THE LIE THAT IS MR. FAREED ZAKARIA’S SCREED.

Mr.Fareed Zakaria attack’s Glenn Beck’s 10% figure of Muslim terrorists saying that would amount to157-million Muslim terrorists worldwide claiming that it is an irrational number. But the way he restricts the definition of Islamic terrorists, he could claim there were only a few hundred worldwide. For example, he glibly refuses to define silent supporters, funders, and promoters of terrorism as terrorists because, as he claims, the US State Department refuses to include those very sustainers of terrorism at the direction of President Barack Obama, a very convenient definition.

The Obama administration followed by the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC have all changed their definition of what a terrorist is and how terrorism is to be defined. No wonder his research numbers are so distorted. It estimated that seventy per cent of Saudi Arabians are generally considered Wahhabi, the Islamic sect consider one of the most extreme and the sect to which the 911 terrorists belonged. Recent Wiki-leaked US State Department cables revealed that Saudi Arabia funds terror in massive amounts, including spending $100-billion dollars proselytizing Wahhabism around the world, the very sect most directly linked to the deaths of 3000 innocent Americans on our own soil and attacks all over the world, attacks, not only against America, but anyone or country who does not submit to radical Islam, including other sects of Islam.

Zakaria claims US State Department figure show 10,000 terrorist attacks around the world. What Zakaria refuses to define is what he means by a terrorist attack. Are the honor murders of young Muslim women terrorist in nature? Or, is the murder of a Muslim who converts to Christianity or Hinduism a hate crime not a terrorist attack? How about the murder of thirteen Americans by the Ft. Hood Muslim radical?

Zakaria also fails to address another important issue. For every successful terrorist attack, there are thousands planned. Failed attacks or incomplete attack efforts are not included in his statistics, even though we know they are constantly occurring. What about personal attacks, by Muslims on Christians in Iraq and Pakistan, Indonesia and elsewhere…are they terrorist attacks or just “hate” crimes? It is obvious they’re part of Muslim terrorism attacks. What about terrorist attacks of one Muslim sect against another Muslim sect…are those identified as terrorism or inner-faith disagreements?

Zakaria condescendingly extrapolates that the 10,000 “successful” terrorist attacks means that only about 100 persons were involved per attack. He claims that the maximum number and should be counted as taking part, blatantly ignoring number of terrorist supporters it took to raise and pay the money to organizations who fund terrorists and ignoring organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood. That organization alone was said to have two-million members in 1948 but who today seems to try to hide its numbers, despite being in an estimated more than 25-35 countries and dedicated to the proposition of Muslim domination.

Would you say that because there were only 19 radical terrorists killed in their terrorists attack on 911 that that number was all it took to plan, fund, train and carry out the attack? For every terrorists who carries out a successful attack, murder, suicide bombing, IED attack or a “kill all infidels” attack, there are literally thousands of Muslims who silently, financially or philosophically support each terrorists attacker. So Mr. Zakaria’s numbers are extremely suspect if not aggressively misleading. All one has to be to be a terrorist is be a silent sponsor, and he’s still a terrorist. Something, Mr. Zakaria refused to acknowledge.

Hate in the Muslim world it mono-directional…that is to say, that anyone not Muslim is an infidel, which indeed categorizes all non-Muslims as specific targets, and while every Muslim in every Mosque may not be a terrorist, there are potential terrorists found in every mosque it seems or would-be terrorists in the making, and when time meets opportunity, you can rest assured they will act based on that hate whether one or a thousand and whether in America or Pakistan.

Zakaria also uses another "trick" of language to dispute Beck’s claim. He said "believe me if there were 157 million terrorists ACTIVE across the world we'd know about it.” It is a particularly specious argument because, the vast majority of terrorists whose goal it is to destroy western democracy and freedom may not be described as “active,” they are the funders, money sources and advocates of death to freedom lovers everywhere. They are no less a terrorist because they are silent. Can you really have ten-thousand terrorist incidents without vast numbers to back them up? For every soldier, it takes thousands to support them physically and financially.

One of the interesting things the Wikileaks documents revealed is just how involved financially the leaders and people of Saudi Arabia are and have been in supporting terrorism. Saudi Arabia’s Population of 25,391,000 is estimated to be 70 per cent of Saudis are Wahhabi Muslim or about 18 million in Saudis alone. Also, it’s estimated that 70 per cent of Muslims in the US are said to have Wahhabist leanings and want Wahhabism taught and in control the Islamic message.

So Mr. Zacaria again uses a method of linguistic twisting to claim that there are not many Muslims in America who want to install Sharia law in America. He says, I can't find any poll, study or shred of evidence that suggests that 1.57 million American Muslims want to overturn the Constitution and install Islamic law. The problem is that it is, by Zakaria's own beliefs, politically incorrect to even ask such questions about the religious tendencies of Muslims, so he thus hides behind his a grammatical construct to justify his assertions. He simply does not want or refuses to ask the question in the polls he claims to have consulted.

Finally, Mr. Zakaria irrational and nearly hysterical claim that Mr. Beck is fomenting anger against the government is just another Zakaria linguistic trick to attack Mr. Beck. He claims that Beck’s warnings about Obama policies to socialize America are a terroristic effort because Beck disagrees with those policies. That, Mr. Zakiaria claims, is an attack on the GOVERNMENT, not a disagreement with the Constitution destroying actions of a very flawed highly leftist president.

So, Mr. Zakaria, your conclusions are not only weak and insubstantial, they show a desire to twist the realities of Muslim radicalism, and those millions upon millions in the Islamic world who support the terroristic elements of Islam from the shadows who you refuse to identify as terrorists. Thank you, now we know where your sympathies lay.