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.
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 103 comments }
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?
“# 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
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.
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.
Check your e-mail. – Admin
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.
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.
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.
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.
I mean from harm (not arm).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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…
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
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pamela and Raymond: Thanks.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
Pam – We were there in Feb 2002. I must have eaten 100K olives. Daggum, I love olives.
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.
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.”
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.
· 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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???
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
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.
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.
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.
For conservatives who don’t like Alberto Gonzales’s attuitude toward abortion, he has been tough on terrorists. This is what we need more of.
Unfortunately, Gonzales may come off the short list because, as a major player in anti-terrorism decisions headed for the supreme court, he would have to recuse himself for decisions. This cannot occur if we are to remain safe from these thugs.
Americans also have in in their grasp – to elect conservatives at all levels – conservatives who are less likely to appoint judges to all courts who are “soft on crime” and who view fighting terrorism as a “law enforcement” issue.
La Shawn:
Because:
Odds of drowning in a bathtub: 685,000 to 1
Odds of being struck by lightning: 576,000 to 1
Odds of being murdered: 20,000 to 1
Chance of dying from food poisoning: 1 in 3,000,000
odds of death by dog attack: 700,000 to 1
Odds of being killed in a terrorist attack: 6,000,000 to 1
As you can see, the chances of any of us being killed by terrorist is slim. The fact is that we can fight this battle without giving up our liberties and our freedoms. What’s the point in saying how great America is because of our freedoms if we’re willing to give them up? What’s the point of fighting for a freedom we don’t care to keep? Its the logic of a 3 year old. She throws her doll in the trash but she screams bloody murder when I tried to give it away. If you want the doll that bad… hold on to it and take care of it. If you don’t want the doll, do have a panick attack when I give it away. It’s the same thing with our freedom. If we want it that bad that we’re willing to fight for it, then lets hold on to it. If not, then there’s no point in fighting.
I see you ignored the part about skin color preferences and the Constitution. – Admin
Wow…you know what, as amazing as it sounds, and maybe for the first time in my life, after reading the responses on this thread I am truly speechless.
You can tell from some of the posts here that many people still don’t get it. They still insist on using the cutesy little names for these nuts. Terms like “islamofascists” etc. Look people. Repeat after me. All muslims are dangerous. Islam is the enemy. Islam is the doctrine that fuels the hate. Islam is the base that gives rise to the cutesy names dervations. Islam is the cult drenched in blood. The koran (unworthy of capitalization) is their manual of death. The koran is where they learn to worship a demon who values death over life.
Please stop with all of the phony descriptive names for this problem. They are not “insurgents.” They are muslim terrorists. They are not “militants.” They are muslim terrorists.
They are not “enemy combatants.” They are muslim terrorists. They are not “freedom fighters.” They are muslim terrorists.
You don’t talk to them, You don’t understand them, You certainly do not appease them. You don’t show them weakness. You don’t coddle them. There is only one way to treat a termite or a cockroach who has invade your home. You kill the ones inside and then you find the source and kill it and the queen egg layer. THEN and only then do you lay down a protective barrier. You however, must understand that even when barriers are installed, you must still send out recon patrols and/or ambush patrols to destroy anything trying to close with your position.
I just have to say it. I think I am going to blow a gasket the next time someone says “…but all muslims are not bad.” Yes, they are! Or they should at least be treated as such until their sick movement has been put down and for good.
If these goons want to live in the Stone Age, then let’s send them there.
Raymond,
I for one would like to “understand” Muslims more than I do. One approach might be to study the reasons Muslims kill other Muslims. What are they dynamics there? Here in the West we have so many people who “need” to feel guilty or “need” to be liked. Any accusation against us by Muslims send so many people into a verbose tizzy that little clear thinking is done. In fact even good dialogue is impossible.
One thing for sure. If someone is intent on killing me, I have no problem with killing them first. Chants like “Death to America” qualify as intent to kill.
I posted this yesterday – here it is again in a more appropriate arena:
Why can’t the war on terror be prosecuted like the war on racism? Why doesn’t the Left of the world consider Islamic fanatics, their prejudices and their terror acts based on those prejudices at least half as bad as the white racist oppressors it relentlessly and successfully rooted out from every corner of world?
By most accounts, racism in the western world has been at least “contained”. But more importantly, something that was a fixture in western civilization only a few decades ago has now become so unfashionable that anyone who merely embraces western cultural or racial pride can never hope to be taken seriously and becomes an instant outcast in the eyes of the entire civilized world.
Why shouldn’t Muslims as a whole suffer the same fate as whites all over the world? Why shouldn’t they be taught to feel massive guilt even though they may not be directly connected with any terrorist activity? Perhaps they merely stood by and let their neighbor build a bomb or slur an infidel? Why can’t Muslims be instructed (like whites) that their culture contains the seeds of hate and destruction, thus ALL must be closely monitored and policed to ensure the safety of the free peoples of the world?
I won’t compare the impact of racism, slavery and colonialism to today’s Islamic war on the rest of the world. But I will compare racism, slavery and colonialism to one possible near future of the world. One in which Islamic fanatics eliminate a few major cities and break the will of the west. And then import and impose their own brand of racism, colonialism and slavery.
Why won’t the Left use its heavy weaponry and seasoned troops to diffuse this global time bomb? I mean come on! They are so damn good at the guilt shakedown…if they really want to save lives – the Left should play the “you’re an oppressive evil culture” card now!!! If we could get one tenth of the world Left’s muscle that was leveraged against white South Africa, all the Middle East’s terrorists would be pacified by their own governments in no time flat! Yes, we may have to embargo Saudi Arabia and Iran et. al.
But I believe anything would be possible if the world was of a unified front and singular opinion on the matter of Islamic terrorism. Islamofascists are simply not being roundly condemned for their horrific actions; Certainly not by Muslims. Clearly not by Spain’s Socialists. The world’s main stream media attacks and belittles George Bush infinitely more than Osama bin Laden and 75% of Europe’s populace thinks the USA is the world’s leading terrorist. On and on and on…
Sure, the Right could line up behind the Left of the world and use carrot and stick methods of negotiation with bin Laden and ask Muslims the world over what the West can do differently to appease. But the Left is not in charge of the world’s only military and economic superpower…and until the Left flip-flopped, bargaining with terrorists was inconceivable as policy.
I find the comments on this thread fascinating and I generally agree with the need for more profiling and border control.
But there is an important issue that’s never discussed. We need solutions that we’re willing to push through even if gross mistakes are made.
The one important sense that the War on Terror is like a war is that it has to be fought for a long time by imperfect humans with imperfect bureaucracies and in which many abuses will almost certainly occur. No solution should be seriously considered if it only works if executed near perfectly.
In that sense the issue is which costs (opportunity cost) are you willing to pay?
Unless a miracle occurs, we will almost certainly have to adjust our notion of rights and freedom. Failure to do so will lead to even greater reaction and over-reaction the next time an attack occurs.
That is why the MSM nitpicking the US actions is so dangerous. Compared to any war and any abuses we’ve seen, everything from Gitmo to civilian casualties in Iraq has been trivial. The US has done SURPRISINGLY well in being civilized and restrained in fighting terrorism, contrary to the cries of the Moore/Galloway screechers.
But that will end if, say another US city is attacked and 5000 people are killed. Given one or two more 9/11s, Americans’ tolerance for Muslims of any stripe will quickly dwindle.
We should hope for swift, even slightly extreme action today. Because if not worse will come.
To those who say we lose our freedoms if we compromise them I answer: We compromised them in the Civil War, WWI and WWII and in the Cold War. But we (usually) didn’t go too far, and we’re still here. Let us all pray that more is done sooner because more WILL almost certainly be done later.
As long as countries continue to allow these people to operate “under the radar”, we will all live with this terror threat. In London, the Mayor openly courted Islamoterrorists, and throughout Britain they’ve been able to live in relative safety. In our country, we’ve been cowed by the constant drum-beat of political-correctness. Count me as one of the “Blame America First” movement, but from the standpoint that we are ALLOWING this to happen, rather than we are CAUSING it to happen. I have been greatly disappointed with Dubya’s steadfast refusal to tighten our own borders and enforce our own laws. “We will meet the threat of terrorism anywhere, anytime” unless it’s here and involves anyone.
Evon,
While I admire your academic approach to this issue, as a fellow American, I must caution you to keeping your zeal for academic understanding in academic context. Now, once you leave a setting where academic lip service is appropriate, please understand for your own safety that “understanding” them does not stop shrapnel. Understanding muslims does not decrease their level of hate for you. Understanding them does not blunt the concussive damage a 10lb explosive charge does to your ear drums, brain and other body tissues. Understanding them will not do anything except make you a highly enlightened corpse.
This is war and these fools have said in the clearest of terms that they give less than a … whether we understand them or not.
What they see we can never see, who we are they can never be and what they want we can never give.
Don’t get lulled into their trap. Study them all you want….
Great questions LaShawn!!
How do we fight Islamic terror? Well if we are serious we will have to eventually resort to draconian means or else we are headed for the ultimate showdown!!
First, stop ALL Islamic immigration forever….except for those Muslims that have apostazised and for truly secular non practicing Muslims……
Second, we MUST have spies in every Sunni and Shia Mousque across America and the Free West…
Third, deport and strip of citizenship all Muslims that preach Orthodox Islam which is hateful to its core….
Fourth, start having the Media and Higher Academia actually START teaching the truth about this 7th century CULT……start attacking the VERY roots of islam in the Quran and Sunnah….
Most Muslims themselves are ignorant of what that pig Muhammed was all about…….EXPOSE ISLAM….and we can do that with its own depraved teachings……and we have had great success in seeing Muslims leave this brutal ideology….especially African Muslims and Persian Muslims…
Islam is here to enslave us folks…..you have to be a stunned retard or a liberal not to know that…….it has been its teaching and actions for 1400 years…..all you have to do is read the damned Quran and Sahih Hadiths……its all there folks!!
I actually have only one thing to add, but (be it unfortunate or not) I haven’t mentioned for fear of being to politically un-PC.
In all likelihoods, we will not be able to eliminate Islam unless we replace it with something. Like Christianity. I know that’s an aspect of the GWOT that hasn’t been given a lot of air-time, but it’s necessary.
Moslems won’t give up their religion and become nothings, however, they will give up their religion once it’s been shown that it is a false religion if they have somewhere else to turn.
IMHO, they need to be evangelized.
Waidmann
Racial profiling vs. doing nothing–
profiling all the way. If I were a Muslim with a conscience (there are apparently quite a lot who have none), I would be completely patient and understanding on the subject of profiling, just as I would be completely conscious and ashamed of my religion’s participation in such dreadful mass murders of innocents. Unless and until a good part of terrorist attacks are undertaken by western caucasians with blue eyes, I will always believe in profiling. Simple profiling would have prevented the 9/11 attacks. Just read the words of the airline clerk who looked into Atta’s eyes that morning and said to himself, ‘if ever anybody looked like a murderous Islamic terrorist, this guy is IT”. And he was.
Islamicist terrorists must shriek with laughter when they see debates on profiling. It’s one of the reasons they attacked on 9/11; they were convinced we lacked the will to do anything about it. Khaled Sheik Mohammed, the guy who planned these attacks, has been quoted as saying that what we did in Afghanistan “took away the breath” from Al Qaeda. They were shocked. Because they believed that political correctness and weak will would rule out such a thing.
We must have the will to do the right and effective thing, and we must simply say “get over it” to those who squawk about how offended they are. There is more at stake than wounded pride here.
Awareness, exposure and education.
That is, to my estimate how this thing is going to be nipped in the bud. Posts like yours and countless others, Links to organizations such as your local crime prevention site, the FBI, that lists criminals most wanted, educating the web community as to what to do when and how…
This is the way to end the crap! One post at a time.
Thank you kindly.
Feel free to visit and comment on my blog.
Peace,
How many of you know who Nat Turner was in history? For those who don’t, Nat Turner was a slave who lead a slave revolt. During this slave revolt, he killed every white person in his path, women, chilren, it didn’t matter. Finally he was caught and hung.
Do you consider him an American hero? Someone who was fighting for his families safety from terrorist? Do you consider what he did right and rational in the context of his position in society and the context in which he lived? Should we have a monument of Nat, and talk about him to the fighters who are going to Iraq and Afghanistan. If not why?
If you were alive back then, with your mindset of today, would you support Nat for doing the same thing to those men women and children that were done against men women and children like himself?
What I have heard advocated in the most vehement terms on this thread is the murder of innocent men, women and children based soley upon religion and a hypothetical scenario where they all convert into radical bomb throwers. What I have heard advocated on this thread is a war against the religion of over 1 billion people on this planet. What I have heard advocated is the suppression of religious freedom, one of the fundamental rights of Americanism. What I have heard advocated is the suppression of free speech and other ideals that America has staunchly stood for and your forefathers and mine died for.
You guys lost me, honestly you have. This isn’t about being a conservative or being a liberal, it is about standing up for the ideals of America that transcend acts of revenge, and ‘reverse-terrorism’.
James Manning said it best above, “What’s the point in saying how great America is because of our freedoms if we’re willing to give them up? What’s the point of fighting for a freedom we don’t care to keep? Its the logic of a 3 year old. She throws her doll in the trash but she screams bloody murder when I tried to give it away. If you want the doll that bad… hold on to it and take care of it. If you don’t want the doll, do have a panick attack when I give it away. It’s the same thing with our freedom. If we want it that bad that we’re willing to fight for it, then lets hold on to it. If not, then there’s no point in fighting.”
You guys are not patriots, you are cloking revenge in the robes of freedom and safety.
Nat Turner v. izlam. Nice try, but this is like trying to compare pervert sexual rights to Civil Rights. The two simply are not related. Nat turner was NOT a hero for what he did. He was a murderer. Now, did he have a legitimate cause to fight for? Yes he did until he became an indiscriminate murderer.
The ends do not always justify the means.
In the case of the muslims, they kill for no good reason. The kill their own as well. They kill a corpse if their little backward book told them to.
There is nothing noble about islam or what these terrorist practitioners seek to achieve.Killing for the sake of killing is one thing. Strategic “vaccination” of an deadly disease is justified. Islam is the new polio.
Ditto, Dell:
I’m all for security and putting down extremist, but what I’ve read today is nothing short of …. How can you uphold and violate a value at the same time? La Shawn questions were very good questions and ones that should be asked. But I am shocked at some of the response. I do think the logic that I use with my 3 year old is right on point. And it is sad because my 3 year finally understood it, but I am afraid that the extremist in our midst will have no use for it.
Again I say: For what does it profit a man if he gains the world and loses his soul.
What many have advocated here today is for us to relinquish our souls to the darkest elements of our human nature. I’m not willing to do it. There is a better way – not as easy as genocide and oppression – but there is a better way.
Dell, I don’t think you understand this distinction, but you need to let it sink in: curtailing Islamofascism is not focused on which god these people worship; it’s focused on criminal activity, whether it’s based on that god or not.
All this talk of “religious freedom” is nauseating me, frankly. I don’t care if people bow down before tree stumps or corpses of dead rodents. I want to stamp out any movement whose mission is to kill those who don’t worship its god. “Religious freedom,” my eye! Nobody and no group should be protected behind a cloak of “religion” if they use that religion to plot, to maim and to kill, particularly people living in a country that gives them the very freedom to worship!
Your indignation about what people have expressed here leaves me speechless. Yes, America is great because the Constitution protects civil liberties and all that, but we’re dealing with animals who have no regard for life, especially ours. Now you can wax indignantly all you want. You have the freedom in this country to do that.
You fail to see the irony of it all. How do you think we’ll remain free? By sitting passively by and philosophizing? We have to fight to maintain our way of life, our culture, our lives, the very concept of freedom itself! No amount of speechifying on your part will change human nature. If a bunch of virgin-worshipping animals are trying to destroy me, do you imagine I’ll just stand there with a copy of the Constitution in my hand, arguing with him?
When it comes to civil liberties, I am more than willing to forgo a little to protect a lot. If racial or religious profiling is what it takes to smoke out these thugs plotting against me in my own country, you better believe I’m all for it. If the government wants a record of my travels, you better believe I HATE IT, but if it stops just ONE animal thug Muslim terrorist, it’s worth it.
If I’ve “lost” you with my attitude, good. Do me a favor. Take like-minded commenters with you and start a “they’ve lost me” thread on your own blog. Let me know when you get the post up, and I’ll direct the traffic.
Calling Americans trying to stamp out murderous thugs “extremists” raises my blood pressure, and I don’t want to see that word directed toward any commenter who believes Islamofascism is a dangerous creed that should be stamped out.
And what really makes me angry is the failure to understand that we have the luxury of discussing this stuff in the first place because we are Americans. But to protect the freedom we have, we must be willing to sacrifice something, for crying out loud. You’re the ones who’re extremists. Suddenly you’re constitutionalists when it comes to “religious freedom” and then you dice the document into a million pieces to justify immoral policies like skin color preferences.
You think racial profiling to stop criminal activity is racist and unconstitutional, yet you embrace racial profiling when it lands you a government grant or fat contract. That’s backward! You care so little for the document when you can’t wring what you want out of it, then bow down before it with all this nonsense about “religious freedom,” when criminal thugs smarter than we are use the very document to cloak their criminal activity as they plot to kill us!
What a backward-thinking nation we’ve become.
La Shawn:
Give up a little to protect a lot? What’s the formula that states it will take relinquishing so much freedom to gain so much security? Our freedoms are intertwined. You can’t do away freedom of religion and not do away with freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Then there is the free press and a host of other freedoms that get in the way as well. And how does that help? Most of the worlds Muslims do not live in this country. So we stop .5% of the Muslims in the world from practicing their faith… what do you do with the other 99.5%? I guess you will say that we close the borders and not allow anyone else in the country. You could just stop Arabs from coming in but there are a lot of Asian Muslims in the world. We can expand that to not allowing Asians in the country as well.
And for the Muslims who decide that they don’t want to give up practicing their faith, well, we can just send the back or put them in jail until they’ve denounced their faith. Now, we’d have to do away with due process and a host of other legal justifications necessary to imprison someone but we’ve already done away with their right to remain silent and right to an attorney, so that won’t be much of a bother.
What are we fighting for? I don’t get this and to be perfectly honest with you… I don’t want it.
How many times do I have to say this? THIS IS NOT ABOUT MAKING PEOPLE GIVE UP THEIR FAITH! Who knows? Maybe it’s me. Maybe I’m just not articulate enough to get the point across. – Admin
Gosh Dell, you have slipped one little cog in you train of logic.
Radical Islam has declared war on the “infidel” with victory being the death of the “infidel” or the subjugation of the “infidel” and the war will not end until everyone on the planet has been killed, converted to radical Islam or subjugated.
That, Dell, is a religious war, pure and simple. To combat these radicals does not mean that we are also promoting a religious war. We are defending our Constitution. We are making it safe to be free of imposed radical Islam.
To the extent that Islam in general does not stand up to the radical Islamists, Islam is complicit in allowing radical Islam to exist and proceed.
All over the world there are cities with Muslim neighborhoods that have made local policing nearly impossible. These neighborhoods are havens for radicals in much the same way that other neighborhoods fall victim to gangs and drug dealers.
But radical Muslims are not selling drugs and posting graffiti. They are killing your child and maiming your grandfather.
Many of us think that building a by-pass around the neighborhood is not a solution.
This doesn’t encompass all the questions, but for me it is a start.
Disclaimer: There will never occur a complete eradication of the terrorist threat. There will always be radicals who succeed. This is even true in the sense of domestic terrorism. The point is to reduce or eliminate the terrorist threat to its absolute minimum.
That being said, I propose a two pronged solution, one foreign and one domestic. These are broad strokes, and surely to have its own individual flaws, but warts and all I believe them to be practical and successful options.
FOREIGN INITIATIVES
1. Export democracy
Free and open societies respect life and liberty. They do not condone radicalism that attemtps to subvert populations through fear. This is our best hope to deter terrorism. Free countries do not practice terrorism. Free countries do not practice oppression. Oppression is one of the two main catalysts for terrorism. There are two means of achieving this goal: diplomacy and conflict. We must use both.
2. Economics:
We must help these nations manufacture their own goods and become self sustaining economic partners in the world. Oil is a finite commidity. Just as we must reduce our reliance upon it at home, Middle Eastern nations must reduce their reliance on oil as their sole source of economic output. It is a foolish endeavor. Nations with self sustaining and full participating economies provide more opportunities for their citizens. This limits poverty, a leading catalyst for terrorism.
How soes that affect our policy? We must extend trading priviliges in a manner similar to NAFTA to these nations. We must use diplomacy and the threat of force to compel change. We must limit direct aid and tie all aid to results moving towards democratic change. Conflict of course being the last resort, the other methods are reasonable and can be accomplished within our current budgets.
DOMESTIC INITIATIVES:
1. Secure the borders
This is a grave concern irregardless of the terorist threat. A terrorist threat only increases its importance. Despite its vital neccessity, this is the policy change that has the least likelihood of taking effect. Here are some robust options for affecting change:
a)Call out the National Guard and seal the southern border to immigration traffic (commercial will continue) for one month.
b)In conjunction with a), apprehend and deport as many illegal aliens as possible. Start with the justice system. Illegals in our jails will be the first ones to go. There are likely to be terrorists within this framework.
c)Aggressively enforce the laws in place and remove from office those who do not enforce the law. President Reagan used this to great effect in dealing with striking air traffic controllers.
d)Re-open the border to immigration traffic at select points and continue aggressive enforcement of current laws.
The primary purpose of this is to secure the border, but it will also help alleviate the growing burden on our social services by other illegals.
2. Profiling
Generally now known as an ugly term, this policy was previously one of the most effective tools in crime prevention. Not that PC’ers have stigmitized the term, it will likely not be used. Yet it makes common sense. If a certain group is responsible for the entirety of a crime subset, it makes perfect sense to watch that group more closely. It is a crime deterrent. Until there is an upsurge of terrorism committed by Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or other religious groups, the preponderance of terrorism will be committed by Muslims. Therefore the Muslim community should be watched more closely. Note that I do not endorse harrassment, which is the use of law enforcement to bully certain groups. However, using surveillance to keep our eyes open is good policy. Unfortunately, many are going to typify profiling as harrassment.
How does this affect our domestic policy? It does require stepping on some toes and doing what is required vs. doing what makes people feel good. It requries enforcing the law and using all available legal tools, and not ignoring good tools because they offend someone.
CONCLUSION:
Terrorists have been attacking us for over 26 years. Previous policies have been one of token retaliation and action. This has allowed terrorists and the Muslims that enable them to grow in sophistication, power and confidence. We are now reaping what we have sown. Not because of Afghanistan or Iraq, but because we didn’t adequately meet the challenge in the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s. Regardless of party affiliation, previous foreign policy endeavors have given us disastrous consequences. Islamofacists have made careful study of us and determined that they are more patient than us, and that given time we will quit because we lack the will to fight over the long term. This is what the great writer Michael Barone calls the “Soft America.” Our policies must change to meet the challenge of the long term. As we look for leadership and I examine George W. Bush, I thin of an oft maligned yet great President of our nation: Ulysses S. Grant. Both men are/were willing to shoulder what has become an unacceptable burden to everyone else in government because it is the right thing to do. We must brace for the longer war. This is not about politics. Muslim scholars that say otherwise refuse to acknowledge an ugly truth about the nature of this conflict. Radical Islam abhors what we find good, despises what we seek as great, and wishes nothing but our own destruction. The policies needed to win will take time, and are likely unacceptable because it is not quick and easy. We must harken to the words of JFK: “pay any price, bear any burden.”
LaShawn, if you previous post, and the post that I replied to in the context of my afforementation post, you would realize that you just wasted a rebuttle attacking a premise I don’t hold.
I said nothing about NOT stamping out so-called Islamofacist. My arguments are based upon HOW you stamp them out which is the nature of the questions YOU posed initially.
How much freedom are you willing to sacrifce to remain secure? Big brother, 1984 type security where there is a corner in every house and every corner? Is that enough security for you in exchange for freedom?
You constantly decry liberalism as the move towards socialism, which eliminates individuality and freedom in favor of government control and restriction, the same premise as communism, and here you are moving right down the line of deconstructing the constitution that conservatives (of which I am one) hold a strict constructionist view of.
A) Terrorist need to be stopped
B) Liberty and the constitutional guarantees need to be preserved
C) Therefore Terrorism needs to be stopped without destroyign the liberty that needs to be preserved by provision within the constitution.
Basic logic.
Do you think I want my babies bombed, with body parts scatter across cement? At the same time, I don’t want a precendent set where my babies rights based in the constitution can be trampled on. And I will fight against that. That is the conservative way.
If you read my post in context you would see it was refferring to individuals like Raymond and Dan who explicitely stated the need to terminate all muslims, or wage a reverse-jihad that includes the termination of innocent women and children. You are a sister in Christ, how do you passively allow people condoning the mass extinction of a billion innocents to stamp out less that 1% of a fringe Islamofacist group subset and not rebut them? Then attempt to criticize me for arguing a strict constructionist viewpoint of the constitution that you will most undoubtable hope Bush’s next supreme court nomination holds?
I make an argument from the constitution, based upon the foundation of liberty and freedom framed by the founding fathers, bled for in the war for independence, fought over in the civil war, and was a struggle to achieve even to this point by our black heritage.
So in your criticism of me, be clear, which part of my criticism against individuals who state they would actively terminate innocent humans children and women, based soley upon their religious affiliation do you disagree with? Secondly, how much of the consitution are you willing to allow to decompose so you can feel safe?
Sorry for the typos but I don’t like being falsely attacked. Attack me for what I actually say.
I’m glad La Shawn replied because I didn’t have the energy to write such a post. But I agree with what she said. I suggest people who tend to focus on the predictable American paradigm of black vs. white, skin color, and U.S. slave history, and use it to make a point about evil on a global level need to look at the larger picture.
This is the reality: evil exists in all forms. One form of it is in the murderous thoughts and actions of a global group of people who want to destroy everyone who does not agree with them. This should not happen, plain and simple. So it is up to every nation to prevent it from happening.
Here in the U.S., we have the resources to do that, but if our attitude about it is provincial, we will not succeed, and many people will be harmed and die.
I do not want that. Even if I was a citizen of another country, I would not want that for any country in which I reside. It’s not about just being an American, but a human being who has the right to be free. Every human on earth has the right to be free–and alive, without harm.
James and Dell, if you learn nothing else from this debate, know this. Your freedoms end where mine begin and if your brand of “freedom of religion” takes away my Consitutional right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness then we have a problem. The very definition of islam in not covered in our founding documents whereas you can’t take life in the name of religion as the koran explicity allows.
For that reason and that reason alone islam can NEVER exist as a legitimate religion in this nation.
My take is that bombings are bad, we should render impotent the perpetrators, and all that, but numerically terrorism in OECD countries just isn’t that big a deal. 40 people dead? Lah-di-da. As was posted above, there are all sorts of random ways of dying that carry higher (or similar) risks. Drowning, lightning, food poisoning. Heck, we lose 40 people a year to US avalanches. The USSR was an existential threat. For western Europe, Nazi Germany was an existential threat. Between their limited resources and our security measures, these days terrorists just aren’t.
So, my take is that we should consider terrorists to be regular criminals (although more resourceful and slippery than normal) and treat them as such.
Reply #83:
Exporting Democracy: I think the most we should do is support those entities that are trying to change their governments. I think what is happening with China is something we could duplicate in Iran.
Economics: I think this is a major source of the problem. The Middle East has fallen behind as it pertains to economic development. This mainly due to their regimes but the west has taken the blame for supporting these repressive governments.
Domestic:
Closing Borders: I think this will come down to how much are we willing to pay. What you advocate could be done… I can’t say if it right or wrong but I do know it will take resources and we have to be willing to pay for it.
Profiling: This is an area of concern to me. I’ve read where broad profiling is a waste but it is the one area where I think that needs to be looked at. But I don’t think we have the resources to track every Muslim in this country. As for tapping every Mosque – someone has to listen to all of those tapes. I think allocating resources to something doable is the only way.
Dell, you know that in war, innocent people (in the eyes of men, that is) will be killed. That’s war. That’s the context in which the comments were made, not a ravenous desire to slaughter women and children. If anyone supports war in general, they indirectly accept the consequences of that war: innocent blood. Blame it on human depravity.
My comment is not wasted in the least. While it may not be responsive to your “strict constructionist” argument and how to stamp out terrorism, I think every word I said is relevant. Yes, I guess I am attacking you because I’m just fed up with this nonsense. I apologize for offending you, but how in the world can you call yourself a “strict constructionist” in the name of religious freedom, and at the same time, support skin color preferences, a violation of the same principles? A mystery of the ages!
So don’t lecture me on the “conservative way” when you support privileges for some based on the color of their skin. I keep bringing that up because it’s very important. You can’t take a piece of the Constitution and throw the rest in the garbage and call yourself a “strict constructionist.”
And please don’t mix up socialism, which is primarily about redistribution of wealth in its American form, with making sacrifices for protection. Dell, our freedom is not absolute. We don’t have the freedom to murder someone and go free. We don’t have the freedom to practice human sacrifice religion, and we don’t have the freedom to hide out in mosques and plot to murder. If my government decides that the best way to go after terrorist cells is to break down the doors of mosques where known radicals hang out, well…
Raymond,
That is where I would start if for me and it is academic. That is how I began as a Minnesota farm girl to learn about Blacks. I read over 50 books: biographies; Civil War histories, sociological studies, books by Black authors, etc. That was a beginning and gave me a start in figuring out what it was I didn’t know and perhaps could never know: What it is to be Black.
Right now I’m willing to hope that President Bush and his advisers know what they are doing. For sure I don’t want the Democrats in charge. Hillary just gave the typical Democratic answer: Throw more do$$ar$ at the problem. Read by me to mean: “Let’s add even more people to the bureaucracy who may never do anything more productive in their lifetimes than be reliable Democratic voters.”
I’d like to make it clear that my original comments in #28 is what would have to happen, IMO, if the U.S. were to get serious about internal threats.
I mentioned amendments to the Constitution and martial law for a particular reason: the latter denotes a temporary suspension of the former. To make it more long lasting, the Constitution would have to be amended. In short, it would be a very serious matter and a wholesale change in the structure of our government.
And, personally, I would fight against it.
I would fight against it because, if the translations of bin Laden are to be believed, he intended for the freedoms in this country to be abridged because, if I remember the translation correctly, we as a people have “too much freedom”.
If my government decides that the best way to go after terrorist cells is to break down the doors of mosques where known radicals hang out, well…
The problem is busting down the doors of mosques where they believe radicals hang out and they are wrong. Or, to violate the rights, under U.S. laws, of those in their search for radicals.
I think the U.S. government was wrong when Randy Weaver’s wife was killed and I believe the U.S. government was wrong in Waco.
As leader of this country, if left up to me, if another attack occurred and it could be proven to be done by those internally, I would probably call for a limited martial law, focused on immigrants, with a sunset to protect the long standing rights of U.S. citizens. I know I would definitely close geographic and air borders.
You’ve hit the nail. Martial law is closer to what I mean when I say we need to make sacrifices and give up a little to protect a lot. Certain new laws with sunset provisions designed to smoke out terrorist cells, I can live with. Some of those provisions exist in the Patriot Act.
I agree with your comment.
You’re cute when you are mad.
I honestly believe that immigration should be dealt with, either with a worker’s program or a moratorium on immigration. I like what Eagleburger had to say today that I heard on Limbaugh. He said something to the effect that it’s time to go after the people who are housing the terrorists, like Syria. I agree. It’s also time to start rounding up these radical imans who preach hate in their mosques. Deport them back to their country of origin, then bomb the heck out of those countries. It’s long been time to get serious about killing terrorists.
Well, now that we have moved away from changing the Constitution, I think we’re cool. Because I wasn’t going to go for anything that would change the dynamic of our country. We can always discuss the merits of AA in another post.
Here is some info on martial law:
The President of the United States now has broader powers to declare martial law, which activates FEMA’s extraordinary powers. Martial law can be declared during time of increased tension overseas, economic problems within the United States, such as a depression, civil unrest, such as demonstrations or scenes like the Los Angeles riots, and in a drug crisis… Under emergency plans already in existence, the power exists to suspend the Constitution and turn over the reigns of government to FEMA and appointing military commanders to run state and local governments. FEMA then would have the right to order the detention of anyone whom there is reasonable ground to believe…will engage in, or probably conspire with others to engage in acts of espionage or sabotage. The plan also authorized the establishment of concentration camps for detaining the accused, but no trial.
Source: http://www.wealth4freedom.com/FEMA.html
I think once you they declare martial law, ALL rights are suspended and the President is no longer in charge of the country. Just something to think about.
I think a factor that gets largely ignored in these discussions is the corporate control of American foreign policy. Greed is the catalyst for so many of our decisions involving foreign interaction. We don’t have an “illegal immigrant” problem if there wasn’t such a DEMAND for illegal immigrant labor from the biggest corporation (Walmart floor cleaning scandal) to the Mom and pop resturant hiring dishwashers, to the day laborers being picked up off the street corner. This is no different in the Middle East. It’s practically embarrassing to watch our President holding hands with people like Crown Prince Abdullah, or Prince Bandar when it’s the madrassas in Saudi Arabia teaching its people wahabist, radical Islamofascism. But, OIL, and riches gleened from sales thereof seems to trump EVERYTHING, including common sense and patriotism.
Do you even have to ASK what kind of profits are there to be made?
>>>Exxon Mobil (XOM), the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, said Thursday that first-quarter earnings soared 44% from last year, due mainly to strong crude and natural gas prices.
The company said it will boost its share repurchase rate by $1 billion in the second quarter…
Net income surged to $7.86 billion, or $1.22 a share, from $5.44 billion, or 83 cents, a year ago. Excluding a $460 million gain on the sale of Exxon’s stake in China Petroleum and Chemical, the company earned $1.15 a share in the latest quarter.
Revenue climbed to $82.05 billion from $67.60 billion last year.”
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/earnings/2005-04-28-exxonmobil_x.htm
With THAT much money to be made, you can rest assure that there is NO Saudi dictator oppressive enough to keep American corporate interests from lobbying politicians over. The same thing can be said for the gum arabic industry in the slave state of Sudan, where heinous acts are given lip-service. Gum arabic is not as lucrative as oil, but to the industries it affects, such as soft-drinks, newspaper and magazine, etc. it is invaluable, and therefore, not subject to any sanctions over such trivial things as slavery or genocide.
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:XEJE31QQV9oJ:www.american.edu/ted/gumarab.htm+%22gum+arabic%22,+Sudan+sanctions&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
It goes down the line. If you find an raw material, or natural resource somewhere in the world worth something, you can guarantee that there’s some American corporation trying to exploit it.
What does this mean to the war on terrorism?
Well, IMHO, the LESS dependence we have on foreign resources of any kind (including LABOR), the less we’ll be in bed with dictators, despots, and oppressive regimes that supply them. The less we allign with those riff-raff, the higher our moral high ground will be. Alternative energy resources should be at the FOREFRONT of US Domestic policy, but as you can see, there are BILLIONS of reasons why corporate lobbyists are against that sort of thing. But think about it…if we had maintained the CAFE standards for our vehicles endorsed during the ‘energy crisis” of the 1970’s, we’d have our dependency on Saudi oil seriously cut right now. Yet we continue to feed the beast…no conservation–bigger vehicles with far lower fuel efficiency, no car pooling, and no sacrifices. We’re funding the very enemies we’ve allegedly declared war upon.
http://www.thecobraslair.com/National%20Issues6.html
I don’t want to declare something as “unwinnable”, but look at the situation we’re in. How many American companies have significant Saudi ownership? How much investment does middle eastern countries have in our markets? What kind of pain can the middle east inflict upon us with production caps or, heaven forbid, another EMBARGO? There are other markets in the Far East like China who have increased their demand for oil, so the Saudis have alternatives to just us.
We’ve allowed greed to put ourselves in a position where we can’t demand ANYTHING.
Summing up:
1-Get energy independent so we don’t owe anything to the people who harbor terrorism.
2-Keep our American Corporations from putting our politicians in bed with thugs who oppress their own people, causing them to hate us too.
3-Sacrifice instant gratification for the greater long term benefit of our nation.
–Cobra
I like what Eagleburger had to say today that I heard on Limbaugh. He said something to the effect that it’s time to go after the people who are housing the terrorists, like Syria. I agree.
There is a real problem with that approach. They are not just in Syria, but in France, Germany, the Carribean, Latin America, the Phillipines, Canada…
Just to get our terms straight: martial law (note spelling please) is when a military leader takes over operation of an area and sets the rules.
The Constitution does not mention martial law. But Article 1, Section 9 states, “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
Suspension of habeas corpus is often equated with martial law.
The suspension of habeas corpus allows an agency to hold a person without a charge.
Habeas corpus is a concept of law, in which a person may not be held by the government without a valid reason for being held.
A Writ of Habeas Corpus compels the agency to produce the individual to the court, and to convince the court that the person is being reasonably held.
Since the President is Constitutionally the Commander-in-Chief, he can act as the military authority if martial law is declared.
Congress passed a law suspending Habeas Corpus so Lincoln could deal with spies and those aiding the South.
Roosevelt had similar powers during WWII. That is why we talk about the war-time powers of the President.
It is not politically feasible for a President to declare martial law without the backing of the Congress. (He does have some ability to act immediately under the Federal Emergency Management Act.)
If Congress would declare war on radical Islam, the President could move against the three million or so Muslims within the United States to sort out who is who and what is going on.
Short of an act of Congress, the President must piece-meal a program together by such means as the much, much misrepresented Patriot Act.
I hope this helps a bit. (I should caution that martial law can be very restrictive. You may call it a near dictatorship and not be too far off the mark,)
Dell, read #s 28, 44, 54 & 93. You have a bad habit of not responding/acknowledging key fundamental points, in this case, constituitionalism before tearing off onto another round of rhetoric spiced with more “fundamental” points.
May I suggest you deal with the true & valid points first before going off on another tangent?
To summarize, you said targeting the Islamic religion is unconstitutional.
I pointed out that the constitutuion did not stop us from banning polygamy. In effect, we forced a religion to get into line. I for one, question the need to ban polygamy from a consititutional & Christian POV, nevertheless I can deal with it because it is the law that we arrived at. So be it.
The problem with islam is NOT polygamy, but that a major Islamic denomination advocates killing or imposing dhimmitude on the rest of the world. IOW, a couple hundred million radicals want to kill or subdue 6 billion people. And you’re shocked that some think it better to destroy “2 billion” before they destroy the rest? Man, where is your sense of perspective!?!
As La Shawn pointed out, your habit of clinging to the constitution we hold dear only when it suits you is nauseating.
IOW, do you mean to tell me that you wholeheartedly support the Klan’s religious right to put their foot on your neck?
I didn’t think so, so why do you use a silly strawman in Nate?
The Enslavement of the black man was a tenet of a significant portion of Southern White Christians. Yet we saw fit to use the force of law to divorce the KKK of that article of faith.
The submission to the authority of King George was an article of faith for some of our early forefathers until the charge of treason divorced them of that notion.
But as DS pointed out, sometimes this power to affect/modify a religion can be misused. Where the former points are examples of righteous anger/authority – you do recall the God-given authority by which governments rule, do you not [Romans 8]?
The example of the Branch Davidians would qualify as an abuse of that power. The Clintonistas subversively fired a shot across the bow of Christianity by violently crushing the BDs. I would hope of course that you know the BDs weren’t really Christians, nevertheless, the prevailing secular wisdom does associate the BDs as Christian.
Bottomline, our country has always acted with force — justly or unjustly but with full authority — whenever it perceives an internal rot that threatens the fabric of society.
Now, restate your case. While you’re at it, keep in mind the founding lesson of our POTUS Jefferson & Barbary (yes Virginia, unilaterally dealing with terrorists is not a new thang, nor is conducting war w/o input from Congress):
http://www.mariner.org/usnavy/06/06a.htm
Cobra…..Please!!!!
I do not choose to join your “hate corporations mantra,” but the global economy is a fact and throwing marshmallows and fingernail clippings at it won’t change it one iota.
The economic interdependence on the globe really leaves no room for sore losers or whiners unless you can find an island mentality somewhere and move.
Even New Zealand which labors mightily under its island mentality leans more and more on Australia for investment, health care, food stuffs and more.
Sure, lets get energy independent tomorrow. Those same hated corporations are crazy at work trying to figure out the alternatives because the obvious billions in the solution really, really interests them. All over the world clever minds are working on the problem.
Now back to business, radical Islam wants to stop this and all progress. That is the battle at hand.
LaShawn,
I have gone through highway checkpoints for having license and not having alcohol on the breath. Checking Muslins if not really racial because they recruit all races, but rather religious. It infringes many for the actions of a few, but after New York, Pentagon, and now London, should we err on side of safety. If plane had hit Capitol or Whitehouse, would the left be less strident. One of my best friends missed death or injury by running for his life, when the plane hit the Pentagon. The office was physically destroyed but email was up the next day from another location.
James M. Barber
NOTE: Martial, not Marshall Law
Also, as a nod to trekkies, the USS Enterprise (how free market-y) has always defended democracy — past, present & future. Read the Barbary link in #101 and see if you see shades of Archer/Kirk/Picard
Bravo Heliotrope!!! On all points.
Whomever said under martial law, the President is no longer in charge is wrong.
The President is the CINC and would still maintain control, but me thinks someone has been watching “The Seige.”
Whoops–I mispelled the “martial” in “law.” On another note, I sort of agree with Cobra, but I see it as a pattern of globalization (not a conspiracy), where multinationals essentially work around issues of human rights to achieve profits. So essentially what is emerging are transnational entities, as if they are beyond governments.
The fact that we don’t demand anything from the Saudi gov’t or take any action with them is sickening. They institutionalized Wahabism hundreds of years ago (forgot how long), and allowed parallels systems to emerge. Now it’s spilled out into our way of life, and there’s nothing we can do about it because we need their oil–every President has had to endure the relationship.
I’m not in despair about the situation, I just see the global scene as full of gray areas, where each nation has to achieve the best for itself. And unfortunately, our gov’t is also guilty of acting for the ends without much concern for the means, especially during the Cold War.
But it doesn’t change my mind about what has to be done–we cannot allow our country to be infiltrated, and we can’t allow native-born Americans to go along with that hatred either. Take a look at David Horowitz’s book “Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left.”
Comments on this entry are closed.