Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Zivasmate
The Washington Post in November 2001 asked a CAIR spokesman to condemn Hamas or Islamic Jihad.  He refused, explaining, “It’s not our job to go around denouncing.”  Asked a similar question about Hamas and Hezbollah by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in February 2002, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper called such queries a “game” and added, “We’re not in the business of condemning.”

However, they are in the business of condemning any and every attempt to accurately portray the actions and motivations of people who carry out unspeakable violence in the name of their religion.

Jihadists? Can't condemn
Hollywood producers, columnists, Ashcroft (who has foiled countless sleeper cells)? Condemnation galore.

49 posted on 02/22/2005 7:27:50 AM PST by seamus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: seamus

You're missing one important point. Let's even suppose they did condemn these things. What would it all mean? Arafat "condemned" all violence against civilians in the Middle East, and yet he was behind much of that violence. Condemning means very little, except to give the MSM reason to write that these perveyors of evil aren't so bad, after all.

What we want to see is American-Muslim groups actively do something, like halting the collecting of funds for violent purposes or reporting their fellow collaborators to the US authorities. Then I'll become convinced that their "condemnations" have any meaning behind them.


50 posted on 02/22/2005 7:41:12 AM PST by Zivasmate (" A wise man's heart inclines him to his right, but a fool's heart to his left." - Ecclesiastes 10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson