[clue-talk] How do CLUEbies vote?

[Michael Fierro]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 07:39:07PM -0600, Collins Richey wrote:

> > My point was: you can't say that all Muslims are terrorists. You can't say
> > that all Muslims are on the side of evil. You can't even say that all
> > terrorists are Muslims (one name: Timothy McVeigh). I would be willing to say
> > that all terrorists are evil: I hate the idea that killing can progress one's
> > goals. That is definitely an evil concept.
 
> I was obviously confused about your viewpoint, and I meant no slander,
> but you keep hammering at the false idea that the website (and others)
> believe that all Muslims are evil or that only Muslims are evil,

The bias is there, if one looks to see it. Even in the sidebar that describes
what jihadwatch.org is about:

"Jihad (in Arabic, "struggle") is a central duty of every Muslim. Modern
Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: the struggle within
the soul, defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense
financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading
Islam. But violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history."

Notice how this is stated. Every Muslim has a central duty for Jihad. Jihad
can mean other things, but violent jihad is a constant. It's not subtle, just
phrased and structured such that one can convince ones's self that they
didn't just read what they think they read.  

Or further down: "Many passages of the Qur'an and sayings of the Prophet 
Muhammad are used by jihad warriors today to justify their actions and gain 
new recruits. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of 
armed jihad." The message behind this statement is very easy to unravel: The
Qur'an encourages recruiting/justification for terrorists, and all Muslims
support armed jihad.

Also notice: Nowhere in the "about" blurb does it mention anything like, "we
realize that not all Muslims are jihadists, we just want to point out that
some are." Instead, there is the very veiled but very real message saying,
"Hey, in their hearts, all Muslims can be violent jihadists, so we need to
watch what they are doing."

> The essential difference, as I see it, is that the strident voices on
> the left do not really believe that the jihadists are all that
> dangerous to our way of life. We can just sit down with them and

How do you define our way of life? If that is the freedoms that come with
being American, then I would say that is true. We have battled many enemies,
and none have ever been a threat to our way of life. No matter what
challenges we face, we are Americans. We can (and have) survived loss of life, 
loss of property, loss of money. Being American is so much more.

Look at it from this point of view: what part of our way of life did we lose
after the 9/11 attacks? Our country suffered a major strike, we lost
thousands of innocent civilians. Our sense of isolation and security was
shaken. And then we all bonded together, we stood up and said, "We are
America, nothing can take that away from us."

> home the idea that dialog with jihadists (certainly not all Muslims,
> but unfortunately and undeniably a growing percentage of Muslims) only
> gives them more time to sharpen their knives to come after us. You may
> consider that hate-filled, but I don't.

It is usually impossible to have diplomatic discussions with any group of
fundamentalists, no matter the religion/political orientation. Yet we did
carry on diplomatic relations with Russia for decades. And there's no doubt
that Russia was doing its best to try and destroy America and everything that
it stands for. So why not at least try? There's a precedent there, after all.
 
> Nevertheless, there are those (more than a few) who wonder whether the
> majority of peaceful Muslims really support the goals of the
> jihadists, and this is because the majority of these peaceful Muslims
> are silent in the face of the suicide bombings and the beheadings and
> mutilation of innocents. For example, where is the outrage of the
> Imams in American or British or ???? Muslim societies against such
> actions? The silence is deafening.

How about any of the following links (take your pick):

http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm
http://muslimsforpeaceonline.com/muslims_against_voilance.html
http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/IslamAndViolence.htm

And, of course, most Muslim groups immediately condemned the 9/11 attacks:

http://islam.about.com/cs/currentevents/a/9_11statements.htm
"For the record, the inhuman attacks of September 11 were condemned in the
strongest terms by virtually all Islamic leaders, organizations, and
countries. TheGrand Mufti of Saudi Arabia summarized that, "...hijacking
planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood, constitute a form of
injustice that cannot be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes
and sinful acts."

The problem with websites like jihadwatch.org is that they don't even try to
discuss the other side of the coin. You only get one skewed, distorted
viewpoint. And when someone starts to rely exclusively on news sources with
this type of bias, then they lose track of the fact that there might be two
sides to the story. 

-- 
Michael Fierro                                  miguelito at biffster.org
Y! Messenger: miguelito_fierro                           AIM: mfierro1
http://biffster.org                           http://weightjournal.com
--
"The King's stinking son fired me, and thank you so much for bringing up such a
painful subject. While you're at it, why don't you give me a nice paper cut and
pour lemon juice on it?"
- Miracle Max, "The Princess Bride"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://cluedenver.org/pipermail/clue-talk/attachments/20070928/607679a7/attachment-0002.bin