[Just mythoughts]

That’s the first thing I noticed—”ultra-conservatives”—they are up to some kind of language logistics. These are radical muslim Islamists. Not conservatives, not extremists, but terrorists. I love the way these Marxist, Alinsky-types can turn things upside-down, confuse people, and then blame it on us!
____________________________________________________________

I am not familiar with the Salafists, so I did a wee bit of searching. I find it most strange that Obama and crew surely had to know the who and what when they funded in part the Egyptian revolution. So why now is the WashingtonPost presenting as if talking points specifically naming the Salafists. There is a reason why, and when they label them ‘ultraconservatives’ it is not a positive compliment. And when one media outlet starts a liberal chant the rest soon follow and not long this administration uses the same phrases to excuse themselves as if they had no clue about what to expect.

I just wish I knew what the WashingtonPost is saying in their coded phrases.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/3085/salafists-brotherhood-ascendant-in-egypt

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/special/sala.html

[piasa]

By treating salafists as if they are the sole radicals they are implying the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, etc, are the opposite, and non-threatening. But they are all a threat because they are radical and terroristic and do not tolerate free and open debate.