Top Menu

Michael Moore’s Open Letter to Juan Williams

Michael Moore puts Juan Williams in his place

Michael Moore does some research on the words spoken by failed terrorist Faisal Shahzad that had Juan Williams so concerned about Muslim garb. What he finds will not be surprising to LoonWatch readers – that the motivation of Muslim extremists in conducting terror operations is the occupation of Muslim lands by Western forces. Moore also reminds Williams of the hypocrisy of his viewpoint on Muslims in light of the view Williams expressed nearly twenty-five years ago on how white media personalities justified racism against African-Americans.

Juan Williams is Right: Political Correctness About Muslims Must End! (Huffington Post)

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 heactually 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 plead 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?

UPDATE: Juan, you probably remember in 1986 when the Washington Post Magazine ran a Richard Cohen column defending jewelry store owners who wouldn’t buzz in young black men. It caused such a big controversy that the New Republic ran a bunch of responses to it, including one by you. You might find it interesting to go back and read what you wrote then — for instance, “Racism is a lazy man’s substitute for using good judgment… Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.”

, , , , , , , ,

  • Khushboo

    I think peeps are arguing with JB just to get the facts straight and to educate others who don’t post here but look for info. from this site. I’m happy to see we have so many intelligent LWers who help inform us every day! :D

  • anon-e-mouse

    I figure jishithard bob is secretly wanting to be a muslim, but his alter ego robitchbert spencer( hey does everyone know that a spencer is something a woman wears under her garments? just saying)wont allow it. danm it must be hard dr jekell mr hyde.

  • Ray

    Why would people argue with someone like JihadBoob. He can join his friends in bashing religions on other Islamophobic websites. Just stop responding to every stupid remarks he says and he’ll shut the hell up, eventually.

  • Dawood

    Oh JihadBob you are going in circles again; do I need to re-link to the previous thread where I brought up Ibn Ishaq (in Arabic), al-Waqidi and other early sources in response to you fumbling around trying to read the minds of long-dead people in order to discern their non-preserved motivations and intentions so that you could justify your irrational hatred of Muhammad and Muslims in general?

    Your duplicitousness is simply unbelievable.

  • Awesome

    What was their (the B. Qurayza’s) offense?

    High treason against the state.

    When the time came and they were called on to fulfill their end of the treaty they agreed to, they refused. Their refusal, coupled with their assisting the invaders against the Muslims, was their crime, specifically “treason” by any definition. Furthermore, treason (especially in those times) is more often than not, punishable by death, so it really shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone to learn that traitors were executed.

    Was it similar to the offense of the B. Nadir? An alleged assassination attempt that lead to the ethnic cleansing of an entire tribe (reminds me of the war crimes charges Saddam was prosecuted for the murder of 150 Shi’ites after an alleged assassination attempt against him)

    No, not quite the same. The Nadir tribe wasn’t as open and brazen about their inclinations as the Qurayza tribe was. Furthermore, the Nadir tribe did more than just try to assassinate Prophet Muhammad. They also committed such acts against the Muslims such as intrigue, incitement, and giving information to Quraysh, as they:

    - incited the disbelievers against the Muslims, which eventually resulted in the Battle of Uhud

    - helped Abu Sufyan to attack the outskirts of Medina, which caused the Muslims to pursue him after Uhud in a campaign known as “Ghazwat al Suwayq”.

    The attempt(s) on the life of Prophet Muhammad was simply the “last straw”, the “breaking point”, the “straw that broke the camel’s back”, “the final nail in the coffin”, where their machinations against the Muslims finally turned into outright treachery, and they could no longer be tolerated.

    Also, unlike the Qurayza tribe and very much unlike that case with Saddam, the Nadir tribe was not executed, but expelled, and were allowed to carry whatever they could, except for weapons.

    Now, I don’t know what world you’re living in, but in the real world, government heads can’t let people run around, planning to assassinate them like it’s nobody’s business, and not do something about it. Being Jewish isn’t an excuse.

  • NassirH

    *comparison

  • NassirH

    Nope. The comparisin with Saddam is fallacious. Moses or David is far better comparisin.

Powered by Loon Watchers