January 20, 2007

CAIR v. Bauer

CAIR is angry that "24" often depicts Islamic terror on television. Would that they were so concerned with Islamic terror that occurs in real life.

CAIR's press release here. LGF has coverage, as does Jihad Watch. And a post at Blogs4Bauer illustrates how "24" already appeases PC concerns:

The show has gone to considerable efforts to cast about for terrorists and threats that are not Islamic terrorists - the very folks who murdered thousands of Americans in real life on 9/11. They've even twisted the acts of one character, President Logan, from a snivelling and weak character into the epitome of evil and full of plans within plans behind the terrorist attacks on the US that Jack Bauer himself was trying to prevent.

In the real world, there are new news reports on a daily basis indicating that terrorists are calling for jihad and the destruction of the West and the US in the name of Allah. These aren't militant Quakers we're talking about, but Islamic terrorists. So, the show glosses over the reality and casts about for bad guys who aren't of a Muslim background.

But apparently, this is not enough.

CAIR says that "the program's repeated association of acts of terrorism with Islam will only serve to increase anti-Muslim prejudice in our society." The implication being that to preclude the possibility of anti-Muslim prejudice, we need to cease portraying Islamic terror in fiction, or at least portray it less. One wonders if CAIR would like to similarly restrict news stories of bombings in Islam's names for fear of inciting bigotry they believe beats in the American heart.

CAIR is devoted to denying that there is an ideological disease within Islam which needs addressing. Their attack on "24" is a battle within this larger war. If we are precluded from making fiction that focuses on Muslim terrorists, yet still want to portray terrorism, other groups have to be invented to fill the vacuum. That relativism, however, takes the pressure to reform off Islam, in whose name terrorism has gained global reach and a spectacular body count, because it implies a world where all groups have a terrorism problem of equal severity. If that's the case, then really there's no need for Muslims to correct the behavior of the mujahideen in their midst. Why should they be singled out when all groups potentially have the same terrorism seed within them?

Posted by JakeM at January 20, 2007 12:10 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

If they're so concerned about Arabs being portrayed as terrorists, perhaps they should work on stopping Arabs from being terrorists.

Posted by: Paul Smith at January 20, 2007 12:44 PM


I know bashing DEliberal is all the rage right now, but I'd be interested in your candid comments on this post:


Posted by: jason at January 20, 2007 02:11 PM

I agree with you, Paul.

And besides, I suspect that 24 is going to show the American public as being calm and tolerant in the face of the nuclear attack. In the real world, detonation of a nuke in this country by jihadi terrorists would likely result in the elimination of 75% of the Arab & Muslim population at the hands of American civilians within 72 hours. Indeed, jack bauer wouldn't be able to stop the attacks because of the number of dead Arabs/Muslims lying in the streets -- and wouldn't need to stop it, because the terrorists would be dead meat as soon as they set foot into a public place.

Mind you, I'm not ADVOCATING such a response -- I'm stating what I believe the response of the American people would be.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at January 20, 2007 02:41 PM

RWR: I disagree. If a nuke was detonated by radical Islamic terrorists (here in the US), sure there would be a violent backlash against Muslim-Americans. But I do not think it'd be as drastic as you predict.

Abroad, however, whomever we determined was linked to the terror group responsible would soon be under radioactive glass -- be it Tehran, Damascus ... or both.

Posted by: Hube at January 20, 2007 03:33 PM

On the thrust of the post: I mostly agree.

On RWR's comment:

Good God, man, how can you make such a statement and then bash the left daily for being the "hate America" crowd? That's about as anti-American a statement as I could imagine, and I'm sure our President would agree. As much as I bash the extreme right, I wouldn't ever say that they'd kill innocent Muslims in cold blood! I have more faith in this great country. (Or, somehow in your script, would it be liberals doing the shooting! Wouldn't they be too busy dancing in the streets?? hehe).

I sort of can't believe I even just read that. Or spent 40 seconds responding to it.

Posted by: dan at January 20, 2007 04:41 PM

Yes, we know, dan. You're such a superior person. You prove that time and time again here. (In your mind, at least.)

Posted by: Hube at January 20, 2007 05:00 PM

All I did was agree with Colossus's post that CAIR is being ridiculous, then called one of your commenters on a statement which you, too, disagree with -- though gently, as it's coming from one of the "good guys."

My God. I'm Al Franken.

Posted by: dan at January 20, 2007 07:16 PM

Look at the scenario -- weeks of active terrorism, followed by a nuke in a major city with frightful American casualties. I think that the PANIC that would result would be close to what I predict -- though I may have estimated high on the casualties.

And I don't think it would be a liberal or conservative movement -- I think it would be an uncoordinated mob action by average Americans that would be not at all political. After all, after weeks of having been targeted, and now facing nuclear annihilation, I believe that many folks would take actions to "protect themselves" from "the enemy" -- whether they were actually the enemy or not. It would not be murder n cold blood, dan -- it would be a combination of hot-blooded rage and pants-wetting fear when confronted with the reality that their government is totally unable to protect them. And sadly, I believe that the government would be too over-whelmed responding to the disaster of the attack to stop the attacks in the streets. Indeed, what I see is the horrifying, nauseating breakdown of social order.

I don't approve of it, and I don't advocate it -- i simply recognize that in such a situation scared, angry people not will make a distinction between the "nice friendly Muslims" and the jihadis who had just incinerated tens of thousands of their fellow Americans.

Would some Americans intervene to try to stop such a massacre? I hope so -- and I believe they will be courageous and decent men and women of all political stripes (or of none at all). But I fear that they will be no more successful in stopping this chaos than those who tried to stop the riots in South Central LA back in the 1990s were.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at January 20, 2007 07:49 PM

Also, is this the first time that anyone has ever seen dan refer to George W. Bush as "our" (and therefore, implicitly, "his") president?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at January 21, 2007 11:40 AM