Posted on 12/08/2002 2:42:43 PM PST by ewing
The charge of complicit silence has been levied agianst them [Muslims, after Sept. 11]
Muslims, it was alleged (after September 11) remained silent and said little. A recurrent theme was that Muslims were slow to prove their loyalty and patriotism.
In short Muslims were held to a more rigorous standard then their compatriots-and fond to come up short.
They faced, as another commentator suggested, 'a stiffer test of patriotism' than their fellow countrymen. And even with prolific condemnation, (?) it was at times asserted that the dissociation [Islam from Al Qaeda] was not true or authentic.
Rather it was presumpted, even obligatory, Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The bar of culpability seems fixed rigidly to guilt by religious association.
The blame game continues. Even now, wth every new attack, pundits sit in ivory towers of self righteousness and demand fresh new condemnations from innocent bystanders.
(Excerpt) Read more at torontostar.com ...
How about until they succeed in eliminating the Islamofascist terrorist mentality within their own ranks?
Nor is Russia asked to apologize for invading Afghanistan, brutalizing it for a decade, and creating a climate of internecine warfare and extremism.
Or for that matter, is Israel called on to recify its brutal and morally unjustifiable occupation that provides fuel to these twisted conflagrations of hatred.'
Enough said!
Exactly. And it's time to fish or cut bait.
I pray we don't have another devastating attack that kills thousands of Americans. If or when it happens, I wouldn't want to be a muslim living here. Or the country of origin for that matter.
5.56mm
Rather, it was peremptory, even obligatory. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Damned if they do what? Condemn bin laden? Damned by what kind of people? Should we care? Heck no! What gibberish is this? A mindless rant?
The bar of culpability seems fixed rigidly to guilt by religious association.
Actually, the victims of 9-11 were victims of guilt by religious association. Here in America, we look at each individual as unique. If a Moslem stands for truth, we praise him. I saw it happen a few times. Truth is not normally important to many moslems, or to this writer.
The blame game continues. Even now, with every new attack, pundits sit in ivory towers of self-righteousness and demand fresh new condemnations from innocent bystanders.
What condemnations? Even this writer doesn't site any in this entire article! I, at least, can site three. That rally of 50, back on the 9-11 anniversary. The Iranian students, who BTW, make it clear they are multi-religious. And Loius Farrakhan spoke 'loudly and strongly' against bin Laden, but he normally is too busy saying Bush is worse.
...demand fresh new condemnations from innocent bystanders...? How about the innocent bystanders of 9-11?
Many requests are so harsh, so venomous, that no amount of condemnation will ever suffice.
Is he talking about Farrakhan condemming bin laden or condemning Bush?
We are witnessing, instead, the politics of ethical one-upmanship that asserts a quota on morality but, in reality, corners the market when it comes to moral chauvinism.
Talk about moral chauvanism, look at all the anti-Christian and anti-Israel two faced bigotry going on in the media and in Islam.
An alien?
From another planet? Just arrived?
On drugs?
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.