And speaking of David Petraeus in my previous post here is the Washington Post article David Petraeus: Anti-Muslim bigotry aids Islamist terrorists mentioned in that post. Leave it to the Washington Post to publish something like this.
While Islamist extremist networks do not pose an “existential” threat to the United States in the way that Soviet nuclear weapons once did, their bloodlust and their ambition to inflict genocidal violence make them uniquely malevolent actors on the world stage.
No irony here for Petraeus to go on and say the following:
For that reason, I have grown increasingly concerned about inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam, including proposals from various quarters for blanket discrimination against people on the basis of their religion.
I suppose the words “bloodlust” and “genocidal violence” are not thought of as inflammatory. Sorry David, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t use inflammatory language and then profess your concern over people using such language.
I think David Petraeus should read his own advice
But it is precisely because the danger of Islamist extremism is so great that politicians here and abroad who toy with anti-Muslim bigotry must consider the effects of their rhetoric. Demonizing a religious faith and its adherents not only runs contrary to our most cherished and fundamental values as a country; it is also corrosive to our vital national security interests and, ultimately, to the United States’ success in this war.
So why did Petraeus choose to use words that were “corrosive to our vital national security interests’?