Fancy a strong argument against the tactics used by those who tout with positive spin the adage that WAR IS DECEIT simply because their warlord prophet told them so? Published on the stalwart beaconJihad Watchby a fellow writing under the oddly familiar non de guerre Hyman Roth:
CAIR and other [noted] enemies undoubtedly would like to take some of the comments on this particular thread to falsely proclaim that Jihad Watch endorses random mayhem against all Muslims. Robert Spencer has mentioned that he is frequently on the defensive against this claim but addresses it this way: To paraphrase, Jihad Watch does not endorse the viewpoint expressed by each comment, but allows a wide range of viewpoints to be expressed. However, comments which explicitly advocate such things as genocide against any group, including Muslims, are considered beyond the pale and, subsequently, deleted by moderators as they are observed. Therefore, claiming that Jihad Watch endorses or supports such things as genocide or other lawlessness directed against any particular group is false.
That is a defensive position, but I would like to suggest to Robert to supplement the position so as to push forward a solution. Namely, when accused of promoting "hate" or "genocide" or whatever, after first referring to the standard disclaimer above, turn it around as follows:
"What my esteemed and honorable opponents may be referring to as being hateful rhetoric emanating from Jihad Watch is actually constructive and rational discourse regarding enforcement of the law. Treason is a capital offense. When anybody commits treason, Muslim or otherwise, they should be punished accordingly. This is compatible with rule of law and, in fact, rule of law cannot survive as an institution otherwise."
I have a personal example of why I believe that this position may help to improve the debate as well as open people's ears. When I was a good "progressive" college student in the late 80's in History 101 or something, the subject of the Kent State shootings came up. I told the professor and the class about fascism, Nixon, republicans, etc., like a good little hippie wannabee. Anyway, the professor remained calm and explained the situation the following way:
First, the Kent State shootings were not a result of a top down order to kill dissidents but a result of itchy trigger finger and loss of control on the part of police and provocation by students. Second, the leaders of the student movement were advocating violent revolutionwhether or not they could conceivably pull it off is another matter. In just about every case of recorded history, anybody who advocates violent revolution, regardless of their likelihood of success, has been considered a fair target by the existing authorities. By all historical and even contemporary standards, Kent State protesters and much of the rest of the radical movement of the 60's got off lightly. A "good" regime cannot survive if it allows people to openly plan and implement its demise. So even if, hypothetically, in the unlikeliest possible instance that America was led by a "good" regime (irony), that regime would be within its rights and even duty-bound, to punish and perhaps even to kill people who were acting to destroy it.
That patient explanation from a History professor whose name I've forgotten provided a little dent in the PC armor which had at one time engulfed my feeble little mind.
Now that my feeble little mind is no longer engulfed within PC, I can proclaim that anybody who wants to destroy my country should be killed. If they aren't killed, then they get off lightly. And the process by which they should be brought to justice needs to be done via rule of law. I say this with no hatred in my heartwith no desire to break the lawbut only with a desire to urge our authorities in the most strenuous possible fashion that it is their duty to enforce this mandate in the most efficient, fair, and humane way possible.
Robert, Hugh, and so on, please consider supplementing the "standard disclaimer" above with something so that it can be turned back against CAIR. Since CAIR is unspecific about which comments they consider hateful or genocidal, use that lack of specificity to define what they "actually" mean. What they actually must find offense from is rational discourse regarding the consequences of engaging in open war, treason, and sedition, against established, traditional, and legitimate authority. CAIR is a front group for people making war against the United States and our allies and, as such, wants to minimize the just consequences of this behavior, which include banishment, imprisonment, or death, depending on the particular circumstances.