Got hate?

Dear Chris,

We certainly don’t mind criticism of our work. After all, we’re in the criticism business. But stringing together a bunch of ad hominems is not a rational critique. Care to explain how you came to the conclusion that we’re “small-minded, ignorant, violence-prone, gun-fetishizing, flag-wrapping bigot[s]”? As you may know, I live in Nashville. You could always elaborate in person over a beer.

Sincerely, Allen – Cox & Forkum

Sure. For the record, “ad hominem” refers to a fallacy wherein you blur an argument by attacking the person (hominem), rather than the idea or argument at hand. Since I am criticizing the t-shirt, and, by extension, its creator, you, the ad hominem criticisms are quite rational and apt. You personally may in fact not be absolutely a small-minded, ignorant, violence-prone, gun-fetishizing, flag-wrapping bigot with low self-esteem (a judgement I would reserve until knowing you better), but producing (or wearing) this t-shirt gives that impression. Why? Because of these reasons (adjectives grouped together where appropriate):

1) small-minded, ignorant:

The world is a complicated place. Boiling down our geopolitical circumstance to something as simple as “us vs. them” – in this case, the US vs. “Islamists” – reflects an inability to comprehend even the least of the complexities of the world.

2) violence-prone, gun-fetishizing

Your t-shirt displays a muscle-bound Uncle Sam with a large assault weapon strangling an “Islamist”. This condones and promotes violence. It also depicts violence with a bigoted slant, which is a bad thing, especially in a country with a sizeable muslim population that is plagued with racism, bigotry, and hate crimes. This ties into 1), since small minds tend to resort to violence.

3) flag-wrapping

What does it mean to “wrap something in a flag”? It’s a term used to describe the co-opting of nationalism to promote an agenda, using propaganda. You depict a uniformed Uncle Sam strangling an “Islamist”. They are between 5 and 8 million muslims in America. I doubt they share your vision of violence directed towards their religion. And yet, they are Americans too. Wrapping something in a flag doesn’t make it American.

4) low self-esteem

What does esteem have to do with it? Well, nationalism is a curious thing, and a powerful force, one used as often for good as it is for bad. I find that nationalism is often a surrogate for esteem, particularly when it is used as an excuse for violence and bigtory.

5) bigot

Ah, the grand finale. Why the word “bigot”? For this, I turn to merriam-webster:

Main Entry: big·ot

Pronunciation: ‘bi-g&t

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot

Date: 1661

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

You see, I would have used “racist”, but that’s actually too restrictive, because the intolerant prejudice you exhibit is actually inclusive of a great many races.

I hope that clarifies things for you.

As for the beer, I thank you kindly for the invitation, but I’ll pass. Beer makes me fat. Besides, I’d be afraid you might wear that shirt. I have a reputation to maintain, after all.

First of all, you can say your ad hominem attacks are “rational” and “apt” all you want, but you’ll still be wrong. Ad hominems are irrational by definition. As you noted in your own definition, an ad hominem is the logical *fallacy* of attacking the person instead of his argument. (Perhaps the word “fallacy” is in your Merriam-Webster.)

We asserted a position with our t-shirt, and you responded with petty name-calling and prejudiced psychologizing. “You have a small mind and low self-esteem” is not an “apt” or “rational” response. (You were honest enough to admit that you resorted to personal attacks, so I guess that counts for something.)

Secondly, your insults appear to be based on a critically mistaken assumption. You are equating “Islamists” with “muslims,” but not all muslims are Islamists. Islamists are the muslims bent on spreading Islam by force – whether through law or violence – for the purpose establishing Islamic theocracies. There are no “subtle nuances” about flying loaded passenger jets into skyscrapers full of innocent people. There’s nothing “complex” about honor killings and the abuse of women and homosexuals in Sharia-oppressed Islamic tyrannies. I consider such atrocities and the people who commit them to be evil. If that’s too “simple” for you, so be it.

The assertion made by our shirt can be summarized as, “America should defend itself against another 9/11 by using its powerful military force against Islamo-fascists.”

You might disagree with that assertion, and that’s your prerogative. You have an apparent distaste for violence. Fine. But you were wrong to insult us and to mis-characterize our message as you did.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you had misread our message, but the continued prejudice evident in your reply has proven to me that you didn’t deserve it.

Allen

Cox & Forkum

*First of all, you can say your ad hominem attacks are “rational” and “apt” all you want, but you’ll still be wrong. Ad hominems are irrational by definition. As you noted in your own definition, an ad hominem is the logical *fallacy* of attacking the person instead of his argument. (Perhaps the word “fallacy” is in your Merriam-Webster.)

We asserted a position with our t-shirt, and you responded with petty name-calling and prejudiced psychologizing. “You have a small mind and low self-esteem” is not an “apt” or “rational” response. (You were honest enough to admit that you resorted to personal attacks, so I guess that counts for something.)*

This is mere pedantry, at this point, but the definition of an ad hominem fallacy is attacking the person making an argument instead of the argument itself. My only criticism was the t-shirt, and by extension, you. Therefore the argument is you, and I wasn’t diverting anything. It might be petty, but it wasn’t fallacious.

Secondly, your insults appear to be based on a critically mistaken assumption. You are equating “Islamists” with “muslims,” but not all muslims are Islamists. Islamists are the muslims bent on spreading Islam by force – whether through law or violence – for the purpose establishing Islamic theocracies.

From Merriam-Webster, again:

Main Entry: Is·lam·ism

Pronunciation: is-‘lä-“mi-z&m, iz-, -‘la-; ‘iz-l&-

Function: noun

Date: 1747

the faith, doctrine, or cause of Islam

• Is·lam·ist /-mist/ noun

I just love dictionaries, don’t you?

The assertion made by our shirt can be summarized as, “America should defend itself against another 9/11 by using its powerful military force against Islamo-fascists.”

That might be your summarization, but it’s not what the t-shirt communicates.

Pointing out mistakes in your arguments is not pedantry. Equating me with my arguments is not logical. And relying solely on a dictionary for an understanding of modern-day politics is not recommended.

Nonetheless, thank you, Chris, for allowing me the opportunity to respond to your criticisms.

Allen

I was referring to my own pedantry. I have a bit of a pet peeve forming about ad hominem accusations. “ad hominem” from a logical perspective refers to subverting the discussion away from an argument at hand by attacking the person, irrelevantly. If the topic is criticism of you, then, uh, a criticism of you is quite relevant. Because you take offense at something doesn’t make it an ad hominem fallacy.

But that’s just it. In a political discussion, the topic should never be “a criticism of you,” it should be “a criticism of your argument.” It’s the jump from criticizing a person’s argument to criticizing their person that is the problem (having a discussion about a person’s character is another matter).

Your concern about cries of “ad hominem” is valid. Such accusations can easily be leveled at the slightest offense, not unlike how the “race card” is often played in discussions of race where no racism is evident.

However, ad hominem is a specific thing. It is not defined by a person taking offense to criticism. It’s defined by a person’s character being attacked instead of his argument. A person is not his argument.

Granted, we’re talking about a t-shirt here, which is not an argument. But the shirt does make an assertion. Your reaction to that assertion was not to analyze it but to insult the mental capacity and psychological health of the asserters and anyone who would agree with them. That’s ad hominem.

If you said to me, “Bush is a dangerous leader because of his unilateralist tendency.” And I responded with, “You’re a cowardly idiot and anybody that agrees with you is an cowardly idiot.” That would be an ad hominem even if your really are a coward and an idiot, because the issue, in this hypothetical case, is not your character, it is Bush’s foreign policy.

Maintaining the distinction between a person and his assertions is crucial to determining the validity of the assertion. Otherwise debate is stifled by prejudice, intimidation and irrationality.

For the record, I find the t-shirt offensive and bigoted. I immediately interpreted the term “Islamist” to mean someone of the Islamic faith. Either: A. this is what you intended or B. there is a big skew between your intended meaning and the shirt’s actual symbolic meaning. This is not to suggest that you should be in the business of making everyone happy and not offending anyone. But when you do things like this (making a t-shirt that is VERY very offensive) , you can’t act surprised and dismayed when people think you are in the business of being a small-minded, ignorant, violence-prone, gun-fetishizing, flag-wrapping bigot.

For the record, we didn’t create this shirt for people who don’t know the meaning of “Islamist.” If anything, we created it to emphasize the meaning of Islamism.

There was a time when many Americans did not know the meaning of “Nazi.” That didn’t stop artists like Arthur Szyk from depicting the Nazis as Jew-hating, mass-murdering monsters. He probably offended a great many German-Americans in doing so. He probably had personal insults thrown at him, too. He didn’t let either detract him from expressing the truth.

I don’t for a moment consider us in Szyk’s league, but we do have similar aims. In our case, the truth we want to express is that followers of a fascist, terrorist ideology known as Islamism are bent on harming America and Americans, and that we should use force to defend ourselves against them. “Islamist” does not simply mean “someone of the Islamic faith.” The term “Islamist” is used today (not just by us) specifically to distinguish moderate muslims from theocratic muslims.

Our cartoon Islamist is even wielding a sword to indicate his violent intent. (It’s interesting that both you and Chris choose to focus on Uncle Sam’s “violence” while ignoring the violence of militant Islamic terrorists.)

It boils down to this, Amanda … You presented a false alternative: Either (A) we were intentionally bigoted; or (B) we mistakenly created an image that has an “actual symbolic meaning” that is bigoted. There is at least one other alternative: (C) you misread the “actual symbolic meaning” and jumped to the conclusion that it was bigoted.

I’d be happy to discuss this further if you wish. My aim here is simply to defend myself against defamatory insults and false accusations.

For the record, we didn’t create this shirt for people who don’t know the meaning of “Islamist.”

Uh, yeah. I’m not worried about you offending the people that buy the t-shirt, so it doesn’t matter who you created it for.

*There was a time when many Americans did not know the meaning of “Nazi.” That didn’t stop artists like Arthur Szyk from depicting the Nazis as Jew-hating, mass-murdering monsters. He probably offended a great many German-Americans in doing so. He probably had personal insults thrown at him, too. He didn’t let either detract him from expressing the truth.

I don’t for a moment consider us in Szyk’s league, but we do have similar aims. In our case, the truth we want to express is that followers of a fascist, terrorist ideology known as Islamism are bent on harming America and Americans, and that we should use force to defend ourselves against them. “Islamist” does not simply mean “someone of the Islamic faith.” The term “Islamist” is used today (not just by us) specifically to distinguish moderate muslims from theocratic muslims.*

“Nazi” didn’t mean anything before it represented the Nationalsozialist party. “Islamism” has a definition. It does simply mean “someone of the Islamic faith.” I won’t paste the definition again, since I trust you can scroll up and read over it. The failure to sufficiently explain this new co-opted definition of an existing word is yours and yours alone, along with the responsibility for any confusion that you are attacking an entire religion.

Our cartoon Islamist is even wielding a sword to indicate his violent intent. (It’s interesting that both you and Chris choose to focus on Uncle Sam’s “violence” while ignoring the violence of militant Islamic terrorists.)

You didn’t depict militant Islamic terrorists. You depicted a man wearing a turban, carrying a scimitar, labeled “Islamist”, which, despite assumptions of your best intentions, doesn’t mean “militant Islamic terrorists” to most people viewing your t-shirt.

Also, you might be interested to know that, in fact, militant Islamic terrorists don’t use scimitars. Interesting trivia: they actually mostly use bombs and guns. It’s true, I looked it up. You could have depicted these, but instead you chose a scimitar, a weapon most likely last used to any great extent during the Crusades. Hmmmm, I wonder what the symbolic implications of that are. I can’t imagine!!

It boils down to this, Amanda … You presented a false alternative: Either (A) we were intentionally bigoted; or (B) we mistakenly created an image that has an “actual symbolic meaning” that is bigoted. There is at least one other alternative: (C) you misread the “actual symbolic meaning” and jumped to the conclusion that it was bigoted.

We didn’t misread anything. You used the word “islamist”. Look it up in the dictionary again if you need to. Co-opted political jargon du jour doesn’t cut it on a t-shirt depicting a very violent image. You better be very specific. You provided no visual cues that you were referring to “militant islamic terrorists” (which is not exactly difficult, and I’m not even a cartoonist. Here’s an idea: draw a bomb.)

You are simply misinformed on the definition of “Islamist.” Our use is not “new and co-opted.” Hopefully the following will be sufficient explanation, but I recommend looking into it further for yourself (beyond your dictionary).

To demonstrate the commonality of my use of the word “Islamist,” I went to CNN and searched the site for the word “Islamist.” The first article to appear was this: Islamists tighten grip in Kuwait. Here are some excerpts that indicate the nature of Islamists (in contrast to moderate muslims):

Islamists strengthened their grip in the oil rich Gulf state, taking about a third of the all-male 50 seats in the national assembly, state television said. […]

[T]he emir has the final say, with the ability to dissolve the legislature. … It also controls the media, security forces and wealth of the country, with the parliament having only 30 percent of power. […]

Islamists oppose Western influences and seek Islamic governance. … Women and recently naturalized Kuwaitis are excluded from casting a ballot.

That was just one random sample from a common news site. As I said before, Islamists seek to establish Islamic states by force, that is, by law (theocracy) and/or by direct violence (terrorism). The article above demonstrates the theocratic aspect of Islamism.

For expert information on Islamism, Daniel Pipes is an excellent source. In his article Fighting Militant Islam, Without Bias, Pipes explained:

The problem at hand is not the religion of Islam but the totalitarian ideology of Islamism. As a faith, Islam has meant very different things over 14 centuries and several continents. What we can call “traditional Islam,” forged in the medieval period, has inspired Muslims to be bellicose and quiescent, noble and not: one can’t generalize over such a large canvas. But one can note two common points: Islam is, more than any other major religion, deeply political, in the sense that it pushes its adherents to hold power; and once Muslims do gain power, they feel a strong impetus to apply the laws of Islam, the shari`a. So Islam does, in fact, contain elements that can justify conquest, theocracy, and intolerance.

In the course of the twentieth century, a new form of Islam arose, one that now has great appeal and power. Militant Islam (or Islamism—same thing) goes back to Egypt in the 1920s, when an organization called the Muslim Brethren first emerged, though there are other strains as well, including an Iranian one, largely formulated by Ayatollah Khomeini, and a Saudi one, to which the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan and Usama bin Ladin both belong. Islamism differs in many ways from traditional Islam. It is faith turned into ideology, and radical ideology at that. When asked, “Do you consider yourself a revolutionary?” Sudanese Islamist politician Hasan al-Turabi replied, “Completely.” Whereas traditional Islam places the responsibility on each believer to live according to God’s will, Islamism makes this duty something for which the state is responsible. Islam is a personal belief system that focuses on the individual; Islamism is a state ideology that looks to the society. Islamists constitute a small but significant minority of Muslims in the U.S. and worldwide, perhaps 10 to 15 percent.

Apologists would tell us that Islamism is a distortion of Islam, or even that it has nothing to do with Islam, but that is not true; it emerges out of the religion, while taking features of it to a conclusion so extreme, so radical, and so megalomaniacal as to constitute something new. It adapts an age-old faith to the political requirements of our day, sharing some key premises of the earlier totalitarianisms, fascism and Marxism-Leninism. It is an Islamic-flavored version of radical utopianism. Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers.

As for our “visual cues” about the violent nature of Islamists, you’re right, we did choose a scimitar on purpose. But not to connote a new Christian Crusade as you sarcastically implied (I’m an atheist), but to connote the Dark Age mentality of Islamists. Everyone knows that Islamic terrorists primarily use guns and bombs, but apparently you are unaware that a long, curved sword is used by Islamists today when certain sharia laws in Saudi Arabia are violated. From an April 2000 AP report:

“Barefoot, with feet shackled and hands cuffed behind his back, the prisoners is led by a police officer to the center of the sheet and made to kneel. An Interior Ministry official reads out the prisoner’s name and crime before a crowd of witnesses.

“A soldier hands a long, curved sword to the executioner. He approaches the prisoner from behind and jabs him with the tip of the sword in the back so that the prisoner instinctively raises his head.

“It usually takes just one swing of the sword to sever the head, often sending it flying about three feet.”

Using a scimitar in our cartoon (instead of a bomb) captures both the threat of violence and the theocratic mentality.

As for America’s coming to understand the meaning of “Nazi,” the phrase “National Socialist” did not indicate the genocide to come. America needed to be educated on the racist aims of Hitler, which is what Szyk set out to do. Unfortunately it wasn’t until the concentration camps were liberated that most Americans understood fully.

The same could be said of many Americans today regarding the aims of Islamists. Except that, after witnessing the slaughter of 3,000 innocent people on 9/11, Americans today have no excuse for their ignorance.

*To demonstrate the commonality of my use of the word “Islamist,” I went to CNN and searched the site for the word “Islamist.” The first article to appear was this: Islamists tighten grip in Kuwait. Here are some excerpts that indicate the nature of Islamists (in contrast to moderate muslims): Islamists strengthened their grip in the oil rich Gulf state, taking about a third of the all-male 50 seats in the national assembly, state television said. […]

[T]he emir has the final say, with the ability to dissolve the legislature. … It also controls the media, security forces and wealth of the country, with the parliament having only 30 percent of power. […]

Islamists oppose Western influences and seek Islamic governance. … Women and recently naturalized Kuwaitis are excluded from casting a ballot.

That was just one random sample from a common news site. As I said before, Islamists seek to establish Islamic states by force, that is, by law (theocracy) and/or by direct violence (terrorism). The article above demonstrates the theocratic aspect of Islamism.*

CNN was not referring to terrorists in any of those passages. Not all fundamentalist muslims are terrorists. Not all terrorists are fundamentalist muslims. Say it with me now.

As for our “visual cues” about the violent nature of Islamists, you’re right, we did choose a scimitar on purpose. But not to connote a new Christian Crusade as you sarcastically implied (I’m an atheist), but to connote the Dark Age mentality of Islamists. Everyone knows that Islamic terrorists primarily use guns and bombs, but apparently you are unaware that a long, curved sword is used by Islamists today when certain sharia laws in Saudi Arabia are violated. From an April 2000 AP report:

Ah, so you really want Uncle Sam to kill all the Saudi executioners? Oh, wait, no, you must not have meant that, since you put “ISLAMIST” on his turban. So much for that theory!

Using a scimitar in our cartoon (instead of a bomb) captures both the threat of violence and the theocratic mentality.

You have conjoined two things into one. Combatting militant islamist terrorists and eliminating human rights violations of fundamental theocratic muslim regimes are two different problems which require two different solutions.

Your t-shirt, I guess, proposes one solution for both: killing them. Well, that’s one way to go about it, I guess. Good luck with that!

Furthermore, whatever you claim you meant to say is irrelevant, because you didn’t say it.

T-shirt logos are symbolic. You should know this, because so are political cartoons.

The symbolism of your t-shirt communicates something quite different from what you claim you “meant” it to say.

This is not because we misread it. We’re not stupid. I’m not stupid. Neither is Amanda. Neither are the countless other people that I have showed this thread (and your cartoon) to that have stared at it in awe, mouth agape at the brazen bigotry presented.

There is a difference between Islamists and terrorists.

There are very strong symbolic meanings of a man in a turban carrying a scimitar, especially in the context of Uncle Sam killing him.

There is a grossly anti-Islam sentiment to saying “Bring ‘em on, Allah”, irrespective of the context.

You constructed these symbols into one piece of art, which stands alone and speaks for itself. No amount of post-hoc explanation will change the symbolism of the shirt.

So, you either purposefully constructed these symbols together, or you need to work on your symbolism skills. Or you need to find another line of work, because political cartoons are arguably the most symbolic form of expression on the face of the planet.

FYI: a quick survey of some of the political science and sociology professors at my university shows that these highly educated professionals interpret the word Islamist simply to mean ‘follower of Islam’. Go figure. Maybe your t-shirt does appear bigoted and hateful to a significant number of people, making this its interpreted or symbolic meaning.

You know, Chris, I’ve been patiently reasonable with you. I didn’t expect you to agree with my solution to the threat of Islamism. But I’ve provided ample evidence of what Islamism means and answered the relevant challenges you’ve raised. In return, all you’ve done is repeatedly ignore my efforts and recite your “bigot” charge like a mantra.

At the very least, I’ve demonstrated here that it’s possible I am not the type of person you insulted me as being with your ad hominem attacks. The least you could do is acknowledged that. You have a reputation to maintain, after all.

As far as I’m concerned, you owe me and my partner a public apology. But I won’t hold my breath.

You know, Chris, I’ve been patiently reasonable with you. I didn’t expect you to agree with my solution to the threat of Islamism. But I’ve provided ample evidence of what Islamism means and answered the relevant challenges you’ve raised. In return, all you’ve done is repeatedly ignore my efforts and recite your “bigot” charge like a mantra.

You’ve given me ample evidence of a definition for the word that is new, context-sensitive, and has yet to usurp the more common, accepted definition that we all know. Semantics aren’t important when you and I, two people with different vocabularies, argue ideas. We can work around them to understand what we really mean. Semantics are important on a t-shirt, or in a political cartoon. You say what you mean, and you mean what you say.

At the very least, I’ve demonstrated here that it’s possible I am not the type of person you insulted me as being with your ad hominem attacks. The least you could do is acknowledged that. You have a reputation to maintain, after all.

You’ve demonstrated that you are either a bigot or you chose very poorly how to depict and label various symbolic elements in your cartoon. I am more than happy to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s the latter.

As far as I’m concerned, you owe me and my partner a public apology. But I won’t hold my breath.

I’m truly sorry that you’re either a bigot or you chose very poorly in how to depict and label various symbolic elements in your cartoon. (Or, to be less subtle: Don’t hold your breath.)

Amanda, what your quick survey reveals is not surprising. Even the definition of Islamist that I am arguing for includes “a follower of Islam.” But there is already another word for that; it’s “muslim.” Whether your professors know it or not, “Islamist” has evolved to describe a specific type of muslim, the type who advocates forcing Islam on others, whether through terrorism or law. Did you read the Daniel Pipes article that I linked to above? Would you agree that it is a good idea to distinguish between peaceful, moderate muslims and those who want to kill and oppress us?

I think we already have this term: “Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorist”. It works pretty well. It’s very specific and descriptive. It doesn’t leave a whole lot of room for misinterpretation. Granted, it probably doesn’t look so snappy on a t-shirt. But let’s say for a second that people really want a single 3-syllable word that means that same thing as Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorist, which is really messy and long at 11 syllables. So you and your partner at you little political cartoon decide you are going to introduce a new word into the lexicon. (or co-opt a word only being used by say, conservative bloggers, but not the general population) Good for you. I say, give the people what they want *cough*. But, when the word ALREADY MEANS SOMETHING ELSE you have to be pretty specific when you are introducing it the population at large. Because when I see it, or every single person I’ve shown the cartoon to goes “Wow, this is horribly bigoted”, you either need to admit that yes you can see how it is very offensive, rectify the error, make it very specific, have it say “Fundamentalist Terrorist” or whatever, OR you need to deal with the apt, justified criticism. You went out on a limb, a really dangerous and precarious limb, and assumed that people know this vague term “Islamist” (which I cannot stress enough has another *primary* meaning) means. I think I’ve shown that alot of people don’t know, and among these people politically aware, politically active men and women with doctorates. If you want to stick by your work you have to suffer the slings and arrows. The population at large is not here to read your mind or your intent, but interpret your message based on experience. You can’t follow everyone who wears your shirt around explaining to people who encounter it what you REALLY meant. Right? Change it or deal with the fact that it’s offensive.

Of course the cartoon is offensive.

We set out to provoke a specific response among terrorist sympathizers and apologists: SPUTTERING IMPOTENT OUTRAGE.

By the way, your “apology” was about as sincere as your venomous ideas on civilized discourse.

It’s irrelevant to the discussion that our cartoon may offend someone. Obviously it does. But just as you pointed out, Amanda, we are not nor should we be “in the business of making everyone happy and not offending anyone.” So you can stop dwelling on how the cartoon offends. This whole thing started because we were accused of being bigots for using the word “Islamist.”

So the issue is the meaning of “Islamism.” We did not “introduce” the word with new meaning or “co-opt” the word (see the Pipes article). And the word is already in the “general population” as we are using it (see the CNN article above).

You say “Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorist” is appropriate, but that phrase fails to include theocratic muslims. Terrorist muslims and theocratic muslims are united by the common goal of using force to spread Islam. This is not an arbitrary unification. They are united ideologically and practically. The Taliban was a fundamentalist Islamic government, a theocracy. Al Qaeda is a fundamentalist Isalmic terrorist group. They worked together. The Iranian Islamic theocracy is the world’s largest sponsor of terrorist groups. They are all called Islamists to distinguish them from moderate muslims. Your phrase is too narrow in the same way that using the word “muslim” in our cartoon would have been too broad.

I had hoped you wouldn’t be as evasive as this blog’s host in discussing this issue. I asked you two simple questions. Please answer them:

1) Did you read the Daniel Pipes article that link linked to above? (He is not a “conservative blogger,” if that’s who you were trying to label. He’s a Middle East expert and has been for decades. And just read the excerpt if you don’t want to read the whole article.)

2) Would you agree that it is a good idea to distinguish between peaceful, moderate muslims and those who want to kill and oppress us? (I emphasize the word oppress this time in case you missed it the first time).

I didn’t notice if this was mentioned yet, but the bigotry is also apparent in the use of the Islamic name for God, Allah, in the phrase on the T-shirt, Bring ‘Em On, Allah. This would seem to support the idea that Cox and Forkum would prefer Uncle Sam kill all the followers of Islam who are opposed to the United States and its policies, militant or otherwise.

i want a free bumper sticker

Awesome t-shirt! I find myself amazed at the ignorant and cowardly left who refuse to see the danger posed by the Islamists. Amanda, I wish you could spend just ONE month in an Islamic nation such as Saudi Arabia, where you are prohibited, by law, from driving a car, and some mindless mullah tells you how to dress.

These limp-wristed lefties should get down on their knees and thank the brilliant and courageous men and women in our Armed Forces. Damn, I miss the good old days in my Apache, sending those primitive savages off to meet Allah in person.

Apache Helicopters……when you care enough to send the very best.