[2dogs]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31723


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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSWA: Muslim soldiers with attitude
Michelle Malkin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 26, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.


Sgt. Asan Akbar, a Muslim American soldier with the 326th Engineer Battalion, had an "attitude problem."

According to his superiors and acquaintances, Akbar's attitude was bitterly anti-American and staunchly pro-Muslim. So how did this devout follower of the so-called Religion of Peace work out his attitudinal problems last weekend?

By lobbing hand grenades and aiming his M-4 automatic rifle into three tents filled with sleeping commanding officers at the 101st Airborne Division's 1st Brigade operations center in Kuwait.

Akbar is the lone suspect being detained in the despicable attack, which left more than a dozen wounded and one dead. Surviving soldiers say Akbar, found cowering in a bunker with shrapnel injuries, was overheard ranting after the assault: "You guys are coming into our countries, and you're going to rape our women and kill our children."

"Our"? At least there's no doubt about where this Religion of Peace practitioner's true loyalties lie.

Naturally, apologists for Islam-gone-awry are hard at work dismissing this traitorous act of murder as an "isolated, individual act and not an expression of faith." But such sentiments are willfully blind and recklessly PC.

Sgt. Akbar is not the only MSWA – Muslim soldier with attitude – suspected of infiltrating our military, endangering our troops and undermining national security:



Ali A. Mohamed. Mohamed, a major in the Egyptian army, immigrated to the U.S. in 1986 and joined the U.S. Army while a resident alien. This despite being on a State Department terrorist watch list before securing his visa. An avowed Islamist, he taught classes on Muslim culture to U.S. Special Forces at Fort Bragg, N.C., and obtained classified military documents. He was granted U.S. citizenship over the objections of the CIA.
A former classmate, Jason T. Fogg, recalled that Mohamed was openly critical of the American military. "To be in the U.S. military and have so much hate toward the U.S. was odd. He never referred to America as his country."

Soon after he was honorably discharged from the Army in 1989, Mohamed hooked up with Osama bin Laden as an escort, trainer, bagman and messenger. Mohamed used his U.S. passport to conduct surveillance at the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi; he later pled guilty to conspiring with bin Laden to "attack any Western target in the Middle East" and admitted his role in the 1998 African embassy bombings that killed more than 200 people, including a dozen Americans.

Ain't multiculturalism grand?


Semi Osman. An ethnic Lebanese born in Sierra Leone and a Seattle-based Muslim cleric, Osman served in a naval reserve fueling unit based in Tacoma, Wash. He had access to fuel trucks similar to the type used by al-Qaida in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers, which killed 19 U.S. airmen and wounded nearly 400 other Americans.
Osman was arrested last May as part of a federal investigation into the establishment of a terrorist training camp in Bly, Ore. Osman recently pleaded guilty to a weapons violation, and the feds dropped immigration charges against him in exchange for his testimony.

Ain't open borders grand?


John Muhammad. The accused Beltway sniper and Muslim convert was a member of the Army's 84th Engineering Company. In an eerie parallel to the Akbar case, Muhammad is suspected of throwing a thermite grenade into a tent housing 16 of his fellow soldiers as they slept before the ground-attack phase of Gulf War I in 1991. Muhammad's superior, Sgt. Kip Berentson, told both Newsweek and the Seattle Times that he immediately suspected Muhammad, who was "trouble from day one."
Curiously, Muhammad was admitted to the Army despite being earlier court-martialed for willfully disobeying orders, striking another noncommissioned officer, wrongfully taking property, and being absent without leave while serving in the Louisiana National Guard.

Although Muhammad was led away in handcuffs and transferred to another company pending charges for the grenade attack, an indictment never materialized. Muhammad was honorably discharged from the Army in 1994. Eight years later, he was arrested in the 21-day Beltway shooting spree that left 10 dead and three wounded.

Ain't tolerance grand?


Jeffrey Leon Battle. A former Army reservist, Battle was indicted in October 2002 for conspiring to levy war against the United States and "enlisting in the Reserves to receive military training to use against America." According to the Justice Department, he planned to wage war against American soldiers in Afghanistan.
Ain't diversity grand?


"It's bad enough we have to worry about enemy forces, but now we have to worry about our own guys," Spc. Autumn Simmer told the Los Angeles Times this week after the assault on the 101st Airborne. The Islamist infiltration of our troops is scandalous. Not one more American, soldier or civilian, must be sacrificed at the altar of multiculturalism, diversity, open borders and tolerance of the murderous "attitude" of Jihad.

[Tamara]

The author of this piece is an idiot.

She should express a little more "tolerance", seeing how the first USMC KIA in this latest fracas was one of those "diverse", "open borders" types, off getting killed to defend her right to craft this spew.

Speaking of Muslim soldiers, I'm pretty sure that Derek Zeanah was airborne infantry, though I'm not certain how attitudinal he was. Maybe this Michelle chick can write him a thank you note for serving his time guarding her freedom of speech. :fire:

[2dogs]

The author of this piece is an idiot.

Tsk, tsk- how un-HighRoad like.:what:

Seems to me the article's intent was to disparage PC policies that allow enemies to infiltrate our own military- not to paint all Muslim's as enemies.

But maybe I just can't read.

[Tamara]

Ain't multiculturalism grand?

Not particularly.

Ain't open borders grand?

Since the author's last name is "Malkin" and not "Running Cloud", you'd think she'd be all for 'em.

Ain't tolerance grand?

Since when did "tolerance" become a dirty word? I tolerate all kinds of idiot behavior from all kinds of people; it's how we share the monkey cage, folks.

Ain't diversity grand?

As opposed to what? A world of lockstep drones?

I'm getting the vibe that she doesn't like "diversity", aren't you? How do you think L/Cpl Gutierrez feels about that? Oh, wait, he can't feel about it. He got killed the other day protecting Ms. Malkin's boneheaded and thinly-disguised bigotry.



Tsk, tsk- how un-HighRoad like. :what:

Don't give me that. Look at the names we have around here for the various stupid liberals we discuss. Are stupid "conservative" pundits off limits? :rolleyes:

[2dogs]

Malkin, the daughter of Filipino immigrants, was born in Philadelphia in 1970 and raised in southern New Jersey

Yep, you can see where that racist streak comes from alright.:rolleyes:

[Tamara]

Yep, you can see where that racist streak comes from alright.

I'll give you ten bucks for each use of the word "racist" in my previous posts on this page. :rolleyes:

[2dogs]

Are stupid "conservative" pundits off limits

Off hand I'd say no.

But most of the names we have for stupid liberal pundits is because they say, well, really stupid things.

I personally didn't find anything in the article to be stupid, and generally have found Malkin's articles to be informative and pretty well on the mark. Of course, being a diverse bunch here, we all have our own preferences, eh.

:)

[FPrice]

For those of us (me included) who are unfamiliar with the author in question, here is a website:

http://www.michellemalkin.com/

Malkin seems to be quite adept at pointing out the failings of many liberal attitudes and programs. However I still do not know enough about her and her works to be able to classify her. This website may help in that respect.

[Ol' Badger]

No Picture? How can I make my judgement on her with out a Picture :D

[FPrice]

"No Picture? How can I make my judgement on her with out a Picture?"

I believe that there is a picture of her somewhere on her website. Nice looking actually, but I have learned to NEVER judge a book by it's cover or a woman by her looks.

Well.....maybe I haven't learned the last so well. :D

[seeker_two]

She should express a little more "tolerance", seeing how the first USMC KIA in this latest fracas was one of those "diverse", "open borders" types, off getting killed to defend her right to craft this spew.

Yep. But I don't think he killed any of his fellow soldiers. And Sgt. Asan Akbar is a native-born US citizen. Read it here... (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81898,00.html) :scrutiny:

Speaking of Muslim soldiers, I'm pretty sure that Derek Zeanah was airborne infantry, though I'm not certain how attitudinal he was. Maybe this Michelle chick can write him a thank you note for serving his time guarding her freedom of speech.

Should she CC Ackbar too? :scrutiny:

Not one more American, soldier or civilian, must be sacrificed at the altar of multiculturalism, diversity, open borders and tolerance of the murderous "attitude" of Jihad.

And just WHY are you against this position? :scrutiny:

Don't give me that. Look at the names we have around here for the various stupid liberals we discuss.

But we've PROVEN that they're idiots...:D

The author of this piece is an idiot.

So now we're waiting for you to prove it too...:scrutiny:

[seeker_two]

http://www.invasion.us/mm2.jpg

Does she appear credible enough for you now?...:rolleyes:

[longeyes]

Being tolerant of the intolerant, honoring freedom for those who would take away your freedom--that isn't high-minded, it's suicidal.

Malkin is one of the loudest voices against illegal immigration. That makes a lot of people mighty uncomfortable.

Do we have some "loyalty" problems growing in this country? Let's be real. We do. And no HUAC references, please.

Whatever happend to "E Pluribus UNUM?"

[rock jock]

Not one more American, soldier or civilian, must be sacrificed at the altar of multiculturalism, diversity, open borders and tolerance of the murderous "attitude" of Jihad.
I don't see any general condemnation of Muslim-Americans in this article. The last part of her statement is most telling: "the murderous 'attitude' of Jihad".

Tamara, why are so against our troops being on alert for the Jihad mindset in their fellow Muslim soldiers, especially when it may save their lives?

[longeyes]

The combat mindset is built on trusting your brother-in-arms, totally, implicitly. When doubt is injected there, even a little, you have a problem. Not a small problem, a major problem.

[jmbg29]

Does anyone know of a single instance in which an American Soldier/Sailor/Airman/Marine murdered his fellows because we invaded "his" (as in Akbar's "our") Christian/Jewish/Buddhist/Shinto/etc... country?

An example from WWII:

IIRC, the 442nd Regiment and the 100th Combat Battalion were (with the exception of some of their officers) exclusively Japanese.

They won something on the order of 18,000 medals for valor. More by far than any other unit(s).

I don't recall a single act of treachery being attributed to them. A quick 'net search produced none either.

I confess that I don't know a lot of Muslims. I might have made the aquaintance of a dozen or so. A couple of them I trust implicitly. They would be a comfort if I needed somebody to watch my back if things started to go south.

A couple of others, I wish I hadn't lost touch with, because I would like to be able to turn them in right now. I say that, because they NEVER had anything good to say about this country. NEVER!

But, that was in a University town, so at the time it seemed perfectly logical that they might be willing to suffer the indignity (on their part, certainly not mine) of living within the boundaries of the "Great Satan" :rolleyes: long enough to recieve their degrees, and then go back to whatever kitty-litter tray they called home ( and yes, I am aware that not all foreign Muslims live in the desert :rolleyes: if it makes you feel better, substitute hell-hole for kitty-litter tray). Good riddance.

The rest I never knew well enough to completely trust, or suspect of anything.

I guess the bottom line is this. We have lost our common sense in this country. People show signs of being very seriously disturbed, i.e. Akbar referring to foreign countries/people as "our", and for the sake of the modern meanings of tolerance, diversity, multi-culturalism, etc., and we do NOTHING! Then some of us are actually shocked that people start dying like flies around us! ***?!? OVER!!!!

It's the same with our schools! In virtually every mass-shooting at school, what is the first thing the surviving kids say? That's right! "He/they said that he/they were going to come to school and shoot us all.

I can't speak for the rest of you, but I know this. I don't take any bull:cuss: from anybody! So go ahead, tell me how much you hate this country to my face! Enough :cuss:ing around! :fire: :fire:

[BigG]

I've never asked anybody what their religion was. I don't care. People that wear that type of stuff on their sleeve are the ones I keep my eye on. :scrutiny:

[Bahadur]

Michelle Malkin is not stupid. She cleverly implies and suggest rather than specifically states. Examples:
Naturally, apologists for Islam-gone-awry are hard at work dismissing this traitorous act of murder as an "isolated, individual act and not an expression of faith." But such sentiments are willfully blind and recklessly PC.So far it IS an isolated, individual act. We have not seen other such fratricide in this campaign. Furthermore, we do not yet know conclusively that it was an expression of faith. We may find that to be the case IN THE FUTURE. Or not. The investigation is not even nearly close to being done. Yet, Malkin is convinced ALREADY that anyone who thinks such a judgment is premature is an "apologist for Islam-gone-awry."
Sgt. Akbar is not the only MSWA – Muslim soldier with attitude – suspected of infiltrating our military, endangering our troops and undermining national security:Note she says "suspected." Meaning she cannot prove it. Could there be such infiltrators? It could be. It's very possible. But the implication that somehow Islam as a religion is at fault - the sly suggestion of a term for it "MSWA" - is a premature exaggeration at a minimum.
Ain't multiculturalism grand?The word "multiculturalism" has become a bogeyman for the hard Right in this country. Are there leftists who take the term too far? Yes, there are. But the original idea of multiculturalism - that people of different cultural backgrounds can coexist peacefully and with mutual tolerance (not necessarily mutual liking, merely tolerance) in a single nation - is a good one for our country. The idea is to reject the notion that ONLY Anglo-Saxon Protestants CAN be the acceptable norm of an American. I remember that not too long ago (a few decades ago), the fact that a man was Catholic was an issue in his bid for presidential campaign enough that he had to declare publicly that he will not place his religious allegiance to the Church above his allegiance to the country.

We've come a long way with multiculturalism since then. Are there excesses? Mostly certainly. But to deny the worhty goal of the original intent of multiculturalism is to endorse bigotry.
Ain't open borders grand?We don't really have the kind of "open borders" that many libertarians wish for, so this is kind of a false accusation. We have an irrational immigration system right now, one way or another.
Ain't tolerance grand?Tolerance for what? If by "tolerance," she means being able to live with people of different religious and cultural backgrounds without stereotyping them as a group, I'm all for it. Frankly, this a smug rhetorical question. What is she proposing instead? That we should only tolerate Christians like her as "real" citizens? What is her point?
Ain't diversity grand?Diversity IS great. It allows a "darkie" like her to have the same opportunities and platforms as an Anglo-Saxon Protestant. There were days, before tolerance of "diversity" came about, when "dark" people trying to vote were lynched in this country. Thank goodness diversity is tolerated today. Again, are there excesses? Yes. Am I against those leftist excesses? Yes, I do. Yet, Malkin dismisses the entire idea rhetorically.
Not one more American, soldier or civilian, must be sacrificed at the altar of multiculturalism, diversity, open borders and tolerance of the murderous "attitude" of Jihad.I see that "tolerance" has transformed into "tolerance of... Jihad." It is an interesting way to frame one's intellectual opponent - "Hmmm, you disagree with me, so you must like our evil radical Muslims."
Malkin, the daughter of Filipino immigrants, was born in Philadelphia in 1970 and raised in southern New JerseyNo one has accused that she is a racist. However, the fact that she is Filipino (a "dark" person) does not mean that she cannot have racial or religious bigotry. She can (I don't know if she does or not for sure, but a lot of what she writes sure is suggestive of anti-Islam rhetoric).

[Bahadur]

Does anyone know of a single instance in which an American Soldier/Sailor/Airman/Marine murdered his fellows because we invaded "his" (as in Akbar's "our") Christian/Jewish/Buddhist/Shinto/etc... country?
I don't know about physical violence, but there have been Christians and Jews who have treasoned against the US because of their religious/ethnic affiliations. Of course, there was only a very small number - certainly not nearly enough to represent the vast majority of such groups who remained and remain loyal to the US.
An example from WWII:

IIRC, the 442nd Regiment and the 100th Combat Battalion were (with the exception of some of their officers) exclusively Japanese.

They won something on the order of 18,000 medals for valor. More by far than any other unit(s).

I don't recall a single act of treachery being attributed to them. A quick 'net search produced none either.A few Japanese-Americans (not with the 442nd or 110th) did get angry at the racist baitings against them in the US and gave up their citizenships and left for Japan to serve in the Japanese military (presumably to kill Americans).

Of course, the vast, vast majority of the Japanese-Americans remained loyal (even if more than a bit resentful at the way they were treated) to the US - which is also the case with the several thousand Muslim Americans serving in our Armed Forces.

A handful of crazies do not speak for the whole.

[2dogs]

we should only tolerate Christians like her

Gee, I'd better look at that picture again- I missed that the first time (hey, it's a good excuse to look again:) )



So far it IS an isolated, individual act

Um, yeah, except for the other four examples she gives (not in this conflict).

[Tamara]

I think we should deport her. Now!

Don't you people realize that there are Muslim and communist insurgents all over the Phillipines?!?

She could be a sleeper! Get her out!

Ain't open borders grand?

:rolleyes:

[cratz2]

Fight!
Fight!
Fight!

One quetion I have is, regardless of religious background, if these folks are all deemed troublemakers before the incident, why are they allowed to be around guns and grenades. Why aren't they detained? I mean, two muslim sympathizers in two muslim-related actions, both judged to be 'no good'... why weren't they locked up?

[BigG]

Um, you can't deport her - she was born in Philadelphia.

[seeker_two]

I think we should deport her. Now!

And you can sit in the boat beside her.... :neener:


{mutter} :cuss: palefaces ruining my perfectly good ancestral homeland... {\mutter}

[Marko Kloos]

I don't see any general condemnation of Muslim-Americans in this article. The last part of her statement is most telling: "the murderous 'attitude' of Jihad".

No, she doesn't condemn Muslim-Americans, she condemns Islam. Repeated comments like "so-called religion of peace" totally sour the article and distract from whatever point she is trying to make.

This guy is a jerk, a criminal, and a religious fruitcake. To pretend that those only come in a Muslim flavor is pretty bigoted. If a liberal "diversity lover" columnist were to drag out every incident where a fundamentalist Christian has shot a doctor, bombed a clinic, blown up a building, or kneecapped a snitch, everybody would be hasty to explain that those fruitcakes don't speak for Christianity nor represent the typical mainstream Christian.

Weirdos are attracted to religion, because it gives them moral justification for their hatred of the world, and a way to channel that hatred. Most Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, Wiccans and Buddhists are non-violent and content with living their faith on their own terms. All religions, without exception, have their lunatic nutcake fringe, people who kill because they think they have their god's approval. To focus on one and snidely labeling it as "so-called religion of peace" is selective and bigoted. Plenty of people have been killed in the name of the "Prince of Peace", remember?

Also, the re are some major non sequiturs in that column. What does the extremist religionism of some US-born citizens have to do with "open borders", for example? (Besides, it's already been pointed out that our borders are anything but open. Those who bemoan the illegal immigration problem at the southern border invariably fail to address just how they'd go about fixing that issue, short of the old "military at the borders" thing.)

Diversity has indeed tourned into a dirty word for some conservatives. When they say "diversity", they say it with disgust, because what they really mean to say is "spicks, fags and ******s". Truth is, diversity is the motto of this country, and the source of its greatest strength. "E Pluribus Unum": From many, One. It means that anybody can make their way as an American and pursue happiness in their own way, by leaving everybody else alone to do the same. It means that you can worship, dress, speak, and act any way you want, as long as you don't harm anyone or take their stuff. This nation is a giant quilt of colors, religions, and backgrounds, the only nation in the world where five hundred religions and skin colors can live next to each other without constantly waging war against each other.

Some Muslims place their faith before their country, and that's not acceptable when your faith tenets contradict the Bill of Rights. If the Bill of Rights says you can't force your neighbor to go to church, and your Holy Book does, then you had best consider relocating to a theocracy that's in line with your Holy Book, because that's not the American Way.

That said, I know plenty of Christians who put their faith before their country, and then claim that we were really meant to be a Christian nation. In actuality, we are, and always have been, a "believe whatever you want, as long as you don't try to make it law for everyone" nation. That goes for adherents of all religions, not just Islam and Christianity. The very fact that no faith group in this country can legally seize the reigns is the only thing that keeps us from perpetual religious warfare.

If you don't believe that your neighbor has a right to

a.) worship as he pleases,

b.) not believe in the same god as you, and

c.) be left alone without getting bombed or gassed or shot for have planes crashed into his office building for any reason,

you are *not* an American, no matter what your religion or the inscription on your passport.

[Sean Smith]

The article is intentionally inflamatory and overblown. However, it does highlight some legitimate stupidity on the military's part. How in the world do you let a guy who is a KNOWN troublemaker, America hater, and obviously unstable, hang around the 101st Airborne's rear CP unsupervised? His adherence to a fruity brand of Islam is just icing on the idiotic cake. He should have been court-martialed for his previous offenses and never allowed in the battle zone.

This might be a real case of not wanting to throw the book at him so as to not look like you are persecuting Muslim soldiers. :rolleyes:

Fortunately, a close reading of the UCMJ indicates that, if convicted, Akbar is guilty of several different death penalty offenses. For instance, he is subject to the death penalty for merely offering violence to a commissioned officer during time of war (Article 90); every officer that was merely threatened (not actually injured) by the attack constitutes a separate death penalty offense. Of course, premeditated murder = death. Misbehavior before the enemy = death. Forcing a safeguard = death. Aiding the enemy = death. And so on...

[Frohickey]

Naturally, apologists for Islam-gone-awry are hard at work dismissing this traitorous act of murder as an "isolated, individual act and not an expression of faith." But such sentiments are willfully blind and recklessly PC.

So far it IS an isolated, individual act. We have not seen other such fratricide in this campaign.

Not to burst your bubble, but re-reading the Malkin article, and the other cases, it DOES NOT seem like an isolated individual act.

Whats that phrase...

Once is an accident
Twice is a coincidence
Thrice is an enemy action

[EJ]

If a man or woman joins the US services and professes that another country is his or hers -- then they are a traitor and should have been removed from service-- They obviously swore a false oath upon enlistment-- regardless of their religion or previous nationality or heritage--

[jmbg29]

I don't know about physical violence, but there have been Christians and Jews who have treasoned against the US because of their religious/ethnic affiliations. Of course, there was only a very small number - certainly not nearly enough to represent the vast majority of such groups who remained and remain loyal to the US.That is why I specifically asked about military people and murder.

Do you happen to recall which military people "treasoned against the US because of their religious/ethnic affiliations."

I don't recall any. And to clarify, my original question was about religion, not ethnicity. That is especially important here, since Muslim isn't an "ethnicity".

Do you know of any Japanese-Americans that deserted their enlistments/commissions to leave and fight against us? I don't.


______________________________________
Diversity has indeed tourned into a dirty word for some conservatives. When they say "diversity", they say it with disgust, because what they really mean to say is "spicks, fags and ******s". That may be true for some, but that isn't why I find the perversion of the word troubling. For 99.999% of the liberals that I know, diversity means encouraging every faction in this country to maintain a sense of dis-unity no matter what the cost. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less if a person is Latino, Gay, or Black. It doesn't make them special one way or the other.

In short, diversity is used as an excuse to bash anything that non-minorities want and/or do. It is also used as a wedge to divide us. So we are all from different backgrounds, SFW?

[rock jock]

Repeated comments like "so-called religion of peace" totally sour the article and distract from whatever point she is trying to make.
lens,

I think the writer is pointing out the fallaciousness of the politically correct position that there is absolutely no correlation between these traitorous soldiers and the religion of Islam. Remember where the "Religion of Peace" phrase came from? It was repeated ad naseum after 9/11. It was like the elephant in the living room. The President is on TV repeating that phrase like a parrot when the rest of America knew it was bunk. There is a correlation, all these terrorists adhere to an extremist form of Islam. The fact that many, maybe even most, Muslims don't doesn't mean that a sizable number do. And ignoring this fact, pretending that it doesn't exist, is simply stupid and very dangerous.

[longeyes]

"One quetion I have is, regardless of religious background, if these folks are all
deemed troublemakers before the incident, why are they allowed to be around
guns and grenades. Why aren't they detained? I mean, two muslim sympathizers
in two muslim-related actions, both judged to be 'no good'... why weren't they
locked up?"

Apparently it's easier, in some circles, to look the other way than to buck the party line.

Something to think about when the war is over maybe.

[Justin]

I've seen Malkin on the O'Reilly Factor a couple of times. Physically, she's good looking, but her idealogy makes her a hag as far as I'm concerned. No one on the left would dare point out that she is a virulent racist because she isn't white, and all the gin-swilling good ol' boys on the hard right love her because she's practically getting away with murder by saying all the sort of stuff they can only think.
I think the writer is pointing out the fallaciousness of the politically correct position that there is absolutely no correlation between these traitorous soldiers and the religion of Islam. So? Should we draw a correlation between Christianity and Timothy McVeigh? Maybe there's a correlation between guns and violence, and if we took away all the guns, there wouldn't be any more violence.:rolleyes:

If the guy was indeed a troublemaker beforehand, that's when he should have been stuffed.

[longeyes]

"Besides, it's already been pointed out that our borders are anything
but open. Those who bemoan the illegal immigration problem at the southern
border invariably fail to address just how they'd go about fixing that issue, short
of the old "military at the borders" thing."

You say Our borders are anything but open? Are you kidding? De facto we have no borders. Yeah, there are ways to deal with the issue. although addressing becomes harder when it's obvious that a lot of people--like yourself?--seem not to want to solve it. The "miltiary at the borders thing" is one option, and though you may consider it extreme it may in fact come to that at some point. Cutting off public monies to illegals would be a good step one, coupled with sanctions against employers who violate hiring prohibitions.

[clem]

Murder is murder and if the Sergeant has an attitude, well I think it should be fixed by a firing squad.:mad:

[longeyes]

"Diversity has indeed tourned into a dirty word for some conservatives. When they
say "diversity", they say it with disgust, because what they really mean to say is
"spicks, fags and ******s". Truth is, diversity is the motto of this country, and the
source of its greatest strength. "E Pluribus Unum": From many, One. It means
that anybody can make their way as an American and pursue happiness in their
own way, by leaving everybody else alone to do the same. It means that you can
worship, dress, speak, and act any way you want, as long as you don't harm
anyone or take their stuff. This nation is a giant quilt of colors, religions, and
backgrounds, the only nation in the world where five hundred religions and skin
colors can live next to each other without constantly waging war against each
other."

The "unum" in that motto makes clear that in some things all "real Americans" must be in agreement. We do have a Bill of Rights that lays out our inalienable rights. Perhaps in your puffed-up defense of Islam you can explain to us how that faith is compatible with the principles of freedom that we have enshrined in our seminal documents? As for "diversity" as the new ideological flag, some of us are able to find diversity in every individual who is a citizen of this nation and don't have to look for it in the broad demographic categories of sociologists and social engineers. I think the right to be left alone is indeed important, but frankly I find it hard to reconcile that with "submission" and religious law that would supplant civil law.

[Marko Kloos]

The "unum" in that motto makes clear that in some things all "real Americans" must be in agreement.

Yes, and I already said that "real Americans" must respect their neighbors' right to do and believe as they please, as long as they're not infringing on someone else's rights. That's what the Bill of Rights is all about. I do not care what religion my neighbor adheres to, as long as he leaves me alone to believe as I wish.

We do have a Bill of Rights that lays out our inalienable rights. Perhaps in your puffed-up defense of Islam you can explain to us how that faith is compatible with the principles of freedom that we have enshrined in our seminal documents?

I am not "defending Islam", just the right of people to be Muslims if they want to be, as long as they harm no one. I don't believe that Muslims should have to explain themselves to self-appointed Guardians of Freedom. If you harm people in the name of your faith, you should go to jail or be killed, and it doesn't matter to me whether you call yourself Muslim, Christian, or Great Pumpkin worshipper. If you don't harm people, you should be able to believe as you please, without having to answer to the Patriotism Police.

That is, in fact, one of the principles we have "enshrined in our seminal documents", right in the first amendment to the Constitution.

[jmbg29]

If the guy was indeed a troublemaker beforehand, that's when he should have been stuffed.And he wasn't for precisely some of the reasons that she outlined.

[seeker_two]

Besides, it's already been pointed out that our borders are anything but open. Those who bemoan the illegal immigration problem at the southern border invariably fail to address just how they'd go about fixing that issue, short of the old "military at the borders" thing.

Life on the border... (http://www.ranchrescue.com)

Or you can go camping down near the border & see for yourself how "secure" our borders are... :scrutiny:

[Marko Kloos]

Cutting off public monies to illegals would be a good step one, coupled with sanctions against employers who violate hiring prohibitions.

Hey, I'm a libertarian. You won't ever find me in favor of public money going to anyone, legal or not. No welfare, no free health care, nada. Nobody has the right to loot their neighbors' wallet for whatever noble cause.

Do we have an illegal immigration problem? Sure! But guess what: as long as the world's richest nation is right next door to one of the world's poorest, you will always have illegal immigration, no matter how much barbed wire you put up.

But what to do about it? Illegal immigration is already against the law. Hiring anyone without proper work documentation is already against the law. What are you proposing to do, make all these acts even more illegal?

That leaves the whole "military at the borders" thing. Never mind the fact that the worst thing you can do to troop morale is garrison duty, how do you propose we close a desert border that's almost 3,000 miles long? That's more land than you can cover with every single fighting division in the U.S.Army and Marine Corps. Even if you could do it, what are we going to do with people who still try to hop the fence...machine-gun them?

How do we close that porous border of ours and manage to not turn into East Germany? Are you willing to shoot women and children? And if not, why would you ask some 19-year-old private to do it for you? The inner-German border was the most heavily guarded border in the history of the world, and it was still leaking, because people were determined enough to get through, even with snipers and mine fields in place.

Listen, a free country cannot ever be hermetically sealed and remain a free country. If you have a workable solution that doesn't turn us into a gigantic concentration camp with McDonald's and Six Flags, let's hear it.

I am all for stopping government handouts, though. I just wouldn't limit it to illegals.

[Sean Smith]

Yeah, saying we need to "seal our borders" is basically an appeal to magic. It is also way off topic. :D

[Justin]

And he wasn't for precisely some of the reasons that she outlined. That's purely speculative conjecture on the part of the author, someone who, I might point out, has an obvious axe to grind.
Not saying it isn't a likely possibility, but it's not like this sort of thing is uncommon. The institution of the military is willing to cover for their own, right or wrong. (As an example, look at the current scandal in the Air Force Academy.)

[jmbg29]

The institution of the military is willing to cover for their own, right or wrong. Oh. You must have served in a different military than the one I served in. The one guy in my unit that used potentially deadly force (he hurled a sledge hammer at our leading Petty Officer's head) against his superior, got his *** handed to him at a Court Martial. OTOH he was a white Christian. :rolleyes:

[Justin]

Look, I'm not trying to go on a big 'The Military is Evil' rant, because I know better. Every organization does this to one extent or another. When my brother was in the Army, there was a guy (E7, I think?) who got busted with a pile of cocaine. They knocked him back to E1 or E2, within 3 months he was back up to being an E6.

[seeker_two]

Illegal immigration is already against the law. Hiring anyone without proper work documentation is already against the law. What are you proposing to do, make all these acts even more illegal?

Actually ENFORCING the law would be a good start... :scrutiny:

[FPrice]

"The institution of the military is willing to cover for their own, right or wrong. (As an example, look at the current scandal in the Air Force Academy.)"

I think that you could say that same thing about ANY institution, including your own. People are generally prone to resist having their own kind tarnished unless it is so much in the open that in the words of the Borg, "Resistance is futile.". Look at how the members of Congress turn the other way when one of theirs (or a sitting President) is accused of mis-deeds.

Your use of the current AFA problem as an example can also be looked at as being rather self-serving. I am sure that it provides quite a bit of material for your station.

[KMKeller]

Why hasn't this thread been killed yet?

[longeyes]

The situation will change when:

a) The economy in California gets so bad--soon enough--that middle-class parents can no longer keep their daughters in cellphones and Civics.

b) Lawyers used to spewing forth boilerplate for 200 fazools an hour find that English-speaking gents in India and Hong Kong can do their job better for $20 an hour and can hire another American lawyer to bypass any legal hurdles involved in the farm-outs.

[seeker_two]

Why hasn't this thread been killed yet?

Probably b/c it's a discussion about laws & politics in the Legal & Political Forum..:scrutiny:

[justice4all]

I generally agree with and enjoy Michelle Malkin's columns.

But in the past several years of visiting TFL and THR, I've yet to disagree with my fellow libertarians Tamara and lendsringer. I guess that's one of the good things about a political philosophy based on timeless principles, rather than pragmatic political expediency.

But I'm willing to cut Malkin some slack; it's probably hard to have to write a good column several times a week. And one of the main points of a column is to get people thinking, to provoke them somewhat. And this she has obviously done, as evidenced by the above.

[Bahadur]

So far it IS an isolated, individual act

Um, yeah, except for the other four examples she gives (not in this conflict).
Not to burst your bubble, but re-reading the Malkin article, and the other cases, it DOES NOT seem like an isolated individual act.

Whats that phrase...

Once is an accident
Twice is a coincidence
Thrice is an enemy action
Okay. Let's say four blacks, in SEPARATE incidents, killed white women. The first one did so, because he hates whites. The second one did so, because he hates women. The third did so, because he wanted money from her (and she refused). The fourth did so, because he raped her and didn't want her to testify against him.

When apprehended, all claimed that they are being prosecuted "because they're black. This is a white man's witch hunt."

Is the causal factor for ALL the killings in this scenario that the perpetrators are "black." Or is "black" merely a NON-CAUSAL correlation?

If you can answer that, you can tell what I am going to say about Malkin's "four examples" which she uses to suggest that Islam is the causal factor.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know about physical violence, but there have been Christians and Jews who have treasoned against the US because of their religious/ethnic affiliations. Of course, there was only a very small number - certainly not nearly enough to represent the vast majority of such groups who remained and remain loyal to the US.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is why I specifically asked about military people and murder.

Do you happen to recall which military people "treasoned against the US because of their religious/ethnic affiliations."

I don't recall any. And to clarify, my original question was about religion, not ethnicity. That is especially important here, since Muslim isn't an "ethnicity".

Do you know of any Japanese-Americans that deserted their enlistments/commissions to leave and fight against us? I don't.Yes, but now you are fashioning the criteria to fit your chosen solution. Meaning, what is the point of your question about Islam seeming to be unique in causing treason? That Islam pre-disposes someone to be anti-American and treasonous?

Here is an alternate explanation. Maybe the few Christians and Jews who were treasonous never made it past the screening process to be in the military in the past (so they became treasonous in other ways, for example, give up citizenship and join enemy military - which happened with the Japanese-Americans - or work in Intel and siphon information to the country of your correligionists - which happened with Jewish-Americans). And perhaps that screening process is now so weakened that treasonous people (Muslim or no) can get past it. In that case, the responsible factor is the failure of the screening process, not Islam.
I think the writer is pointing out the fallaciousness of the politically correct position that there is absolutely no correlation between these traitorous soldiers and the religion of Islam.Correlation, perhaps. Causation, yet to be proven. You know the difference, right?
There is a correlation, all these terrorists adhere to an extremist form of Islam. The fact that many, maybe even most, Muslims don't doesn't mean that a sizable number do. And ignoring this fact, pretending that it doesn't exist, is simply stupid and very dangerous (my emphais)I don't ignore the fact that extremist Islam can foster terrorism. But that's a different thing than an argument that Islam - as a whole - fosters terrorism. The crux of the matter seems to be "EXTREMIST" as you put. It's all a matter of emphasis. I see no reason why what the President stated is in conflict with what I just wrote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the writer is pointing out the fallaciousness of the politically correct position that there is absolutely no correlation between these traitorous soldiers and the religion of Islam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So? Should we draw a correlation between Christianity and Timothy McVeigh? Maybe there's a correlation between guns and violence, and if we took away all the guns, there wouldn't be any more violence.There IS a correlation between guns and violence. However, there is NO established causation - that guns CAUSE violence.

Put another way, people who are drawn to violence are often also drawn to guns (weapons). But that does mean that people who are drawn to guns are also necessarily drawn to violence (If A, then B does NOT mean If B, then A - which is rudimentary logic)?

Similarly, people who are prone to terrorism (in Islamic societies) are drawn to Islam (particular a radical form). That does not mean that people who are drawn to Islam are necessarily drawn to terrorism.

[Frohickey]

The US government could float an idea that the United States would take applications for statehood for any landmass at least 100K square miles that is contigiously connected to the United States if the people living in the territory were to declare their independence from their original sovereign country. ;)

[jmbg29]

Is the causal factor for ALL the killings in this scenario that the perpetrators are "black." Or is "black" merely a NON-CAUSAL correlation?The two can't be compared. One is, or is not born black.

OTOH one must chose whether or not to adopt an extremist Muslim viewpoint.

In your example, each murderer had different motivations. None of the examples you gave were said to have chosen their victim because she was white.

In the example that Malkin gave, the prior behavior of all of the examples was consistant with persons resentful, if not hateful toward, non-Muslims. Quite frankly, I don't see how anyone can honestly say they are surprised by what these guys did. They made their positions rather plain. How come no one took them seriously?

I would submit that Ms. Malkin has made an excellent case concerning the answer to that question.

[Justin]

I think that you could say that same thing about ANY institution, including your own. People are generally prone to resist having their own kind tarnished unless it is so much in the open that in the words of the Borg, "Resistance is futile.". Look at how the members of Congress turn the other way when one of theirs (or a sitting President) is accused of mis-deeds. FPrice- thank you for making the point that I was just sort of alluding to. I was probably too specific in my statement. But you're right, any organization be it governmental, corporate, or four guys sitting around drinking beer will work to protect their own.

Your use of the current AFA problem as an example can also be looked at as being rather self-serving. I am sure that it provides quite a bit of material for your station. Our rather copious coverage of the AFA scandal has probably seared itself into the back of my mind, so it was the first thing to pop up when I was trying to think of an example. I would like to think that the media's spotlight on the AFA scandal is an example of what the media is supposed to do- bringing wrongdoing to the public eye in order to allow it to be examined. However, I am neither optimistic or naive enough to buy into that belief in even a majority of the stories covered by the media. It would be a self-evident cliche to say that the media's ability to put things before the public is often times twisted and abused.


(Ok, hopefully I haven't caused too much thread drift...)

[Bahadur]

The two can't be compared. One is, or is not born black.Yes they can. Whether the variable is "inborn" or "acquired" is no relevance to the logic of what I presented. What I presented was a demonstration of correlations not equating causality (black-crime high correlations does NOT mean black CAUSES crime; likewise Islam-terrorism correlations does not mean Islam causes terrorism). In both cases, there are other factors that may be of higher correlations. There may even be yet another factor that causes both (and hence create a perfect correlations between the two without one being a causal factor for the other).
OTOH one must chose whether or not to adopt an extremist Muslim viewpoint.Very true, but irrelevant to the logic exposition I stated above.
In the example that Malkin gave, the prior behavior of all of the examples was consistant with persons resentful, if not hateful toward, non-Muslims.They are also consistent with people who are mal-adjusted, violent and use religion as a justificaton for existing bias (anti-Americanism, for example).
Quite frankly, I don't see how anyone can honestly say they are surprised by what these guys did.I am not surprised by what they did. Who says I was? I merely question the notion the generalization that Islam is what caused these acts. Islam (which can be many different things to many different people like any religion) is, or was, the excuse.
They made their positions rather plain. How come no one took them seriously?Well, what people say and what really motivate them can be two different things. For example, OBL could claim that he attacked America because it has stationing troops in ("occupying") Saudi Arabia or that he hates American for its support of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land - while his true motiviation was radical, fundamentalist Islam.
I would submit that Ms. Malkin has made an excellent case concerning the answer to that question.Malkin wrote a provocative piece that uses a lot of logical fallacies imply that a particular religon is more violent than another (that she belongs to). It's an illogical piece of writing that fails to separate people who are very different (and lump them altogether), and appeal to certain kinds of previously held biases.

[jmbg29]

What I presented was a demonstration of correlations not equating causality (black-crime high correlations does NOT mean black CAUSES crime; likewise Islam-terrorism correlations does not mean Islam causes terrorism). I'm not saying that Islam caused their crimes. Most adherants of Islam do not commit violent crimes.

What I am saying is that these individuals were motivated by their adherance to a fanatical version of Islam. They telegraphed their intent and their motivations with their words and their deeds.
Islam (which can be many different things to many different people like any religion) is, or was, the excuse.We agree.Well, what people say and what really motivate them can be two different things. For example, OBL could claim that he attacked America because it has stationing troops in ("occupying") Saudi Arabia or that he hates American for its support of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land - while his true motiviation was radical, fundamentalist Islam.He objects to our "occupation" because we (the infidels) are anathema in the Holy land(s), ditto for the situation in Israel. Making his "true motivation" that you offer as an example, a distinction without a difference. I am certain that many followeres of different religions, or sects thereof, dislike the American presence in Saudi Arabia. The difference (and the difference is vast) is that followers of The Religious Society Of Friends - as an example of people that would rather that we didn't have a military presence anywhere - don't fly planes into buildings over it.

In short, when I go deer hunting, I don't spend any time looking for kangaroos.

[Bahadur]

I'm not saying that Islam caused their crimes. Most adherants of Islam do not commit violent crimes.

What I am saying is that these individuals were motivated by their adherance to a fanatical version of Islam. They telegraphed their intent and their motivations with their words and their deeds.Then WE agree, but that does not appear to be Malkin's position (her position is not clear, because she is very vague about her evidence and intermediate conclusions, but she appears to be implying that Islam is somehow a culprit).
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, what people say and what really motivate them can be two different things. For example, OBL could claim that he attacked America because it has stationing troops in ("occupying") Saudi Arabia or that he hates American for its support of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land - while his true motiviation was radical, fundamentalist Islam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He objects to our "occupation" because we (the infidels) are anathema in the Holy land(s), ditto for the situation in Israel. Making his "true motivation" that you offer as an example, a distinction without a difference.It is NOT "a distinction without a difference." It is very likely that even if the US troops were not stationed in Saudi Arabia, OBL would have attacked the US. Furthermore, the plan and organization for the attack were in place when the US was pressuring Israel to make peace with the Palestinians - when, in fact, the US was helping the Palestinians to achieve statehood as it never has before. So it is illogical for OBL to claim that he did the attack to aid the Palestinians.

So the distinction does matter. It may not change our response (we're still going to kill OBL), but understanding the nuances of what really motivates the enemy (rather than what the enemy CLAIMS to be motivated by) enhances our ability to wage the war better.
In short, when I go deer hunting, I don't spend any time looking for kangaroos.Well, that's because you are hunting just about any deer you see. That's about as obvious as saying "when we go wage a war on an Arab nation (Iraq), we don't go attacking a Hindu nation (say, India)." What's your point?

That's a different thing than, say, "We are going to fight an Arab nation (Iraq), so we can fight ANY Arab nation (Egypt)" (well, a deer is a deer, right?). Or, for that matter, understanding why deer come to a watering hole (motivation) may give you a more successful hunting trip.

[jmbg29]

It is NOT "a distinction without a difference." It is very likely that even if the US troops were not stationed in Saudi Arabia, OBL would have attacked the US. Furthermore, the plan and organization for the attack were in place when the US was pressuring Israel to make peace with the Palestinians - when, in fact, the US was helping the Palestinians to achieve statehood as it never has before. So it is illogical for OBL to claim that he did the attack to aid the Palestinians.Now you are making my point for me. OBL attacked us because his lunatic belief system demands him to. It doesn't matter if we are helping or hindering other Muslims. He, like Sgt. Akbar, must in the end, attack us because we don't subscribe to their death-cult sect(s) of Islam. Well, that's because you are hunting just about any deer you see.Come deer hunting with me sometime. Learn about it before you make statements that do not reflect the actual process. The sex of the animal, it's physical location, antlers vs. no antlers, and even it's species (there are 6 different ones in the lower 48 states alone) are all factors in whether or not shooting it would be legal. To put a finer point on it, when I am hunting for Blacktail deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), I spend no time hunting where Columbia whitetail deer (Odocoileus viginianus leucurus) might also be likely to be found. But, even if I did, I would know the difference between the two. Ergo deer aren't "just deer" to me, nor are they to folks with training similar to mine.

You have a different take on what Malkin is trying to say than I do. Fair enough.

For me, what she is trying to say - to stretch the hunting analogy to its limit - is we are on a hunt for our very lives. We spend an inordinate amount of time searching for all of the creatures in the forest without using any common sense. We are supposed to be looking for our legal "deer", but we are so used to wasting our time screwing around, that when the legal "deer" pops up and says "HERE I AM! I'M GOING TO F_ING KILL YOU!!!!!" We do nothing.

The "deer" makes good on his promise, and lots of folks say to themselves "Gee...How did that happen?" :scrutiny: :uhoh: :barf: :barf: