Friday, January 1

Muslim deputy director of a state ACLU refuses to condemn "terrorism"--regardless of origin

Ever since 19 Muslim hijackers crashed passenger jets into both of the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, Americans have wondered why so-called "moderate" Muslims have been so reluctant to condemn such attacks.

Now a Muslim female who is also deputy director of the ACLU of Michigan has explained. Writing in the Washington Post, she says she emphatically refuses to "condemn terrorism."

Of course you think this is impossible, that I've summarized her words improperly.  You can't believe any human being would refuse to condemn "terrorism," regardless of what group commits it.

But the Muslim deputy director of the Michigan ACLU "emphatically" refuses to condemn terrorism.  Click on the link if you think I'm kidding.  Here are the opening 'grafs of her column:
As an American Muslim, I am consistently and aggressively asked — by media figures, religious leaders, politicians and Internet trolls — to condemn terrorism to prove my patriotism.
I emphatically refuse.
Wow.  Note she doesn't say she was asked to condemn Muslim terrorism, but simply "terrorism."  And yet she still refuses.

One struggles to imagine a reason.  After all, she claims that "the majority of terror attacks have occurred in five...Muslim-majority countries," and that "close to 90 percent of the victims of Daesh are Muslims."  And yet...she still refuses to condemn this tactic.

Her reasoning?
 Muslims across the globe are not threats. They are threatened.
"Threatened"?  By whom?  By other Muslims, fighting for control of the building caliphate.  But she can't admit this, so she cunningly leaves out the source of those threats--leaving the average Post reader with the impression that the poor Muzz are being threatened by gun-toting, intolerant white American males--which she cleverly demonized in her 3rd 'graf.

This, of course, is a brilliant bit of propaganda--a signal to Muslims who might have been inclined to tip off authorities if they learned of a coming terror plot not to do so.  Because if simply condemning "terrorism" is a form of self-oppression, actually cooperating with law enforcement to stop a terrorist act would be far worse.

Here's the quote: Muslims, we contribute to our own oppression by erroneously believing that if we just apologize, then the anti-Muslim rhetoric will end. And it never does.
She ends her piece with this:
But terrorism is not mine. I will not claim it, not even through an apology.
But clearly, no one has asked her--or any other Muslim--to claim terrorism, but to condemn it.  And again, she refuses.

Any bets on whether the ACLU will disclaim this viewpoint?  Of course they won't.  Because they agree with it.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home