Sunday, December 03, 2006

Dennis Miller on flying Imams

Dennis Miller certainly has a way of putting things in perspective. See Pajamas Media.


Comrade Anonymous said...

What we have become.

john said...

Thanks for the link Comrade - that certainly was eye-opening.

A Gallup poll this summer of more than 1,000 Americans showed that 39 percent were in favor of requiring Muslims in the United States, including American citizens, to carry special identification.

Scary stuff.

Dennis said...

Comrade and John: I absolutely agree that suggestions of tatooing or arm-banding American Muslims is completely disgusting! So is the idea of trying to make Muslims wear special identification. The fact that so many Americans are in favor of such a thing demonstrates the appalling failure of the U.S. educational system. Maybe our schools spend so much time on social indoctrination that they didn't have time to teach about what Nazi's did to the Jews in WWII.

And both of you know very well that I have never, nor would ever advocate special identification for Muslims!

During World War II I would have said that Nazi's need to be investigated--but I would have strongly argued against any kind of identification for American Germans.

Similarly, during the cold war, I was strongly in favor of investigating Communism but to force Russian-Americans to have some kind of distinctive identification would have been disgusting.

Comrade Anonymous said...

It's nice to see you have some limits, Dennis. But the truth is, the reason people have such beliefs is not because of a failure of the schools. It's because of people like you in the media whipping up anti-Muslim hysteria.

professor ed said...

Dear Comrade A: As usual you fall back on your tired cliches such as "anti muslim hysteria" (a typical liberal ploy) when Dennis, or anybody else makes a statement regarding muslims. It is obvious to me, as I therorized in an earlier blog response, that these innocent Imans orchestrated, or scripted if you prefer, this entire episode. Rather than falling back on groundless "labeling" we should all be trying to analyze why this "event" took place; especially with at least one of these clerics having ties to terrorist organizations.

Robert said...

RE: Comrade’s link

What - this is somehow a surprise to you guys? The country is fighting a battle against Muslim terrorists who arguably pose the greatest risk to world freedom since the rise of the nazi powers of WWII or the communist cold war. These terrorists specifically target civilians and innocents as part of their Jihad and make no attempt to cover up the fact that their goal is our total annihilation. They make use of terror to affect elections and change world policy (and have succeeded to some degree in this). Further, there are a large number of people on our side who are totally blind to the risk they pose.

Combined with ignorance and helplessness, and it’s unsurprising that some Americans are falling into this trap of advocating segregation or identification of Muslims. While I certainly don’t support “marking” Muslims with papers, symbols, or other forms of recognizable identification, I do recognize it is we that have failed to successfully address our own peoples’ fears.

BUT… education is the key for both sides of this argument. We can’t just look down our collective noses at these fearful people and then blindly ignore the foolishness of the “all Muslims are innocent victims” crowd. That is just as dangerous because these terrorists are in this to win and they’ll gladly use our own ideals against us.

Mohamed Esa had this to say (in the article):
"The level of knowledge is very, very low," said Mohamed Esa, a U.S. Muslim of Arab descent who teaches a course on Islam at McDaniel College in Maryland. "There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world and some people think they are all terrorists."

He’s right; people do have a very low level of knowledge but they’ve learned negative stereotypes through experience. Since 9/11 the US population has become aware of the risks of Islamic fundamentalism in their daily news reports. Although we’re repeatedly told that “moderate” Muslims are our friends, the news seems to contradict that.

- It was “moderate” Muslims that rioted about Mohammed’s image being used in a cartoon.
- It was “moderate” Muslims who allegedly fabricated and published the most offensive cartoons to “stir up the Muslim community”
- It is “moderate” Muslims that threatened the Pope for his quotes of another person on the Muslim faith (in an academic discussion no less)
- It is “moderate” Muslims who still make noise even after the Pope’s apology
- It is “moderate” Muslims who celebrate in the streets for the deaths of the Jews
- It is the Q’ran that actually advocates conversion or death for the infidels and is supported by the actions of their prophet Mohammed
- It was the “moderate” Muslims who created riots in the slums of France
- It is “moderate” Muslims that react with violence when they are told something they don’t like
The point of the above list is to say that these are not moderate Muslims (at least by Western standards). Calling them this only creates confusion and fear in the American population. It’s somewhat analogous to having a petting zoo with “domesticated” tigers in which the tigers proceed to injure the people who come into contact with them. Calling them “domesticated” belies the truth and therefore casts doubt into the people who would interact with them. It doesn’t take long for the patrons of this petting zoo to realize that they’re being lied to.

In the same manner, the apologists who keep telling us that these Muslims are moderate or that there is only a small group of radicals do themselves a disfavor and it further perpetuates fear and mistrust from Americans. We’ve got to come to terms with the fact that there are a larger number of radicals than we’d like to believe. We’ve also got to deal with the reality that the Islamic faith does advocate violence in certain instances.

The truth is that Sharia or Islamic law is totally incompatible with Western philosophy. It subjugates women, places severe penalties on individuals for minor infractions, and allows the use of vigilantism to settle “honor disputes”. This advocating of certain kinds of violence is often undressed by Muslim apologists (or it is shrugged off). Again, this leads to more fear, mislabeling, and misunderstanding.

Any education should be complete and not ignore things for political expediency. We have to help our population to understand Muslims so that we can truly identify those that are and are not radicals. For the Muslim’s part, they’ve got to learn to live with us too. They need to stand up against other Muslims who are oppressors. They’ve got to be willing to meet us halfway and understand our culture as much as they expect us to understand theirs.

Comrade Anonymous said...

Comparing Muslims to animals that haven't been "domesticated" pretty much proves my point.

Robert said...


I think you understand completely. It is the situation that is analogous (the populace is being mislead as to the risks). However, if you'd rather focus on specifics of my analogy, be my guest. However, you and I both know that you’d be arguing semantics and not the core of the argument. The issue is that the American populace is scared because they're being told one thing and seeing another.

Next time, maybe I'll make the comparison to industrial equipment. Oh wait, I can't do that. Then I'm comparing them to machines or non-humans. ;)