[2dogs]

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/70708.htm

THE FBI FUMBLES

By DANIEL PIPES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



March 14, 2003 -- AS an FBI agent, Gamal Abdel-Hafiz could have a key role helping America's premier anti-terrorist force protect the United States from harm.

But evidence from high-profile terrorism cases suggests that Abdel-Hafiz, an immigrant Muslim, twice refused on principle to tape-record his coreligionists, harming the investigations.

The first case concerns a now-defunct Secaucus, N.J.-based Islamic investment bank called BMI Inc. Founded in 1985, it was financed by known terrorists and by members of the bin Laden family. The FBI got a break in 1999, when a BMI accountant contacted it and relayed his suspicions that $2.1 million in BMI funds "may have been used" to finance Al-Qaeda's twin bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa in August 1998.

When the president of BMI - a Muslim - learned of this communication, he contacted Abdel-Hafiz to ask for a meeting. On a conference call in April 1999, an assistant U.S. attorney dealing with the BMI case, Mark Flessner, encouraged Abdel-Hafiz to meet the BMI president and clandestinely record their discussion.

Abdel-Hafiz refused. Why? "I fear for my life." But you have FBI protection, Flessner pointed out. No, Abdel-Hafiz scornfully replied: "The FBI can't protect me. The FBI, I don't trust them."

Pressed further, Abdel-Hafiz blurted out another reason, one recalled by several participants on the call:

* "I do not record another Muslim. That is against my religion" (Flessner).

* "A Muslim does not record another Muslim" (Robert Wright, FBI agent).

* He "wouldn't have any problems interviewing or recording somebody who wasn't a Muslim, but he could never record another Muslim" (John Vincent, FBI agent).

Robert Wright informed a supervisor at FBI headquarters about this conversation and met with indifference: "Well, you have to understand where he's coming from, Bob." When ABC News inquired about Abdel-Hafiz's statement, the FBI bureaucracy exonerated him by saying that the clandestine recording would have taken place in a mosque. But this was a falsehood (there was no mosque involved) which the FBI later acknowledged and retracted.

The second case concerns Sami Al-Arian, a University of South Florida professor recently indicted for his role financing and running the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group. Al-Arian had been under criminal investigation for years; at one point, he met Abdel- Hafiz at a conference and pressed for details about his case.

Abdel-Hafiz's then-colleague, Barry Carmody, says that he asked Abdel-Hafiz to learn more from Al-Arian by secretly recording a conversation with him. Abdel-Hafiz refused: He would make the call, but not record it.

Wright reports another problem with Abdel-Hafiz: Agents at the FBI's Washington field office wrote of his "contacting subjects of their investigations and not disclosing these contacts" to the special agents running those cases.

Carmody's repeated complaints about Abdel-Hafiz went nowhere. Worse, FBI headquarters promoted Abdel-Hafiz in February 2001 by sending him to terrorism central - to a sensitive, important, and prestigious posting at the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Which makes one wonder: In a country whose nationals are close to 100 percent Muslim, did Abdel-Hafiz continue his practice of incompletely investigating anyone who is Muslim?

Apparently he did continue, for there is now a special inspection underway into the Riyadh embassy's failure to actively pursue counterterrorism leads. And the FBI just days ago returned Abdel-Hafiz to the United States, put him on administrative leave and (according to Fox News) asked the Justice Department's much-feared Office of Professional Responsibility to review his conduct. (Among other things, that office investigates "allegations of misconduct by law enforcement personnel.")

Special Agent Abdel-Hafiz's actions raise some urgent and important questions:

* What was the true reason for his alleged unwillingness to record conversations with fellow-Muslims - a misguided sense of religious solidarity or a real fear for his life?

* Does Abdel-Hafiz sympathize with or support militant Islam?

* Is he the FBI's only Muslim employee whose religious bonds apparently trump the requirements of his office not to show favor?

* Did the FBI ignore a breach of oath by Abdel-Hafiz?

* Did the FBI reward misbehavior with a plum assignment?

* Did the FBI bureaucracy lie to cover up its mistakes? If so, does this fit a more general pattern?

* Is the FBI punishing Robert Wright, its whistleblower who bravely went public with this story?

* And when will the FBI permit Wright to speak freely about these matters?

Until FBI Director Robert Mueller fully answers these questions, Americans cannot rest assured that his agency is doing all possible to protect them.

[Blackcloud6]

This clown should be an ex-FBI agent.

[TallPine]

Muslims in this country darn well better wake up and decide whose side they are on - otherwise they will be totally deserving of any so callled "hate crimes" against them when the next big attack comes. :fire:

[Preacherman]

We have Muslim officers in the Bureau of Prisons, and there's no nonsense about them supervising, or reporting, or arresting Muslim inmates if the need arises - they do it or they're fired! In fact, given the propensity to violence in maximum-security prisons, we rely on them to run to our aid if an alarm is sounded, regardless of the religion of the inmate(s) causing the disturbance. In the same way, I'm Catholic, but I don't worry about the Catholicity of an inmate if he's causing trouble for another officer - I jump in with the rest of my colleagues! Why should the FBI be any different in its approach? Sounds like reverse religious discrimination to me...

[Russ]

If they can't fire him, he should ride a dead end desk job the rest of his sorry career. I don't see the Muslim community really coming out against terrorism. A few dribs and drabs but nothing significant. If there are more terrorist attacks against the US, they may well find themselves in a rebuilt Manzanar detention camp. That really wasn't that long ago and it could happen again if terrorism against the US can't be stopped.

[waterdog]

I don't trust the FBI or any other fed law agency to do the right thing anymore, they have become to so bureacratic, they don't no which way is up or down .

This S*** happens because they (FBI leadership)no longer take their oathes seriously, it has become a formality.

FUNDING is more important than carrying out their duties and enforcing the laws of this country.

waterdog

[Betty]

I don't see the Muslim community really coming out against terrorism. A few dribs and drabs but nothing significant. If there are more terrorist attacks against the US, they may well find themselves in a rebuilt Manzanar detention camp.

Whatever happened to I am not my brother's keeper?

So if my brother suddenly decides to run amok and kill a dozen people, I need to profusely apologize for his actions every day, maybe even flog myself in public view for shame, and maybe even change my last name so it's not connected to his? Is that enough or do I need to do more?

In my family, apologizing for someone else's actions means you're saying you're somehow responsible for that person's actions.

I don't know about you, but I'm not going to pigeonhole an entire group of people because of the actions of a few.

What we did to the Japanese American citizens in WWII was terrible. We took them away and isolated them in internment camps. They lost their homes, jobs, friends, and a chunk of their normal lives. Were these people supposed to apologize for Pearl Harbor? Maybe they left their former homeland because they didn't like it and America was better?

[rock jock]

Muslims in this country darn well better wake up and decide whose side they are on - otherwise they will be totally deserving of any so callled "hate crimes" against them when the next big attack comes.
Oops, TallPine, you've done it now! Where are the PC police on this board to rake you over the coals for daring to suggest that the VAST, OVERWHELMING majority of Muslim-Americans do not love the U.S. with all their heart and soul and bleed red, white and blue? Horrors! :rolleyes:

The truth is that you are entirely correct. The Muslim-American prespective on al Queda and others of their ilk is best summed up by the reaction of Muslim organizations in America only days after the WTC fell, when bodies were still being dug up and the fire was still smoldering. The most damning condemnation that their leaders could muster (when they would say anything at all, which was quite rare mind you) was that "while the actions of the 9/11 terrorists were wrong, we should try to understand their motives and anger." This situation brings to mind the well-publicized letter by Agent Coleen Rowley to FBI Director Robert Mueller and only goes to prove once again that much of the blame for 9/11 lies in our PC culture.

[Matt G]

If there are more terrorist attacks against the US, they may well find themselves in a rebuilt Manzanar detention camp. That really wasn't that long ago and it could happen again if terrorism against the US can't be stopped.
Not while I have anything to say about it. That stuff was wrong.

We don't amass citizens into concentration camps because of their ethnicity or origin. Not in this nation. :cuss:

HERE's a bit of food for your thought: what is the religion of most murderers in the United States? Now, just what do you propose to do with all the people that fit into that category? :confused:


The article was about an agent with seriously questionable professional conduct, and about questionable handling by the FBI. How did it become an indictment of the entire Muslim sector of the United States?

[buzz_knox]

His refusal is insubordination, which constitutes a terminable offense. If he isn't terminated, then that will be proof that the Fibbies are too concerned with PC to effectively run their shop and protect this county.

[cordex]

If he can't or won't do his job, he shouldn't be in that line of work.
Simple as that.

Runt,
While I disagree with his position, you didn't address it.

He was saying "come out against", not "apologize for". As in "As a Muslim, I condemn the slaughter of noncombatant infidels." As you noted apologizing for it means taking some element of responsibility for the action. Opposing does not.

To which, I would reply:
It is telling that not many Purdue students and immigrants from India have come out against nuclear threats. We've got a bundle of Boilers on this board, do we not? Their silence strikes me as implicit agreement with their fellow student.
http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1177384&nav=0Ra7EY1k

[Quartus]

You nailed it, cordex. The fact is that it is human nature to blame groups for the actions of a few. It's ALSO human nature to react to that by proclaiming loudly that 'THOSE people do not represent MY group!' We all understand guilt by association, and we all react to it.

If an anti-abortionist kills an abortionist, the pro-life groups are very quick to denounce that action in the strongest terms. (Of course, that often goes unreported, but that's another discussion.)

If a Frenchman committed a mass murder and claimed he did it in the name of France, you'd have Chirac and every other French public figure shouting NO at the top of their lungs.

If a Budhist put Sarin gas in a subway and claimed credit in the name of Budhism, you'd see a lot of Budhists on TV saying that such actions do NOT represent Budhism, and they would denounce it clearly and soundly.

And so with any other identifiable group you can think of.


So why haven't we seen a similar response from the Muslim community? Its absence speaks volumes.


I wish I had kept the emails I got when Pakistan first exloded a nuke a few years ago. (Hey, why aren't we invading Pakistan? But I digress.) Some involved put me in BCC, and I kept getting these emails that were flying back and forth between Muslims working in our company and others across America. A recurring theme was, "India now, the U.S. next!" and of course, there was great jubilation.

The companies at which a lot of these folks work was scary! Yes, serious defense contractors. :uhoh:


The problem is unlike any we have faced before. Most Americans will refuse to understand that until it is too late.

[4v50 Gary]

What BuzzKnox and Cordex says. It's insubordination and if he fails to do his job, he should find other employment. Perhaps even a transfer to a less sensitive federal job. Traffic crossing at a school sounds about right.

[Betty]

He was saying "come out against", not "apologize for". As in "As a Muslim, I condemn the slaughter of noncombatant infidels." As you noted apologizing for it means taking some element of responsibility for the action. Opposing does not.

Maybe they're one in the same?

Whatever happened to I am not my brother's keeper?
Maybe Muslims take that to heart?

Maybe I need a rephrase. I don't see why you have to take time out to condemn anything that someone else does, because you're of the same relgion, ethnicity, or members of the bingo club. It's like there's some kind of "guilt association thing" going on. You're in fact apologizing - like if you say nothing at all, it makes you feel like others are going to say, "Well, if he's not saying anything, than he must somehow agree with the other person's actions. So he must be one of them..." It's a way at attempting to disconnect yourself from a connection that really wasn't even there, because other people have made the connection!

Somebody stole a whole new multi-pack of Post-It notes at the office the other day. "Who took all the Post-Its? We just got them yesterday, and now there's none!" Most everybody piped up, "I didn't do it! Whoever did it should buy a new pack!" They were all working in the same office, and of course, didn't want to be blamed. A couple people didn't say a word. All eyes turned to them.

[Tamara]

Maybe those people vehemently opposed to Muslim Americans could demonstrate their conviction by boycotting message boards hosted on servers owned by one.

Just a thought. ;)

[rock jock]

What we did to the Japanese American citizens in WWII was terrible. We took them away and isolated them in internment camps.
I don't see why you have to take time out to condemn anything that someone else does, because you're of the same relgion, ethnicity, or members of the bingo club. It's like there's some kind of "guilt association thing" going on.
Care to reconcile these statements?

Maybe those people vehemently opposed to Muslim Americans could demonstrate their conviction by boycotting message boards hosted on servers owned by one.
The board is free. I'm not contributing a dime that might eventually go to a "charitable" fund used to buy explosives for homocide bombers.

[Betty]

I don't understand why some people believe that silence is acceptance, or if someone doesn't start their day singing "God Bless America!" isn't a good American.

[TallPine]

Just to set the record straight, I am not against anyone coming to this country and becoming a bona-fide American.

Right after 9-11-01, I kept a close eye out for my neighbors who live 2 houses up the street - the Arab doctor and his family. I was concerned that there might be a backlash and a serious attempt on their safety. I was on the alert to be ready to run out there (well armed of course) in their defense in case some frustrated gang mobbed their home.

But I am becoming seriously concerned about the things I am hearing (and NOT hearing) from the Muslim "community" nationwide.

Whoever is not with us is against us.

[Don Gwinn]

The board is free. I'm not contributing a dime that might eventually go to a "charitable" fund used to buy explosives for homocide bombers.

Were it my decision alone, implying that Derek would buy explosives for terrorists would result in banning without a warning.

On a personal note, sir, I would like to ask politely that you apologize for implying that my friend is a terrorist.

[Betty]

rock jock,
I see you're probing my word usage of "we" as "we American people" instead of wording it as "the American Government made up of congresscritters in office before I was born" as an attempt to try to snare me. BTW, if I used "the American Government made up of congresscritters in office before I was born", would that be guilt by association?

You can put the bear trap away now. :rolleyes:

]If there are more terrorist attacks against the US, they may well find themselves in a rebuilt Manzanar detention camp.[/I]

rock jock, you know why I inserted the Nisei camps episode there. If the word "we" is all you're hanging on to, you're going to have to come up with something better.

Of course, maybe I'm just being PC for not wanting the blood of every Muslim because it's trendy to do so.

[Don Gwinn]

Rock Jock, those statements are easily reconciled. They refer to two very different situations. You're talking about people who have not decried an action loudly enough for your liking (Muslims) and Runt is talking about people who seem to be advocating the actions in question (yourself, Tallpine, others.) There's a huge difference.

Of course, if you haven't apologized for slavery today, that doesn't make you a bad person. But if you made statements like "those blacks will deserve slavery again if they do so and such" then clearly you are associating yourself with slavery.

[rock jock]

runt,

There is a thing as collective responsibility. The Germans bore it for WWII, and we bore it for interning Japanese-American citizens, as you pointed out yourself. The Muslim-American community has a responsibility to represent their religion appropriately so that the rest of America will recognize that "true" Islam has been hijacked, or so we have been told. Instead, the Muslim-American community with astonishingly few exceptions, has not only remained silent, which speaks volumes by itself, but often tried to excuse the terrorist mindset. Then they become angry when the rest of America looks at a hole in the earth in New York City and refuses to entertain such excuses. It seems every month we learn of a new terror cell or "charitable" fund in the U.S. that was financing terrorists. What is the reaction of the Muslim-American community? Shock, condemnation, offers of cooperation? Nope, we get stonewalling, threats of lawsuits, bitter defiance and these are not isolated reactions. The profile of the larger Muslim-American community has begun to take shape, not by our hands, but by their own. Are there Muslims in America that truly condemn 9/11 and al Queda? Certainly. But their voices are lost in a sea of nodding heads and quiet assent.

[rock jock]

Sorry, runt, your argument is sophism at its best. Who was the "we" who ended up compensating the interned Japanese-Americans? It was "we" as in the American people through our tax dollars. The American people approved of the internment and therefore "we" share collective responsibility for it.

Of course, maybe I'm just being PC for not wanting the blood of every Muslim because it's trendy to do so.
Give me a break. No one here is calling for the blood of every Muslim-American. What we want is two things: (1) the Muslim-American community to "**** or get off the pot", so to speak concerning Muslim terrorists. Either strongly condemn their actions, work with LE to root out those that infest the U.S. (and which therefore represent a threat to other Muslims in this country also), and stop sending money to them oversees, or have the cahunas to stand up and proudly declare that they support the terrorists and wish destruction on every infidel in America, and (2) for our govt. to stop allowing PC intimidation from carrying out their duties.

[rock jock]

Don,

If I offended your friend, I apologize. I did not mean to infer that anyone associated with this board was a terrorist.

[cordex]

For the record, my "silence is implicit agreement" bit was sarcasm.

Edit: To clairify, I'm not saying that silence is never implicit agreement (for it absolutely can be), merely that just because you don't hear massive public condemnation of every action by terrorists from the "Muslim-American community" doesn't mean that you can condemn them as a group as being pro-terrorist.

[Betty]

rock jock,
That's where you and I differ. I don't have the "collective responsibility" mindset. I believe in individual responsibility. I didn't approve of the Japanese internment - I wasn't even alive then! I can, however, with a clean and guiltless mind, say that what happened was absolutely terrible, and shouldn't happen again.

I don't know why Muslims as a collective whole don't rally up in severe condemnation against 9/11. I don't think they have to. Why do you demand it? Because of collective responsibility?


What we want is two things: (1) the Muslim-American community to "**** or get off the pot", so to speak concerning Muslim terrorists. Either strongly condemn their actions, work with LE to root out those that infest the U.S. (and which therefore represent a threat to other Muslims in oversees, or have the cahunas to stand up and proudly declare that they support the terrorists and wish destruction on every infidel in America, and (2) for our govt. to stop allowing PC intimidation from carrying out their duties.

What we want? That doesn't include me. According to you, people who have had nothing to do with the terrorists, and only similar in that they are Muslim as the terrorists, must now go out of their way to appease everybody else?

No thanks. That's like saying the next time a Vietnamese American commits a crime, I've got to report to the police station, help them find the person, make a public statement of condemnation, and maybe wave a flag around.

Watch your language, sir. Cursing, even when asteriked, is not the High Road.

[Tamara]

The concept of "Collective Responsibility" is what leads to situations like: "The trenchcoat mafia kids shot up a school with guns, so rock_jock and Tamara have to turn their guns in."

[Betty]

Edit: To clairify, I'm not saying that silence is never implicit agreement (for it absolutely can be), merely that just because you don't hear massive public condemnation of every action by terrorists from the "Muslim-American community" doesn't mean that you can condemn them as a group as being pro-terrorist.

cordex,
I wasn't directing my "silence is not acceptance" post to you, if that was why you were clarifying. You were very clear on your stand on the issue. I just don't understand why some folks here insist that silence is acceptance.

[TallPine]

I have to say that I am having a really bad week - thrust into a fierce legal battle through no fault of my own (our dream home suddenly becomes a waking nightmare).

So right now I have absolutely no patience with rogues and scoundrels of any type, color, flavor, etc.

Perhaps my first post on this thread was a little too strongly worded about Muslims "deserving" retribution.

[Baron Holbach]

The problem is not so much individual Muslims going awry but more of how do we deal with an ideology such as ISLAM, especially in the way the religion (i.e., ideology) is taking root in America? ISLAM, as an ideology, is incompatible with rationalist, individualist, capitalist, Western traditions. When you have immigrant Muslims coming to the U.S., becoming citizens, and taking an oath to the Constitution of the United States, note carefully how easily it is for them to break that oath and recommit themselves to the Koran. Given the longstanding fued between Islam and the Judaic-Christian tradition, is it any wonder that Muslims are unable to reconcile themselves and maintain loyalty to the Constitution of the United States?

[Russ]

Much of the debate since 9/11 is that Islam is at war with the West. Now, that being the case, I would think that prominent Muslim groups would come out and condemn terrorism. I never said Muslims needed to apologize for what happened.

As far as detention camps go, many of you are walking around with blinders on. While most Americans do not condone or like what happened to the Japanese during WWII now (with 20/20 hindsight). However, the majority of citizens in the US supported this action at the time. Again in hindsight, what was done to the Japanese during WWII was wrong. Will we learn from history? I doubt it.

Fifty years ago was really not that long ago. Perhaps for you in your 20's and 30's it is. If you think that the same type of thing can't happen to persons of Middle Eastern decent in this day and age, I think you are blissfully ignorant of history. If there is a rash of suicide bombings and other terrorist activities in the U.S., I can almost guarantee that detention camps or deportation for certain individuals will be discussed in a serious way again.

No where did I advocate this postion in my previous post. Just stating the obvious based on recent history.

[Quartus]

Please try to take off the emotional PC blinders for a moment and just look at the situation logically.

I have a batch of "samples" that I want to test. I poke each one with the same stimulus. 14 samples react in a very similar manner, a manner that is consistent with their nature and very predictable. It does not matter whether they "should" or not. They do. Time and time again. The experiment is boring in its repeatability. But one sample does NOT react as expected. From this is is correct to draw a conclusion:

There is something different about this sample.

To refuse that conclusion because it conjurs up images of concentration camps (or 'internment' camps, if you prefer) is irrational.

From that correct conclusion, some may jump to the erroneous conclusion that concentration camps or mass deportation is the logical response.

That's also irrational.


It's also irrational to assume that general traits (which DO exist, PC or no PC) are necessarily predictive of individual behaviour. People on BOTH sides of this debate are making that error.

[Viking6]

The internment of Japanese Americans was wrong, probably seemed rational at the time. The internment camps were not concentration camps. Concentration Camps existed to work people to death or out-right kill them for the "crime" of being a Jew, Gypsy, homosexual, "mental defective", ad truly nauseum. The internment camps were bad enough without the hyperbole.

[nualle]

Baron Holbach: I think you are getting at the underlying root of the difficulty. However, the conflict of interest you describe is not unique to Muslims.

As a federal employee, the agent in question agreed to further the interests of the U.S. gov't. by his efforts. That put him in no difficulty relative to his prior loyalty to his religious beliefs, until his gov't. superiors gave him certain orders. At that point, he immediately made clear that his prior loyalty takes precedence for him. (I don't know where in the Constitution the federal gov't is empowered to record any conversation, so I see no conflict with his oath, as a fed. employee, to uphold and defend it.)

Some of those vilifying him for this choice have already self-identified on THR as committed Christians. My question for those is (given Matthew 6:19-7:2): Why? Anyone with divided loyalties like that takes the risk of a conflict of interest arising. Would one religious person really advocate that another religious person should choose nationality over belief? Or is it that someone is applying a double standard?

[Phyphor]

Maybe those people vehemently opposed to Muslim Americans could demonstrate their conviction by boycotting message boards hosted on servers owned by one.

BWAHAHAHA!

There ya go, Tamara.

(I wonder just how Derek IS dealing with these sort of threads? )

[rock jock]

The concept of "Collective Responsibility" is what leads to situations like: "The trenchcoat mafia kids shot up a school with guns, so rock_jock and Tamara have to turn their guns in."
If rock jock and Tamara had contributed to an atmosphere that overtly encouraged or facilitated these kids, then that might very well be true. How you ask? By supplying them with funds that we knew they would use to buy guns for the explicit purpose of comitting murder, by listening to them talk of getting revenge and nodding in agreement, or simply hearing by hearing of vague plans to attack their school and then saying nothing to them or the authorities.

BTW, interesting example you bring up, ala Columbine. I distinctly remember after the event the NRA, GOA, and virtually every other gun group went out of their way to condemn what happened and to assure the public that the vast, overwhelming majority of gun-owners are responsible, law-abiding citizens. They didn't talk about how we should try to understand the killers; they didn't make excuses for them. Interesting contrast with the Muslim-American community after 9/11.

[Johnny Guest]

The federal law on recording conversations is the fairly universal "one party consent" deal. As long as one of the participants is aware of the conversation, it is okay. PLANTING a recorder or transmitter without this knowledge is a no-no. I understand certain limited jurisdictions have laws against recordings unless ALL PRESENT are aware, but . . . The existence of a properly issued court order for electronic evesdropping is, of course, another matter.

As far as a federal agent - - or ANY criminal investigator - - being given orders to perform a duty which is not patently illegal, there is a very easy out: Resignation. The moment any person feels he/she cannot perform sworn duties, he/she is obligated to make known the problem, RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Not after failing to follow the proper orders. If the matter cannot be worked out with the ordering authority, then it is time for the agent to either request reassignment, or to resign. THAT is the honorable thing to do--NOT to continue violating the oath, and certainly not to keep accepting the paycheck under false pretenses.

This matter has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, or religion. It has to do with doing one's duty.

Johnny

[Shalako]

I tend to try to like everybody until they individually demonstrate they are not worthy of my esteem. But my gut feeling is that the Muslim people, to varying degrees, want to ultimately eclipse the Western way of life. That stirs my most basic instincts of survival. I wish someone, preferably a Muslim, would assuage my fears.

:(

[DeltaElite]

Fire him, he is a traitor hiding behind his religion.

[EJ]

DeltaElite

Fire him, he is a traitor hiding behind his religion.

Regardless of the religion--

[DeltaElite]

Always regardless of religion, I don't care if you worship a tree stump. Stumpatarians.
If you can't do the job, then you get fired.

I am a Frisbeeterian, I believe that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and won't come down, just like a frisbee.

[Don Gwinn]

So, RockJock, all the Muslims who "didn't contribute to an atmosphere" that led to 9/11 are exempt from your Daily Public Denunciation requirement? Do you have a list of which Muslims are not required to participate in the DPD, or do they need to apply for an exception in person?

[rock jock]

Don, the Muslim-American community as a whole isn't required to do anything. I just think that as a demonstration of goodwill, it would behoove them to issue a more vociferous condemnation of the al Queda terrorists than "We should try to understand their motivation." Certainly it would go far in improving their public image. It seems obvious to me that that is not a high priority. It can't be that they want to avoid the limelight, because they take every opportunity they can to criticize the U.S. policy in the Middle East. So, let's see, the Muslim-American community helps fund terrorist activities in other countries through "charitable" donations, they continually criticize the U.S. role in the Middle East, they stonewall LE efforts to root out domestic terrorist cells, and with pitifully few exceptions they refuse to strongly condemn the 9/11 attacks. BUT, you say, we shouldn't form any conclusions about the Muslim-American community as a whole. We are told by our President that the vast, overwhelming majority of Muslim-Americans love the U.S. and hate what the terrorists did and continue to do, and yet, the vast, overwhelming majority of statements and actions coming from their community are in direct contrast to this declaration. Yeah, I hear the President say it, and a few isolated pockets of Muslim-American groups, but for the most part it is NOT the message that Muslim-American community is putting forth.

Finally, you had better watch the double standard you are setting here. If the Muslim-American community does not deserve criticism, then neither do the anti crowd that are so frequently lambasted on this board. After all, only a very small number of them actually contribute financially to the VCP or march in the gun-control protests, or volunteer their time. The rest only nod their heads in approval when they hear what they know to be lies. The rest simply give their tactic agreement to the VCP/anti agenda. On that basis, there should not be any further reference by you or others that support your opinion in this thread to the "blissninnie/soccer-mom/liberal" crowd because that would be stereotyping and we wouldn't want that.