Michael Moore: If Only NPR Had Fired Juan Williams for the Right Reasons

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Dear Juan,

Sorry to hear you got fired by National Public Radio for saying on Fox that you get nervous when you see Muslims on a plane with you. It was dumb to say such a thing, but I don't think saying one dumb thing should be a firing offense. (I DO think an NPR journalist wanting to take money from Fox News to be a regular commentator should be a firing offense, but that's another story).

But there's more to this -- and some important things that everyone is missing.

For instance, what you said about Faisal Shazad, the Pakistani immigrant who wanted to bomb Times Square. When he was being sentenced this month, he claimed, according to you, that his attempted attack was just "the first drop of blood." We can't let political correctness blind us to this, you explained.

I guess Shahzad made a big impression on you, because after being fired you went back on Fox and told them, "You can't ignore the fact what has recently been said in court with regard to 'this is the first drop of blood in a Muslim war against America.'"

Sadly for you (and this is also why you shouldn't be working for a real news organization like NPR), Shahzad never said that. If you were a real journalist, you would have quoted him accurately. What he actually said was that he was the "first droplet of the flood," not blood. But I know how easy it is to mishear things when scary Muslims are talking. And I guess it's not a huge difference anyway.

What really matters is that you're 100% right: We shouldn't let political correctness stop us from paying close attention to what people like Shahzad say. The problem is you just haven't taken it far enough.

So Juan, I'm asking you to join me on a crusade -- whoops! scratch that, let's call it a "mission" -- to publicize these statements by Faisal Shahzad as widely as possible. Because most of the media have not spent much time on what he had to say.

Here's what he said at his recent sentencing (after talking about being a droplet in a flood):

"[saladin] liberated Muslim lands ... And that's what we Muslims are trying do, because you're occupying Iraq and Afghanistan...So, the past nine years the war with Muslims has achieved nothing for the U.S., except for it has waken up the Muslims for Islam. We are only Muslims trying to defend our people, honor, and land. But if you call us terrorists for doing that, then we are proud terrorists, and we will keep on terrorizing until you leave our land and people at peace."

And this is what Shahzad said when he pled guilty back in June:

"I want to plead guilty, and I'm going to plead guilty 100 times over, because until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan, and stops the occupation of Muslim lands, and stops killing the Muslims, and stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be attacking U.S., and I plead guilty to that.''

Then there's email that Shahzad sent to a friend in 2006:

"Everyone knows the current situation of Muslim World... Friends with peaceful protest! Can you tell me a way to save the oppressed? And a way to fight back when rockets are fired at us and Muslim blood flows? In Palestine, Afghan, Iraq, Chechnya and else where."

And then there's what Shahzad was telling friends and relatives even before that:

Mr. Shahzad had long been critical of American foreign policy. "He was always very upset about the fabrication of the W.M.D. stunt to attack Iraq and killing non-combatants such as the sons and grandson of Saddam Hussein," said a close relative. In 2003, Mr. Shahzad had been copied on a Google Groups e-mail message bearing photographs of Guantánamo Bay detainees, handcuffed and crouching, below the words "Shame on you, Bush. Shame on You."

So what do you say, Juan? Now that you have a new $2 million contract with Fox, let me come on with you for some in-depth discussions about the terrorists' real motivations. We can't let another day go by letting the PC brigade stop us from telling the truth: Terrorists aren't trying to kill us because they hate our freedom. They're killing us because we're in their countries killing them.

Yours,

Michael Moore

P.S. If you want to understand suicide bombings, be sure to read the new book that studied every instance of it for the past 30 years. It's been used by many groups of many religions, not just Arabs and not just Muslims. And almost all such terrorism has one motivation in common: occupation by foreign militaries.

P.P.S. Here's something else that I'd sincerely love to talk about with you: what do you think when you see rich middle-aged white men talking on TV about how they get nervous around African Americans on the street? And then they explain that we can't let political correctness stop us from talking about black-on-white crime?

Does it drive you crazy that they say this without even being conscious of the history of far greater violence by white people toward blacks? And do you maybe understand now how those middle-aged white guys get it so wrong?

http://www.alternet...._right_reasons/

[thelastpetitioner 218]

there goes the award for the best read of the day

[scandal 951]

Well before a single American soldier or marine had entered Iraq or Afghanistan, we had already been attacked on 9/11 by Islamic extremists, the USS Cole had been attacked in international waters by Islamic extremists, and US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania had been bombed by Islamic extremists.

Moore is naive and wrong if he believes that Islamic extremism will end by simply withdrawing from engagement in those parts of the world that have been fomenting this extremism. What we need is not isolationism, that has never served America's purposes. What we need is smart and long term thinking about how to engage the Muslim world to achieve stability and coexistence. Part of that is focused battle on the extremists themselves. And part of it is the ongoing battle for the "hearts and minds". We need to coax the imams in the madrassas and mosques from Pakistan to Saudia Arabia to Yemen to Somalia to preach the tolerance and peacefulness that is at the core of their faith, and not continue to indoctrinate their youngsters with cartoonlike images of "The Great Satan". We cannot do that by withdrawing, only by engaging. If the lesson Moore learned from Shazad is that we should withdraw from their lands, and that we are being legitimately attacked for daring to be in their lands, then shame on him. Shame for thinking so. And shame for choosing Shazad as any sort of role model, and taking the words of a convicted terrorist as the focus of his argument.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well before a single American soldier or marine had entered Iraq or Afghanistan, we had already been attacked on 9/11 by Islamic extremists, the USS Cole had been attacked in international waters by Islamic extremists, and US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania had been bombed by Islamic extremists.

Moore is naive and wrong if he believes that Islamic extremism will end by simply withdrawing from engagement in those parts of the world that have been fomenting this extremism. What we need is not isolationism, that has never served America's purposes. What we need is smart and long term thinking about how to engage the Muslim world to achieve stability and coexistence. Part of that is focused battle on the extremists themselves. And part of it is the ongoing battle for the "hearts and minds". We need to coax the imams in the madrassas and mosques from Pakistan to Saudia Arabia to Yemen to Somalia to preach the tolerance and peacefulness that is at the core of their faith, and not continue to indoctrinate their youngsters with cartoonlike images of "The Great Satan". We cannot do that by withdrawing, only by engaging. If the lesson Moore learned from Shazad is that we should withdraw from their lands, and that we are being legitimately attacked for daring to be in their lands, then shame on him. Shame for thinking so. And shame for choosing Shazad as any sort of role model, and taking the words of a convicted terrorist as the focus of his argument.

I agree, although I think Moore was pointing out that the Muslims that turn to terrorism as a means to geopolitical ends, are motivated by geopolitical reasons rather than religious.

[R&V 8]

Michael Moore lecturing somebody on using quotes and facts right. That's rich.

I consider myself pretty liberal, but that guy gets on my nerves in a big way. So even when he makes a valid point (as he does here), it pains me to agree with him. ha.

[Pooky 3,794]

If only someone would fire Michael Moore AT Juan Williams.

Scratch that. We don't have a gun big enough.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Dems will lose. I don't care WHY. But please don't go away angry...just GO AWAY

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Michael Moore appears to misunderstand it was Jesse Jackson that famously stated when walking certain neighborhoods and hearing footsteps behind him it was always a relief when it was whites behind him.

It also sounds like he personally believes Islamic Terrorists are justified. Neat-O! What a ####### in the proverbial punch bowl...

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Michael Moore appears to misunderstand it was Jesse Jackson that famously stated when walking certain neighborhoods and hearing footsteps behind him it was always a relief when it was whites behind him.

It also sounds like he personally believes Islamic Terrorists are justified. Neat-O! What a ####### in the proverbial punch bowl...

He misundersatnds a lot of things. Like DEMs in general. Perhaps they will get a better understandng next week.