No Arabophobia

I am writing to correct the record regarding the story, "Arabophobia" by Craig Segal [April 20], that you published about my speech given in Montreal on April 13, 2000, on the threat of militant Islamic fundamentalism.

1. I did not claim, as alleged by your reporter, that "80 per cent of terrorist acts in the U.S. were caused by Islamic terrorist groups." In the course of my main speech, I stated that "more than 80 per cent of the casualties inflicted on American citizens have been inflicted at the hands of Islamic and extremist groups."

2. When asked about casualties again, in the give-and-take after my main speech, I amplified the earlier statement by telling listeners that "according to figures released by the U.S. Department of State, at least 80 per cent of all American terrorist casualties, wounded or killed, inflicted on American citizens worldwide between the years 1993 and 1999 were caused by Islamic and Middle Eastern terrorist groups."

3. Your reporter quoted the comments of Mr. Yahya Abdul Rahman of the Islamic Association for Palestine as if he were a disinterested observer. In fact, his group has openly extolled the virtues of Hamas and other Islamic fundamentalist groups; in fact, in the U.S., the Islamic Association for Palestine was recently sued by the parents of a teenage victim of Hamas terrorism for its role in serving as a front group for Hamas.

4. In my speech and question-and-answer period, I repeatedly pointed out that the vast majority of Muslims and Arabs did not support terrorism and that those who did represented a fractional minority, one however capable of causing great violence. I also pointed out that the phenomenon of terrorism also exists in other religions, specifically naming Judaism and Christianity.

5. I cited official Canadian intelligence reports stating the Islamic fundamentalism as one of the primary threats emanating from Canadian soil.

6. I specifically cited statements and actions carried out by Islamic fundamentalists on American and Canadian soil and also noted that many of the extremist statements issued by these groups fell under the category of protected legal speech.

7. The animus of your reporter to my comments was clearly evident in the story he wrote, especially in citing the group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, an advocacy organization that has falsely attributed stories to me in the past.

8. According to Professor Frederick Krantz, with whom your reporter argued at the end of my lecture, your reporter complained that the U.S. was responsible for the alleged death of thousands of Iraqi babies due to the sanctions. This type of hyperbole is indicative of someone with a clear ulterior political agenda.

It is disturbing that your reporter sought to "tack the deck" in reporting on my lecture and comments. It has now become common by proponents of Islamic extremism to chill free speech and a free discussion of the threat by claiming that critics are smearing all of Islam. This intimidation is no more valid than claiming that those who criticize the Ku Klux Klan are smearing all Christians or that those who criticize Jewish terrorists are smearing all of Judaism. It is troubling that your reporter would propagate this line.

--Steven Emerson

Craig Segal replies

According to a tape of the event, Mr. Emerson said the following in his main speech: "The fact of the matter is, in the United States, the greatest number of casualties attributable to terrorist attacks over the past decade have been attributable to Middle East or Islamic groups. More than 80 per cent of the casualties inflicted on American citizens have been inflicted at the hands of Islamic and extremist groups." That's what I reported on; I thank him for now clarifying what it is that he meant to say.

I did not argue with Professor Krantz. In a rewarding and pleasant conversation, I was trying to see whether Professor Krantz thought the UN sanctions--and the use of depleted uranium in bullets and bombs during the Gulf War against Iraq--constitute terrorism against the people of Iraq. For the record, he did not, saying, "You've got to think clearly about it... To equate the UN with terrorists--you've got to put these things in context. It's nonsense."

In the Q & A, Mr. Emerson defined terrorism thus: "My non-sliding scale of terrorism: the use of force to kill, wound or intimidate a civilian population for political purposes. If a government or a state actively tries to kill civilians for the purpose of killing civilians and only for the purpose of killing civilians, then that state is guilty of terrorism."]