[CampX]

After watching CNN, they tell us that a "terrorist" infiltrated a US army Camp , and rolled 2 grenades through a tent door at 2:00AM in the morning. "TERRORISTS"????? Its called a WAR people, and this is in the realms of warfare. Where were the US soldiers who should have been guarding the perimeter to keep the enemy out? Or did they think that being in Kuwait that they were safe from this sort of attack? Or were they too sleepy from eating a lobster dinner to even bother guarding the base? I just really hate that the reports say that it was a "terrorist" attack......that word is so over-used and improperly used, it is pathetic. Call it an act of war, sabotage, whatever, not terrorism.

[Bruce H]

Last word was it was a serviceman who tossed the grenades. This will take awhile to unravel.

[P12]

Fox news is reporting that it was a serviceman that has been with the unit for a long time. He is an "Arab-American":fire:

[Standing Wolf]

Fox news is reporting that it was a serviceman that has been with the unit for a long time. He is an "Arab-American"

I hope that turns out not to be true.

[Airwolf]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml

An American Muslim soldier is among three people being questioned in connection with a grenade and small-arms attack that injured at least 10 U.S. soldiers at Camp Pennsylvania in northern Kuwait, reports CBS News Correspondent Mark Strassman.

[Sir Galahad]

If this is true, this "soldier" should be court-martialed and then shot. A piece of crap who would do that to his comrades should actually have to run the gauntlet until death. And then the body flung on the nearest dung heap.:fire: :fire: :fire:

[Cal4D4]

Interesting commentary revolving around whether Muslim clerics within the forces were advising Muslims to follow the various religious tenets for Muslims not to shoot at Muslims and follow declared holy wars against US. Gets kinda complex.

[publius]

Complex? The Jihad declared against us seems pretty straight forward to me. I should be killed, along with pretty much everyone here. Not too hard to understand.

[OF]

Man. I hope that's not the way that played out. What a CF.

- Gabe

[David]

It breaks my heart if these stories are true:

First a Muslim-American FBI agent is alleged to have perhaps hindered terrorism-related investigations due to his religious beliefs.

And today, a Muslim-American member of our armed forces is alleged to have thrown a grenade(s) at his command staff -- see link:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31674

Not only does his suspected actions injure USA troops directly, but perhaps even more damaging, his alleged actions will be used by Saddam's henchmen for propaganda purposes -- i.e. USA troops turning on each other, etc.

As I said, this breaks my heart if some of our fellow Americans would put their Muslim faith (or ANY faith) before their loyalty to their country after they take an oath as a federal agent or a member of the armed forces!

:cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

Just my 2 cents...

[Blackhawk]

Apparently, this American Muslim did a Vietnam style fragging of three tents, the CO, the XO, and a third tent. The grenade tossed into the CO's tent didn't explode, and the injuries were were due to the other two grenades. Total of 16 injured.

The alleged fragger was on guard duty, turned up missing, was found in a bunker later, and had been shot in the leg.

There is going to be some serious stuff from this, and I'm really sad for the Screaming Eagles that is, IMO, one of the finest combat units ever fielded by the U.S.

If the fragger was a bona fide member of the 101st, he has single handedly destroyed any tolerance for Muslim soldiers in tight U.S. combat units, and that will be REALLY sad because there's not enough whitewash in the world to offset the downstream effects! :(

I really hope he'll be a documentable sleeper! :fire:

[ahadams]

calmly David, calmly...remember Army CID has prosecuted members of the Crips who have infiltrated Army units by going through basic and so forth, it's not unlikely that during the previous administration a lot of other questionable sorts of people may have gotten in. That does NOT mean that all Islamic members of the Armed Forces are suspect, merely that we shouldn't be too surprised if one or two ringers got past the clintonista era screening tests.

[whoops almost forgot: to those not familiar with the term "crips" are a street gang which originated on the west coast of the USA and is now indigenous to a number of our major inner city areas, as well as to numerous prison facillities. These guys make the 1930's gangsters look like Boy Scouts by comparison.]

[Blackhawk]

Likewise, David, likewise. :cuss:

[David]

Please, guys, read my post CAREFULLY:

1 -- I am expressing how I would feel IF these allegations turn out to be true.

and

2 -- I would feel the same way if a person of ANY faith would turn on his/her own country especially after they take an oath as a federal agent or as a member of our armed forces to protect and defend our country and our constitution.

As some wise folks on the old TFL said:

Read twice -- Post once!

:neener: :neener: :neener:

[2dogs]

Muslim-American soldier
detained in Kuwait attack
16 troops injured in grenade assault
described by Pentagon as 'inside job'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 22, 2003
8:51 p.m. Eastern



© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A U.S. soldier being described as a Muslim is now in custody for alleged complicity in the grenade and small-arms attack on members of the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division encamped in Northern Kuwait, which injured 16 soldiers, 11 seriously.

In addition, two Kuwaitis who had served a translators are being held for questioning, according to CBS News correspondent Mark Strassmann, who is imbedded with the 101st.

Strassmann reported that the grenades were rolled into two commanders' tents. When officers ran from their tents, they were hit by small arms fire, he said.

George Heath, 101st spokesman at home base Fort Campbell, said: "From our reports it appears that a terrorist penetrated Camp Pennsylvania, one or more terrorists threw two hand grenades into a tent."

Calling it a criminal matter and an "inside job," the Pentagon says the U.S. soldier had been missing on base. The soldier implicated was reportedly in charge of grenades, according to MSNBC.

None of the injuries are being called life threatening, and some of the casualties have been air-lifted out of the camp.

Strassmann also reported that an Iraqi rocket fired at U.S. forces in Kuwait was downed by Patriot missiles launched from nearby Camp New Jersey.

Time reporter Jim Lacey told ABC News that he talked to an eyewitness at the rear base camp who said that grenades were rolled into a tents that housed the leaders of the brigadier unit. A terrorist, the witness told Lacey, shot the first two people who exited the tent. Sky News reports that a third grendade was rolled into a third tent housing officers, but that it did not explode.

Camp Pennsylvania was named to honor of the victims of plane that crashed in Pennsylvania during the Sept. 11 attacks. The camp, located approximately 20-30 miles south of the Iraqi border, is surrounded by large berms and guarded by armed soldiers, with others in observation posts watching the desert. The camp is also home to Patriot missile batteries.

The U.S. soldier is currently being questioned, and U.S. authorities are tight-lipped about characterizing his possible involvement.

Stuart Ramsay, a reporter with Sky News, says the Muslim soldier had become a concern to his commanding officers.

"In recent days they were concerned about his behavior and were not going to send him up to the front when the soldiers were going to be deployed," Ramsay said.

It is not clear whether the soldier, who Ramsay said would have been in the Gulf for some weeks, had planned the attack before being deployed.

"Talking to other soldiers, it could be that he was disgruntled," Ramsay said. "They said he had been acting 'weird' for days."




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[publius]

If the fragger was a bona fide member of the 101st, he has single handedly destroyed any tolerance for Muslim soldiers in tight U.S. combat units, and that will be REALLY sad because there's not enough whitewash in the world to offset the downstream effects!


Singlehanded? Hardly. If one Catholic had done this, no one would say he had singlehandedly destroyed any tolerance for Catholics in the ranks. It's the context of Jihad, and this guy didn't create the context.

[ahadams]

Blackhawk is entirely correct. The induhvidual in question (to borrow the spelling from Dilbert) has also seriously damaged morale in his unit to the point where he has undoubtedly affected their combat readiness.

He's also an idiot who believed something that was largely a latrine rumor/myth/ uh well you know I can't say that on THR. Despite rumors to the contrary 'fraggings' were relatively rare occurances (having worked with folks who at an earlier time were quite able to keep count of such things) and while there have been uhm, unusual accidents, that may have occurred to unusual people under unusual circumstances as long as there has been such a thing as war it was never EVER a one man operation. A fool with handgrenades is just a more lethal fool than one without them.

[ahadams]

That's exactly what we were hoping you would say! It isn't that you didn't mean that, it's that you need to make it clear to all the readers of your post. thanks!

[OF]

None of the injuries are being called life threateningThank God for small miracles.

- Gabe

[Blackhawk]

Singlehanded? Hardly. If one Catholic had done this, no one would say he had singlehandedly destroyed any tolerance for Catholics in the ranks. It's the context of Jihad, and this guy didn't create the context.There's no stronger brotherhood than that in combat units. There are no Catholics, etc. There are just your comrades in arms. If the fragger managed to get through jump school and Screaming Eagle training without being strongly imbued with that brotherhood, he HAS screwed the pooch for practicing Muslims in the tight combat arms units.

They will be regarded the same as somebody who makes it through but turns out to be a coward.

[LawDog]

Hmm.

Reminds me of the Atlanta Olympics Bombing and a innocent security guard named Richard Jewell, who wound up tried, convicted, pilloried and ruined in/by the press.

Did anyone in the Media ever say, "Oops, sorry about that old boy"?

Me, I'm going to stay off of the Judgement Bandwagon until I get a lot more information.

LawDog

[p35]

One of the soldiers who died in the helicopter crash was a Moslem, doing his job like any other soldier. Islam is a huge religion, and it's no more fair to say that this nut's behavior (if this turns out to be true) is typical of Moslems than it would be to say that Tim McVeigh was a typical Christian.

[Blackhawk]

Great news, AFAIK! The arrested perp is a CE ATTACHED to the 101st! That suggests he's NOT a member of the 101st!

Also, there's no confirmation that he's a Muslim.

Need to check his dog tags....

[Blackhawk]

Just saw them get the perp to his feed from his face down position in the mud with his hands cable tied behind his back.

He had a Screaming Eagle patch, but that may have simply been due to his being attached to the 101st.

Sadly, one of the wounded soldiers has died. :(

[Dannyboy]

If he was wearing a 101 patch, he was assigned to the 101, not attached. They're saying that attack may have been because he didn't like the command group and was not necessarily religiously motivated. However, if religion turns out to be the deciding factor then I think all Muslim soldiers could possibly pulled from their units for questioning.

[rock jock]

However, if religion turns out to be the deciding factor then I think all Muslim soldiers could possibly pulled from their units for questioning.
Latest reports are that it was religiously motivated. And yes, they should question all Muslims in the military, and their clerics. If any of you find this un-PC, too dang bad! Fifteen injured soldiers and one dead justifies this action beyond any doubt.

[Blackhawk]

I agree, Dannyboy. Whenever I was attached to a unit, I still wore the patch of my assigned unit.

Jim Lacey of Newsweek Magazine was on the scene as an embed, and his personal opinion was that this dweeb was religiously motivated Muslim. He also said as a matter of fact that he was attached to the 101st, but he (and the rest of the embeds) may not know what the differences are. He said that the perp had been moody for several days and wasn't talking to others in the unit, but an important fact is that the guys he fragged weren't even in the chain of command the perp was in.

Impersonal, traitorous, fatal, state of war. UCMJ courts martial. Firing squad? Works for me! :fire:

And yes, Lawdog, he needs to be tried and convicted before he's shot.

And I really, really, really hope he was NOT a member of the 101st through the normal procedure of becoming a Screaming Eagle. :uhoh:

[Dannyboy]

As of just now (0120), one of the wounded has died. Also, suspect MAY have been Muslim. Not confirmed as of yet, according to Foxnews.

[Sir Galahad]

Uh, Blackhawk, not to seem trite, but what IS the normal method of becoming a Screaming Eagle? For me, they just assigned me to the division as a duty station. Went down and had the 101st patches sewn on the BDUs and Class As and that was that. Air Assault school was optional. I went, but I didn't have to. :D

[rock jock]

This whole story makes me so sick. These guys are out in the desert gearing up for combat operations and they are attacked by one of their own. There is no punishment cruel enough IMO for this scum.

[Blackhawk]

Sir Galahad,

Sigh...

I'm probably hopelessly out of date. :(

Time was, AFAIK, that everybody assigned to the division went through jump school (Air Assault training, as you called it), and all the support personnel were attached.

The patch was somewhat like the black Ranger beret was before Shinseki ordered them issued to everybody "to make them feel better about themselves." :barf:

[publius]

Islam is a huge religion, and it's no more fair to say that this nut's behavior (if this turns out to be true) is typical of Moslems than it would be to say that Tim McVeigh was a typical Christian.


Yeah, you know, on 9/11, when I first heard about planes going into the WTC, I though to myself, gee, could be anybody... no one seems more likely than anyone else.

NOT.

[p35]

The last time this country got seriously into "racial profiling", some of my relatives ended up sitting behind barbed wire at Heart Mountain while their son was fighting in the Pacific (someone had to interrogate the captured Japanese soldiers and read their documents). It makes me a little sensitive to blanket accusations of disloyalty against any ethnic group.

[Sir Galahad]

Blackhawk, yeah, in the 1980s, folks just got cut orders to go to Campbell and bingo, that's it. I don't believe the 101st has been airborne since the Vietnam War. It's Air Assault now, but getting stationed at Campbell didn't mean you had to go. But everyone (including direct support personnel) still had the airborne tab on the eagle patch and the glider patch on their Class A garrison cap. And bloused jump boots for their Class As, too. The 101st was not one of the better divisions to serve with according to a lot of the older troops. They called it "The Funky Chicken". I guess times change.

[Flying V]

Build a gallows to hang six at a drop, and let this traitor swing next to five Iraqi war criminals.

[jimpeel]

When I saw this on FoxNEWS my first thought was that some guy fragged his commander. Later news confirmed this suspicion.

This has gone on throughout the history of war when some guy gets fed up with his commander. They usually just take out a Looey, though. This guy tried to take out a bunch of officers and killed a Captain.

[Atticus]

The most recent reports indicate that the ACCUSED is an African American- Muslim convert, born and raised in the USA. :fire:

[Peetmoss]

The accused real name is Mark Kools from Califironia according to MSNBC news

[CampX]

I agree, court martial and FIRING SQUAD this S.O.B.....and televise it like everything else in this conflict. Would send the message loud and clear about this sort of decision to frag your own countrymen. Sad really that this B.S. could happen.....it's not like the Viet Nam war where the fighting had been raging on for years; we are only 4 days into this, and this crap happened.

[andy]

There are a whole lot of disgruntled people like this in our country who despise the government and do not identify with our culture or our institutions. Expect to see many more traitorous incidents.

[publius]

The last time this country got seriously into "racial profiling", some of my relatives ended up sitting behind barbed wire at Heart Mountain while their son was fighting in the Pacific (someone had to interrogate the captured Japanese soldiers and read their documents). It makes me a little sensitive to blanket accusations of disloyalty against any ethnic group.


Did anyone say anything about an "ethnic group"? I must have missed that.

Was there any reason to suspect the loyalty of your relatives, other than their ethnicity and the state of war at the time? In a few cases, there may have been such reason. In most cases, doubtless there was not.

What we have is a problem not with any ethnic group, but with part of a major religion, that being the extremist part. A close friend of mine converted to Islam a few years back. Am I now suspicious of him, expecting he might decide to blow me up for the greater glory of Allah? Of course not.

Still, it is impossible to ignore the fact that there are groups who want to destroy us for religious reasons. I can name several such groups. All from one religion. Maybe I'm just ill-informed or overly propagandized, and I should be able to name as many such groups from every major religion. Hmmmmm.....If that's the case, I look forward to being enlightened.

[p35]

Hell, no, there was no reason to doubt their loyalty! No distinctions were made; they just grabbed up everyone of Japanese ancestry and marched them off. There was never a documented case of a Japanese American helping the enemy, which is more than can be said for German or Italian Americans.

Dangerous Christian groups? Lets see... the Aryan Nations Church of Jesus Christ Christian, the Covenant, Sword, and Arm of the Lord, Lambs of Christ, Operation Rescue, World Church of the Creator, and that's just off the top of my head. I suppose you could toss in the Jewish Defense League, although they don't seem very active these days. Maybe they just kill Americans of the "wrong" religion/ethnicity/political belief, not all Americans, but I believe that a threat to one of us should be a threat to all of us.

[Lone_Gunman]

Its only ok to racially profile people if the person you are looking for is a white male, preferably christian.

Remember the Beltway Sniper? He was supposed to be a disgruntled white guy right?

Except he turned out to be a black and muslim.

Recently at an airport, I saw a 4 yo white girl accompanied by her mother, who was also white, get searched...

I guess we do this so arabs and muslim men won't feel that their civil rights are being violated? Or have white children started hijacking planes?

If a group of red haired guys named O'neal had blown up the WTC, I would be kind of suspicious of the Irish. But they didnt.

Keep your eyes on the ball...

[Ala Dan]

Shot Dead At The Break Of The Next Day!


Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

[glockten]

There was never a documented case of a Japanese American helping the enemy, which is more than can be said for German or Italian Americans.

Or Muslim Americans.

All this tiptoeing around the truth would be amusing were not the issue so serious. The enemy in the war on terror are Muslim extremists, of any nationality or racial background. By "extremist", I mean any Muslim who contributes in any way to the purposeful deaths of Americans.

I don't advocate "blanket accusations of disloyalty" against American Muslims, but a few more incidents like the Beltway shootings and this fragging, and there's no telling what might happen. Americans of Japanese ancestry were imprisoned in World War II for far less cause.

[rock jock]

Extremist is the operative word here. The Jordanians are hleping us out in this war, and while they certainly have their share of would-be terrorists, there are many that want peace in the region and Saddam out of power (if only to ensure their own safety). No one is suggesting that all Muslims in the U.S. military need to be pulled from active duty. But, it would be wise to review records and speak with Muslim American soldiers to get their views on the war and on killing fellow Muslims. If they seem uncomfortable with either, then they should be pulled from duty and sent home. If they say they have no qualms participating fully, great, let 'em stay. But ignoring a potential deadly situation because of PC policies is unacceptable. If folks are offended, tough cookies. The military is not a social experiment.

[Blackhawk]

The military is not a social experiment.Well, not since January, 2001, when adults took over the White House again.... :rolleyes:

[publius]

Dangerous Christian groups? Lets see... the Aryan Nations Church of Jesus Christ Christian, the Covenant, Sword, and Arm of the Lord, Lambs of Christ, Operation Rescue, World Church of the Creator, and that's just off the top of my head. I suppose you could toss in the Jewish Defense League, although they don't seem very active these days.

It's a subjective thing, but none of those strike me as anywhere near as dangerous as Al Queda or Hamas. In order:

Aryan Nations: At least I've heard of them. How many have they killed? Who are their multi-billion dollar backers? How many nations do they operate in? What do they demand from us? I've always thought of them as about 5 or 6 angry white guys, not a threat if you're white and/or not in their neighborhood, wherever that is.

CS&AL: Who?

LoC: Who?

Op Rescue: Definitely a threat if you're an abortion provider. I'm not advocating this, and don't wish to cause this thread to spin out of control, but I'd say that we could implement every one of their demands with really very little change in our society, at least relative to the change that implementing all of Osama's demands would entail. If you're unclear on what Osama wants, I've analyzed it in this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14631).

WCC: Who?

JDL: Another "at least I've heard of them." How many have they killed? Who are their multi-billion dollar backers? How many nations do they operate in? What do they demand from us?

There are dangerous extremists, and then there are dangerous extremists. Thanks for the education, but I stand by my original anaylysis of who presents the more dangerous threat.

[p35]

I should probably let this drop, but here goes:

Tim McVeigh modeled the Oklahoma City bombing on The Turner Diaries , the "bible" of the loony/racist far right groups. I don't know if he was a formal member of any, but he bought into their thinking enough to kill 168 Americans.

Aryan Nations: Their death toll is only a handful, but they sure have made a nuisance of themselves. What they want is to break my corner of the country off from the rest of the US and make it a "whites only" nation. They are (or were) in my neighborhood and I have two mixed race sons and a Japanese-American wife, so I can't buy the "not my problem" argument. Should I not care about 9/11 because I'm 3000 miles from New York?

CS&A was a Southern white supremacist/survivalist group, I think faded out by now but dangerous in their time.

WCC is a Midwestern neo-Nazi organization; you may recall a year or so ago when one of their members started driving around the Midwest doing drive-by shootings of Jews and non-whites. A few died before the cops got him.

LOC/OR/ Army of God (forgot them) are the violent fringe of the anti-abortion movement and have killed several people; last week one was convicted of sniping a doctor with a "military assault rifle".

The founder of JDL recently killed himself while in jail over a plot to blow up the office of an Arab -American Congressman. The FBI gets more credit than he does for the fact that it failed.

To get back to the original subject, any NCO worth his stripes knows who in his unit is a good troop and who's a s-bird. The alleged grenade thrower was clearly the latter; he got left behind as a discipline problem while the rest of his unit went into Iraq. If the Army wants to go through and take a closer look at the s-birds, great! OTOH, if a Muslim soldier is busting his butt to do a good job in this conflict, as I'm sure most are, it's an unneeded insult to look him up and start questioning his loyalty.

[Bahadur]

If a group of red haired guys named O'neal had blown up the WTC, I would be kind of suspicious of the Irish. But they didnt.Have you been suspicious of male ex-military European-ancestry types when Tim McVeigh turned out to be the perpetrator of the Oklahoma bombing?

I didn't think so.

I recall - very vividly - how just about everyone speculated "Islamic terrorist" in the immediate aftermath of Oklahoma...
Op Rescue: Definitely a threat if you're an abortion provider. I'm not advocating this, and don't wish to cause this thread to spin out of control, but I'd say that we could implement every one of their demands with really very little change in our society, at least relative to the change that implementing all of Osama's demands would entail. If you're unclear on what Osama wants, I've analyzed it in this thread.You are falling for the "If it's not as evil as Hitler, it isn't really evil" fallacy. There are things "evil enough" that you don't have to reach evilness of Hitlerite monstrosity and proportions before we decide to combat them.
It's a subjective thing, but none of those strike me as anywhere near as dangerous as Al Queda or Hamas.Yeah, but where were they when the IJN bombed Pearl? "Japs" ("ours" included) sure did seem like huge threats back then because we mentally threw together the enemy of a certain ethnicity with the loyal citizens of the same. It's not that different from mentally throwing together the enemy of a certain religious affiliation with the loyal citizens of the same.

How would we - gun owners - like to be "put in context" by the lunatics who engage in mass murder with guns?

[Bahadur]

However, if religion turns out to be the deciding factor then I think all Muslim soldiers could possibly pulled from their units for questioning.If you were to, say, substitute "Muslim" for "Arab descent," it would not work for this man:

[publius]

I recall - very vividly - how just about everyone speculated "Islamic terrorist" in the immediate aftermath of Oklahoma.

Gee, why would people do that? I can't imagine.

I recall it as well. Even the FBI got into the act, releasing sketches and descriptions of a John Doe #2. And what was Terry Nichols doing calling Indonesia, anyway? I mean, I'm sure it's beautiful there. Maybe he's just a tourist.

You are falling for the "If it's not as evil as Hitler, it isn't really evil" fallacy.

No, I'm saying if it's not as big a threat as Hitler, it's not as big a threat as Hitler. It can still be a threat, and still be evil.

any NCO worth his stripes knows who in his unit is a good troop and who's a s-bird. The alleged grenade thrower was clearly the latter; he got left behind as a discipline problem while the rest of his unit went into Iraq. If the Army wants to go through and take a closer look at the s-birds, great! OTOH, if a Muslim soldier is busting his butt to do a good job in this conflict, as I'm sure most are, it's an unneeded insult to look him up and start questioning his loyalty.

I agree, but it's also important that we not be blind to motives. If we've got a troublemaker, it's worth asking whether he's just pissed because his commanding officer is a jerk (hey, it happens), or is he experiencing a conflict between his religious views and his oath of service.

[Poodleshooter]

If we were attacking the Vatican or Ireland, I'd probably be suspicious of Catholic soldiers. The whole comparison to the Japanese internments in WWII is a strawman. Ethnicity is unalterable, religion is a conscious choice that affects one's behavior.
Put him before the court martial, send him back to the states if he's innocent, and up against a post at dawn if he's guilty. The word I saw on Drudge indicated that he had confessed to the soldier who found him immediately after the attack.

[Bahadur]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I recall - very vividly - how just about everyone speculated "Islamic terrorist" in the immediate aftermath of Oklahoma.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gee, why would people do that? I can't imagine.But in that particular instance, it wasn't true.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are falling for the "If it's not as evil as Hitler, it isn't really evil" fallacy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I'm saying if it's not as big a threat as Hitler, it's not as big a threat as Hitler. It can still be a threat, and still be evil.And Hitler was just another raving beer hall lunatic once. It's called time. It seems to change perceptions of threats.
I agree, but it's also important that we not be blind to motives. If we've got a troublemaker, it's worth asking whether he's just pissed because his commanding officer is a jerk (hey, it happens), or is he experiencing a conflict between his religious views and his oath of service.That conflict, if it were to be true, still only applies to this particular individual. I'm all for establishing the motives for individuals and their crimes, but not for "extrapolating" one man's motive for ALL members of a religious creed despite the absence of any criminal acts from the vast majority of the latter.
If we were attacking the Vatican or Ireland, I'd probably be suspicious of Catholic soldiers. The whole comparison to the Japanese internments in WWII is a strawman. Ethnicity is unalterable, religion is a conscious choice that affects one's behavior.So when our soldiers were approaching Germany and Italy during WWII, did you question Catholic and Protestant (say, Lutheran) soldiers?

Furthermore, you forget that religion was, in the past, often a part of one's ethnic-cultural (not "racial") makeup that was very difficult to change. One often inherited one's religion in the past.

Thankfully, we've made much progress since then.

[Blackhawk]

From a Fox News report earlier, it seems like this perp converted to Islam in the '80s then joined the Army some time after that ('98?).

He was highly resentful that he wasn't allowed to deploy into Iraq.

Shortly thereafter, he fragged the head shed tents.

Makes no sense -- unless it was his intent (assignment?) to commit a horrendous act of sabotage against the 101st. His own ad hoc Plan B must have been the fragging. Think about this: a CE is liable to pack a bunch of C4 (or whatever the modern formula is called). Maybe he was planning on sapping the fuel and ammo trucks leaving the Screaming Eagle a Lame Duck then a Cooked Goose deep in Iraq.

Kudos to the sergeant who listened to his gut and guys saying "we don't want to go into combat with this guy," and leaving him behind.

[publius]

Never heard of John Doe 2 or those calls to Indonesia, Badahur?

And Hitler was just another raving beer hall lunatic once. It's called time. It seems to change perceptions of threats.


That's one view, but I'm not very afraid of time. I'm a fairly young, healthy guy, after all. I fear lunatics who have money, arms, and a following.

By those measures, the scariest lunatics on the planet, by far, are the Islamic fundamentalists.

Will the real Muslims please stand up (http://www.WorldNetDaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31018)?

[p35]

Blackhawk,

I don't know any more than you do about this guy, but I have found that when trying to explain bizzare behavior as either conspiracy or lunacy, it's safe to bet on lunacy.

[Bahadur]

Never heard of John Doe 2 or those calls to Indonesia, Badahur?I have. But nothing more than that. I can speculate, but that's all it would be - speculation.
That's one view, but I'm not very afraid of time. I'm a fairly young, healthy guy, after all. I fear lunatics who have money, arms, and a following.So do I. But then again, who knows that a yet greater threat may rise - a threat that appears relatively benign today. Immediate threats (whether deadly or no) always have a way of appearing more serious than one tempered by time.
By those measures, the scariest lunatics on the planet, by far, are the Islamic fundamentalists.They are certainly up there.
Will the real Muslims please stand up?
From that article: "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim." A logical fallacy unless the IRA (Irish Catholic), ETA (Basque) and the various Latin American Marxist guerillas (secular or radical leftist-liberationalist Catholic) and narco-terrorists are Muslims (which they are most certainly not).

The article is extremely rhetorical and is long on logical fallacies.

[publius]

This looked to me like speculation that there was no involvement by a man called only John Doe 2, and speculation that the calls to Indonesia were unrelated:

But in that particular instance, it wasn't true.

From that article: "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim."

Uh, that's not the whole sentence, so the period should be a ...

Here's the actual sentence:

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim – at least those of major world concern today.

Reads a little different when complete. The last Basque attack in America was when, exactly?

[publius]

They are certainly up there.


That kind of slipped by me earlier, but now I'm just wondering, who is up at the top of your personal list?

Maybe the answer should be divided into two categories, one for your personal life, another for more generalized risk to life, property, security on a national or global scale. I would certainly understand if our friend P35 said the Aryans topped his list in his personal life, but I'd think he's a nut if they're at the top of the list in terms of risk posed to the nation and/or the world.

(Just to be perfectly clear, since it seems to be needed, I am NOT saying they're not evil and not a threat. Saying something is less of a threat than some other thing DOES imply that it's a threat.)

edited for typo. time for bed.

[Bahadur]

This looked to me like speculation that there was no involvement by a man called only John Doe 2, and speculation that the calls to Indonesia were unrelatedActually it doesn not work that way. For an allegation to be true, it has to be demonstrated to be so. You don't prove the negative, at least in this country.

Example. I say you are guilty of murder. You say you are NOT guilty. I say you must prove that your actions had nothing to do with murder to be exonerated. You say that I, the accuser, have the burden of proof of the crime.

Who is right? In this country, you would be.

Another example. I say Martians inhabited North America. You say not. I say, you must prove that there is no connection between Mars and North America to disprove me. You say, I must prove my theory since I advanced it.

Who is right? You are, by all academic integrity standards.
That kind of slipped by me earlier, but now I'm just wondering, who is up at the top of your personal list?Well, it depends on what region of the world I reside in and who I am ethnically, religiously and so forth.

For example, if I am one of the majority Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tiger terrorists sure would be a major threat to me. The latter has killed far more Sri Lankans than Osama bin Laden's men have in the US.

If I am a Ulster Protestant, the radical wing of the IRA, would be the worst terrorists as they have bombed my children.

If I am a rightist in Columbia, the left-wing alliance of communist/liberationist Catholic guerillas and narco-terrorists would be most threatening.

The fact is that there are dozens and hundreds of guerilla/terrorist groups around the world that have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in just the past few years. While the WTC attack was a singular and spectacular act of terrorism, OBL and his men are by far not the most destructive terrorist group to have existed ever in history.

That is not to say that the bunch is not a critical threat to the US. *I* personally find them pretty damn threatening as I live in the US and believe in the American way of life.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim – at least those of major world concern today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reads a little different when complete.I know that the Iraq war and OBL are pretty big concerns for us today (for the obvious reasons), but to dismiss other terrorist threats as not being "major concern" shows a certain lack of appreciation and understanding about other victims of terrorism, not to mention a lack of historical understanding.

Besides, the author is being unnecessarily sensationalistic. He could have been more accurate if he had stated "many terrorists are (or claim to be) Muslim" instead of "all terrorists." I suspect, judging from the article, the motive for such a sensationalism was to paint Islam (if there is such a monolithic thing) as negatively as possible. In fact, if he'd used the more accurate verbiage, it would not have worked with the thesis of his article, which was that Islam breeds terrorism, period.
The last Basque attack in America was when, exactly?The Spanish authorities find ETA a pretty damn major concern. And don't forget that, though in the background for now, the IRA issue has been a major concern for quite a while. Where are the Muslim terrorists in that conflict?

[CZ-75]

Back on topic, I believe Fox just reported that a Major has died of his wounds received in the attack.

[jmbg29]

The Major that was wounded in the attack has died. :(


They need to begin a Court Martial right NOW!

[publius]

For an allegation to be true, it has to be demonstrated to be so.

Fair enough. Part of the OJ is innocent because he was never proven guilty brigade.

Let's just say that I suspect that the man of middle eastern appearance called John Doe 2 did exist and was involved, and I suspect that the calls to Indonesia were related to the bombing.

Speaking of suspicions....

I suspect, judging from the article, the motive for such a sensationalism was to paint Islam (if there is such a monolithic thing) as negatively as possible. In fact, if he'd used the more accurate verbiage, it would not have worked with the thesis of his article, which was that Islam breeds terrorism, period.


I suspect, judging from your partial quotation, the motive for such a partial quotation was to paint the article as negatively as possible. In fact, if you'd used the whole quotation, it would not have worked with the thesis of your statement, which was:

A logical fallacy unless the IRA (Irish Catholic), ETA (Basque) and the various Latin American Marxist guerillas (secular or radical leftist-liberationalist Catholic) and narco-terrorists are Muslims (which they are most certainly not).


Of course, I can't prove that, so it isn't true. Speaking of things that aren't true, once again, it was not "all terrorists". It was "all terrorists of major world concern."

[Bahadur]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For an allegation to be true, it has to be demonstrated to be so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough. Part of the OJ is innocent because he was never proven guilty brigade.Like it or not, that is our justice system. It does not work all the time, but it certainly works better than any other system I know of (and I lived under quite a few different ones).

Are you suggesting that we should have a justice system under which the defendants bear the burden of proving their lack of guilt, contrary to the current system under which the accuser (the government) has the burden of proving the guilt?
I suspect, judging from your partial quotation, the motive for such a partial quotation was to paint the article as negatively as possible. In fact, if you'd used the whole quotation, it would not have worked with the thesis of your statement, which was:Yes it still does. Even granting the entire quotation, which I subsequently did, I show that there are "major world concern" terrorists who are not Muslims. Of course, your definition of "major world concern" seems to be from our, American perspective only.
It was "all terrorists of major world concern."Again, to the Brits, the IRA is a pretty damn major concern. To the Spaniards, the ETA is the same. To the Japanese, Aum Shinrikyo is a pretty damn big (intercontinental) concern (and the Japanese, the world's second largest economy, largely don't really "get" all the "hooplah" about Islamic crazies). These, and also many Latin American narco-terrorist groups, are all pretty big "major world concern" terrorists that happen to be non-Muslim.

You can tweak with the definition of "major world concern" until it precisely fits what you want (radical Islamic terrorists only). But that's a circular definition game that does not really prove anything, is it?

Again, I repeat:
The fact is that there are dozens and hundreds of guerilla/terrorist groups around the world that have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in just the past few years. While the WTC attack was a singular and spectacular act of terrorism, OBL and his men are by far not the most destructive terrorist group to have existed ever in history.

That is not to say that the bunch is not a critical threat to the US. *I* personally find them pretty damn threatening as I live in the US and believe in the American way of life.I don't downplay the radical Islamic terrorist threat. But the author of that article over-plays it to the exclusion of all other kinds of terrorists in order to imply that somehow Islam is more prone to producing "real" (or "major world concern") terrorists.

[jmbg29]

Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone, 40, based in Boise, was pronounced dead at an Army field hospital in Kuwait, the Idaho Air National Guard said. http://www.foxnews.com/images/85611/4_21_200_stone_gregory.jpg


:fire: :fire: :fire:

[jmbg29]

After watching CNN, they tell us that a "terrorist" infiltrated a US army Camp , and rolled 2 grenades through a tent door at 2:00AM in the morning. "TERRORISTS"?????Yeah CampX, a frigging Islamic radical terrorist.

[publius]

Are you suggesting that we should have a justice system under which the defendants bear the burden of proving their lack of guilt, contrary to the current system under which the accuser (the government) has the burden of proving the guilt?


Not at all. The difference here is, we are citizens chatting. I am not the government threatening someone's life, liberty, or property.

You and I can agree here (I'm not saying you do, just we can) that OJ killed those two people. It's not proven, at least not in that court to that jury, but we can both believe it is true.

Similarly, you can believe that McVeigh and Nichols acted alone (OK, forget Fortier), and I can believe that they may have had accomplices. You can't prove the negative (that there were no accomplices), yet to you, that's truth. I can't prove the positive (that John Doe 2 exists, may be an Arab, may be a Muslim, and may be involved), yet to me, that's truth.

As far as the justice system is concerned, you are absolutely correct. No one else was found guilty of involvement. But as with the OJ case, just because there is no guilty verdict does not mean there is no guilt. I would have no quarrel with your statement if you had said it was not proven that there was a Muslim connection in that attack. You did not say that. You said it was not true that there was a Muslim connection. That might or might not be the case. It's speculation.

As far as "world concern," I did say it was subjective, but I wasn't talking about just the WTC, or just attacks in America. I hate to post this, as we've all seen quite enough of it, but have a look at the locations involved:

In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped & massacred by:
(a) Olga Corbutt
(b) Sitting Bull
(c) Arnold Schwartzeneger
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40

In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:
(a) Lost Norwegians
(b) Elvis
(c) A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40

During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
(a) John Dillinger
(b) The King of Sweden
(c) The Boy Scouts
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40

In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
(a) A pizza delivery boy
(b) Pee Wee Herman
(c) Geraldo Rivera making up for a slow news day
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.

In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro (The Med) was hijacked, and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard by:
(a) The Smurfs
(b) Davy Jones
(c) The Little Mermaid
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.

In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, & a U.S. Navy diver was murdered by:
(a) Captain Kid
(b) Charles Lindberg
(c) Mother Teresa
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40

In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 (From London, over Scotland) was bombed by:
(a) Scooby Doo
(b) The Tooth Fairy
(c) Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid who had a few sticks of dynamite
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40

In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
(a) Richard Simmons
(b) Grandma Moses
(c) Michael Jordan
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.

In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
(a) Mr. Rogers
(b) Hillary, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
(c) The World Wrestling Federation to promote its next villain: "Mustapha the Merciless"
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40

On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked & destroyed & thousands of people were killed by:
(a) Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck, and Elmer Fudd
(b) The Supreme Court of Florida
(c) Mr. Bean
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.

In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
(a) Enron
(b) The Lutheran Church
(c) The NFL
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.

In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl (I forget where, but not here) was kidnapped and murdered by:
(a) Bonny and Clyde
(b) Captain Kangaroo
(c) Billy Graham
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.

Some terrorists get around more than others, some have more funding than others.

But the author of that article over-plays it to the exclusion of all other kinds of terrorists in order to imply that somehow Islam is more prone to producing "real" (or "major world concern") terrorists.

If you'd replace Islam with Wahhabism (http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2003-03-20.htm) (sp?), I'd accept and agree with the implication, which is why I posted the article. I don't agree with everything in it, just as I don't agree with everything in that new one I just posted (nationalizing industries makes them more accountable???), but it's food for thought.

[Bahadur]

The difference here is, we are citizens chatting. I am not the government threatening someone's life, liberty, or property.How does that make it any different? In any form of logical, scientific, rational inquiry, one has to prove the claim. One does not ask the other to disprove the claim and then cry "I win" when the other side can't or won't.
You and I can agree here (I'm not saying you do, just we can) that OJ killed those two people. It's not proven, at least not in that court to that jury, but we can both believe it is true.Yes, except you don't base foreign policy or national security policy on "beliefs." You base them on cold facts and rational analysis based on those facts.
Similarly, you can believe that McVeigh and Nichols acted alone (OK, forget Fortier), and I can believe that they may have had accomplices.Not so. I do not "believe that McVeigh and Nichols acted alone." The facts and subsequent analyses lead me to think that the Islamic accomplice theory is unproven. So I do not accept it until it is proven. That does not mean I consider the "acted alone" theory to be God-given truth. I merely consider the "best known truth for the time being." If someone is going to make the claim that they did NOT act alone, then that somone has the burden of proof for challenging the previously established information/analyses.

Put another way, let's say two people actually bombed a building. We accept it as truth that the two (and possibly others) are responsible. Now, we want to say that four more were part of the conspiracy. Then we MUST PROVE that the four additional people WERE involved. We don't from the get-go say that "There are six (or eight or ten or 5,000) conspirators - if you don't believe me, you have to demonstrate to me why the four others who did not actually detonate the bomb were not part of the conspiracy." It just doesn't work that way. You work from the "minimum" to the "maximum" with what evidence you have - you don't set a "maximum" and force others to accept it or falsifiy it. It's an unreasonable burden, which is why the justice system is set up so that the government has the burden of proving guilt rather than defendants having to falsify the government's charge.
but have a look at the locations involved:Okay. What does that mean? You framed the last answer to fit YOUR generalization. Let's try it this way:
In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped & massacred by:
(a) Olga Corbutt
(b) Sitting Bull
(c) Arnold Schwartzeneger
(d) Radical Palestinian Terrorists

In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:
(a) Lost Norwegians
(b) Elvis
(c) A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
(d) Radical Shia Persian Students

During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
(a) John Dillinger
(b) The King of Sweden
(c) The Boy Scouts
(d) Lebanese Militiamen

In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut [Lebanon] was blown up by:
(a) A pizza delivery boy
(b) Pee Wee Herman
(c) Geraldo Rivera making up for a slow news day
(d) Lebanese Militiamen

In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro (The Med) was hijacked, and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard by:
(a) The Smurfs
(b) Davy Jones
(c) The Little Mermaid
(d) PLO Terrorists

In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, & a U.S. Navy diver was murdered by:
(a) Captain Kid
(b) Charles Lindberg
(c) Mother Teresa
(d) I do not recall the exact ethnic-sectarian makeup of these perpetrators

In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 (From London, over Scotland) was bombed by:
(a) Scooby Doo
(b) The Tooth Fairy
(c) Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid who had a few sticks of dynamite
(d) Agents of Libya

In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
(a) Richard Simmons
(b) Grandma Moses
(c) Michael Jordan
(d) Terrorists following an Egyptian radical

In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
(a) Mr. Rogers
(b) Hillary, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
(c) The World Wrestling Federation to promote its next villain: "Mustapha the Merciless"
(d) OBL Followers

On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked & destroyed & thousands of people were killed by:
(a) Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck, and Elmer Fudd
(b) The Supreme Court of Florida
(c) Mr. Bean
(d) OBL Followers

In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
(a) Enron
(b) The Lutheran Church
(c) The NFL
(d) The Afghan-Pakistani Taliban (harboring OBL)

In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl (I forget where, but not here) was kidnapped and murdered in Pakistan by:
(a) Bonny and Clyde
(b) Captain Kangaroo
(c) Billy Graham
(d) Surpporters of Afghan-Pakistani Taliban
As you can tell, they are all different people and groups with different ideological-sectarian leanings, specific to the regions or groups (opposing enemies) they are identified with.

I can generate a list with the answer "White Christian Male" and have questions like "Who bombed Oklahoma," "Who started WWII by invading Poland," "Who bombed the abortion clinics and murdered doctors," "Who maintained slavery in North America" and ad naseum. That does not mean that "white Christian males," collectively, are the reason why those things happened.

You are confusing correlations with causation, a simple fallacy.

[publius]

The facts and subsequent analyses lead me to think that the Islamic accomplice theory is unproven. So I do not accept it until it is proven.

Fair enough. I misunderstood when you said that it was "not true" that Islamic terrorists were involved in OKC. If what you meant was that it is "not proven," then we agree, it is not.

My point in posting the tired list of acts of terrorism, particularly the ones you have helpfully noted are acts of OBL followers, was that Al Queda appears to be (or at least have recently been) an organization with global reach, willing and able to reach out and strike in distant places. The whole "global concern" thing again.

No comments on Wahhabism? I'd be interested in hearing your views of that sect.

[Bahadur]

My point in posting the tired list of acts of terrorism, particularly the ones you have helpfully noted are acts of OBL followers, was that Al Queda appears to be (or at least have recently been) an organization with global reach, willing and able to reach out and strike in distant places. The whole "global concern" thing again.Well, if so, I find it odd that you framed the "correct" answer as "Muslim male betwen age so and so." That seems to indicate that you were trying to imply that being a young Muslim has something significant to do with terrorism.

Yes, Al-Qaida was a serious threat. It is probably still very serious, but probably severely degraded from what it was pre-9/11.

But that's an entirely different (much more precise and accurate) argument than "Most major terrorist groups are motivated by Islam."
No comments on Wahhabism? I'd be interested in hearing your views of that sect.What about it?

[publius]

That was not my list, so I wasn't the one framing the answers.

That seems to indicate that you were trying to imply that being a young Muslim has something significant to do with terrorism.


I don't believe that, but I do believe that being a Wahhabi Muslim makes someone a likely terrorist, which is the answer to your last question. That's what about that sect.

I'm not the only one who thinks so....

Schwartz, a journalist who has been studying Islam and extremism for more than a decade, set out to write a history and exposé of Wahhabism, which he believes is at the root of "two and a half centuries of Islamic fundamentalism, and ultimately terrorism, in response to global change." Schwartz describes how over the years, Wahhabis have infiltrated Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Balkans, the Philippines, Western Europe, and of course America in their efforts to attack those who don't believe as they do.

I may be a redneck, but I agree with that (http://www.websitesbytom.com/funimages/carver_agree.wav). Do you?

[Bahadur]

That was not my list, so I wasn't the one framing the answers.Well, you presented the list as if some kind of an evidence, so you are, in effect, responsible for introducing it in the debate. That's what I meant by it by "framing the debate."

As for the Wahabi sect:

I do not think Wahabism is the "necessary and sufficient" condition for terrorism. Afterall, the House of bin al-Saud, brought to power by the Wahabi tribesmen, had been an ally for the Anglo-British alliance for a long time. Wahabi terrorists were not in vogue in the past (the worry used to be Shi'ite terrorists in the aftermath of the Iranian Shi'ite revolution).

However, Wahabism is a fundamentalist, purist creed. People who believe in such fundamentalism are much more likely to commit acts of violence out of "belief" (that their belief is "it") than say secular terrorists who might use "God" as merely an excuse, a cover.

So, Wahabism, being fundamentalist Islam, is something to be concerned about and observec carefully (as a movement). But that does not mean that someone who subscribe to Wahabism is going to automatically turn into a terrorist.

[publius]

that you agree with this?

I do believe that being a Wahhabi Muslim makes someone a likely terrorist

Kidding! I know a joking tone of voice doesn't carry well through wires! Seriously, thanks for your reply. I think this horse has been beaten to a pulp, and it has strayed far from the original topic. What say we drop it before the mods lock it?