Comments on "Why Imams Be Playin' Us" By Kevin McCullough

For the last couple of months, I have been reading posts over at the conservative townhall.com. I'm not really sure why, since most of the posters are rabid right-wing fundamentalists, with whom I generally have completely divergent opinions. I guess that by reading what they write, I am able to challenge my own assumptions and either discard them, or more often re-confirm them.

Anyway, this time, I've read a piece "Why Imams Be Playin' Us" By Kevin McCullough, which I found to have some flaws in the argument. I will comment on a couple of the points made in the column.

I've grown ever tired of the ranting rampage of more than one character on the show [24] this year more or less lecturing the viewers about the "constitutional protections" of those who wish us dead. I'm sorry, did I miss something? Have we, did we set up internment camps somewhere on our soil - even after 9/11?

Um...well, it depends on whether you consider the U.S. holding at Guantanamo Bay to be "our soil" or not. I suspect that America having full jurisdiction and not allowing the Cubans in is a good argument for it being "our soil".

And not just any Imam, Husham Al Husainy. Imam of the largest Shiite mosque in America, his resume is quite impressive. He is a life long supporter of the Ayatollah Khomeini. For you youngsters he's the radical Imam who took our boys hostage for 444 days under the "impressive" days of Jimmy Carter's presidency. For literally more than a year our government held its breath and hoped that maybe he might just change his mind. All of that came to a swift end the moment Ronald Reagan put his hand on the inaugural Bible. Khomeini’s choice was, let 'em go or get turned into crispy pork rinds. (See Reagan's presidency was so impressive it even spared his enemy's life.)

I find it interesting that he considers the end to the hostage crisis to be a result of the Iranians being afraid of Reagan. In the version of history that I was taught, Reagan had a deal with Khomeini, so that Khomeini would keep the hostages in order to help Reagan win the election and then make him look good after coming to office. While this may be easy to dismiss as a mere conspiracy theory, the fact that the Reagan administration was involved in the Iran-Contra Affair is a bit more damning and shows his willingness to work with the Khomeini government.



Perhaps Al Husainy was too controversial a choice. However, I do think that it is necessary to embrace the Muslim community here in the United States. Alienating them simply drives away potential allies in the "War on Terror". It's commonly known that people in general (though not every individual) will usually adopt the identities projected onto them. If you're constantly told that you are worthless and that you are the enemy, pretty soon, you start to believe it. So instead, let's treat them (and all people) with dignity and let them see why they should continue to buy into the American way. If they didn't like our country, they would never have come here in the first place. Let's welcome them, rather than turning them away. (Which is not to say that we should stop pursuing terrorist. I would simply argue that we shouldn't demonize an entire group for the faults of a few. I mean, really, just because we have a whole lot of white guys [or other group of choice] in prison for murder, does that mean that all white guys [or ethnic group of choice] are evil?)