Before I post my thoughts on the London attacks or Islamofascism in general, I want to solicit your views. In light of yesterday’s attacks, what are your theories and ideas about how to defeat or least contain global terrorism? My intent is twofold:
1) To raise the level of interaction on this blog. Some commenters are treating it like their own personal forum (or toilet) where they can say whatever they want. Not so. If you don’t have anything useful to add to this discussion, don’t comment;
2) To stimulate dialogue about the war in Iraq, radical Islam, and how to keep America safe.
I’ve listed a few points as a guide, but I’d rather you not answer as if you’re taking a test. I want to see fresh, original, and thoughtful comments from you. It doesn’t matter if you’re left-wing, right-wing, or somewhere in between.
One- or two-sentence comments may be deleted. Think about what you want to say before you post. Don’t clog up my bandwidth with off-topic comments, attacks on other commenters, or the usual nonsense. If you don’t want to put in the effort, don’t comment on this thread.
As you reply, it may be helpful to consider one or more of the following:
- Terrorist cells in America: The necessity of racial/religious profiling of Arabs/Muslims
- Muslim internment vs. rounding up suspicious Muslims only vs. status quo of doing nothing
- The futility of the Patriot Act in light of the continuous flow of illegal aliens into the U.S. (pro- and anti-Patriot Act sites)
- Mosques in America: Does the U.S. have intelligence on which mosques radical Muslims frequent?
- War in Iraq: How effective (or ineffective) is it?
- War in Iraq: Ground war vs. air power
- Saudi Arabia connection
Addendum: To read the comments in a bigger pop-up window, right-click on the Comments/Trackbacks link and select “Open Link in New Window.” For easier reading, increase the text size.
Also see DJ Drummond’s post at Polipundit.
Update: Unfortunately, this thread is starting to descend into the abyss, exactly where I didn’t want it to go. If you posted a comment and don’t see it, it’s not caught in the comment filter. I deleted it.
I know my expectations were high for this sort of thing. After all, it’s only a blog. But I was hoping to attract only the serious-minded and civil, but with public commenting, you attract an assortment.
For readers who took this exercise seriously, I thank you.
Update II (7/9): Must-read post from Jeff Jarvis.
Good topic and good questions. Some of which were on a local talk radio show yesterday here in Omaha.
It is a difficult subject as, by default, if we begin doing things similar to what are being done in so-called islamofacist countries, we then acknowledge that terrorism in effect is winning as we move more towards their way of being than ours.
This is why I have a problem with profiling, aspects of the patriot act, ‘muslim internment’, etc.
It represents a dramatic reduction in ‘freedom’, which we toute and want to export. An individual on the show yesterday said he thought LEGAL arab immigrants should be removed and checked without cause. I heard others say we should go over and bomb women and children like they do us.
If we want to represent an ideal and model to the world, something that we can say, look, this is what makes our way better for you the common citizen, can we really do that doing the ’same’ things that they do? If our freedom, our privacy rights, our right to protest and say things against the government no matter how dirty, compose the core of our democracy, constitution and freedom than anything that destroys or distorts that says:
Terrorist, you are making progress. Should we allow them?
Comment by Dell Gines — 07.08.05 @ 9:27 am
“# The futility of the Patriot Act in light of the continuous flow of illegal aliens into the U.S. (pro- and anti-Patriot Act sites)”
The patriot act had not much to do with immigration. It was basically little tweaks in the law that agencies had been working on. Some of it Reno era. That was all collated together and put up as some sort of anti-terror bill. Not a good approach to the war on terror.
I also think it has nothing to do with immigration.
This is an example of the kind of comment I don’t want to see. - Admin
Comment by actus — 07.08.05 @ 9:29 am
I feel that the war on terrorism is a war of cultural information. What we are at war with is the doctrinal teaching of evil. Certain muslim clerics are using their pulpit to teach deviant, anti-western, anti-Christian doctrine and they have found a fertile audience in young, unemployed, disenfranchised muslims who lack a purpose and are angry. So we are not at war with a state, but rather a state of mind.
So how do you combat this? This is particularly difficult for us, because we are required to violate some of our most fundamental beliefs: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, privacy, etc. Because our enemy is not a state and so will not comply with Geneva Convention mandates, we must act outside those lines ourselves. Profiling of some sort and degree must take place, to identify our opponent. To maintain our civil liberties, we must ask simply: does intelligence of a cleric’s teachings and his students establish a violation of his right to do so? Preaching hatred is the source of our opponent’s strength, and should be included as a hate crime / identification as an enemy. Civil libertarians will cry afoul, so the questions asked and the intelligence drawn must be narrowly made.
Secondly as to war abroad, this is necessary. Part of the cultural firmament of our opponent is a respect for strength. As with our violations of some civil liberties, our military must use caution, discretion, precision, but above all decisiveness. Large scale bombings may not be necessary, but surgical strikes will be, and the risk of innocent casualties must be balanced against the very real threat that we face.
Finally, we must make a difference in the way the muslim / arab world sees us. Fervent anti-semetism and anti-western attacks that have no basis must be rebutted and exposed. Many of these people will believe whatever they are told, and so we must work hard to educate them, and communicate who we are and what we stand for. Freedom, democracy, and capitalism will win this war.
Comment by Lyn — 07.08.05 @ 9:44 am
I think the gov’t should announce an absolute intolerance of terrorists and proceed to literally kick out anyone with ties to those groups, and get rid of every single person who has a criminal record. No one has a right to be in this country if they are only bent on destroying it.
I also think that the gov’t should alert the religious leaders and meet with them: tell them that they are not allowed to harbor any terrorists or express any hostility towards the US. I’m referring to such displays of murderous rage that were heard back in May (Michael Savage played the tape). People who cry death to Americans and our free way of life should be removed immediately.
The gov’t should let the mosques know that while there is freedom of religion in this country, it has its limits–they are to respect this country or leave. There should be no negotiating–either shut up those evil ranters, or you will be eliminated.
More than anything else, though, is the need to pray for this country every day and humble ourselves before God, repent of what we have done, and pray for our enemies.
Comment by mj — 07.08.05 @ 9:45 am
Check your e-mail. - Admin
Comment by actus — 07.08.05 @ 10:00 am
MJ - How do you reconcile that sentiment with the constitution? That is the dichotomy mentioned above by Lyn in #3:
“This is particularly difficult for us, because we are required to violate some of our most fundamental beliefs: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, privacy, etc.”
That is the ultimate dilemma that I have. If we change our fundamental beliefs and principles as a nation because of terrorist, then the terrorist and the terror the impose demonstrates that it is being effective.
Comment by Dell Gines — 07.08.05 @ 10:09 am
London Later on 7.7.05
I have a lot to tell you about the events of this last week. My plan today was to write up my notes on the George Clooney appearance qua briefing; yesterday’s afternoon protests in Edinburgh; the Wolfowitz speech on…
Trackback by Reasoned Audacity: Politics in Real Life — 07.08.05 @ 10:11 am
London Update
A roundup of London related comments this morning: Wizbang has photos…and it’s own poll asking “when did the war on terror really begin” LaShawn Barber solicits your views on Islamofacism Blogs for Bush comments on terror in London Michelle Malkin…
Trackback by Conservative Outpost — 07.08.05 @ 10:31 am
Its a clash of cultures its a culture war, the onyl way the west will survive is by purging these people from its society. I dont care how harsh this is, im tlaking mass deportation of muslims and arabs.
Comment by Billy — 07.08.05 @ 10:42 am
Please don’t post two-sentence comments. I’m trying to get a thoughtful discussion going here. If you have nothing thoughtful to say beyond a brief sound bite, do not comment.
Comment by La Shawn — 07.08.05 @ 10:44 am
Dell–Is pedophilia allowed? No. Is murder allowed? No. People don’t have the right to do that, even though they have the free will to make those destructive decisions. So as a nation, we should stand up against other destructive behavior as well, such as people preaching death to infidels and making plans to carry it out. A person has the “right,” in the grander scheme of things, to place a bomb on a subway, but it is the duty of a nation to prevent that and protect its citizens from arm.
Comment by mj — 07.08.05 @ 10:46 am
I mean from harm (not arm).
Comment by mj — 07.08.05 @ 10:46 am
I’ll begin my commentary by saying that if you are going to actually fight a “war” on terror, then you must be prepared for battle. A war must be fought like a war and not some type of intricate political dance.
War means that someone has to win and someone has to lose and war also means that some people, innocent and guilty, women and children are going to die. And we are not talking about sanitized, TV versions of death with the bloody pictures re-colorized to remove the horror. War is an ugly, ugly thing, but if you are going to declare one and/or fight won, then you had better know the rules……there are not any!!!!
Before you can solve any problem, you must first, concisely identify the root problem you are trying to solve. Treating the symptoms does nothing to cure the underlying problem. With that being said, until our leaders, our allies and we as a nation are willing to stand tall and withour cowardice call a spade a spade, then we can never hope to solve the problem.
Definition of the problem: The problem that the United States and the world is facing now is a surge in the inherent, violent nature of the religion of Islam.
Notice that I did not say “radical” islam or “jihadists” or “islamo-fascists.” The problem is the so-called “Religion of Peace” is not so dadgum peaceful and to be honest, its adherents behave moreso as if they belong to a devil-worshipping cult. While the One True God has indeed shown that He can be an angry God, He is not one who has been shown to favor the random and senseless killing of His favorites. Those made in His image. Human beings. Whoever this cat allah is does not fit the descriptionof benevolent, merciful or any of that silly crap muslims recite before offering prayer to this killer-thing.
Now, once we have identified the problem, we need to codify it. Put it on paper. Make it official. Classify it as the enemy doctrine that it is. Put your eyes, ears and hands on it. Watch it closely!
I would not object to even rounding them up and segregating them as we did to the Japanese in WW2 and as was done to muslim men in the Denzel Washington movie “The Seige.”
I also think we need to get as down and dirty as they are. We need to start blowing up targets of opportunity and things they hold sacred. We need to get really nasty! Up to and including taking our the very “holy sites” where these fools derive their inspiration. We should be assasinating leaders who support or sponsor these activities. No questions asked. No fanfare. Just start making people disappear.
We need to restart the hot war. We already no the insurgents are hiding in the cities so Destroy the cities!!! Give the “innocents” 24-48 hours to leave through one of only two exits. Search, question and detain, as appropriate, suspects leaving through these checkpoints. Tell the people that they can come only come throught the checkpoint on foot and dressed in only their underwear and some flip-flops. The women must remove their “ninja-suits” and be subject to search by MAN or woman.
After everyone has left these nests, we bring in B-52 bombers and level these cities to dust. Kill everything so thoroughly that even the roaches say dang!
Only when we acquire the will to actually win this war by fighting it like a war can we accomplish our goal.
We must recognize that there is.
Comment by Raymond — 07.08.05 @ 10:46 am
There needs to be a more honest revelation of the truth in this situation. While conservative sources readily acknowledge that there will be no negotiating with these terrorists because they don’t actually want money or political power, merely the deaths of all who don’t fall in line with what they believe, mainstream media sources fail to deal with this all-important fact with any conclusiveness.
Much of the public seems to feel that there are some moves that can be made (by the United States and other democratic countries) that will pacify these terrorist groups and bring a halt to their operations and I believe that the MSM must bear some responsibility for the continuous fostering of this wholly incorrect idea.
We go so far to protect the feelings of people here that we fail to protect the lives of innocents. We don’t want to stigmatize little Johnny by telling his parents he’s a budding psychopath. Little Johnny gets handled with kid gloves and pretty words as he breaks objects and tortures animals. Since little Johnny belongs to an American minority group, the adults around him are that much more afraid to point out faults with his personality because they’ll get sued for insulting his “race” and some judge will decide against them, so little Johnny graduates to killing animals and directly rebelling against his parents.
Out of fear of “offending” someone, no one does anything. That’s why little Johnny graduates to rape and murder. Well, at least it wasn’t somebody they knew who became a victim right?
It’s our country and in terms of decent humanity, our world. We all have a responsibility to act. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but these attacks seem to have all been carried out by some Muslim faction or another. Several mosques with terrorist ties have been uncovered here in the U.S. I’m not in favor of racial profiling in the least, having had my share of bumps and bruises because of it, but it would be difficult to avoid acknowledging the need for religious profiling.
Few seem to mind the oppression directed toward Christians in this country, so why the hesitance toward others?
Comment by Mark La Roi — 07.08.05 @ 10:48 am
We have to shut down the Wahhabi mosques here in this country, and strongly reinforce our borders. We also have to stop buying oil from the Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia, since they are the main backers of terrorism, they use the money we pay them for oil and give it to the terrorists. The royal family are Wahhabi muslims.
WE also need to shut down groups like CAIR that say they are for America, but then they go and send money to Hamas and similar terrorist groups. We need to shut down every mosque in the USA, or randomly monitor their sermons and broadcast them to the public like they will be doing in scandanavia.
Islam needs to go through a reformation similar to the one we Christains did in the dark ages.
The Moderate muslims MUST act and take a more active role in the war on terror. Sadly many of the moderate muslims just talk.
Ground War vs Air war…we need both. I’,m not sure how I feel about internment, but I do support deportation of any Wahhabi muslim, they can never set foot on USA soil again.
On racial profiling, well Islam is not a race it is an ideology. There are muslims that are malayasian, persian, indian (India), Arab, Turkish, russian, etc…. We’ve got to get it through our heads that Islam is NOT a race.
Also, we must shut down the madrassa schools, they produce terrorists, and if we don’t shut them down there will be generations of terrorists to come.
Comment by Pamela — 07.08.05 @ 10:57 am
MJ - I don’t want to diverge from LaShawns thread as she specifically requested on this one that not be done. Otherwise I would answer your question on pedofilia and murder in relation to terror. Maybe on a different post in the future.
Comment by Dell Gines — 07.08.05 @ 11:01 am
I think that the dichotomy expressed by “Lyn” and “Dell Gines” can be reconciled in one word…laziness. The Government has allowed all of the intelligence services as well as the FBI to become big, fat, lazy, bloated bureaucracies that have resting on thier laurels since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Instead of performing good old fashioned investigative work, they would rather sit at thier proverbial desks and surveil everyone and wait for something to materialize.
Would the Patriot Act even have been necessary if the FBI had some good investigators that knew how to develop informanants and how to “legally” use that information to obtain legal search and surveillance warrants? Without violating people’s civil rights including the right to “due process”. Why should investigations into possible terrorist conspiracy groups be any different from investigations into organized crime conspiracy groups? You find someone that has an axe to grind against the group, or someone that believes that the group has gone to far or someone that has broken the law within the group and you turn them into a mole.
Find the Sammy “The Bull” Bravanos of these groups and Mosques and legally take down the offenders, not the investigation by vaccum cleaner of the Patriot Act. Let’s not forget, Sammy “The Bull” was John Gotti’s right hand man, there was no way in world that anyone would have thought he would turn on Gotti. But he did after he felt he wasn’t getting the “respect” from Gotti he deserved.
Laziness can also describe the state of the Iraq War. The laziness to not come up with a comprehensive plan that covered more than just removing Saddam and securing oil wells. The laziness here can be demostrated by the Bush Administration’s willingness to accept as fact and act based on the rosey best case scenarios instead of preparing for the worst case scenarios. Why? Because preparing for the worst case scenarios would have taken more time and effort and may have resulted in the country not supporting going to war in the first place.
Just my two cents…
Comment by M. Woodward — 07.08.05 @ 11:08 am
I’m probably going to get a lot (perhaps justifiably) of flak about this post, but….you asked.
I am coming to believe that Islam is incompatible with modern democracy. Period. It’s not a “radical Islam” vs a “moderate Islam” thing. It’s a “luke-warm” Islam vrs “true believer” Islam. Unfortunately, we’ve seen many “luke-warm Moslems become “true believers”. There is nothing I know of within Islam itself that would prevent all billion Moslems from becomming “fundamentalists”. There is no teaching to point to that would restrain them, no behavior on the part of their Prophet they could use as an example of getting along, etc. Indeed, their book of jurispurdence is held on the same authority as the Koran. It spells out what the legal system should look like, and contains no provisions for “modernizing” it (Sharia Law). It can’t change, or it ceases to be Islam.
Therefore, if this is true, we have only a couple of real options in the War on Terror.
Option 1: Hope they go back to sleep and stay luke-warm (or corrupt–same difference). I’d hate to base my security on this hope, although this is what the world has been doing to a large extent. Throw them bones, and hope they don’t bite us.
Option 2: We squish Moslems so flat that they are incapable of practicing their faith fully. (”Practicing fully”, BTW, must include jihad. It’s in the Koran and the Sharia that must be obeyed.) I am sceptical that such an approach could work. I can’t think of a way to implement it short of the “Dresden Solution”.
Option 3: Clearly recognize Islam as the true enemy of civilization, and take agressive action to eliminate it, in conjunction with the rest of the civilized world. I am sceptical that the civilized world would be willing to do do that. Just thinking about the carnage that most likely would result gives me the creeps. We could, perhaps, make it an outlawed religion in the US, and that would, in the long run, make this country safer. But it wouldn’t do much for the rest of the world, and it would severly limit our options for action in other parts of the world.
Option 4: I guess there is a forth option for Christians. They can pray that the Lord will come against Islam as he did against the Soviet Union’s Empire, and bring it down without firing a shot. That would be a great world-wide mercy. A great, world-wide opening of eyes to and rejection of the deception of Islam.
My bottom line would be that tightening immigration (especially on Moslems) would be a good idea. So is racial profiling of Moslem men. So is putting bugs in every Mosque in the US so we can monitor their “sermons” and arrest/deport Immams who advocate violence. So is checking the book tables in every Islamic Cultural Center and confiscating sedition material. These moves might all serve to make us a bit more secure while we figure out what we can actually do to address the problem of a 7th Century, death-cult-like, utopian, agressive, Christian heresy with a large, mostly uneducated, young, disfunctional population.
(If I don’t sound particularly optimistic, that’s because I’m not.)
Waidmann
Comment by Waidmann — 07.08.05 @ 11:10 am
Maybe I am going about this wrong, and it feels really strange to me arguing consitutional liberty but I feel compelled to in this instance. The fact of the matter is legal immigrants & citizens have fundamental rights that make us great.
US Constitution & Bill of Rights
Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment VI - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Comment by Dell Gines — 07.08.05 @ 11:11 am
“Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
~I see this being brought up a lot and I think that there is a misunderstanding going on. There is nothing that prevents the government monitoring the activities of any religious group. Going back to Christianity, if other groups are monitored as closely as Churches are to beware of any “crossing the line” we’d probably find a large pile of disturbing issues.
Comment by Mark La Roi — 07.08.05 @ 11:16 am
I think it is becoming clearer that not just so-called radical versions of islam are the problem, but that the base religion itself has not evloved as one poster correctly put it.
Islam is in free fall as far as respect is concerned and it should be. The practitioners of this cult need to understand that sane human being will not tolerate the violence and the madness. At some point these people are going to have to grow up and join the rest of the world. Matters of faith are one thing, but I would think that there are one or two sane muslims left out there who could come out on the major news networks and condemn this buffoonery in English and Arabic.
When muslims start rasing up their own, drop some dimes, snitch, narc or whatever it takes on the fools among them, maybe we can begin to respect this awful, strange, violent, evil cult they call islam.
Comment by Raymond — 07.08.05 @ 11:18 am
I would like to begin with education for myself.
Many years ago a newspaper in Minneapolis ran an article on the “100 Most Important People in History.” The article placed Mohammad [full name is Abu al-Qasim Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abd al-Muttal-ib ibn Hashimas] #1 because he was both a religious and military leader. Nowadays Mohammad’s military exploits are rarely mentioned by the pundits commenting on modern Islam.
For me, I would like to see recommendations of biographies of Mohammad and books on the history of Islam.
There was a time when I made a list of my personal heroes. When I reviewed it I realized that it contained mostly Christians [no surprise there] and that there were no Muslims on it. So far nothing I’ve seen since Islamofacists started attacking the West would cause me to add a Muslim to my list.
Also, I would like to know exactly what actions were taken in response to the first bombing of the WTC. For instance, did the Clinton administration begin recruiting large numbers of people to learn Arabic so we would have an ample supply of scholars to tell us what anyone in the Arab world can learn by watching TV or listening to the radio?
Is there an Arabic media watch site on the web where we can learn how yesterday’s bombings are being presented to Muslims around the world? Who are the Americans who are at the top of the Al Jazeera hit parade?
Where can we learn more about the Muslims in the US? Is it true that American mosques are supported by funds from Saudi Arabia? Is that why mullahs in America are so quiet about Islamofacism?
Just some questions I have.
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 07.08.05 @ 11:18 am
My thoughts:
I’m troubled by racial profiling as a means to stop terrorism because it doesn’t embody the values we hold dear. I’d have to pretend like I don’t read the news if I said it wouldn’t help. However, I’m still against it for a more fundamental reason. The criminal mind has a resilient ability to learn from patterns. Implement racial profiling as standard security procedure and we’ll have non-Arab Muslims blowing themselves up or trying to hijack planes. Our goal is to contain terrorists until we can defeat them. I fear that relying on racial profiling will make us complacent until we learn the hard way that it’s not a perfect system.
Iraq is obviously the major focus now, as it must be. I’m not going to go as far as to call politicians (and news talking heads) traitors who rant against our being in Iraq because we must keep free public discourse. However, it’s not practical to pull out of Iraq now or to set a timeline for withdrawal. Any politician who makes those statements should be voted out of office for incompetence. We must figure out better methods of fighting the war in Iraq, but we must persevere with the fight.
Unfortunately, competence seems to be in short supply among our national leaders. The Democrats won’t stop complaining long enough to understand that our national fight is not against President Bush. The Republicans won’t stop complaining long enough to understand that our national fight is not against “declining” family values. The Dems have certainly missed the point on a larger scale, but rather than perpetually demonize them, the Republicans must engage them. Don’t mock them or cry traitor. Ask pointed questions. “What would you do?” is better than “He’s out of touch.” Terrorists would like nothing more than to blow us all up and we’re busy trying to score political points. Mass stupidity. Again, vote them out regardless of party.
But, with Iraq being necessary and unavoidable, we must fight better, as I’ve said. One issue that comes up with the anti-war faction is the “we’re to blame” theory. It’s nonsense, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t examine what’s going on. It’s too late to deal with the past, but for the future, it can be instructive. We placate foreign governments too much. Challenge them on the issues. al Qaeda doesn’t want us in Muslim holy lands? Fine, challenge the non-cooperating governments in the Middle East to reform or we’ll leave. I know that’s not practical, but the overall point is. This is a global war against terrorism, not just an American war. If we’re defeated because the world stands idly by, the rest of the world is next. Madrid and London are proof of that. Do the Royals in Saudi Arabia really believe that the Islamofascists won’t come for them next? (I know they’re coming after the Royals now, but we’re enemy #1 at the moment.)
Since, as I said, most of that is more ideal theory than practical, what we have done and must continue to do is foster freedom and democracy. Iranians are allegedly ready for democracy. We must support that, with whatever means are available. We can’t invade, obviously, but no one believes that big armies are our only tools for influencing other societies. Modern, moderate Islam must be encouraged and enabled to stand up for itself. We’re starting to see that happen in Iraq. It should continue there and elsewhere.
That’s my thinking out loud… Ultimately, the key thing I know we need to remember is that, although we’re fighting Islamofascists who believe they’re in a holy war with us, we’re fighting for our safety and survival. We are not fighting for God, Jesus, Christianity, Judaism, etc. We can use religion (and our religious diversity) to sustain us individually, but our government and military must not make this about anything other than national security. Forgetting that polarizes Americans and we must not be divided in this.
Comment by Tony — 07.08.05 @ 11:31 am
Dell: Forget about the other stuff I referred to. That’s not that point. The point is that we have every right to make our nation safe.
Waidmann: Even though I don’t believe that Islam is the truth, I have seen moderate Islam in action, and I don’t have a problem with it existing here. I’ve met and have worked with non-terrorist Muslims who have more respect for authority, are hard-working, and are nicer than non-Muslims I’ve met. We need good people in this country, and if someone isn’t against us, they should be welcome here.
Comment by mj — 07.08.05 @ 11:34 am
Evon I know of one MEMRI Middle East Media Research Insitute.
http://www.memri.org/
also see
http://www.faithfreedom.org/
http://www.angelfire.com/moon/yoelnatan/koranwarpassagesformat.htm
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/
I’ll look for more but this is a good start.
Comment by Pamela — 07.08.05 @ 11:36 am
Evon,
While knowing your enemy is important, I pray you want to know more about him only so that you can identify him for elimination. I personally see no reason to try and understand a killer. Understanding a snake will not keep him from biting. The same goes for sharks, lions and tigers and bears. When the time is opportune, they will inflict damage. Muslims are no different. At this point, the only thing I want to know about them is where they are and what they are doing and which tactic would be best applied in eliminating the threat
I think I speak for millions when I say we are fed up. We have talked to these people. Fed these people. Clothed these people. Built cities for these people. Employed these people. Invited them into our homes and they repay us with plane and suicide bomb attacks.
Hell no, I don’t want to hear anything they have to say at this ppoint short of a massive rally or march where they wave the American Flag highly and proudly and loudly condemn this wicked side of their cult. Until they do that, any practiotioner of that religion should be classified as a “potential enemy threat” and their access and movements severely monitored and/or limited.
Enough is enough. Time for the 2nd Amendment to get a little gym time.
Comment by Raymond — 07.08.05 @ 11:38 am
Evaon more information
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/
About muslims and news
http://frontpagemag.com/
10 Myths About Islam
http://www.studytoanswer.net/islam_myths.html
While knowing your enemy is important, I pray you want to know more about him only so that you can identify him for elimination.
I agree Raymond
Comment by Pamela — 07.08.05 @ 11:45 am
China was able to “solve” this problem because of the type of society they have.
When the extremists started disrupting the border areas of China, Chinese officials rounded up all known “middle easterners” and sent them out of the country. Some were killed outright.
For the U.S. to do what is really required to lower the possibilities of another attack, the U.S. government, state governments, and local governments, will have to, essentially, declare martial law on immigrants, and go from there.
This means:
1. Closing geographical borders for awhile.
2. Closing airline borders for awhile. (Remember, international airports are “virtual” borders).
3. Rounding up immigrants from targeted countries.
a. Questioning them.
b. Maybe interning them.
c. More extensive checks of them.
d. Taking biometric measures of them for identification purposes.
e. Maybe kicking them out to have them reapply to come back to the country.
Comment by DarkStar — 07.08.05 @ 11:47 am
This is a religious war.
The West should want to win this war, but I am truly concerned that we are so trussed up in Geneva Conventions and political correctness that we will not have the will to face down our determined enemy.
I do not think there is much chance that radical Islam can actually win in the West in the sense that Canada becomes Iran.
But I do think that radical Islam can tear up everyday safety in the West in the way it has in Iraq and Israel.
I want Congress to declare war on radical Islam. There are many other governments which are knee-deep in radical Islam problems that should do the same. These include Norway, Sweden, Great Britain, the Neatherlands, France, Germany, Belguim, Germany, Spain, Thailand, Canada, and many more.
As it stands, we are all giving Islam a pass. But if we were to ferret out radical Islam as the target in a unified way, it would force Islamists in general to make choices of where they side.
On a war footing, we would be able to wade through the Islamic community and get a handle on who they are and where they stand. We could deal decisively with the radicals.
This may well be too close to the Japanese internment for many, but the alternative is continued foolishness, if not folly.
What we are doing now is trying to surround every potential target and protect it 24/7. For a country that can’t effectively patrol its border with Mexico, it is obvious that we can not begin to police every propane truck.
By dealing directly with the potential perps, we can disrupt, disorganize and collect information that will lead to more positive results in the war on Radical Islam,
So far as the Constitution is concerned, war time is martial law time. It cuts to the chase and it has proved to be effective. Lincoln and Roosevelt were strong war time presidents who handled their war powers in remarkable and responsible ways.
Until we openly admit that this is war and that it is a religious war, we will continue to treat it as merely a political problem which is mostly concerned about appropriating funds.
Comment by Heliotrope — 07.08.05 @ 11:49 am
Oh, and the people of the U.S. will have to have a real conversation on what liberty and freedom means, from the constitutional perspective.
This may mean that the Constitution may be modified to meet the “new paradigm.” In other words, concede freedom for security, which is what bin Laden wants.
Comment by DarkStar — 07.08.05 @ 11:50 am
I disagree with Waidmann when he says there is no teaching (in the Qu’ran (or Koran)) to point to that would restrain them, no behavior on the part of their Prophet they could use as an example of getting along, etc. There are many. We are all “People of the Book”, whether we call that book the Torah, or the Holy Bible, or the Qu’ran (or ahl al Kitâb) Surat Al ‘Imran, 64 (Qur’an 3:64) says “O People of the Book! Let us rally to a common formula to be binding on both us and you: That we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God.”
Surat al-Baqara, 136 (Qur’an 2:136) says Say ye: “We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them.
According to their faith God has pointed out in the Qur’an (Surat al-Ma’ida, 82 (Qur’an 5:82) ) “You will find the people most affectionate to those who believe are those who say, ‘We are Christians.’ That is because some of them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant.”
In fact, it is my understanding that the true meaning of jihad, or struggle, is the struggle within one’s self to do right.
There are certainly things within the Qu’ran that tell of wars and conquests that have happened in the past, just as there are things in the Old Testment of our Bible that report such things, but Jesus tried to teach us a different way.
Jesus is even recognized in the Qu’ran as a Prophet. Surat aal-E-Imran, 45 (Qur’an 3:45) says Behold! the angels said: “O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah; and Surat aal-E-Imran, 3 (Qur’an 3:3) says It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).
Those causing the violence ignore all of the above quotes, and many more, from their Holy Book, and we need to encourage reasonable Muslims to confront them what the Qu’ran really says.
Comment by Don Singleton — 07.08.05 @ 11:54 am
MJ - I agree, the nation has the right to protect itself, but those rights are government by a democratic system that protects civil liberties. I have a hard time understanding how individuals on one hand say, “America is Great” then on the other hand want to distort and destroy the things which make it great, IE the civil liberties founded in the constitution that govern the freedom of this nation.
I have heard comments of round them all up, send them all out, stop this religion, stop that speech, whatever.
Remember now, I am not making an argument on our external war against terrorism, as to me that is distinct from what many of you are professing we do to CITIZENS on our own soil that is blatently anti-constitutional.
There have been three recent ‘terrorist’ attacks on American Soil. WT 1, 9/11, OK City. OK City was carried out by white militants with crew cuts, and looked like your average small town white guy. They professed Christianity. Does the rational apply to the profiling and restriction of meetings and beliefs by these people as well? I mean, after all, they are responsible for 1/3 of the recent American soil based attacks.
Comment by Dell Gines — 07.08.05 @ 11:55 am
Darkstar,
You are taking the concept of conceding freedom for security way out of context. We are talking about a vicious deadly infection of our society. The only people who will lose freedoms will be…the enemy. If one is muslim, I think you have already lost some of that freedom due to your own dealings.
It will take centuries for islam to repair and image it never really had in the first place.
Islam is a cult and taking away its practitioners freedoms gives many of ours back.
These fools are clearly intefering with my “pursuit of happiness” and for that reason alone they are worthy of elimination.
And this is not emotion talking. We have been enduring this buffoonery since the Coward-In-Chief Bill Clinton turned away from fighting back after multiple attacks. This is real. Our thoughts a real. Theproblem has been identified. It is not us, but them. The problem is islam.
People can give it other cute little “Politically-protective” names, but the fact remains that the killing begins when the first little child opens up their satanic little book (ironically it is read backwards).
Comment by Raymond — 07.08.05 @ 11:57 am
mj - Yes, I too know “moderate” Moslems. I work with one such man. However, as a Moslem, he is a distinct minority in this country, and he is treated well. Therefore, based on the Koran, he is supposed to respect authority, work hard, etc. Place him in a situation in which Moslems are the majority, however, and my guess is he’ll sing a totally different song.
Want to make him squirm? Ask him whether he agrees that it is the duty of all true Moslems to work for converting the whole world to Islam. If he’s a true believer, I’m guessing he’ll hem and haw and then say yes. But…he’ll hasten to say, not by violent means. Then ask him to condemn the suicide-bombers and see what he says. Again, I’m guessing, but I’d guess that he won’t do that, because he believes that suicide bombing against infidels is a valid expression of Islam, even if it’s one that he wouldn’t do personally.
My opinion is that there is no such thing as “moderate Islam”. There is only “secular Islam” and “religious Islam”. Secular Islam is, or course, a contradiction in terms. How can you have a secular religion? Religious Islam legitimately spans many different expressions, but none of them are truly compatible with western democracy. Which “moderate” Islamic country would you like to live in?
Waidmann
Comment by Waidmann — 07.08.05 @ 12:01 pm
I think the oft quoted phrase “war on terror” is one of the biggest problems to begin with. We are not at war with terror, but Islamofascism. And being a student of world religions (including Islam), I personally believe that we are not exactly at war with a radical sect of Islam, but rather a large and growing percentage of Muslims who are Fundamentalists in there reading and interpretation of the Quran.
The notion that Islam is a religion of peace is quite frankly, wrong…more of a statement to appease our PC culture and to keep the CAIR off our backs. A study of Muslim history, the Quran, and the life of Muhammad will tell you that Islam is anything but a peaceful religion. But the PC culture in which we live forbids such discussion. I am aware of the passages in the Quran which speak of peace with your neighbor, etc. What most people don’t understand is that the Quran was written over the course of many years and can be broken down into two main sections, much like the Bible’s Old and New Testaments. And like the Bible’s Old and New Testaments, the Quran’s “New Testament” abrogates the “Old Testament”. In other words, everything in the first part must be interpreted through the lens of the second part. This is crucial to understanding the mindset of the Fundamentalist Islamofacist. It is for this very reason that the Fundamentalist Muslims have no problem if one of their attacks kills other Muslims…the Fundamentalists believe that if other Muslims are not taking part in the Jihad, then they are compromisers or apostates, worthy death. The passages in the Quran which speak of living at peace with your neighbor, etc… all occur in the “Old Testament” of the Quran (which were written not-so-coincidentally when Muhammad had not yet ascended to power). The passages which speak of converting people to Islam by the sword, etc…all occur in the “New Testament” (when Muhammad had ascended to power). Islam has a long history of bloodshed, all of which can be justified by the Quran. And please spare me the Crusades comparisons and how they did things in Christ’s name. Crusaders, while guilty of many evils, were quite frankly responding to hundreds of years of Muslim tyranny. Crusaders did many things in the name of Christ which Christ himself would never did, and to this day that has been a black eye on the face of Christianity. But the Fundamentalist Muslims today do things which Muhammad himself modeled and encouraged in the Quran.
I am not sure if the war with Fundamentalist Islam can ever be won…with victory equalling the end of terrorism. I think the best we can hope for is containment. There will always be those who interpret the Quran quite literally…and it is the literal interpretation of the Quran which leads to the ideaology of the “radical” Muslim today. And of course it is this ideology which leads inspires someone to strap a bomb to their chest and walk into a shopping mall and blow themself and as many infidels as possible up. Remember, to them, they are not innocent civilians, they are unbelieving infidels receiving their judgement from Allah.
I believe that the only way to defeat truly this particular enemy is simply not feasable in today’s world. It wasn’t too long ago we faced a similar enemy in Japan. The Kamakazi mindset seemed unbeatable. How could we defeat an enemy which had zero regard for their own personal safety? Whose greatest honor was to die in battle? All it took was a couple of H-bombs and a few hundred thousand “innocent civilian” casualties to reverse that mindset. I am not suggesting we do that today…the world simply would not allow it. But I do believe that the only way to make the Islamofacist Muslim think twice before they decide to attack our “soft targets” (i.e. women and children) would be to take out even more of their women and children. Even that might not change their minds, but threating to just kill the Islamofacist themselves does nothing. For them, death while conducting jihad is a straight shot to heaven.
Comment by kpman — 07.08.05 @ 12:02 pm
This is my first posting - I have read some interesting thoughts on this site. In reading these thoughts I (think) feel that we as a Western Society need to understand our enemy better. We have at our access their manual, the Koran, why can’t our Intell Services assign a task force to study, dissect and use the knowledge therein to counteract these terrorist’s idology?
Additionally, we need to be prepared to sacrifice as well. Does that mean suspending or giving up certain rights (real or perceived)? If so, then is that too much to ask?
Be prepared to take the War on Terrorism to the enemy by using their rules, giving them a taste of their own idology. I would also apply this concept to people like the French and Germans to possibly get them off their collective asses and join the rest of the free world in combating this abberation. This I hold would be especially true for our own liberal media and party. There are thing that should NOT be reported, because they would adversly impact on operational security.
As a retired Army Sergeant First Class, I spent twenty two years in the Army. Twenty of it was in the Infantry. I have been told I am too old to go back in and fight with my fellow soldiers. There are times I get so mad at what these men and women have to endure because of the Liberal media and Democratic Party that I get chest pains.
I too have said that “TOTAL WAR” against the Muslim people would be a good thing. To litterally erase them from the face of the earth would be nice, but is it practical? No, because there are Muslims that feel as I do, we need to find a way to fire them up and get them going to combat these yahoos that pretext the Koran to fit their purposes.
In short, this is a milignant cancer that is spreading fast and we are moving slower than it is growing. Collectively this cancer effects all “non-believers” equally and the sooner these “non-believers” realize that the faster we can react and combat this sickness. We need to be aggressive, deliberate and above all, so no mercy, because they will not show us any.
Comment by SFCHUD — 07.08.05 @ 12:04 pm
Darkstar: things have changed in China. I talked with a couple of people who live in a Muslim area there. They said that the gov’t allows the Muslims to live there, even permitting them to practice their religion (which is not usually tolerated in China) because of China’s relationship with some Muslim nations.
Comment by mj — 07.08.05 @ 12:05 pm
First, I think that after identifying known terrorists, they’re COMPLETELY REMOVED from our criminal justice system. They are noncombatants and should be subjected to a military tribunal, EVEN if caught in our country. It may be a criminal act they’re committing, but it’s also an act of war and should be treated accordingly. We must stop pussyfooting around with these morons, playing the “we won’t dignify you by calling you a soldier” card. They ARE soldiers, just out of uniform. The Rules of War dictate that they can be shot on the spot! DO IT!
Second, if they’re American citizens, treason should be added to their list of crimes, and all punishments decreed should be carried out swiftly.
Next, let’s take a look at ourselves, and stamp out this “great salad bowl” concept. Let’s get back to being UNITED, and the “great melting pot”. I’m willing to accept any race or nationality as a fellow citizen as long as they come here to be AMERICANS, NOT Muslims, or Mexicans, or Hispanics, or Blacks, or whatever. MELT INTO THE GREATEST SOCIETY ON EARTH! Quit having your own little separate communities! We’ll welcome you! But if you stay separate, how is that different from internment, except that it’s not at the government’s behest?
Finally, invoke the Bush Doctrine as soon as humanly possible against ANY sponsors of terrorism. The way I understand it at the moment, that consists primarily of Syria and Iran. Terrorist attack in London? Target Syria or Iran. Make them HURT! We have to be politically strong enough to do this if we expect to end the terrorist acts.
Comment by Terry Dillard — 07.08.05 @ 12:05 pm
Pamela and Raymond: Thanks.
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 07.08.05 @ 12:10 pm
Dell: La Shawn’s topic was “Islamofascists”, so my initial comment was based on that. By “terrorists” I meant the non-American ones. There are plenty of American nutcases who want to destroy this country as well. Unfortunately, we can’t kick them out, but we can shut them down. There is nothing wrong with demanding that we have a good nation.
Comment by mj — 07.08.05 @ 12:18 pm
Islamofascism: The Next Step
Since I see the hotlinks did not make it through LaShawn’s commenting software, I am reposting my comment here
Trackback by Don Singleton — 07.08.05 @ 12:27 pm
Waidmann: I see what you’re saying but think about Turkey: it’s moderate, a supporter of Israel. If it could exist like that, it would be fine. But it’s being compromised by the radical Kurds in the east and the extreme Muslims. For instance, the more Muslims pour into Istanbul, the more they demand that the city conform to their view of Islam. The average moderate Turk doesn’t want that. So I still think there are shades of gray in that religion.
Comment by mj — 07.08.05 @ 12:32 pm
Hi La Shawn and others,
This is my first ever comment here. My background is I’ve been working in Muslim countries in Central Asia for 9 years now, so I have some experience.
I’m troubled by most of your comments. The general consensus seems to be to crack down harder on every Muslim and fight back stronger and harder. In my opinion this is how you end up with an Israel/Palestine type of situation. As often is quoted, “If we all followed an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth philosophy we will all be blind and toothless.” We must show them a better way.
I agree that in Islam, there is plenty of teaching that if followed absolutely leads to violence and will not lead to a society that holds similar standards of human rights for all. On the other hand most of my muslim friends are kind and caring and disdain the philosophy of the extremists. I used to live in Andijon, Uzbekistan and I know the people did not join in with the extremists out there because they don’t want that for their country.
So what do we do???? I do believe we need to be tough, but I believe it needs to be “selective” and with “wisdom”. My first steps to trying to eliminate extremists is by stirring up the countries of the world to pressure Pakistan into shutting down their madrassas. Pakistan and in particular the tribal frontier provinces (North and South Waziristan) is a factory for producing extremists and is not under the control of the Pakistani government. I would hazard a guess that over half of the worlds islamic terrorists have been trained in Pakistan.
As a government we need to sit down with the different Muslim countries and “with them” formulate a plan for the elimation of terrorism and terrorists. They don’t want them either, but they feel caught in the middle as well. We need to include them in the brain storming so that we aren’t “dictating” to them what they need to do. It gives the extremists more ammunition.
I believe we need to help moderate muslims find their voice and get it out there broadly and effectively. The extremists are a tiny percentage of muslims, but there is a larger percentage that given the right world climate could be drawn into extremism.
If you think about the “masses” they have very little access to other opinions than those of the extremists in the mosques or the village elders who are uneducated and believe all of the crazy lies made up about the US and “Zionism”. Exposure to the world will slowly eliminate some of these lies (I would hope).
I believe the best way to deal with the muslims in the US is to bring them in the fold not isolate and try to eradicate them. Then all they’ve heard about a war against Islam will seem to be true. Islamic civilizations were the most influential in the middle ages and they often existed peacably with Christians and others. It is possible.
I think we need to listen to Muslims (not be afraid or just acquiesce to what they say) and bring them on board into fighting the terrorist battles. Once the Islamic communities in the US are actually a part of the community they won’t allow extremists to get away with the rhetoric and behaviors that have gone unchecked in the past.
I guess I’m saying use force carefully and wisely and fight the rest of the battle with kindness and truth. If we live out our values before them, and for me that is values of a Christian faith, I believe many will see and honor our societies. If we fight them tooth and nail, they will continue to fight and we will all lose.
We need more Ghandi’s not Ghengis Khans.
Comment by Tex — 07.08.05 @ 12:38 pm
1) Profiling? Sure why not. Only a fool would see a problem with profiling.
Refer to Judges 12, which is a tale of an external terror and the drastic steps taken by one tribe of Israel to save the rest. In turn, these “conservatives” were assailed by “moonbats” — these Ephraimites were a proud and turbulent people, and especially were very jealous of the tribe of Manasseh, of which both Gideon and Jephthah were and they were jealous of both, lest any honour and glory should accrue thereunto, and they should get any superiority in any respect over them — who threatened to frag the heroic defenders. This escalated to the point where the treasonous moonbats, crossing Jordan to do battle with the patriots, in turn were routed and fled for their lives. Those surviving the battled tried to escape back over the Jordan to their homes but were profiled.
“Jdg 12:6 Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand. ”
2/3) Muslim internment vs. round up/deportation vs. nada vis a vis Patriot Act.
Contrast the American Muslim representives focusing on vitimology vs. Bristish Muslim organizations calling on citizens to defend England from terroristic savages. To call the Bobbies with tips.
Note the recent agreement amongst 5 Euro countries to charter planes solely for making the rounds and deporting illegals.
Imagine that! Euro socialists/liberals doing something proactive while we dither. Would seem that our reps rushed to make laws, but lack follow-thru. IOW the PA is lip service.
3) Mosques in America: Does the U.S. have intelligence on which mosques radical Muslims frequent?
Again, PA allows for surveillence. Question is whether we have the fortitude to follow thru. It appears that intel is being gather in light of Lodi, Lynne Stewart etc. Action is predicated on “racial/ethnic” sensistivity.
4) War in Iraq: How effective (or ineffective) is it?
Note again the example of Judges 12. Although the Ammonites were terrorizing & encroaching, the Gileadites took the battle to them on Ammon turf — flypaper theory.
5) War in Iraq: Ground war vs. air power?
Depends on objective. Do we just want to kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em, then MOAB air power is the way to go. But in rescuing a nation, air power is no substitution for boots on the ground. This is why Bosnia/Kosovo is the miserable failure a decade later with no exit plan in sight. However, without surgical air power, we would suffer greater casualities than we are now.
I think we have a good mix and that’s what we’re paying these Generals for. To observe, orient, decide then act.
6) Saudi Arabia connection?
While I might prefer to see more overt pressure. Bush, nonetheless, seems to be achieving results that I can live with.
a) Shake up the State Department, where our Middle East bureaucrats have gone native, by putting Condi in place to clean house. Need Bolton to do the same with our UN delagation
b) Saudis have killed or imprisoned 20+ top terrorists from within. The execution of Egypt’s diplomat will drive the point even further with the Saudis.
c) Slowly but surely the Saudis are beginning to test the democratic waters. They have to stay in front of this wave as long as Iraq makes progress and other ME countries follow suit. To wit the democratic progress being made in Kuwait, Egypt and Lebanon.
d) One reason for the fall in oil prices is that the Saudis are beginning to realize that they are not the sole source of oil and as other democratic nations increase their output, OPEC is all but dead. Of course we will need Saudi oil, but what good is all that oil if we starve/bankrupt them in the meantime.
Additional sources:
http://seekerblog.com/archives/20050705/wolfowitz-the-exit-interviews/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/06/AR2005070602155.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010966.php
http://decision08.blogspot.com/2005/07/kossacks-now-is-time-for-tolerance-and.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/david-corn/a-birthday-card-for-ameri_3532.html
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004893.php
Comment by Andy — 07.08.05 @ 12:42 pm
Oh, I forgot this gem:
“The Sunday Telegraph’s Con Coughlin, Saddam’s biographer, got hold of a top secret memo made available by Iraq’s interim government which explicitly linked Saddam’s regime to Mohammed Atta, the terrorist mastermind behind 9/11, and the Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal. Written to Saddam by the former head of Iraq’s intelligence service, it contained the following incendiary passage:
‘Mohammed Atta, an Egyptian national, came with Abu Ammer (an Arabic nom-de-guerre - his real identity is unknown) and we hosted him in Abu Nidal’s house at al-Dora under our direct supervision. We arranged a work programme for him for three days with a team dedicated to working with him . . . He displayed extraordinary effort and showed a firm commitment to lead the team which will be responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy’.
Note the date: July 1 2001. Note the phrases ‘the targets that we have agreed to destroy’ and ‘under our direct supervision’. Note also the following:
‘The second item contains a report of how Iraqi intelligence, helped by “a small team from the al-Qaeda organisation”, arranged for an (unspecified) shipment from Niger to reach Baghdad by way of Libya and Syria’. (See post Dec 15 2003)”
Read the rest at Melanie Phillips’s Diary
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001294.html
Comment by Andy — 07.08.05 @ 12:45 pm
from 10 Myths about Islam
Dhimmitude
Many apologists will defend Islam against the charge of intolerance by pointing to the “tolerance” exhibited by the Muslims during the Middle Ages. When Islamic civilisation was at its height, so the myth is spun, Islam was wonderfully tolerant and open-minded towards other religions. While it is true that during this period Islam more often than not refrained from massacring dissenters and rivals (which is often more than can be said for the European Catholicism of the day), to say that Muslims were either tolerant or open-minded is an untidy falsehood. During this era, Jews and Christians living in Muslim lands were reduced to the position of dhimmis. Dhimmitude entailed allowing non-Muslims to remain non-Muslim, so long as certain stringent rules were adhered to, rules which were designed to humiliate the dhimmis and to “demonstrate” the superiority of Islam over the religions of the conquered peoples. Dhimmis were not allowed to engage in any outward show of their religion, such as ringing church bells, praying or reading their Scriptures in public, or disputing about religious matters with a Muslim. They were also not allowed to build any religious buildings such as churches or synagogues, nor were they allowed to repair those already existing which wore down with age. They were most often reduced to a position of economic privation and near-slavery. Dhimmis had to wear distinctive clothing that marked them as clearly non-Muslim. Further, the distinctive clothing was often meant to humiliate the wearers. At various times, Jews and Christians would be compelled to wear badges in the shapes of apes and pigs, drawn from the Quranic description of unbelievers as these animals (Surat 2:65, 5:60, 7:166).
Coupled with this position of dhimmitude was the requirement for non-Muslims to pay the jizyah, the religion tax. This was a tax levied specifically upon non-Muslims, usually Christians and Jews, which was the only life-preserving alternative to outright conversion to Islam. The jizyah was designed to “encourage” subject populations to convert to Islam, since conversion meant being relieved of a heavy financial burden. Further, the jizyah, as well as other financial burdens upon dhimmi populations (such as the kharaj, or land tax) were traditionally supported by Muslim theologians through appeal to various passages of the Qur’an, such as Surah 9:29, one of the most obvious passages in the Qur’an commanding Muslims to make war against non-Muslims and to force them into submission (and one which apologists for Islam today routinely say is “being taken out of context” by those who point to it as evidence of Muslim intolerance)5. Between the burdens of dhimmitude and jizyah, it is little wonder that Islam, which has remarkably little success making converts without coercion, came to hold the almost complete monopoly on Middle Eastern religion which we see it having today. To say that these actions, the religion tax and enforced second-class citizenry, are tolerant - would be a gross misuse of that term for propagandistic purposes. Those who make the claim to Muslim tolerance would seem to either be ignorant of these, or else sweeping them under the rug.
http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch8.html
on Islam and women
How Islam deals with female criminals
“If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four reliable witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some other way.” (Surah 4:15)
and contrast to how Islam deals with male criminals
“If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.” (Surah 4:16)
“The statement that ‘men are the guardians of women’ in verse 38 of Sura 4 postulates inequality of men and women in civil rights. The words are followed by two brief explanations of men’s superiority over women 3…..In Islamic law, male heirs get more than female heirs, and men’s evidence is more reliable than women’s; to be exact, a man’s inheritance share is twice a woman’s share, and his evidence carries twice the weight of hers in court…The right to divorce belongs to the husband but not to wives. ”
In Islam men have 100% power over women
Men are free to beat their wives (as per Surah 4:34), provided they don’t break any of her bones! Far from being the vile activity it is viewed as in the West, wife-beating is a perfectly acceptable practice, according to the teachings of Islam’s legal writings,
“On the Day of Judgement, a husband shall not be questioned for beating his wife.”
——————————————-
We must know our enemy, we must educate ourselves. I read the Koran 2 times, I am now reading the Haddith (words of Muhammed, about Muhammeds life). I have to re read the Koran, it is so full of rules it reads more like a IRS manual. Very difficult reading.
Comment by Pamela — 07.08.05 @ 12:48 pm
mj - I almost mentioned Turkey as the one possible place I could live. During my last tour in Germany (1999-2002) we happened to take a 2-week vacation to Turkey. We flew into Izmir, and stayed up in the northwest part of the country the whole time (we visited the sites of the Seven Churches addressed in the Bible book of the Revelation).
Even then it was apparent that the further south and east you went, the more “religious” the people became. Many of the secular rights the Turks have are slowly being chipped away.
You’re right. The Turks we got to know up north were proud of their “Secular, Islamic” state, and wanted to preserve it. But they are worried. Our guide was positively glum at times when he looked into the future.
The problem is that when everything is said and done, the one who is most willing to fight, kill and die for his cause is the one who is ultimately going to dictate policy. Secular Moslems are being slaughtered by religious Moslems everywhere they clash. Soon, there may not be any secular Moslems left. Just like soon there may not be any Christians left in Iraq. Keep watching Turkey. The jury is still out.
The big unknown for me is Iran. You can be sure I’ll be watching how that develops. My guess is that it will develop into a more Islamic Republic, not a democracy. (Actually, without outside intervention it probably won’t develop into anything other than a nuclear-armed version of what it is now.)
Comment by Waidmann — 07.08.05 @ 12:49 pm
At home we obviously need better control of our borders. While my 85 year old grandmother is being frisked at the airport terrorist can take a 4 or 5 hour walk into New Mexico. We will see what the Senate comes up in their new bill but odds are it won’t be enough. Therefore I will be joining the Minuteman Project that will be running patrols in NM this October to highlight the problem.
The terrorist are almost all young Muslim men so to focus are efforts on young Muslim men is common sense. One of the airport employees thought that one of the 9/11 highjackers looked exactly how he pictured a terrorist might look but then chastised himself for having such non-PC thoughts. Thus we handicap ourselves.
The war in Iraq has short term and long term effects on terror. The terrorist recognize the importance of Iraq better than a lot of Americans. If Iraq is allowed to succeed then Islamists, who are dead set against Democracy, will have their theocracies contrasted and compared to Iraq. That comparison will not be favorable to them. So in the short term terrorist are putting most of their effort and manpower to the destruction and death of Iraq and Iraqis. Once we leave expect terrorist acts to intensify globally. Long term effects if we get a strong successful Iraq will be the domino effect that we are already seeing signs of.
Comment by Rancher — 07.08.05 @ 12:51 pm
Just a follow-up on the comments about Turkey.
Turkey is a great example of a Muslim state that is not ruled by Muslim law. It has plenty of problems, but to understand how it differs from other Muslim countries, you have to look at what their dictator Ataturk did to kickstart them into the modern world.
I have travelled extensively throughout Turkey and for the most part the larger part of the population is not very tied up in religion. I believe that Ataturk sidetracked the temporal power of the Mullahs.
If you look carefully at Mubarak in Egypt, you will find he has been pretty successful steering a modernizing state through and around extreme sects.
Comment by Heliotrope — 07.08.05 @ 12:53 pm
Waidmann,
I spent 2/3rds of 2001 in Turkey. I travelled and stayed everywhere. I could live there if I *had* to. But, i’d rather not.
Turkey is becomming more islamic, PM Erdogan is and islamist acting the part of a moderate to try to get into the EU. I hope the Turkish military will rise up and have a coup d’etat as they have done a few times in the past when the goverment becoems too islamic. The Turk military is feircly loyal to Ataturk and his republic.
Comment by Pamela — 07.08.05 @ 12:59 pm
Pam - We were there in Feb 2002. I must have eaten 100K olives. Daggum, I love olives.
Comment by Waidmann — 07.08.05 @ 1:04 pm
The way to defeat Islamofascist is to completely annihilate them. This is easier than one would think, and possible with less lives lost than one would believe– if we have the stomach for it.
The Islamofascist culture is most assuredly male-dominated. As all males, they prefer to project a machismo to observers. Since their culture is one that evolution has by-passed, their only outlet is force. Not just any force, but terrorism. Why terrorism?
The males in the Islamofascist culture are observably cowards by nature. They have not the education nor wits to compete in the real world with real men so they have adapted. They subjugate their women and keep their children ignorant so that these observers cannot reconcile just how impotent the Islamofascist male is. However, with the advent of global communication their façade has been breached. To counter this breach, the only alternative to the witless male is violence.
Consistent with their nature, their violence is directed toward the only persons their cowardice will allow—women, children, and unknowing men. Their cowardice is so complete that they prefer to commit suicide rather than face their dishonor afterwards. This is why the Bin Ladens and Zarqawis hide, not because of any exalted status, but abject fear of embarrassment. Now we are seeing a cowardice not even previously imagined by men. These males are so cowardly, that they won’t even commit a glorious suicide to kill innocents, now they have to convince women and children to die for them!
We must use their cowardice to our advantage in order to defeat them. We should not hide their shame in Club Gitmos protected by the same laws to which they take offense. Their shame should be on display publicly by every media outlet. Their weaknesses, begging, and wailing for mercy, and their inevitable fate broadcast to every potential inductee to their Islamofascist culture. Then a quick, but sure execution for all to see, followed by military oblivion to Syria with promises of the same to Iran, as well as the assassination of their financial backers in Saudi Arabia.
We must be willing to follow through, however. You see… Islamofascism isn’t fighting only against the West, although that is their excuse, they are fighting for Darwinian survival against the fittest. We can speed up their inevitable evolutionary fate.
Comment by Joe C. — 07.08.05 @ 1:07 pm
Tex….
I also have a fair amount of experience on the ground in Asia. I agree with you about Pakistan, and I would add tha Indonesia and Malaysia are also hotbeds for breeding militants.
However, the first job is to secure the safety of the Western nations. These nations are not Muslim, but are suffering from Muslims who do not integrate.
France works with a statistic that 2/3rds or more of its inmates in prison are Muslim. Cities all over Europe have Muslim neighborhoods that have been basically abandoned to policing.
To the extent that these places are safe havens for fifth columnists, the Western countries have no choice but to crack down and crack down hard.
Kipling may have been more than right when he posited that “east is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet.”
Comment by Heliotrope — 07.08.05 @ 1:07 pm
MJ, DS & friends, good stuff going on.
Dell, methinks thou protesteth too much.
Nothing in the constituition prevented the US from forcing the Mormons to give up polygamy. Nothing stopped Reno from burning down the Branch Davidians.
Therefore, it would make sense that nothing would prevent us from codifying what parts of Islam are acceptable and what parts are illegal/treasonous and for immigrants deportable w/o due process. However congress writes this law, it will be tested at SCOTUS, therefore it is imperative that Bush gets the two best constitutionalists to replace O’Connor & Rheinquist.
Also, nothing prevented Lincoln from suspending Habeus Corpus.
DS, I think this is the part you meant, in order to rout out the Islamic disease while preserving relative liberty. Key will be a defined exit strategy (the only time an exit strategy makes sense) to restore the Writ, a sunset clause based on certain outcomes, if you will.
Part and parcel with that, congress needs to formally declare war on terror and radical Islam. That way it is no longer Bush’s war, rather America’s war. By doing so, we can unleash the full power of our agencies to conduct all out war in accordance with proscribed processes and procedures.
Comment by Andy — 07.08.05 @ 1:17 pm
· Terrorist cells in America: The necessity of racial/religious profiling of Arabs/Muslims
We have to deal with the fact that we have limited resources. How much money and human capital is required to profile every Muslim, extremist sympathizer and Mosque in the United States? The reason we have an intelligence community is so we can focus our resources.
· Muslim internment vs. rounding up suspicious Muslims only vs. status quo of doing nothing
We say that we don’t want the terrorist to change our way of life. They hate freedom and liberty we say. Well, if America takes this route then we are not longer a nation of freedom and liberty.
War in Iraq: How effective (or ineffective) is it?
I guess this would depend on what we are trying to accomplish. Regime change: it was very effective. Establishing a democracy in Iraq, that’s something we’ll have to wait to find the answer. Stopping terrorism, not effective at all. At some point we have to realize that the battleground for the so-called War on Terror is the entire world. We also have to realize that this battle that will require political, social and economic resources more so than military resources. I think Condi Rice said one true thing recently; this is a generational fight. By the time the dust settle with this, we’ll all be footnotes in history
Comment by James Manning — 07.08.05 @ 1:19 pm
In light of what was said about Turkey and Egypt and clamping down: think about Singapore. For the riots to be quelled back in the 60’s, they had to declare a kind of martial law. Now look at that country: it is civilized and orderly, highly educated, little gov’t corruption (because they pay them very well), and productive. Compare it to a typical American city. That’s why I don’t have a problem with our gov’t demanding standards in behavior. People who want our destruction don’t have a right to practice their “free” speech.
Comment by mj — 07.08.05 @ 1:25 pm
About Indonesia: of course it’s a hotbed for militants. They attacked the Chinese minority back in the late 90’s just because they’re successful.
Comment by mj — 07.08.05 @ 1:27 pm
We’ve talked about illegal immigration. What about legal immigration? Just because someone is “legal”, does that mean they are not going to do evil?
Inside jobs. A large majority of Government jobs go to non-native Americans. I went to my local DMV yesterday. Everyone who works there speaks with an accent. Security Guards. Didn’t La Shawn post something about how, increasingly, Security Guards are immigrants? Scary.
Hotel maids. Nobody would ever suspect a lowly maid of evil doing. Yet, it’s just these sorts of positions that make a great base of operations from which to plot evil.
And, they’re getting hired. Inside jobs. I suspect the enemy is within our very ranks. How clever. Infiltrate the organization, government or private, and then work with others, who are also handed these jobs.
Gangs of non-native Americans who infiltrate our Government ranks and work with other immigrants to do evil….and then quickly slip back across the border. Dual citizenship is allowed in many parts of the world, so it’s very easy for a legal immigrant to go back to their original country, once mission is accomplished.
Do you even need to speak fluent English to get a security clearance, these days?
We need to start looking at how we view ALL immigrants, both legal and illegal. Should non-native Americans be given ANY sort of Government clearance at the local, state, and certainly Federal Level?
Historically, immigrants have always been given Government jobs, Example: the Irish and Italians who were on the police force in Philly and Jersey. Irish welfare. The difference is those immigrants were Christian, for the most part.
Today, we are dealing with a totally different immigrant base. Non-Christians, with Anti-American sentiment…..who are handed Government clearance, and Irish Welfare-type jobs.
Recipe for disaster.
Comment by Glamchild — 07.08.05 @ 1:38 pm
Waidmann
I love dolams kofte and iskenderun kebab. and my fave dessert is kunefe. I had ad Sultans Resturant in Atnalya. I got used to Turkish breakfast, various olives tomaotes, cucumbers various cheeses bread and primrose jelly. you couldn’t walk 5 minutes without running into the little glasses of tea.
Bodrum was fun, Sinop cok guzel (very beautiful). Istanbul traffic worse then NYC, Antlaya is like a sauna in July & August. If you can go see Pamukkale…ok enough of digressing.
I hope Turkey never falls to the hands of the islamist, it is such a beautiful country with wonderful warm caring people.
Comment by Pamela — 07.08.05 @ 1:38 pm
The “Islamofascists†are not fighting a WAR they are fighting a BLOOD FEUD.
The war model doesn’t fit their actions but the Blood Feud fits it very well. We can’t fight it at that level because WHO the Blood Feud is with is very unclear. The people on their side are all self selected. If we attack and kill the wrong people we just add people to their side. That is why the “Kill them all, let God sort them out” does not help. We must eliminate or punish the countries that support the “Islamofascistsâ€. That is why the wars in Iraq and Afganistan were good starting points. But the next parts of Our ‘War on Terror’ and their ‘Blood Feud’. Will not fit the war model at all. We have to use the intelligence agencies to find the people involved in the Blood Feud and then eliminate them from our society. There are certain things these people will have in common. The first and formost will be ‘They will be moslems’. It makes no since to look at others. There may well be other terriorist groups but those will have agendas. Their actions will have reason behind them. The Blood Feud has no reason behind it, just emotion, just revenge.
You cannot use the legal system to fight a Blood Feud. We have to use Intel and 007’s. It is a nasty business but the only other course is to just accept the deaths and ignore the Blood Feud. The problem with that, is not the attacks in London and New York but the attacks with dirty bombs, sickness, or chemicals (NBC). There IS no chose. We have to fight the Blood Feud. Intel and 007’s.
The IRA are terriorists. The British fought them for decades. The end looks close. BUT the IRA has an AGENDA. They have REASON. There were things the British could do that would cause the IRA to stop itself. There are no such actions that would stop the “Islamofascistsâ€.
We must deny them countries that will give them bases. We must try and stop their money. We must find these people using intelligence and kill them. Blood Feud alows nothing else. Put them in prison, they will just recuit and wait until they are free. They cannot be reasoned with. They ARE NOT part of our society. Their mind set belongs to an earlier age BEFORE LAW. When REVENGE was the rule.
The WAR model must be replaced, it doesn’t fit and will not work for the next phase. The BLOOD FEUD model must be brought to and explained to the public. Not for use against all terriorists but just for use against the “Islamofascistsâ€.
BTW: “Islamofascists†is not a good description. Wahabists doesn’t realy fit because it is to broad. The people we are fighting are Militant Wahabists. But that suggests that we are fighting a religion, which isn’t the case. We are fighting a MIND SET where revenge and Blood Feud has taken the place of law and reason.
If you don’t know the meaning of 007’s. 007’s are those licenced to kill (James Bond). Our fighters in the Blood Feud. They would have to justify the killings but we are not talking legal here because legal CANNOT WORK. Remember our laws are not a suicide pact.
I HATE IT. YOU HATE IT. EVERYBODY HATES IT. But the chose is simple. We either do this or we accept the deaths and ignore the Blood Feud and HOPE that NBC weapons are not used. Remember prisons are just places for them to recuit and wait until they are free to attack again.
Problems, mistakes, unnessary deaths, and much else we have spent centuries overcomming and putting behind us, YES these will happen.
Show me something ELSE that will possibly work and I am all for it. But education? Feeling their pain? Legal means. Give me a break. If the 911 terriorist had been stopped as they were boarding the planes WHAT COULD THEY HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH???????. NOTHING!!! Legal cannot work. War we have used to eliminate their bases. NEXT???
Comment by Dan Hamilton — 07.08.05 @ 1:43 pm
Honestly, I’m not willing to give up a single right for security. I’m not willing to compromise on a single Constitutional Amendment for the sake of security. I’m not willing to entertain the thought of eliminating almost 2 billion people from the face of the earth for security sake. I’m not comfortable with the genocidal tendencies of some of the posters here and I’m certainly not willing to live in a country where some of its citizenry live in a police state.
I believe in God and the God I serve teaches none of this. The question was asked: For what does it profit a man if he gains the world and loses his soul. Luke 9:25
Comment by James Manning — 07.08.05 @ 1:50 pm
Well if you support skin color preferences, James, you’re doing exactly that: compromising constitutional principles. So why not for the safety and security of yourself, your family, me, mine, and our entire nation?
And stop being dramatic. Nobody’s going to kill 2 billion of anything. Actually, Islamofascists might try, so perhaps you should direct the drama toward them.
Comment by La Shawn — 07.08.05 @ 1:53 pm
Terrorist cells in America: The necessity of racial/religious profiling of Arabs/Muslims
Ask the cops. If the camera isn’t rolling, they will tell you, that profiling has its place. That is not to say that someone should be pulled out of line solely because they are Arab, Asian, white or black. But depending on the context, some folks need extra scrutiny. Working in the nuclear industry, we are a little sensitive to people that look out of place wandering near our facilities, so I can relate to this. If I don’t know you, I will stop you. And if you are acting suspicious, I will call in for backup before I approach.
Back to ethnicity and profiling. Given the backgrounds of known perpetrators of terrorism, people who share their profile should get some extra attention at airports and other travel hubs, or near other “artery” sites (power stations, water treatment plants, etc). Sorry if you’re an Arab male, but those are the facts. Want to make it easier on all of us? Carry your ID, and when asked, present it promptly, and calmly explain your situation. Cops are like dogs, in that if you act nervous, shift or overly defensive, they will respond by ramping up their curiosity. The same applies to running. Nothing will make a dog or cop more interested in chasing you than running away from them.
Muslim internment vs. rounding up suspicious Muslims only vs. status quo of doing nothing
I cannot get behind blanket internment based on something as broad as ethnic or religious affiliation. However, I think if the government can show proof that someone is sufficiently suspicious, there is a place for internment. I am thinking of the hook handed sheik in England, and the protesters in London who were chanting death to America, Death to England, Death to Bush, Death to Blair, Bomb bomb Pentagon etc. Of course, given how many of the jihadis are not native citizens, deportations are also in order. Even citizens from other nations should be in a position to have their citizenship revoked and put on a boat back to where-ever. The home grown jihadis are thornier, but that is where internment may have its place. At the very least, a grand jury or similar body should make the call about where someone like this goes.
The futility of the Patriot Act in light of the continuous flow of illegal aliens into the U.S.
I wouldn’t say it is futile. Hampered, even hobbled, by our pourus borders, but not futile. It is still far better than what we had prior to 9/11. In short, we need to tighten up the borders, and the INS and other law enforcement agencies need to get into gear. If an illegal is arrest by the local law, INS needs to take custody, and drop them at the nearest border or embassy. And print, photograph, retinal scan, whatever else they can do for ID and tracking. Repeat offenders… we need to get with their home nation, and put pressure on them to keep them. If they can’t… I dunno. Part of me says work camps. Put them on a chain gang for six months, then release them to their embassy (again, these are the repeat offenders). Tell them next time, it’s a year. After that, and they come back, maybe life.
We already have a process for political asylum, so I don’t see the dissenters going from Castro’s work camps to ours (before anyone tries that straw man in response). And yes, this would affect the poor the most. But if you have the choice between staying in your own country and being poor, coming to America in a legal fashion (which can take years and a lot of agita) or spending your days in a work camp with nothing to show but 3 squares, a bed and medical care… well, the demographic of border jumpers might change.
Needless to say, companies hiring illegals knowingly should start seeing real penalties as well. Same thing goes for private citizens. No more picking up Pablo on the corner and putting him to work on the hedges.
Mosques in America: Does the U.S. have intelligence on which mosques radical Muslims frequent?
They should. The books should be transparent, as well. Get the IRS involved in checking where the money is coming from and going to, from time to time. Part of being in America is having the IRS looking in your checkbook. And Churches, while exempt from taxes, only stay that way if they spend their monies in the proper fashion. Ask the Scientologists and Moonies about that…
War in Iraq: How effective (or ineffective) is it?
I think it is fairly effective. The coalition could maybe do with a little less pussy footing around at times, IMO, but I am not on the ground to know the situation. I’d like to see Rice, Bush et al get a little tougher with Syria. Set up border crossings, and maybe make it clear any traffic not passing through the established checkpoints should consider themselves in a free fire zone. Despite what John Kerry and his crowd think, FFZs are not war crimes
War in Iraq: Ground war vs. air power
Right now, ground and close air. I really don’t see how carpet bombs and MOABs would help. Esp given that the enemy has no air power.
Now, if we make the non-check pointed Syrian border a free fire zone… the Army airmen may have some action on their hands. A Warthog pilot could be very busy indeed.
Saudi Arabia connection
This is prickly. We need to get off Saudi oil, or at least away from it. That means ANWAR, that means pushing Mexico to produce from their nearly untapped resources and more research on alternate fuels. As long as we depend on Saudi oil, we have to treat them with kid gloves.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 07.08.05 @ 1:54 pm
I believe Americans have an opportunities to oppose terrorism that they will not have again:
1 The issue of border security is so obvious that no more discussion is needed - it is “black and white”. It’s just a matter of doing the obvious. The European Union obviously doesn’t takt this issue seriously, and you know the result.
2 The entire issue of “multiculturalism” can be re-evaluated, and addressed, with common sense measures. “Culture” doesn’t include threats to kill Americans and Jews. We have it in our power to be “intolerant” to these people.
3 The appointment of conservative judges to the Surpeme Court and elsewhere is more important than ever. Quite a number of “bleeding heart” judges who believe we should be “more like the Europeans” - and believe terrorism is a “law enforcement” are undermining our war on terror. We cannot allow such an attitude to remain in the Supreme Court. President Bush has the opportunity to fix this problem