Responses to terrorism arrests

I was listening to Michael Savage on the way home yesterday and a Muslim called in and said that he thought the British police were framing the 21 muslims that got arrested, and that they were innocent. Savage's response was stupid and rude, but even worse, he missed the best response. "Do you have any evidence to support this belief? What are the facts that have led you to believe this?" The guy would rather believe that police in several different countries were all out to get these few people, than that someone from his "community" (Islam) were actually guilty. I think its very similar to the way the black community often comes out in support of other blacks arrested by the police. It seems like the facts of the case don't matter, since the police are percieved to be racist and to be capable of altering the evidence.

This blaming others approach does two things. It gives the communities a impenetrable defense againt reason, since any fact against their fellows are obviously faked. And it adds to the perception among those on the outside that these communities are more interested in defending their own than in riding society of criminals,


Also, there's CAIR, the council on american islamic relations or something like that. Yesterday president Bush made the mistake of mentioning that the terrorists are supportive of a dictatorial islamic regime, or in his (and other's) words, that they are Islamofacists. CAIRs response (in part):

"You have on many occasions said Islam is a 'religion of peace.' Today you equated the religion of peace with the ugliness of fascism.
"The use of ill-defined hot button terms such as 'Islamic fascists,' 'militant jihadism,' 'Islamic radicalism,' or 'totalitarian Islamic empire,' harms our nation's image and interests worldwide, particularly in the Islamic world. It feeds the perception that the war on terror is actually a war on Islam. . .
"American Muslims stand ready to serve as a bridge of understanding to the Islamic world. We can best fulfill that role by offering advice that can help prevent misperceptions and misunderstandings between different nations and cultures."

Here's a good response to CAIRs response:

You complain about George W. Bush's use of a perfectly legitimate term you don't like on the day news of a massive terror plot breaks, so I get e-mails like this one (and I have an inbox full of them this evening/morning):
There's no difference between CAIR and "Islamic Fascists." NONE! CAIR totally sympathizes with and embraces them. It's time to let go of the myths of "moderate muslims" or "moderate Arabs." They don't exist. There's no difference between Sunnis, Shia, Shiites or whatever. They ALL want to kill us.
I cannot help but think that if anyone is fueling anti-Muslim bigotry right about
now, it is a group like CAIR who is doing it by raising the wrong fears and condemning the wrong people. George Bush, Rick Santorum, etc. help Muslims by defining our enemy as Islamofascists. You ought to take that ball and roll with it, moderate Muslims (you're out there, I've met you, I know it) — you need to make clear terrorists do not speak for you and your religion and groups who only serve to confuse things and stoke anger by misdirected outrage don't represent you. I don't speak Arabic and read the Koran so I can't do it. You who do, you might want to speak louder — we could all use your voice.

I agree with the "take that ball and role with it." By purporting that calling someone an islamic fascist is the same as calling all muslims fascists, CAIR either shows their failure to master English, or their true agenda in defending all muslims, wether fascists or not.
There are muslim fascists, who are willing and eager to kill infidels to further the goal of the caliphate. There are moderate muslims who are willing to live and let live (literally). CAIR would do well to point out and highlight the distinction, not to cover it up.