| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Christiane Amanpour has at least one parent who was part of what one would have hoped to describe as the intelligent secular ancien regime. They were the people pushed out by Khomeini and his epigones, and therefore, one would have thought, comprehending the nature of Islam. Well, it turns out that not everyone who has fled Iran quite has that necessary understanding. Some like to pretend that Khomeini is a sport, when the real sport was the Shah and his father, in their de-emphasis on Islam, their emphasis on the pre-Islamic past of Iran, and their willingness to limit the power of the mullahs -- and, above all, to give the non-Muslims of Iran, the Christians, Jews, and Baha'is, reasonable security and even something akin to legal equality.
But Amanpour does not realize that. Nor, in her aggressive climb through the media ranks, has she stopped to study Islam. She has not stopped to find out what happened to the Zoroastrians or what happens to them in Iran today. She has not stopped to find out why, even in the 20th century, a Jew could be killed for going out in the rain (where a drop might ricochet off him and hit an innocent Muslim with this raindrop of najis-ness, thus contaminating him).
She might, that is, have begun with the history of Islam in Iran and considered the treatment of non-Muslims, and how Shah Abbas II overnight ordered the conversion of all the Jews and Armenians in an Iranian city (possibly Tabriz), and why the real, as opposed to the Iranian exile's dreamy fictional history of Iran, is full of such episodes. She might have gotten hold of E. J. Browne's work on Persian literature, and studied Hafiz and Sa'adi. She might have read Omar Khayyam, and come to realize just how un-Islamic he was. She might have read the Shahnameh of Firdowsi, and seen how his literary talent was put to work preventing the linguistic and cultural imperialism of the Arabs from successfully coming to damage and then overwhelm the Iranian culture. She might have done a special program on Islam as a vehicle of Arab cultural and linguistic imperialism, and used Iran as an example of one place where it did not succeed as it did elsewhere.
Oh, there are many things that raw-boned massive Christiane Amanpour might have done, if she had allowed herself the leisure to think, and be something more than one more media star, one more mere reporter incapable of making sense of what she reports on.
But she did none of it. She clawed and clawed to the top. She entered into a mariage blanc, a white marriage of grayish convenience, with James Rubin. She travels, she reports from here, she reports from there. She is like so many of them, with their fabulous salaries, their baseless self-assurance, their inability to convey anything difficult, anything that requires instructing us rather than feeding us visual and verbal pablum.
If you have seen the presentation of those "Christian fundamentalists" (read: Fanatics), then you will observe how carefully the cameramen have captured those flags, and taken shots of hands uplifted in prayer or hallelujahs to make sure the viewer gets the impression of a Nuremberg rally, with these "Christians" heil-hitlering all over the place. Very carefully done, very artfully and deliberately done. She, Christiane Amanpour, is of course determined to make this group of Christians look as bad as possible, and then to convince us that they represent a huge number of people, and to do the same, when their time comes, to those wild-eyed fanatical Jews, those "Biblical settlers" who think -- imagine that! -- that the Land of Israel, that gigantic land, practically the size of Connecticut or is it Massachusetts, was given in a Covenant to the Jews. What a terrible thing, what a thing so utterly comparable, is it not, to the view in Islam that the entire world belongs to Muslims, and that they must by right dominate everywhere?
Do you see a little something not quite symmetrical in her view, in her presentation, or that of her crew, so willing to play ball? Meanwhile, one wonders how she can stand herself. And why CNN so obviously insults us, in reducing the menace of Islam, the menace that only a fool could ignore, and the full scope of which, based on immutable texts, becomes clearer to the intelligent every day, to something like the non-existent menace from those wild-eyed Nurembergian Christians, with Amanpour as their recording Riefenstahl, or those crazy "West Bank" settlers, in their trailers, choosing to live among a million Arabs -- "Palestinians" -- who of course have every right to be there, because...well, isn't the Middle East the same thing as the Arab World, after all? Where do those pesky remnants of Jews, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Copts, Maronites, Mandeans, Yazidis, Armenians, and all the others come from? Why don't they go back where they came from? The "Arab World," the "Muslim Arab World" -- now that's more like it. That's just the ticket.
Because, you see, Every Group Has Its Crazies. And those crazies, you see, are exactly alike, in what they want, and how they act, and the size of the demands they make on the rest of us. But exactly.
That's the point of this series. You didn't think there was another point, did you?
Posted by Hugh at August 21, 2007 9:51 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I haven’t seen the show (and thanks to your comments I will happily take a rain check), but even the ads for the show made my skin crawl. The old saw, “its not just Muslims, but look every religion has its extremists, some of who are violent”. This flaccid argument has been refuted so many times and so well on these pages, that one more time seems unnecessary. But I recall talking to students after 9-11, some of whom were Muslims, stating the true, but disingenuous statement, that no one religion has a monopoly on extremism. What I didn’t say (didn’t want to ruffle feathers at such a delicate time), is that millions of Muslims applauded 9-11, millions support Bin Laden, etc. To ignore the percent of extremists in each religion renders the observation that each religion has extremists to be meaningless. It is akin to saying that there are hungry people in the United States and hungry people in Africa, so the food problem in both locations is similar.
Posted by: esquared![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 21, 2007 10:46 AM
Im sure the dozens of viewers of the CNN echo chamber are already on board with her message and are ready to march on with the message .
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at August 21, 2007 10:56 AM
It boggles the mind that truthful dissection of the threat of Islamic jihad is now so verboten in the eyes of the politically correct that someone who writes with such galvanizing eloquence hasn't attained international renown. This column is particularly exacting.
"[Claiming religions are equally violent] is akin to saying that there are hungry people in the United States and hungry people in Africa, so the food problem in both locations is similar."
-A remarkably apt analogy. Thank you.
"[The presentation makes] sure the viewer gets the impression of a Nuremberg rally, with these [people] heil-hitlering all over the place."
-Greg Davis' Obsession did much the same thing with Muslims, in hopes that viewers would make the selfsame connection. I'm not knocking the veracity of the content in Obsession-- I can't-- but I found the presentation distasteful all the same, albeit hugely effective, I'm sure, in educating the unaware.
Posted by: Funky Child at August 21, 2007 11:12 AM
Stop the Christian suicide bombers now!
(Oh, that's right, there aren't any.)
Well, how about the Jewish suicide bombers?
Uh, Hindu?
Buddhist?
Wiccan?
Bahai?
Christiane Amanpour some splainin' to do!
Her moral equivalency meter is broke.
Posted by: profitsbeard at August 21, 2007 11:29 AM
Funky Child;
Obsession - Is a subtle introduction to the possibility that Islam might be a global threat. They talk of todays PC approach being a catalyst but dance around the PC line not willing to cross it themselves. The target audience seems to be academia so perhaps they felt it would never be viewed if the harsh reality wasn't softened. The hope being; Give them a few questions and perhaps some will move on to more informative material such as the koran, Roberts books or films like Islam, What the west need to know.
We need more films. Liberals don't read.
Posted by: Abrog8 at August 21, 2007 11:32 AM
Yes, every group has its extremists. No argument there. It's percentages that matter. Both Christianity and Islam claim about over a billion adherents of varying degrees of devoutness. There have been over 9000 terror attacks by Muslims. How many have their been by Christians? Jews are a much smaller number, but again the percentages of attacks by them are low. To equate the three groups is dishonest.
Furthermore, wouldn't it be interesting if she had included an examination of atheist extremists? Stalin, for example, was no philanthropist and murdered many based on his religious views.
Posted by: Anna Venger at August 21, 2007 11:41 AM
Yes the dhimmis, and the naivete will drink Amanpour's pablum,but the genie is out of the bag and a larger, and growing group of Americans clearly see the differences between, if you must; the extremes in religious fervors and their experiences. They are learning fast whose religious tenants are the purveyors' of violence, and antisemitism, even though there is disappointment in some strains of Christianity (Lutheran) in the form of antisemitism,but not the violence as reflected so clearly in the surahs,and the hadiths of Islamic teachings. Yes the learning curve is not fast enough and we do not want to see in America what is, and has been happening to the lambs in the EU Countries. Bat Yeors book "Eurabia" has been the great and inspirational starting point for what America needs to understand so that they will not become lambs as so many have in the EU Countries. Robert Spencer,Ibn Warraq,Serge Trifkovic,Ayaan Hirsi,Wafi Sultan,and many more are carrying the brave banner of understanding who represents the greatest threat to western values. Yes as Newt Gingrich said in a recent speech; "if you were to allow the ideology of Islam to overtake our society, women in this audience right now would not be sitting here and listening to me.
Posted by: Mackie at August 21, 2007 12:04 PM
Mackie, where is that quote by Gingrich? Is it published anywhere? I think that's a good one.
Posted by: Anna Venger at August 21, 2007 12:12 PM
Anna Venger:
The quote is taking from a portion of a very recent speech that was sent to me; I believe on Youtube? I will try and locate it.
Regards
Mackie
at August 21, 2007 12:37 PM
Anna Venger:
Here is the Clip from a speech by Newt Gingrich-- the comment comes at the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN9cqtJTvF4
Posted by: Mackie at August 21, 2007 12:55 PM
Mackie,
Excellent clip. Thank you. The quote is near the end for anyone else watching.
Posted by: Anna Venger at August 21, 2007 12:58 PM
Well, how about the Jewish suicide bombers?
Uh, Hindu?
Uh, the Tamil Tigers?
Posted by: Seamus at August 21, 2007 12:58 PM
Seamus-
Are Tamils Hindu?
I was in London when they blew up Rajiv Gandhi, and always thought they were a pre-Hindu sect.
Posted by: profitsbeard at August 21, 2007 1:14 PM
I watched the interview of Christiane Amanpour on Larry King's show. A panel was included along with Ms. Amanpour. Of course Barry Lynn the atheist who poses as a Christian Minister was on the panel. You remember old Barry, he's the leader of "Separation of Church and State" or something like that, although he's always just anti-Christian. I might watch, just to find mistakes and falsehoods.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at August 21, 2007 3:02 PM
The Tamils are Hindus, they are also "Dravidians" which is the group that originally lived in India before the Aryan invasion/migration.
They are I have heard unique because they have never in history suffered a military defeat.
Posted by: apostate_islam at August 21, 2007 3:52 PM
During the Israeli pull-out from Gaza I had been watching some of the footage of Jewish settler resistance--settlers barricading themselves in the temple, pouring flour and cooking oil down on Israeli soldiers, things like that. I was rather sympathetic to the settlers, but didn't think this "resistance" would accomplish anything. I was glad that no one was seriously hurt. I'm sure that most of the soldiers, whatever their politics, hardly relished this task.
I remember talking to a friend during this time who decried the "fanaticism" of the Jewish settlers, and the violence of their actions. I replied that I thought throwing sugar and olive oil was more street theatre than actual violence. My friend replied that while that may be so, it was exttremely dangerous--someone could slip in that cooking oil! I had to laugh, it was so absurd.
Of course, the true violence in Gaza would come well after that last army truck packed full of settler's belongings rumbled back over the Israeli border.
The ones throwing Muslims out of windows, and knee-capping them so they couldn't run away, and invading hospitals to finish off their enemies, were not Jews. They were fellow members of the "Religion of Peace".
Posted by: gravenimage at August 21, 2007 5:09 PM
Hugh wrote:
"Because, you see, Every Group Has Its Crazies. And those crazies, you see, are exactly alike, in what they want, and how they act, and the size of the demands they make on the rest of us. But exactly."
"That's the point of this series. You didn't think there was another point, did you?"
No, absolutely not. That is obvious, but I will watch every second of it, nonetheless.
Posted by: awake at August 21, 2007 5:22 PM
Today there is a sweet story about the Hijab being about "inner beauty". That might be true, but it is also a symbol of the oppression of women and the spread of Islamic supremacist theology.
I am sure that few blacks find comfort when told that the white robes of the KKK represent inner moral purity.
The hijab is an outer expression of affirmation of the Salafi reformation that is moving Islam towards a global violent Islamic totalitarianist movement.
So folks who are trying to say that this clothing is just a fashion statement or a private religious devotional expression ... lots of us non-Muslims ain't buying your misinformation. This clothing is about an ugly liberty and religious freedom destroying movement in Islam. Hijabs are like brown shirts or like those stupid hats that communists wore. They mean the death of human freedom.
at August 21, 2007 6:01 PM
I do not believe that Christiane Amanpour can afford to examine Islam's dark history for two reasons.
First, her entire family is at least nominally Muslim. So if she examines the dark side of her family's religion and tells them what she has learned, who knows how they will react towards her.
Second, CNN is a politically correct network. Consequently, it cannot afford to produce a serious documentary about Islamic Fundamentalism since doing so would cause it to lose its viewers in Muslim nations.
A serious documentary about Islam and what people commonly call Islamic Fundamentalism can only be produced by an independent film company and the people who produce such a documentary would have to use false names so Muslims who want to harm them do not know their real identities.
Posted by: Christian at August 21, 2007 7:10 PM
I'm not sure Amanpour's entire family is "entirely Muslim." It may be a case of half-and-half.
Posted by: Hugh at August 21, 2007 7:19 PM
Well this whole post calls to mind what Laurence Auster calls the "First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society", which he explains as the principle that "The worse a designated minority or non-Western group behave, the more they are praised and their sins covered up." But an important addendum to that principle is that "It's not just that the attack on white racism must be redoubled to explain and excuse minority misbehavior, it's that the very sins (the imaginary sins) of which whites are accused must be increased."
OK. Pretty incendiary stuff. But merely substitute "the west" for "white racism" and for "whites" in the above - and substitute "Muslim" for "minority", in order to take the the racial aspect out of it, while still preserving the overall liberal principle of trying to create some equality of outcome between Westerners and the Muslim minority and what you get is:
"It's not just that the attack on (the west) must be redoubled to explain and excuse (Muslim) misbehavior, it's that the very sins (the imaginary sins) of which (westerners) are accused must be increased."
And there you have it. The west's (represented by Christians and Jews) sins must be increased (even if it requires manipulating film through angles and abuse of context and all the rest of the propoganda) in precise proportion so as to minimize Muslims sins. Somehow, the message must be manufactured that those Christian and Jewish "extremists" represent the very same threat as Islam.
And truth be damned. Because none of this has anything to do with truth. It has to do with preservation of the prevailing liberal ideology - and preservation of all the professional careers and reputations invested in support of that ideology.
at August 21, 2007 7:32 PM
I may be a bit too much the optimist but I see this as a good sign, meaning it is a step. The collective media is realizing it cannot simply ignore the issue so it is trying rather desperately to contextualize it.
I think the average person can see that "that dog don`t hunt".
Posted by: tokyobk at August 21, 2007 7:37 PM
Hugh: "Do you see a little something not quite symmetrical in her view, in her presentation, or that of her crew, so willing to play ball?"
On the contrary, as you otherwise point out, the creation of "symmetry", even a false symmetry manufactured by the various devices of film, is precisely the goal.
Posted by: Caroline at August 21, 2007 8:01 PM
Why aren't ozzies protesting Dr. Haneefs visa being reinstated. He's a threat to national security, support the governments decision in revoking his visa. Where is Andrews support?
Posted by: Isamisevil at August 21, 2007 8:16 PM
Rabbi Kahane is mentioned as a radical but not that he was murdered by a muslim.
And Armstrong and Carter get to put in their two cents.
Biased? Just a little.
Posted by: Borg at August 21, 2007 9:36 PM
This is worse than I expected.
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at August 21, 2007 9:50 PM
Christiane Amanpour ...
Say no more! That name says everything that needs to be said about how the whole discussion will go.
Everything she said back during the Serbian/Croation -- Christian/Muslim war was one lie uttered on the semicolon of another.
She is only capable of portraying islam in the best possible light, and every contender in the worst; expect nothing more in terms of "objective reporting" from Christiane Amanpour.
It can't happen.
Posted by: witness at August 21, 2007 10:36 PM
I find this piece of propaganda annoying just by the appearance of dhimmy Armstrong and Carter.
It denies any credibility to the subject, when two obviously biased individuals are taken at face value.
at August 21, 2007 11:42 PM
kiko wrote:
"I find this piece of propaganda annoying just by the appearance of dhimmy Armstrong and Carter."
Very astute of you kiko. I believe Carter will not reappear in this series. Armstrong, on the other hand, was intentionally placed OT, as a form of introduction. I would guess that she will be featured a bit more in tomorrow's segment.
Just a hunch.
at August 21, 2007 11:48 PM
Pamela doesn't hold back:
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/08/22/christiane-amanwhoreshit-piece-on-the-jews/
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at August 22, 2007 2:59 AM
What "witness" said a couple of posts back.
She's married to the equally "so bad it's funny" James Rubin.
Posted by: ewha1 at August 22, 2007 3:44 AM
Mackie,
that was great,thanks!
>>Why aren't ozzies protesting Dr. Haneefs visa being reinstated. He's a threat to national security, support the governments decision in revoking his visa. Where is Andrews support?
Posted by: Isamisevil
Because some Aussies are dumb, esp the leftoids.
Because the left think he is a poor little victim.
Because nothing has, as yet, been proved.
Because the lefty judges have decided the Minister for Immigration suspended his visa for the wrong reasons.
Because the MSM will do anything to make the current government look like morons - which they are not,BTW.
Because the left would rather look after the rights of a possible terrorist than worry about rights of the possible victims.
Heaven help the government had Haneef done something. The MSM would have crucified the lot of them for not looking after us, but not many could see that possibilty.
I think that's covers most of the reasons.
If he is innocent then fair enough, the law has worked. Who knows what he intentions really were, but we can't be arrested for our intentions yet, can we?
at August 22, 2007 8:29 AM
How about that September Dawn movie, which is preceded by images of Muslims praying and Muslim terrorists. Hollywacks really went all out this time. How repulsive that they are blantantly attempting to equate God with Allah and 19th century American religious figures with Islamic terrorists, using conspiracy theories as facts. You don’t need to look hard to find the movie makers’ agenda:
Screenplay writer Carole Whang Schutter said: "Creating likeable characters that take part in unimaginably atrocious acts is a chilling reminder that terrorists can be anyone who chooses to blindly follow fanatical, charismatic leaders.[...] Our fight is not against certain religions [but...] 'powers of darkness' which are prejudice, hate, ignorance, and fear perpetuated by leaders who history will surely judge by their deeds."
Another case of moral relativism gone mad. “Islam is not the problem, all religious extremists are.” You know how stupid of a statement that is? How delusional it is? It is like saying hard working people are as bad as hard working murderers. This is the kind of logic we are facing by these ultra-lefts. What happened to their cause of sending gay missionaries to Saudi Arabia?
at August 22, 2007 11:36 AM
Jimmy Carter's prophetic statement during this show: "Israel will never have peace..." is quite self-fulfilling. What was he doing in the Camp David accord? Oh, yes. That was bought, not wrought.
Carter's plan for Middle East Peace: Israel-- rescind your statehood and live in dhimmitude until the Philistines have killed every Jew.
Just think how that be--Jews are necessary. Muslims blame all their problems on Jews.
Posted by: CapitalistGig at August 22, 2007 11:38 AM
A good story does not depend on the facts only on the coverage. With good coverage the facts are secondary.
Posted by: TheOmegaMan at August 22, 2007 12:33 PM
I could only stand so much, therefore I only forced myself to watch the first hour. However, I did see enough to know a complete job of distortion and bias. Jewish terrorists? I saw people dancing and giving money to help repopulate the disputed territories. I saw a legal lobby that does less damage than the automobile lobbyists. I saw a distortion of international law. Land taken in a defensive war may be legally settled. I saw a small group of terrorist who were arrested by the Israeli police. I saw no government sponsored terrorists, no sports stadiums named after terrorists, no parades through the streets honoring martyrs, i.e. nothing that suggests Israeli terrorism. BTW, why Jewish, is she implying that Jews throughout the world are blowing up railway stations, shooting missiles at planes, destroying the Twin Towers, attacking community centers, and murdering children in their beds? That woman needs to get her head out of her butt and see what is really going on.
Posted by: eneri at August 22, 2007 2:27 PM
"A Man Must appear insane in a insane society!"
Doctor Spock-star trek"
at August 22, 2007 11:43 PM
Re: God's Warriors (part 2, Islam)
Amanpour tried her best, but common sense, based on recent hostorical fact, could not sway her from the inevitable...Islam is corrupt and needs to be buried, or at least reformed.
She did not care for Iran's fashion police at all. Wave after wave of documented Islamic violence, supported by random Mullahs, painted an abyssmal portrait of Islam, in my opinion, with at least four useless Armstrong sightings notwithstanding. I actually forgot her anti-semitic rant from part 1, halfway through part 2.
There's only so much lipstick available when it comes to Islam, if you know what I am getting at.
She will be doubly hard-pressed to portray Christianity in a "religiously moral equivalent" negative light.
Posted by: awake at August 22, 2007 11:56 PM
KAOSKTRL said
This is worse than I expected.
Far, far worse. Tonight was Islam's turn. The show ostensibly about Muslim fanatics included an interview with an American Muslim woman explaining why covering her head is liberating; it made the claim that Islam was the antidote to Western materialism; and included repeated comments that Islam is under attack by the West.
There was a clip of the anti-jihad Dutch politician Wilders, with Amanpour asking "You really would ban the Qur'an and arrest Mohammad if he were alive today? You stand by that statement?" He answered "Yes absolutely..." and they cut out the rest. That was it. There was the proof that Islam is under attack by bigoted Islamophobics.
It wasn't a documentary on Islamic fanatics, it was an infomercial for Islam.
Posted by: special_guest at August 23, 2007 3:46 AM
America is what percentage Christian? How many devout conservative Christians??? Answer is many, many millions. Some are devout and believe each word in the bible.
I'm not a Christian, nor am I devout. In her series, she notes 3 abortion doctors have been killed... maybe a few more in total.
What's my point? You have less than ten people killed in the past twenty to thirty years in 'the name' of Christianity in the US. What's the score card for Islam?
CNN had a documentary on the cold war which showed a comparison of the McCarthy era in the US which raged in the '50's and the Stalinst death cult of the '30's. This is the same kind of 'CNN' equality! 20 million killed by Stalin versus a handful of ruined careers in the US.
You get a ticket for speeding. That's a crime. So is killing a classroom full of children. Hey they're both criminals.
What Hugh didn't emphasize enough is her cupidity. Also, what's the deal with her wearing the scarf in Iran in front of the US embassy building? Shouldn't she have wrapped a cross around her neck when she interviewed the late Rev. Falwell? Of course, I doubt anybody would torture her or question here at Liberty U, but the people's paradise of Iran is another story.
Maybe I'm missing something, but 'God's warriors' seem to come in different stripes: The Christian will tell you the good news and build hospitals for the poor in Africa, but the Islamist will remove your head from your body. Different strokes I guess....
Posted by: biorabbi at August 24, 2007 2:14 AM
This exposure pegged it...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57288
I expected nothing less from the malignant narcissist "christ.I.am! pour.some.more!"
Nothing but a hit piece on her part...typical commie news network.
at August 24, 2007 4:59 AM
We all go on about the bias of the news media. It would be intresting to find out how much the Saudi's own of the media. I can't remember where I saw that a signicant percentage of Fox is owned by Saudi intrests.
Posted by: shez at August 24, 2007 6:20 AM
The series was presented in Germany one day later.
Tonight is the christian segment.
I was horrified, and I mean, horrified to see the moral equivalency being propagated between the three "religions" and the great attempts made by CNN to make Jihad as harmless as possible. Tell me, what are they sniffing over there at CNN?
For instance, in the jewish segment, when she got down to brass tacks about Solomon's Temple (or David's, depending on how you want to call it), of course, with that abomination called the Dome of the Rock on top of it, here we see Aminpour in an interview with the imam assigned to the Dome of the Rock as he sits there like a cheshire cat who just ate something forbidden -and thoroughly enjoyed it- and proclaims that any claim that there is a temple under the Dome of the Rock is a "myth", and Aminpour speaks not one word to call him on the carpet for such a blatant lie. In the islamic segment, we heard not one single interviewee say that he or she is tolerant of jews or christians. Not one.
In the jewish segment, she is able to identify maybe three bona-fide jewish terror attacks over the last 20 years. Maybe 5-10 in the christian world. Yes. OK. And what about the 9,315 islamic terror attacks (counting only since 9-11)? Isn't something very, very out of balance here? Were she to have done her series based proportionally upon the ratio of terror attacks among the three religions, then the jewish segment would have been 0,0003 percent of 6 hours, or 6 seconds. The christian segment would have been 0.001 percent of 6 hours, or 21 seconds. The other 5 hours, 59 minutes and 32 seconds should have been devoted to the muslim segment, with it's whopping 99.9% of those six hours. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FAIR DIVISION OF THOSE 6 HOURS OF ENLIGHTENMENT ON CNN, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NUMBER OF TERROR ATTACKS COMMITTED IN THE NAMES OF THOSE RELIGIONS RESPECTIVELY. (Feel free to pass these figures on...)
In the jewish segment, she decides to interview former president Jimmy Carter, sitting there, holding that horrible book he published, a horrible book full of lies and distortions and the claim that Israel is an apartheid state. Yes, Israel, the only free and functioning democracy in the ME. She did the world, IMHO, a great disservice by giving this dhimmi a platform for spreading his lies. And you must know, as a youth, I was once a great fan of Jimmy Carter, but not anymore. Jimmy will, I am sure, go into the same historical dirtly laundry hamper with the likes of James Polk or Warren Harding. Good God, if you are going to interview someone about the jews, at least pick someone who is not a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-semite.
In the christian segment, every attempt is made to associate the christian power of persuasion with horrible, demonic propaganda and thirst for political power. In the muslim segment, there was no debating or debunking the palestinian family that clings to dearly to the idea of martyrdom as a sanctioned means of killing. So, let me get this straight:
CNN wants me to believe that a culture of life is actually demonic propaganda, whereas a self-avowed culture of death (Islam) is not challenged.
Extremely disgusting.
Please, somebody, anybody, put together a series to debunk CNN.
Posted by: bonncaruso at August 24, 2007 4:14 PM
The Christian segment was a blatant attempt to alienate Christians in a Christian country PERIOD
Oh yeah, and she was outrageously ridiculous. She’s definitely no Christian, nor are the producers of this ungodly series.
America might now have its own BBC, but the BBC is still two times worse.
Posted by: ofcourse at August 24, 2007 9:49 PM
Bonncaruso wrote:
In the jewish segment, she is able to identify maybe three bona-fide jewish terror attacks over the last 20 years. Maybe 5-10 in the christian world. Yes. OK. And what about the 9,315 islamic terror attacks (counting only since 9-11)?
.............................
Good points, Bonncaruso.
Also worth mentioning again is that there are *no* major Jewish or Christian denominations that condone violence done in the name of their religion. This is hardly the case with Islam. You simply do not get calls for murder from the pulpit in temples and churches the way you do in many mosques.
Even the loathsome Fred Phelps (who regularly carries signs at funerals condemning gays and American servicepeople to Hell) doesn't suggest that his followers kill the people they consider hell-bound.
Posted by: gravenimage at August 26, 2007 1:24 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)