Letters to the Editor
-
Golden Boy
"...it has been shown numerous times that the imams were hardly innocent..."
Well, no, that hasn't been shown at all. But it makes a good slogan for Islamophobes.
-
Don't forget the "serious" irony here
Griffin is as unserious as any personality you can find on teevee, both in the modern "trivial" sense and in the "genuinely funny" sense, yet she inspires the serious Kirchick posse to spew more venom toward the Existential Threat of Muslims.
Kirchick, Podheretz and crew spew constant hatred as "serious" beltway pundits toward these religious crazies and have no visceral concern for their personal safety when cruising around the USA, but Kathy Griffin would make people laugh so she would be in mortal danger?
Seriously?
-
Suppose everybody is convinced Islam is EVIL: Then what?
What could possibly be the wisdom of inciting hatred of Islam? Suppose we all wake up from our long national sleep and discover Islam for the evil they say it truely is. What do these civilization warriors propose we do:
a) Kill all the Muslims?
Nuke 'em all? er ... that would be a quarter of the world's population. Too messy. Who's gonna do the killing? Who's gonna do the clean-up? Who's gonna go in to the poison oil fields to get the rest of "our" oil out? Who's gonna stand at the border with a giant fan making sure nuclear radiation doesn't blow over the good guys?
b) Nuke a few Muslim coutries to bring the rest in line?
More shock & Awe? More likely, the rest will "hate our freedoms" even more.
c) Ban Islam? Like the communists?
d) Kill all their leaders and convert all muslims to christianity (copy right Ann Coulter, 2001)? Not likely.
None of this will happen, in reality. What is most likely to happen is we alienate yet another minority inside our own borders and straddle our own civilization with the burden of more angry young people, some of whom may actually become the homegrown terrorist we most fear, and, along the way, weaken the very system of government we are trying to protect.
How wise is that? Wouldn't an enlightened society at least attempt to win the uncivilized over by example and argument? Oh, I forgot. "They're too backward to understand reason and kindness. The only language they understand is force". Seems to me like force is what we have going for us and is the only option we've tried.
One thing that always bothers me about these civilization warriors in that they are so uncivilized. They don't have faith in the superiority of our own system. They don't seem to think we can make any converts by living our own way of life. They don't seem to believe our legal system is capable of handling terrorist criminals. They think a transparent government is a falw in our system that will embolden our enemies. They think dissent is treason. They think American laws and constitution are out-dated.
"9/11 changed everything!", my teeth. 9/11 changed nothing. It was supposed to be our generation's moment to to re-test how strong we are, and, so far, we've failed.
Just who died and made these ignorant goons defenders of this civilization?
-
Oh, Goody, Golden Boy is here!
...to tell us all how horrible, icky, and unteachable those dirty Muslims are! What took you so long to get here?
-
@Svensker
I too was waiting for the self-righteous alarmism of Golden Boy. This is a different tack for him; let's see how successful he'll be.
-
@ Lame Man
"Catholic PC police."
But, their "our" intolerant religious zealots...
And, anyway, shouldn't we wait until September when Petraeus delivers his report?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
-
Svensker and SMac
I wrote to rebut the assertion that the infamous flying imams were innocent victims of passenger paranoia. Their behavior on and before the flight is documented, and I interpret it as political theater designed to scare the passengers (which they did) and use as a incident to discourage future reports of suspicious behavior (still in progress.)
I don't see any refutation of my point in your response. Nor do you refute that their spokesman, Imam Shahin, also acted as the spokesman for two Muslims who were suspected by the FBI of dry running 9/11; or refute that Shahin's mosque produced one of the 9/11 hijackers; or refute that the leader of the mosque before Shahin took over was an al Qaeda member. Do you realize that the imams were returning from a conference in Minneapolis on how to increase Muslim political power in the States?
I realize that these are distressing facts for your spin on Islam in the States, but they are facts none the less.
I also pointed out that Pantanal believes that the US had 9/11 coming, and that Ward Churchill and others see 9/11 as a response to American sanctions in Iraq. Care to discuss? Or will you run?
-
Golden Boy
You do realize, don't you, that you're relying on the most despicable forms of guilty by association and unproven accusations to pretend that their guilt has been proven. I realize they're just Muslims, but that doesn't really entitle you to claim that guilt is proven based on these tactics:
Jay C (and Shooter) bring up the case of the infamous flying imams. It has been shown numerous times that the imams were hardly innocent, not so much in terms of their actions that day (which I think were about politics than any real threat) as in terms of their links to al Qaeda.
OK - so you claim that it has been proven that they're "linked to al Qaeda" (a slimy phrase - what does that mean? but let's see what you have even to "prove" that):
Imam Shahin, the most vocal of the imams, leads a mosque in Arizona that produced one of the 9/11 hijackers and had as a previous president a senior member of al Qaeda.
Are all priests and clergymen responsible for the actions of everyone in their congregation? Someone in their mosque is involved with al Qaeda; therefore, they are.
Sounds like someone has been studying the works of Joe McCarthy.
The FBI held two other members of that same mosque as material witnesses in the 9/11 investigation, two young men who had conducted what was suspected to be a dry run for 9/11 some months previous to that attack.
Oh, so the FBI held them members of their mosque as material witnesses - therefore, not only the mosque members but the imams must be Terrorists?
Now this is all very circumstancial, and constitutes no direct evidence against Imam Shahin, but on the other hand it certainly colors my interpretation of his behavior as the leader of the "flying imams."
You began by proclaiming that "It has been shown numerous times that the imams were hardly innocent." Now you admit that it's just all "circumstantial evidence"? It's not even that - it's just all disgusting, baseless smears based on rank guilt by association.