Showing posts with label Islam vs. Islamists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam vs. Islamists. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 8, 2007

Fred on Our First 14 Year War With Islamists

Fred reminds us that, after the Revolution and the adoption of our Constitution, our very first war lasted fourteen years. It was against the Barbary pirates of the Ottoman Caliphate, who justified their acts of war and brutal enslavement on the Koran. Our early government tried appeasement. It didn't work. It wasn't until the Marines and Stephen Decatur went to "the shores of Tripoli" and decisively defeated the radical Islamists that there was finally peace.

. . . The very first line written for the Marine Corps Hymn, about the shores of Tripoli, refers to America's first foreign war. After the Revolution, U.S. ships were sailing the world in search of trade without British protection. With no real navy to protect our merchants and travelers, American vessels and citizens were being targeted for looting, enslavement and ransom. The enemy was the so-called Barbary pirates -- agents of the North African provinces of the Ottoman Caliphate.

Ransom and protection money were demanded and paid. Stories of terrible treatment of American men and women in the dungeons of North Africa were well known. Behind it all, the country was having a pro- and anti-war debate.

On the one hand were those who took the "no blood for trade" approach. They had legitimate concerns about the cost and political impact of maintaining a standing military. They favored negotiations and payments rather than fighting. For a long time, their side was winning the argument. In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams even went to London to negotiate directly with the envoy from Tripoli.

Several historians and writers have reminded us recently of the ambassador’s nearly forgotten answer. Fortunately, Jefferson prepared a written report for the government and left other records of the incident. Here’s a description from The Atlantic Monthly in 1872:
“Disguising their feelings as best they could, they ‘took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury.’ The ambassador replied that it was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave.” He claimed every one of their guys who was “slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise."
This answer may have helped sway the debate to the side of those who favored military response over further attempts at diplomacy. Some believe it had a personal impact on Jefferson himself, though higher and higher ransoms probably helped too. Congress finally acted, creating the US Navy in 1794. This included approval for the construction and manning of six frigate warships, including the USS Constitution -- which is afloat and commissioned to this day.

Still, though, congress refused to act directly against the Barbary pirates for years. Eventually, between 10 and 20 percent of U.S. revenues would be paid annually without ever buying actual safety for Americans. In the end, Thomas Jefferson acted on his own, sending forces into harm’s way. America entered into its first and protracted foreign war. From beginning to end, in fact, the conflict lasted approximately 14 years. I couldn’t tell you, by the way, if the Barbary wars were ever described as a “quagmire” or "lost."

I won’t describe here the taking of Tripoli by courageous American soldiers. And I sure don’t have time to talk about America's eventual victory over the forces of that era's religiously justified terrorism. I would though encourage you to read about it for yourself. It's a great story and it holds an important lesson about the nature of the world.

Sometimes folks around the world mock Americans for not having more of a sense of history. They might be right, but I think it is often for a good reason. Americans are a people who look to the future instead of the past. We hope and believe that things can and will get better. We are more than willing to forgive our old enemies and move forward together in peace. So we tend to forget the bad things we left behind.

Unfortunately, some of our enemies feel differently. They neither forgive nor forget. Listening to the messages of al Qaida's leaders, you understand that they see their old defeats in very personal and contemporary terms. They are in a “long war” against us, even if we don’t know it. And they’re committed to winning it.
Read the entire article here. Unless Fred and others of his ilk begin speaking up and do so quickly, I am afraid we will have come full circle as a nation, now surrendering to the forces of radical Islam. And just as appeasment did not work two centuries ago, it will certainly not work now. But, we will have peace in our time, right Harry? Or at least peace through the next election cycle.

Read More...

Saturday, April 21, 2007

Jasser Calls the Mainstream Media Facilitators for Radical Islamists

M. Zuhdi Jassar, former U.S. Naval Officer and president of AIFD, has authored an excellent article criticizing MSM generally for enabling Islamists. His main emphasis is PBS's recent decision to censor a story on how moderate Muslims who support Western society are under fire from Wahhabi / Salafi Islamists in their midst:

I have previously discussed the harm of our government’s enabling of Islamists (like CAIR, MPAC, MAS, MSA, or ISNA) in the United States and how the governmental endorsement of Islamists publicly empowers them and allows them to dodge their responsibility of countering Islamism as an ideology. This order of magnitude is greater in impact when it concerns the media’s inability to wage the debate of the “struggle for the soul of Islam”. Stories about Islam and Muslims have been more and more ubiquitous since 9-11 and now are actually commonplace. Yet, the actual debate within the Muslim community has barely begun. Where’s the disconnect? Look no further than the Islamist enablers in the media.

When so many ask across the nation, “where are the moderate voices of Islam?”, one cannot help lately but exclaim that they are being suffocated by misguided political correctness and by Islamist influence within mainstream media and government. The PBS censorship of the documentary, Islam vs. Islamists, highlights one of the best examples to date of the symbiosis of both government complicity and media complicity with the Islamist ideology.
Read the entire article here. It is very good. And if you have not let PBS and your representatives in government how you feel, please by all means do so. You can find contact information at the bottom of the post here.

Read More...

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

PBS - Refusing to Show the Threat of Islamists in Our Midst

PBS received 20 million dollars in federal funds to develop shows that “enhance public understanding of terrorism, homeland security and other crucial issues in the post-9/11 era.” PBS conceived of a series of 21 documentaries for its Cross-roads series that will begin airing this Sunday. Originally, PBS agreed that one of the segments was to be Islam vs. Islamists – a study of Islam in the west and how moderate voices are under attack from the fundamentalist Muslims also living in the West. That sounds critically important – and something that your average Salafi Wahhabi organization would not like to see at all. Well, the Salafis win. As the Arizona Republic explains:

The segment was titled, Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center. By and large, the clashes it depicted involved people like Jasser condemning violence perpetrated in the name of Islam, and fundamentalist imams condemning the Jassers of the world as false Muslims.

In some cases, the documentary showed fundamentalists talking candidly about shutting up the moderates in their midst. And, in one case involving a moderate Muslim politician in Denmark, it caught them talking about shutting him up permanently.

In many respects it is an inspiring story, the sort of story that public television often likes to tell.

Unfortunately, we won’t get to see it. PBS has decided to drop that documentary from its play list after, among other things, letting a Muslim professor at DePaul University and an officer in the Nation of Islam screened it first. Apparently, they did not care for it. As the Arizona Republic explains:

Jeff Bieber, WETA's executive producer for Crossroads . . . said Burke's film had "serious structural problems (and) . . . was irresponsible because the writing was alarmist, and it wasn't fair."

. . . Subtitled Voices From the Muslim Center, Burke says his film "attempts to answer the question: 'Where are the moderate Muslims?' The answer is, 'Wherever they are, they are reviled and sometimes attacked' " by extremists.

Michael Levy, a spokesman for CPB, said the corporation set up the Crossroads project and provided funding, but turned over management and content control to PBS and WETA 13 months ago.

After that, Burke says in his Feb. 23 complaint letter, he "consistently encountered actions by the PBS series producers that violate the basic tenets of journalism in America."

. . . Burke . . . says that funding was delayed and WETA began to interfere with his film until it was "expelled" from Crossroads.

Among Burke's examples of tampering:

• A WETA manager pressed to eliminate a key perspective of the film: The claim that Muslim radicals are pushing to establish "parallel societies" in America and Europe governed by Shariah law rather than sectarian courts.

• After grants were issued, Crossroads managers commissioned a new film that overlapped with Islam vs. Islamists and competed for the same interview subjects.

• WETA appointed an advisory board that includes Aminah Beverly McCloud, director of World Islamic Studies at DePaul University. In an "unparalleled breach of ethics," Burke says, McCloud took rough-cut segments of the film and showed them to Nation of Islam officials, who are a subject of the documentary. They threatened to sue.

"This utterly undermines any journalistic independence," Burke wrote in an e-mail to WETA officials.

In an interview, McCloud said she showed a single video frame to a Muslim journalist who was not a Nation of Islam representative.

However, in a January e-mail, McCloud told Crossroads producers that she had spoken with Nation of Islam representatives and "invited them over to view this section." She also wrote that they were outraged "and will promptly pursue litigation."

Read the story here. And in an opinion piece from the same paper:

If Dr. Zuhdi Jasser of Phoenix were a Christian - and he emphatically is not - we might deem him a saint.

But Jasser is a Muslim. He believes in his religion as fervently as any Catholic bishop believes in his. Or any Muslim imam, for that matter. He is faithful to the Quran, which Jasser believes conveys a message of peace.

Because of his faith, and because of what he has done to act on his faith, Jasser has evolved into an extraordinary symbol of what true heroism means in the post-Sept. 11 world. He is a Muslim and an American. And he is a man of peace - a rare, bold iconoclast who is willing to speak out against people who, he believes, have stolen his faith for evil ends.

So, is Zuhdi Jasser what you might call a "moderate" Muslim? If you do, then the Public Broadcasting Service has a problem with you.

. . . They could not bring themselves to declare people like Jasser "moderate" because that would mean criticizing the fundamentalists whom the Jassers of the world oppose.

As the PBS producers affirmed time and again in their letters and e-mails, who is an Islamic "extremist" and who is a "moderate" depends entirely on which side of the street you're standing. In large part, it is about "context."

"We felt the program was flawed by incomplete storytelling and problems with fairness," said Jeff Bieber, executive producer of the Crossroads series. "We felt the writing was alarmist and without adequate context.

"We just felt there was incomplete context, (that) could lead viewers to the wrong conclusions."

"These are the 'root-cause' people," responded Jasser, who said the PBS-WETA producers could not bring themselves to identify the issue facing the United States since Sept. 11, 2001: "It is a radical Islam problem."

This certainly sounds like the PBS deck was stacked against this documentary. I do not know but I bet if we check, we will find that DePaul's Islamic program, like most major colleges in the US, is funded in large part by grants coming out of Saudi Arabia. At any rate, Islam vs. Islamism certainly sounds like it deserves to be aired. Okay, everyone knows what has to be done now, right?

Your Senators

Your Congressman

Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CBP)

CBP Inspector General

PBS

PBS Ombudsman

Read More...

 

View My Stats