Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Muslim Protests on Palestine v Terrorism

In response to my article, MSM Coverage of Islam Versus the Catholic Church, Dell Gines asked the question, who should be blamed, and specifically, to what degree. Should all Muslims bear responsibility for the acts of terror carried out in the name of Islam?

I doubt that it has escaped the notice of many, how vocal & strident Muslims are concerning the perceived injustices to their community in Gaza & the West Bank. They hold highly visible rallies, in large numbers loudly making their feelings known. Any time there is even a hint of a hate crime, Muslim organizations blitz the media with adds & protests, calling attention to the event & denouncing it. Yet, when four bombs shredded more than 50 people on their way to work, the first statements issued, were not of condolence, but of "premeptive complaining about acts of prejudice that have not yet occurred", in the words of Mark Styne.

When Newsweek printed that erroneous story about the desecrated Korans, there were massive protests by Muslims & it was nearly impossible to read a paper or watch TV without a hearing the views of CAIR & other Muslim organization. However, I have yet to see Muslims protest the burning of Bibles in Saudi Arabia or the forcing of non-Muslim women to wearing Muslim hijab in Iran.

I am certainly not arguing for collective punishment, however, should Muslims not, as a community, be as vocal & uncompromising in their denunciation of the actions of the terrorists as they are in the Palestine issue. Is it a mere coincidence that a majority of terrorists are Muslims & not Christians, Jews or Buddhists?

Muslims who remain silent about the scourge of terrorism are partially responsible for it, for they tolerate it & create a fertile environment for it to thrive in. However, Muslims who do speak out against terror are not. Here is an article about a vigil held in Bahrain, in front of the British Embassy there. Here is an article about Kuwaiti citizens drowning out the cries of a radical Imam to kill Americans with shouts of 'O' Allah, make Islam and America stronger'.

However, I see very little of this type of action among Muslims in the US. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I have yet to see an enormous rally by Muslims denouncing the terrorists such as the one in Pakistan burning President Bush & Blair in effigy, or the ones in Indonesia, which were held against the Iraq War. Until this imbalance is addressed, I do not think that the Muslim community can be exculpated of all responsibility.

HAT TIP: Shipwrecks
Mudville Gazette

|

Fighting Terror: SCOTUS vs The Brits

Aaron & Victor Davis Hanson both call for aggressive action, not simply acceptance when reacting to terrorist attacks. Well, for once, someone has listened to them. It certainly wasn't our SCOUTS, as you will see below, but rather our friends across the pond. Not, too shabby, I must say. Hope we take a page from their book ASAP & put an end to our fetish for coddling criminals.

Supreme Court forces Gitmo guards to convert to Islam

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has found that stationing non-Muslim or female American military personnel as guards at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility violates both the First and Eighth Amendments. In the majority opinion in the case of al Qatani vs. Rumsfeld, Mr. Justice Kennedy wrote:
Muhammed al Qatani, a suspected member of al Qaeda captured by the US military in Afghanistan, complained that his guards are overwhelmingly Christian or Jewish. This causes him great feelings of discomfort and persecution. Indeed, hospital records show that Mr. al Qatani was twice examined by medical personnel after he suffered severe bruising from attempting to break through the bars of his cell when a guard he believed to be Jewish walked by, and a third time when he broke a nail trying to gouge out the eyes of another guard, Corporal Isaac Rosenberg. A report by Amnesty International has found that some 91% of the personnel assigned as guards at Guantanamo Bay have declared on their official military records that they are members of any of a variety of Christian denominations and sects, or are members of the Jewish religion...
As this Court has held on many occasion, most recently in the case McCreary County, Kentucky et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, the United States government must remain strictly neutral with regard to the establishment of religion. Defendents' assertions that guards are too busy dodging excrement, semen, and saliva to discuss religious matters with detainees does nothing to remove this requirement. The presence of members of religions labeled as 'infidels', 'ungodly crusaders' and 'Zionist pigs' violates the right of detainees to practice their own religion without interference. Based on survey data provided to the Court in an amicus brief by the Democrat National Committee, practicing Christians and Jews a 'a bunch of conservative white people who've never worked a day in their lives' and are 'racist, homophobic and sexist.' Clearly, no prisoner, no matter what crimes he may be accused of having committed, should be forced to associate with such extremists.
We also find that the mere fact that female guards routinely interact with the detainees presents a clear violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment...
We therefore find that guards at Guantanamo Bay must be Muslim males.

In a concurring opinion, Madame Justice O'Connor wrote:
The measure of any country may be found in how it treats outsiders. Our tradition in the United States has always been to provide lenient and fair treatment to prisoners. In this current war, our treatment of detainees also has a tremendous bearing on our national security. Harsh or insensitive treatment of detainees echoes throughout the Muslim world, acting as propaganda and a recruiting device for extremist groups. The detainees come from a culture that places women in a subservient position to men. As much as our own sensibilities may be offended by this, it is nevertheless unjust and cruel to expose the already humiliated detainees to further psychological damage by placing them under the control of women...

In his dissent, Mr. Justice Thomas wrote simply:
You people are out of your (omitted) minds.

Contrast this cowardly pandering to Islamisist ideology with the decisive response of the Brits, who've wasted no time in ensuring that terrorists get a taste of their own medicine. Please read this exclusive report from innovative journalist, Basil, who wanted to answer the question "how the British are retaliating to the attacks?" His first step was to place a call to an old contact in London's Belmarsh Prison where several terrorists are already being held in custody. The transcript of the conversation is as follows:

"Her Majesty's Prison, Belmarsh," came the pleasant but serious voice. And the voice sounded familiar. A voice I hadn't heard since ....
"Nigel?" I was certain it was Lieutenant St. John-Smythe.
"Basil? Is that you?" The voice was still pleasant, but surprised.
"How are you doing? I didn't know you were at Belmarsh! Left the military, I see," I said.
"Good Lord, man. What prompts this call?" Nigel asked.
"Funny story," I said. "I'm researching the British retaliation to last week's bombings, and I was wanting to find out how you were getting information from those you have in custody there."
"Oh, is that all? Nothing more than our intelligence secrets and methods? Man, are you daft?" Nigel St. John-Smythe said.
"Now, now, I'm not asking for anything that will cause any difficulties. But I'd like to view an interrogation, if that wouldn't be too much trouble," I asked.
Silence.
"Or," I offered, "you could describe an interrogation?"
"Actually," Nigel responded, "there's not a lot to tell. Just like you Americans have a prison facility at your Guantanamo Bay base, we have a facility here in eastern London. The prisoners are kept in cells most of the time. I mean, they're prisoners, right?"
"Hey, no argument from me," I said.
"Yes. Well. There comes a time when we must ask questions of those engaged in terrorist activities," said Nigel. "We ask them questions for about an hour. Ever so politely, to be sure. But this lot ... well, they don't cooperate. At least not until it's time for them to go back to their cells. Then they spill the beans. After a bit, you can tell they have stopped sharing information and are just babbling on and on so they won't be returned to their cells. Many ask ... beg, I should say ... to be sent to the American prison at Guantanamo Bay. But we take them screaming back to their cells."
I asked, "Why such a ruckus? What do you do to them in their cells?"
"Why nothing," Nigel insisted. "They are offered three meals a day and can watch the telly."
"Standard British TV?" I asked.
"Certainly," Nigel responded. "Of course, they just have monitors in their cells. Everyone watches the same thing."
"Like what?"
"Well, let's see. Emmerdale, of course. They are allowed to see shows like Desperate Midwives, Coronation Street, Tweenies ... you know, the typical fare," Nigel said.
"Oh, my goodness!" I said. "And the meals?"
"Again, typical fare. Jellied eels, Faggots, Toad in the Hole, Gloucestershire Squab Pie, Spotted Dick ..."
I interrupted, "Isn't this where I make a Michael Jackson joke?"
Nigel sighed, "I rather wish you wouldn't."
"I get the idea, though," I said. "Well, you've been a big help. I can report back with a clear conscience."
We exchanged pleasantries before ending the call.
I dialed Harvey [his editor] back.
"Harvey, those bombings have indeed caused the British to retaliate," I reported.
Harvey asked, "How so?"
"Torture," I said. "Unspeakable torture."

|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?