Colmes: Offensive to Call Terrorists 'Islamic,' Use 'Books Not Bombs' on Hamas

  • Bookmark and Share

If you thought the proper way to refer to terrorists who commit violence in the name of Islam was by using such terms as "Islamic terrorists," "Islamic militants," or even "Islamic extremists," be on notice that you may be offending Alan Colmes. In fact, even if you refer to the terrorist group "Islamic Jihad" by that name, which is the name the group uses to refer to itself, you're still not in the clear. Such was the absurd view expressed by the liberal FNC host on Friday's "Hannity and Colmes" as he argued that the use of the word "Islamic" is an attack on the entire religion, and characterized the term "Islamo-fascism" as "hate speech" and as "demonization" of Islam. And, in response to a Hamas recruitment video targeting Palestinian children to become martyrs, Colmes further suggested that the best way to combat such terrorist groups is to use "books, not bombs," and "better education, not war." (Transcript follows)

During Friday's show, the topic of what Islamic extremists should be called was first raised by Colmes during a discussion with conservative author David Horowitz regarding the upcoming "Islamo-fascism Awareness Week" at George Washington University. After Horowitz complained about liberal students creating a poster portraying conservative students as hating Muslims, with Horowitz accusing liberals of using a "hate campaign," Colmes commented that the phrase "Islamo-fascism" constitutes "hate speech." Colmes: "You talk about hate speech. The words, the phrase 'Islamo-fascism' is hate speech. It equates an entire religion with fascism. That's what people object to. It conflates the two, and it's wrong."

A later segment with terrorism analyst Steve Emerson featured discussion of a video produced by the terrorist group Hamas, and broadcast on Hamas Al-Aqsa TV, which depicts small children, including a two-year-old, being taught to embrace terrorism. (A clip of this video can be seen here, and a story run by InfoLiveTV giving background on the subject can be seen here.) During the discussion, Emerson explained that the video was an attempt to "demonize" Jews and Christians so that children would be encouraged to grow up with a willingness to kill. Colmes used Emerson's comment as a springboard to accuse the terrorism analyst of "demonizing" Islam in using the term "Islamo-fascism." Colmes: "But, Steve, aren't you demonizing Islam? When you use words like 'Islamo-fascism,' it conflates an entire religion with fascism, and that's demonization, and it offends an entire religion?"

After arguing that use of the terms "Protestant extremists" and "Catholic extremists" to refer to those who fought in Northern Ireland was commonly accepted while not being interpreted as an attack on all Protestants or on all Catholics, Emerson got Colmes to admit that he finds any description of Islamic extremists with the term "Islamic" to be offensive.

EMERSON: Alan, let's take the term away "Islamo-fascism." Let's use the term "Islamic militant" or "Islamic extremist."

COLMES: Leave religion out of it.

EMERSON: Does that offend you?

COLMES: It does. It is offensive because you want-

EMERSON: It is offensive because-

COLMES: -to define a religion by attaching a word to it that defines that religion.

Emerson then brought up the Palestinian terrorist group Islamic Jihad, which calls itself by that name, but Colmes even refused to endorse calling Islamic Jihad by its own self-chosen name.

EMERSON: 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.

EMERSON: Wait, that's the term of a group, Alan, that's the term of a group describes itself as "Islamic Jihad." We caught you, Alan.

COLMES: No, you didn't catch me. You didn't catch me.

EMERSON: That's not something that we call them.

COLMES: Fine. It is an offensive, and you are indicting an entire religion by the terminology.

EMERSON: Wait, wait. Islamic Jihad, which, Alan, Islamic Jihad calls itself "Islamic Jihad." They are the ones defining the religion, not us.

COLMES: All right, good. Let them do it.

EMERSON: And you're telling me that we are the guilty ones.

COLMES: You can, it's not for you to define their religion. But we're going to talk more-

EMERSON: But I'm only using their term.

COLMES: You, I don't think you have the right to do that. I don't think that's your call.

EMERSON: I don't have the right to use their term? They call themselves "Islamic Jihad"?

COLMES: Because it's their religion, not yours, and you're trying to define their religion your way.

After a commercial break, Colmes seemed to start channeling Jesse Jackson as he suggested that it would be better to combat Hamas and other Islamic terrorists using "books, not bombs," and "better education, not war." Colmes: "The images we're showing, Steve, doesn't this show the way to deal with this -- and we don't deny that it's happening, so there's no argument there -- but shouldn't we be dealing with this not with guns, not with munitions, not with military action, but with books, not bombs, with better education, not war?"

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Friday October 12 "Hannity and Colmes" on FNC, with critical portions in bold:

During the segment with David Horowitz, after Horowitz complained of liberals at George Washington University using hate against conservatives, Colmes responded:

ALAN COLMES: You talk about hate speech. The words, the phrase "Islamo-fascism" is hate speech. It equates an entire religion with fascism. That's what people object to. It conflates the two, and it's wrong.

After introducing the segment by describing a Hamas-produced video being run on Hamas Al-Aqsa TV to indoctrinate Palestinian children, Hannity proceeded to his first question to Emerson.

SEAN HANNITY: Steve, they're instructing these kids specifically in the use of firearms and how to kill here, and yet we have, as we were arguing in the last segment, we have liberals in this country that want to deny that this is the rise of fascism in our time.

STEVE EMERSON, InvestigativeProject.Org: You know, Sean, this is the first time that I've seen, in my 20 years of looking at these videos, a two-year-old handling an AK-47, and claiming to be a Shahid, or martyr, and wanting to be a suicide bomber. I mean, this is pretty horrifying in terms of the lessons that it permeates for the rest of Palestinian and Middle Eastern society. And the fact is that you can call this anything you want, but it is Islamic fascism in the same way that, you know, Italian fascism and German Naziism weren't slurs on Germans or Italians. They simply described the phenomenon of what people believed in those countries.

HANNITY: 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, you know, 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.

COLMES: But, Steve, aren't you demonizing Islam? 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? Alan, what term would you use?

COLMES: I would call it "fascism," but I wouldn't link it to a religion, as you choose to do. And doesn't this also-

EMERSON: Just "fascism"? So what makes it different than Italian fascism? Or German fascism?

COLMES: You're indicting a whole religion. It doesn't represent the entire religion, as opposed to a government.

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.

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

COLMES: I'm telling you, and my opinion is, and we obviously disagree, and there are many who happen to agree with me that this is extremely insulting to an entire religion, and that you can call it "fascism" if you want, you want to talk about specific people who do heinous deeds. Nobody says this is good, what we're seeing. But you want to extrapolate it to an entire religion.

EMERSON: Alan, let's take the term away "Islamo-fascism." Let's use the term "Islamic militant" or "Islamic extremist."

COLMES: Leave religion out of it.

EMERSON: Does that offend you?

COLMES: It does. It is offensive because you want-

EMERSON: It is offensive because-

COLMES: -to define a religion by attaching a word to it that defines that religion.

EMERSON: 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.

EMERSON: Wait, that's the term of a group, Alan, that's the term of a group describes itself as "Islamic Jihad." We caught you, Alan.

COLMES: No, you didn't catch me. You didn't catch me.

EMERSON: That's not something that we call them.

COLMES: Fine. It is an offensive, and you are indicting an entire religion by the terminology.

EMERSON: Wait, wait. Islamic Jihad, which, Alan, Islamic Jihad calls itself "Islamic Jihad." They are the ones defining the religion, not us.

COLMES: All right, good. Let them do it.

EMERSON: And you're telling me that we are the guilty ones.

COLMES: You can, it's not for you to define their religion. But we're going to talk more-

EMERSON: But I'm only using their term.

COLMES: You, I don't think you have the right to do that. I don't think that's your call.

EMERSON: I don't have the right to use their term? They call themselves "Islamic Jihad"?

COLMES: Because it's their religion, not yours, and you're trying to define their religion your way.

EMERSON: You are an apologist, Alan.

COLMES: All right, Steve, we're going to take a break.

EMERSON: You're an apologist for Islamic extremism, period.

COLMES: Call me all the names you want, Steve, and that says more about you than about me. More on the shocking video of Hamas conducting terror training with toddlers and more frightening images coming up.

[commercial break]

COLMES: We now continue with terrorism analyst Steve Emerson. The images we're showing, Steve, doesn't this show the way to deal with this -- and we don't deny that it's happening, so there's no argument there -- but shouldn't we be dealing with this not with guns, not with munitions, not with military action, but with books, not bombs, with better education, not war?

EMERSON: Alan, it would be great, but we're not the ones controlling their behavior. If they would engage in books and educational moderation, that would be great, but they're the ones engaging in use of Shahid, martyrdom, suicide bombing, AK-47s for two-year-olds. You can't, if you want to make sure that there's moderation, let them engage in it. And, by the way, Alan, I don't see you getting upset when I hear the term "Hindu extremist," "Protestant extremist," "Jewish extremist." It's only when you use the word "Islamic extremists."

COLMES: Now, you've defined an entire movement as "Islamo-fascism." I don't want to go back to that. I want to move the conversation forward, though, and talk about, for example, our own NIE reports, 16 intelligence agencies, concluded that, for example, the Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists. And the best we can do -- this war has encouraged others and fueled the kind of fascism you're talking about. Shouldn't we, and I go back to books, not bombs. That's where we could be putting our energies much more positively than more military action.

EMERSON: We are not the ones that are doing the bombing, Alan. They are. And unless they want to read the books, we can't force them to it. The fact is, Alan, they are the ones committing fascist acts. They're the ones committing suicide bombings. And they did it before we went into Iraq. They did it in 1993. They did it in 1998. They did it in 1999. Look what they did in 2001.

HANNITY: Steve, God will make you a martyr, a religious term. The word "jihad," holy war. God will reward you with virgins, you know, as they strap bombs on their own children. The religious terms, the religious connection is from those who have perverted the religion and use religion, their twisted version of Islam, to move this fascist movement. So the definition is appropriate. They are fascists. They're strapping bombs on their own kids. They think they're doing God's will, and God's waiting to reward them. So there is, that is the proper definition.

EMERSON: Of course it is, Alan.

HANNITY: Sean.

EMERSON: And you know what? The groups in the United States, like CAIR and other groups, flip the inversion. And what they say is the use of the term "Islamo-facism," "Islamic terrorism," "Islamic extremism," is racist. And therefore, they try to intimidate anyone who talks about the extremist agenda of radical Islam. I think that's obscene.

HANNITY: All right. Thanks very much for being with us. Appreciate it, Steve. We'll talk again soon.

—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I like Alan

I like Alan, which is saying a lot since he is a liberal. But I did enjoy watching Alan get worked by Steve Emerson, absolutely worked.....I almost felt bad for the guy!! Go Steve, you battled Liberal emotionalism with logic and facts - you made him look like a wimpy fool. (Alan - I still like you though!!)

 

Life's a garden, dig it. - Joe Dirt

Colmes...

A firm believer in using truly devisive terms like 'African-American' and 'rightwing fundamentalist' has trouble with people who simply repeat the phrase a murderous terrorist group calls itself?

This guy must be trying out for a role on the 1/2 Hour News Hour.

He's a freaking cartoon character!

He has absolutely no clue. I can only hope that he doesn't really believe what he says...he just says it to be contrary. God I'd love to believe that...but I think the twit is serious. I pity people like him that can't reason properly...and I fear them. An ass like this one needs to keep his yap shut. The Jihadis must adore him.

Happy Trails...

Islamo-fascists

Opps, did I say that? I'm not sorry...get over it and put your head back in the sand.

 I wonder if the maniacs over there in the Middle East truly understand the discourse and insanity there causing here? If they do they must be laughing there asses off. All the while biding there time, waiting for the self destructive forces here to stupify the general masses even more. Waiting for us to relax and go back to playing our Xboxes, worrying about who is on the boobtube, etc....etc..

They don't operate on a short term schedule. Patience young jihadies...your time is coming. Thank you Allen....you wimp

 I hope we still have our 2nd amendment rights when that day comes.

"When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat"         R. Reagan

I DON'T UNDERSTAND...

I too like Alan, so I'll try to be cautious, I believe Alan is a Jew. He, like so many Jews, is a lib. I get it, social libs usually don't bother me too much. But they extend that same logic towards people who are enemies of the "Zionists" errrr USA, Israel, & the west as a whole. They don't seem to get that islamic terrorists want to convert us all or kill us all. I don't understand the mindset of Jews who don't think along the lines of Joe Lieberman, a classic old time lib, one who is solid on defending this nation & it's allies. Hell, I have Jewish relatives who think Lieberman is a sellout, & I don't get it. I guess the words "Never Again" mean more to some then it does for others.

I don't think todays lib is yesterdays lib, I think their word for it today is "progressive". I wonder if Alan thinks of himself as a lib or a "progressive".

"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise"  Mark Levin

Let's talk PC

So, if they're no longer "The religion that cannot be named", then what will Christians be? Oops. Can't say Christian. Dang. Does that mean we lean to Mohammadists and Godians? Bhuddists are in the clear. Poor Hindu's though, so many names to choose from. Although the Libs would love Hindu, since there is so much diversity in the names they can choose. Of course you realize that Alan's world of religion would make Satanists Politcally Correct.

Colmes to me has always

Colmes to me has always been a blue-ish tint of Hannity but this just smacks of the leftist PC word-police like when the left wanted to silence Limbaugh because they don't like what he has to say. I am a big fan of Emerson though.

"Boats are safe in the harbor, but that's not what they're made for." -- Maritime quote

There are sometimes when

There are sometimes when Alan is almost reasonable. Its like
someone you disagree with but can see some of their points.

A bit like Lieberman, while you don’t agree with his social
ideas you can find common ground on the war.

Then there are times when Alan just totally steps off of the
deep end.

Or walks out on a limb and starts to saw it off behind
himself..

 

EMERSON:
But I'm only using their term.

COLMES:
You, I don't think you have the right to do that. I don't think that's your
call.

EMERSON:
I don't have the right to use their term? They call themselves "Islamic
Jihad"?

COLMES:
Because it's their religion, not yours, and you're trying to define their
religion your way.

 

Ok Alan…do you try to define the Republican party all the time..

These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day

Colmes to me has always

Colmes to me has always been the ambiguously-gay sissy in high school that everybody beat up. His parents were ex-hippies and he was not allowed to drink soda or eat red meat growing up. He was not allowed to play sports because "competition is bad". That has always been my vision of Colmes.

 

They burn our books and use their own that teach hate

so how does sending books help the situation?

Well, Dee, we send all nice

Well, Dee, we send all nice books that show how nice we really are, and how we just want peace, etc, and then they won't want to kill us any more. (We might not want to send some of the books that are in our public schools though, like "Heather Has Two Mommies", and "King and King"...since Muslims are not real big on "alternate lifestyles.")

Right MB - Our books "fuel the fire" both literally

and figuratively.

Using the term

Wasn't that term created because of the whining of liberals about tarring all Muslims with the "terror" label? So the term was created to divide those Muslims from the peace-loving ones.

Alan, and your point is......? we should be careful with what we call those who wish to kill us?

"Islamic fascism" or"radical Islam" is hate speech?  

But calling the Bush administration Nazis and fascists is "speaking truth to power" I guess.  (check out the blog post above this one regarding Frank Rich's column).

Colmes is a fool

Colmes commented that the phrase "Islamo-fascism" constitutes "hate speech."

Colmes is a dangerous fool. His goal is to try to foist a particular fear into everyone, and that fear is bigotry. Never mind that these Islamic Fascists are for real, and that they have no regard for human life, and that they are the ones to be feared -- Colmes wants to ensure that we are afraid of our own shadows.

Why does Colmes want this? I don't know. Because I can't understand people like Colmes. All I know is that his brand of liberalism is very, very wrong. He continues to try to assert authority through the use of twisted logic (really, HATE SPEECH?!), with no connection to reality. I can't believe Fox has this person on a program, night after night.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Yeah, 99% of terrorists

Yeah, 99% of terrorists today ARE Islamic. So it's pretty safe to say that today's terrorists are Islamic. Don't see where Colmes thinks it's different.

The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy

If objective history...

If objective history doesn't provide adequate justification for the demonization of  "radical Islam, nothing will. It has to do with being blind and not seeing. Radical Islam is redundant, by the way.

Thalpy

i get your point but i don't believe that we need to 'demonize' radical Islam; just reveal the truth of it. There is no need to add false accusation the case already made.  It would be good for the majority of the practitioners of 'peaceful Islam' to separate themselves from the radicals and in so far as they do not they hold an amount of guilt by association.

"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house."       Groucho

wrong again

More sugar! I wonder often about the term 'peaceful islam'; i don't think such a thing exists.  from what i've seen the islamofascists seek peace through the death of the infidels, us.  that's not my idea of peace.  they will say they want peace as they slit your throat.  

where did i

leave the burden of proof?  The term Islam means peace or so we are told so let the practitioners of 'peaceful Islam' show this.  We know the 10% that is IF need to be dealt with on their terms. 

"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house."       Groucho

Right botg

 Demonizing is, in fact, not required or useful. Just being themselves and the truth will do it.

Heh

"you may be offending Alan Colmes"

I would stand in a cold rain for two hours, barefooted, for the opportunity to offend Alan Colmes. I agree that at times he seems almost reasonable, but mostly he does what you see here -- he clamps onto a pat phrase or idea and just keeps reloading and firing it. "It conflates the two, and it's wrong" -- even uses exactly the same words in two different arguments. I suspect the show usually uses one of those Animatronic Disneyland characters in his seat, and when it breaks down occasionally they put the real human in.

inherent weakness

The brutal irony here is Colmes becomes in himself the weakness the Islamic fascists want to exploit.  The terrorist know that one of the ways they can attack us is through our politically correct weaknesses.  If we did what Colmes wants and negotiated with, talked with, and appeased the terrorists, then the terrorists would use that to buy time, to plan an attack, and then kill us.  Colmes is attempting to do the right thing and raise himself above the pettiness of name calling and conflict.  In doing so he provides the weakness the isloterrorists are looking for.  Of course, when the terrorists do attack Colmes will be the first one to surrender and leave it to the rest of us to fight for our lives.  Such is the inherent weakness in liberal thinking. 

Catherwood

if the libs would only "Celebrate Diversity" and realize that they need to relate to the IFs on their terms instead of expecting the IFs to act liberal......

"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house."       Groucho

Colmes

When I watch Hannity and Holmes,I only watch half of it,because when Colmes comes on,in order not to throw a rock at my TV, I switch channels.

Hannity and Colmes are

Hannity and Colmes are morons. They should replace the two with Rich Lowry and Kirsten Powers (I think that is her name).

 

 

Alan Colmes

Colmes has to be the most sissiefied, girly-man, fraidy-cat on the planet! I never saw anyone get so upset by semantics as this oaf!

Perhaps he should chair a committee to decide the "proper" term for blood-thirsty lunatics who are determined to kill as many of us as possible and bring America to its knees.  I know, let's just call them "rascals" or, maybe, "scamps", or how about "hooligans".  And let's give them books to read, so they won't hate us.

I have yet to see him argue anything in defense of our country, it's always sooo much concern for the rights of the poor misguided terrorists who are out for our blood.  What a dolt!

That is exactly his M.O.

He will completely ignore a looming question of major importance, and nit-pick for hours about a word someone used. Great googly-moogly, call it Welsh Rabbit* -- now what are you going to DO about it?

*No offense intended to our Welsh allies.

Sounds like balboa

...our very own "Alan Colmes"...   :^)

The Gateway Pundit has a

The Gateway Pundit has a video of this silly exchange here: Link

Using Colmes' standard (if you can find one in that mush he was stating), we can never use any descriptive words for an organization (or any other) because that implies that all members of that "descriptive word" support that organization.

Yeah, silly.

So, the phrase "animal rights extremists", for example, is forbidden because that implies that all animal rights proponents are extremists. One can come up with dozens of similar examples.

But, thankfully, there's only one Alan Colmes. 

SMG

Hannity is wrong too

 

Hannity says:

"The religious terms, the religious connection is from those who have
perverted the religion and use religion, their twisted version of
Islam, to move this fascist movement."

Islam is hatred, it is violence, war is the highest form of Jihad, and Muslims do want supremacy and Sharia Law in the West. True there are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam.

Study Islam for yourself. Read the Koran. Learn! Neither liberals nor conservatives know the truth.

_____________________________________________

Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum

Weak, very weak....

How does this man continue to hold a job? He has the weakest arguements I have ever heard. Pathetic.

Steve... You asked....How

Steve...

You asked....How does this man continue to hold a job?

His looks...pure looks.

BT Colmes' looks?

you've seen the thong pics haven't ya?

"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house."       Groucho

botg... I just know I am

botg...

I just know I am going to want to answer in the affirmative because I have a feeling that being honest is gonna' make me regret this....but anyway...here goes....

No... I haven't seen them.

BT

no just a joke gone awry, the thought of Colmes earning money on his looks seemed funny so in a thong seemed moreso

okay i'm warped

"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house."       Groucho

botg... It has been a

botg...

It has been a long day, so sorry I missed your humor....anyway...just the thought makes me go....

Oh YUCK!...see I put that nicely....heheeheeee

LOL

So glad you didn't have any images to see, I am about ready to close up....about like the Seahawks are doing....again.

yeah BT

me too have a good un

"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house."       Groucho

I thought Colmes is one of

I thought Colmes is one of those fair-headed mind on the lefty side- as Hannity alludes to. I was wrong and now I conclude that there are no just or sane liberal. Liberal will always be lefties. Anne Coulter's book, once again, proved it. 

Without Hannity, Colmes will not have a gig on TV- maybe CNN or MSNBC. But then again, it is good to have these leftoids exposed. The lefty channels should have a format like H&C, if they are "progressive" enough.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.