[2dogs]

I don't want this to turn into a Muslim bashing thread, but I have a question that maybe needs to be addressed.

Given these two developments (The Muslim chaplain and the interpreter)and the Muslim American soldier who threw a grenade into our GI's tent and killed (a few?) of them- is it time to question the wisdom of putting Muslims in the military?

IIRC there weren't this many Italian Americans, or German American or Japanese American U.S. soldiers in all of WWII that couldn't be trusted.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98082,00.html

Airman at Guantanamo Bay Charged With Espionage







Tuesday , September 23, 2003

WASHINGTON — An Air Force airman who had worked at the U.S. prison camp for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (search) has been charged with espionage and aiding the enemy -- charges that could carry the death penalty -- a military spokesman said Tuesday.





Senior Airman Ahmad I. al-Halabi worked as an Arabic-language translator at the prison camp, spokesman Maj. Michael Shavers said.

Al-Halabi knew Yousef Yee (search), the Muslim chaplain at the prison arrested earlier this month, but it was unclear if the two arrests were linked, Shavers said.

The enlisted airman has been charged with nine counts related to espionage, three counts of aiding the enemy, 11 counts of disobeying a lawful order, and nine counts of making a false official statement.

Espionage and aiding the enemy are military charges that can carry the death penalty, said Eugene Fidell (search), a civilian lawyer in Washington and president of the National Institute of Military Justice. The commanding general in charge of al-Halabi's case would have to decide whether military prosecutors could seek the death penalty in his case, Fidell said.

If the death penalty is an option, the 12-member military jury that hears the case would have to vote unanimously to impose it, Fidell said.

Al-Halabi, who was based at Travis Air Force Base in California and assigned to a logistics unit there, is being held at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, Shavers said.

Earlier Tuesday, senior military officials told Fox News that a member of the Navy was also in custody, under suspicion of espionage and possible improper communications with the camp's detainees. The Navy member's role at the camp has not been disclosed.

Fox News has learned al-Halabi and the Navy member both were detained roughly two weeks before Yee was arrested. Officials said the two were being surveyed for some time before Yee came to their attention.

About 660 suspected Al Qaeda (search) or Taliban (search) members are imprisoned at the U.S. Navy base. American officials have been interrogating them for information.

Yee, 35, was arrested Sept. 10 in Jacksonville, Fla., after getting off a flight from Guantanamo Bay and is being held at the consolidated Naval Brig in Charleston, S.C. A senior law enforcement official said authorities confiscated classified documents Yee was carrying.

Determining what Yee’s intentions were may be difficult, according to one senior official. The official told Fox News he was having a difficult time assessing the meaning of the articles said to be in the chaplain's possession when he was arrested.

Yee was detained in part because he carried classified information without having something called a "courier card" in his possession. Such mistakes are not uncommon, the official said.

Yee also possessed a laptop equipped with a modem, which are strictly forbidden at the base. The official pointed out that nearly every laptop now sold is equipped with a dial-up modem.

A Pentagon official told Fox News that classified information was also found on the laptop of the Air Force member now in custody. But the official said slip-ups such as this — which he described as "sloppy computer security" — are somewhat common.

A military magistrate ruled on Sept. 15 there was enough evidence to hold Yee for up to two months while the military investigates.

[SADshooter]

Yes, so long as they obey the military oath they swore. If they cease to, then they should be subject to appropriate penalties/discipline. Analogous to citizens who shouldn't be punished/persecuted for activities that don't harm anyone (e.g. gun owners).

[2dogs]

My guess is that not a large percentage of gunowners are rooting for, or aiding and abetting the enemy.

Liberals yes, but not gunowners.;) :evil:

I realize that 3 cases is not a trend, or enough to say that a whole group of people should be viewed with suspicion. If a trend of disloyalty (what % is a trend? I don't know) in the military by any group does develop- should members of that group be singled out for expulsion from the military, or at least put into roles where they could do absolutely no harm?

I realize this is a tricky subject to broach...........

[Quartus]

So, anybody up for a pool on how long this thread will stay open? :D

[Cosmoline]

I would think the DOD would be trying to bring more Muslims, esp. the ones fluent in Arabic and more obscure languages into the military. We need them. Allegations against one airman and the acts of one loon hardly justify banning all members of one religion from the military.

And yes, there were plenty of mixed heritage Americans who could not be trusted during WWII. Many were caught and punished. Others fled back to the "fatherland." Only the Japanese were forced to bear collective guilt, however. We don't want to go down that road again.

[tiberius]

Fanatical fundamentalist Muslims? - NO.

Normal Americans who are Muslim but love their country? - Sure.

Religion is a silly thing to fight about.

[Lone_Gunman]

The only problem with keeping fanatics out, and letting regular Muslims in, is that no one can tell the difference until its too late.

[greyhound]

Muslims should definately be allowed in the military. Common sense says the screening for them should be a bit more thorough, and maybe their evaluations also, but the actions of a few should not disclude the many.

Cosmoline is right, we especially need the translators.

I think we at the High Road can discuss this rationally. Probably not the case at some other places, but here we'll be fine.

Regarding the incidents described with the 2 Guantanamo Bay detentions, I hop we are seriously looking for connections here, it seems a big coincidence....

[Preacherman]

Folks, again, a word of caution. If this discussion stays on-topic, concerning the arrests of Muslim servicemen for spying, it's OK. If it drifts off into Muslim-bashing, it's due for euthanasia ASAP. Please remember that the actions of individuals are NOT a reflection on the totality of the religion they belong to - whatever that religion may be. Also, please remember that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty - which has not yet happened, and may not happen, in the two cases we know of.

I serve with Muslim chaplains for whom I have the highest respect, and who are completely loyal to this country and its Constitution. I'm proud to be associated with them. Let's be grateful for the good they do, at the same time that we decry the harm caused by others of lesser goodwill.

[Lone_Gunman]

Point well made Preacher Man, and so far I see no remarks that would be generally disparaging to Muslims.

The big question I wonder about this is, How can we tell whether someone is a fanatic or not?

[Hkmp5sd]

Anyone that can pass the background check, especially the ones required for a security clearance, should be permitted to serve in the military. Religion isn't the only thing people become fanatical about (just look at the ones in this forum! :) ). About 99% of all US traitors (military, law enforcement and intelligence) are fanatical about one thing, money.

[Mark Tyson]

Good point, Hkmp5sd. The ideological traitor has become something of an endangered species since the 60's but seems to be making a comeback. Yes, most traitors are beholden to sheer greed. It would be just as unfair to take the actions of rogue cops or the like to smear all law enforcement, or the actions of irresponsible/criminal gun owners to smear all gun owners.

[Waitone]

<Let's see if my comments shut the thread down>

Part of the problem is the Islamic community in general has not done a good job of separating itself from terrormonger wacko's. I don't for a minute ascribe murderous intent to all muslims. At the same time there appears a reluctance for muslims to draw that distinction. Reasons include cultural reluctance or fear of the wacko's or mistrust of Americans or envy or . . . . .

Let me draw an analogy. Let's say it was members of the First BapPresMethEpis church that sat at the controls of one of the planes. The Christian community in this country would be screaming loud, long, and in 4 part harmony trying to separate the wacko's actions from mainline christians. That being the case it is hard for us Americans to understand why it has not happened in the muslim community.

A lot of the chest thumping we see about muslims in the US would simply disappear if muslims would simply police their own.

[RWK]

Certainly; they (presumptively) are loyal Americans and their religion is just as legitimate as any other. However – and I base this on over two decades as a senior naval officer – our government has the obligation to inquire into potential service members’ backgrounds, both for access to classified information and for military security reasons. Therefore, to summarize:

Q1: Should Muslims be able to serve?
A1: Yes.

Q2: However, should their background be subject to particular scrutiny in light of facts including:
(a) the faith of the 11 September terrorists, and so forth;
(b) the likely – still to be proved – treasonous acts of the Chaplin, the interpreter, and soldier in the 101st;
(c) the clear proclivity of large groups within global Islamic society to hate the United States, as demonstrated by cheering crowds on 11 September (and other occasions when the US was attacked) as well as by the lack of a strong denunciation of terrorism by senior Mohammedan clerics?
A2: Yes.

This is not Arab or Muslim bashing; rather, it is a factually-based and realistic summary of germane information.

[C.R.Sam]

What RWK said.
Risk management.
The military should not have to be an equal opportunity employer.

Sam

[tiberius]

Maybe as long as they don’t ask, and you don’t tell…….. :)

[seeker_two]

How many people of Germanic, Italian, and Japanese descent served the US war effort heroically & faithfully in WWII? :scrutiny:

Judge the person--not their beliefs or heritage...:cool:

[Hatchett]

Of course Muslims should be allowed to serve. Regardless of religion, heritage, or color, an American is an American, and they have the same rights and duties as any of us.

...as long as they're male heterosexuals.

[ojibweindian]

Pollard.

Hansen.

Ames.

Arnold.

All of them born on American soil. All of them spies for foreign countries. All of them traitorous (insert expletive(s)).

It appears that traitorous behavior is not soley determined by either religion, nationality, etc.

[Greg L]

Upon reading the topic header my gut reaction was yes. Glad to see that THR is taking thr (with the appropriate disclaimers) and going in the same direction that I was thinking (or am I going in the same direction that THR was thinking :confused: )

Greg

[Joe Demko]

I would rather have a loyal homosexual* than a traitorous hetero in the foxhole with me. Rather have a loyal muslim than a traitorous Presbyterian. Give me one factual example of when whole groups of people, rather than individuals, have been traitorous and we'll have some reason continue this discussion.

*If he thinks my buttocks are nicely shaped, he'll be that much more inclined to watch over them.

[rock jock]

RWK summed it up nicely.

[Derek Zeanah]

Hrmmmm.

When I was stationed in Germany my buddy and I found it about impossible to get a cab to pick us up outside of the Rhein Main PX/Burger King. We finally found one, and discovered the reason:

- 12 cab drivers had been murdered in the last year.
- All twelve had been murdered by American soldiers.
- All 12 soldiers had been black. We weren't, which was why this cab driver was willing to take the risk.

Raise your hand if you think it's OK to ask the question "is it time to question the wisdom of putting blacks in the military?"

Does anyone see a big difference between that and the discussion we're having here? Think before you post -- run a quick search to see what the crime statistics would look like in the US if you drop all black-related violence out of the discussion.

Most would agree that blanket discrimination against a minority group based on the actions of some members of that group is a bad thing. Why is it that it's OK to block my opportunities to serve because of the actions of a bunch of foreigners who have the same religion on paper? Hint: apparently Hitler was Catholic (http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hitler.html). Can we bring those numbers into the discussion? How about discrimination against athiests because of the actions of certain godless communists in the last century.

Now, I'm a touch more sensitive on this issue than most here are. We occasionally talk about "lines in the sand." One of mine is the possibility that I'll have to wear a yellow crescent moon arm-band, or have a license that identifies me by my faith. These sorts of discussions aren't far away. (If I'm not allowed to serve in the military, should I be allowed to run for office -- a much more sensitive position? How about being allowed to run my own business, with all of the talk about money laundering and illegal contributions to "charities?" Am I too free for the rest of you to feel safe? Hell, not only do I like guns, but I have military training similar to what McVeigh had, and I contribute more than $250/month to run an online board where pro-gun radicals hang out. Can I be trusted with firearms? Can I be trusted at all?)

[wingman]

Religion is a silly thing to fight about.


There is the key, too many it is worth dying for.!!!

[Byron Quick]

The traitor Pollard is Jewish. Should Jews be allowed to serve in the US military. Most of other traitors have been Christians or at least of Christian heritage. Should Christians be allowed to serve in the US military?


Starts to look silly when you put it in those terms doesn't it?

However, based on present geopolitical realities, I would endorse a more extensive background investigation for Muslims...identical to the investigations I would conduct on Jews after Pollard's treason.

For that matter, I would run the same background check on Americans of Irish descent to check for links to the IRA or the Irish Protestant paramilitaries.

I don't like folks who used terror tactics. However, I know that Muslims aren't the only ones who do so.

I also don't like folks who have divided loyalties or hidden loyalties. However, once again Muslim Americans are not the only Americans who possess these qualities.

[Lone_Gunman]

Do muslims in the military deserve additional scrutiny?

If so, does a married white female age 55 deserve the same scrutiny as a single muslim male age 25?

If so, why?

If not, isn't that discriminatory?

If we are going to scrutinize people is there any way to do it without it looking like the Spanish Inquisition?

[tyme]

I don't have any sound arguments for keeping muslims out of the military, but I think it's clear that deterrence or punishment-after-the-fact doesn't do much in the case of religious fanatics. Of course those same qualities of the CJS and UCMJ don't have much behavior-altering effect on crazy people either, but crazy people are partially screenable.

(these are purely hypotheticals, not proposals)

Would anyone object to more extensive background checks on muslims wishing to enter the military?

And if so, is there a point at which the additional costs of such checks could be used as justification to ban muslims from the service?

[chaim]

Should Muslims be in the military? Yes.

I haven't read the entire thread so I apologize if someone else came up with the following points.

The two recent spys out of Gitmo illustrate an important point. The chaplains are endorsed and backed by religious authorities in their religion that are approved by the military. Apparently, some of the Muslim authorities are extremist groups or sympathise with extremist/terrorist groups. There are very few Muslim chaplains so the military may relax their standards to get people in. The interpreter is a similar issue. After Sept.11 the US realized how few Arabic interpreters we had. There was a major shortage and the US intelligence agencies were desperate for anyone they could get. It is very easy to picture that they may well have been a bit lax on their background checks in order to fill needed slots.

To me it simply means that anyone getting jobs with a security clearance should have to get the same background check that people get in jobs that aren't as much in shortage. There is no reason that anyone who has been to Syria, a hostile nation on the State Dept list of nations that support terrorist, should ever get a clearance.

Otherwise, this is America. You don't get punished for what you might do. You must do something to be punished.

[Drjones]

No. Not for a while at least...

They shouldn't be allowed on planes either, at least not after a THOROUGH inspection.

It wasn't a bunch of white 80 year old grandmothers that hijacked the planes, nor was it 6 ft tall gorgeous blondes like I've seen them pull aside.

PC will be the death of this country.

[Matt1911]

Can't judge a group by the actions of a few,even when the group refuses to seperate themselves from them?
What if the KKK had done all these acts?

[Joe Demko]

No. Not for a while at least...

What do Muslims look like?

I have relatives back in the old country who are blonde, blue-eyed, fair skinned, and Muslim.

One of my best friends is swarthy, has a hooked nose, curly black hair, and dark eyes. He's also a Roman Catholic and ethnic Pole.

So what do Muslims look like?

PC won't be the death of this country. Rah-rah xenophobia wrapped in the flag will.

[Leatherneck]

People who volunteer to serve in the military services, in uniform or not, give up certain aspects of privacy. We're subject to periodic deep investigation as well as continuous surveillance of varying degrees of intrusiveness. Special job, special forfeiture of privacy.

The watchers obviously should be keeping an especially close eye on anyone who exhibits a tendency to communicate or sympathize with extremist groups of any kind, and in the current cases, I believe they were. These guys walked unwittingly into a trap laid on the basis of information garnered under the conditions mentioned above.

The situation is very similar to the cold war, but different ethnicities involved.

TC
TFL Survivor

[wingman]

If you have or receive American Handgunner please read the nov/dec issue
"American Exceptionalism" "Don't let the idea of America die" Excellent
article and pretains to this thread in many ways.

[Khornet]

and Derek, with all respect, your comments are way overblown.

Who cares what color/sex/religion a person is? No reasonable person....unless the religion in question has been THE basis for mass murder of our countrymen, and continues to be so. It matters not that most adherents of that faith are peaceful and loyal Americans; most oysters don't contain pearls either but if you're looking for pearls, you gotta look at oysters. Extra scrutiny is not only justified, it's our duty. And more than one American Muslim has publicly declared himself perfectly willing to tolerate that extra scrutiny in the interest of his country.

That said, the matter of the silence of so many of the world's Muslims has been raised. A recent column on either National Review online, or Jewish World Review, points out the death threats, insults, and ostracism endured by the few who HAVE spoken out, and asks us to ask ourselves: How many of US would be speaking out under the same circumstances? There wasn't much public criticism of Hitler in 1939 Germany either. It's hard (unless you're a liberal) to condemn the actions of your fellow-believers.

So, should Muslims be allowed to serve? Silly question. Of course. Should they be looked at twice? Silly question. Of course. No one says we (or they) have to like it--it's just the way it is.

[buzz_knox]

One of mine is the possibility that I'll have to wear a yellow crescent moon arm-band, or have a license that identifies me by my faith. These sorts of discussions aren't far away.

The discussions may not be far away but the arm bands and licenses will be, if I have anything to say about it. I'm one of those Gentiles who said "never again" when watching the films of mass graves outside of the concentration camps. I take that oath very seriously, and have the will and means to do something about it.

As for whether Muslims should be allowed in the military, they belong there along with Christians, Jews, atheists, etc. The key is to eliminate the bad ones, not bar the good ones. Does that mean we take the risk of an infiltrator doing damage? Yes. That's one of the sucky points of having a free society.

It's amazing that people who don't want firearms banned because of the actions of individuals would ever even think of barring an entire group from the privilege of serving because of the acts of other individuals.

[2dogs]

Wow, this has remained fairly civil!:cool:

According to FNC there now may be 5 other Muslim U.S. military folks involved in the espionage.

To those who mentioned Pollard, uh, when did Jews swear to kill all non Jews and specifically Americans? When did they begin their jihad against the U.S.?

I don't recall hearing of Jewish FBI agents who refused to perform their duty if it involved other Jews. I don't recall hearing about Catholic FBI agents who refused to go after the Mafia because most mafiosi are Italian, and most Italians are Catholic.

This is not a war against all Muslims, and all Muslims are not out to kill us- but let's face it, like it or not, all of those seeking to kill us in this war ARE MUSLIMS. I don't want to see all Muslims persecuted or rounded up and put into camps like the Japanese Americans in WWII.

I'm just asking at what point it becomes wise to favor the practical over the philosophical.


Let's say that our enemy (by their choice) are all members of "group x". These members of group x have all sworn to kill as many of us as possible. Now let's say that a good number of group x members are (gummint checked and approved) airline pilots. And those airline pilots decide, independently of each other, on different days and different times to slam their aircraft into the ground killing all 350 civilians on board.

Would any one here feel comfortable flying with "group x" pilots?

Would some one telling you that not all group x people are bad or want to kill you make you feel more comfortable on your next flight with a group x pilot at the controls?

Might it be a good idea to ground all group x pilots for a while?

[buzz_knox]

Might it be a good idea to ground all group x pilots for a while?

How long? A day, a month, a year? You would be trying to prove a negative, that the pilots were not going to do something bad. Since you can't prove a negative, you would be grounding them for life.

Do I think those from a known enemy country/region should be scrutinized? Yes. Then again, Richard Reid was from England, Lindh was from California (okay, almost an enemy nation to some here), and Padilla was American as well (from Chicago I believe). They would have escaped scrutiny except for their religious status.

[Derek Zeanah]

and Derek, with all respect, your comments are way overblown.Really? Read up a few posts -- not only would some posters refuse me the right to serve, they would refuse my right to travel in airplanes. Now, would they also refuse me the right to rent a u-haul and haul my stuff across the country (insert appropriate McVeigh reference here)?

Since my family has been in the US since before the revolution and I'm a basic country boy in appearance, how will airline screeners, u-haul rental shops, and highway patrol officers in states I pass through know about the security risk I (because of my religion) present to them?

Do you see where my line in the sand comes in? There are people here who would basically strip me of my rights because of the way I choose to worship God. That ain't right. Without getting into the origins of hatred many middle-easterners have for us, it just ain't right.

So, are you comfortable with people like me being able to own precision rifles (hint: I can keep sub-MOA groups at every range I've shot at, and have some training as a FO from my time playing infantry (11C)? How about having people like me, who you know are armed, having a license from the state to carry concealed? And travel the states freely while armed? Without having to identify myself based on my religion before entering a courthouse? Running for office? Maintaining a forum where "gun-nut whackos" frequent -- a board known to have hidden forums? Being able to fly with no more concern than they offer any other passenger?

If you're not comfortable with any of the things I've listed above (and I could list many more), then you're advocating having my rights stripped from me simply because God chose to reveal Himself to me while I was reading a book you're scared of. The 2nd amendment is cherished by many here; what about the rest of the bill of rights?

If I am hereforth denied these rights, based on the actions of a bunch of Saudis, for the "safety of the republic" or some other nonsense, how am I to react? How would you react?

Do you think these actions on behalf of government result in a safer, more stable republic? Of is this the beginning of a civil war?

[2dogs]

They would have escaped scrutiny except for their religious status.

Um, isn't that the defining characteristic of the current enemy? Does denying reality help?

How long? A day, a month, a year?

'Til they lose?

[Derek Zeanah]

'Til they lose?2dogs: when will I be allowed to fly again? When will you feel sufficiently safe to restore that right to me? When will the politicians feel certain that there won't be any negative backlash against removing the restriction? What's to keep the restrictions from growing each time the Joe Sixpack feels unsafe in the same of doing something?

Why do you think this is OK? More importantly: why do you think I'll react any differently than if someone shows up at my door with a court order to turn over all my firearms? Or are you going to feel safer if it goes down that way?

How is this different from the status of Jews in Nazi Germany?

[buzz_knox]

They would have escaped scrutiny except for their religious status.

Um, isn't that the defining characteristic of the current enemy? Does denying reality help?

The reality is that some have used Islam to justify their anti-social behavior. That does not render all followers of Islam anti-social. For example, some Christians believe that killing abortion doctors is God's will. Since murder is wrong, should we ban all Christians from owning firearms or explosive materials until such time as we can be certain they won't kill such a doctor? After all, we are trying to distinguish good religious people from "bad" religious people.

2dogs, please tell me what your beliefs are, political, religous, etc. I'm sure that we can find a crime committed by a zealot who has espoused the same beliefs you have. Should we then bar you from all activities?


How long? A day, a month, a year?

'Til they lose?.

There will never be an end to terrorism until there is an end to humanity. They will not, therefore, ever "lose." You would thus abrogate the Constitution. Why not ban firearms until there is an end to "gun violence."

The more I read, the more I think that Derek has the right of it. Ah, well. I guess he'll be a good person to share a foxhole with. He can tell me about Allah while I tell him about Christ, and we both shoot the people trying to put us in one camp or another.

[10-Ring]

A good American is a good American.

[Intune]

Count me as one in the foxhole. As a half French, born in Germany, Puerto Rican step dad, it's fine if my sister wants to marry a Black, Muslim, former Jewish, I judge each person individually, kinda guy… I have no problem with someone who wants to serve the U.S. by entering the military. Pass the ammunition. ;)

As long as he's not from Wales. You can never trust the Welch. Welchers.

[2dogs]

Derek Zeanah

I'm not advocating, I'm asking. :rolleyes:

The knee jerk reaction to even asking the question seems to me the same as the knee jerk reaction to "profiling".

Geez, lighten up guy, I don't have the jack boots on yet.
:D :neener:

[2dogs]

How is this different from the status of Jews in Nazi Germany?

Are you serious?:confused:

[2dogs]

That does not render all followers of Islam anti-social.

Yes, I definately said they were- thanks for pointing that out.:rolleyes:

[pax]

Yes, so far the discussion has been civil -- though I think if the title were, "Should a Jew be allowed in the military?" it'd be a lot more obvious just how frightening it is that the question is even being asked.

I suppose ordinary Germans had civil and courteous discussions with each other about the place of the Jews in modern German society, in the years leading up to WWII. Too bad the consensus eventually was, "The Jews are our affliction." It seems to me as though ordinary Americans are headed toward making the same basic decision about Muslims that the Germans made about the Jews.

For those who think this comparison is overblown, remember that the entire world was in the midst of a terrible economic depression in those years -- and that the Jews, for the most part, were still fat and happy. Obviously, the Jews had declared economic war on the ordinary peaceful German citizens, and it was only right that they should take sensible steps to protect themselves.

Obviously.

Obviously only a fool or a traitor would suggest that the Jews be treated as if they were not at economic war with the rest of the Germans.

pax

What is the difference between a Nazi and a Dog? The Nazi lifts his arm! -- Victor Borge

[pax]

Geez, lighten up guy, I don't have the jack boots on yet.
2dogs,

"Yet."

pax

Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. -- William Pitt, Earl of Chatham

[2dogs]

suppose ordinary Germans had civil and courteous discussions with each other about the place of the Jews in modern German society, in the years leading up to WWII. Too bad the consensus eventually was, "The Jews are our affliction." It seems to me as though ordinary Americans are headed toward making the same basic decision about Muslims that the Germans made about the Jews.

You know, I'm not Jewish but I think if I were I would find that arguement offensive.

As far as I know the Jews in Germany, Poland, Denmark, Finland, or any other place in the world DID NOT DECLARE WAR ON GERMANY. They DID NOT MURDER NON JEWISH GERMANS for the sin of being non Jewish.

Did I miss some important WWII era history?:rolleyes:

[2dogs]

Whoops, sorry- I feel my civility slipping. Gonna go chill a while.;)

[tiberius]

How is this different from the status of Jews in Nazi Germany?

I don't remember Jews killing 2000+ Germans. Maybe they should have, but I think its a poor analogy.

[2dogs]

2dogs,

"Yet."

pax

That sir, is an insult. I would think as a moderator you would know better.

Oh well.

Thus ends civility.

And this thread?

[pax]

2dogs,

I'm sorry you chose to take it as such. Fact is, my posts were pointing out the near-inevitable results of conversations such as this one -- that ordinary citizens would decide that the "Muslims are our affliction," just as ordinary Germans decided that the Jews were their affliction. Of course such a decision is first preceded by cultural discussions regarding the place of the targeted group in their society.

Wasn't personal, wasn't intended to be personal.

Oh, and I'm a "ma'am," not a "sir."

pax

The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience. -- Albert Camus

[Joe Demko]

The analogy to the Jews in Germany is a good one. There was a perception in Germany, fostered deliberately by some and also through ignorance and stupidity by many, that Jews as a group were dangerous. Many Germans, and other nationalities as well, did perceive the Jews as an alien religious group that had declared war on their society. Unscrupulous men exploited that perception with results that we all know about.
At present, we have people pushing the idea that Muslims as a group have declared war on our American way of life. There's no shortage of ignorance and stupidity in America (or the rest of the world for that matter). All that is necessary now is for the unscrupulous men to exploit it.
Can't happen? We already have a history on this country of rounding people up and putting them in camps. Ask anybody of Japanese or American Indian descent.

[rock jock]

suppose ordinary Germans had civil and courteous discussions with each other about the place of the Jews in modern German society, in the years leading up to WWII. Too bad the consensus eventually was, "The Jews are our affliction." It seems to me as though ordinary Americans are headed toward making the same basic decision about Muslims that the Germans made about the Jews.
No one is suggesting rounding up Muslims in camps. We are simply advocating caution on our part. This caution is warranted for real, not imagined crimes on the part of a sizable number of Muslims, and, perhaps more importantly, support from the general worldwide Muslim community ranging from praise and financial contributions to sympathy and apologetics. None of that has any parallel whatsoever to the situation in 1930's Germany w/ respect to the Jews.

[Keith]

Here's an interesting fact; the military chooses it's Muslim chaplains, not from Sunni or even Shiite groups (moderate Islam), but from the same extremist Wahhabi sect that spawned Bin Laden!

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030923-114941-5056r.htm

"...One of the three Muslim groups involved in training or approving chaplains is the Graduate School of Islamic Social Sciences in Leesburg, Va. U.S. government agents raided that group last year as part of a sweep of organizations suspected of having ties to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terror network. The graduate school trains would-be military chaplains. The other two groups endorse the candidates.
The American Muslim Armed Forces and Veteran Affairs Council in Arlington sponsored Capt. Yee's chaplaincy."

"... The defense department documents showed that the Veteran Affairs Council was a designee of the American Muslim Foundation (AMF), which also was included in the Justice Department sweep.
The AMF was co-founded by Abdurahman Alamoudi, an acknowledged supporter of the Palestinian terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Mr. Alamoudi in 2000 contributed money to the Senate campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton. She returned it after Mr. Alamoudi's anti-Jewish sentiments were made public.
The second Pentagon-approved endorser is the Islamic Society of North America. One of its board members, Siraj Wahhaj, was named in 1995 by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White as one of more than 100 "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators" in the attempt to blow up New York monuments.
Mr. Wahhaj also served as a character witness for Sheik Omar Abel Rahman, who was convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Mr. Wahhaj was never convicted of a crime.
The disconnect between the Justice Department and the Pentagon was similar to the breakdown that led to the September 11 attacks, said Rita Katz, author of "Terrorist Hunter" and director of the Search for International Terrorist Entities (SITE) Institute.

"This is not intentional, but the things, the lack of sharing information, is still happening," Miss Katz said. "In this case, the Pentagon is relying on groups that the Justice Department is raiding. And neither agency was aware of what the other was doing. The system has to be re-examined and these agencies have to share more information."
Pentagon spokesmen said this week there are no plans to review the chaplain accreditation process."

"...For months, the Universal Muslim Association of America, which is aligned with Shi'ite Islam, has tried to become an endorser of Muslim clerics in the military and federal prisons. But the group says it has been ignored, despite its warnings that the Wahhabi form of Islam is being propagated to troops and prisoners.
"We would like to become an endorser before any more damage is done," said spokesman Agha Jafri. "The Defense Department should have been aware that there are two main forms of Islam and that it was only Wahhabism that is being represented."

[Joe Demko]

This caution is warranted for real, not imagined crimes on the part of a sizable number of Muslims, and, perhaps more importantly, support from the general worldwide Muslim community ranging from praise and financial contributions to sympathy and apologetics.

How many of those Muslims were American?
Define "sizable?"
What do you know about the worldwide Muslim community that allows you to speak to what their reactions were?

Caution. That's a good word. We must be cautious. If some human rights get trampled in the process, we can always say we were just being cautious.

[Thumper]

Of course Muslims should be allowed to serve.

But let's not forget that those we fight are a particular flavor of Muslim.

If certain Presbeterians were in the habit of strapping HE to themselves and wandering into schools, I'd be leery of them, too.

[Intune]

We are simply advocating caution on our part. This caution is warranted for real, not imagined crimes on the part of a sizable number of Muslims, and, perhaps more importantly, support from the general worldwide Muslim community ranging from praise and financial contributions to sympathy and apologetics.


Caution that manifests itself in what way? Everyone joining the military is "vetted" to some degree. Would you demand a more strenuous process for American Muslims? "…Sizable number…" "…Worldwide…" support? They couldn't even muster enough people "wildly dancing in the West Bank" following 9.11 for a wide-angle picture. The information that I have gleaned indicates that "most" Muslims DEPLORE the action taken by those hijackers. I would venture that the percentage of American Muslims against those violent actions is near 100%. Does anyone have FACTS to refute that?

[Thumper]

But where was the condemnation, Intune?

If someone would have killed 3000 Muslims in the name of Christianity, I'm sure Billy Graham and the Pope would have been screaming denunciations on prime time TV.

Worldwide Christian outrage would have been overwhelming.

[Keith]

The information that I have gleaned indicates that "most" Muslims DEPLORE the action taken by those hijackers.

Were those Sunni or Wahhabi Muslims?

If you were vetting job applicants for your medical research facility, would you hire ELF and ALF members because "most" animal lovers deplore terrorism against animal research facilities?

You CAN separate Muslims based on sect. You may find extremists in every sect, but some sects teach extremism as part of their code.

Keith

[Sean Smith]

The logical fallacies of today are the "Slippery Slope" and "False Analogy." Scrutinizing Muslim applicants to the Armed Forces, or even excluding them entirely, does not inevitably lead to them being disenfranchised or gassed en masse. And comparing narrow discussions about things like more involved background checks for Muslim would-be soldiers is not comparable to conversations about deporting all Muslims to Madagascar, or killing them off with Zyklon-B.

I don't think exclusion of Muslims from the military is the answer. If anything, the opposite is true... for instance, it is alot better to soldiers who had to go through a background check be your Arabic translators, as opposed to whatever civilians you could round up at the last minute. However, I think CI giving extra scrutiny to the backgrounds of folks who (a) apply for security clearances, and (b) went to Syria to convert to radical Islam, is perfectly sensible.

Can I get a "duh" from the crowd for that one, at least?

[Intune]

Worldwide Christian outrage would have been overwhelming.

Oh, like Waco...?


First, considerable confusion exists in many circles between the Arab-American and Muslim populations. Put simply: the majority of Arab-Americans are not Muslims and the majority of Muslims are not Arab-Americans.

This counter-intuitive fact may seem strange to those who are not aware of the nation's religious and immigration history. Yet recent research by the Arab-American Institute confirms the 1990 NSRI (Kosmin & Lachman 1993) as well as ARIS 2001 findings in this regard.


What does a MUSLIM look like? Hmm?

[buzz_knox]

If you were vetting job applicants for your medical research facility, would you hire ELF and ALF members because "most" animal lovers deplore terrorism against animal research facilities?

Perfect analogy. You are not ever required to hire someone who professes a belief that is fundamentally at odds with your endeavour, whether that is military or civil.

[2dogs]

pax

Wasn't personal, wasn't intended to be personal.

apology accepted.



Oh, and I'm a "ma'am," not a "sir."

I took a guess. My apologies.:o

[rock jock]

The information that I have gleaned indicates that "most" Muslims DEPLORE the action taken by those hijackers. I would venture that the percentage of American Muslims against those violent actions is near 100%. Does anyone have FACTS to refute that?
Yes, I do. The reaction from the American Muslim community via their leaders after 9/11 was one of "Well, this is of course terrible, BUT we MUST try to understand why these men felt desparate enough to do this and why America MUST immediately cease its support of Israel and why the Palestinians MUST be given their homeland and why America MUST pull its troops out of Saudi and why...........(ad naseum)". Not exactly a condemnation of the attacks.:rolleyes:

[buzz_knox]

What does a MUSLIM look like? Hmm?

Navy NCIS made this point in its season premiere last night. The AQ operative looked a lot like a WASP, and not someone that one would perceive as Muslim.

[buzz_knox]

Does anyone have FACTS to refute that?

rock jock nailed this one. Like him, every statement of condemnation by an iman or Muslim leader in the US was conditioned on "understanding the terrorist plight" and essentially calling it retaliation for America's terrible policies. I would love to see one of them stand up and say "this was an evil act abhorrent in the eyes of Allah" and sit down without making a jab at us or Israel.

[Intune]

Have you guys been catching a lot a grief from the approx. 3 million Muslims who are United States citizens?


My "research" facility is not a branch of the govt. So you equate a religion with an organization like ELF or ALF.

Do Christians lace kids with cyanide kool-aid 'cause Jim Jones did?

:banghead:

[buzz_knox]

Have you guys been catching a lot a grief from the approx. 3 million Muslims who are United States citizens?

No, and that's the point for many of us. Don't injure the majority for the acts of a decided minority.

My "research" facility is not a branch of the govt. So you equate a religion with an organization like ELF or ALF.

Doesn't matter if it's gov't or not. Gov't applications inquire as to whether you are or now are a member of a group that advocates the violent overthrow of the American gov't. Fits the bill nicely. And no, the analogy doesn't equate religion with ELF. It equates one terrorist group with another. 9/11 was carried out by terrorists who used Islam to justify their actions. Had the Sovs had less restraint over their clients, it could have been carried out by those who use communism to justify their actions.


Do Christians lace kids with cyanide kool-aid 'cause Jim Jones did?

No, but some calling themselves Christians blow up buildings, burn buildings, shoot abortion doctors, plot the violent overthrow of the gov't, etc. But they aren't Christians, as one of the basic tenets of that religion is not to harm the innocent. I would submit that those who advocate terrorism in the name of Allah are abusing that religion just the same.

[2dogs]

What does a MUSLIM look like? Hmm?

This is what liberalism has wrought.:rolleyes:

What does a communist look like?

What did a Nazi (out of uniform) look like?

How differant did a North Korean look from a South Korean (out of uniform)?

What did a WWI Hun look like?

I guess we shouldn't have fought any of them-we certainly couldn't have if they had been so inconsiderate as to not deck themselves out in the totalitarian uniform de jeure.

How bout we just get all the Islamofascist types to don some ridiculous looking uber tyrant costume so we can pick them off real easy.

Good idea, huh?

[Thumper]

Oh, like Waco...?
Huh?

I must misunderstand you. Surely you don't believe that Waco was done in the name of Christianity.

I'm trying to make up my mind about this...help me understand why there wasn't enormous outcry from the Imams.

[Intune]

Oh, yeah. And Jim Baker & Pat Robertson speak for the Christian community in regards to hookers and gays. O.K. Sure.

[buzz_knox]

This is what liberalism has wrought.

Spare me.

How bout we just get all the Islamofascist types to don some ridiculous looking uber tyrant costume so we can pick them off real easy.

How about you develop intel that a person or unit is planning on an attack before taking them out? How about we look at the individual rather than the color of his skin or the angle of his eyes?

If we accept that that you don't have to wear a uniform to be a bad guy, can we also accept that you don't have to wear a dunce cap or bed sheet to be a racist? Look at a person's ideas/actions, not their skin or nationality. If a person wants to overthrow the gov't, they are a terrorist. If a person wants to deny civil rights or privileges based solely on the color of one's skin or ethnic background, then that person is a racist.

I'm sorry, but this is descending to the level of sheer stupidity. I think I'll sit back and watch the show.

[Keith]

Do Christians lace kids with cyanide kool-aid 'cause Jim Jones did?

No, we attribute such things to that particular crazy sect. What I'm trying to point out here is that we KNOW which Islamic sects are dedicated to the destruction of western secularism and capitalism - the Wahhabi sect for one. We should simply recognize this and ban members of such groups from the military, and from immigration to this country.

That isn't a solution; there are other extremists in other sects as well, but this would be a good start.

Keith

[Khornet]

in discussing the present situation of American Muslims is to carelessly trivialize the real thing. And it's a good way to ensure another Holocaust, because once it's been trivialized enough no one will fear it anymore.

Sorry, guys, it ain't a new Holocaust every time a screener looks twice at a guy who looks just like the last 19 guys to commit mass murder in America. And if not all Islamist terrorists look like bin Laden, does it follow that we should ignore those who do?

We can either accept extra scrutiny now, or be prepared for the mass hysteria which will follow another 9-11. And let's not forget that there are plenty of Muslims among the many Americans who haven't died in terror attacks since 9-11.

[Chuck Dye]

To me, the only sensible answer to the question of whether a group should be permitted or barred, allowed or denied this, that or the other right, privilege, or resource is "WHICH ONE?"

And, yes, I really would love to see your data (in this case, evidence) regarding the INDIVIDUAL.

[Intune]

Sorry, guys, it ain't a new Holocaust every time a screener looks twice at a guy who looks just like the last 19 guys to commit mass murder in America. And if not all Islamist terrorists look like bin Laden, does it follow that we should ignore those who do?


Most American Muslims DON'T look like Bin Laden. Sheesh! I believe they are Black! Now, let's see you deal with that can-o-worms.

[2dogs]

Look at a person's ideas/actions, not their skin or nationality

Gee, I thought that's EXACTLY what I was talking about. Anyway, I don't recall condemning anyone's skin/nationality.

But then.......arrghharrgh......i'm.........all..............twisted up...................aargghrrrhgg........in this.................infernal.......................bed sheet- dunce cap keeps..............slipping over my eyes...........................damn!:rolleyes:



:neener:

[Intune]

From the original post-

IIRC there weren't this many Italian Americans, or German American or Japanese American U.S. soldiers in all of WWII that couldn't be trusted.

Wow! A whole THREE people! But they were MUSLIM. (Shudder!)

Somebody do an internet search and see if ANYONE with an AXIS ancestory did anything wrong in WWII.

I WILL NOT paint any group of people with a brush as broad as religion. Carry on.

[buzz_knox]

Gee, I thought that's EXACTLY what I was talking about. Anyway, I don't recall condemning anyone's skin/nationality.

No, you were just advocating a ban on those with a particular religion (the clear implication of your very first post). So, I withdraw the statement concerning racism, and replace it with simply discriminatory. The analogy to the bed sheet still works. As for whether it applies to you, only you can decide that. Calling for the prohibition of Muslims from the military is rather telling, though.

[Intune]

Before I get up and take a walk to calm down, can anyone GUESS what religion most Arab-Americans (whether they look like Bin Laden or not) belong to? Anyone of you potential "screeners" want to answer?

[pax]

To invoke the Holocaust in discussing the present situation of American Muslims is to carelessly trivialize the real thing. And it's a good way to ensure another Holocaust, because once it's been trivialized enough no one will fear it anymore.
That's the problem. Nobody fears it. They think it can't happen here.

They think the Germans just woke up one day and decided to march all their Jews off to concentration camps. It didn't happen that way. There were precursors -- warnings -- signs -- that their country was headed that direction. And the good people didn't speak up, because they were never quite sure that that was where it was headed. They didn't speak up because people called them alarmists. They didn't speak up because what would be the point? -- no one was listening anyhow.

So go ahead and debate. Go ahead and discuss the issue. Go ahead and claim it's not analogous, because we're only discussing denying "them" the civil right to serve in the military, not marching them off to camps. Go ahead and wonder if maybe Americans should pull this civil right away from that group of people within our borders). Go ahead and proclaim that they are the cause of all our current problems.

Go ahead and decide that folks who speak against this mindset are paranoids and alarmists.

But when it is all over, don't stand over their graves and proclaim "never again." Your grandchildren will think you meant it never could happen again.

pax

Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. ...So you wait, and you wait. But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. ... And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self deception has grown too heavy .... You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven't done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). -- Milton Mayer, writing about Nazi Germany in They Thought They Were Free

[Thumper]

Simple question:

Does the majority of the Islamic world see the U.S. as the Great Satan?

If so, there are millions out there OF A CERTAIN ATTRIBUTE who advocate th downfall of the U.S.

Please convince me that I should remain in Condition White with regards to those of that attribute.

Tell me why it is not prudent to view Muslims with suspicion.

(I'm serious...I really want reasons. My inclination is to be suspicious, and I'd like to change my mind.)

[buzz_knox]

Tell me why it is not prudent to view Muslims with suspicion.

I view everyone with suspicion until they prove themselves to me. And even then, I keep an eye on them just in case they snap. Never know when Mom's going to bust a cap in your a$$. ;)

[Intune]

YES! Thank you Pax! Cyber applause! As long as "our" group is not the target...

[Intune]

The Arab-American Institute (AAI), claims there are 3.5 million Americans who have some Arab heritage, the majority of whom are Lebanese. More noteworthy still, AAI also reports the Christian component to be 75 percent, while the Muslim component is only 25 percent i.e. around 850,000 Arab-Americans.

[Thumper]

Ok, buzz...you're always in orange? Never in yellow?

If not, what would constitute a switch to yellow (or red)?

Obvious gang members approaching, perhaps?

[Sean Smith]

Slippery Slope

Definition:

In order to show that a proposition P is unacceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from P. A slippery slope is an illegitimate use of the "if-then" operator.

Examples:
(i) If we pass laws against fully-automatic weapons, then it won't be long before we pass laws on all weapons, and then we will begin to restrict other rights, and finally we will end up living in a communist state. Thus, we should not ban fully-automatic weapons.

(ii) You should never gamble. Once you start gambling you find it hard to stop. Soon you are spending all your money on gambling, and eventually you will turn to crime to support your earnings.

(iii) If I make an exception for you then I have to make an exception for everyone.

Proof:
Identify the proposition P being refuted and identify the final event in the series of events. Then show that this final event need not occur as a consequence of P.
References:
Cedarblom and Paulsen: 137

False Analogy

Definition:
In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to
be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so
also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two
objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether
they both have property P.

Examples:
(i) Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the
head in order to make them work, so must employees.
(ii) Government is like business, so just as business must be
sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so also must
government. (But the objectives of government and business
are completely different, so probably they will have to meet
different criteria.)

Proof:
Identify the two objects or events being compared and the
property which both are said to possess. Show that the two
objects are different in a way which will affect whether they
both have that property.

References:
Barker: 192, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 257, Davis: 84

;)

[Preacherman]

Folks, I think that the biggest single mistake being made by many posters - which has dragged this thread rather far off topic, too - is to equate the individual with the group. There are innumerable examples throughout history - and in our own personal experience, if we think about it - to prove that an individual does not and cannot be taken as a representative example of a group. Think about this.

In Catholicism, we have priests who have been tried and convicted of paedophilia. Their actions stink in the nostrils of all faithful Catholics. However, we also have people like a Mother Teresa, who is already regarded as a saint by many Catholics, and has even had temples built to her by Hindus, who already venerate her as a saint! Which one is "representative" of Catholicism? Obviously, neither is - one represents the depths to which a human being can fall, the other represents the heights to which a human being can rise. Most Catholics are at neither extreme, but somewhere in the middle. Does that make them automatically suspect of the depths until they've proved they've risen to the heights? Of course not!

In Judaism, we have people like the Stern Gang (and, in our own time, the leader of the Jewish Defence League out in California) who plotted and (in the former case) carried out terrorist activities, resulting in the deaths of many innocent people. We also have a Yitshak Rabin, who gave his life to the cause of peace. Which is representative of Judaism as a whole? Obviously, neither is.

In Islam, we have fanatical terrorists who gleefully murder thousands of innocent people in the name of their warped, twisted vision of Islam. We also have those who give their lives - literally - in the service of humankind, without thought of race, creed or color. I had the privilege of working with several Muslims like that back in South Africa, trying to help the victims of violence. They were at least as dedicated as I was to trying to help those in such ghastly circumstances - even more so, I daresay. The first time I was shot, it was a Muslim colleague who put his own life on the line to get me out of the danger zone, apply a dressing, and get me off to a hospital. That brother (and yes, I consider him my brother before God) was later killed in another incident, and I had the tragic duty to inform his family of his death. I still mourn him, and look forward to meeting him one day in God's kingdom. How this will happen, I don't know: but I'm as sure of his salvation as of my own, because he "laid down his life for his friends".

So please don't equate the individual with the group - any individual with any group. If Derek has to take to that foxhole, I'll be there with him!

[Delmar]

Remember when the bad guys, who didn't have a flag to fly were called guerilla fighters?

In this day and age, it would be suicidal for a country to wave a flag and call us out at high noon. Better get used to this kind of fighting, because it looks like the wave of the future....

Lotsa good points here, but it might be better to call the terrorists something other than Muslim-I don't call Jim Jones or abortion clinic bombers Christians, they're murderers. The people making these attacks have no battlefield rights under the Geneva or Hague conventions, and should be snuffed out like the bad smell they are. Calling the terrorists Muslims IMO, is a bad label. Kind of like calling all those of German decent Nazi's back in the 1940's. Eisenhower would not have been impressed with that label at all.

Putting a religious label on a general group of people is dangerous to all people. As dangerous as race labeling or anything else.

Intel and first class detective work is going to win this war-not which religion we are going to investigate more. If we must tighten up our background checks on military recruits, make it uniform. Who knows what you're going to find? Maybe a budding McVeigh? Follow the leads and follow the money-thats where you are likely to find the bad people.

[2dogs]

is it time to question the wisdom of putting Muslims in the military?

What I said.



you were just advocating a ban on those with a particular religion (the clear implication of your very first post)

What psychic ability makes possible.:rolleyes:

I'll tell you what will lead to the dreaded cattle cars and barbed wire and camps- it's fighting a war WITHOUT DEFINING WHO THE ENEMY is. The easiest way to figure out who the enemy isn't is to figure out who the enemy is. Now if you want to discount their religion (and thus ideology) and anything else that might set them apart, you better prepare for a whole lot of dead friends and relatives.

Thus my original "implication"- that it may be time to fine tune the discernment process- not start jailing and killing everyone we don't like.

So don't fling such reactionary, liberal, knee jerk do good "oohhh let's not hurt anyone's feelings" bunk.:p :D

Whew.

[buzz_knox]

Ok, buzz...you're always in orange? Never in yellow?

I think yellow is the condition I was jokingly referring to. Cooper once said that a well-adjusted individual can stay in yellow for life and live normally. That's true, since we should always have our head up looking for danger unless our area is absolutely secure from all possible dangers, natural or intelligent.

As for gang bangers, nah, I don't go to orange. I go somewhere else, if at all possible.

[Thumper]

Preacherman,

Of course there are "good" Muslims.

But are you asking us to ignore the ONE attribute those we seek share?

How is that prudent?

[Keith]

So please don't equate the individual with the group - any individual with any group.

Do you understand that there are Muslim religious groups devoted to destroying all non-Muslim elements on earth? Wahhab is one such sect and it's blind political correctness not to recognize this fact!

If an individual is associated with Wahhabism they are enemies of humanism, capitalism, Chistianity and Judeaism, period. And nobody wants to recognize this fact - they are inducting Wahhabi chaplains into the military while refusing entry to moderate Sunni Muslims. The whole thing is just insane!

Keith

[pax]

Sean,

Slapping a label on an argument doesn't refute it. If you'd like to get busy on the proof, then we can talk.

pax

Logic is like the sword--those who appeal to it shall perish by it. -- Samuel Butler

[buzz_knox]

What psychic ability makes possible.

No, just reading comprehension. Or are you disavowing the following from your original post. Given these two developments (The Muslim chaplain and the interpreter)and the Muslim American soldier who threw a grenade into our GI's tent and killed (a few?) of them- is it time to question the wisdom of putting Muslims in the military? That is called a leading question, in that it implies an answer.

I don't see anything about particular Muslims, Wahhabi followers, etc. What in your subsequent posts limited this in any way to those relatively few who wish harm against the US?

As for identifying the enemy, it's simple: the enemy is that person who wants to destroy our way of life and our freedoms. That person sometimes shouts "Allahu Ackbar" (pardon the possible spelling errors) and sometimes shouts "we can't trust any of those type of people."

[Bill Hook]

Here's an interesting fact; the military chooses it's Muslim chaplains, not from Sunni or even Shiite groups (moderate Islam), but from the same extremist Wahhabi sect that spawned Bin Laden!

If so, then it is roughly similar to letting pastors of "Christian Identity" movement into the ranks.

[Preacherman]

Thumper, your question demonstrates the nature of the problem...

- Since Timothy McVeigh was a fundamentalist Christian, are we to regard all fundamentalist Christians as automatically suspect because of the one attribute (their faith) that they share with McVeigh?

- A Presbyterian pastor was executed in Florida a couple of weeks ago for murdering an abortion doctor and his bodyguard. Are we to regard all Presbyterians as automatically suspect because of the one attribute (their faith) that they share with this (now deceased) pastor?

- Catholic priests have been convicted of paedophilia. Are we to regard all Catholics - even all Catholic priests - as automatically suspect because of the one attribute (their faith) that they share with those convicted?

I could go on with page after page of examples, but I think the point is made by these few. You cannot automatically stigmatize the group because of the actions of one or more individuals - it's neither logical, nor rational, nor fair, nor just.

Certainly, in Government work, one should investigate everybody to a greater degree - when I signed on as a prison chaplain, I had to undergo a Federal law enforcement background check, and will have to do so again every five years. I don't object, even though some of it is VERY invasive of my privacy, because I know that in a law enforcement position such as mine, the security requirements for its incumbent are much, much stricter than for a Social Security clerk in a downtown office. The same standards apply - and rightly so - to those in the military, irrespective of their religion.

However, to classify all Muslims as automatically suspect simply because of their religion is to make a mockery of all that America stands for. It's also - as Pax so ably pointed out - to associate ourselves with the philosophies and outlook of Nazism and Adolf Hitler. Sorry, but I will never do that.

[buzz_knox]

Wahhab is one such sect and it's blind political correctness not to recognize this fact!

Correct, and it's insane that Whahhabi have any role in choosing chaplains for the military because of its advocacy of illegal actions, regardless of the alleged religious justification. As said above, Christian Identity would never have a role in choosing chaplains, but at the same time, no one is advocating banning Christians from the military just because some alleged Christians have used military training to make explosives, rob banks, etc.

[Keith]

If so, then it is roughly similar to letting pastors of "Christian Identity" movement into the ranks.

I assume "Christian Identity" is some extremist group...? It would be similar if ONLY Christian Identity chaplains were allowed. Do you follow me? The ONLY Muslim clerics allowed are Wahhabs - a sect devoted to destroying all western elements. Do you not see the insanity here? The military refuses to allow moderate Sunni's or Shiites into the ranks!

I don't think people who preach violence should be allowed to suck on the government teat - whether Muslim, Christian or something else.

Keith

[Keith]

Correct, and it's insane that Whahhabi have any role in choosing chaplains for the military because of its advocacy of illegal actions,

Go back and follow the link to the Washington Times article I posted above. The military only approves chaplains forwarded by three Wahhab groups who are tied to terrorism.

READ the article!

Keith

[boyd425]

Lone Gunman said:
The only problem with keeping fanatics out, and letting regular Muslims in, is that no one can tell the difference until its too late.
----
Gotta respectfully disagree. This is the same sort of thinking that lets some folks say "he could go nuts at any time, lets take his gun away". It's a way of looking for thought crimes. We have to accept that our laws enforce action against the -actions- of others, not what they might someday do. In the same way, we have to accept that -some- muslims in the military might do bad things in the future. The question would be are they doing bad things because they're muslim. And the answer is no. Islam does not call for attack on us. Some leaders in the Wahabi sect have, and I'd say screening out -those- people makes a lot of sense. Otherwise if someone want's to fight for my country I don't care if they're biting the heads of snakes Sunday mornings or bowing to the east three times a day. On the whole, a lot of people from a lot of different backgrounds serve our military well. just imo

[2dogs]

What in your subsequent posts limited this in any way to those relatively few who wish harm against the US?

OK, for the understanding impaired, those who could read my other posts but not quite figure it out- no not all Muslims. Just the nasty ones who want to kill us.

Got it now?:rolleyes:

[buzz_knox]

READ the article!

Yeah, I read it when the info first broke a few months ago. Lovely. Makes me glad I was Navy/Marine Corps trained.

[buzz_knox]

OK, for the understanding impaired, those who could read my other posts but not quite figure it out- no not all Muslims. Just the nasty ones who want to kill us.

Do you recall the post where you discussed the "group 'x' pilots?" Although you talked about particular Muslims, you then went onto to discuss the entire group should be restricted because of the actions of those few.

I'm beginning to think that you really have forgotten the positions you've taken in this discussion.

[buzz_knox]

I don't think people who preach violence should be allowed to suck on the government teat - whether Muslim, Christian or something else.

Nah, I like people who preach violence . . . violence towards our enemies. If we went with people who preach peace . . . I just had a mental picture of a Marine DI with daisies in his hair. Oy vey!

[Keith]

Yeah, I read it when the info first broke a few months ago.

The article was published TODAY.

Keith

[Sean Smith]

Slapping a label on an argument doesn't refute it. If you'd like to get busy on the proof, then we can talk.

And using the same logical fallacies over and over doesn't make them stop being fallacies. Though, to use the Nazi analogies you like, you can eventually fool alot of people that way. And if you can't wrap your brain around the fact that what is being discussed here is alot different from discussing if all the Muslims should be gassed, then explaining False Analogy to you ain't gonna happen. :rolleyes:

[pax]

Sean,

You are right. False Analogies are bad. But you haven't made any sort of attempt to establish that my arguments are False Analogies. You have offered the label, but haven't shown me that it can stick. That's what I meant by "get busy on the proof."

pax

Convincing yourself does not win an argument. -- Robert Half

[tyme]

There has always been and will always be conflict based on religion. The only solutions are to moderate religion or to make all citizens adopt one religion. Adherence to the "religion" of secularism is dying; more and more people are becoming rather vocal adherents of Christianity (following GWB's lead, and there's not much disapproval in congress when the Senate passes a resolution 99-0 condemning an attempt to remove "under God" from the pledge).

If a nation has conflicting religions/belief structures that can't be mediated, the only solution is to eliminate one of them (by conversion to the majority's religion/doctrine, war, or deporation in this case).

What's the goal? To preserve society? To keep most people happy even if society is crumbling? Which people should be kept happy if some must be sacrificed to preserve society? If society is degenerating, and if it can be repaired through intolerance (of democrats, muslims, bureaucrats, big business, PETA, whatever), is intolerance still the greater evil? Look at Iraq. If the U.S. had a choice between preserving itself and disintegrating, and chose to disintegrate in the hope of forming a better country, would that happen? How are the sources of faction erased just by dissolution of a government? I don't think the people of this country could construct another constitutional republic if it collapsed. Next stop: tyranny. But on the opposing side, would eschewing tolerance to preserve society maintain the republic indefinitely?

Assuming the United States government won't last forever, is liberty really the paramount concern until the moment the nation converts to an empire ruled by some tyrant who means to get the country back on track but is unskilled and manages to bungle things so much that it takes several more rulers for things to get back to normal, at which point nobody remembers freedom anymore?

[sw442642]

To answer the core question - we cannot discriminate against a religion as diverse in beliefs as Islam is claimed to be.

There is evidence that many Muslims in the USA are loyal and patriotric citizens. It is even their right to state that there one can understand the justification of the 9/11 attacks based on support for Israel.

(However, most scholars don't think this is really the case. Also, even if you understand as a Muslim, you must be ready to give your life to stop any such further attacks, independent of the political process. Nor can you give any comfort to a group who cares out such attacks).

The real issue in my mind is whether there are identifiable subgroups of Islam that preach hate and destruction for the USA and recruit folks to support that cause and subvert our armed forces. It is legitimate to try to determine if someone belongs to that subgroup. If there was a Wahhabist mosque in your town that did preach that way and it was your mosque, it is legitimate to look closely at you. I would do the same to a Christian Identity member also as they might not be able to function within the goals of our armed forces.

I would also agree with Rock Jock that while many Muslims have denounced 9/11, that caveat is always there. I've heard it on talk radio here just to cite one case. I have NOT seen a giant Islamic march for patriotric purposes. It would have been nice.

[buzz_knox]

Keith, that article was published today. But the story about the Wahhabi certifying chaplains broke months ago and was the subject of a thread already. That was the article I was referencing. I misspoke by linking today's article.

[Obiwan]

Sure...use them for minesweepers!


Seriously....put the AK down!!!!

Whack jobs and women should not be in the military

Everyone else is fine...and I will at least discuss the women part.

[Hkmp5sd]

Instead of Jews/Nazis, to understand where this idea comes from can be found in looking at how the US treated citizens during WWII. The Japanese, Germans and Italians were all discriminated against during the war.

However, much more was done to those of Japanese decent than German or Italian. Why did this happen?

First, the Japanese directly attacked the US while Germany and Italy steered clear until after Pearl Harbor. This parallels with the attack on 9/11 by fanatical Muslims.

Second, at that time, there were few Japanese in the US compared to other immigrants, and most of those were either in Hawaii or California. Their physical characteristics made them easy to identify relative to those of European decent. At present, outside the large cities, there are relatively few Arabic/Muslims in the local population and they are easily identifiable by their physical characteristics.

Third, during the 40s, most Americans were fimiliar with European history, yet most people had little knowledge of the Japanese. The same can be said of the Arabs and the history of the mid-east. Even today, most Americans know virtually nothing about them other than what they see on TV.

When you combine the fear created in the US by the 9/11 attacks, the lack of knowledge of Arabs and Islam, the fact those of Arabic decent are easily recognized (most, not all), and the first thing people think about is putting restrictions on them and keeping a close eye on their activities. Since you can't tell a "good" Arab from a "bad" Arab just by looking at them, just like they did to the Japanese, the tendency is to go ahead and consider all of them as "bad" until proven otherwise.

Another good analogy is guns. Some moron shoots a bunch of kids with a look-alike machinegun and the nation erupts with an across the board ban on all guns that remotely resemble the one used. Makes no difference that this was an isolated incident. Many were afraid, had no knowledge of firearms and could easily identify an "assault weapon" when they saw one. Their way of dealing with it was to ban or seriously restrict those evil looking guns.

[2dogs]

I just saw a certain liberal Senator (Chuckie:barf: Schumer) on TV asking how this situation (the possible infiltration of our military by al Queda- his words not mine) could happen. And the answer?

To anyone who thinks my posts are anti Muslim (quite honestly I don't know any Muslims, and I don't make judgements of anyone on any basis other than, to paraphrase MLK, the content of their character) or that I am implying that Muslim Americans generally should be rounded up for the camps- well you can think what you want and you will be dead wrong.

To restate facts:

1. The people who have commited terrorist acts against the U.S. going back at least to the early 80's are, for the most part (excluding lone wackos such as McVeigh or Kozinski) self proclaimed Muslims.

2. These people are, by their own statements, in a war against all infidels- i.e. anyone who is not a Muslim and they proclaim that this is done in service to Allah and their faith.

3. According to Daniel Pipes: "Islamism is a radical, utopian movement that has much in common with fascism and Marxism-Leninism............. estimates 10 percent to 15 percent of the 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide are Islamists."

Well 10-15% of 1.2 billion is one hell of a lotta folks wanting to kill non believers- and in the last 25 years or so they have gone about doing just that, in countries all around the world, and mostly killing civilians.

So to those who say it's "unfair" to keep Muslims out of the military (or even from working at the local Nuke plant-not rounding them up, not burning them or gassing them ) my qustion then is: how would you propose that we keep one of the 100,000,000 or so who live for the chance to kill as many of us as they can from doing so? Politeness is fine unless many lives are at risk, no?

What is YOUR plan?

Wait until thousands are dead and then try to understand that they WERE all Muslims (weren't the 19 hijackers?) or Islamists, or whatever distinction you want to make and whatever they choose to call themselves, but that we should never consider that in taking precautions. OK fine- tell that to the dead. You tell me how we prevent this- rather than cleaning up after the mess.

You don't want to paint the 1.2 billion Muslims with the same brush- how about the 100,000,000 Islamists? Is that more fair? Fine, now tell me how you determine who is one of the benign Muslims and who is one of the mad dog killer types- ask them? Oh no, we wouldn't want to insult anyone by asking if they are nice folks OR JIHADIST SCUM. (Hey Chuckie- that's how the "infiltration" happens).

Oh I know- let's weed out all 96 year old Presbyterian grandma's and ignore such thorny issues (ewwwwww) as religion or ideology, or any of the things that might actually be beneficial in SAVING LIVES. All because we don't want to be oh so impolite as to suggest that maybe a possible fanatic should be insulted by being asked if he minds sitting this one out.

[JShirley]

Should Muslims be in the military?
...
Given these two developments (The Muslim chaplain and the interpreter)and the Muslim American soldier who threw a grenade into our GI's tent and killed (a few?) of them- is it time to question the wisdom of putting Muslims in the military?

IIRC there weren't this many Italian Americans, or German American or Japanese American U.S. soldiers in all of WWII that couldn't be trusted.


Given that European-stock, "Christian" male soldiers commit assaults and sundry other crimes every damn day, I must conclude that no white, Christian males should be allowed to serve our great country.

SPC John Shirley
A CO 1-5 IN

[JShirley]

2dogs,

What percentage of communists killed tens of millions of people in the last century? In their own countries?

What percentage of "Christians" killed millions during the Holocaust?

What percentage of "Christians" killed, pillaged, and raped wantonly during the Crusades?

Let's compare the dead. I think you'll find that your "Islamists" are nowhere near the top in the scalp count, if you are openminded enough to consider the logical conclusions of your postulates.

Sure, let's talk about "saving lives". You are just starting at the wrong place.

John

[Lone_Gunman]

J Shirley, there is only one problem with the point you make...

The communists who killed millions last century, the christians who killed thousands during the crusades, and the nazis who killed the jews are all, for the most part, DEAD now, and therefore don't pose a threat.

I would certainly be opposed to any of those groups doing any of those dirty deeds now, just as I am opposed to muslim fundamentalists doing it.

The communists, nazis, and dark age Christians are all laying low for the time being, more or less at least. The current problems seem to be caused by muslim fanatics, so it would seem appropriate to direct attention there.

I don't doubt that atrocities have been commited in the name of any god you might pick. But the current problem is with fundamentalist muslims, and that is what this thread is concerning.

As far as scalp count is concerned, the muslims seem to be doing pretty good since September 11, 2001.

Given that European-stock, "Christian" male soldiers commit assaults and sundry other crimes every damn day, I must conclude that no white, Christian males should be allowed to serve our great country.

I would submit that assault does not rise to the same level of crime as killing several thousand US citizens, fragging your own troops, or spying for al qaeda.


My opinion, though, is that muslims should be allowed to serve, but they need to be scrutinized more carefully than other groups.

[Khornet]

Either we don't scrutinize at all, or we put 'em all in concentration camps.

[Khornet]

nor any reasonable person has a problem with the concept that we should not blame an entire group for the actions of a few. Likewise the fact that appearances can't be the sole basis for judging people, etc., etc.

But what I'm reading on this thread is that pointing out the fact the holocaust isn't happening here is the same as saying it can't happen here, or even that it's OK if it does happen here. That taking a good close look at the group from which a particular set of mass murderers came leads irrevocably to another Japanese internment. And that, by extension, those of us who find it acceptable to, for example, look closely at Muslim groups in our effort to prevent more terror, are willing to tolerate another holocaust or internment "so long as it's not done to our kind".

Can anybody see how insulting that is? I don't think I'm erecting a straw man here. I'm describing the thrust of the postings, and that thrust is not an argument. It's name-calling dressed up nice.

[Hkmp5sd]

And that, by extension, those of us who find it acceptable to, for example, look closely at Muslim groups in our effort to prevent more terror, are willing to tolerate another holocaust or internment "so long as it's not done to our kind".

That is essentially the issue in a nutshell. Either we treat everyone as American citizens or we pick out the group we are currently most afraid of and put them behind a guarded fence. There is a strong argument about looking at one group closely and "racial profiling", which is currently politically incorrect. Someone a lot smarter than me will have to make that judgement.

As far as the military goes, everyone gets a background check and as your access requires a higher clearence, that background check gets more intensive. Anyone that can pass that background checks should be allowed to serve if they are qualified.

[2dogs]

As far as the military goes, everyone gets a background check and as your access requires a higher clearence, that background check gets more intensive. Anyone that can pass that background checks should be allowed to serve if they are qualified.

Background check!? But, but if we ask them (even real nice and polite like) if they are Bin Laden fans, we might hurt their feelings. Might get CAIR all worked up. Nope, much better to just give him those B-1 bomber controls and hope for the best.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

P.S. I guess the Al Queda guys who got in were background checked? Or was that deemed to insensitive?

Yep strong questions like "Do you want to help Bin Laden succeed in killing all infidels" might be a tad, well, distasteful.

Oh my. Could lead to death camps and pogroms.

[Joe Demko]

"...All they think about is the Spies, and the war, of course. D'you know what that little girl of mine did last Saturday, when her troop was on a hike out Berkhampstead way? She got two other girls to go with her, slipped off from the hike, and spent the whole afternoon following a strange man. They kept on his tail for two hours, right through the woods, and then, when they got into Amersham, handed him over to the patrols."
"What did they do that for?" said Winston, somewhat taken aback. Parsons went on triumphantly:
"My kid made sure he was some kind of enemy agent__might have been dropped by parachute, for instance. But here's the point, old boy. What do you think put her onto him in the first place? She spotted he was wearing a funny kind of shoes__she said she'd never seen anyone wearing shoes like that before. So the chances were he was a foreigner. Pretty smart for a nipper of seven, eh?"
"What happened to the man? said Winston.
"Ah, that I couldn't say, of course. But I wouldn't be surprised if__" Parsons made the motion of aiming a rifle, and clicked his tongue for the explosion.
"Good," said Syme, abstractedly, without looking up from his strip of paper.
"Of course we can't afford to take chances," agreed Winston dutifully.
"What I mean to say, there is a war on," said Parsons.

[Intune]

HK is spot on. There are checks & balances already in place. My father had some dealings with an, ahem, "agency" when we were stationed in Tehran. These people were aware that two of my uncles on my mom's side of the family had been affiliated with the Maquis (French resistance) during WWII. The Maquis had communist leanings in addition to resistance duties. Anything "communistic" in the '60s raised a red (sorry) flag.

Color me naive perhaps but I think the conflict over the Occupied Territories is where the majority of ill-will toward anything American comes from. Our "decadence" may grate a bit on their sensibilities, our unflagging support of Israel infuriates them. What if one is a Christian & empathizes with the Palestinians? Fit for duty in the U.S. Armed Forces?

[Joe Demko]

Couple months ago, I went to hear a Palestinian speaker give his explanation of why the US is the object of so much hatred in the Mid-East. They don't hate us "for our freedoms", they don't hate us because we are decadent, they don't hate us because we are (mainly) Christians. They hate us because we support Israel-right-or-wrong. They hate us because we supported some bloody-handed tyrants in the region (e.g. the Shah of Iran) and they hate us because they believe they can't trust us.
Interestingly, he wasn't Muslim. He and his family have been Baptist for generations. He also mentioned that there are Melkites, Orthodox, and other varieties of Christians among the Arabs, Persians, Kurds, et. al. They aren't subject to much in the way of persecution from their Muslim neighbors, according to him. He said that the US trying to spin this up into a war of Islam vs. The American Way is, at best, disingenuous.

[Lone_Gunman]

Golgo-13

From what I have heard, Osama has more problems with us than just the fact the we support Israel.

[buzz_knox]

From what I have heard, Osama has more problems with us than just the fact the we support Israel.

Our involvement in Saudi Arabia is one of the key points he harps on.

[SGT109FA]

Should muslims be allowed in the military?

Absolutely! ...PROVIDED ! they are screened , screened and screened again, and if they are caught like anybody else committing treason....EXEICUTE them and ship their POS bodies back to the country they were spying for !...Simple:D

[2dogs]

They hate us because we support Israel-right-or-wrong.

Our involvement in Saudi Arabia is one of the key points he harps on.


Whewwww, that's a relief- I thought they killed over 2,000 in NY for no good reason.

I can rest easy now.:rolleyes:

[Intune]

Our GOOD buddies. Where 18 of the 9.11 bombers were from. Who, as part of OPEC, just voted to CUT production for the winter months to raise oil prices.

[SGT109FA]

They hate us because we support Israel-right-or-wrong.

Well thats part of it!:rolleyes:

[buzz_knox]

Our GOOD buddies. Where 18 of the 9.11 bombers were from. Who, as part of OPEC, just voted to CUT production for the winter months to raise oil prices.

I dream of the day when someone comes up with a workable alternative to petroleum. Not because of environmental concerns, but just so we can give the finger to the whole region.

[pax]

Yep strong questions like "Do you want to help Bin Laden succeed in killing all infidels" might be a tad, well, distasteful.
2dogs,

We're back to the same thing again. How do you know who's a Muslim and who isn't? By their looks? By their ethnicity? I don't think so (check the demographics on American Muslims if you choose not to believe me).

I know! We could just ask everyone, real respectful like. "Do you support Bin Laden? Are you a radical Islamist?"

And of course they'll tell us, won't they.

Just like the hijackers all dutifully went to Mosque every day and wore funny clothes and openly respected all the dietary and alcohol restrictions and ...

Oh, they didn't?

You mean, they deceived us by trying to look like ordinary immigrants? They tried to blend into American culture and they succeeded?

Hmmmm. The openly Muslim aren't a threat, it's the ones that hide that we've got to worry about. Sneaky buggers.

Forget investigating the openly Muslim. Investigate the atheists and Christians!!

No, wait, that won't work. Probably some of the openly Muslim are a threat, too.

I know. Why don't we run a background check on everyone who wants to join the military, and take a closer look at anyone whose background seems iffy?

Oh, we already do that? Really?

Whew. Problem solved. What a relief.

pax

"Arthur," said Ford
"Hello? Yes?" said Arthur.
"Just believe everything I tell you, and it will all be very, very simple."
"Ah, well I'm not sure I believe that." -- Douglas Adams

[Intune]

General Zinni joined the Marine Corps in 1961 and was commissioned an infantry second lieutenant in 1965 upon graduation from Villanova University. He has held numerous command and staff assignments that include platoon, company, battalion, regimental, Marine expeditionary unit, and Marine expeditionary force command. His staff assignments included service in operations, training, special operations, counter-terrorism and manpower billets. He has also been a tactics and operations instructor at several Marine Corps schools and was selected as a fellow on the Chief of Naval Operations Strategic Studies Group. General Zinni's joint assignments include command of a joint task force and a unified command. He has also had several joint and combined staff billets at task force and unified command levels

He has made deployments to the Mediterranean, the Caribbean, the Western Pacific, Northern Europe and Korea. He has also served tours in Okinawa and Germany. His operational experiences include two tours in Vietnam, emergency relief and security operations in the Philippines, Operation Provide Comfort in Turkey and northern Iraq, Operation Provide Hope in the former Soviet Union, Operations
Restore Hope, Continue Hope, and United Shield in Somalia, Operations Resolute Response and Noble Response in. Kenya, Operations Desert Thunder, Desert Fox, Desert Viper, Desert Spring, Southern Watch and the Maritime Intercept Operations in the Persian Gulf, and Operation Infinite Reach against terrorist targets in the Central Region. He was involved in the planning and execution of Operation Proven Force and Operation Patriot Defender in support of the Gulf War and noncombatant evacuation operations in Liberia, Zaire, Sierra Leone, and Eritrea. He has also participated in presidential diplomatic missions to Somalia, Pakistan, and Ethiopia-Eritrea and was the former U. S. Peace Envoy to the Middle East, involving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and conflicts in Indonesia.

He has attended numerous military schools and courses including the National War College. He holds a bachelor's degree in economics, a master's in international relations, a master's in management and supervision, and honorary doctorate's from William and Mary College and the Maine Maritime academy.

General Zinni's awards include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal with oak leaf cluster; the Distinguished Service Medal; the Defense Superior Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters; the Bronze Star with Combat "V" and gold star, the Purple Heart; the Meritorious Service Medal with gold star-, the Navy Commendation Medal with Combat "V" and gold star; the Navy Achievement Medal with gold star; the Combat Action Ribbon; and personal decorations from South Vietnam, France, Italy, Egypt, Kuwait, Yemen, and Bahrain. He also holds 36 unit, service, and campaign awards. His civilian awards include the Papal Gold Cross of Honor, the Union League's Abraham Lincoln Award, the Italic Studies Institute's Global Peace Award, the Distinguished Sea Service Award from the Naval Order of the United States, the Eisenhower Distinguished Service Award from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, The Chapman Award from the Marine Corps University Foundation, the Penn Club Award, and the St. Thomas of Villanova Alumni Medal.


Don't be frightened. This Muslim retired. :barf:

[buzz_knox]

Don't be frightened. This Muslim retired.

Yes, but how long will it be before we fix all the damage he did? I mean, that Muslim served with distinction and honor for decades, and is a shining example of what a Marine should aspire to be. Who knows what kind of person might join up based on his example? ;)

[2dogs]

I know! We could just ask everyone, real respectful like. "Do you support Bin Laden? Are you a radical Islamist?"

And of course they'll tell us, won't they.


pax

No, OF COURSE THEY WON'T TELL US. And there is no way of knowing if they are Muslims of the harmless variety or Islamists of the Jihadist type.

But my guess is that someone who has led a life as a devout Muslim (of either variety) would not lie about that, and likely hasn't spent years hiding the fact that they are Muslim.

Which sort of explains my reason for asking the original question, doesn't it?

[Intune]

Another, gasp, Muslim perhaps?! Run awaaayy! Yer crackin' me up BK! :D

[pax]

But my guess is that someone who has led a life as a devout Muslim (of either variety) would not lie about that, and likely hasn't spent years hiding the fact that they are Muslim.
2dogs,

The really dangerous ones have.

Or didn't you watch the news on 9/11?

pax

[buzz_knox]

But my guess is that someone who has led a life as a devout Muslim (of either variety) would not lie about that, and likely hasn't spent years hiding the fact that they are Muslim.

Unless they are a terrorist, in which case they blend in with the populace, based on an interpretation of Islamic law that anything done in the name of Allah is good, even if it would otherwise be a sin. So, we are left with targetting Muslims who have done nothing more than practice their religion. Sounds like a good way to create more terrorists.

[Intune]

Ve haff vays of making zem talk, eh?

[2dogs]

Don't be frightened. This Muslim retired.


Mohammad Atta, who flew the first plane into the World Trade Center, was a devout Muslim. He was born in Egypt to a lawyer and was a highly intelligent person who communicated with ease with children, old men, professors and people in government. As a student in Germany he was known to be quiet and very religious. Atta regularly prayed on the floor of his office and founded an Islamic prayer and study group at the University in January 1999.
Atta lived and moved easily in Western society while secretly hating it. He was a man on a mission and on the front of his thesis, presented in October 1999, he wrote the following verse from the Koran: " My Prayer and my sacrifice and my life and my death belong to Allah, the Lord of the worlds"


Don't be frightened. This Muslim is dead.





(My point being, before the psychics go back to work, is that you can point to Zinni, and I can point to Atta- so what? The fact that there is one good Muslim in the military, or one bad person of Muslim faith who murdered thousands does not directly bear on my original question.)

[Intune]

And we all know that a good Muslim is a...

[buzz_knox]

2dogs, notwithstanding your protests, I think by now you've firmly demonstrated that you do believe that Muslims are the problem, rather than "bad" Muslims. If not, why on earth would you use the existence of Atta, who we all know was a terrorist, to refute the point made about a Muslim who contributed to this nation? The only thing they have in common is their religion, and you've made no effort to determine which sect the General belonged to, so obviously their status as Muslims is the sole point you're relying on.

[2dogs]

And we all know that a good Muslim is a...

...............oh, say, not a murdering Islamofascist- anyone disagree with that?

[2dogs]

Really, some of you folks would have argued that we shouldn't fight the German's because not all of them were Nazi's.

That would have turned out well.

[buzz_knox]

Really, some of you folks would have argued that we shouldn't fight the German's because not all of them were Nazi's

That's just disingenous. The entire point of the thread that you started was whether we should bar Muslims, including Americans, from the military. It had nothing to do with nationalities regardless of religion.

[2dogs]

The really dangerous ones have.

pax

So THAT explains Bin Laden running around in a yarmulke!;)

[2dogs]

That's just disingenous

OK, try this on:

Really, some of you folks would have argued that we shouldn't fight the Nazi's because some of them were Catholic.

[buzz_knox]

So THAT explains Bin Laden running around in a yarmulke!

It does explain the Hama terrorist who dressed up as an Orthodox jew in order to board a bus a few weeks ago, and blow it up.

[buzz_knox]

Really, some of you folks would have argued that we shouldn't fight the Nazi's because some of them were Catholic.

That's going beyond disingenous and approaching ludicrous.

No one has a problem with fighting terrorists or any other threat to the US, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc. But your problem is that you see everyone of a particular religion as a threat, regardless of who they are.

[2dogs]

And since the non detectives amongst you want to discount religion in fighting terrorism, you tell me what EVERY SINGLE ONE of the terrorist bombers in Israel, on 9/11, WTC 1993, Bali bombing, Kobar Towers, Beirut Marine barracks, USS Cole , Mogadishu had in common.

Whoops, how impolitic of me.

Let's just ignore that.

[2dogs]

But your problem is that you see everyone of a particular religion as a threat, regardless of who they are.

And you picked this particular quote out of which of my posts?

[Intune]

No, it would be like you saying that Catholics should be looked at closely before being allowed to serve in the U.S. military because some Nazis were Catholics! :rolleyes:

[2dogs]

The really dangerous ones have.

pax

PAX, are you saying that there might be REALLY DANGEROUS Muslims!?

And that we may have NO WAY of knowing WHICH ones are the REALLY DANGEROUS ONES!?

BINGO- give the lady a prize.

Adios all.

[Intune]

And you picked this particular quote out of which of my posts?

"...is it time to question the wisdom of putting Muslims in the military?

IIRC there weren't this many Italian Americans, or German American or Japanese American U.S. soldiers in all of WWII that couldn't be trusted."





:rolleyes:

[Intune]

There are some really dangerous PEOPLE.

Sayonara!
:cool:

And since the non detectives amongst you want to discount religion in fighting terrorism, you tell me what EVERY SINGLE ONE of the terrorist bombers in Israel, on 9/11, WTC 1993, Bali bombing, Kobar Towers, Beirut Marine barracks, USS Cole , Mogadishu had in common.

Whoops, how impolitic of me.

Let's just ignore that.

Let's not- Resurrect the Crusades, Save America! Sign up now! Onward soldiers, fighting as to war! Let God sort the infidels out! Muslims go home!
:what:

How many who perpetrated these acts were AMERICAN Muslims? Hmm? :scrutiny:

[CMichael]

I didn't read all the previous posts on this topic.

However, I think we need to treat people as individuals. They should be in the military.


There are a limited amount of resources. All of the Al Qaida terrorists have been muslims and I think the gov't needs to concentrate on that.

I think it would be a waste of precious resources if the gov't was looking for Al Qaida terrorists at a catholic church.

[Intune]

:banghead: :rolleyes: :D :uhoh: :what: :barf: :o

[SGT109FA]

QUOTE:

However, I think we need to treat people as individuals. They should be in the military.


There are a limited amount of resources. All of the Al Qaida terrorists have been muslims and I think the gov't needs to concentrate on that.

I think it would be a waste of precious resources if the gov't was looking for Al Qaida terrorists at a catholic church.


I think that is a naive statement. These terrorist bastards will say anything, hide anywhere, do anything they can to kill americans, 9/11 should have proved that fact.

[Keith]

Political correctness run amuck!

If somebody is a member of the Aryan Nations, do we allow them in the military? Do we allow them in the Chaplain Corps to preach their brand of "Christianity" to others?

Yet, you people are arguing that members of Muslim sects that preach the destruction of all western civilization should be treated as "individuals"...

This doesn't make any sense. We KNOW that certain elements of Islam are determined to destroy us. Many of those elements are clearly identified and make no secret of their goal - Wahhab is one of them. Those elements should be weeded out, immediately.

As for other Muslims, I have no problem at all. Innocent until proven guilty...

Anyone here who has undergone a security clearance will tell you that they look at every aspect of your background. I've gone through this and I'm sure that many of you have as well. And if I had been associated with some group that was devoted to destroying western civilization, I wouldn't have gotten a clearance - and I wouldn't have been in the military any longer!

Yet, in the military today they weed out MODERATE Muslims, and prefer those from the fanatical Wahhabi sect... Why? Because Wahhab is Saudi based and we don't want to offend those with their hands on the oil taps. So we DELIBERATELY put these fanatical Wahhabs (the same ones who bombed us on 9/11) into the sensitive positions.

It's insane! It's insane to breach security by placing the anti-western elements of Islam into these positions, so as not to offend the Saudi's. And it's insane to defend this policy on political correctness.

Keith

[Derek Zeanah]

I think the primary problem that most are missing with the "we've gotta pay extra attention to those people" idea is enforcement: how do you know who to watch? How do you make sure that everyone involved with this person knows about the red flag their religion poses?

For instance: you say I (because I practice islam) shouldn't be allowed to fly on planes. Who enforces that? The airlines? How do they know I'm a "potential bad person?" Either you modify my identification, or you force all reservations to go through a federal computer before being processed. In either case, I need to register with the feds.

Now, let's deal with the other things I might not be allowed to do because of the risk:

1) Buy books. I can go on Amazon and purchase books that detail how to make explosives and nerve agents (search for "Uncle Fester" as an author). Now, normal people like you can buy these things, as it's a freedom of speech issue. Should I be able to? I'm a bigger risk, so probably not. How will amazon know to sell to you but not to me? Uhhh. I've gotta be registered somewhere, and they need to check the registry.

2) I drive a diesel. Should I be allowed to go to Kmart to buy fertilizer for my lawn? After all, OKC showed us the damage the combination of diesel fuel, fertilizer, and a blasting cap can cause. If not, how do they know not to sell to me? What if I want to pay with cash -- should all cash transactions be outlawed for "sensitive" materials like fertilizer?

3) I like guns. Specifically, semi-autos that are as close to what I was issued in the Army as possible (I can still strip/assemble/function check in EIB time). Should I be allowed to own a "high-powered assault weapon" like this? If so, should I be allowed to purchase ammo in 1000 round lots from Eric the Ammoman over the Internet? He's a small business -- how will he know I'm not to be trusted?

4) I used to love the M60's we had; they were unreliable as hell but the rhythm was hypnotic. I'm gonna go apply for the paperwork required to purchase one. Should I be allowed to own one? If the feds screw up, how will the local sheriff know I'm one of those risky dudes?

5) Should I be allowed to reload my own ammunition? Not only can I do that to assemble an "arsenal" of "cop-killer" bullets, but I could just as easily use Bullseye for explosives manufacture. SHould I be allowed to? If not, should small-time operators be allowed to sell at gun shows where I might show up with cash in-hand?

6) Can I buy a firearm in a person-to-person transaction as is legal in my state?

7) Can I get a license to carry concealed?

8) If I'm driving cross-country and I refuse permission to search my car while stopped by the cops, should they search me anyway? Should I be arrested until I can prove I'm up to something lawful?

9) Can I train at a place like Gunsite?

10) Am I allowed to train in a Dojo, to a level that most law enforcement can't match?

11) Am I allowed to get a CDL after I lose my job, because the infomercial offers a good opportunity. If so, must my career be limited by not carrying hazardous materials?

12) Can I be a cop? Can I work for government at any level? Can I work for a bank, or for a utility company? Can I do consulting in computer security?

Many of these, it can be argued, present more "risk" than if I were to pass through a security checkpoint and board a plane. There are people reading this who think it's "reasonable" to restrict my behavior like this. There are two things that must happen in order for this to occur:

1) All people like me (ie: non-christian and non-jewish followers of the God of Abraham, Adam, and Moses) must be registered in a central database.

2) All transactions must be run through this system. Cash is a "tool of terrorists" to get around these reasonable and necessary reporting requirements.

Am I missing anything?

And to think, all this to feel "safer" from a threat that is likely to claim your life than being struck my lightning. I believe (don't have the numbers handy) that your chances of being a victim of terrorism in the US are something like 1:80,000; your chance of dying in a car accident is closer to 1:250.

Do we really want to walk this path? Is it worth the trade-offs?

And again, do you think I'll just say "ok" and go along with it because you tell me it's "reasonable" and "necessary" so that Joe Sixpack can feel safer?

Do you think the people who are really a threat to you are going to happily sign up with the database, or will they claim to be Orthodox Christians instead? Remember, the 9/11 hijackers got drunk at strip clubs frequently before the attacks...

[Derek Zeanah]

A point I forgot to make: following this course of action will create 2 classes of citizens: "safe" people, and "potential terrorists." What'll happen to my chances of landing a job when they run a background check? Will it affect my chances to get health insurance? What about a potential landlord, or a homeowners association?

My wife is christian. Will my religious beliefs be a burden to my children when they enter school/apply for college/want to join the army? If they say they're baptist, can you trust that?

If I decide one day that I'm wrong -- that Jusus wasn't just a prophet, but that he was GOD himself -- can I get off the list? If a join a local church and get baptized and eventually become a deacon, should I be trusted? Will the church now be on a watch-list because I, and therefore they, are now suspect?

Will I ever get to be a "normal" citizen again?

[buzz_knox]

Will I ever get to be a "normal" citizen again?

That presupposes you were normal to begin with. As a free-thinking, intelligent gun owner, I don't think you count as normal. ;)

[agricola]

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~parsoto/witchfinder.jpg

[2dogs]

agricola

Thanks agricola. If I find any witches that kill 3,000 of our citizens at a time it might come in handy.:p

[Keith]

Derek,

Are you a member of a group who advocates the violent overthrow and destruction of all western culture? A Wahhabi, for example? If not, then I don't think any limitations should be placed on you at all.

If I was a member of a group like the Aryan Nations, it would be hypocritical of me to claim that while the group itself was subversive, I, personally, wasn't - I just attended meetings for the free beer...

Their ARE Muslim groups and religious sects that preach such things. To ignore this in the name of "diversity" (or what have you...) is to stick our heads in the sand. Members of these groups and/or religious sects should be prohibited from emigrating and should not be allowed in the military or any other sensitive position. If they want to disavow that group and no longer be a member, then that fact should be considered in their favor.

My brother is married to a lovely Turkish gal, a very nice woman and a Sunni Moslem. My nephews are being raised in the Islamic (Sunni) faith and they are as American as apple pie. If they were being raised in the Wahhabi faction where the US is cursed and damned and blamed for every wrong on earth, I wouldn't like it one bit.

Let's quit playing the political correctness game and admit that many branches of Islam are not our friends, Let's identify the dangerous elements and take appropriate action.

Keith

[2dogs]

for agricola

http://www.jpfo.org/unpopularsp-winston-deporting.htm

Deporting Muslims
by Emanuel A. Winston


Winston Mid East Analysis & Commentary, March 9, 2003
www.gamla.org.il/english and http://freeman.io.com

I forecast a time when nations of the West will weary of radical Muslim Islamists and move to deport them back to their home countries. Unlike most immigrant populations escaping hostile governments or merely seeking greater opportunity in jobs, education and health care, radical Muslims breed an atmosphere of anger against their host nations.

The Europeans complain bitterly when the political Right of Israel maintain that the Arab Muslims do not want peace with the Jewish State of Israel and, therefore, would be better off living among their own brethren. But, that incompatibility is now becoming a major problem in France, England, the Netherlands - even in China when conversion to Islam guides the convert to become an adversary of the host nation.

According to Michael Ledeen in his new book: The War Against the Terror Masters (1) most of our vulnerability can be laid at the feet of a succession of American Presidents, namely, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Sr. and, especially Bill Clinton. They found it politically importune to wage war against Terror. I strongly recommend this book will write about it more fully in the near future.

Even in America called the "great melting pot", since 9/11 it has been discovered that, during more than the past 30 years, rogue Arab/Muslim nations have been sending in Muslims who are hostile to America s Judeo-Christian free, democratic culture.

For more than 30 years the Arabs lived their own lives in their own lands which, at best, was backward, often primitive, when compared to the advancements of Western civilization. When oil became a highly valued commodity, the West was attracted to make commercial contacts with the Arab/Muslim countries in the Middle East. Not only was there commercial intercourse but Arab Muslims found the freedom and opportunities of the West irresistible and began immigrating into the democratic, free and open West. They could have made a successful migration as others had except for the tenets of Islam and its mandate to spread their religion by any means possible.

In America, the U.S. State Department had its diplomats currying favor with the oil-rich Arab/Muslim Sheiks and thus became enablers for a flood of Arab/Muslims from nations known to be hostile to America. Even such a hostile, Terror supporting Arab nation as Syria, who had no oil to speak of, was courted as a spoiler.

The U.S. State Department always knew that such nations as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran - and even Egypt - had no love for America but the U.S. opened her borders to their incoming nationals anyway. Many American diplomats went native when serving in these nations and became outspoken defenders and apologists for hostile Arab/Muslim nations. When they left the employment of the U.S. State Department, many were then employed by the Arab/Muslim nations to lobby the current Administration and the Congress.

So, America started to fill up with a Muslim immigrant population that was not always friendly - with some coming in as trained Terror agents to establish sleeper cells . Even the FBI knew that it was politically unwise to investigate suspicious Arab/Muslims lest the U.S. State Department use the power given to them in order to protect the Arab/Muslims.

On March 5th, a homicide bomber from Hamas in Hebron blew up a bus full of schoolchildren returning home in Haifa, killing at least 16, wounding 40, with 2 in grave to critical condition and at least 5 victims in serious condition. This was the first successful Terror attack in 2 months but, 122 attacks were thwarted by the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) and security forces.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that the protest theme of "No Arabs = No Terror" was illegal, although the facts of Arab/Muslim Terror speaks for themselves. Since buses and other civilian sites seem to be the prime target for Arab Palestinian Islamist homicide bombers, perhaps there must be a separate bus line for Arab Palestinians. It would certainly be more effective than a hugely expensive "fence" to supposedly separate the Jews from the Arabs.

Today, the nations of the world tell Israel not to separate the Jewish population from the Arabs, even as the Arabs try to attack daily. The world's nations threaten Israel, lest Israel transfer the Arabs to Jordan where there are vast empty lands and 70% of the population is Arab Palestinian. Although words like "segregation" and "apartheid" have properly been positioned as unacceptable treatment of peaceful people by dominant cultures, nevertheless, separation of Arab Muslims and Israeli Jews is unavoidable. Arab statements followed by interminable hostility pledged ongoing mandates that a two state solution cannot ever succeed but that, "In Blood and Fire, We will Redeem you, O Jerusalem!"

I think one day soon nations like France, England, Germany, Holland, Belgium, etc. will politely (or not so politely) ask their Muslim populations to return to the nations from whence they came, which accept the Shari ah laws and all of its repressive mandates. Of course, there has been talk of the French migrating into Canada, with the English moving to the colonies.

Worse yet, with the availability of WMD (Weapons of Mass Death), a hostile immigrant population could take their alleged grievances to the point where radical Islamists could blow up or poison an entire city somewhere in the West.

America has had many waves of immigrations from every country in the world. Every color, creed, religion and, while there were minor clashes, never did one culture threaten the existence of another culture or the host nation as do the radical Muslim.

There is something in their teachings that, when they reach a critical mass and feel their power in numbers, something goes "click" and the aggressive behavior surfaces - or the sleeper cells are ordered to activate Terrorist warfare**. It is not that they were provoked into adversarial attitudes by the other cultures around them - except for the simple fact that there are others who are not Muslim which seems to irritate them. Perhaps it is the Islamic teachings by the Mullahs who train the children to grow up to hate and believe themselves spiritually superior that triggers this predatory mind-set as they mature.

Today, across the globe, we see a vast awakening of hostile Islam. This is aided by modern day communications where even the most poor and backward have TV or radio. When they see their Islamic brethren rise up in one nation, they are triggered to do so and delighted by the opportunity to wage Terror (low-intensity warfare), if not full scale war.

At this time, the West is suffering from so-called Muslim militants who thrill to the danger and the Terror they unleash. Moderate Muslims also thrill vicariously to the successes of their violent co-religionists. In their hearts, they wish them victory. Children especially sponge up these feelings of rage and the jubilation of first throwing stones and later graduating to fire-bombs, knives, guns, explosives and homicide bombings.

Some say, not all Muslims are Terrorists but admit that most Terrorists in the past decade have been Muslims. Worse yet, now that the modern world of high technology has put weapons of unbelievably destructive power into the hands of religious primitives, small groups or one dedicated man can accomplish incalculable devastation.

We cannot differentiate the trained radical Terrorists from the willing but untrained Islamists. In terms of necessary profiling, we cannot tell the peaceful, moderate Muslim from the subliminally hostile, trained, funded and armed Muslim homicide bomber.

The world is now under attack from a culture which believes it has been given a mandate that flows from Allah, through Mohammed via the Koran by the mouths of the Mullahs which tasks Muslims to spread Islam until they dominate all mankind.

In democratic countries where there is the process of voting, the politicians begin to appeal to Muslims for their votes because they are many. Part of that appeal is to ignore their outrageous behavior or find a way to apologize for and to forgive the hostile Muslims. We see this in France and England - even with some politicians in the American Congress beginning to yelp about unfair profiling of Muslims in fund-raising charities or students at universities who are taking courses in nuclear physics, chemistry, biology, aerodynamic rocketry, etc. These politicians are looking for political donor funds and the votes.

Regrettably, the harvesting of Arab/Muslim votes has been a strong motivating factor among the leaders of Israel's Left wing parties of Labor, Meretz.

The abortive Oslo process was driven largely by the Left hoping that grateful Palestinians would vote them into power and keep them there. They liked their Knesset (Parliament) seats and perks so many worked for the Arab/Muslim votes, against the interests and needs of the Jewish State. Once the mistake of opening the gates of the city was made by appeasement (through the Oslo Accords and those that followed), the Arab/Muslims felt strong and perceived the Jews as weak because they gave up their own lands in an attempted appeasement.

Oslo was followed by a dramatic ramping up of Terror against Jews everywhere in Israel and also Christians around the world. The nation of Israel, even the Left has finally recognized their mistake and voted the Left Labor/Meretz parties out of power.

I dare say that this will soon happen in America, France, England and across Europe. But, will it be soon enough? The attempt to pacify Islam on the march is an exercise in futility and both the people and the politicians will pay the price in blood. This the Arab/Muslims promise. In all their demonstrations, they chant: "In blood and fire, we will redeem you, O Jerusalem!"

Looking ahead, I forecast the time when the nations will, indeed, invite their Muslim populations to repatriate themselves back to where the fundamentalist Islamic Shari ah laws are the law of the land.





** Terror is defined as low intensity warfare.

1. The War Against the Terror Masters: Why It Happened. Where We Are Now. How We Will Win by Michael A. Ledeen St. Martin s Press 2002

[Intune]

Bring back "Dunking," if they live they are terrorists and we execute them. If they die they were innocent and we, um... Oh, throw their family a party. Yeah, that's it.

We all love and want to defend our country. That is a very positive, emotional ideal. We just can't all agree on how to do it.

[2dogs]

more for agricola

English witches?

Muslims First, Citizens Second
by Dr. Ali Ahmed Rind

In my recent trip to London, I found (shockingly) that a good number of them have sympathy with the radical world view of fanatical Muslim outfits like Al-Qaeda.

"The day terror hit the U.S., I was in central London," says Jawed, a young entrepreneur from Pakistan, recalling the day that literally shook the world. "I had returned to my rented room in east London after a hectic business tour of city markets which started early that morning, when I received a call from Pakistan. On the other end was one of my friends.”
‘Did you see?’

‘What?’ I asked. ‘Really? You don't know what is going on?’ He could not hide his surprise mixed with glee. ‘No, I have just returned home.’ ‘Turn on BBC and watch America burn.’

“I was stunned. In the next few hours, what I saw on the television screen and heard on the telephone and on the streets I can never forget.

“There was commentary in the BBC's live telecast. They were repeating clips of the falling twin towers. For me, it was gruesome and ghastly. I felt something dying, collapsing inside me along with the crumbling towers. I went out on the street to see how people reacted to this. All offices were closed and skyscrapers were emptied. Everyone was confused and scared.

“Who could the perpetrator be? What did they want to accomplish through this act of sheer terror? What would America’s reaction be?

“The BBC commentators were busy murmuring their words. Answers to these questions were not hard to find. In the coming days, ‘Muslims’ in Europe became synonymous with ‘suspicion’ and forced even borderline Muslims living in the West to embrace the argument of fanatics: this is the commencement of a holy war between Islam and the West.

"How do you feel now?" I asked him a year later, during a trip to London.

"Strange," he immediately replied. "A fault line is being falsely created between us [Muslims] and the rest of the world. Leaders like President Bush and Prime Miinister Blair with their aggressive policy in the Middle East and elsewhere are forcing us to believe the fundamentalists’ argument that the West is the enemy of Muslims."

But people like Sultan are an exception in the half-million strong Muslim community of the U.K. The majority, from South Asia, do not think that the attack on the world's sole superpower was immoral thus unjustified. In my recent trip to London, I found (shockingly) that a good number of them have sympathy with the radical world view of fanatical Muslim outfits like Al-Qaeda.

Despite the fact that many among them are permanent residents of Great Britain and hold its nationality, they nevertheless do not feel a part of its culture. Their alienation is increasing with each passing day. The imminent attack on Iraq and the continued bloodshed in Palestine at the hands of Israeli forces add to their venomous argument in favor of Jihadi world view.

Tired of endless, furious debate that lasted for many hours at a party, I asked Rafik, a British-born Muslim trader who owns a chain of food stores in the UK, "What are you: Muslim or British?" Without hesitation, he replied, “I am Muslim first.” For him, being a British national was not significant, though he earns a living and lives through another identity. (Though he was a hypocrite, sadly, he did not realize it.)

"God willing, Muslim power will prevail over the entire world one day,” he said. “Our forefathers conquered the world and, God willing, we will be witnessing it again." That moment, he was more like a megalomaniac, gun-toting terrorist than a sane, British-born trader.

I was rebuked by a Muslim professional in another chat when I tried to convince him about the wickedness of the Jihadi view of Osama Bin Laden. He demanded of me bluntly, “Is Israel being fair with its brethren Palestinian people?" In his view, events like September 11 are in reply to whatever is happening with Muslims in Palestine and elsewhere.

On September 11 this year, saner people around the world were commemorating the first anniversary of September 11. In London, some radical Muslims celebrated this event under the banner of Jamiat-ul-Furqa.

On September 28, 500,000 people marched through central London protesting a proposed U.S. attack on Iraq. The Mayor of London led the march, which was dominated by Muslim participants. One banner among the array of banners read "Death to America.” I could not decide if I was on the streets of Tehran, Iran or London, England.

The isolation that an average Muslim feels while living in the West is not a good omen for the West. Saner people should come forward to encourage them not to feel hunted and to be part of the mainstream.

Thousands of miles away, in Karachi, Pakistan—the day Jawed found himself crumbling inside at the site of the crumbling twin towers—there was jubilation on our streets in Pakistan as people were thrilled at the images of destruction and came out on the streets to share their excitement. It was probably not totally out of love for Al-Qaeda, but out of a hate that is endemic in this part of the world—a hate against the world's only superpower: “Amerika,” as it is pronounced in Pakistan.

My phone kept ringing with calls inquiring about my reaction. I was numb. I was lonely, ashamed, frightened and dying inside.

"How do you feel about September 11?" I asked one U.S. friend who had come to attend a conference in London. He had applied for asylum in the U.S. ten years ago after slipping out of Pakistan as military men came at his throat for his anti-military progressive activities.

"Not good," he replied. "We were against these Jihadis when the U.S. was supporting them. We fought with them when they were getting weapons made in the U.S. Now, whenever I travel, wherever I go, I am picked out of a row and grilled since my name and color resemble those who are waging an unholy war with their ex-patrons."

"For me," he said as he continued to vent his anger, “the people sitting in the Pentagon and in the caves of Afghanistan are both monsters that want to divert our attention from the real issues. They want to fight a war in the interest of reactionary forces who are serving the interest of the ‘rich people's Mafia.’ "



Copyright © 2003 The Baltimore Chronicle and The Sentinel.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/muslimsfirst_nov02.html

[Intune]

Ah, the entire thread becomes clearer. I have but one question of you 2dogs, do YOU support the RACIST tripe that those two websites you referenced spew?

[buzz_knox]

Let's quit playing the political correctness game and admit that many branches of Islam are not our friends, Let's identify the dangerous elements and take appropriate action.

You'll have no problem with that from me. I absolutely agree.

[Derek Zeanah]

Let's quit playing the political correctness game and admit that many branches of Islam are not our friends, Let's identify the dangerous elements and take appropriate action.1. Reread the topic line of this thread. "Muslims."
2. There are branches of environmentalism that advocate the same thing. You're not talking about a religion, you're talking about people who want to see the US destroyed, regardless of their religious feelings (or lack of.) Certainly a fun discussion to have, but this thread seems to be focused on muslims specifically.

[2dogs]

Actually I found them with a word search- generally though I don't find JPFO tending to print "racist tripe".

Maybe I'll contact Aaron and warn him of your dismay.

[2dogs]

Intune

Oh, and just out of curiosity- what "race" is Islam?

[Keith]

It's silly to lump all Muslims under one umbrella and view them as suspects.

It's just as silly to ignore that some branches of Islam ARE dedicated to our destruction! Those groups SHOULD be singled out and "discriminated" against in every way possible. We know (and YOU know) who these people are, and yet you lump them all together as "Muslims" and argue that we should just overlook the untidy facts associated with these groups.

We "discriminate" against members of certain groups all of the time. We discriminate against the KKK, Aryan Nations, Crips, Bloods - no admitted member of these groups is going to pass a security clearance or even get into a government position where they would get a security clearance. Yet, Wahhabi Muslims get into the military and through our immigration portals without a second thought - insanity!

Many Islamic sects should be treated in the same way as we treat any criminal organization. We know who they are. We see the money flowing from them to the Terrorist groups. We hear the violence preached in the Mosque. Why pretend they aren't what they proclaim themsleves to be?

Keith

[Intune]

These two sites- www.gamla.org.il/english and http://freeman.io.com

And all can see that you didn't answer the question.

[CZ-100]

objectionable content removed

After All thats what they want to do to US. :evil

[Derek Zeanah]

It's just as silly to ignore that some branches of Islam ARE dedicated to our destruction! Those groups SHOULD be singled out and "discriminated" against in every way possible.So, you would agree that the measures listed above should be enacted? If not, do you have a better method?

We know (and YOU know) who these people are,I don't, actually. I say I'm a muslim. I say I'm not "one of those people." Is that enough? Will the "real" terrorists say otherwise, and readily identify themselves?

and yet you lump them all together as "Muslims" and argue that we should just overlook the untidy facts associated with these groups.Sorry, as a member of the affected group I'm having difficulty understanding what you're talking about. Or was this comment directed at someone else?

[Intune]

Oh, and just out of curiosity- what "race" is Islam?

It seems you must remain confused on this issue as well. Perhaps your "aquaintance" Aaron could explain racism to you more fully.

[2dogs]

Perhaps your "aquaintance" Aaron could explain racism to you more fully

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

racism

SYLLABICATION: rac·ism
PRONUNCIATION: rszm
NOUN: 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
OTHER FORMS: racist —ADJECTIVE & NOUN


Nope, no need to bother him.

[Keith]

I don't, actually. I say I'm a muslim. I say I'm not "one of those people."

OK, fine - I believe you. The state department has a list of groups who have contributed money to Al Qeada and other terrorist organizations. We also know which branches of Islam preach Jihad.

If you're not a member of one of those known groups, or a member of a sect like Wahhabism then I have no issue at all. However, if you fill out an application for a position of some kind (or an immigration form) and are asked what branch of Islam you belong to, or what mosque you attend... and you answer Wahhabi - then I think you should be turned down, period. End of discussion.
If you're not a citizen, you should be deported immediately. If you are a citizen you should be carefully investigated for criminal activity in the same way we'd investigate a member of the mafia. Did anybody whine about discrimination against Italians when members of the Sicilian Mafia were caught and deported n the old days?

I don't want these people in the ranks of government, I don't even want them in the country!

Of course you could just lie and there's nothing much we could do about it. But when evidence of membership in one of these political or religious groups comes to light, I think we should act on it.

Keith

[Preacherman]

Folks, I think that this thread has gone on long enough. It's obvious that we're not going to agree on this issue. Many of us - including yours truly - believe strongly that one is innocent until proven guilty, that guilt is an individual rather than a corporate/group/sectarian reality, and that one cannot single out a particular religion and take action against its adherents en masse, despite the wrong/sinful/illegal/criminal actions of some of its adherents. Others among us want to stigmatize the entire group based on the actions of some of its members.

I hope that this exchange of ideas has opened a few eyes on both sides of the debate.

End of discussion.