Yeah, an organization with offices in Jordan, Khazakstan, Kyrgyzstan (anybody know how to pronounce, "Kyrgyzstan?"), and Seriba & Montenegro has no clue about Islam.
Having offices in a few countries where the predominant religion is Islam does in and of itself mean that an organization understands that religion, or even local culture, nor does "having a clue about Islam" mean that an organization does not have a political or cultural agenda.
True. It was a bit in jest.
I guess that I have heard so many wet noodles in the West say things like, "If only we would work at understanding them, we wouldn't be in conflict" ("them," being whomever we currently have problems with), that I hardly take the "understanding" argument seriously anymore. Also, when used by enemies/opponents/etc., I see it as a cheap debating point. "You obviously don't understand XYZ."
Understanding an opponent is no assurance that we will come to sing Kumbaya and obviate the need for 5.56mm therapy. Also, understanding of an enemy is not necessary when their actions are inimical to America's interests. Helpful? Maybe. Necessary? Nope.
It appears that you are implying that a mosque like the one in Richardson would NOT run them out, which is untrue. Richardson has run such people out.
I can not testify to the inner workings of the RM. I can, however, see support for folks convicted of violating our laws against selling terrorist-supporting countries certain technologies and providing monies to terrorist organizations.
To be more specific, vocal support in the N Texas muslim community for guys convicted of selling tech to Syria & Libya and providing dollars to Hamas.
That sort of thing just doesn't happen in ignorance and by accident. I have worked with foreign countries and have a good idea what sort of things can and can't be transferred. It ain't rocket science and going ahead and sending tech & monies to places/organizations like the jokers listed ought to be prosecuted.
But then again, why has Pat Robertson not been "run out on a rail"?
Pat owns his own church & TV station. If I ran him out of his church/studio, I would be guilty of trespassing & assault. Then again, PR is considered bat-shinola crazy by most Christians, including yours truly.
Providing aid to the families of captured terrorists is the same in Gaelic & Arabic...and equally immoral.
Sorry, I don't recall Jesus asking people about their parents political affiliations before feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, or healing the sick. Would you advocate that the children of convicted or even just accused murderers or rapists should be allowed to starve or be prevented from attending public school? I don't think children are guilty of the crimes of their parents, nor do I think they should be punished for them.
Wasn't someone writing about propaganda? I detect some Pallywood propaganda. How about a few doctored visuals to go with the text? Folks in need in the ME can get our dollars without giving those dollars to a terrorist organization, Hamas. Giving money to a terrorist organization is illegal and immoral, period.
Part of the argument against breaking the law is the effect it might have on one's family. Giving assurance to some tango that the wife & kids will be squared away so that he can kill without worry is a poor message to send. It is subsidizing bad behavior the same way providing more dollars for every kid a single mom on welfare births.
If the family of some tango receives aid via some generalized effort, well, so be it. Giving money to a terrorist organization specifically to square them away is subsidizing terror.
I am NOT however, trying to "shut down debate", if that is what you are saying. I actually want to open debate. I do think you may be falling for anti-Muslim propaganda, just like some well intentioned people fall for anti-gun propaganda from the Brady Campaign or the VPC.
What is most damaging to the Ameircan & N Texas muslim communitys' image is not what some loopy fruit like Pat Robertson might say. (The only time I hear what PR says is when he steps on his generative member and it is broadcast in the main stream media.) What is most damaging is what the
communities do and say. When the community shows support for Hamas and argues that prosecuting dirty SOBs that sell tech to terrorist-supporting nations, the rest of us take note and think, "Hmmmm..."
Holding a local shindig for the Ayatolla Kohmeni and say how wonderful a guy he was is another way to get the rest of us thinking more than, "Hmmmmm." (Note: NOT sponsored by the Richardson Mosque...but CAIR participated)
Ignorance Is BlissI can get along with just about anybody, even the prickliest of personalities. That has often been my primary assignment on some business trips: feather unruffling. Thing is, most muslims I have gotten to know are codial, genial folks; both in work and school; citizen & non. Not prickly at all. Like most other folks, if you spend a good amount of time on a project or whatnot, other topics come up: family, friends, German cars, guns, computers, etc. Well, an awfully large proportion of those genial folks are anti-semites. Oh, nobody has come out wearing a sign reading, "Will kill Jews for Falafel" (Mmmm, falafel!), but let slip some criticism of Israeli policy or America's foreign policy prorities & who knows what will pop out of the personable, likable, and educated muslim you are sharing time with.
The effect (on me) is similar to seeing a pretty girl using gutter language or lighting up a smoke. I liked them better before I knew this about them. I was reminded of this a while back when reading a local newsman,
Rod Dreher:
...We know, as a matter of reason, that not all Muslims in this country support, either actively or passively, the Islamists. We want to be fair. But we also can't help noticing that there is something about Islam that inspires violence. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nowadays, virtually all terrorists are Muslims. Why are we so reluctant to talk openly about this, and to work hard to learn what is actually believed and taught at American mosques? I mentioned earlier that I'd sat through a presentation to the DMN editorial board by Sayyid Syeed, the head of the Islamic Society of North America, in which he went on and on about peace, love, tolerance and understanding, saying all the right things. But when I brought up the facts of the radical sentiments represented on the ISNA board, he did not deny any of it, only shook his finger (literally) at me and likened me to a Nazi for daring to notice. Absent verification, I literally disbelieve any peace-love-and-understanding assertion from an American Muslim leader. I wish I didn't feel compelled to be so suspicious, but prudence requires it.
Another story: I had a pleasant lunch a few months ago here in Dallas with a longtime local Muslim leader who had been quite critical of my writing. He was cordial, even likable. Neither one of us gave an inch, but we had a fair and polite exchange. Then, at the end of the lunch, in response to my questions, he calmly revealed that he believed suicide bombing of Israelis was morally acceptable, that Muslim men have the right to beat their women, that homosexuals should be executed and adulteresses murdered. "You call it violence," he said. "We call it deterrence." And I thought: how many people, meeting this well-dressed, very polite and even friendly man, would suspect that he believes in this kind of violence as part of his religious commitment?
Pretty much my reaction, too. If I were a blissninny, I would wish I still remained ignorant.
