Al Jazeera.Info Mis-characterizes Santorum's Words

Isn't it remarkable how one cannot criticize Muslim extremists because if one does, one is immediately attacked for - somehow, someway - insulting all Muslims or the Islam?

Today we have a fine example of that at Al Jazeerah.info.

The author of this article, Mohammed Khaku, attacks Republican Senator Rick Santorum for speaking out against, that's right, Muslim extremism.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) remarks at the National Press Club on Wednesday July 19th 2006 calling for regime change in Iran and described "Islamic fascism" as the "great test" of this generation, as threatening to the United States as last century's German Nazism and Soviet communism was inappropriate. These prejudicial remarks were derogatory, and highly unbecoming for a member of US senate. The Senator rhetoric in a public forum demeans both himself and the party he represents, particularly at a time when entire Middle East is in turmoil. Muslim of Lehigh Valley strongly condemned Senator remarks outrageous, inflammatory and un-American.

So, umh, where exactly did he insult all Muslims? Where exactly did he call every single Muslim an extremist?

The Senator should know that extremists come in all faiths, and do not reflect the values and beliefs of the vast majority of the members of the religious groups to which they belong. The Senator's inflammatory comments do nothing to advance America's role in the world as the leading voice for tolerance and religious freedom and should be soundly condemned as election rhetoric and appeasing the neo-conservatives and American extremism ("millennial" or end-time Christians and Zionist zealots).

What?! Extremists come in all faiths? Yes, so what? He didn't say Islam is or Muslims are the main threat to the US / West, did he? No, he was talking about Muslim extremism. What are you trying to say Mohammed? Are you saying that we can't criticize Muslim extremists, because if we do, we automatically criticize the Muslim faith? Why do you compare yourself with 'extremists' Mohammed? Why don't you condemn those extremists for dragging down your faith - if that's the way you see it - instead of condemning someone who notices the obvious truth; namely that Muslim extremism is a big problem that we need to fight against? That Iran is ruled by a bunch of extremists that could destabilize the entire region and sponsor terrorists throughout the world?

What's the problem with that Mohammed? How did he insult all Muslims with that? Could you please exlain that?

Heck: I'll make it even worse for you, so you can get mad at me: Osama Bin Laden is a coward, a pig and a murderer. He and his organization of Muslim extremists must be taken out completely. Destroyed. No place on earth can be safe for them.
Wow, that really must piss you off, no?

O, I could go on with this, heck I could create a list of Muslim extremists who threaten the safety of the West, Israel, Iraq, what am I saying: the entire not-Muslim world. O and Muslim extremism is this generation's big test. Will we let ourselves be appeased, or will we defend freedom?
That's the test he (Santorum) was speaking about you know. That we must fight against Muslim extremists who hate freedom, who hate infidels and want to spread Islam by using violence.

More: via Ed Morrissey:

The editorial by Mohammed Khaku ran yesterday, but today's editorial takes Al-Jazeera from hysteria to paranoia:

Nassrullah spoke through Al-Manar TV, which was also simultaneously aired by several other TV stations. He said that his information now is that the ongoing Israeli war on Lebanon was initially planned to start in September or October, using any excuse to start it at that time.
Nassrullah added that the Hizbullah military operation, which resulted in killing some Israeli soldiers and capturing two of them disrupted the preparation for that war.

Humiliating, as it was, to the Israeli arrogance of power and pretense of invincibility, Israeli leaders started their war prematurely, before completing their preparations, particularly in the aspects of information, weapons, and logistics.

Hassan El-Najjar accepts this argument from Nasrallah without producing a single piece of evidence to support it. Under this fantasy, the Israelis didn't have enough on their plate with the ongoing crisis in Gaza; they wanted to start a two-front war. Nasrallah's unsupported and ludicrous assertion asks the world to take pity on Hezbollah because Israel would have attacked them later had Hezbollah not attacked them earlier to start the war.

Ah, Muslim hypocricy and victim-mentality - aren't they fun?

Cross posted at Liberty and Justice