Bloodthirsty Liberal

I was just pursuing a Steve Emerson thread, and came across this recent appearance on Hannity and Colmes. I don’t watch—is Alan Colmes always such a weenie?

HANNITY: Is it – is it any different than the indoctrination – especially a lot of this is focused on Israeli aggression or, as you point out, martyrdom, or the pursuit of martyrdom, in the name of God and religion here. Is it any different in your mind – in your estimation – than say, the Nazi youth movement of Hitler.

EMERSON: No, because the same essence, the same end objective, is the same – which is the ultimate demonization of Jews and its enemies so they can be killed. That’s what these lessons do. That’s what these television programs do. They demonize the Jews or Christians so that they make it acceptable to kill them. That’s exactly what the Germans did.

ALAN COLMES: But Steve, aren’t you demonizing Islam? Aren’t you – when you use words like Islamo-fascism it conflates an entire religion with fascism, and that’s demonization and it offends an entire religion.

EMERSON: Alan, what term would you use?

COLMES: Uh, I would call it fascism, but I wouldn’t link it to a religion as you choose to do.

(Crosstalk)

EMERSON: So what makes it different than Italian fascism or German fascism?

COLMES: Well, you’re indicting an entire religion. It doesn’t represent the entire religion, as opposed to a government.

(Crosstalk)

EMERSON: Wait a second, Alan, when they had the IRA battles, they referred to Protestant extremists and Catholic extremists…

COLMES: Yeah, I object to that term…

(Crosstalk)

EMERSON: They didn’t indict everybody who was Catholic and Protestant.

COLMES: I’m telling you what my opinion is, and we obviously disagree.

Who gives a hobo’s crap what his opinion is? Emerson just proved him wrong, and he retreated to “well, that’s my opinion” like a whipped schoolboy.

But he wasn’t done.

COLMES: It is offensive because you want to define a religion by attaching a word to it that defines that religion.

(Crosstalk)

EMERSON: It is offensive? Wait a second now – does the term Islamic jihad offend you?

COLMES: You’re using offensive terminology because you are defining a religion that way.

(Crosstalk)

EMERSON: Wait, that’s the term of a group – Alan, that’s the term of a group that describes itself as Islamic Jihad. We caught you, Alan. That’s not something that we call them.

(Crosstalk)

COLMES: No, you didn’t catch me – you didn’t catch me…

(Crosstalk)

COLMES: …fine. It is offensive, and you are indicting an entire religion by the terminology you are using. We got to take a break…

(Crosstalk)

EMERSON: Wait, wait – Alan, Islamic Jihad calls itself Islamic Jihad – they are the ones defining the religion, not us.

(Crosstalk)

COLMES: Good, let them do it. It’s not for you to define their religion.…

EMERSON: But I’m only using their term!

COLMES: I don’t think you have the right to do that. I don’t think that’s your call…

(Crosstalk)

EMERSON: I don’t have the right to use their term? Because they call themselves Islamic Jihad?

(Crosstalk)

EMERSON: You’re an apologist, Alan! You’re an apologist for Islamic extremism.

COLMES: We will have – call me all the names you want, Steve, and that says more about you than it says about me.

“You didn’t catch me, you didn’t catch me.” Oh please. We’re all sorry his liberal sensitivities have been offended, but sometimes, my leftist friends, it’s not about you.

Weenie.