Is America Anti-Islam?

1-04-2005

Foregoing the mendacity behind that caprice, shouldn't the more prudent question be, is Islam Anti-American?

Of course most liberal journalists in this country can't see past their own self-aggrandizing elitism to ever consider the notion that America, while being led by a Republican president, takes action with the intention to advance humanity in every endeavor without the specter of prejudice.

Time and again, these journalists write that Muslims think America hates Islam and it's people, which, they intone, is the reason the terrorists are attacking our troops and why Iraqis haven't spoken out in favor of America. Other Muslim nations are sending terrorists from their countries into Iraq as an attempt to defeat America and yet that is our fault, as these liberals assert, 'because of the American occupation of Iraq'.

They constantly complain about the supposed negative impression of America in foreign countries and rationalize it's because of the person who resides in the White House and the policies of his administration and never once contemplate the possibility... probably because they already know that their insinuation is felicitous to begin with... that their own bias against the administration as reported by their own rhetoric when they write about the 'imperialistic actions of America' is more at fault?

It matters not to these people that radical Muslims... Islamic terrorists... attacked America on 9-11, not because America hated Islam, but because fanatical Muslims hate America. Or that we went into Iraq to overthrow a dictatorial madman who had senselessly slaughtered thousands of Muslims to save them from that tyranny, not to 'occupy' their country because we are anti-Islam.

And we did that despite the fact that the Islamic world is harboring, encouraging, and propagating these Muslim extremists under the auspices of the Islamic religion. Even hiding behind the facade of the American Islamic poster child Mohammed Ali cannot camouflage that actuality.

William Raspberry wrote recently, "We can argue all day that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant whose defeat and humiliation should evoke no sympathy from us. But he did have a functioning country. There was a government in place. People went to work and to the market and to school in relative safety. Can anyone really believe that the U.S.-spawned anarchy has left the Iraqi people better off?"

That is what I call a classic liberal 'twist-and-switch' maneuver. They use this whenever they need to make a point, but deep down inside they probably know that the premise is ludicrous, so they twist the argument and switch the topic.

Saddam was a tyrant who needed defeating and there is no rationalization of his despotism that can justify anything other than that. Using Raspberry's own logic, would he also claim since hundreds of thousands of African-Americans died during the 'anarchy' that was bred in the wake of the Civil War, that the abolition of slavery in this country just wasn't worth it? After all, before that there was a functioning society, a rule of law was in place and slaves went to work, were given clothing, housing, food, and had access to medical care and education, primitive though it may have been.

The topic went from, 'we know Saddam was a bad guy' to 'but the Iraqis are now worse off'. The idea is that no matter how bad the dude is, we shouldn't have done anything about him, because well, those heathens can't survive without him.

That's right, liberals think America has hurt its image abroad because we are involved in an 'occupation' of Iraq that we undertook because we are 'anti-Islam' and if left up to them, Saddam would still be terrorizing Iraqis because those dupes just can't take care of themselves.

But right-wing Republicans are hate mongers?

Then the tsunami hit and over one hundred thousand people, many of whom were Muslim, were killed in one tragic event. It didn't take long for these same liberal elitists to turn Mother Nature into an American right-wing hater of Islam. Not only had America's imperialistic self-enrichment policies created the natural disaster, but also cold-hearted Muslim hating President Bush wouldn't leave his ranch in Texas... which by the way, is his home not a vacation destination... and only offered a 'stingy' initial monetary donation.

While these elitist journalist were assailing President Bush and expounding the mantra that America should be giving more money to the devastated region in a token gesture that would 'show Islam that America didn't hate Muslims', UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was on his vacation skiing.

Funny thing, where I come from, you don't give money to people so they will like you or so that they won't hate you, but because those people need help. But, of course, in the liberal world view, those people wouldn't feel negatively towards us if we had just left them alone and not followed our Capitalistic philosophy which ultimately lead to the natural disaster to begin with.

Raspberry's column even recompensed this dilemma by fusing the devastation of the tsunami and the situation in Iraq. He referred to the ideas of two of his readers that we should send, 'all or a substantial portion of our Iraq-based troops and resources to the tsunami-devastated region around the Indian Ocean. It would get us out of Iraq and, given the fact that the stricken area is largely Muslim, might go a long way toward defeating the notion that we are anti-Islam'.

Maybe there's an even better way. Based on the analogies of liberal elitist journalists, maybe we should just send Saddam, since he did such a fine job in Iraq!
Do you think Islam would stop being anti-American then?

Lee P Butler