Last night, the feds arrested six Islamofascist idiots for plotting to blow up Fort Dix, an army base in New Jersey. Fortunately, the plot was foiled. (Source)
Said a Fort Dix information officer: “I understand that they weren’t just targeting Fort Dix, that it was a multiple-base plan to attack several bases in the Northeast.” (Updates here)
Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens are being made to drink their own breast milk to prove it’s not “threatening,” strip to their metal hips and knees, and face daunting and wholly unnecessary airport security lines because we’re too darn PC to target the people most likely to commit terrorist acts.
It’s a shame that scrutinizing mostly young Middle Eastern and/or Arab men is more controversial than grabbing grannies. 
Oh, and did I mention that illegal aliens work in sensitive areas in airports and on aircraft engines? In the scheme of things, it’s no big deal that I have to remove my shoes and my laptop from its case and endure tedious “security” checkpoints in the name of “homeland security,” is it? Still… 
I say let the ethnic and religious profiling begin! What say you?
(Hat tip: MM)
Update: More info from The Smoking Gun. By the way, it will save time if you read the whole post and follow links before commenting. And notice that I advocate ethnic and religious (Muslim) profiling, not just “Middle Eastern” or “Arab” profiling. Ethnic Albanian Muslims fall within the target range, pardon the pun.
Update II: MM has lots more with links, including this tidbit: some of the terrorists were illegal aliens. More here.
I’ll be away from the computer most of the day, so feel free to post updates in the comment section.
Related posts:
I say profile everyone, just as Israel does. Everyone is searched and probed. That would shut up the complainers and we would all be safer.
Comment by Rolf — 05.08.07 @ 9:40 am
6 charged with plot on Army base in N.J.
Six men from the former Yugoslavia were arrested on charges they plotted to attack the Fort Dix Army…
Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — 05.08.07 @ 10:32 am
The usual response is that if we only profile Arab men, then the terrorists will start recruiting old blonde women.
I say, let them. We can change back to assuming everyone is a terrorist as soon as a young swedish woman or old chinese man blows something up.
Comment by Tom — 05.08.07 @ 10:33 am
That’s a response I often hear, Tom. I agree. Target the kind of people who are known to commit terrorist acts, and if they start recruiting old blonde women, we’ll deal with it at that time.
Comment by La Shawn — 05.08.07 @ 10:35 am
I agree with Tom also. Political correctness should never EVER trump security.
Comment by DragonLady — 05.08.07 @ 10:42 am
If these people turn out to be illegal immigrants as in a border jumper or visa violator, there better be a HUE AND CRY!!!!
I agree with all of you. Profile me if you want (one of those soon to be old blonde women) haha
Comment by dianne — 05.08.07 @ 10:45 am
Four of them were ethnic Albanians, one from Turkey and one from Jordan. All Islamists.
Comment by Angel — 05.08.07 @ 10:53 am
Add me to the list of people who agree with ethnic profiling. We have to do what is necessary to protect the citizens of this country. I will NEVER be a proponent of protecting someone’s feelings at the expense of the protection of my loved ones or other innocent citizens.
Comment by Tami Gill — 05.08.07 @ 11:00 am
“I say let the ethnic and religious profiling begin! What say you?”
Without question, let ‘er rip.
Comment by Tom Blogical — 05.08.07 @ 11:07 am
I strongly agree with Rolf (comment #1). Profile everyone.
Comment by Leon — 05.08.07 @ 11:07 am
I am all for profiling more, but most of these terrorists were not Arabs and Albania is not even part of the Middle East. The issue is religion and ideology not race or ethnicity. Many if not most of the Muslim terrorists that are threatening us are Arab, but the shoe bomber wasn’t, the Bali bombers were not, the DC snipers were not, and it looks like most of these guys were not. The one thing they all were was Muslim.
…which is why I wrote, “let the ethnic and religious profiling begin…” - Admin
Comment by Pete the Elder — 05.08.07 @ 11:16 am
I don’t agree with “ethnic” and “religious” profiling because it just opens the door for profiling the “flavor of the day”, which I think is a slippery slope. I agree with searching everyone. Period.
Comment by Sara — 05.08.07 @ 11:17 am
Where has our national resolve gone? If we had behaved in this feeble and cowardly manner during WWII, Imperial Japan would today rule all of Asia and the Pacific, and the Nazis would rule all of Europe, Africa and the Middle East, while the U.S. would be lucky to maintain 48 states in a 3rd world fashion.
Comment by redbeard — 05.08.07 @ 11:19 am
The “who to search” question is irrelevant in this case. It seems these folks were already here for some time. Remember the Kosovo airlift, anyone?
Comment by Angel — 05.08.07 @ 11:20 am
Redbeard,
Who’s being “feeble and cowardly”? I think reasonable people agree on what should be done to protect the public. Even the ankle biters.
Comment by Angel — 05.08.07 @ 11:50 am
I did read the whole post and links beforehand. But you can not effectively profile for religion for people boarding planes wnless a guy is waving a koran around or publically praying like the flying imans were a few months ago. Profiling arabs is a start, but it is a very small part of the solution since we are facing an enemy that has a history of adapting to our solutions and that is recruiting from a wide variety of ethinic groups.
Personally I am more bothered by the fact that our pilots are still for the most part unarmed and that our TSA staff at airports don’t seem up to the task of profiling even if it was encouraged. The wrost part of all is that our immigration policy in this country is terrible: it fails to keep the bad ones out and is too tough on the good ones trying to get in.
Comment by Pete the Elder — 05.08.07 @ 11:57 am
Profile away. There’ll always be some that slip thru, but certainly the odds will be better than the PC crap that passes for security now.
And yes, profiling & surveillancewould have picked these 6 evil stooges.
1) 3 were here illegally for years, 2 on work permits & 1 US citizen
2) 1 had a job delivering pizza on post & used that to scout. Cleared to come on post??
May be politically incorrect, but give all with Islamic names, attitudes etc closer scrutiny. Let the onus of non-ill will be on them. And let CAIR scream away — surprised we haven’t heard from them already yet.
If we’re truly in war, then suspending Habus Corpus is not unprecedented and even expected by the Founding Fathers.
Other factoids:
1) Feds tipped off due to a video they wanted produced on DVD (stu-u-u-pid), 16 months ago and were tracked by the FBI ever since.
2) Ft Dix was used to house Kosovo refugees in 1999 — in Clinton’s humanitarian war, where no US interests were at stake. The same war that started wa-a-a-y back in ‘93 where Clinton promised it would only last a year in Bosnia, but quickly became a quagmire that sucked us into the surrounding regions of Macedonia, Albania, Kosovo.
Comment by Andy — 05.08.07 @ 11:59 am
Dix…
6 held on terror conspiracy charges in N.J. NBC, MSNBC and news services: Six men described by federal prosecutors as “Islamic militants” were arrested on charges they plotted to attack the Fort Dix Army base and “kill as many soldiers as possible,…
Trackback by Murdoc Online — 05.08.07 @ 12:01 pm
Rusty Shackleford is on the case:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/187753.php
Comment by Andy — 05.08.07 @ 12:09 pm
Angel, La Shawn laid out the case quite clearly in her initial post. It’s feeble and cowardly to refuse to zero in on the religious group responsible for almost all terrorism, lest we offend their delicate sensibilities. You know, Methodists. Or is it Lutherans? [insert rolling eyes here]
Comment by RedBeard — 05.08.07 @ 1:30 pm
Redbeard,
How do you screen for religion? It’s not like race and ethnicity?
Comment by Angel — 05.08.07 @ 1:47 pm
Supposedly the US consulted with Israel on security techniques, and Israel told them point blank, stop profiling “items” and start profiling PEOPLE! Many every day items can be turned into weapons if the terrorist wants to do harm, as we have seen already. It is absurd to place restrictions on baby bottles and knitting needles, for pete’s sake, while ignoring swarthy skinned, bearded, gowned guys speaking Arabic and acting strangely. Apparently the US chose to ignore Israel’s advice, which is based on years of experience with terrorism.
Comment by batyah — 05.08.07 @ 1:48 pm
“How do you screen for religion?
For one, we could let it be known that hermetically sealed pork and other unclean by products will be stored in each seat. If the flight makes it to its destination — no cross-contamination, no problem. If it crashes, the contents get sprayed, coating the fresh & “clean” martyr with the sheen of lard.
But then, some mullah will just issue a new fatwa declaring that traditional aversion to pork is moot and that the jihadist should simply consider himself lubed for action with 72 virgins.
In other words, the Islamofascists are slippery devils. Any time there is an apparent contradiction, they just issue a fatwa to override dogma.
Seriously, if the person looks, acts, sounds, or even smells like a Islamic radical, bar them from the flight.
Likewise, no burkha or nijabs on the person or even in the carry-on. That and automatic pat-down for any traditional dress.
Any Koran or islamic materials that are discovered in checked baggage screening warrants a patdown prior to boarding.
IOW, one whiff of Islam in any shape or form gets you the treatment. Before too long, either the moderates will step up and actively denounce the radicals in their mist (”bring about the reformation”) or realize their religion for the spawn of Satan that it is and bail.
Comment by Andy — 05.08.07 @ 2:06 pm
Meanwhile, back in the real world…How do we screen for religion? I don’t think we can. Screen everyone.
Comment by Angel — 05.08.07 @ 2:19 pm
And, if we’re really going to do it that way, the TSA has to go. How can a kid with a GED do that job? There are plenty of retired FBI and CIA agents who might want to do this as well as trained private security experts.
Comment by Angel — 05.08.07 @ 2:24 pm
What part of real world do you live in?
You don’t think we can?
So what’s the thot process behind that summation?
Islamic/Communist nations routinely screen for Christians and other unapproved affiliations on a regular basis and have decades of experience in this. Personally, I say it’s high time for tit-fot-tat.
Persecute Christians as a matter of national policy? Don’t expect us to roll over for your state religion.
Nothing new and certainly cheaper than indiscriminate screening.
Oh yeah, silly me! [slaps forehead]
The operative word here is indiscriminate.
It is PC to be in-discriminate, not discriminating:
dis·crim·i·nat·ing (di(-skri(m’?-na-’ti(ng)
adj.
1.
a). Able to recognize or draw fine distinctions; perceptive.
b). Showing careful judgment or fine taste: a discriminating collector of rare books; a dish for the discriminating palate.
2. Separating into distinct parts or components; analytical.
3. Serving to distinguish; distinctive: a discriminating characteristic.
Get real.
Comment by Andy — 05.08.07 @ 2:33 pm
Terror plot broken up in New Jersey…
UPDATE: LaShawn has excellent commentary (as always) about not only these Islamofascists, but the fascists at airport terminals who harass normal Americans, yet allow illegals to do maintenance work on the freepin’ planes!!…
Trackback by Four Pointer — 05.08.07 @ 2:35 pm
Angel, you’ll have no argument from me about abolishing that federal boondoogle known for Taking Scissors Away!
Comment by Andy — 05.08.07 @ 2:35 pm
To go further, Batyah, I thought it was also profiling behavior. Like, this guy is acting suspiciously, let’s find out why. I keep thinking of James Woods taking the time to notice that the 9/11 terrorists were on a cross-country flight with him with no reading material or anything to eat or drink. Smart screeners should keep track of behavioral details, not whether or not someone is carrying a bottle of Nivea (mine was confiscated, too large).
It certainly can’t hurt to pay special attention to Albanians and Chechens along with the Yemenis, Indonesians and Pakistanis. If their passports say they’re from these countries, pay attention.
By the way, some religions do come with names. It highly unlikely that the South Asian gal wearing a sari and telling you her name is Sita is actually a Muslim, but Abdullah is highly unlikely to be anything other than Muslim. You know anyone named Jesus is a Latin Catholic.
Of course, to make the distinction on grounds that simple will mean having security personnel trained to know even those simple differences. While Chaldeans use Arabic names along with Western names (Sue, Joseph, etc.), I have never heard of any named Mohammed. Maybe Albanian and Chechen names aren’t that obviously distinguished based on their religion (never met enough to know), but how hard is it to take note of what region of the world they’re from, particularly if their behavior is off?
Comment by Tyrian Purple — 05.08.07 @ 2:37 pm
So that’s the “reasoning” behind your ideas? Tit for tat? I defer to your wisdom.
Comment by Angel — 05.08.07 @ 2:37 pm
Ummm…. Angel…. last time I looked, Christians weren’t sneaking into other countries to blow stuff up. Tit for tat? Please.
Comment by RedBeard — 05.08.07 @ 2:45 pm
By your logic since blacks are more likely to commit crime based on their population demographic, we should be checking every black person in a mercedes?
I actually agree that it makes sense to profile Arabs and muslims. I also believe that profiling goes many ways also.
Not EVERY Mercedes with a black driver. Don’t be willfully obtuse. You’re not a new reader, so you ought to know my position on racial profiling. - Admin
Comment by Vikram — 05.08.07 @ 2:50 pm
Redbeard,
Where did I say they were? I clearly state that everyone should be screened because it is difficult to screen for religion. You should read Andy’s posts to put everything in context.
Comment by Angel — 05.08.07 @ 2:52 pm
Particularly # 26. The phrase tit-for-tat is used by Andy there.
Comment by Angel — 05.08.07 @ 2:53 pm
If we follow the politically correct line of thought and terrorists are illegal aliens, then shouldn’t any illegal aliens be viewed as potential terrorists thus negating any racial profiling issues?
How many terrorism suspects have been full fledged American citizens?
Comment by Giao — 05.08.07 @ 3:07 pm
Giao,
Separate issues. Don’t use terrorism as a pretext to go after illegals. Do it on the merits if you’re going to do it at all.
Comment by Angel — 05.08.07 @ 3:13 pm
Redbeard,
What was that? I didn’t hear you…Oh, an apology? Yeah, no problem.
Comment by Angel — 05.08.07 @ 3:15 pm
Profile em, and don’t play games, we either get deadly serious about this or WE die…
Do the libs and ‘bleeding hearts’ not understand that part of the equation??
WE DIE if this isn’t stopped…
This plot is about as stupid as you can get, but it IS a very feasible plan of attack, it won’t take control of the Fort, any fort, it IS a suicide attack, no doubt, but how many of our unarmed troops go down in the process??
6 well armed, highly trained, dedicated and determined individuals can wreak havoc with AK-47’s, rocket launchers and grenade launchers if the manage to smuggle them onto a base and then attack…
They’re gonna die in the process, but what IF??
And this isn’t some moonbat tin foil bull poop theory, this IS a real and viable threat…
Profile em ALL…
Comment by TexasFred — 05.08.07 @ 3:24 pm
[sigh] Angel, I’m taking issue with your position, your use of tit-for-tat, and your idea that screening for religion is too difficult to attempt.
I do not apologize for my opinion.
Comment by redbeard — 05.08.07 @ 3:52 pm
You know, if real muslim moderates exist, they would be offended by the actions of these jihadists and would go on the offensive to denounce them publicly and unambiguously, then try to reassure the rest of us Americans that they support the values, traditions, and freedoms of this country. Any chance of this happening? Not much since 2001.
What percentage of muslims living in the West, and here in America specifically, do you think truly embrace and appreciate modern Western values of liberal democracy? My answer is it would be shockingly low - 5%, maybe.
Comment by marsouin — 05.08.07 @ 4:03 pm
Vikram, I don’t have any idea if you intended for your question to be taken seriously (it was rather silly, frankly), but here is an example of profiling based on behavior that takes into account demographics:
If you see a black man in a Mercedes who 1) has no known job, or has one too low-paying to explain the Mercedes, and 2) frequents the local crack house (or just hangs around known drug dealers), a cop or Joe Public would be right to be suspicious. One of the reasons Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanson (one or both) got caught was because they lived above their means, and the same obtains here. If the black man with the Mercedes has 1) a job that pays highly enough to explain away the car, and 2) does not have a drug history, nor does he hang out at druggies, profiling him is less justified.
Similarly, Abdullah at the airport who is behaving normally and presents a story that checks out and has no known connections to terrorist groups (and is not on a no-fly list, as Yusuf Islam deserves to be), is less of a worry. But if Abdullah is acting suspiciously, Abdullah should be pulled aside, not ignored for the sake of pretending there is no risk from anyone fitting his demographic profile. That would be stupid.
Comment by Tyrian Purple — 05.08.07 @ 4:06 pm
I am all for both racial and religious profiling. We SHOULD be doing that. If 40 year old white girls from New Orleans who eat crawfish were the ones committing these heinous acts, I, as a 40 year old white girl from New Orleans who eats crawfish AND was innocent, would have no problem with profiling for security. I have another solution, although many will find it simplistic. God says in His word, the Bible, that when a man’s ways please Him then He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him(Proverbs 16:7). If our country weren’t headed in such a moral spiral downward, I’d be willing to bet we wouldn’t be seeing these kinds of things going on. Our ways are NOT pleasing to HIM and therefore our enemies are at the gate, yea, already inside! For those that have a problem with this take it up with God. I didn’t write the Bible, He did.
Comment by LIBBYGIRL — 05.08.07 @ 4:27 pm
You cannot separate the illegal alien issue from the terrorist threat issue. Yes, a lot of illegal aliens are here “just to work”, but I’m worried about the very real threat of terrorists coming over with all the “workers” who want to cause real harm.
As for profiling, when Catholics or Methodists or Jews or Shintoist or whatever other religion starts suicide bombing and other terrorist activities, we can change profiling to include those types of people. Right now, it’s Muslims who are the ones murdering people across the globe. Let’s be realistic about this, people!
And, as I am still looking for a teaching job for next school year, I would very much like to find a job in a district that serves a military base. I can’t help but think that if I do get my “dream job”, my students would be a lovely “soft target” for people like these 6 men in New Jersey…
Comment by Miss Ladybug — 05.08.07 @ 4:40 pm
Angel @ 33 wrote: “You should read Andy’s posts to put everything in context.”
@ 26, I wrote: “Islamic/Communist nations routinely screen for Christians and other unapproved affiliations on a regular basis and have decades of experience in this. Personally, I say it’s high time for tit-fot-tat.
Persecute Christians as a matter of national policy? Don’t expect us to roll over for your state religion.”
So what is the problem here? If you do as you say to Redbeard, then you should be able to make the connection that I am referring to the discrimination exhibited by backward nations.
Unless you’ve been on a desert island for the last 20 years, you would know that there are a lo of things wrong, from women having no autonomy to churches are being desecrated to a thriving and ongoing slave trade being perpetrated by Muslims.
That said, I “apologize” that when conversing with you that I have to spell out all the nuances of tit for tat.
I “apologize” that I have to caveat that tit for tat does not mean eye for eye as in beheading or otherwise giving the Islamofascists a brutal time as in what goes around, coming around. That whatever we do has to be in conformance with the Constitution and particularily as a Christian, in accordance with Judeo-Christian principles.
But since you so gallantly rushed to assumptions, without a shred of critical thinking; let alone expand on your overly brief, hollow, shallow & thin canards, you’ve at least did me the favor of leaving me out of assume for all to see.
If you want to engage, try again.
Comment by Andy — 05.08.07 @ 4:48 pm
Angel @ 36: “Separate issues. Don’t use terrorism as a pretext to go after illegals. Do it on the merits if you’re going to do it at all.”
Huh?? Did you read #17? I’m idly wondering how at 10:53, it was known what nationality they were, but the fact that 3 were illegals. That said, Giao was certainly being logical about the questions he posed.
In fact, one could extend that logic to sabotage. Illegal aliens sabotage our health care system, our public services and so on.
D’ya think that’s probably why most nations take a dim & harsh view on illegals that cross their sovereign borders?
Comment by Andy — 05.08.07 @ 4:56 pm
Miss Ladybug, check out Oklahoma. Among States, OK leads in military appreciation. And pay is rising albeit belatedly.
Hint, secular progressives haven’t corrupted public school systems in the outlands, it’s actually downright conservative
Comment by Andy — 05.08.07 @ 5:00 pm
The Fort Dix Six…
Well, looks like we stopped a terror attack on a US military base in the United States. I can hear the neo-Copperheads now – “US out of New Jersey!” And at the risk of stereotyping, all six are foreign-born young……
Trackback by Rhymes With Right — 05.08.07 @ 7:18 pm
Andy~
I lived in Northwest Arkansas for about 8.5 years, and I’ve only been back in Texas for not quite 2.5 years. I decided I’d been away from family for too long. So, at this point in time Oklahoma isn’t an option. I think I’ve got some options around here.
Comment by Miss Ladybug — 05.08.07 @ 7:47 pm
They’re All Muslims, But……
Now that much more is known about the six Muslims arrested in New Jersey, the spin from Muslims begins….
Trackback by JammieWearingFool — 05.08.07 @ 8:32 pm
(Heavy sigh) Redbeard,
I was responding to Andy’s post in which the term “tit-for-tat” was used by HIM originally. I think when you are considering policy issues, tit-for-tat as a basis for doing something has to be a joke of some kind.
Andy,
I am second to no one in recognizing the dangers Islamists pose to our way of life. But, I also worry that we are allowing our way of life to be taken from us in the way in which we respond to the danger. I have no problem with the way the Israelis screen. I don’t think we should travel down the road of religious bigotry to keep ourselves safe. We should be flexible enough in our security apparatus to adjust to whatever challenges arise. Saudis on 9/11, Albanians today. In the future, it may very well be (converted) Scandinavians.
The fact of the matter is this has always been a law enforcement issue not a military one. The success in foiling today’s plot bears that out.
Redbeard and Andy, I know you don’t have any respect for me. You’ve shown as much. I don’t want to play games. Respond to my posts on the merits, not because you want to be juvenile.
Signed,
The Ankle Biter…
Comment by Angel — 05.08.07 @ 9:32 pm
Has anyone heard whether the flying imams have made their life’s fortunes off of their “civil rights” case? To me, this is one of our big problems in the US that we let ourselves be bullied by those who would “use” the system for personal gain.
As to profiling…Perhaps it would be more fruitful to look at it this way: We are not targeting a certain group as “bad” but rather eliminating the mass numbers of unlikely suspects. In that sense, those that are left may be the “defacto” scrutinized but in a neutral sense. They simply would not fall into the group of least likely suspects but without a perjorative connotation.
Comment by jan — 05.08.07 @ 10:05 pm
Plotting Against Fort Dix: UPDATES BELOW…
The fact that terrorists would try to launch such an attack would send a variety of signals, not the least of which would be - hey the WoT is failing and we’re able to hit you anywhere and everywhere. It would be a recruitment bonus for terrorist gro….
Trackback by A Blog For All — 05.08.07 @ 10:12 pm
Angel: “Respond to my posts on the merits, …”
Gladly, if proffered. It’s easy enough to respect you when you toss something substantive into the mix. Lately, you tend to flit in and out…
Nonetheless, you don’t think we should travel down the road of religious bigotry to keep ourselves safe and that we should be flexible enough in our security apparatus to adjust to whatever challenges arise.
Fair enough. So let’s disect that:
1) On what principle do you rest that notion on?
2) “religious bigotry”, hmmm:
Lessee, a prime example of a religious bigot would be the KKK. As long as they content themselves to having sheet parties, or controlled public demonstrations, more power to them. Let them try to board a plane in their nightrider getup and see how far they travel.
You can be sure that if the KKK were blamed for half the happenings here in the US, they wouldn’t dare bring, or speak, one iota of anything that might associate them with their base while moving about the country, even if there was a schism within the Klan. So why is it that Islamist get a pass, a la the ‘flying imans’?
Discrimination? It’s only prudent, not to mention scriptual. Can you say Shibboleth?.
Religious bigotry? Sorry, I’m not seeing it. Where has anyone in the above comments expressed religious bigotry?
3) “…flexible enough to arise to the challenges”, hmmm.
Ruthless, unconventional foes are not new to the United States of America. Our 1st official encounter with the Barbarians was when our 2nd POTUS had enough of the ‘antics’ with the pirates of Barbary and sent his navy out to either make them submit to 18th Century protocols or else squash them back into the 7th century. Hence the line about Tripoli in the Marine Corps anthem.
And he did it without invoking an act of war declaration from Congress. As Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: “The [pirate] states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . . Every national citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both.”
How’s that for legal, moral & political precedent? Granted that’s taking the fight to them as opposed to dealing with them within the homeland.
Nonetheless, I can’t see anything from our 200 years of history where we pander to those hiding amongst we-the-people for fear of offending the innocent. The term dhimitude comes to mind.
If the truly offended don’t like it, the onus is solely on them to clean the rot from within. I call that flexibility with due process/respect for others with differing faiths.
That said, I don’t have a problem with what that great Liberal hero, FDR, did in detaining nationals of countries at war with us. Granted, it could have been more humane, but the rationale & execution got the job done in that acts of successful sabotage was minuscule in relation to the real & tangible threat. The heroic 442nd Regimental Combat Team comes to mind.
If our law-abiding Muslim citizens persist in remaining mum, or allowing themselves to be muzzled, a la PBS, then if and when things really get drastic, they only have themselves to blame. Fortunately, at least some have felt compelled to prove their bonafides by taking up arms in solidarity with us to fight the radicals.
That’s what I call flexible. The elasticity has to work both ways.
Naturally you may disagree, but I promise you I’ll respect you more if you have something more than just sheer emotions to base your opinions on.
Comment by Andy — 05.09.07 @ 12:13 am
The Fort Dix Six…
A very disturbing case of six Muslims who were arrested for plotting a terrorist attack against the army base near Wrightstown, New Jersey:…
Trackback by Tel-Chai Nation — 05.09.07 @ 12:14 am
6 Muslims Arrested in Ft Dix Terror Plot…
This is unusual, most terrorist’s plot against civilians, these guys were gunning for a military base. Six foreign-born Muslims were arrested and accused Tuesday of plotting to attack Fort Dix and slaughter scores of U.S. soldiers - a scheme the…
Trackback by The Amboy Times — 05.09.07 @ 12:45 am
“a prime example of a religious bigot would be the KKK”
Is the KKK a religious organization?
Comment by JohnD — 05.09.07 @ 7:53 am
An organization based upon a perversion of religion, yes.
Comment by redbeard — 05.09.07 @ 8:07 am
Actually, it’s important to note that the KKK is based upon a perversion of Christianity, while it’s fair to say that Islamofascists base their actions upon the true teachings of their religion.
Now, there, I’ve gone and done it. The PC police will be knocking on my door soon.
Comment by redbeard — 05.09.07 @ 8:17 am
Andy,
Why do you think I base my opinion on emotion? Because I don’t come to the same conclusions you do. Like I’ve said many times, when most people in this country thought the Taliban was some type of weight-loss drug, I was alarmed by what they were doing in Afghanistan, especially when they wanted to “protect” the Hindu minority in that country with yellow felt badges they would be compelled to wear. Sound familiar?
The moderate Muslims are getting a bad rap here. I think it’s pretty clear that a lot of them are cooperating with law enforcement in providing intelligence on would-be terror cells. But, at what point, do you allow someone to be responsible for their own actions. This is similar to the issue with the black community being asked over and over again to denounce extremists (Sharpton, Jackson, et al) just because they share the same skin color.
If, indeed as some claim what we’re seeing is the result of not a perversion of Islam, but the true teachings, why are we in Iraq trying to lead them to democracy? Isn’t their religion incompatible with the concept? Logically, shouldn’t we try to convert them by force to some amalgam of Christianity. Obviously, that’s not possible. But, these are observations and questions.
Comment by Angel — 05.09.07 @ 9:39 am
Redbeard,
Wouldn’t it be fair to say the “Islamofascists” base their actions of what they BELIEVE are the true teachings of Islam?
Comment by Angel — 05.09.07 @ 9:42 am
Redbeard,
Wouldn’t it be fair to say the “Islamofascists” base their actions on what they BELIEVE are the true teachings of Islam?
Comment by Angel — 05.09.07 @ 9:43 am
Political correctness is the idea that using ones intgelligence and striving to be fair it is possible to pick up a turd from the clean end.
We need to stop trying.
Comment by MunDane — 05.09.07 @ 10:59 am
>>If, indeed as some claim what we’re seeing is the result of not a perversion of Islam, but the true teachings, why are we in Iraq trying to lead them to democracy? Isn’t their religion incompatible with the concept?>>
That really _is_ the question, isn’t it. Or really, two questions.
1) is it a perversion or the true islam that we’re seeing? From what I’ve read, the koran was written at different times, the earlier times were peaceable and probably compatible with democracy. The later times(when Mohammed was more powerful) are more violent, more confrontational, and probably _not_ compatible with democracy. My understanding is that those we call radicals follow the principle that if there is a contradiction between two statements in the koran, the believer should accept the one that was written later in preference to one that was written earlier. It seems as though there might be room for intrepretation, though. The problem is that changes in religious teachings usually take centuries rather than decades.
2)is democracy possible in an islamic country? Well, Turkey seems to be managing, and the Kurds have seemed to manage. The problem is that the extremists of Wahabbism and Sheism preach that the process of democracy itself is against the teachings of Allah, and therefore it a muslim even votes his/her soul is in danger of eternal damnation. Nevertheless, the Iraqis _did_ vote. This one is a tough call. The religious leaders definitely want to direct all muslims to sharia and rule by the imams. But that’s nothing new - there have always been people who wanted to wield power - imams just use a different cover. The Iraqi people could go either way. They _seem_ inclined to want democracy, and _seem_ to be rejecting AQ, but it isn’t going to be easy getting them to adjust, and the time we’re giving them to complete the adjustment is pretty darn short. Consider the Irish and how long _that’s_ been going on.
Comment by suek — 05.09.07 @ 11:38 am
Angel @ 59 asks: “Why do you think I base my opinion on emotion? Because I don’t come to the same conclusions you do.”
Not at all due to disagreement, as I’ve tried to explain over and over.
Your following text is loaded with emotion, but no direction.
“But, I also worry that we are allowing our way of life to be taken from us in the way in which we respond to the danger. I have no problem with the way the Israelis screen. I don’t think we should travel down the road of religious bigotry to keep ourselves safe. We should be flexible enough in our security apparatus to adjust to whatever challenges arise.”
Our way of life IS being threatened.
1) Are you proposing that we adopt the El Al approach? Just wait till the A380 rolls out. Do you even have an inkling of the scale of resources involved, when applied to the US? It would kill US aviation.
2) And you propose that we don’t travel down the road of religious bigotry to keep ourselves safe. Where did you come up with that strawman? Who is proposing that?
3) So define flexibility.
Maybe it’s just me, but constantly naysaying and taking things out of context without offering a counterpoint strikes me as emotional.
For example, if you said, “as an Amish, I don’t believe in raising my arms to defend myself!” Fine, I’ll respect your beliefs, because it goes without saying that your beliefs are based on established & well-known doctrine. Eminently logical, even if I don’t agree.
Some here have a body of work, as it were, that conclusions can be stated without going into rationales and are implicitly understood. You, on the other hand, are ambiguous and all over the place. And when challenged provide even the simplest thot process, you flit away like a moth singed by light.
Comment by Andy — 05.09.07 @ 12:07 pm
Call it religious bigotry if you will, but until it’s not just Muslims who are committing (or attempting to commit) this terrorist acts across the globe, I want the focus to be on those most likely to be the problem: young Muslim men…
Comment by Miss Ladybug — 05.09.07 @ 12:18 pm
Andy,
So, you only respect beliefs if they are based on a doctrine you accept as established?
It’s hard to keep emotion out of this discussion for me because I miss the country we used to have. I don’t like the idea of not having the open society we used to have. In fact, I hate it. All emotions. This is not something I can be dispassionate about. It’s too important to me and my child.
Like I said before, you don’t seem to respect anything I have to say so I don’t understand what the point of this is.
Comment by Angel — 05.09.07 @ 12:20 pm
I’m not here to provide dissertations. This is a blog, not a peer journal. Then, I would be concerned about meeting your intellectual rigor.
Comment by Angel — 05.09.07 @ 12:22 pm
Angel, the fastest way back to that “open society” you prize is through eliminating the threat posed by Islamofascism.
Comment by redbeard — 05.09.07 @ 12:48 pm
Angel, there you go again, obtuse as ever. Might as well flit on yonder and repose by that fair & calming blue light.
Comment by Andy — 05.09.07 @ 12:52 pm
Andy,
So insulting me is a form of engagement? I’m not obtuse. I don’t know you from a hole in the wall so pointing to your “body of work” here means nothing to me. You’re obnoxious. I post my opinions as they strike me. Sometimes, after a few seconds of thought. Sometimes more. This is not brain surgery.
Comment by Angel — 05.09.07 @ 1:10 pm
Redbeard,
How do we do that? Since, I have to make everything I say clear. This is a legitimate question. Because if we pursue this effort in a way that could be perceived as anti-Islam, we even lose the moderates. We need to show the Muslim world it is their own leadership that keeps them in the 7th century not us. Some would say we shouldn’t have to do that. I love this country and what we used to have here, but when we are at the point that people are willing to trade freedoms for security, we have to try everything. This doesn’t preclude being tough on actual threats. We need a comprehensive strategy that tackles this problem.
Comment by Angel — 05.09.07 @ 1:18 pm
Angel, I regret presuming that you were being deliberately obtuse.
On the contrary, I now realize that you were actually conceding each and every point. Rather than flitting, you instead raise new points in order to put them to rest.
Comment by Andy — 05.09.07 @ 1:53 pm
Andy,
Your side-splitting humour is too much for me.
Comment by Angel — 05.09.07 @ 3:01 pm
You guys need to meet for coffee. You’d probably get along like old friends.
Comment by La Shawn — 05.09.07 @ 3:06 pm
Yeah, I guess Baltimore isn’t too far from DC the next time I have to go to HQ. But none of that god-mocking starbucks frappachino latte stuff for me
Comment by Andy — 05.09.07 @ 3:10 pm
Andy, you sound like a man after my own heart. As Agent Dale Cooper in Twin Peaks orders his coffee, “Black as midnight on a moonless night.”
Comment by redbeard — 05.09.07 @ 3:52 pm
Redbeard, don’t we have a long-standing round of beer waiting somewhere already?
When it comes to beer, I like to sample local specialities, but coffee is as coffee gets, plain with just a dab of sweet & creamy.
Comment by Andy — 05.09.07 @ 4:19 pm
Apparently obtuseness is not confined to ankle biters.
Comment by Angel — 05.09.07 @ 4:50 pm
Deliberate or ingrained?
Comment by Andy — 05.09.07 @ 5:05 pm
I just looked up the word obtuse and note that it can mean “rounded at the extremity.”
That certainly puts a new wrinkle in the discussion. Chubby toes? Big head?
I have finally discovered that Starbucks’ Coffee makes drinkable tea which is more than I can say about its coffee.
Comment by jan — 05.09.07 @ 6:12 pm
Heh!
Comment by Andy — 05.09.07 @ 6:34 pm
Angel, considering that the majority of terrorist acts are committed by muslims and the fact that hezbollah has a training camp in S. America, it’s wise to keep our eyes open. When buddists and hindus start slamming aircraft into buildings we’ll concentrate on them as well. (I do see your point on this though)
Comment by Greg Laurich — 05.09.07 @ 7:46 pm
Andy,
More like grain alcohol.
Comment by Angel — 05.10.07 @ 8:21 am
Greg,
I’m not letting Muslims off the hook. It’s just that there are many converts who don’t fit the stereotype. I mean, we can’t even tell Sikhs apart from Muslims. So, all I’m saying is unless we are willing to say outright we are engaged in a Holy Crusade, we have to find a screening process that keeps us safe, but doesn’t make all Muslims third-class citizens
Comment by Angel — 05.10.07 @ 8:25 am
Angel, they’re sure as heck engaged in a crusade.
The one common thread to the vast majority of terrorists right now is radical Islam. So if there are mosques where the clerics, Imans, Mullahs etc., are spewing vile, then that’s a good place to start. Of course securing our borders might help as well, but what do we know? 
Comment by Greg Laurich — 05.10.07 @ 10:26 am
It is time to look at all the Nations in which the “——-” are not the majority. Each nation out there with a “——-” minority has the same problems as we do and will. There can be no assimilation into western society when the wests values are in contradiction to the “——-”. Western society was originally based on Judeo/Christians values. The only way the “——-” will intergrate is if the West rejects the Judeo/Christian values and become followers of “——-”.
Don’t believe it? then read what “——-” Bin Laden said, read what the “——-” imans in Britain are saying, read what the “——-” are saying in Holland, Denmark, France, Italy, Thailand, the Phillipines, India, Canada, Austrailia and here in the US. The word is out there and people would be wise to read and understand what the “——-” are saying. There will be no assimilation into western society. The west will be converted to “——-”. It is directed by the “——-” holy book and the message is stated quite clearly. Only a fool would believe otherwise.
Yes, that is a strong statement but I stand by it. The “——-” tell me so each day.
If the west wants to survive the expansion of “——-” then it better wipe PC off the map. I don’t see Seiks, Hindus, Buddists, Jews, Menonites, Lutherans, or those violent Amish, etc.. blowing up buildings, hijacking jets, attacking & killing school children, cutting the heads off of monks, and demanding the Majority of society conform to them. I do see one religion doing that in todays age, guess who? “——-”
As we (the USA) continue to allow lax immigration laws, bend over backward to appease the shrieking “——-” minority we will continue to see more and more of these cases. Law enforcement can only catch so many of ‘em. It is but a matter of time when a “——-” cell will conduct a attack. How many people have to die before people realize that a certain religion (”——-”) cannot get along all the other ones.
Herkeng
Comment by Herkeng — 05.10.07 @ 10:33 am
Greg,
Of course, the law enforcement focus should be on Muslims, but let’s keep in mind Muslims have also been informants and witnesses against their terror-minded brothers.
Comment by Angel — 05.10.07 @ 10:45 am
Angel said: “Of course, the law enforcement focus should be on Muslims…”
Well, good. We’ve got that point settled.
Comment by RedBeard — 05.10.07 @ 11:56 am
Redbeard,
When was that ever in doubt? I just question the logistics of it. Not every Muslim looks like Osama Bin Laden.
Comment by Angel — 05.10.07 @ 12:36 pm
Angel @ 84: “I mean, we can’t even tell Sikhs apart from Muslims. ”
That’s like saying we can’t tell Blacks apart, let alone the hundreds of ethnic varieties, i.e. Yoruba vs Igbo, Hutus, Ashantis, Twi, Zulus etc.
You mean you can’t. There’s a world of difference.
Comment by Andy — 05.10.07 @ 1:06 pm
Andy,
Actually, I can tell Sikhs from Muslims. Most of our countrymen can’t.
Comment by Angel — 05.10.07 @ 1:11 pm
Just think how this must have been highly inconvenient to the Powers That Be Posing As Leaders & Defenders Of This Federated Republic.
Now it’s being reported that the 3 illegals came across the Mexican border. Back in the 90s, no less. Now that’s what I call an Inconvenient Truth!
MR BUSH, PUT UP THAT WALL!! [/channeling Reagan]
I’d like to see how this so-called comprehensive bill stops terrorists from coming across.
Comment by Andy — 05.10.07 @ 1:12 pm
The logistics of screening is fairly straight forward. When a baggage scanner can locate a Bic lighter or a book of matches in a checked bag, then they need to start zeroing in on prayer rugs, beads, Korans and all the other related paraphernalia.
When found, grill the owners, and if less than satisfactory, deny them. Repeat, to include telling them why, until the radicals have been thoroughly marginalized.
Comment by Andy — 05.10.07 @ 1:17 pm
Is it offensive to Muslims to screen them based upon their religion? Of course it’s offensive. And totally irrelevant.
Show me anything in the Constitution, or in the philosophy of natural rights, that guarantees anyone, citizen or not, the right not to be offended.
Comment by redbeard — 05.11.07 @ 7:01 am