Latest Entry: American Pravda and New York's Sixth Crime Family     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

« Is Zarqawi Dead Again, Or Still Alive? (The latest) | Main | Questioning Michael Schiavo's mental state »

November 21, 2005

About Chris Matthews Criticizing America in Canada

Topics: Follies of the Mainstream Media

THEONE.jpg

There is no such thing as an 'innocent' kafir, innocence is only applicable for the Muslims; do not say 'innocent' for the kafir, the most you can say for them is that they are 'victims'. The Muslim however, is innocent even if he engages to fight and conquer the kafir, because he is fulfilling the shari'ah." -- Al Muhajiroun, (Bakir School), 6-21-2004
I first saw it in the Toronto Sun, under the caption, "Hatred blinds U.S. to truth: Journalist," then later, all over the Internet.

Chris Matthews traveled to our northern neighbor to blast America with naive statements that were not only very misguided and flagrantly wrong, but will all but certainly be picked up and used by Islamists to fuel resentment against America (see key remarks in extended post).

Of the many criticisms of Matthew's speech, one of my favorites is that of "Lyford Beverage" at Newsbusters, in which he picks out the most ridiculous comments, and then succinctly and appropriately tags Matthews for what he is - a biased, misinformed, and dangerous liberal:

Chris Matthews has never pretended that he's an unbiased journalist. He's a former aide to Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill, Speaker of the House of Representatives during the 1980s. His show, Hardball, developed an audience during the late 1990s, as he was one of the few liberal pundits not to accept the Clinton spin, for the most part, during the scandal-ridden 2nd Clinton term. But he's still a liberal, and he's made some utterly outrageous comments over the border in Canada, as reported in the Toronto Sun.

"The period between 9/11 and Iraq was not a good time for America. There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were doing," Matthews said.

I don't know what he was watching during that 18 month period, but I remember quite a lot of what I'd consider a "robust discussion" of what was happening. The President made his "axis of evil" comments in January of 2002, and the next 14 months were spent clearly headed to a showdown with Iraq. There was discussion in the press. There was discussion in the House of Representatives. There was discussion in the US Senate. There was discussion at the United Nations. There was discussion in print and on the airwaves. I'd wager that there was "robust discussion" on Matthews' own television show.

"If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil -- they just have a different perspective."

Who, exactly, does Chris want to say is not evil? Bin Laden? Hussein? Zarqawi? The Taliban? The men who flew the planes into the twin towers? The bombers of the U.S. Cole? The bombers who blew up the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? The bombers who first went after the twin towers in 1993? Are those not evil acts? Or are they just evidence of a "different perspective?" And if it is just a "different perspective," what difference does it make? Are we not entitled to look upon a perspective that targets the death of countless innocent civilians as "evil?" An embarassing performance from one of the guiding lights of the Washington punditocracy...

Preston at Six Meat Buffet helps to clarify the issue with some images that Chris Matthews should address as to the difference between the defense of freedom and civilization, and attacking those that are indeed evil.

I point out here that we are not talking about all Muslims, but just how are we to know the difference between those that recruit terrorists, and those that oppose terrorists? Would it not make sense to think before we play politics with our nation's survival and the safety of our troops in battle?

And if you doubt for a single second that Matthew's remarks aren't characterized as truth and used against America, the current administration as propaganda, and ultimately to recruit terrorists, go to this website, and look at the title of the forum, and digest how Matthew's remarkds are already being used and circulated.

If you you'd like to see some ironclad proof that this is the case, or doubt the mindset of the participants of the forum, check out some of the various messages in the Islamic forum, and the comments therein, such as:

The fact is that the Bible has so much contradictory information interpolated into it that any factual statements in it can only be discerned with the help of the Qur-aan....

It is simply amazing how the corporate media can ignore the obvious
fact there were no suicide bombers at the hotels in Amman...

May Allah (S.W.T.) reward Capitol Hill Blue's Doug Thompson by
granting him the hikmat to embrace Islam. All decent people of good
will, Muslim and non-Muslim, are naturally united in cursing Dajjal Bush, the antichrist of our age.

And of course the topics wouldn't be complete without the customary, "the Israelis did it" - MOSSAD BLEW UP JORDANIAN HOTELS TO ASSASSINATE PALESTINIAN INTEL HEAD

You'll find most of the rest sufficiently convincing that the misguided statements of many Democrats and particulary the Left provides fuel for the Islamists. Good job Chris Matthews, where would America be without you and your ilk of the Left? Perhaps a lot further along toward success in the war on terror, and bringing moderate Muslims, Christians and Jews closer together.

Other coverage: Riehl World View - MSNBC's Matthews Out Of Touch With Reality. Right Voices - Has Matthews Been In a Coma for the past decade?. Fresh Tasty Ideas - The Left's Moral Relativism.

Related: Liberals, Conservatives, and the War on Terror

Other Related: What is an Islamist? (From Islamist Watch - emphasis added)

Islamists support Shariah law, and wish to have it implemented in as many countries as possible; preferably throughout the entire world. A few Islamists may advocate such radical change via peaceful means, but most seem to advocate the change using violence. With the sword, the rifle, car bombs, grenades, poisons, hijacked planes, bacteria, nerve agents, and if possible nuclear weapons they mean to oppose democracy and secular government throughout the globe, destroy such systems, and establish a Caliphate (one-world Islamic government based on Shariah law, guided by a single supreme ruler, the Caliph). IslamistWatch.org is primarily concerned with the latter, the Islamists who believe it is incumbent on them to impose Shariah by force of arms. They believe using violence to spread their version of Islam is justified in the Quran and the Sunnah (the Sunnah is a collection of works that narrate the Prophet Muhammad's life). The Islamists who have written the texts, fatwas, and communiques featured on Islamistwatch.org are determined to fight jihad until religion is for Allah alone, and the infidels have been defeated, subjugated, or eliminated altogether.

To westerners this news sounds absurd. They can't believe that people would seriously wish to begin a 21st century crusade to spread a particular gospel by force. Even after the spectacular raids in the U.S. in September 2001 westerners want to believe that the whole business is about oil, or opposition to the political and economic hegemony of the western powers, or about the Zionist-Muslim conflict in Palestine/Israel. But for an Islamist those battles are subsumed and defined by something far more serious: a religious crusade.

This was announced almost immediately after the twin towers fell and the Pentagon was set ablaze. With Arabs shown dancing in the street on television at this great "victory", communiques were issued by many fundamentalist clerics that this was a religious war. Al Qaeda communiques claimed the same. The U.S. administration moved quickly to counter those claims, announcing that subsequent U.S. actions had nothing to do with religion.

It may well be that the U.S. government is not waging a religious crusade against Islam, but the Islamists are certainly waging a religious crusade against the west. It's not just simply how they interpret things, it's what they really want to do: they believe that western laws are man-made but that Shariah law is divine. It is surely of the highest irony that Muslims throughout the world decry the war on terrorism as a "war on Islam", while the jihadists whom they sympathize with make no secret at all about fighting the polytheists and disbelievers until any vestige of any other religion on earth is erased ("And fight them until there is no more polytheism and religion is for Allah alone"[Surah al-Anfaal:39]).

In a bizarre twist that can be traced at least as far back to Sayyeed Abul A'la Maududi's writings in Jihad in Islam, the Islamists claim that anyone is free to accept or reject Islam. But whether you decide to become Muslim or not, you will live under Shariah law, by force if necessary. This allows them to use all means necessary to destroy a non-Muslim's government and society and establish Shariah law in its place--and yet still make the claim that they aren't forcing anyone to become a Muslim.

They believe this current (or coming) war is the ultimate confrontation between the seat of all evil, the western secular democracies (with the arrogant U.S. government leading the charge) and the heart of all good things: Islam as expounded by the Islamists. The texts on IslamistWatch.org were written by the most famous Islamists and they detail the "why" of their religious war; actions by groups like Al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, and Al-Fuqra reveal the "how".

It appears that the vast majority of Muslims living in the west are not Islamists, and since the majority of Muslims living in the middle east are not involved in militaristic ventures to spread Islam it must be that they are not Islamists either. This lack of direct involvement of vast numbers of Muslims to wage jihad against the west does vex the Islamists. They are greatly vexed. And they are continuously exhorting their fellow Muslims to take up the sword of jihad. When this doesn't happen, they console themselves in the Quran, which has passages to the effect that those who are the greatest servants of Allah are tiny in number.

Non-Muslims throughout the world should be put on notice that whatever they may think of the arguments for or against Jihad as presented by the works reprinted on IslamistWatch.org, the Islamists themselves believe the arguments are valid, and have taken and are taking appropriate actions. Namely, to kill the infidel wherever and whenever they have reasonable opportunity. Osama bin Laden's November 2002 communiques list the places that will happen.

Many of the texts on this site make clear that the infidel must be offered a chance to convert to Islam before they can be utterly wiped out. The most recent communique by Bin Laden does exactly this: he "invites" the Americans to Islam. Having fulfilled this requirement, he can now concentrate on aquiring the weapons of mass destruction he has said it is his religious duty to acquire, presumably to detonate on American soil.

The editors of IslamistWatch.org hope that the material on this site will be read with care by non-Muslims concerned about the current state of affairs on the earth. Muslims are most welcome to read this material as well. Everyone is invited: students, researchers, political figures, journalists, clergy.

Taken at face value, there is no greater political and theologic conflict on the face of the earth today.

The views of the authors reprinted here DO NOT coincide with the views of the editors of IslamistWatch.org. The editors believe that by making these texts widely available the Islamist exhortation to "kill the Mushrikun wherever you find them" will be properly exposed and opposed. To date, most westerners don't know the totality of conviction and scheming they are actually up against. The Islamist manifestos reprinted here represent a kind of collective Mein Kampf written by many different authors at different times and places -- all of them based on the Quran and Sunnah. Like Hitler's book, the Islamists reveal their utopian vision and hatred of all that is not dominated by their ideology and religion; and though they proudly and plainly reveal their violent intentions and their desire to literally take over the world, their work is still largely downplayed or outright ignored by the press, the various administrations under assault, and the many millions of people who are the Islamist's intended victims.

There is an old Egyptian proverb, no doubt known to the Islamist Ayman Al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's so-called second in command. Roughly translated: In every ruin we find a devil.

Source : Islamist Watch website

Posted by Richard at November 21, 2005 4:20 PM



Articles Related to Follies of the Mainstream Media: