Posted on 10/09/2004 5:35:47 AM PDT by Perdogg
Expressing its appreciation for some Sen. Kerrys remarks during the first presidential debate, the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections (AMT*), a coalition of the ten largest American Muslim organizations, has asked him for greater clarity and commitment. The AMT leaders believe that the Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry may have raised two of the most important questions concerning election 2004 during the first Bush-Kerry debate: Are we at war against Islam or against terrorism? Are we waging a war of liberation or occupation? The election 2004 could actually become a national referendum on these two questions.
The AMT statement reads: The AMT appreciates the two key questions Sen. Kerry has raised during the first Presidential Debate: Are we at war against Islam or against terrorism?
Are we waging a war of liberation or occupation? He has opened a much needed debate on the role of America in the 21st century; specifically its relationship with the 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide. We need to hear more clearly the course of action he proposes, and the commitments he is prepared to make to achieve his stated objectives.
During the debate Sen. Kerry sought to distinguish himself from President Bush, by emphasizing that I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror by strengthening our military, strengthening our intelligence by reaching out to the Muslim world, which the president has almost not done, and beginning to isolate the radical Islamic Muslims, not have them isolate the United States of America. He also stated that the US must reach out to the Muslim world to make it clear that this is not, you know -- Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq in order to go out to people and say that America has declared war on Islam. Sen. Kerry is saying that the present war should not be a war against Islam, and the US must reassure the Muslim world of this fact. If indeed that is what he means, then a clear commitment to that position would win him support at home and abroad.
Sen. Kerry also posed another decisive question about the overall objectives of the war by stating I think a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn't have long-term designs on it. As I understand it, we're building some 14 military bases there now, and some people say they've got a rather permanent concept to them. When you guard the oil ministry, but you don't guard the nuclear facilities, the message to a lot of people is maybe, "Wow, maybe they're interested in our oil."
Today there are two movements for democracy in the world: one directed at setting up the rule of law and fair distribution of power in each society, at the level of citizens, and the second striving for sovereign equality among nations, democracy at the international level. Which way is the United States headed? Will it recognize the rule of international law and the sovereignty of nation? That was the question implicitly posed by Sen. Kerry. We appreciate that he has raised the debate to a higher level by raising this question. We hope he will also supply a clear answer. This line of reasoning clear differentiation between protocols of occupation and liberation could provide basis for a real meaningful distinction between the two presidential candidates.
Sen. Kerry can further distinguish himself from President Bush by taking a firm and principled stand against the unconstitutional and un-American aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act and by supporting civil liberties and human rights for all. The courage of conviction to publicly support due process and equal justice for all and oppose ex post facto laws, secret evidence and secret trials could earn him the winning edge. ______________________ The American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections (AMT), is an umbrella organization representing American Muslim Alliance (AMA), Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Muslim Alliance of North America (MANA), Muslim American Society (MAS), Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Muslim Student Association National (MSA-N), Project Islamic Hope (PIH), and United Muslims of America (UMA).
If Islam isn't for us it's against us. Until I hear large numbers of Muslim clerics condemn terrorists, we ARE at war with Islam.
There are many reasons not to vote for the goober, but this statement certainly qualifies as a good one.
It would seem that all terrorists are muslims...
And they are because their religion directs them to "slay the infidel".
You figure it out.
How ironic that the fundamental source of our attackers would use our own system to take us down.
Time to start the Crusades again.
Oh the irony. A commitment? This leads to the age old question about how to tell if a liar is telling the truth.
Hahahhahahhaha!
The Muslims want a commitment from Kerry. This is to rich. Think about it. Pretty soon we will get a tape from Osama demanding concesssions from Kerry before the election. This is absolutely delicious.
Will Teresa wear a burqa to the next debate to cater to the terrorist vote?
What crap. The president has repeatedly called Islam a fine religion. I don't necessarily agree, but the president couldn't be more clear.
What isn't clear is why the Muslims aren't speaking out themselves against terrorism. Their silence is deafening.
That's like asking Bubba for honesty and fidelity.
Islam is a death cult...
Kerry is favored by Islam in the United States presidential race? Our lethal enemy favors the dems' candidate? How to go Democratic party!!!
Muslims are rooting for the terrorists to win. Muslims are rooting for Kerry to win. Muslims recognize, much as the North Vietnamese did, that Kerry is their friend.
Yes it is. And, all we need do, is nudge them on their way to their horned, cloven hoofed, god. He'll welcome them all. I don't think they'll like the reception, but they will certainly deserve the very fine accomodations Lucifer has arranged for them.
A religion is made up of its adherents and its rules. The "fine religion" makes property out of women, encourages young children to kill themselves in the name of Allah, and watches silently while radical nut jobs (trained in religious schools) strap explosives to themselves or run planes into buildings to kill innocents. It is mired in the 12th century with all that entails.
Sorry but Islam is a religion whose leaders will not speak out against terror. Its adherents encourage the spread of Islam by the sword. Until that changes, I will not follow the PC route and praise Islam.
It is not a religion of peace. It is a religion that has always encouraged its followers to kill the infidel. I interpret the silence of its leaders as agreement with its most violent practices.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.