I'm not a regular fan of the Fox show "24" but I happen to be surfing last night and watched just a few minutes when I thought it was going to a commercial...instead it was a public service announcement by the shows star Kiefer Sutherland and it went like this:
"Hi. My name is Kiefer Sutherland. And I play counter-terrorist agent Jack Bauer on Fox's 24. I would like to take a moment to talk to you about something that I think is very important. Now while terrorism is obviously one of the most critical challenges facing our nation and the world, it is important to recognize that the American Muslim community stands firmly beside their fellow Americans in denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism. So in watching 24, please, bear that in mind."
My reaction was immediate...WHAT??????....first I knew this must have come from a lobby group, and sure enough apparently pressure came from the apparent author of the spot...CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). So I went to the CAIR website and looked for evidence this "denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism". Go ahead, see if you can find much or ANYTHING that you can call "firmly" condemning terrorism against Americans by Muslims or done in the name of Islam!
I have heard many ask for this condemnation from Muslim Americans since 9/11...but have seen very very little. You would think they would be taking an anti-terror stance to the point where the majority of their website and public communication would have this focus...NOPE. Look at their site....its predominately cry baby stuff about ID checking, civil rights, concern over torture by our troops, etc......
Then ask yourself where was the outrage when "24" had a whitebread blond girl become a suicide bomber? Where was the outrage when a Latino was a drug dealer/terrorist? And so on. When the truth hits home the homies come out bitching and crying. Problem is I (and I'm sure many others) don't listen when its not backed up by actions. It's logical to see why CAIR would/should take a strong stance against terror...so why don't they? Is it because those in this organization don't uniformly agree on this? Do they fear being the victim of terror from within their own ranks if they take that stance?
Postscript....I have no idea if CAIR speaks for 5, 1000 or all Muslim Americans.....if they don't speak for a majority or significant group then my point still stands....get some leaders who will say this front and center on main stream media!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Dude---24 is the best show on TV! That spot was particularly stupid in light of the fact that this is the 4th season and the first in which they've used Muslims as terrorist antagonists. When Americans where the terrorists there was no such announcement.
I think you should surf some more:
http://www.cair.com/html/911statements.html
Most notably:
"The tape was particularly disturbing for several reasons:
1. Bin Laden seemed to revel in the death and destruction in Washington and New York.
2. He falsely implied that the acts of the hijackers were justified by Islamic beliefs.
3. He made the sickening statement that the attacks "benefited Islam greatly."
As we have stated repeatedly, the tragedy that occurred on September 11 cannot be justified by any cause or religion. We restate our condemnation of those who committed this crime and look forward to seeing the perpetrators brought to justice."
I realize that the attacks are fresh in everyone's heads even now (and for several years to come), but CAIR was vocal in condemning them in 2001. To keep it on the front page in 2005 seems an unfair demand that exacerbates a fear that they have - that we non-Muslim Americans will forever connect them to the attacks. There has been serious repudiation of bin Laden and other similar groups. You're just more focussed on the strident liberals (partly because the media focusses on them more... they sell more papers, right?). I'm not being critical. Just pointing out this group and others like it aren't just froo-froo. I have a friend who was a major member of the Muslim student alliance at a prominent east coast university. Believe me: he and his friends were filled with guilt, shame, and anger. They knew how this implicated their religion and they were furious. And they expressed this opinion. There really are millions of Muslim Americans who want no part of bin Laden's worldview.
blah, blah, blah....it was like a metaphor Jim-bo....when you spider their entire site into a PDF and see how many pages the have you will see my point...well some will, you won't!
First off Jim this statment is a wrong:
"In 2001 (before September), Bush announced that the United States would no longer abide by the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) and refused to sign an extension. This basically nullified the treaty."
Since as of Dec 2004 the US was still party to the treaty. Just check http://www.opbw.org/. They list the parties who were at the meeting.
Was that a lie or a mistake on your part?
Now Jim; treaties are only as good as the word of the countries who sign them so lets take a look at the BWC:
The parties to the original agreement, which entered into force in 1975, agreed "never in any circumstances to develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain" biological weapons. Fifteen years after the BWC was signed, Congress passed domestic implementing legislation, the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. This law made the prohibitions of the BWC binding on U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, the BWC still lacks a verification regime or enforcement mechanism. In fact, this agreement suffers many of the same flaws as the Chemical Weapons Convention, which Congress ratified in 1997. In varying degrees, such countries as Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Russia have maintained active biological offensive weapons programs despite being full parties to the BWC accord. In fact, the Soviet Union set up its massive Biopreparat biological weapons program one year after signing the BWC.
Why be party to a treaty when other parties don't abide by it? So in reality Bush should have backed out of it but he didn't.
---MG
Also Jim said:
George W. Bush has pulled out of, and negated more international treaties than any leader in recent history. These include treaties to limit the development of WMD.
Another misstatement and a bit of hyperbole; Bush has ratified 8, signed 6 and nullified one. One is more than any president in the last 50 years but it’s still only one. As a comparison Jimmy Carter ratified 9 and signed 11 and JFK ratified 4 and signed 6. So by your comparison Bush is better than JFK!
So who's avoiding facts now or am I just another Fox News Bubble Baby?
---MG
Jim, I don't presume you're lying. I just don't like being labeled as a dupe who lives in a bubble.
I'm quite well versed in what is really going on in the world and I know where to look for answers.
So I welcome your views and the debate---just a bit less stereotyping and rhetoric (on both sides).
---MG
Alright Jim; only time for one (it's Friday night for God's sake!) I'll get to the rest later!
March 2001:
US, the worlds largest polluter, unilaterally withdraws from the Kyoto treaty on global warming.
President Bush rejected Kyoto for a few simple reasons. First, it would impose significant economic damage on the American economy (a Clinton administration report on the costs of Kyoto put the tab at $300 billion per year). Second, the reduction targets and timetables were impractical from a technological perspective. Third, the treaty exempted developing economies such as India and China from any restrictions even though their emissions are rising rapidly. Instead, the Bush team under Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham charted a different course, which involved investment in basic research, technology transfer to poor countries, and bilateral agreements.
---MG
Here are a few more things about the Kyoto Pact people should know:
Several Kyoto participants, including most European nations, will not meet their stated emissions-reduction targets. Data from the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts that European emissions will grow rapidly, increasing by as much as 25 percent by 2030. Several Kyoto signatories in Europe are already 20 to 30 percent above their emissions targets. If the Europeans can't drastically reduce their emissions, developing-country representatives reasoned, they have little reason to make similar pledges.
The Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a key Kyoto cheerleader and a player in climate-change negotiations for years, issued a new report, "Climate Data: Insights and Observations." A co-author of the report, Jonathan Pershing of the World Resources Institute, said, "We are beginning to see more research on adaptation strategies in response to climate change." Adaptation means having the capacity to handle climate changes of any kind, and organizations like Pew are beginning to focus more on adaptation — as opposed to mitigation — in part because the emissions reductions called for in Kyoto are too costly and technologically infeasible.
This is a sensible move by Pew. The focus on adaptation to climate change — whether that change is human influenced or not — will be a boon to poor countries around the world. These countries are most vulnerable to climate changes because they lack the wealth and infrastructure to handle hazardous events such as heat waves, cold spells, hurricanes, and floods. A new appreciation for boosting developing-country adaptive capacity, and a new respect for the tools that make it possible — such as free trade, property rights, and the rule of law — are welcome developments.
Italian environment minister Corrado Clini admitted to Kyoto's huge structural flaws and its current inability to deal adequately with the challenges posed by climate changes. Acknowledging the growing global need for secure energy resources, particularly by poor countries hoping to raise their living standards, Clini argued that "a much broader long-term strategy, and much more global effective measures, than those within the Kyoto Protocol, are needed, involving both developed and emerging economies."
In other words, the Kyoto Protocol is "fatally flawed." Which makes it another treaty not worth the paper it's printed on. Once again, nice job President Bush.
---MG
July 2001:
US, the worlds largest exporter of arms, prevents the United Nations from curbing the gun trade at an international arms conference.
---Jim, the US has its own gun control laws. Why should we submit to UN authority in this matter? Plus the agreements reached at this meeting aren’t legally binding anyway so who cares what anyone says when most won’t do anything about it? The US didn't stop any other country from coming up with their own control laws. I don't see this as a bad thing.
July 2001:
US renounces efforts to negotiate a verification process for the Biological Weapons Convention and brings an international conference on the matter to a halt.
---And the conference was re-scheduled so that a stronger verification process could be proposed. Again, what's the problem?
May 2003:
The Bush administration effectively withdraws the US signature on the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty. It also requests states around the world to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender American nationals to the ICC. The goal of these agreements ("impunity agreements" or so-called "Article 98 agreements") is to exempt U.S. nationals from ICC jurisdiction'.
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/us.htm
---As a former Special Ops operator I stand firmly behind this one. The US is often the world's police force. Those of us in the military are governed by one of the most strict judicial systems in the free world. There is no reason to have US troops, which are spread throughout the world, to be subject to an international court. We serve under the rules of the UCMJ and the rules of conflict. Take the Bosnian conflict for instance should we have allowed the American peacekeepers serving under the UN banner to be subject to politically motivated lawsuits?
You probably were unaware of this; President Bush proposes a 12-month immunity from ICC prosecution for soldiers on U.N. peacekeeping missions who represent countries that are not part of the Rome Statute that established the ICC. The president wants to use this period to forge a compromise that would have the Security Council deciding which potential cases involving U.N. peacekeepers can go forward. Such a move, which would allow for U.S. vetoes, would provide ample protection for Americans involved in U.N. peacekeeping.
Why is that not a fair compromise?
US stands with Somalia (which currently has no recognised government) as the only two countries in the world to refuse to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratification means the convention has to be incorporated into national law).
---Have you even read this ridiculous document? If every country has signed it then nearly every country is ignoring it. Here are some of its provisions:
"Every child has the right to leave any country, including their own." Fidel Castro are you listening?
"Every child has the right to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly."
---NAMBLA will be very happy to hear this!
"Every child has the inherent right to life."
---Obviously doesn't count if you are in the womb.
"Every child has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion."
----Islamo-facists children included, right?
And so once more a bunch of meaningless words on paper. Since American children already have all of these rights, and any country that doesn't already grant these rights isn't going to start because they signed a document what's the point?
---MG
Jim, yes I engage in hyperbole and rhetoric...I'm guilty of also letting my emotions get the best of me at times too. I get fired up by the positions and logic people take that seems so obviously flawed to me. This why I did the post following this one. The duplicity and hypocrisy demonstrated by liberals apparently brought on by anything Dubya does or stands for is staggering.
Post a Comment