FIVE AMERICANS WHO ARE STANDING AGAINST RADICAL ISLAM

[NightSky]

You are asking to disprove a negative. If there is anything, please quote the links. I know where his critics are coming from because they are doing nothing about these ills. Is the message wrong?

In my humble opinion the method definitely is, and the conveyance of the message and the message itself could use great revision and rework if it is truly aimed at taking down extremists and educating the public in how to fight extremism rather than promoting Islamophobia.

By the way, as a former atheist and now a Muslim, and at that a Muslim who's participated in three Muslim majority forums over the course of now some years, I will honestly tell you that I have witnessed extremists in actions on these forums, few though their number was; and that experience, apart from being rather unpleasant, has always been very concerning to me because these forums are also frequented of course by impressionable young teenagers. So, I do think we have to fight extremism if for no other reason than to be able to ensure that brainwashing does not occur in the youth to commit acts of terrorism; because in the end, we all lose, regardless of being a believer or nonbeliever. However, if you want to fight extremism or terrorism, you cannot fight it with Islamophobia because the logic of putting out a fire with another fire is illogical by any definition.

However, I will take up your challenge of quoting links because Clarion project I personally find concerning and untrustworthy for many reasons, mainly funding and promotion of terrorist literature and previously well-known biases and erroneous information found in leading articles:

#1) Let's see what the article "Meet The Donors Behind The Clarion Fund’s Islamophobic Documentary ‘The Third Jihad’" says on the subject:

Clarion burst onto the scene in 2006 with the movie Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West. In 2008, more than 20 million copies of the film were distributed to homes in presidential election swing states thanks to a $17 million donation, reportedly by right-wing and GOP donor Barre Seid. (Another U.S. group that aided the release later denied involvement but was found to be misleading reporters in order to cover up its role. The head of the group now sits on Clarion’s advisory board.)

As a liberal, this is alarming to me because Islamophobia is literally being promoted as a means to vote in Republicans who are more for things like trickle-down economics and more prone to making and maintaining disastrous foreign policy decisions because they tend to be pro-war (hawkish) and pro-intervention (pro-U.S. hegemony) in other countries in ways which frankly no ordinary American wants. So, if the message is for everyone regardless of political affiliation and aiming at taking down extremist elements within the Muslim community, why did Clarion project aim to target presidential swing states with their presumably enlightening DVD? In fact, there's even a more thoroughly researched article called "Clarion Responds, As New Details Emerge About 'Radical Islam' DVD" that goes into the depth of what happened and also mentions the pro-Israel connection. Not only that, the Clarion project criticized Obama administration for supposedly easing up on Islamist charities.

The earlier article continues:

But the Third Jihad is not Clarion’s latest project: its focus since shifted to Iran with the 2011 doc Iranium. Written and directed by Alex Traiman, “Iranium” prominently features hawkish experts from two right-wing Washington think tanks, Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

#2) Do you know ISIS releases magazines that it has each month and its English copies are downloaded and then distributed through the medium of Clarion project? I am all for freedom of speech, but let's not confuse the issue of promoting a terrorist magazine as the means of fighting radical Islam. To fight radical Islam (a term of which I'm not exactly a fan by the way), we need more and better speech, not give an open platform to hate speech of terrorists. Because the hate speech itself is not the problem, just a symptom of the problem, the problem being that terrorists are not able to recognize that they've accepted brainwashing of themselves as the way forward into a darker future for themselves.

#3) Clarion project promotes a clash of civilizations theory, setting itself up as the heroic West fighting against ingrained barbarism and sneakiness of Muslims amounting to a great evil. As the article "Clarion Project" once noted, "[a]mong its many questionable claims, the site asserts that "there are 35 Radical Islamic communities spread across the United States" [8] and that the U.S. legal and financial systems have been infiltrated by 'Stealth Jihad.'[9]" I now note, by the way, that the articles called "U.S. Muslim enclaves" and "Stealth Threat" are no longer available on the Clarion project site, though they were once present.

Also, the article highlights how Clarion project also once gave misleading information on foreign policy specific to Iran:

In another post implying that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, a view not shared by the U.S. intelligence community, the site claims that the concept of mutually assured destruction, which kept a lid on U.S.-Soviet escalations during the Cold War, "is not sufficient to deter Iran from firing [a nuclear weapon] as Radical Muslims see martyrdom as the path to heaven and utter triumph." The post also claimed that "Iranian theologians have decreed that atomic weapons are permissible to use under Islamic law,"[10] even though Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a binding fatwa against the use of such weapons.

Now, as to your statement:

I don't disagree in principle with Warpoet regarding generalisations about Muslims.

I understand and respect that.

But from what I've observed, you still have a long way to go on understanding the complexities of the issues and not taking at face value what's seen or written or promoted and being able to distinguish truly fighting extremism and standing up for rights of others based on humanitarian values versus promulgation of Islamophobia under the aegis of misappropriated labels like fighting against "radical Islam" and then basing your conclusions off of those understandings. Just an observation.

Peace.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

#2) Do you know ISIS releases magazines that it has each month and its English copies are downloaded and then distributed through the medium of Clarion project? I am all for freedom of speech, but let's not confuse the issue of promoting a terrorist magazine as the means of fighting radical Islam. To fight radical Islam (a term of which I'm not exactly a fan by the way), we need more and better speech, not give an open platform to hate speech of terrorists. Because the hate speech itself is not the problem, just a symptom of the problem, the problem being that terrorists are not able to recognize that they've accepted brainwashing of themselves as the way forward into a darker future for themselves.

I don't see why you are criticizing this. It's not about trying to promote hatred, but to let the average westerner see what ISIS is promoting.

#3) Clarion project promotes a clash of civilizations theory, setting itself up as the heroic West fighting against ingrained barbarism and sneakiness of Muslims amounting to a great evil. As the article "Clarion Project" once noted, "[a]mong its many questionable claims, the site asserts that "there are 35 Radical Islamic communities spread across the United States" [8] and that the U.S. legal and financial systems have been infiltrated by 'Stealth Jihad.'[9]" I now note, by the way, that the articles called "U.S. Muslim enclaves" and "Stealth Threat" are no longer available on the Clarion project site, though they were once present.

Radical Islam has already chosen the path of conflict. Acknowledging this is not choosing the path of conflict.

Also, the article highlights how Clarion project also once gave misleading information on foreign policy specific to Iran:

In another post implying that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, a view not shared by the U.S. intelligence community, the site claims that the concept of mutually assured destruction, which kept a lid on U.S.-Soviet escalations during the Cold War, "is not sufficient to deter Iran from firing [a nuclear weapon] as Radical Muslims see martyrdom as the path to heaven and utter triumph." The post also claimed that "Iranian theologians have decreed that atomic weapons are permissible to use under Islamic law,"[10] even though Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a binding fatwa against the use of such weapons.

Oh, come on now. Iran's obsession with having their own enrichment capability shows their intent is military. From a standpoint of economics you need about one enrichment plant per twenty power plants. Thus, unless you have at least close to twenty reactors you buy your fuel, you don't make it. If they are worried about future embargoes simply stockpile fuel.

Whether they are actually trying to build a bomb or not isn't important. They probably aren't--by far the hardest part of building a bomb is the fuel, from a standpoint of maintaining secrecy they would be better served by getting the weapons grade material first before trying to build a device to use it. By not having a bomb program itself that makes it certain a spy can't penetrate it.

Besides, with U-235 making a crude device isn't hard at all. You need to know how much material you can safely make into each half of the bomb but you can determine that by twisting the dragon's tail. (Which can be done a lot more safely than we did in WWII where a couple of people died from making a mistake while doing it.) Take two pieces that are .9 of a critical mass each, slam them together with a simple cannon. You have well over a 90% chance of killing a city. Give a shahid the two pieces and have him slam them together by hand (so there are no explosives for a dog to sniff) and you still have about a 50% chance of killing a city.

 

[Warpoet]

I was not mentioning Jains because of their numbers. I was mentioning them because a core doctrine of their religion is pacifism, as opposed to jihad.

So what? This is a meaningless observation. If pacifism were the core tenet of any major religion, and people adhered strictly to those tenets in all circumstances (they don't), the adherents of that religion would have been eradicated centuries ago. All major world religions have doctrines allowing for violence, because violence is a fundamental reality of the world for anyone not living in a comfortable first world bubble like the people on this message board.

 

[Warpoet]

Props to NightSky for doing the actual legwork to show why the Clarion Project is a joke and not a serious source - but as you can see, it's a waste of time. People like Loren just bullshit their way around it as they always do. Anyone who was being honest about this would have dismissed the Clarion Project as a source after the NYT article I linked to describing their ridiculous propaganda film. But several here are clearly sympathetic to their crusade against Islam and Muslims, and thus have no interest in honestly assessing the quality of sources related to the issue.

 

[whichphilosophy]

In my humble opinion the method definitely is, and the conveyance of the message and the message itself could use great revision and rework if it is truly aimed at taking down extremists and educating the public in how to fight extremism rather than promoting Islamophobia.

By the way, as a former atheist and now a Muslim, and at that a Muslim who's participated in three Muslim majority forums over the course of now some years, I will honestly tell you that I have witnessed extremists in actions on these forums, few though their number was; and that experience, apart from being rather unpleasant, has always been very concerning to me because these forums are also frequented of course by impressionable young teenagers. So, I do think we have to fight extremism if for no other reason than to be able to ensure that brainwashing does not occur in the youth to commit acts of terrorism; because in the end, we all lose, regardless of being a believer or nonbeliever. However, if you want to fight extremism or terrorism, you cannot fight it with Islamophobia because the logic of putting out a fire with another fire is illogical by any definition.

However, I will take up your challenge of quoting links because Clarion project I personally find concerning and untrustworthy for many reasons, mainly funding and promotion of terrorist literature and previously well-known biases and erroneous information found in leading articles:

#1) Let's see what the article "Meet The Donors Behind The Clarion Fund’s Islamophobic Documentary ‘The Third Jihad’" says on the subject:

Clarion burst onto the scene in 2006 with the movie Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West. In 2008, more than 20 million copies of the film were distributed to homes in presidential election swing states thanks to a $17 million donation, reportedly by right-wing and GOP donor Barre Seid. (Another U.S. group that aided the release later denied involvement but was found to be misleading reporters in order to cover up its role. The head of the group now sits on Clarion’s advisory board.)

As a liberal, this is alarming to me because Islamophobia is literally being promoted as a means to vote in Republicans who are more for things like trickle-down economics and more prone to making and maintaining disastrous foreign policy decisions because they tend to be pro-war (hawkish) and pro-intervention (pro-U.S. hegemony) in other countries in ways which frankly no ordinary American wants. So, if the message is for everyone regardless of political affiliation and aiming at taking down extremist elements within the Muslim community, why did Clarion project aim to target presidential swing states with their presumably enlightening DVD? In fact, there's even a more thoroughly researched article called "Clarion Responds, As New Details Emerge About 'Radical Islam' DVD" that goes into the depth of what happened and also mentions the pro-Israel connection. Not only that, the Clarion project criticized Obama administration for supposedly easing up on Islamist charities.

The earlier article continues:

But the Third Jihad is not Clarion’s latest project: its focus since shifted to Iran with the 2011 doc Iranium. Written and directed by Alex Traiman, “Iranium” prominently features hawkish experts from two right-wing Washington think tanks, Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

#2) Do you know ISIS releases magazines that it has each month and its English copies are downloaded and then distributed through the medium of Clarion project? I am all for freedom of speech, but let's not confuse the issue of promoting a terrorist magazine as the means of fighting radical Islam. To fight radical Islam (a term of which I'm not exactly a fan by the way), we need more and better speech, not give an open platform to hate speech of terrorists. Because the hate speech itself is not the problem, just a symptom of the problem, the problem being that terrorists are not able to recognize that they've accepted brainwashing of themselves as the way forward into a darker future for themselves.

#3) Clarion project promotes a clash of civilizations theory, setting itself up as the heroic West fighting against ingrained barbarism and sneakiness of Muslims amounting to a great evil. As the article "Clarion Project" once noted, "[a]mong its many questionable claims, the site asserts that "there are 35 Radical Islamic communities spread across the United States" [8] and that the U.S. legal and financial systems have been infiltrated by 'Stealth Jihad.'[9]" I now note, by the way, that the articles called "U.S. Muslim enclaves" and "Stealth Threat" are no longer available on the Clarion project site, though they were once present.

Also, the article highlights how Clarion project also once gave misleading information on foreign policy specific to Iran:

In another post implying that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, a view not shared by the U.S. intelligence community, the site claims that the concept of mutually assured destruction, which kept a lid on U.S.-Soviet escalations during the Cold War, "is not sufficient to deter Iran from firing [a nuclear weapon] as Radical Muslims see martyrdom as the path to heaven and utter triumph." The post also claimed that "Iranian theologians have decreed that atomic weapons are permissible to use under Islamic law,"[10] even though Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a binding fatwa against the use of such weapons.

Now, as to your statement:

I don't disagree in principle with Warpoet regarding generalisations about Muslims.

I understand and respect that.

But from what I've observed, you still have a long way to go on understanding the complexities of the issues and not taking at face value what's seen or written or promoted and being able to distinguish truly fighting extremism and standing up for rights of others based on humanitarian values versus promulgation of Islamophobia under the aegis of misappropriated labels like fighting against "radical Islam" and then basing your conclusions off of those understandings. Just an observation.

Peace.

There are radical communities across the USA and Europe, be they quite small. Muslims wish to carry on their lives as normal, most work hard and many achieve success, which they could not attain in Islamist societies and poor Muslim societies.

You are playing the Islamophobia card without realising that films like the Honor Diaries highlight serious problems that exist in many Muslim countries, and by the way in a lot of Non-Muslim countries.

You haven't provided anything to show that the film and the groups involved and behind it are Islamophobic.

What it does show is that so called champions of change such as CAIR and various vocal Islamic groups in the USA are concerned (sometimes correctly) about injustices against Muslims in the USA.

Only recently did CAIR condemn certain atrocities in IslamIST countries but you will not find one piece of evidence to show these organisations even care about reforms.

Those Muslims who conduct such reforms are often banned from giving talks and the film is often banned from various universities. Really the student has a right to judge for themselves.

I am familiar with Muslim communities. I lived and worked in Qatar and the UAE, and interact with Muslims. A Palestinian Muslim friend of mine has just appointed me in charge of his London office.

I deal with Muslims all the time. There is nothing wrong with them and most are civil.

I noticed that you did not address the following which the MUSLIMS involved have and work actively against:

Forced Marriages
Child Marriages
Acid Attacks which go unprosecuted
Forced dress coded including countries like Iran
FMG which pre-dates Islam
Honor Killings
Beating the Wife (In the UAE it is legal as long as she is not injured).

You talk about the complexity of issues. These issues are not complex.These issues are not complex; it is very simple. These acts are not acceptable under any circumstances.

The so called champions of change who were invited into the White House by Obama did not take a single step towards helping those in IslamIST and many Islamic countries where human rights are lacking simple not enforced.

So nothing what you stated shows Islamophobic.

Have you read the ISIS agenda in the Black Flags of Rome; How Jihadists can form alliances with Civil Rights and Leftist groups so as to infiltrate its own ideology.

Are you aware that the Muslim Brotherhood is actively promoting front groups such as the Muslim Student's Association (MSA) which actively works to ban anything critical of IslamIST actions

I use IslamIST to make sure this only refers to radicals.

By the way Radical Jihadi's are waging a war against the West, where the West is also waging wars in Muslim countries; the issue which caused all this in the first place.

However the theme in this instance are relevant human rights issues.

In quoting from ISIS (The Black Flags of Rome)

European Muslims allying with Left-wing Activists: A growing population of left-winged activists (people who are against; human/animal abuses, Zionism, and Austerity measures etc) look upto the Muslims as a force who are strong enough to fight against the injustices of the world. It seems from the article below that many of these people (who are sometimes part of Anonymous and Anarchy movements) will ally with the Muslims to fight against the neo-Nazis’ and rich politicians.

They will give intelligence, share weapons and do undercover work for the Muslims to pave the way for the conquest of Rome. How will this happen? If you have ever been at a pro-Palestine / anti-Israel protest, you will see many activists who are not even Muslims who are supportive of what Muslims are calling for (the fall of Zionism).

It is most likely here that connections between Muslims and Left-wing activists will be made, and a portion from them will realise that protests are not effective, and that armed combat is the alternative.

So they will start to work together in small cells of groups to fight and sabotage against the ‘financial elite’. Here is an article below which gives a real life example of this: Italy's Left-Wing Terrorists Flirt with Radical Islamists

 

[whichphilosophy]

Props to NightSky for doing the actual legwork to show why the Clarion Project is a joke and not a serious source - but as you can see, it's a waste of time. People like Loren just bullshit their way around it as they always do. Anyone who was being honest about this would have dismissed the Clarion Project as a source after the NYT article I linked to describing their ridiculous propaganda film. But several here are clearly sympathetic to their crusade against Islam and Muslims, and thus have no interest in honestly assessing the quality of sources related to the issue.

Why is a film involving Muslims about IslamIST atrocities ridiculous propaganda? There are plenty of Muslim groups who can take these Muslims aboard and if necessary exclude the Clarion project. This is not the case. CAIR (banned in the UAE as a Terrorist organisation) whines about Islamaphbia when the film is shown.

If there are any faults in the film itself it will be interesting to see. The trailer is available on Youtube. The film is about persecution of MUSLIMS but by IslamISTS.

 

[Warpoet]

Why is a film involving Muslims about IslamIST atrocities ridiculous propaganda?

The better question here is, why are you so hellbent on defending this film at all costs when it's obvious the people behind it are not trustworthy?

Are you aware that the Muslim Brotherhood is actively promoting front groups such as the Muslim Student's Association (MSA) which actively works to ban anything critical of IslamIST actions

You've repeated this throughout the thread but you haven't produced any evidence to back it up. It's time you did so.

 

[OLDMAN]

So if you watched the film, (as I did) without knowing who was behind it, would you say it was a justified piece? Seems to me that if it can stand on it's own merit then it doesn't really matter who else backs the film.

I don't ignore air strikes on enemy hospitals just because they are pointed out by the enemy. Do I? Something is either just or not.

 

[Warpoet]

Only so many hours in the day, and I'm not interested in spending mine on something made by the Clarion Project.

Moreover, I explained my problems with the film based on the trailer pages back: it is addressing real issues, but seems more interested in pinning the blame for them on Islam than in finding solutions. Just as I'd expected from the people who produced it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The better question here is, why are you so hellbent on defending this film at all costs when it's obvious the people behind it are not trustworthy?

Are you aware that the Muslim Brotherhood is actively promoting front groups such as the Muslim Student's Association (MSA) which actively works to ban anything critical of IslamIST actions

You've repeated this throughout the thread but you haven't produced any evidence to back it up. It's time you did so.

The question is whether what it says is true or not.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Only so many hours in the day, and I'm not interested in spending mine on something made by the Clarion Project.

Moreover, I explained my problems with the film based on the trailer pages back: it is addressing real issues, but seems more interested in pinning the blame for them on Islam than in finding solutions. Just as I'd expected from the people who produced it.

Are you aware of actions taken by MSA and various Arab American Associations to campaign against human rights variations mentioned in the film. They are only bleating Islamophobia. That is to say highlighting honor killings, child marriages is somehow anti Islam. Are you suggesting the Muslims concerned are Islamophobic? It's good that the Clarion project is doing something the so called Muslim Human Rights groups aren't.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Loren is right. What matters is if something is true. Just because you don't like somebody doesn't mean what they say isn't true or notable.

 

[Warpoet]

Yeah, you guys love to hide behind the "but it doesn't matter cuz (we think) they're right" act when you can't defend your crappy sources. But it's utterly naive to think you can divorce a blatant agenda from the message in a film on such a volatile topic. And the trailer certainly doesn't suggest that that's the case here, or that I need to take time out of my day to watch it.

Would you guys be demanding that everyone ignore the problems with the source if the thread were focused on a film about crime in black communities, or maybe illegal immigration, and it was produced by a group of known white supremacists and racists?

No?

 

[Warpoet]

Are you aware of actions taken by MSA and various Arab American Associations to campaign against human rights variations mentioned in the film. They are only bleating Islamophobia. That is to say highlighting honor killings, child marriages is somehow anti Islam. Are you suggesting the Muslims concerned are Islamophobic? It's good that the Clarion project is doing something the so called Muslim Human Rights groups aren't.

I asked you for evidence to back up your repeated claims that the MSA and CAIR are, in effect, Muslim Brotherhood front groups. This is not evidence, it's deflection. Do you have evidence, or not? Because if you don't, what you're doing is no better than what the Clarion people do, and it's clear why you keep defending them.

And I've answered your question several times now. You aren't listening, because you're up on your soapbox and have no intention of budging an inch.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, you guys love to hide behind the "but it doesn't matter cuz (we think) they're right" act when you can't defend your crappy sources. But it's utterly naive to think you can divorce a blatant agenda from the message in a film on such a volatile topic. And the trailer certainly doesn't suggest that that's the case here, or that I need to take time out of my day to watch it.

Would you guys be demanding that everyone ignore the problems with the source if the thread were focused on a film about crime in black communities, or maybe illegal immigration, and it was produced by a group of known white supremacists and racists?

No?

You would take such things with a grain of salt but that doesn't make them automatically false.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you aware of actions taken by MSA and various Arab American Associations to campaign against human rights variations mentioned in the film. They are only bleating Islamophobia. That is to say highlighting honor killings, child marriages is somehow anti Islam. Are you suggesting the Muslims concerned are Islamophobic? It's good that the Clarion project is doing something the so called Muslim Human Rights groups aren't.

I asked you for evidence to back up your repeated claims that the MSA and CAIR are, in effect, Muslim Brotherhood front groups. This is not evidence, it's deflection. Do you have evidence, or not? Because if you don't, what you're doing is no better than what the Clarion people do, and it's clear why you keep defending them.

And I've answered your question several times now. You aren't listening, because you're up on your soapbox and have no intention of budging an inch.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-a-e-is-calling-2-american-groups-terrorists/

 

[laughing dog]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-a-e-is-calling-2-american-groups-terrorists/

Nothing in the link says either group is a front group from the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You would take such things with a grain of salt but that doesn't make them automatically false.

Yes, and often it is actually very good and constructive to listen to such people. You're more likely to learn something when you listen to people who strongly disagree with than when you live in an echo chamber, even if that something is merely why these people think as they do. If those I disagree with are willing to have civil discussion with me (which isn't always the case, and rare with some groups), I often engage with them in that conversation and I find it interesting more often than not.

 

[Warpoet]

You would take such things with a grain of salt but that doesn't make them automatically false.

It means I don't need to waste my time on them. If there's a point to be made on those issues, it can be made without calling upon an untrustworthy source.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-a-e-is-calling-2-american-groups-terrorists/

What ld said. Doesn't provide what I asked for, and the article itself says the UAE's designations were sweeping and unsubstantiated.

 

[Warpoet]

Yes, and often it is actually very good and constructive to listen to such people. You're more likely to learn something when you listen to people who strongly disagree with than when you live in an echo chamber, even if that something is merely why these people think as they do. If those I disagree with are willing to have civil discussion with me (which isn't always the case, and rare with some groups), I often engage with them in that conversation and I find it interesting more often than not.

Except you don't actually listen. You have an agenda just like everyone else, and that agenda doesn't budge in the face of contradictory evidence. You like to parade around like some kind of level-headed interlocutor seeking constructive dialogue, but over the course of literal years you haven't changed your views at all even when you've been shown to be flatly wrong.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Yeah, you guys love to hide behind the "but it doesn't matter cuz (we think) they're right" act when you can't defend your crappy sources. But it's utterly naive to think you can divorce a blatant agenda from the message in a film on such a volatile topic. And the trailer certainly doesn't suggest that that's the case here, or that I need to take time out of my day to watch it.

Would you guys be demanding that everyone ignore the problems with the source if the thread were focused on a film about crime in black communities, or maybe illegal immigration, and it was produced by a group of known white supremacists and racists?

No?

If the film was made predominantly by black people then could you call the black people racist? In a similar manner, could any Germans during WWII who whistle blew about the gas chambers be deemed as anti-German.