--Jonah Goldberg
"Liberalism is caught in something of a Catch-22. Under Obama, liberals are determined to reinvigorate the reputation of government, to prove that only the state can get important things done. That is why the Gulf oil spill, for instance, is so vexatious for the White House and its liberal supporters. Why can't the government be more nimble, more resourceful?'Liberal Autopilot' ... so very true, and least acknowledged from many on the left, and least understood by most non-government employed citizens. It's one thing to say, 'We're going to take back Washington this Fall!' But you have to clean out the hangers-on... the ones that work their entrenched positions in the apparatus of government. The ones who keep their jobs regardless of who is in power.
"It was one thing when the feds failed after Hurricane Katrina, liberals reasoned, because Bush didn't like government. This was not only untrue, it overlooked the fact that the permanent government bureaucracy is on liberal autopilot."
For example, the Department of Education hasn't changed its underlying agenda of social reeducation, and we've had more years of republican presidents in the White House over the last 35 years, than democrat. It's bad enough that the ideology is entrenched, but what makes it worse is both houses and the oval office being steered by like-minded ideologues.
"...contemporary liberalism is not an evil ideology. Its intentions aren't evil or even fruitfully comparable to Hitlerism. But there is a liberal Gleichschaltung all the same. Every institution must be on the same page. Every agency must advance the liberal agenda.It's also undone by the blatant inability of government to 'plug the hole' in the Gulf. That's not really entirely Obama's failing, it's the government's. Remember FEMA after Katrina? That wasn't a Bush problem either. The fact is, government solutions churn slowly. And no one really wants to admit the truth of this; especially when bloated government's slow churn provides such lovely opportunities to bash which ever president is in charge. It's not Obama's fault the hole can't be plugged, but there's plenty of other failings which can be ascribed to his ineptitude.
"And this is where the Catch-22 catches. The dream of a nimble, focused, problem-solving government is undone by the reality of hyper-mission creep. When every institution is yoked to an overarching philosophy or mission, its actual purpose can become an afterthought."
"Liberalism has become a cargo cult to the New Deal, but many of the achievements of the New Deal would be impossible now. Just try to get a Hoover Dam built today.Is he or is he not a closet Muslim? Leave it to a liberal... er, sorry, a 'progressive'... to use the National AERONAUTIC and SPACE agency to advance an earth-bound CULTURE mission which does nothing to advance space exploration. NASA's new mission? Get Muslims and Infidels to hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya'?
"President Obama likes to say "if we could put a man on the moon" we can do anything, from socializing medicine to abandoning fossil fuels. That's nonsense on stilts for a host of reasons. But it's also ironic, given that we can't even put a man on the moon anymore. Not when NASA's foremost priority is boosting the self-esteem of children and Muslims."
I don't know if he's a closet Muslim or not. Anyone who thinks they know he isn't says so out of fawning worhsip rather than true knowledge. But the following, along with the NASA nonsense makes one wonder if he has a realistic sense of the situation:
ReplyDelete"Obama and Janet Napolitano appointed Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore-in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim, who was born in Damascus, Syria, as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC)."
Some may say that this is a way to extend the hand of friendship, to assure Muslims that they are not hated by this country, officially if not socially. Perhaps. But it doesn't seem wise (actually it's quite stupid) to appoint "devout" Muslims to posts such as these. Policy development? Homeland security? "Devout" Muslims?
I doubt Obama is a devout anything religion-wise. He's way too into himself from all appearances to concern himself with either the one true God or the made up Allah. But boy, what a boost to his poll numbers if he can appease enough Muslims and illegal aliens! Who cares what the consequences might be!
Oh, and BTW, according to Geoffrey, Johah Goldberg is a hack. Just so you know.
ReplyDeleteBut it doesn't seem wise (actually it's quite stupid) to appoint "devout" Muslims to posts such as these. Policy development? Homeland security? "Devout" Muslims?
ReplyDelete? I know I'll hate myself, but why, Marshall? Why is it "stupid" to appoint a devout Muslim to these offices? Something solid, please, if you have it. Not "well, just cuz they're mooslims and, you know, want to kill us all and spit on our graves!"
If that's all you have, just remain silent and we'll get it.
There are numerous experts who have explained the stated goals of devout Muslims, not the least of which is to bring all the world under Sharia law. They have also explained to those who will listen that what they say to non-Muslims is not required to be truthful and is often the opposite of what they say to each other. There is evidence of the desire of devout Muslims to work their way into other systems in order to bring those systems down from within.
ReplyDeleteIn a recent Nat'l Review article, Andrew C. McCarthy points out that even Turkish leader Mustafa kemal Pasha (Atatuk) recognized the problem:
"For Ataturk, Islam was an insular force that retarded Muslim coutries, preventing their embrace of modernity. If not suppressed, it would deny Turkey's return to great-power status. The most telling thing about this is that Ataturk was a Muslim. In the U.S., where political correctness has stifled inquiry into Muslim doctrine, we've conjured up a trendy, modern Islam: one fit for seamless assimilation in a Western society that denies religion authority over secular life. Ataturk knew better. In Islam there is no "secular life"-there is only life controlled in its every detail by sharia, Islam's legal and plitical system."
All who really look into Islam, or those who came from a life of or ruled by Islam, have expressed the same things. What's more, as we continue to fight against the most radical elements of Islam (not radical in the least by their standards), it is indeed stupid to presume that anyone, particularly of this administration considering their track record of rank stupidity, can rightly determine well enough which "devout" Muslim is not so devout as to use a position such as Assistant Secretary for Policy Devolopment or a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council.
It might be said that this is indeed the right positions for devout Muslims inasmuch as we need insight into their thought processes in order to properly create policies for either department. But as I said, there are experts enough that we don't need to select actual "devout" Muslims to help determine those policies. Indeed, I recall the outrage over the appointment of devout Christian John Ashcroft as attorney general. Oh the wailing that commenced at the thought of a born-again being selected for that job!
I think I've done a pretty good job of restraining myself up til now, Art, but I'm sorry. I have to say it:
ReplyDeleteDan, you're an idiot.
I cut short a thought. It should read:
ReplyDelete"...can rightly determine well enough which "devout" Muslim is not so devout as to use a position such as Assistant Secretary for Policy Devolopment or a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council to further the ends of those wishing to bring about Sharia law to all the world."
The problem with making statements like this...
ReplyDeleteAll who really look into Islam, or those who came from a life of or ruled by Islam, have expressed the same things.
...is how ridiculously easy it is to disprove them. "ALL" who have looked into Islam have NOT found them to be liars who plan to subvert and conquer the world. I know several people personally who have lived with Muslims for years who would laugh at such a stupid statement if it weren't so pathetically sad.
Your one source is a Muslim who does NOT say what you're saying, he's just saying that Islam has "prevent[ed] their embrace of modernity," NOT that it is causing devout Muslims to lie and try to conquer the world.
So, I have already disproven the silly "all" claim. I could proceed to point you to multiple places like here showing peaceable, devout Muslims or offer quotes like this...
Ishtiaq Ahmed, a Muslim leader in Bradford, estimated in 2001 that around 15 per cent of British Muslims could be called 'Islamist' or 'Radical', 15 per cent Liberal or Modernist, while the remaining 70 per cent could be described as Traditionalist or Orthodox. [3] Although some recent polls have given a higher proportion for Islamists, it is clear that they are still a minority, and that those among them who approve of violence in the name of Islam would therefore be a minority within a minority. Many Muslims dissociate themselves completely from the militants and terrorists
From a Christian website and other sources, but none of it would do any good since "evidence" and "proof" are all silly to you. You have a hunch that they're all liars so what good is the word of a Muslim, right? Perhaps the only good Muslim to you is a dead Muslim? After all, if they're all liars and probably want to forcibly convert us, then the only option is mass genocide.
Is that what you're suggesting?
Do you know even one Muslim? Have you spent any time talking with a devout Muslim? Or are your comments made in complete and total ignorance beyond what you read from other blind, fearful people?
You, sir, appear to be blinded by fear, prejudice, ignorance and mistrust. May God grant us all wisdom and grace.
Indeed, I recall the outrage over the appointment of devout Christian John Ashcroft as attorney general. Oh the wailing that commenced at the thought of a born-again being selected for that job!
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't that he was a Christian that was troubling. It was his positions that was troubling. After all, Obama, Bush, Clinton and most others in gov't are Christians and you didn't see an uproar about their faith (well, except for the nutjobs that say Obama is actually a "supersecret Muslim"). Our country is fine with having Christians in positions of power.
We just don't want dangerous-sounding fundamentalists with wrongheaded policy ideas. Christian, Muslim, or otherwise.
I don't know that I've seen anyone as overtly prejudiced as you who would suggest that someone's religion should keep them out of a job. That's discrimination, you know? It's illegal and contrary to the ideals of this great nation.
I will say this: At least you're upfront and honest about your prejudices.
When my wife was in the hospital over the weekend, I watched, on the hospital TV, a film called "Hondo", starring a younger John Wayne.
ReplyDeleteI bring this up because Dan and Art's comments reminded me of scene in the film. Hondo was explaining how his dog learned to smell Indians.
He said when the dog is still a puppy, you get an Indian to beat the dog with a willow switch every day for several weeks. Once the dog learns his tormentor is always an Indian, he learns to smell Indians.
Probably not completely true, but the fact is, it doesn't take too many incidents of Muslims ruthlessly murdering innocent Christians and Jews to make us all wary of any assurance from Muslims that all they want it peace.
Just like I've learned to smell Dan's BS over the last few years.
Sorry, Dan, but most intelligent people would rather be safe than sorry.
Actually, Dan, Obama has proven beyond a doubt that he is NOT a Christian. I sincerely doubt Clinton is either. They're actions (and Obama's speaking) belie their stated faith.
ReplyDeleteBut Bush was criticized constantly by you Godless Liberals because he was Christian.
Your selective memory is really astounding. Idiot.
How soon they forget... much of the Left was NOT comfortable with Bush being a Christian.
ReplyDeleteAs to your percentages in Britain. I don't deny those numbers are fairly accurate. But you appear to offer these numbers as proof that Muslims aren't out to take over the world. This is your own flight into ridiculousness.
Poll all of those groups of Muslims in Britain and ask them: "How many of you would prefer to see the world under Sharia law?" I assure you that that number would be well over 50%. It's one thing to say 'only a small percentage of Muslims wish to partake in violence against the West,' but it's quite another to suggest that by that percentage alone there is no danger from Islam. Not every Muslim has a fervent desire to die in the name of allah (I will not capitalize the name of a false diety), but that's not to say huge numbers of Muslims don't approve of those who do, or are unwilling to provide monetary or material support for the same, or wouldn't be pleased as punch to see a world-wide Caliphate come into being.
I grant you your position, but you're not using your whole noodle, Dan. You're not getting the entire picture. By choice or ignorance, it doesn't really matter, you can't prove your position with those numbers alone. In point of fact, those numbers alone allow for dangerous suppositions to be both made, and acted upon.
Plus, I think there is no longer any doubt that Obama is a Muslim.
ReplyDeleteDuring the campaign, I admit I had my doubts that he is, but since his election, his actions and rhetoric have pretty much chiseled the fact that he is a Muslim in granite.
"By their fruits shall you know them." ~ Matthew 7:16
Oh, and by the way, Dan, re: your comment, "It wasn't that he was a Christian that was troubling. It was his positions that was troubling."
ReplyDeleteThat is a lie.
Tell me again, Mark, why it is that I'm not a Christian?
ReplyDeleteI am a sinner in need of grace.
I have confessed my sins to Jesus, our Savior and "given my life" to Jesus, making him Lord of my life.
I have thus been saved by God's grace, through faith in Jesus, the son of God, who came to earth in the form of a man - 100% man and 100% God, I believe - and who lived a perfect life, free from sin, who taught us how to live by his teachings and his examples, who taught us to follow in his steps of grace and mercy and forgiveness. This I strive to do, by God's grace, trusting wholly in God's grace when I fall.
What part of that makes me NOT a Christian? How are you defining Christian?
And tell me: Is it Christian to form stereotypes of our neighbors? Of our enemies? If you were the man beaten and left by the side of the road, would you have turned away that hated "Good Samaritan" because, as everyone knew, Samaritans were good for nothing? That was the stereotype, anyway.
Is living in fear and prejudice a godly way to live, in your mind? Is that teaching a Christian one, to you?
How about lies and slander? Are these things that a Christian ought to engage in, as you are doing here? And the name-calling, is that what being a Christian means to you?
What DOES being a Christian mean to you, Mark, and how am I not one?
Great illustration, Mark. That's one film I haven't seen. I'll make sure to keep an eye out for it. I loved Wayne in "The Searchers." What a great movie THAT was! Full of pride and prejudice!
ReplyDeleteEric, not you, too? You aren't saying you'd use prejudice and stereotypes to keep a person out of a job, are you?
ReplyDeleteOn what basis?
Shall we just scrap our hiring laws and say that you CAN legally discriminate based on religion (national descent? Skin color??) if you want to? If you think you're right?
And when Christians have fallen out of the majority, will you STILL be okay with faith-based discrimination? Or is it the kind of thing that's okay for Christians to do but not for others?
Please tell me you're not going down this ugly road with Marshall and Mark?
Dan sanctimoniously intones, "Tell me again, Mark, why it is that I'm not a Christian?"
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Dan, I didn't say you specifically weren't a Christian. I said Obama isn't.
(Funny how Liberals always personalize pronouncements about their ideology.)
But, since you asked, it could be the way in which you bastardize the Gospel to suit your own apostate interpretations, and your continual habit of casually throwing out entire passages of the Bible as irrelevant or unimportant or even untrue, just because you disagree with it. True Christians believe the entire Bible and try to follow it's teachings. You just ignore the parts you don't like. That's not how God wants His word to be interpreted or followed.
1. My apologies, I thought you said "Dan isn't Christian" where you were referring to Obama.
ReplyDelete2. Regardless, where am I specifically wrong? Save this poor soul, if you think I'm lost.
Should I NOT have recognized that I was a sinner? Was I wrong for that?
Should I NOT have repented of my sins? Is that where I went wrong?
Should I NOT have trusted in God's grace for my salvation, is that my error?
OR, does it come down to: I shouldn't have disagreed with you, because agreeing with Mark's interpretation of the bible is an essential to salvation? What essential step of salvation am I missing?
And I ask again: Should I be slandering, as you do, in order to be saved? Should I be name-calling? Bearing false witness? Are these the things missing in my life that I need to be saved, mimicking your witness?
Do you think these things are Christian actions?
I said nothing about hiring, Dan (Although I'm not sure I'd want a devout Muslim serving anywhere in Homeland Security... call me paranoid). I was only responding to your numbers and the so-called proofs you derived from them. It was shoddy logic on your part.
ReplyDeleteAhhh! Here we go! More bleating about "bearing false witness"!
ReplyDeleteI've stated before that I don't take the anecdotal testimony of your missionary friends to be worth much of anything. There are two reasons for this: 1) I can't take it on faith that you fully understand or know how to even properly question your friends. 2) If they're YOUR friends, the possibility of their being like you is too strong to not consider that they, too, are too lacking in reasoning abilities to fully understand with whom they are dealing. That is, they'll fall for any sob story and take little effort to see the other side. This is soley my opinion based on years of engaging with you and you do your friends no service by even bringing them up.
ReplyDeleteNext, I would say that McCarthy is hardly the only source available and I believe I recently listed quite a few reliable sources that know from their own upbringing as well as others by their own scholarly study of the subject. And since among these are Muslims themselves, including a son of a Hamas founder, converted to Christianity and now seeking American citizenship after working for the Israelis, I feel confident that my position if sound.
As to my position, you like to call it prejudice. I like to call it reasonabe acceptance of reality based on fact. I have known Muslims including two Pakistanis and the Bosnian family that lived next door until last summer. I will state plainly that my oncerns would hold the Pakistanis in suspicion primarily. This is because I don't see racial profiling as racism. I have no desire to be suspicious of anyone, but the real world does not allow for such closed-mindedness. I treat everyone the same in practice, but I don't assume anything about anyone.
Libs can never see such distinctions without judging them as evil or malevolent. This is not only unChristian, but shows a distinct lack of any ability to reason objectively.
To assume that one can appoint without concern a "devout" Muslim to any department concerned with security is indeed as stupid as letting any communist in the same door. This is because a devout Muslim sees Islam as political as well as religious. If a lib can't see how that might compromise our security or our policy enactments, then it's likely a good reason to remove all libs from such posts as well.
What do your questions of sinning, repenting, and trusting have to do with anything? Because we don't believe Obama is Christian? His actions and policy stances say he isn't. His own words say he isn't. If you say YOU are saved, okay, fine by me. But you can't know Obama's heart any more than I can know yours. I heard enough from you to give you the benefit of the doubt, but nothing I've heard from Obama allows me to afford him the same.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your social gospel, and your stance on homosexuality, but you seem to have the requirements for salvation somewhat intact. Ergo... I'm not say you "aren't."
But I've heard no such similar statements from Obama. Quite the opposite, in fact. NO honest Christian can believe there are "many paths to the same place." It makes Christ's sacrifice pointless. It makes the need for a savior pointless. It makes our need for cleansing from sin pointless. It means God wasted his time taking on human flesh, living in a filthy disgusting, diseased and cursed world for 33 years only to be beaten and die naked; nailed to a Roman cross [the cross of MY shame], ostensibly to pay man's sin debt.
Just 'cause someone calls himself Christian doesn't make it so. And by both his words and actions, Obama is anything BUT Christian. Now, having said that, it doesn't mean I don't WANT him to be saved. I'd rather he genuinely accept Christ than spend an eternity in hell. We all deserve it, but I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
This...
ReplyDeleteyou bastardize the Gospel to suit your own apostate interpretations, and your continual habit of casually throwing out entire passages of the Bible as irrelevant or unimportant or even untrue, just because you disagree with it.
is a false witness.
I do NOT, in fact, bastardize the gospel to suit my own interpretations. I strive prayerfully and carefully to discern God's will in the Bible.
My positions are NOT apostate, they are different than yours and Marks in some cases, but that does not make them apostate.
I don't casually throw out entire passages of the Bible as irrelevant, I study the Bible and prayerfully seek God's will.
These are demonstrably false statements. Now, I'm giving Mark the benefit of the doubt and say he is making these goofy statements in ignorance, since he doesn't even know me, but they are, in fact, in the real world, false statements. They are a bearing of false witness.
What is wrong with me pointing that out?
Would you rather I let false statements just lie there?
I'm glad you don't want to institutionalize discrimination, Eric, in the larger work place, but to do so in public office is doing the same thing.
We ought judge a man or woman for their actions and character, NOT their faith tradition. That would be prejudiced thinking and I'm suggesting that such is wrong and not part of our Christian or American ideals.
"...but to do so in public office is doing the same thing."
ReplyDeleteNo. It's not. Not if the job deals with homeland security or one that deals with setting public policy. The term used was specifically "devout" Muslim. This is not something that we can equate to "devout" Christian, because of how each sees their faith in relation to the public sphere and politics. You can do whatever you want with your social experiments in your little world in Kentucky, but leave it out of the military and anything that has to do with securing our nation. There's no place for social experimentation in either. Please try to remember that you are fully welcome to put your own life and the lives of your family at risk anytime you like, but not those of the rest of the country. Devout Muslims can have most any other kind of job they like (if qualified), but no, not those.
Dan, sez you.
ReplyDeleteI say you are lying, You say I am.
But, the Bible backs me up more than it backs you up. Here's a perfect example:
You say God blesses homosexuality. The Bible plainly says He doesn't.
You, sir, are the liar, and the apostate, and the hypocrite.
rolls eyes.
ReplyDeleteMarshall...
You can do whatever you want with your social experiments in your little world in Kentucky, but leave it out of the military and anything that has to do with securing our nation.
Well, unfortunately, Marshall, you don't get to decide (unfortunately for you, that is. fortunately for the rest of us and US ideals).
I believe most of us still reject the notion of prejudice and cowardice and believe that a person ought to be judged by the content of their character and their actions, not which church, mosque or synagogue they attend.
But you fellas feel free to play "I'm King" if you want. We'll maintain a nation of ideals of equality, liberty and justice for us, and you can set up your "kingdom" in your backyard and fight the nasty wasty fascists and boogetymen there all you want.
Just don't run with any pointy sticks.
And now, that's really enough.
"There are numerous experts who have explained the stated goals of devout Muslims, not the least of which is to bring all the world under Sharia law."
ReplyDeleteI don't care to read the full comment thread (lazy I know, but I actually work) so I'm going to take this quote from Marshall's second comment.
1. There are numerous experts is the most weaselly phrase imaginable to begin a point. What you're saying is, "There are unnamed people I believe, but you don't get to know who they are." Is it perhaps because these experts are people with ideological axes to grind and who's thoughts would be quickly dismissed?
2. The stated goals of many devout Christians is to bring all the world under christian law. Guess what? That's no better. Luckily though the majority of American Christians oppose such an idea. And I know this will blow your mind but...the majority of American Muslims oppose sharia law!
3. It is illogical bordering on insane to suggest that whenever a person you are in opposition to takes a position you can not oppose that your opponent must by lying.
Christians oppose murder terrorism and the overwhelmingly vast majority of Muslims oppose murder and terrorism. To suggest that because your religious views differ, that all Muslims must prefer evil is delusional.
Ben,
ReplyDelete1. I don't know that I need to reprint what I've said already more than once, but here's a recent post wherein I've listed some of those experts (read the comments until you find it---I'm busy, too, but I don't dive in and say stupid stuff because I didn't take the time). I'll add to that list one more, just for you. That would be Mosab Hassan Yousef, eldest son of Hamas founder Hassan Yousef. I referred to him in an earlier comment here (that you likely didn't read). Do these experts have axes to grind? Sure. They likely do not approve of people who hack off heads and limbs of people they do not like, who abuse women in ways that we find most heinous, and who seek to place all the world under Sharia law.
2. "The stated goals of many devout Christians is to bring all the world under christian law. Guess what? That's no better." You don't know either religion well enough to make that claim. But more importantly is HOW a Christian would seek to bring everyone to Christ, which is a more accurate description of one of any devout Christian's stated goals. They do so by merely sharing the Good News and letting God do the rest. Where Christians hope to affect public policy is in protecting those rights which the Constitution already recognizes we inately have. If you truly understood Christianity, you wouldn't fear it so much. As to what you think the majority of Muslims oppose or support, provide evidence. Then provide proof that they aren't just shining us on.
3. I don't for the life of me understand what you're trying to say with this statement. Please explain so that I can refute it properly. (Or agree as the case may be, but likely isn't)
"To suggest that because your religious views differ, that all Muslims must prefer evil is delusional."
This is just stupid and not in the least bit representative of anything I've ever said, suggested or implied. But since you brought it up, to deny Christ in favor of a false god IS to prefer evil. Nice of you to lay it on the table.
"Is it perhaps because these experts are people with ideological axes to grind..." [Written while grinding his axe]
ReplyDelete"The stated goals of many devout Christians is to bring all the world under christian law."
Nope. Sorry. I've not heard one Christian, in print, on television, in church, in the public, state that their goal was to bring the entire world under 'Christian Law.' Nowhere in the Bible will you find such a term or commandment. What you will find is this, from the lips of Jesus himself:
"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." [Mark 16:15-16]
That's pretty straight forward. The only thing the Christian wants to do is give everyone an opportunity to make a decision. And that too is all God asks. "Choose you this day whom you will serve..."
The differences between Islam and Christianity are numerous, and stark. To name a few, Christianity doesn't seek to subjugate the world in the name of God [the ignorance of pre-reformation Catholicism, and the church of England notwithstanding; there's a huge difference between faith and religion.] Islam does. Islam countenances evil in the name of religious and political advancement, Christianity does not. Islam countenances the murder and/or the dhimmitude (social, political, and monetary oppression) of specific ethnicities should they refuse conversion. Christianity does not.
And since you didn't bother to read all the comments I'll repost the following:
Speaking to Dan...
"As to your percentages in Britain. I don't deny those numbers are fairly accurate. But you appear to offer these numbers as proof that Muslims aren't out to take over the world...
"Poll all of those groups of Muslims in Britain and ask them: "How many of you would prefer to see the world under Sharia law?" I assure you that that number would be well over 50%. It's one thing to say 'only a small percentage of Muslims wish to partake in violence against the West,' but it's quite another to suggest that by that percentage alone there is no danger from Islam. Not every Muslim has a fervent desire to die in the name of allah (I will not capitalize the name of a false deity), but that's not to say huge numbers of Muslims don't approve of those who do, or are unwilling to provide monetary or material support for the same, or wouldn't be pleased as punch to see a world-wide Caliphate come into being.
"...You're not getting the entire picture. By choice or ignorance, it doesn't really matter, you can't prove your position with those numbers alone. In point of fact, those numbers alone allow for dangerous suppositions to be both made, and acted upon."