Reflections From a Murky Pond

In the West, especially within America’s borders, Muslims and their enablers rant, rail, and whine that Muslims are labeled by Americans and that those labels are universally negative.

Got A Problem, Tifl Al-Khanzeer? Prove Us Wrong!

Beyond the sad fact this is nothing more than their attempt to legitimize their agenda, there are two fundamental and incontrovertible flaws in their incessant and ever more strident rants.

Societal Requirement for Labels

Labels are a necessity for societies, a necessity that grows proportionately to the size, density, and complexity of a society, along with its amount and perceived necessity of interaction with other, disparate societies.

Partly this is the natural and needed quest for normalcy whereby a societal identity is forged based upon a median approach to what constitutes an integrated and contributing member of that society. Partly, this is based on threat analysis whereby citizens use initial cues to determine the possible danger presented by individuals before that danger can be actualized.

Burden of Proof

In functioning societies such as those of the Civilized World – America especially – labels applied to subgroups are not fixed; they are mutable by both perceptual shifts of society at large and by individual actors changing what labels society applies to them. In the latter case, however, the burden of proving that the existent label is not applicable and that new one should be applied is upon the individual seeking the change.

This is indefeasible; the minority grouping, by their nature non-normative, always bears the onus of changing the opinion of- and labeling applied by the larger society as a whole.

~*~

It’s truly, at this point, up to the Muslims in America to either prove that they’ve been mislabeled or accept the consequences failing to do so.

Ranting, raving, and whining about being assigned labels they don’t like will just exacerbate the situation, especially when they use groups such as CAIR to try to impose changes by fiat through the subornation of courts system in a form of paper jihad that Americans tend to find even more reprehensible than direct and overt violence.

Tags: America | CAIR | Islam | Islamists | Islamophobia | Jihad | Muslims | Prejudice | Racism | Religion | Society | Terrorism | Terrorists | War On Terror

This entry was posted on Saturday, November 27th, 2010 at 12:55 pm and is filed under Politics, Religion, Society. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

NPR’s termination of Juan Williams struck me as a little odd. That is not to say that I was shocked that they fired Williams but that I was surprised by the quickness of it and the vileness of the public remarks by NPR’s CEO, Vivian Schiller. That behavior just doesn’t match what one would expect in the media where all, or most, is public and employment is regulated through a variety of involute contracts and union rules.

Much was explained when I found out that the front-group for the Muslim Brotherhood and its subsidiaries, Al-Qaeda and Hamas, CAIR had pressured NPR to make an example of Williams.

From PR Newswire:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A prominent national Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization today called on National Public Radio (NPR) to address analyst Juan Williams’ statement that airline passengers in “Muslim garb” make him “nervous.” (Williams is a news analyst for both NPR and Fox News.)

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said that during an appearance Monday on Fox’s “O’Reilly Factor,” Williams backed Bill O’Reilly’s recent claim that “Muslims killed us on 9/11” and then said: “[W]hen I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

“NPR should address the fact that one of its news analysts seems to believe that all airline passengers who are perceived to be Muslim can legitimately be viewed as security threats,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. “Such irresponsible and inflammatory comments would not be tolerated if they targeted any other racial, ethnic or religious minority, and they should not pass without action by NPR.”

He noted that media commentators who launch rhetorical attacks on Islam and Muslims normally do not suffer the professional consequences of those who similarly target other racial, ethnic or religious groups.

And NPR, ever the hand-wringing, dhimmi Liberals – and probably afraid of either CAIR’s attorneys or their jihadis – responded in an “appropriately” subservient fashion by firing Juan Williams. It’s a typically cowardly but not illogical response to threats from Islamists such as CAIR.

So it looks like NPR’s greatest sins were weakness and cowardice as opposed to actively siding against Americans in our war against Muslim terrorism and that Juan Williams was just another victim of CAIR’s paper terrorism and implied threats of direct violent action against Islam’s foes.

Schiller and NPR should still be castigated and punished for their failure, but a certain level of mercy should shown shown them by Americans. Not everyone can be strong when faced by the sort of threats that Islamist terrorist groups can bring to bear, especially those like CAIR who have access to the means to wage “White Collar Jihad” and can arrange for the rape, murder, and mutilation of their enemies and/or their enemies’ spouses and children.

Tags: Al-Qaeda | CAIR | Dhimmitude | Hamas | Islam | Islamists | Jihad | Juan Williams | Liberals | Media | Muslims | NPR | Paper Terrorism | Terrorists | Vermin | War | War On Terror

This entry was posted on Saturday, October 23rd, 2010 at 3:22 pm and is filed under Politics, Society. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

The Democratic majority in Congress are used a technicality to block the so-called John Doe amendment sponsored by Rep. Peter King (R-NY) from being included in the 9/11 security bill. The John Doe amendment is more formally called the Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act. It specifically ensures that any person who voluntarily reports suspicious activity in good faith will be granted immunity from civil liability for the disclosure.

For some reason the Democrats have chosen to side with islamofascist terrorists and prevent US citizens any measure of legal protection for protecting themselves and this nation!

This all started because 6 Imams were removed from US Airways Flight 300 from Minneapolis to Phoenix. The reason for their removal was several reports from passengers regarding suspicious behavior. The suspicious behavior included, praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted “Allah” when passengers were called for boarding; switching from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks; and asking for seat belt extenders although none of the men appeared to be overweight.

The Imams, with the help of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), filed a federal lawsuit against US Airways, Metropolitan Airports Commission and the “John Doe” passengers who reported the Imams’ suspicious behavior.

Apparently the Democrats – latter day Janissaries – don’t want American citizens to be free to report criminal behavior. So I guess the new signs on trains and other transit systems will say If you see something Just Say Nothing!

Election Note: McCain and Clinton voted for the amendment; Obama abstained.

Tags: CAIR | Dhimmitude | Islamists | Multiculturism | Politics | Prejudice

This entry was posted on Friday, July 20th, 2007 at 2:14 pm and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.