.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Miscellaneous thoughts and ramblings
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
 
Charlie Rangel: Don't Call it 'Islamic Terrorism'
Top House Democrat Charlie Rangel said Tuesday that it was an act of discrimination to label groups like Hezbollah "Islamic terrorists."

"To call it Islamic terror is discriminating, it's bigoted, it is not the right thing to say." Rangel even questioned whether, in fact, a worldwide Islamic terrorist movement even existed, saying, "We just take for granted that there is an Islamic terror movement because we do have some fanatic people who come from Islamic countries."

The Harlem Democrat complained: "When we had the Ku Klux Klan we didn't call them Baptist terrorists. When Hitler was killing Jews, we didn't call it Christian terrorists."
What!!?! Does he really believe this? I guess what I’m asking is, is he saying something he knows is false, or is he foolish enough to not get why Hizb’Allah should be called an Islamic terrorist group? OK. Take a big breath. Let’s assume he just needs to be informed. Here goes:

The KKK weren’t called “Baptist terrorists” because they didn’t do what they did in the name of the American Baptist denomination. They didn’t refer to themselves as a Baptist movement, and as far as I know, they didn’t speak out against Lutherans or Presbyterians. They did what they did in the name of white power, so we called them “white supremacists”. See how that works? With me so far? Good. Let’s go to the next one.

Hitler’s movement didn’t quote Jesus very much. It didn’t refer to itself as Christian. It didn’t say “We need to take over Europe for Christianity.” The National Socialists (Nazis) claimed to be working for National Socialism and for the ascendancy of Aryan people. So we called them “Nazis”. The only Christian terrorists, as such, are in Northern Ireland, and they’ve been fairly quiet sine 9/11. Not complicated, right?

Now, Hizb’Allah is spelled “Hezbollah” in the mainstream media to conceal that their Arabic name means “Army of Allah”. Everything they do, they do in the name of Islam. They publicly announce their desire to kill infidels and bring the world to Allah. Get it? They’re not terrorists who oh-by-the-way-did-I-forget-to-mention happen to be Muslim. They're Islamic terrorists!

As a final example of accurate labeling, When Charlie Rangel rants about his opinion that breakfast cereals are too expensive, and when he thinks that The Army of Allah are not Islamic terrorists, we are right in calling him a socialist moron.

(The link is via LGF. The rant is my own.)
Comments:
I would consider the Crusaders to be "Christian Terrorists".

Wow. I guess Charlie has changed a bit since I lived in his district. I met him many years ago.

Personally, I think he's pandering.
 
I don't think he's uninformed. I think it's just another fine example of PC gone one step too far.
 
Note he didn't object specifically to the term "Jewish Settlers" - instead of, say, "Israeli Settlers" or just plain "Settlers" (or just plain "Israelis," for that matter).
 
PsychoToddler: I agree. Crusaders did what they did in the name of Christianity.

Really? He wasn't always far left?

Irina: You're probably right.
 
Ralphie: But it's OK to be discriminatory against Jewish Settlers because they're The Obstable To Peace. /sarcasm
 
For what it's worth, Rangel, the leader of the demagogic wing of the Democratic party is neither stupid nor misinformed.
 
If he's indeed pandering, it's not to the Islamofascist vote, because I think that vote is not big enough to make a difference. No, I think many white Americans will find him rather appealing, judging from what I hear in class. Of course, you could say college students are immature, etc., but I say they are only immature in that they actually say what they think. They grow up to be adults who think the same thing, but don't say it, but vote in, and elect people like that guy.
 
I don't think Rangel's appealing to white Americans. As a congressman, he only needs to appeal to those in his district. A quick check of his website indicates that his district is comprised of 46% Hispanics, 37% blacks. The remaining 17% is presumably comprised of European whites, Asians and possibly Middle Easterners (although it doesn't say).

His words may lend some insight into the general political culture in Harlem. Harlem does have a history with the black Muslim movement, and I just dug this bit up on Latino Muslims in East Harlem.

It might be worth some further research to fully understand the nature of Rangel's pandering.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

Powered by Blogger