One word -- WHY?

Submitted by J.S. (Canada), Apr 18, 2007 at 13:37

Why create (thanks to more U.S. funding?) Muslim networks? Why do we need more "Muslim networks?" Don't we have enough of them already?

The RAND proposals strike me as utterly naive and misguided. The authors fail (imo) to grasp the nature of the menace.

Money (as a resource) is limited. Wouldn't funding be far better spent in alerting the people of the West about the threat of both the violent type of Islamism and the non-violent, legal form of Islamism?

Right now I'm listening to a new television channel, brought to us Canadians by my cable network (not requested by me, simply suddenly included in my cable package.) And that is BBC World -- broadcasting their benighted pro-Islamist views 24/7. I consider BBC world a huge coup for the forces of jihad in the West. BBC World is part and parcel of "the problem." And, these, btw, are your "ordinary Germans" -- those wonderful sympathizers, apologists, and would-be enablers.

They just featured a "report" about how the U.S. must negotiate with Iran (they quote a spokesperson for Ahmadinejad saying that "the West is being paranoid.") Next, they feature a report about that most wonderful, glorious man jailed by the evil Israelis -- Marwan Barghouti. Need I continue?

And the RAND people want to see "more Muslim networks" as I scoff derisively. Sheer idiocy. And if the American administration can fund and support "legal" jihadists, and the RAND people, themselves fooled by Islamists... What, precisely, is the point? Creating more dupes for Islam?

What is needed is obvious -- a beefed up educational effort to oppose the likes of the BBC, the Western liberal media outlets, the EU, the United Nations, etc., etc. And that's just for starters.

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".