In a typical case, a moderate Muslim is selected, perhaps because he or she appears to be very innocent, and is indoctrinated over a number of days, by imams, and others of persuasive powers.
The subject is given a few days to say goodbye to family and friends, and is then dressed up with a bomb and sent to blow up where it would do the most damage. They actually go and do it.

As the Hamas have said, there is no shortage of suicide bombers in their lands. It would seem from this, and the large evidence cited by Israel of these tactics, that virtually any Muslim can be turned into a suicide bomber in a few days.

If this is so, then what does in mean to be a moderate Muslim?

He tries to distance himself by saying he should have specified Islamist extremists or terrorists, but considering the tenor of this speech (and other statements by bigots like him and Falwell), I find his excuse to be crap. He very specifically meant _all_ of Islam - I believe he is just as extreme in his hatred of 'the other side' as any US-hating Imam. And if you think he'll stop at Islam, you're fooling yourselves.

The reason liberals tend to come out against the hard-core religious right in the US (and why we get labeled 'anti-all-religion' as a result) is that we know full well that if Islamic extremism were to suddenly stop being a threat to the US, Robertson and his ilk would choose some other social group to declare 'the source of all evil in the world'. They'll start with gays (hell, they were using gays as punching bags long before 9-11), and then they'll move on to Jews (as Falwell already shows). Then what group will they target for being 'wrong'? Baptists? Mormons? Atheists? It's not as far-fetched as it sounds. It's happened before. I don't mean to paint all ECs with the same brush, but the more power (and attention) jerks like Robertson get, the worse everyone connected to him looks...

I also think Robertson isn't so wrong, he just didn't phrase things so well. I think given Christian doctrine about Satan and Satan's desires and power, it isn't a huge stretch to say that what the rioters were doing was of Satan, I just think it is one of those comments Robertson should have known wouldn't go over well.

He would have done far better to stick with "evil" or similar variation without tagging the name Satan on it.

He was right on about assinating Chavez also. Some label him as a looney, but he has been more correct than incorrect on any number of subjects.

That was the name given by a possesed man in the Bible for the demons that possesed him.

It is true that the goal of Evangelical Christians is to dominate the world. But our tactics are using the power of persuasion and the Holy Spirit to change minds and hearts. No Evangelical will ever drag legion kicking and screaming into heaven.

And, at least by Robertsonâ??s apparent definition, the same could be said for evangelical Christianityâ?¦

...or ignorance.

Robertson also said that â??the goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen, whether you like it or not, is world domination.â??

And, at least by Robertson's apparent definition, the same could be said for evangelical Christianity...

I'm not so sure this is one of them.

If we accept the description of the behavior he's describing as 'evil' (And what is it, BUT this...) then given he holds Satan to be the center of all evil, suggesting such behavior to be Satanicly driven isn't all that far out of line.