Friday, October 22, 2010

Someone in the Media Finally Stands up to CAIR

In typical dhimmedia fashion, the major news networks consistently give in to the demands of one of America's premier Islamic-supremacist organizations--the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). After Juan Williams was fired for offending CAIR, however, Fox's Megyn Kelly took the extraordinary step of standing up to CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper. We can only hope the other networks will stand up for their fellow reporters and recognize CAIR for what it is.

41 comments:

Jabari said...

I praise the Lord Jesus Christ, that people are finally standing up to C.A.I.R!!!!!! I pray that C.A.I.R. will be expose for the evils it has committed in order to bring Sharia to this country and that it will be a thing of the past.

David Jones said...

What kind of clothing did the 9/11 hijackers wear? Wasn't it Western style clothing?

Bartimaeus said...

As a Canadian bigot I woul be a bit nervous if a saw a group of Muslims get on a plane in Muslim garb" and yes the fear may be a bir paranoid but so be it. And here is another thought from this Canadian bigot. Maybe we should do some racial or relegious profiling to ensure the safety of all us.

The firing of Jaun Willaims may finally expose organizations and the rest of the liberal media for exactly they are.

The Fat Man said...

WOW, he wants her to answer the question if she is afraid when she see's a Muslim on a plane.

Yeah so she can get fired too LOL.

Rose said...

Good for her! That was great to watch.

mkvine said...

Well...I pray that she doesn't get fired.

Furius said...

I think the left has truly forgotten what a bigot is. Stating that you are nervous aboard a plane with Muslims, is not bigoted. Stating that you believe no Muslims should be allowed to travel by air is bigoted. Stating any emotional reaction you have to any event is NEVER bigoted. The only question is; is it reasonable? Well, since 9/11 was perpetrated by Muslims, and extremist Muslims engage in murder and suicide attacks quite regularly, I believe it is quite reasonable to experience fear and anxiety when sitting in an airplane with Muslims aboard. For instance, we would call Jews bigoted if they stated that they were afraid if they learned a Nazi, or even a former Nazi, lived next door to them? No, because it is perfectly reasonable. Would we call a raped woman a sexist if she stated she gets nervous when she is alone with men?
Yet with Muslims, it is bigoted to even suggest that you are fearful in their presence. I don't know about them, but if I knew people were afraid of me because of my affiliations, I would go out of my way to show them that they need not fear me. CAIR is doing nothing to address the fears of the public...what care is doing is adding to that fear by saying, "Don't even think of speaking anything negative toward us." So essentially they are saying, "Don't just fear us taking your life, because we can take your job too...we have the power." Well done CAIR slamming your point home that we are here to serve Muslims, and no matter what they do to us, we are never to move from under their thumb.

goethechosemercy said...

I have left 3 comments at the site of this meritorious video!
Muslims and Muslim garb are not the issues here.
The issue is clearly freedom of speech and the silencing of Juan Williams.
Today, also, I note that NPR has decided to insinuate that Williams is mentally ill.
How SOVIET of them!
Cair's action amounts to Jihad with the pen. And where the pen leads, sometimes the sword may follow. With the help of the Word, we are people of the Word, not the book, we will put Islam in its place.

Tizita said...

WOOOOO......Go girl, go girl. Yeah! She did awesome!!!

My take: I believe we should do some religious and racial profiling here in the U.S. I mean look at Israel they do that and its one of the safest place to live!

I dont think there has ever been a generation in history than the 21st century that has used the constitution more to twist and use it 4 their good! Never!

And 2 be honest yes i would feel a little nervous if i were 2 see a muslim dressed in their garb walk upon a plane, Heck ya! Who wouldn't?

I saw on the news one time of a couple who refused 2 board a plane when the noticed that a couple of muslims were boarding the same plan as them.....Boy! did that get the media fired up!

Hopefully America will wake up to this wolf in sheep clothing CAIR.

characterbuilder said...

The anchor was looking for a fight.

She wanted to intimidate the man... and he wasn't having any of it.

Bottom line, she was rude to an invited guest. I wasn't impressed.

Next

David Wood said...

characterbuilder said: "The anchor was looking for a fight."

Do you know who Ibrahim Hooper is? Obviously not. If you did, you wouldn't even think of taking his side. He's a horrible excuse for a human being.

characterbuilder said...

David,

Please read my post again. I wasn't taking Hoopers side.

I was commenting on the attitude and demeanor of the anchor.

Next

Jabari said...

Tizita said:
Hopefully America will wake up to this wolf in sheep clothing CAIR

I say:
Something tells me that America is slowly,SLOWLY waking up to this deceptive,evil and satanic organization.

David Wood:
If you did, you wouldn't even think of taking his side. He's a horrible excuse for a human being.

I say:
Why do you say he's a horrible excuse for a human being?????

minoria said...

She was certainly right in being angry at the firing of a colleague for his opinion.For those of you who do not know it CAIR is worthless.I will explain:

CAIR REFUSES to condemn HAMAS as a TERRORIST organization(even though they have killed humdreds of innocent Israelis).

BEN LADEN killed 3,000 Americans,HAMAS APPROUVES of it.

RAUF,the guy in charge of the mosque near Ground Zero REFUSES to condemn HAMAS.

So CAIR REFUSES to condemn a group that IF IT COULD would have killed 3,000 Americans.

SHARIA LAW

HAMAS is in FAVOR of Sharia law,in FAVOR of KILLING APOSTATES,in FAVOR of killing you if you critique the Koran and Mohammed(in other words in favor of killing David Wood,me,Jabari,Tizita,etc)and yet CAIR refuses to condemn it.

CHECK THIS OUT!

I am now watching JIHAD EXPOSED on youtube,just write "ABNSAT Jihad exposed" there and you will get several videos.It is QUALITY,sister Samar knows how to deftly ask questions.
If anybody thinks it is a program where people make WILD-EYED accusations then you are wrong,it is serious but fascinating,not boring.

THE WHOLE GANG IS THERE

To my utter astonishment I found out that the guests are Farhan Qureshi,Walid Shoebat,Kamal Saleem,Osama Abdullah.
Also Anjem Choudhary,Robert Spencer,Pamela of atlasshrugs,even Shadidi Lewis(who had debated Nabeel and David).

Watch it and spread the word to others,send links to others so they can watch it and keep the program on the air.If you thought "Jesus or Muhammed" was good then you will see "Jihad Exposed"is just as good.

Damon Whitsell said...

I think I'm in love with Megan Kelly cause I love anyone who stands up for what they believe. And she is pretty too. :)

I just wished she had racked him over the coals for talking about racial profiling and discrimination. I get tried of people trying to say Muslim is a race.

GOOD JOB GIRL!!!!!

Bartimaeus said...

Charaterbuilder

Wake up and smell the coffee. It is about time that some in the media call these spokemens for the relegion of "peace and tlerance" to account for their actions. Ibrihim was trying to spin the lie and Megyn was simply expressing the outrage felt by 90% of the public over the outrage of Jaun Willaims being fired.

The problem here is Ibrahim couldnt handle an angry woman because he could hit her in teh mouth- check surah 4:34.

I commend Megyn and only wish we had more men with the gonads to standup to people like Ibrahim.

Islam is a facist religious system and a danger to all of humanity and it needs to be exposed.

So you can crawl in bed with the enemies of God but I won't.

Egos said...

As usual, Fox News shows how ridiculous it can be.

1. This is not a free speech issue. NPR or any other news network has the right to fire their *employees* for making statements inconsistent with given editorial policies.

2. Juan Williams expressed a clearly bigoted sentiment which he chose not to repudiate, thereby lending legitimacy to the idea that it's OK to fear people in Muslim garbs.

3. As usual, the people on this blog don't seem to realize that there is a serious problem here. What a shame.

hugh watt said...

Egos:

Yes, "there is a serious problem here."

See, turban wearing Sikhs do not threaten to bomb non-Sikhs into submission, so there's no threat from them boarding a plane with a turban on. This goes for every other religious group in the world. Now, Islam: What can we say. Who created this problem in the first place? Who has made Islam so hated world over by its fundamental core teachings? Would my stating the facts about this qualify me as a bigot also? I think anyone who doesn't tow the "I Love Islam" line, is in potential trouble, and that is the real problem as I see it.
Does anyone have free speech to disagree strongly with Islam? Does Islam have free speech to disagree strongly with others? I think we know the answer to that one. Sadly, I'm not allowed to say that for fear of being labelled a bigot. But what does it make people like you, that's worth answering I'd say.

donna60 said...

"We have an open give-and-take dialogue. He says something, we get him fired!" CAIR

characterbuilder said...

Bartimaeus,

Do you think its possible that I might disagree with the manner in which the anchor conducted the interview with Hooper... and yet in so doing NOT support the agenda of C.A.I.R.?

I hope you are not "blind" to this possibility... Bartimaeus.

Your comment about crawling "in bed with God's enemies" is over the top and just plain silly.

Finally, I support David Wood and other Christian apologets as they bravely defend the Christian worldview.

Egos said...

Huge Watt,

Perhaps it's not obvious to you, but there IS a difference between critiquing *Islam* and promoting fear against all Muslims.

1moremuslim said...

Christian hypocrisy at highest level;
Rick Sanchez was fired for making a factual statement about the Jews in USA. Where is Fox news when Helen Thomas was pushed to resign after comment about the Jews. NOBODY daires to say anything about the jews.

What if one political analyst, declares that he feels nervous when he passes by a Hassidic Jew in the street? Your opinion please!

hugh watt said...

Egos:

Try a role reversal. Imagine you're in the non-Muslims shoes, be honest, can you see it now?
Answer honestly.
Some Muslims have used Islamic garb to hide explosives and carry out homicide bombings/crimes. With all this talk about "killing and being killed for Allah," can't you see why people have genuine concerns? If not, enlighten us as to why you think we're "promoting fear against all Muslims."
Your statement is an exaggeration. JW highlighted "Muslims in Islamic garb" not "all Muslims." This is what happens when people want to play the victim, you exaggerate. What this does in turn is to give a false impression against others and towards yourself. We'll see just how honest you are and if you're only looking at this through Islamic eyes. Me, if I we're Muslim and not down with the violent aspects of Islamic theology, I too would be concerned about flying if thorough security checks were not carried out. Muslims were killed in the 7/7 bombings [U.K]. With 9/11 they may have argued they didn't know who was in the building at that precise time, but on 7/7 they knew Muslims were present; so, would you not be wary too?
I'm not saying it's right that Muslims are treated/viewed in this way, but again I ask, whose fault is that? If you answer that one Q, that A's the whole matter as far as I see it.

Egos said...

Hugh_Watt,

I don't need to *imagine* myself in non-Muslim shoes -- I'm not a Muslim. Strange how you automatically want to assume I'm a Muslim even though I gave no indication *whatsoever* of my religious beliefs. Why would you make this assumption? It must be because you think that anyone who sees JW's comments as promoting fear against all Muslims can't possibly be anyone other than Muslim.

(Do you honestly think this is clear thinking on your part, leaping to such assumptions? about me?).

You wrote: "Your statement is an exaggeration. JW highlighted "Muslims in Islamic garb" not "all Muslims."

According to you, then, what I wrote was inaccurate. I shouldn't have claimed that JWs was promoting fear against all Muslims, but that he was promoting fear against all people in Muslim garbs. Wow. Really?

No, I stand by my original claim: JW was promoting fear against *all* Muslims, even though he only specified people in Muslim garbs. Why would he highlight his concern with people in Muslim garbs when the 9/11 attackers were NOT wearing Muslim garbs, but western-style clothing? Clearly, it's because people wearing Muslim garbs are probably, you know, *Muslims*, and "Muslims killed us on 9/11." Thus, Muslim garbs are merely an indication of the wearer's religious beliefs, and it's really the wearer's religious beliefs -- whether a person is an adherent of Islam or not -- that we should be worried about. You can't seriously deny that this is what JW was getting at.

Imagine if JW *knew* that the person in Muslim garb he was looking at was a hardcore atheist. Would he feel "worried and concerned?" Just think about that.

hugh watt said...

1-

Egos:

"I don't need to *imagine* myself in non-Muslim shoes -- I'm not a Muslim. Strange how you automatically want to assume I'm a Muslim even though I gave no indication *whatsoever* of my religious beliefs. Why would you make this assumption? It must be because you think that anyone who sees JW's comments as promoting fear against all Muslims can't possibly be anyone other than Muslim."

Where did I say you were Muslim? Notice, you avoided the Q!

"(Do you honestly think this is clear thinking on your part, leaping to such assumptions? about me?)"

Wow! You spent much of your post assuming I was assuming: Read back. See how I never once called you Muslim but spoke in general terms.

"According to you, then, what I wrote was inaccurate. I shouldn't have claimed that JWs was promoting fear against all Muslims, but that he was promoting fear against all people in Muslim garbs. Wow. Really?"

If you want to refute your own statement you're welcome to; saves me the effort. Also, listen to what JW said again. He made it clear he's "not a bigot," then went on to say something more. Check that something more and come back to me if you're still missing it.

"No, I stand by my original claim: JW was promoting fear against *all* Muslims, even though he only specified people in Muslim garbs."

Gordon Bennett!!! Hey mate, the very thing you accused me of, you're doing yourself; a blind man on a galloping horse can see that!

hugh watt said...

2-2

"Why would he highlight his concern with people in Muslim garbs when the 9/11 attackers were NOT wearing Muslim garbs, but western-style clothing? Clearly, it's because people wearing Muslim garbs are probably, you know, *Muslims*, and "Muslims killed us on 9/11."

Did he not say something about Muslims who say they are Muslim first then, whatever, secondly? Wanna check back on that one, I think he did. Now, why would he make this distinction do you think?
Up till now you've not answered my Q, is it because the A is obvious?

"Thus, Muslim garbs are merely an indication of the wearer's religious beliefs, and it's really the wearer's religious beliefs -- whether a person is an adherent of Islam or not -- that we should be worried about. You can't seriously deny that this is what JW was getting at."

When Muslims decide to start following Islam as Muhammad practised they tend to dress in a more traditional Islamic style. We used to have a math genius around here, perhaps if JL is reading this he could set an equation for you to work on. Here's a hint on where I'm going. Muslim liberal becomes "radicalised" and changes garb. Demeanour changes with dress style, and so to ambitions for life, death and the universe. Hold on a bit. I just realised I don't need JL's help after all. I have at least 2 brain cells knock about in my head.
What JW was "getting at" he got to. Try listening, it helps.

"Imagine if JW *knew* that the person in Muslim garb he was looking at was a hardcore atheist. Would he feel "worried and concerned?" Just think about that."

Talk about missing the point. When did you last hear of a Muslim atheist threaten to "fight and slay in the way of nothing!!!?"

I'm interested as to why you choose to defend people who regard you as an infidel and second class citizen who deserves to be treated as a dog, why?

hugh watt said...

2-

"Why would he highlight his concern with people in Muslim garbs when the 9/11 attackers were NOT wearing Muslim garbs, but western-style clothing? Clearly, it's because people wearing Muslim garbs are probably, you know, *Muslims*, and "Muslims killed us on 9/11."

Did he not say something about Muslims who say they are Muslim first then, whatever, secondly? Wanna check back on that one, I think he did. Now, why would he make this distinction do you think?
Up till now you've not answered my Q, is it because the A is obvious?

"Thus, Muslim garbs are merely an indication of the wearer's religious beliefs, and it's really the wearer's religious beliefs -- whether a person is an adherent of Islam or not -- that we should be worried about. You can't seriously deny that this is what JW was getting at."

When Muslims decide to start following Islam as Muhammad practised they tend to dress in a more traditional Islamic style. We used to have a math genius around here, perhaps if JL is reading this he could set an equation for you to work on. Here's a hint on where I'm going. Muslim liberal becomes "radicalised" and changes garb. Demeanour changes with dress style, and so to ambitions for life, death and the universe. Hold on a bit. I just realised I don't need JL's help after all. I have at least 2 brain cells knock about in my head.
What JW was "getting at" he got to. Try listening, it helps.

hugh watt said...

3-3
"Imagine if JW *knew* that the person in Muslim garb he was looking at was a hardcore atheist. Would he feel "worried and concerned?" Just think about that."

Talk about missing the point. When did you last hear of a Muslim atheist threaten to "fight and slay in the way of nothing!!!?"

I'm interested as to why you choose to defend people who regard you as an infidel and second class citizen who deserves to be treated as a dog, why?

Sorry, delete duplicates.

Egos said...

Hugh Watt,

You asked me to imagine myself in “non-Muslim shoes,” as if I were somehow analyzing the situation from the perspective of a Muslim (as opposed to the perspective of a non-Muslim who simply thinks JW’s remarks are highly problematic). If I maintain my viewpoint, as I do, then I must not be “honest” and am “only looking at this through Islamic eyes.” I assumed that as a reasonably intelligent person, you comprehended that siding with the critics of JW does not necessarily amount to viewing the situation “through Islamic eyes,” and therefore the principle of charity compelled me to ascribe to your remarks the (false) assumption that rendered them intelligible. I see now that my initial assumption was mistaken and that I was too charitable. I’ll try to refrain from this error in the future.

I stand by my claim that JW (whether intentionally or not) is promoting fear against all Muslims. It’s no defense to say that he only specified people wearing Muslim garbs (and therefore was *only* promoting fear against all people in Muslim garbs), since a person’s clothing, all by itself, is of no consequence. For JW, the wearing of Muslim garbs is relevant only insofar as it is an indication of the wearer’s beliefs and intentions, and it is the wearer’s beliefs and intentions that he’s "worried and nervous" about. Thus JW’s apparent thought process is: (1) if a person on a plane is wearing Muslim garbs, then he’s probably a Muslim; (2) if he’s a Muslim, then he might be one of those radical extremists intending to take over the plane and crash it into a building; and therefore (3) I get worried and nervous. (All perfectly rational and acceptable reasoning according to you, right?)

Bottom line: it’s *Muslims* on airplanes he’s “worried and nervous” about -- not just people who identify themselves as such through certain clothing. The emphasis on Muslim garbs is even more nonsensical when you consider the fact that the 9/11 attackers were NOT wearing Muslim garbs. So why the emphasis on Muslim garbs? Is it because he really thinks people wearing Muslim garbs on airplanes are more likely to be terrorists than the people not wearing Muslim garbs? Again, sheer nonsense.

You wrote:
“He made it clear he's "not a bigot," then went on to say something more.”

“I’m not a bigot, but...” Oh yes, very convincing.

hugh watt said...

1-

Egos:

"I stand by my claim that JW (whether intentionally or not) is promoting fear against all Muslims."

Ok, I can see that. Again I ask, whose fault is that? Who created this backlash against Muslims?
Before 9/11 few westerners would have batted on eyelid against Muslims. It changed, why? Let me put this in another context.
The Irish situation with the IRA, UDF etc or the Basque separatists in Spain. For years bombing campaigns have been carried out, and are creeping back in in Ireland. If you were from the North [N.I] and were living/passing through the South or vice versa, and taking a coach ride, how would you feel if someone boarded the coach and sat beside you with a bulging rucksack? What if a JW spoke the mind of the every day man, would you slam him for it? You can't tell by looking at someone if they are ok or not granted; so how's your bus ride going, comfortable?
You can tell where a person is from by their looks quite often,
it's easier of course with color. Accent can also be a give away. So, how's your journey going? To say you'd feel all relaxed and not bothered I'd find unbelievable. Again, I'm not saying it's right, but human nature...

"..since a person’s clothing, all by itself, is of no consequence."

Oh! So this dude is wearing colors that people from his gang wear and if you're wearing colors your enemy wears it's "of no consequence!?" Perhaps he's no gang man, just wearing those colors in the wrong neighborhood, you feel ok still? Those colors can say a lot about you. In today's climate, it's rational to be concerned for your safety; persuade me otherwise.

hugh watt said...

2-2

"Bottom line: it’s *Muslims* on airplanes he’s “worried and nervous” about -- not just people who identify themselves as such through certain clothing. The emphasis on Muslim garbs is even more nonsensical when you consider the fact that the 9/11 attackers were NOT wearing Muslim garbs. So why the emphasis on Muslim garbs? Is it because he really thinks people wearing Muslim garbs on airplanes are more likely to be terrorists than the people not wearing Muslim garbs? Again, sheer nonsense."

It may be "sheer nonsense" to you, but can't you understand why he/people have these concerns? You're not living in the real world. That's why I say put yourself in the "infidels" place. The "infidel" are finding out what Islam thinks about us, and has the intention of killing us softly with a bomb.
You're right, clothing doesn't tell the full story. Maj. Hasan wasn't wearing Islamic garb when he murdered some soldiers. So yeah, focusing on clothing can be "nonsensical."

"You wrote:
“He made it clear he's "not a bigot," then went on to say something more.”

“I’m not a bigot, but...” Oh yes, very convincing."


I'm not a bigot but; You still ok on your bus ride?

I'm interested as to why you choose to defend people who regard you as an infidel and second class citizen who deserves to be treated as a dog, why? You never answered.

Egos said...

Hugh Watt,

In response to my claim that JW is promoting fear against all Muslims, you said: "whose fault is that?"

I need some clarification on your part. Do you *agree* that that is what he's doing (whether intentionally or not)?

Egos said...

Hugh_Watt wrote:"I'm interested as to why you choose to defend people who regard you as an infidel and second class citizen who deserves to be treated as a dog, why? You never answered."

And I reiterate: there IS a difference between critiquing *Islam* and promoting fear against all Muslims. Why this isn't obvious to you is just beyond me.

hugh watt said...

Egos:

"I need some clarification on your part. Do you *agree* that that is what he's doing (whether intentionally or not)?"

Again I ask, whose fault is that? Who created this backlash against Muslims?

"And I reiterate: there IS a difference between critiquing *Islam* and promoting fear against all Muslims. Why this isn't obvious to you is just beyond me."

I'm interested as to why you choose to defend people who regard you as an infidel and second class citizen who deserves to be treated as a dog, why? You still never answered.

You just keep ducking those Q's. Choice is a wonderful thing, if you have it.

Zack_Tiang said...

I think a valid question for Egos to answer is...

Was JW promoting fear against all Muslims with that statement?

Or was he merely stating his personal concerns as an unarmed man with no protection against the possibility of a plane hijack and could lead to a similar event such as the 9-11?

If JW had said it off camera but in a crowded setting (not to the crowd, but just in a crowd), would he be charged with such a statement?

Zack_Tiang said...

This JW incident is almost like someone on a TV show that is talking about religion and then this person says, "I love pork."

Then all of a sudden this person is charged with religious insensitivity and promoting religious insensitivity against religions that prohibit eating pork.. and is fired from his job.

Is that the kind of freedom of free speech you want to practice?
I am seriously concerned with those who are not Muslims but see this incident as not an issue but is reasonably acceptable.

I wonder if they would be able to imagine themselves in JW's shoes...
Fired for merely stating an opinion, which was not intended to 'promote' anything.

Egos said...

Hugh,

I'm not interested in addressing your smear against all Muslims -- let's stick to the issue at hand. Again, I ask: do you *agree* that Juan Williams (whether intentionally or not) is promoting fear against all Muslims? Yes or no? Your avoidance of this question is telling.

Egos said...

Zack,

"Was JW promoting fear against all Muslims with that statement?"


Yes he was, by lending legitimacy to the fear. It would have been different if he went on to comment about how irrational his concern was, and that we should all strive NOT give in to that kind of lazy thinking.

"Racism is a lazy man's substitute for using good judgment ... Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me." (Juan Williams, 1986)

hugh watt said...

Egos:

"Racism is a lazy man's substitute for using good judgment ... Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me." (Juan Williams, 1986)

How's making a personal assessment about ones feelings "racist?" When did speaking against an ideology become a Q of race!!!?

JW said what many say or are thinking. You keep on avoiding my Q's, I'll stick around and play ping pong post with you.

Egos said...

Hugh,

I went into some detail explaining how JW's remarks, in the context in which they were made, promoted fear against all Muslims. Even the most ardent, fair-minded critic of Islam would see such promotion as highly problematic - akin to racism.

So I'll ask again: do you *agree* that Juan Williams (whether intentionally or not) is promoting fear against all Muslims? Yes or no?

As I said, your avoidance of this central question is telling. Perhaps it would force you to defend the indefensible, and understandably, you wouldn't want to appear as a bigot.

(Note: as you've noticed, I've ignored all your irrelevant side issues. And I'll keep ignoring them until we've settled the main one.)

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Well, I certainly think she had a point, but perhaps she was too aggressive. I think her attitude would polarize people according to what side they're already on. In other words, I don't think she was winning any people over towards the truth.