I am not sure how the fact that you have "strong opinions" based on "quite a bit of research" so that you firmly believe that Muslim extremists are "Islamo-fascists" relates in any way to the fact that you invented ideas that you claimed were included in an already slanted report that had nothing whatsoever to do with Islamo-fascism except in the broadest sense of the word that the testimony reported was based on a single sentence that acts of terror had increased in the previous year. You have now so cleverly steered the conversation away from the initial post that you apparently no longer recall what it was that I disagreed with, and once again steer it to fully bizarre and totally irrelevant conclusions that I now would prefer an Islamic takeover of the U.S. Before attempting to address the rabid senselessness of this current post, let's rewind the tape a moment. This discussion, which you seem to have forgotten, is based upon a source that you provided to support a contention you made that had no basis in fact. In a selectively misquoted story about a Congressional hearing about what might happen if a nuclear device were detonated in the capitol (a story that left out large parts of testimony that called into question the testimony the article quoted), you compounded the problem by misquoting the story to make it seem that increases in global terrorism were the same as fictional threats against the U.S. so that the THREATS were what the story was purportedly about, not the possibility of what might happen if said bomb were detonated. So, right off the bat, since you are unwilling to even go back and examine the twisted path of footloose research and reporting that you did, any claim you make now about the "research" you have done to inform your opinion is – at best – spurious. That said … I do not know a single Islamic "apologist". I certainly do not consider honest scholars of Islam to be apologists, nor do I consider anyone who challenges a person's misreading of the facts to be an "apologist" for either Islam, or its more radical followers. Speaking now only for myself (though I always find it hard to tell if your accusations are broadly aimed, or aimed directly at me), I also do not think it wise to "throw away our nation's security" simply to be "politically correct"; nor do I think political, social or religious "diversity" is a reason to throw away or ignore security concerns. Diversity is a cornerstone of this nation, however, so in some respects, to throw it out and trample upon it is a sure way to destroy our nation. As to an "Islamic take-over" of the U.S., this is just preposterous poppycock. The Soviet Union, were it so inclined to try, might have possessed the means to "take over" the US. The Soviet Union never tried. And, in case you haven't noticed, the Soviet Union no longer exists. To the best of my knowledge, no power has emerged to take the place of the Soviet Union. There is, quite frankly, no nation on earth capable of "taking over" the United States. But then again, most of us do not need for something that dramatic to "prove Republicans wrong." They've done (and continue to do) a fine job on their very own. I most certainly see the connection between "global terrorism" and terrorism carried out by Islamic extremists. While there are actually quite a few terrorist groups that make up "global terrorism", the phrase is more or less a euphemism for Islamic terrorism. But the "rise in global terrorism" refers to specific increases in terrorist activities that have actually taken place in all parts of the world but this one. It is not accounting for threats, or the chance that threats might be made at some point in the future, that have been made … just actual, real, substantive activities that have been observed and reported. That is as plain as the nose on your face. The article made no reference to threats of nuclear attack, nor did the witnesses. They were responding to a question posed to them by the Chair of the Committee … what would happen if … and gave it credence and supposed timeliness by making reference to the otherwise unrelated existence of increased terrorist activity. Is there a threat of a nuclear attack against the U.S.? Of course the possibility exists. But it certainly doesn't hurt that this administration has worked pretty darned hard to make sure we are all aware that such a threat exists. But are there any actual threats? My contention is that they are possible but so far illusory. To prove my point, why are you not equally concerned about the safety of your water supply? How about the cleanliness of the hot dogs you cook at next weekend's barbeque? since what I actually did not “report” anything. I made reference to an article that reported statements made in a hearing. How is referencing what was said and explaining my opinion in regard to those facts “digging a grave”. No … you added your own ideas to the one-sided and slanted article you referenced, and tried to pass off your ideas as the ideas that were in the article, which they were not. Either you purposefully altered and enhanced that article, or you fell victim to the article's subtle propaganda and aren't even aware how it slanted your opinion. Hence my use of the word "tool". My POINT is that you think that the danger posed by Islamo-facists is the same as the danger posed by pro-life or pro-militia movements and it is not. Oh, ah contraire! People who leave nail bombs in mailboxes and plant bombs in critical gathering places at major events (the Olympics, a federal courthouse) is just as anti-American and just as likely to cause serious damage to American political and social balance as anything an Islamic terrorist can do. John Brown did not single-handedly cause the Civil War (just as 9/11 did not cause the war in Iraq), but his act of terrorism was a significant contributor to the events that made the War impossible to avoid. The difference is that Islamo-facisism is the only one of the three that intends to destroy America and Americans. The Christian fascism of the other two destroyed Americans, and if we fall asleep, is just as likely to cause a collapse from within as any attack by extremists from without. Islamo-facists demand a change of religion; pro-life and pro-militia merely ask for a change in policy. Again, I disagree. Pro-life extremists (not ma and pa around the corner who feel abortion is bad) want to make us all believe like they do, with emphasis on the word "MAKE". Pro-militiia extremists have the same commitment to MAKING us behave and believe as they do. That's about as un-American as it gets. Actually in a very passive aggressive way you have. You challenged the credibility of the source based on it’s bias, (a flaw of any news service), and because it referenced global terrorism rather then Islamo-facism specifically. Here you go, misunderstanding and drawing faulty conclusions, again. I challenged the credibility of the source because while it cited the source FOR its story, it only included those parts of the original story that gave credence to the claims it was making and did not inform the careless and hapless reader that it was doing so … this is a great weakness in credibility. That other news services suffer similar credibility gaps is a problem with the media, not a problem in identifying the problem. My criticism of the "global terrorism" vs "Islamo-fascism" had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARTICLE (for the ninety-seventh time) … it had to do with either your interpretation of what the article said, or your silly attempt to put words in people's mouths in order to make a point that was not being made! I would challenge you position, but not criticize it, if it were not racist. IF your argument is based on the fact that one person’s behavior typifies a race, then it is racist. What kind of double-whammy bicycling backward talk is this? If my claim were that all Jews should be rounded up and questioned about their connection to and affiliation with anarchism because a Jewish anarchist tossed a bomb into Haymarket Square, then that claim is clearly racist. And yet it happened. And it was principally principled and conservative Republican politicians and businessmen who did such an unspeakable thing. The difference between a Jewish anarchist, and an Islamo-facists,(aka muslim extremists) is that the former has no group alliances while the later does More double-whammy backward cycling. The actions of an individual, and what we do in reaction to them, are but a microcosm (and a precedent) for what we do on a larger scale with groups. A Jewish anarchist is indeed party to a larger group, just as an Islam terrorist is. You are letting your misunderstanding of the term "anarchist" confuse you. Anarchists may act alone, or they may act in concert … but they are not without leaders and they are not without following. They also are members of other groups, by definition (the Jew the group of all Jews, a black terrorist of all African-Americans), but the group may not share their beliefs. Similarly, Islamic terrorists are part of a group, but the group is a subset of a larger group, most of whose members do not share the beliefs of the terrorist. So, in your estimation what would make it palpable, and would it be too late to be worried at that point? "pall•pa•bul: able to be touched or felt; clear to the mind or plain to see". A palpable threat is one in which the perpetrators are seen in the act of planning or acquiring resources to carry out their threat, and/or in the act of committing an act consistent with their threat. A rise in terrorist activity in other parts of the world combined with rumors of the availability of nuclear materials combined with fear of something bad happening does not equal a palpable threat. How does the rights of terrorists enter into this discussion? Because, in case you have forgotten, you have attempted to associate me with weakness and caving in to terrorism (and terrorists, and anti—Americanism, and all sorts of other evil despicable things) because I have suggested that terrorists have rights. This is a tenet of the American philosophy, which the terrorists are seeking to destroy, so how does it apply to non-Americans? Because if we cannot honor what we believe, even when the stakes are high and the pressure intense, then our values are meaningless. Everyone else sees that. Who cares if they are not Americans? The fact that they do not respect anyone else's rights makes it all the more imperative that we show the world we believe in our principles. We also need to show ourselves. The fact that we can do so speaks power to those who wish to turn them into people like themselves … the fact that we become like them when times are tough equally speaks about the depth of our convictions. It's a pretty simple and straight forward concept.