Posted on 04/05/2002 2:54:09 PM PST by knighthawk
I was gonna skip this thread, but that's nasty. Still laughing :)
I guess espousing pro-American views is not kosher in our “independently” owned media. On the other hand, had he lived in Ukraine in 1936 he would be shot on the spot instead of “retireing“. So democracy wins again.
Oh yes the Washington Report on defending the Jihad. The same online rag which attacked Steven Emerson when his video Jihad in America came out in 1994-95 warning us that the first attack on the World Trade Center was not the last. The writer here scoffs in derision at Emerson and pulls out the "race" card against him:
Emerson's “Jihad in America”
by Paul Findley
March 1995, pg. 20
The campaign to defame Islam in America is alive and robust.
As I watched Steven Emerson's hour-long production, "Jihad in
America," broadcast recently over national television, a sage
comment by an eminent Jew came to mind.
The late I.F. "Izzy" Stone, author, lecturer, commentator, historian
and for many years publisher of a weekly newsletter, once told
me, "Jews never had it so good as they've had it in the United
States." But, discussing their concern about Israel's position in
the Mideast, he cautioned, "They are afraid about the future.
They feel they are at war, and many of them feel they have to fight
and keep fighting." He added, "When people are at war it is
normal for civil liberties to suffer."
When I interviewed him, although in declining health and with
failing eyesight, he was still one of America's most respected
journalists, a hero to academics.
"Israel," he said, peering through the thick lenses of his
eyeglasses, "is on the wrong course. This period is the blackest
in the history of the Jewish people. Arabs need to be dealt with
as human beings."
If alive today, Stone would have cited Emerson's television
production as wartime propaganda. Because many Israelis see
Islam as an enemy, Emerson seems constrained to see Islam as
his own enemy.
One of Emerson's techniques is casting the word jihad in the
worst possible light. Emerson fails to note that in common Arab
usage jihad means struggle, not military onslaught. Literally,
jihad means to strive, struggle and exert effort. It is a basic
Islamic concept that covers, at one extreme, struggles against
evil inclinations within oneself and, at the other, stuggling on the
battlefield if absolutely necessary for self-defense. Acts of
individual, group or state terrorism are alien to Islam.
Jihad can involve military action only when legitimate states use
force to defend the weak, protect society or establish justice. But
Emerson presents it only as violent, explosive, indiscriminate
carnage. This sets it apart from campaigns familiar to Americans
that are entirely nonviolent like "wars" on poverty and illiteracy, a
usage much like the use of "jihad" by Muslims.
The film is replete with unsupported scare tactics. At one point
Emerson declares that Muslims want to establish an "Islamic
empire," but offers no proof whatever. At another he warns that
the single, isolated bombing of the World Trade Center in New
York City is a certain forerunner of terrible acts of destructive
violence nationwide.
He puts a false interpretation on a few emotional scenes
videotaped at programs to raise funds to finance Muslim
struggles in Afghanistan. Without any proof he presents them as
sinister, subversive schemes to finance "Islamic terrorism" here
"on American soil."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), based in
Washington, DC, concludes: "From beginning to end, 'Jihad in
America' and its producer, Steven Emerson, offered nothing but
distorted snippets of fiery rhetoric, unsupported allegations and
spurious juxtapositions to build a case against the Muslim
community in America.
Acts of individual, group or state terrorism
are alien to Islam.
"The film was portrayed as factual and educational, while it
contained many factual errors. The most obvious error was
defining jihad as 'holy war.' We see this documentary as just one
aspect of a recent trend toward anti-Islamic 'McCarthyism' by the
media. In terms of potential hate crimes, it is now 'open season'
on Muslims in America."
Emerson's recurring theme is that big trouble is brewing here
because of the "radicalism of Islam" and the clandestine
methods he attributes to it. He warns of "Islamic extremists
committed to jihad in America." The only evidence he offers to
support this forecast, according to CAIR's word-by-word
examination of the transcript, consists of sound bites--brief
cuttings from filmed coverage of meetings--in which U.S.
Muslims were being urged to help finance Islamic struggles, but,
contrary to Emerson's portrayal, the struggles were in other parts
of the world, not in America.
Emerson deserts the truth in his zeal to misrepresent Islam as a
barbaric, underground movement. For example, he leaves the
impression that he was able to gain access to secret video
tapes of clandestine meetings. In truth, almost all of the videos
from which he clipped have been available routinely to the public.
They were taken at public, not secret, meetings attended by
locally elected mayors and other public officials, including, on
one occasion, a representative of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
Emerson tries to give Islam an unjustified ugly, gruesome
appearance by quoting an Islamic militant as follows: "Allah's
religion, may He be praised, must offer skulls, must offer martyrs.
Blood must flow. There must be widows, there must be orphans.
Hands and limbs must be cut..." This suggests to viewers a
dreadful jihad in America. An examination of the entire video
makes clear that the speaker, a recruiter for volunteers to help
the Afghans, referred only to Afghanistan and the awful price
Muslims there have been paying. Had Emerson explained that
Allah is simply the Arabic word for God, viewers would have
avoided the false impression that the Muslim God is different
from the Christian God.
In two brief interludes of the program, Emerson said only a few
Muslims are terrorists, but this caveat was so fleeting it would
register only with viewers who watched intently. These gestures
to peace-loving U.S. Muslims were quickly obliterated. At one
point Emerson declared, "Our investigation has uncovered more
than 30 groups that fund radical Islamic activities and operate
under tax-exempt status."
By failing to identify the 30 groups, Emerson has put all Muslim
charitable organizations under a cloud of suspicion.
No Link to Terrorism
To his credit, a few days after the presentation, Ambassador
Philip Wilcox, coordinator of the Office of Counter-Terrrism of the
U.S. Department of State, declared: "There is no link between
Islam and violence and terrorism. That is a canard which we want
to dismiss at the outset. Nor is there a worldwide Islamic network
somehow waging jihad against the West. This is a concept that's
brooded about sometimes, and there is virtually no intelligence
information to suggest that such a network exists."
In a commentary in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jack Shaheen,
professor emeritus at Southern Illinois University, calls the
Emerson program "perilous television, pandering to stereotypes
that feed collective hatreds. The program's poisonous images
encourage Americans to believe that all Muslims in the United
States and their charitable and academic organizations are
laundering money for a holy war in the Mideast. As a
result...some peace-loving Muslims who genuinely respect the
United States will likely be victimized by vicious slurs or hate
crimes."
Former Congressman Paul Findley (R-IL) is chairman of the
Council for the National Interest.
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0395/9503020.htm
Don't know. In any event, Watson's award was during the 1930's (pre-war) for his work in the International Chamber of Commerce, bettering US-German trade relations
I've got another piece of news for you, courtesy of Winston Churchill: there are no permanent allies, there are only permanent interests. No nation, not us, not England, not Israel, not anyone else, would allow itself to be destroyed (well, OK, France, but I'm talking about real nations) without fighting for its life. In less serious circumstances, nations will spy even on their allies. If you don't think that Britain spies on us, then you'll also believe that I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, cheap.
As I said in my first post, any nation that is willing to bleed alongside us in this fight is an ally. Israel has proven that they are just such an ally. They are not only helping to destroy the worldwide terrorist infrastructure (albeit in their small corner of the world, and for their reasons), but they are providing us with invaluable intelligence, something Britain can't do right now. That doesn't mean that I think Britain isn't as good an ally, only that Israel is an ally, and always has been on this issue. Israel will, ultimately, help us destroy the unholy trio of Syria, Iran and Iraq, as will the Brits. I hope that we have more support than that, but these two countries are both the kind of allies that we want and need.
Try to look at the bigger picture. We are engaged in the opening battles of World War 3. The Islamicists and the Chinese want to destroy us, they are natural allies. We need to eliminate the power of the first group now, while China is still relatively weak. If we don't, we will be in a world of hurt in 10 years or so. Stop b!tching about those who are with us - Bush isn't.
_______________________________
You bet'cha! And the Chinese leadership is as amoral (in an oriental way) as the Islamic Jihad.
From the same people as the stuff from above! They want to finish off the Jews and US citizens. But if you put it in your thinking: I couldn't care, I am a Dutchman living in the Netherlands, so I am safe.
The people who send out these messages are the same kind of people that attacked America on 9/11! Read Osama's statement about his plans, they are quite the same as those of the PA. And remember: when the jihad against Israel is won, they will start one against us: the West!
If they would stop pushing the victimology and liberal crap down our throats, I would. Fine with me if Israel wants to help stamp out our common enemies. But they are no friend of freedom, they will turn on American in a heartbeat if it benefits them one iota and the further away from American domestic affairs they stay, the better.
For crying out loud, can't you and the rest of your friends see the point? Opposing the liberal agenda of Israelis, saying they have done some bad things to America, being sick and tired of their whining and their calling everyone an antisemite does not mean one supports Arafat or terror.
Most Americans opposed Joe Stalin. That didn't mean we could not be allies with him. Pointing out he was no good didn't mean anyone supported Nazi Germany at that time.
"Everybody does it, that makes it OK!"
The Clinton defense. Israeli spokesmen on TV use this tactic all the time. Or they say 500 Israeli deaths is equal, based on population, to 24,000 American deaths. Or they call everyone antisemites. Or they claim the horrors Jews have expeienced in the past are somehow unique, that no other people have suffered as they have.
Israel needs better PR. This type of stuff doesn't win any friends. You would think with nearly every country in the world not very happy with them, they might get a clue.
In 1967 world opinion was different. Israel would be far better off going back to that model and give up attacking, diminishing and trying to make others feel guilty.
Clearly, there are many people who think Arafat is the good guy here. Do the words 'Nobel prize for peace' ring a bell?
When he got this prize, the PA were doing this kind of stuff for years, but nobody seemed to notice, or even care. And now I will put it in the face of those who think there can be peace with people like them!
His terrorists buddies killed Americans too, but that seems to bother no one!
Chronology and victims of terrorism since 1968 (Against Israel and the US)
No, just give him another chance for peace, mr. Powell, he can be trusted...
If you do not want to see this kind of stuff, then do not look.
Just turn away your face from what is killing us, like most people did before 9/11...
Say what?
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.