Islamists by design, Media Bias and Political Correctness

Submitted by Michel C. Zala (Switzerland), Nov 10, 2010 at 14:56

Can one really differ between Islam and Islamists?

Isn't it a contradiction in itself to differ between Islamists and Islam? How can a devout Muslim not be an Islamist? How to follow the Quran (this ancient, never revised, never to be questioned, archaic document) and still be a Muslim? I mean, the content is so restrictive and clear in terms of expanding this cult, in its definitions of the relationships to other religions, in its definition of the excpected behaviour of all Muslims, demonstrated in the many published teachings of muslim imams and mullahs - it does not leave much room for Interpretation. Is the fact that "moderate muslims" are ostracized by their own people, thus are so silent that the objective observer must come to the conclusion that there are inexistent, not proof of a situation, where there can't be any grey, but only black or white? In the west, where there is a clear separation of church and state, no Christian, who does practise his religion haphazardly will be excommunicated or villified, which is, why there is such a thing like a broad spectrum of moderate Christians. This evidently does not occur in islamic countries, where religion is deeply penetrated and orthodoxy is the norm, not the exception.

For aforementioned reasons I dare to venture the hypothesis that without an urgently needed reformation within Islam (no idea, where that should come from) there can't be a distinction between Islamists and Muslims.

The Iranian Regime doomed?

I am also much more pessimistic than Mr. Pipes in regard to the foreseeable collapse of the marode Iran Regime. While regimes with purely political oppression proved to implode eventually, due to their fundamental inferiority of their ideology and system, as seen with the collapse of the Sovjets for instance, I fear that the apparatus built by the mullahs in Tehran is much more deeply penetrated throughout the fabric of the Iranian society. With mosques and religious institutions in every village, the radical indoctrination of the youth starts early on and never ends. The political apparatus of this regime is at least as solidly anchored and tightly organized as the one we experienced during the high times of the sovjet regime, but as opposed to the sovjets, accompanied, amplified and supported by a religion which by far exceeds the impact of communist ideology. The combination of political apparatus plus Religion with its reach, penetration and continuous indoctrination, combined with the exodus of almost all of the Iranian Intelligentsia after the fall of the Shah (never really replenished due to subsequent academic stagnation) to my opinion results in a regime and system to remain in power for decades to come. It can't be toppled from within and without massive pressure from abroad. Due to a real practiced hearts and minds approach, as opposed for instance to a North Korean or Cuban regime, solely based upon political oppression which allows for ideological opposition (even, if at present underground), where an efficiently organized political apparatus is accompanied, dominated, supported and amplified by a terribly efficient religious system, any form of movement towards freedom, democracy or minimal reform as a step towards it, does not stand a chance. The last elections proved this in a brutal manner, as rarely anybody in Iran even speaks of the upheaval most western observers celebrated at the time as the upcoming doom of the Iranian Theocracy.

The debates about Burqas and Minarettes or even the mosque at ground zero are not "primitive"

I disagree with Mr. Pipes here too, as I do not consider these debates as "primitive". While most of these topics certainly are comparably superficial, as they focus on symptoms, rather than causes, these debates at least manifest an instinctive reaction by the average people to a much deeper, hidden root cause. Most people in the US or Europe are not versed in the islamic texts or dogmas, but they feel the threat expressed by so many islamic or islamist movements to expand within western societies, as demonstrated in sermons from Birmingham to Berlin, lawsuits in America to expand rights to the muslim minority, funded by Saudi petrodollars, the outspoken muslim minorities in almost all western societies to be entitlled with special rights and treatment and the creaping in of Scharia law a la UK, to name just a few examples. The Swiss for instance were not so much concerned about the actual buildings (Minarettes), but about the change they represented to landscape as well as culture and tradition. It was the symbolism which mattered, for a minority to comport themselves as the guests they are, assimilating and adapting to the local traditions and culture, which is after all founded upon a judeo-Christian belief system, instead of trying to change the society from within by using and abusing the meaning and intent of the many granted freedoms and liberties.

To use a simple analogy, if I visit a Japanese household, where the people living there take off their shoes, it would be beyond my comprehension, to disrespect my host by wearing my shoes inside of the house, just because my religion demanded it.

To immigrate to a western country, then make the effort to change the country from within in order to suit the religion and culture of a foreign origin, thus not only disrespecting that country and its people, but openly subvert its socio-demographic texture, is truly disturbing and for a few decades now almost unique to Muslims throughout the free westen world.

In the US, with regard to the debate about the mosque at Ground Zero, a majority of the people would never consider to touch or infringe upon the Freedom of Speech, Religion or Assembly. While tolerance is being practiced every day, the opponents of this mosque only expect the very same consideration of tolerance by the muslims, to respect the feelings of 70% of the American People (let alone the victims of 9/11) who consider the building of the mosque near the place, where 3000 innocent people died in the name of Allah, as insensitive and inappropriate.

No one in America disputes their right to build there. But most ask for the very same tolerance and sensitivity by the muslims, as it is extended to them by law and comportment by a vast majority of the American people. This debate was not primitive either, but was and is important, as it once again is symbolic of a much farther reaching conflict between an open, tolerant society and an aggressively expanding, exclusive minority perverting our dear liberties by abusing them to further their ideological agenda.

The Media Bias in Support of Liberal Ideology

Especially damaging to any open discussion is the manifest media bias, demonstrated for instance by the fact that this one preacher, who threatened to burn Qurans, a man with a congregation of a few dozen members would make the headlines in all news media throughout the world as "proof" for the growing number of islamophobes in America, whereas the 3 Mio mob in Tehran, screaming death to all infidels and burning US flags prior to the middle east peace talks barely made the agency tickers.

One misguided drone in Afghanistan will be milked by the leftist anti-war media from Germany to MSNBC in the US, while the daily news of terror attacks from Indonesia to Iraq has in the meantime been downgraded to white noise.

The consumer of western newsmedia will at all times be exhaustingly informed about the audacity of Americans to use torture (in fact waterboarding 3 (T H R E E) terrorists), while Islamist terror does no longer register, let alone get the deserved space on the frontpages of a NY Times. Speaking of which, when John Steward rallies 50000 people in a "Rally to restore Sanity" (also w regard to the mosque debate), he gets a huge frontpage article by the NY Times plus two giant color fotographs. When Glenn Beck had a quarter of a million people gathered a few weeks earlier, the NY Times reported on page 15 about a few thousand attendees. Opponents of the mosque are being depicted by CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, in other words by pretty much all newsorgs except Fox, as rassist, extremists, fringe movement, ultra-conservatives, to name just the most "polite" qualifications, while in fact 70% of the American People ask for nothing but a bit of consideration and tolerance in choosing the location.

Considering this worldwide phenomenon of a majority of the newsmedia so far in the left wing liberal tank, it does not come as a surprise, how a growing number of a western intelligentsia starts to adopt a philosophy of appeasement towards Islam and Iran especially.

Some optimism can be derived from the recent historical election in the US, where the average individual punished the disconnect of a Washington elite which they considered as no longer representing the mood and the will of the people. Nevertheless Ideologues as Obama extended yet another kotau towards Indonesia and by proxy to the Islamic World today, even admonishing ISR about its settlement policy, while utterly neglecting the chaos in exactly this country, caused by radical Islam and manifested by almost daily terror throughout the region.

Being supported and cheered on by a vastly liberal media, one cannot help but ascertain a cognitive dissonance, where a media and political class pursue a direction and agenda of appeasement, while a majority of the people on mainstreet feel utterly misrepresented in their fears and concerns. Those mixed signals towards the muslim world are in Tehran, Tripolis to Ankara and Damaskus being received as weakness and indeciveness. Can one blame the Iranian Government to aggressively pursue nuclear weapons, playing for time, until there is a fait accompli, if the media and political class are repeating all the mistakes which led to so much misery in the not so remote past?

During this current climate of political correctness and utopian kumbajah, as demonstrated today by Carter, being interviewed by the Neue Zuercher Zeitung, during which he stated, that Obama did not go far enough to pacify the middle east and reign in Israel....one can only hope that more politicians have the courage of the German Chancellor, the boring Ms. Merkel, to be politically incorrect by stating that Multi-Culti in the western world has utterly failed.

We do need those *primitive" debates, as they at least touch upon the underlaying challenges we face with the Islamic culture. The Swiss must be applauded for daring to use the process of direct democracy in order to promote a basically irrelevant notion, setting in motion a slew of corresponding pan-european initiatives and debates throughout the most liberal local societies, thus breaking the glass ceiling of political correctness.

The Tea Party in the US, Fox, Beck must be given credit to bring the notion forward that a Mosque at Ground Zero, even though legal, may not be appropriate, and is opposed by a vast majority of the people, no matter if a liberal media and John Steward ridicule and berate any such idea in the most nasty manner. It is time to abandon political correctness and dare to shoot straight:

Not every muslim is a terrorist, but (almost) all terrorists are for some time now Muslims. 100000 innocent dead in the name of Djihaad and Allah in the last 10 years by terror alone speaks the terrible truth. It is time to reform, dear muslims.

I can only hope that the west once again will demonstrate the superiority of a free democratic society by actions and not just words. I do agree with Daniel Pipes, that Iran must be stopped asap, as Hitler could have been early on. I do not see action on the horizon, as the will of the American People and the free western world has successfully been undermined by a leftist media, colluding with weak politicians, while at the very same time the Saudis build mosques and centers of indoctrination, from whence the new danger of homegrown Islamists are already emerging.

The Strategic Energy Initiative as a way out of the dependence on Muslim nations

As far, as the US are concerned, it is about time to promote, what I call Strategic Energy Initiative. A plan, mission along the line of the moonlanding initiative, to become fully and utterly independent from foreign oil within a decade. Not only would it have extremely positive impact on the economy or job situation, it would above all eliminate any remaining leverage corrupt regimes like Saudi Arabia have upon American politics. The need to engage in traditionally volatile regions would be eliminated, while allowing for true strategic objectives in terms of national security and stability in the middle east.America has the needed reserves and technology to pursue aggressively this objective. For as long, as we import 40% of our oil from Saudi Arabia and Kuweit, the US will be at the mercy of a corrupt regime, bent on undermining all our values, while pretending to be an ally. Before stemming the tidalwave of petrodollar funded domestic indoctrination, enabled by our own civil rights and liberties, we must get way from under the dependency from their fossil fuels.

In order to aggressively pursue this mission, it seems unavoidable to reinstate a Republican President who will be willing to promote the by McCain formulated all of the above approach, including wind, solar, nuclear, bio, coal gas and a complete revamp of the Power Grid. Few people are aware of the fact that America owns the single largest shale oil reserves, good for 80 years at the current consumption rates and profitable at 100%/barrell production cost. Combined with not explored off-shore, deep sea off-shore, Alaska reserves of Oil and Gas and not to forget the significant technology head start in terms of clean energy, such a vision, if pursued with vigor, does not seem to be unrealistic. Why the current administration has not grasped its importance with regard to National Security and foreign policy, let alone its huge impact on an ailing economy (jobs, savings on military engagements, exports to allies, subsequent technology advancements, cost reductions for domestic manufacture due to lower energy prices, infrastructure impovements, rising standards of quality etc.), is truly beyond my comprehension. Of all the great promises made by the Obama Campaign and then broken (just about 15B of a 700B Stimulus Bill were allocated to energy initiatives), this may prove to be the single most devastating "oversight" or broken promise, as such a vision would have had grave consequences on pretty much all dimensions of this and other challenges, America is currently facing.

For the time being, there will not be much movement, and I feel pessimistic for the immediate future, which may well entail a nuclear armed Iran with all the dire consequences (political, economical and strategic) - due to an inactive, passive, weak leadership which is more focused on re-election, than the prosperity and security of its people. In some tragic way, our appeasement strengthens a very dangerous and highly motivated enemy. It will to my opinion get worse, before it gets better.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".