nut jobs
    Taliban
    Sunni and Shia terror groups (Iraq)

    Governments that support Islamic terror:
    Iran
    Syria
    Libya
    Saudi Arabia
    Pakistan
    Taliban (prior to liberation)
    Somalia (sort of. very little govt)
    Chechnya

    So, at least, generously, about 5% of the terrorists are not Islamic related.

    But, as a reporter/journalist/tv host, Kilmeade should have known better and did the right thing.

  2. Now, if he had said “all INTERNATIONAL terrorists were Muslim” he would be correct.

  3. Here’s a related subject: The Muslim Brotherhood has declared war on the US

    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=190894

    The Muslim Brotherhood’s leader has endorsed anti-American jihad and a view virtually identical to al-Qaida’s ideology. Since the Brotherhood is the main opposition in Egypt and Jordan and the most powerful group in Muslim communities of Europe and North America, this is serious stuff.

    More:

    …hundreds of thousands of Brotherhood followers are being given a signal. Some will engage in terrorism; others will redouble efforts to seize control of countries and turn them into bases for war on the West.

    The Brotherhood is the group that often dominates Muslim communities and runs mosques in the West. Its front groups are often courted by Western governments and media.

    Yet here is the Brotherhood’s new supreme guide, Muhammad Badi giving a sermon entitled, “How Islam Confronts the Oppression and Tyranny,” translated by MEMRI in which he says:

    • Arab and Muslim regimes betray their people unless they confront not only Israel but also the US. Waging jihad against both is mandatory for all Muslims. Otherwise, “They are disregarding Allah’s commandment to wage jihad… so that Allah’s word will reign supreme” over all non-Muslims.

    • All Muslims are required by their religion to fight as their highest priority, since “the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice, and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as its enemies pursue life.”

    • The US is easy to defeat through violence, since it is “experiencing the beginning of its end and is heading toward its demise.”

    • Palestinians should back Hamas in overthrowing the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and unite in waging war on Israel.

    • Rational calculations applied by the West to adversaries, assuming Muslims won’t act in a revolutionary and even suicidal manner, want a better future for their children, etc., don’t apply to the Islamist movement: “Allah said: ‘The hosts will all be routed and will turn and flee’ (Koran 54:45). This verse is a promise to the believers that they shall defeat their enemies… and that through Allah you shall triumph… The outcome of the confrontation has been predetermined by

  4. Starryflights

    cargosquid :Now, if he had said “all INTERNATIONAL terrorists were Muslim” he would be correct.

    You’re a liar, man.

    Here is the US Department of State’s list of international terrorist organizations. It includes orgnaizations like ETA of Spain, the FARC of Colombia and the IRA of Ireland. They are not all Muslim.

    http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

  5. Wolverine

    Starryflights— Look again at your own link and offer an apology to cargosquid. The Department of State list you cited carries the title of “Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations”, not “International Terrorist Organizations.” There is a difference. Make amends with cargosquid , and maybe I will explain it to you.

  6. Emma

    @Starryflights Post # 1, cargo listed those three as non-Muslim terror organizations. Best to read before you attack and call names.

  7. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    I was watching that morning when he said that, and it did stick out, even though he said it as almost a “making small talk” thing. He wasn’t really thinking about what he was saying, and I watched for anyone to give him a strange look, but it just passed by. Anyone watching knows Kilmeade mispoke, and doesn’t really believe that all terrorists are Muslim. Just an oddly huge percentage, that’s all. Olbermann? Is he still on TV? “Countdown to Zero Viewers?”

  8. And I think he does know better. Thus, he apologized for misspeaking. (To his credit)

    And I hate defending Olbermann. I don’t like him. But I don’t think he needs an excuse to fire a shot across the bow at Fox. They take s shot a minute at anyone who isn’t one of them. It really is fairly disgusting. End of defending Olbermann.

    Cargo, I think you started off right and went adrift. Your comments about SOME muslims might be very valid. I also think you might want to take another look at the concept of jihad.

    As I understand it from talking with those who are practicing muslims, the extremists are taking the literal interpretation of the concept. Sort of like thinking about ‘Onward Christian Soldiers.’ Some people might interpret that song as a call to arms to go kill anyone not Christian or to join a Crusade. To others, whose concept of evangelism has evolved past the end of a sword, the song could very well mean living a good life and doing for others in the spirit of Christ.

    Many Muslims I know consider jihad a personal struggle from within that a person must deal with. It might even be something like sneaking a cookie before sunset during Ramadan.

  9. There are literally hundreds of different Christian denominations, all with different interpretations of the religion. We recognize these in Christianity but yet don’t allow Muslims the same degree of variance.

  10. I just consider the source and am not offended. Starry can’t be held to the same standard. Drive-by squirrellings, by their very nature, lack depth and accuracy. Thanks.

  11. We do allow Muslims the same degree of variance. And those groups that I listed use Jihad in the literal sense. The reason that “fundamental” Muslims gain so much power is that THEY can point to parts of the Koran to back up their beliefs. “Moderates” cannot do that.

    We can get along with different interpretations of Christianity (No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!) because Christianity has already had its religious wars and the basic message of Christianity is love and non-violence. Christians also separate church from state.

    In Islam, people die because they are “moderate.” There is no “interpreting” allowed. Sharia does not allow separation of church and state. So while most Muslims do not advocate conquering neighboring peoples in the name of religion, neither will they stop it. It is not my quote about jihad above. The entire thing is from the Muslim Brotherhood, whose imams are considered authorities throughout huge portions of the Middle East. Why is it that it is so hard to take them at their word? Islam has almost NO peaceful borders with non-Muslims.

    “Arab and Muslim regimes betray their people unless they confront not only Israel but also the US. Waging jihad against both is mandatory for all Muslims. Otherwise, “They are disregarding Allah’s commandment to wage jihad… so that Allah’s word will reign supreme” over all non-Muslims.”

    All it takes for evil to flourish is good men to stand by and do nothing.

  12. marinm

    Cargo, you could probably pad the numbers some if you added PETA and ELF.. 😉

    Thanks for all that info. Good stuff.

  13. ELF! That’s who I was forgetting. I thought “Earth First!” and forgot ELF.

    PETA, annoying, but, not deadly. I liked People Eating Tasty Animals. Too bad that domain owner was forced to sell it to PETA.

  14. Christians also separate church from state.

    Not nearly enough for my tastes.

    I don’t think non-muslims understand the differences in the ‘denominations.’ I also don’t think they care enough to find out.

    If you go into the bible of Abraham, Moses and Christ, you can find some pretty inflammatory things that bid one to do all sorts of violence.

    I am not ready to condemn an entire religion–just those who want to harm others.

    If I were to try to change things, I would start looking in our prisons. That is where a great deal of really nasty radical behavior is springing up.

  15. Moon,
    There are no governments that use the Bible as the law. Muslims use the Koran as the basis for all their laws. Sharia is the law of the land. That is what I mean.

    As for the denominations for Muslims, the main ones, Sunni and Shia, cause the most problems in violence. Wahabbism, from Saudi Arabia, is fueling a lot of the philosophy behind Al Quaeda and drives the fundamental interpretations in the mosques that are funded by the Saudis. They are a branch of the Sunnis. The rest of the the “flavors” of Islam are not that involved in the fight.

    NONE of the Christian denominations are fighting over religion or killing people in the name of religion. Neither are Buddhists, Taoists, etc. The Hindus do some local violence, but, that is a conflict with, surprise, muslims. And if you go into the bible of Christ, you find inflammatory things? What violence did Christ preach?

    Condemn Sharia. Also, based upon Islam, think of the harm done women and girls throughout the world. Think of the harm done TO ANYBODY that does not follow Islam. I do not condemn INDIVIDUAL MUSLIMS that do not support violence. I condemn Islam based upon the evidence I see before my eyes.

    I’ve seen that Muslims can be some of the nicest, most generous, peaceful people on earth. But the basis of their religion supports religious intolerance that demands submission from non-muslims and separate treatment based upon their religion. Any that put Sharia higher than the law of the land do not respect you or me or any non-muslim.

    Christians have had their major reforms and, actually, continually evolves. The Bible is interpreted by many, according to their own knowledge or authority. Many faithful do not actually consider the Bible to be the literal word anymore, but the inspired writings of men, inspired by God.

    The Koran is considered immutable. They have not reached the point of “live and let live” because the religion IS the social and legal structure.

  16. Elena

    I was listening to NPR this morning, a very interesting show. A muslim woman from Morrocco who serves in their parliment was sharing her experiences. When they had suicide/homocide bomber kill 40 people in 2003, the government, along with the people, made a clear choice to determine what it was that needed to change in their country.

    What they realized was that women needed to play a greater role in government and the social crisis facing the poorest of the poor needed to be addressed. Women are now being trained as Imam’s (more than I can say for the Catholic church BTW) and the country is really trying to serve as a modern model for Islam in the 21st century.

    Since no one here is a religious scholar, all we have to go on is the 24 hours news cycle. Islam was not always this severe, the change really began in the 19th century as the Saudi’s exported their brand of Wahabisim.

  17. Religion is nothing more than man’s interpretation of what he thinks God wants/is.

    I agree with some of what you have said but I am not sure you have not misdirected some cause and effect.

    Great disparities in wealth seem to be one thing that predominently muslim countries have in common. Religion has been used for millenia to control mankind. Demoncracy or near democracy seems to calm down some of the outrageousness we are talking about.

    I try to make it a practice to never be derisive about someone else’s religion, even if it is one that makes me personally cringe. I should have probably opened with that statement, then moved on to the remark about religion being man’s interpretation of what he thinks God thinks.

    As for Christianity and violence, how about Revelation? Additionally, I doubt if the Church used the OT against the thousands of Jews who were tortured during the Inquisition.

  18. Islam during the 50’s and 60’s in Afghanistan, Egypt, and other places, was much more moderate. It was the rise of the liberation movements in the 70’s that mated with the Islamist movement that moved Islam to a more intolerant society. Wahabbism was just gasoline on that fire. And since the fundamentalists were able to point at the Koran and were willing to commit violence to back up their convictions, society became more intolerant.

    As for the Inquisition killing Jews, etc, do you think that the Inquisitors found themselves at the right hand of God after death? Christ’s teachings said nothing about politics. It is when man mixes politics and religion that you have evil; when the political system is the church. Theocracies end badly. You mention great disparities of wealth. Are you saying that the violence is coming because of poverty? Evidence shows that most of the suicide bombers were not “poor” nor are most of the terrorists from poor families. They tend to come from disillusioned middle class families.

    Morocco and Tunisia have slowly liberalized their governments, as has Kuwait and some of the smaller Gulf kingdoms.

    A great article about earlier times:

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/27/once_upon_a_time_in_afghanistan

    http://www.greatermiddleeastphoto.com/2010/10/afghanistan-50s-and-60s.html

  19. I think poverty is fairly important in the discussion. I think it creates a state of dispair. Instead of blaming the princes, kings and others with the oppulent wealth, they look to the west and blame us. Even looking at Israel probably brings about resentment. Then you have the religious schools that prey upon poor families. yea, I think poverty has a lot to do with it. What do you mean by liberation movements?

    As for the inquisition? I don’t presume to think I know what God thinks.

  20. Wolverine

    I would suggest that Kilmeade’s statement is a very common misperception based on the current configuration of the counterterrorist battlefield but not backed entirely by hard fact. But let me digress a bit here since Starryflights will probably not apologize to Cargosquid.

    That document issued by the Dept. of State is a list of foreign terrorist organizations period. It is aimed particularly at those terrorist organizations which do or may attack American persons and interests here and/or abroad. It is the USG saying, in effect, that, if you attack us in New York or New Delhi or Manila or anywhere else, we already have the authorization to strike back at you both unilaterally and in concert with our allies or the police and intelligence services of the country in which your attacks take place. Secondly, it is an effort to announce that the USG will go after any person or institution which is found to be supporting the terrorist organizations on that list through open or clandestine provision of funding or materiel or recruits. This is virtually a working paper for American counterterrorism. Being added or removed from that list by an assessment of the USG can be a very big deal internationally. And, as a matter of diplomacy, that list is not composed by the USG, in my opinion, in a casual or slap-dash manner.

    What that list does not do but what the supporting files will do is differentiate operationally between the terrorist groups in a certain way. Perhaps I can best explain this through an analogy regarding air travel. In a given country you will sometimes find two sorts of airlines. One will carry you between points within that country and can be called a “domestic” airline. The other will take you from that country to foreign countries and can be called an “international” airline. Sometimes they are completely separate. Sometimes they are two different branches of the same outfit, especially where both are government-owned. But there is an “operational” difference.

    Virtually all of the non-Muslim terrorist organizations on the State Department list could be categorized as “domestic” in that their actions and attacks are pretty much limited to their own country and cross-border attack operations are rare or even non-existent. They may or may not have American persons or interests on their attack list for that country. If they do, they make our list for certain. Even without that, they might make the list if it can be demonstrated conclusively that Americans and American interests are in danger of collateral or opportunistic damage. Being on the list, however, cannot be taken as an indication that the Americans are actively engaged against a particular terrorist group. It is often a warning to that group to stay away from us or else, and it is most certainly a warning to those private or institutional persons who may think they can freely provide financial or materiel aid to a listed group.

    Since I am no longer privilege to all the facts, I cannot state with certainty which Muslim groups on that list can be considered “domestic” as opposed to “international”; and I am not about to do a major research project on it. However, many of them can clearly be defined as “international” because they conduct attack operations across international borders. Al-Qaeda is the most obvious both as to its central command in Afghanistan-Pakistan and its allied organizations in other countries. It was the al-Qaeda branch in Yemen, for instance, which sent us the Christmas Day bomber in a cross-border operation. Others such as Hezbollah and Hamas, in my opinion, can also be classified as “international” to some degree because they endeavor to strike at Israel across an international border, even if they themselves do not recognize that border. Some of the Muslim terrorist organizations in Asia would be considered by me to be both domestic and international in that , while most of their attacks are local, they can serve as a “farm team” for their al-Qaeda ally by offering the kind of attack personnel who can be used to cause our protective services to let down their “ethnic” guard.

    These are largely my personal and professional perceptions, and I allow that debate might be legitimate. But Cargosquid has provided us with some very important news in that regard. The Muslim Brotherhood, based largely in Egypt, does now appear to be expanding into “international” operations, even though I suspect they have already done that long ago. In any case, the “international”, as opposed to “domestic”, deal now seems to be visible on the table.

    If you could go back to the mid-1990’s, I believe you might find the Department list much different. In those days there was a much longer list of both “domestic” and “international” terrorist groups of a non-Muslim nature. Many of these organizations were defeated or simply faded away with time and a lack of interest by potential recruits. An example of a “domestic” group, in my estimation, would have been the Tupac Amaru, a Marxist group which operated largely in the urban centers of Peru. Another would be No. 40 on the current list, the Revolutionary Organization 17 November (17N), a Marxist outfit which attacked Greeks, Americans, NATO personnel, and Turkish diplomats but whose lethal attacks almost all took place in Athens or its environs. An example of an “international” group would have been the Japanese Red Army, small, not ideologically very clear but very opposed to our capitalist systems in general. They actually tried to attack us right here at home. Another “international” organization would be the Middle East-centered group led by “Carlos the Jackel,” a South American who now lives in a French prison cell.

    Beginning in that period, our counterterrorism emphasis began to shift away from these non-Muslim groups toward a much greater attention to the radical Muslim threat. Thus to our existing interest in radical Muslim groups operating in the Palestine-Israeli theater was added a deeper and wider scope which included a certain Osama bin Laden. This was more than a half-decade before 9/11. Decisions were made that the radical Muslim threat could well grow into the greatest problem we faced, and personnel and materiel were reoriented to meet that threat in all or most of our intelligence services. Kovar Towers, the USS Cole, the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania proved that to be right. The problem, in my opinion, is that we did not do it fast enough or effectively enough to prevent 9/11. It was 9/11, obviously, which swung that pendulum almost off the chart, hence the very small current list of non-Muslim terrorist groups. Resources are applied to the greatest points of danger. Fortunately for us, the other points of danger have often disappeared or been diminished. Part of that you can attribute to the final fall of the central ideological icon of Marxism — a place called the Soviet Union.

    I posit, therefore, that Kilmeade’s statement was simply a reflection of what he and even the average citizen can see of our actual counterterrorism emphasis in this day and age. When an Amertican dies these days in a terrorist attack, it is usually at the hands of a group with a radical Muslim label, not at the hands of the non-Muslim organizations. Just ask yourselves when the last time was that you heard of an American being killed purposely by ETA, the IRA, 17N, or most of the groups on the non-Muslim side of the list. And 17N. They were brought to justice some seven years ago, having finally made a fatal operational mistake.. Their supreme leader is serving 21 consecutive life sentences in a Greek prison. But sometimes it takes awhile to get off that list.

  21. Juturna

    I also heard the program with Geraldo – they were all engaged. As someone pointed out – it was just something that came out during a spirited conversation – he was not ‘selling news’. I enjoy the segments with Geraldo, they usually all run like that so someone is bound to mis-speak. We’ve all done what Kilmeade did at one time or another – when your brain is miles ahead of your mouth! I do get a kick out of Brian Kilmeade. I don’t sense that he is always trying to further an agenda. I do get that sense from Doocy.

  22. Juturna

    If you stand at the altar in St. Peter’s at the Vatican to flanking the alter is a giant statue of St. Veronica. On the right is St. Helen. They are both women.

  23. @Juturna

    And notice he manned up real fast rather than acting all justified. I agree, he seems to be cut out of a little different cloth.

    Was St. Helen the mother of Constantine?

    @Wolverine, I just think we all need to practice saying ‘radical’ or ‘extremist’ Muslim. t harms no one and might help make one friend along the way. There are a lot of Muslims in the world. It seems to me that it is better to be on friendly terms than non-friendly terms.

    In general, I don’t think anyone is disputing that some radical muslims do very horrible things to others. I think what we are saying is that that there are peace loving, kind, decent muslims out there in the world who we don’t want to alienate. the last thing we want to do is turn them against us.

    Not sure I understand the difference in international and foreign.

  24. Wolverine

    All the groups on that list are “foreign.” “International” and “domestic” are simply descriptives for the kind of turf on which a particular group operates. Al-Qaeda ranges around the world to do its dirty work (international). Its target list is broad and varied. A group like 17N did its dirty work almost exclusively on the home soil (domestic). Its principal target was the home government, with the US and NATO as allies of that home government right up behind. Either way, if they attack Americans as al-Qaeda does on an international basis or as 17N did only in Greece, they make that list.

    In operating against a particular terrorist group, a good officer should try to understand thoroughly what motivates and drives them. Could be a radicalized form of Islam. Could be some version of Marxism. Could just be an attempt at liberation in a situation where one’s own ethnicity/culture have been, at least by perception, made subordinate to a dominant ethno-culture — which is largely what the Basques of ETA in Spain have always been about.

    I do not think that you will find officers in our security services who do not understand the acute differences between the “good guys” and the “bad guys” in a particular country, religion, ethnicity, or any other defining characteristic out of which a particular terrorist group has been born. If you can convince the “good guys” to get past their own fear of terrorist revenge (which is very genuine, even among police officers), they are the ones who can help you to complete the mission against the “bad guys.” Generalization, therefore, is not something usually found among the professionals. They know how to differentiate. But, sometimes even they can blow it badly, as you can see in the recently released report on the death of those seven intelligence officers in Afghanistan. It is very often a difficult and always potentially dangerous part of the work. Sometimes you are never quite sure whether the “good guys” are not really the “bad guys” in disguise..

  25. Bear

    I’m impressed by the amount of in-depth knowledge many of you have of the Muslim Religion!
    I find taking people one at a time by their acts and deeds easier to understand and evaluate. Both Religion and Politics seems to bring out the vituperation in all of us.

  26. Elena

    I was actually thinking of more religions that prevent women from fully participating in leadership roles, certainly very conservative Jews do not allow women to become rabbi’s along with Episcopalians, Methodists, and several more. I guess the religions that practice their faith in the most conservative vein are the ones most resistant to sharing the power of leadership.

  27. @Bear,

    I think Wolverine worked in counter terrorism so that would give him up close and personal experience. Not sure what Cargo’s knowledge comes from–on the job or personal training.

  28. e

    christopher hitchens said it best: god is not great, religion poisons everything. the thing is, most folks on earth today dont really believe all the mumbo jumbo, except for the practioners of the religion of “peace”. thats why theyre so dangerous

  29. e

    practitioners, my bad.
    kilmeade’s statement is justified, if he would have worded it slightly differently: most (not all) muslims arent terrorists, but most (not all) terrorists today are muslims

  30. Bear

    @Moon
    Counter Terrorism would certainly qualify as an authority.
    I’m still impressed but Now with the “caliber” of Bloggers you have attracted

  31. Moon, I just pay attention to what the bad guys are saying and take them at their word. Then I watch their actions. I was in intel in the 80’s, so I pay attention to that sort of thing, but it wasn’t counter-terrorism. Back then, the civilian agencies took care of that and most of it was Soviet generated. But I remember who does what to whom and the politics of the locality.

Comments are closed.