Monday, November 29, 2010

Portland: It's For Terrorists

One of the bigger stories this weekend, at least until Wikileaks decided to add a little chaos to the world, was brought to us by Mohamed Osman Mohamud, a 19 year old Somali-born U.S. citizen. On Friday, Mohamud tried to blow up a packed public Christmas-tree-lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon. No thanks to Portland, he did not succeed.

First, let’s look at the bomber. This will shock liberals, but he’s a monster. He didn’t turn to bombing as a last resort or to free his people and he wasn’t forced into this by economic duress. He comes from an upper-middle class home and he simply likes killing. Said Mohamud of what he was trying to achieve: “I want whoever is attending that event to leave, to leave either dead or injured.” Why? What motivated him? Well, said Mohamud:

“You know what I like to see? Is when I see the enemy of allah then, you know, their bodies are torn everywhere. It’s gonna be a fireworks show. . . New York Times will give it two thumbs up. . . do you remember when 9/11 happened when those people were jumping from skyscrapers? I thought that was awesome.”
What does this tell us? This tells us he has no regard for human life. Indeed, he gets a kick out of seeing people die. It also tells us that he sees anyone who is not a Muslim as an enemy of allah and he believes that entitles him to kill them -- so much for the “religion of peace” and so much for the standard liberal trope: “they’re just like us, they’ve just been forced to become violent.”

Secondly, let’s look at Portland. One of the most interest facets of this was the non-involvement of Portland in this arrest. Prior to this event, Portland voted 4-1 to refuse to let its police officers work with the FBI’s counter-terrorism task force because the FBI would not guarantee that it would comply with Portland’s anti-discrimination measures. And while Portland claimed this was a matter of principle, it more likely than not was the result of the Portland city council assuming they were safe from terrorism and that they could therefore put asinine political statements above the safety of their people.

And it was exactly this appeasement that attracted Mohamud to Portland. Indeed, when he was asked why he chose Portland as a target, he told the FBI that Portland has lax law enforcement because people do not “see it as a place where anything will happen. People say, you know, why anybody wants to do something in Portland, you know. It's on the west coast, it's in Oregon; and Oregon's like, you know, nobody ever thinks about it.”

Clearly, liberals cannot escape the wrath of Islam by being cowards and pretending they aren’t part of America’s war on terrorism. But then, the rest of us knew that. Just ask the Spanish. FYI, Portland is now reconsidering helping the FBI, but to save face they are claiming the decision is being made because they trust the FBI under Obama, which they did not do under Bush.

Finally, let’s look at how he was caught. The FBI began investigating Mohamud when they received a tip from his parents that they were concerned about him. Beginning around the age of 15, Mohamud began speaking of becoming a martyr. At that point, they became concerned. Said one member of the 8,000 strong Somali community in Portland, “Before this happened, the father informed Homeland Security and the FBI that something was going on with his son. This a good family. The father is an engineer at Intel. This is not somebody who is on public assistance. He is a family man, a businessman, a religious man, a soccer player.” (Insert soccer violence joke here.)

After receiving court permission, the FBI monitored his e-mail and found that he was communicating with someone in Pakistan, with whom Mohamud was talking about “preparing for violent jihad.” In June 2010, the FBI put him on a no-fly list, which kept Mohamud from flying to Alaska. The FBI then moved in with agents and befriended him. They provided him with a fake bomb. He drove the vehicle with the bomb to the Portland ceremony. They watched him punch in the cell phone code that would have set the bomb off, and they arrested him. That’s an excellent investigation.

There are several interesting points to this. First, it’s becoming clear that the only way to catch terrorists is to get the assistance of people in the community and then to infiltrate terrorist cells and befriend terrorists. All the rest, is just window dressing. . . “security theater.” In fact, this has always been true historically, but people never learn from history.

Secondly, it’s clear that what is causing this wave of terrorism has nothing to do with US policy or US excesses. These idiots are being swept up in a mania that is being pushed by a violent religion that chooses to separate humanity into two classes -- believers, who deserve goodwill, and infidels, to whom you can do anything. Until that changes and Islam comes out of the dark ages and renounces this two-tier world, people like Mohamud will continue to justify their hate with Islam.

Third, Portland got very lucky here. And if he had succeeded, the blame should rightly have fallen on their city council and every other city like Portland that seeks to coddle terrorists and interfere with efforts to fight terrorism. Appeasing the Hitlers of the world only gets people killed.

So let’s congratulate the FBI and the parents, let’s condemn Portland, and let’s hang the monster.

39 comments:

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

All I know is that Portland is very lucky and very foolish.

The sad and unfortunate thing is Portland City Council won't learn from their mistakes.

Tennessee Jed said...

"Claiming they trust the FBI under Obama and not under Bush" may now be called the Portland Doctrine. That is the lamest thing I may have ever heard in my life. Maybe what has to happen is for conservatives to "man up" and start producing enough children to move in and take back these parts of the country such as the west coas from these assholes.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, It's amazing isn't it? To make a stupid political point, they came within a hair of getting thousands of their citizens killed. That is so typical of liberalism.

And you're right, they won't learn a thing. They will do the right thing for now because they're scared. But the moment they think the danger is over, they'll go right back to being idiots.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I like that: "The Portland Doctrine" -- to protect your citizens only when you like the guy in the White House. Or the converse, "to endanger your citizens because you want to poke the guy in the White House in the eye." Either way, it's asinine.

I'm not sure how places like this get returned to normal? I think like alcoholics, they need to hit bottom before they'll be ready to make some changes. But there doesn't seem to be a bottom. For example, I would say that this explosion having happened would have been the bottom, but then look at New York, which went sane temporarily after 9/11, but is slowly returning to its old stupidity. California has driven itself to the point of bankruptcy, yet it's now re-elected people who will push it well past that point.

I'm honestly not sure what it will take to ever convince liberals that they've destroyed the world around them?

Tehachapi Tom said...

Andrew
When I address profiling Muslims for air travel you responded strongly taking me to task for embracing profiling of Muslims. I just read an article by an that indicated my position was not all that off base.
Here is quoted from that article, the part I was impressed with;"These idiots are being swept up in a mania that is being pushed by a violent religion that chooses to separate humanity into two classes -- believers, who deserve goodwill, and infidels, to whom you can do anything."
Since Islam is the (religion) subject of the article and how it applies to terrorists I felt my position was substantiated.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: I found it interesting that one of his acquaintances said that Mohamud was not a particularly devout Muslim, and partied with everyone else. Until he started attending Muslim classes which taught him "the real meaning of Islam." He became withdrawn and zealously religious. If that's what Islam really means, it obviously doesn't mean "peace."

Joel Farnham said...

Tom,

If you are referring to LawHawk's Article, you would be mistaken. It was all done tongue-in-cheek.

LawHawk and Andrew both recommend profiling. How to go about it?... well the FBI already do it. They did it with this last bomber.

AndrewPrice said...

Tom, I recall your position on profiling Muslims and it's still wrong.

First, as I pointed out, it's a fool's errand to try to profile 2 billion people because of their religion.

Secondly, I pointed out that you are making the error of trying to find evidence to support your prejudice rather than evaluating the evidence, something you do again here. The fact that you can point to a handful of Muslims who commit terror does not make all Muslims (or even a significant number of them) into terrorists. Nor does it make it a wise use of resources to start suspecting all Muslims.

Moreover, your desire to profile Muslims runs the risk of making it very easy for terrorists to get away with terrorist acts by using your prejudice against you, by for example, recruiting white skinned or female terrorists.

Also, nothing in this incident in any way shows the value of profiling of any sort. To the contrary, this incident shows the error of profiling. This incident shows that stopping terrorists requires community support, something you cannot get when you have a policy of viewing all members of a particular community as suspects -- which is just one reason no reputable police department/court or police officer would endorse racial profiling.

Finally, it is illogical to assume that because Islam says something that some can use to justify murder, that we should therefore condemn all Muslims. Should we condemn all Christians because of a few cultists? Instead, what this tells us is that moderate Muslims must work harder to clarify that the interpretations that lead to murder are wrong.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I have not heard the specific quote you mention, but that is the problem with the fundamentalist schools, they seek to radicalize. And unfortunately, the Saudis have been put forth a ton of money the world over to create these schools to teach this radical garbage. Eliminating those schools would got a long way to eliminating most of this problem.

CrispyRice said...

I actually find it extremely heartening to hear that his parents turned him in. I cannot imagine how difficult that must have been for them to do, and I'm really impressed with them.

Also, we always hear cries of "If it's not ALL Muslims, then where is the Muslim community standing up and rooting out the extremists in their midst? Well, here they are. Kudos to them.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, This incident actually doesn't involve profiling, this was an informant. But the point is well taken. Religious, ethnic or racial profiling is a fool's errand. But profiling particular behaviors (as the FBI does) makes a lot of sense, e.g. one way tickets, paying with cash, no luggage, traveling alone, communications with known terrorists. That's a useful profile. It's actually similar to how they were catching drug mules in the 1980s and 1990s.

Pittsburgh Enigma said...

Just my 2 cents. On trying to return places like Portland to "normal", I think it's hopeless. I think the only solution is for everyone who is normal to vote with their feet and leave permanently. After what just happened in California, every conservative should bail out of that state and let it crash and burn (sorry Lawhawk). I've said the same thing about Pittsburgh. It is absolutely hopeless here. I don't consider myself part of this city. For now, financial factors are favorable for me to stay here, but am leaving my options wide open so that I can bail out at the drop of a hat. That's how much I despise the liberals here. Let the drunk sports addicts pick up the pieces of their dying city when all the people who are still paying taxes just pick up and leave one day.

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, I agree. I was (and remain) offended by the images of Palestinians in the streets cheering the fall of the towers on 9/11, but we overlook the fact that a great many Muslims are working with us to catch these terrorists, and that a great many Muslims are working to purge Islam of the fundamentalists.

We've now had two sets of parents who have turned in their children when they turned to terror -- which I agree with you must be an incredibly difficult thing to do and deserves major respect. We've also had groups trying to open schools throughout the Middle East and Asia to counter the radical schools, and we've got governments throughout the region helping to round up these radicals.

We also should not forget that the vast, vast majority of these terrorist acts are happening in the Middle East, and often for different reasons. All of this tells us that it would be a huge mistake to assume that "Islam" is against us. The smarter view is to work with the moderates to weed out the bad parts of Islam -- just as Christians work to expose and discredit cultists.

AndrewPrice said...

Pitts, That's the other option and the one that usually follows the failed intervention. If they hit bottom and they decide to keep right on going the way they've been going, then all you can do is leave them to fail without you. So I have to reluctantly endorse your strategy.

And in truth, I think that is already happening. I think it's no coincidence that the liberal states are bleeding people to other states, whereas the conservative states are growing by leaps and bounds. That's people voting with their feet.

I think the media has mistaken the cause of this, calling it "people leaving cold weather climates for warm weather climates," but the reality is that people are leaving the hopeless states. (If it was just about weather, why would people be leaving California?)

Dane said...

I've lived in Portland and it's a disgrace to humanity. It's like a giant commune. It doesn't surprise me in the least they won't work with the FBI. I would be surprised if they can even convict this guy in Portland.

Ed said...

Good for the parents! The must have been really hard to turn him in to the feds. Good for them. Nice article, thanks for putting this together.

Joel Farnham said...

Dane,

Your commune comment stirred memories. Back in August of this year, Portland was in the national news. It seems they have a HUGE problem with lemonade stands. It is no wonder they left the terrorist problem to the feds. :-)

StanH said...

Breathtaking luck! If not for this kids parents, the death toll would have been terrible. I guess this is proof that ignorance is bliss, these dumbass liberals in Portland are walking with a kick (kill) me sign on their backs.

As far as profiling is concerned their religion should absolutely be “part” of the criminal profile, we are in a war with Islamic-Fascist. The same as the NAZI, and their religion of fascism. That doesn’t mean you target 2billion Muslims, however it’s a great place to start inside Western Democracies, inside our borders. Timothy McVeigh, and Ted Kaczynski(?) aside, every terrorist without exception in our war against Islamic-Fascism has been of Middle Eastern descent, and devout followers of Mohamed.

In WWII when FDR interned the Japanese, though in retrospect abhorrent, at the time indeed helped keep us safe from the Japanese, even if it was psychological. This helped with the total victory over Japan, we vilified them, and our soldiers killed them. If we can’t even point out the enemy we’ll never be able defeat them. While we dance around with this PC BS, one of these days, one of these Muslim goons is going to get lucky and take out a few thousand Christmas Carolers.

Great job FBI!

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: As Joel pointed out, my previous article was based on full-body Muslim coverings at airports. And as he also pointed out, it was done largely tongue-in-cheek. Profiling was a secondary issue in that article.

Your are right about this most recent terrorist not being caught using profiling. That doesn't mean that a good profiler (if we had enough of them) shouldn't have been looking at this guy. It does prove that some (and I don't think it's very many) Muslims are willing to work with the police and not take the "submit or die" portions of the Koran as gospel (pun intended), even when it means turning in a member of their own family.

I'm sorry if I don't see that as proof of a "silent majority" of American Muslims or an indication that we are suddenly going to see mass snitching on the part of "moderate" Muslims.

Not all Christians should be profiled because of a few cultists. But those cultists should be profiled (and in fact, are). Islam in its current state is a religious-political cult. That distinguishes it entirely from the mainstream of Christianity.

Anonymous said...

His parents turned him in, just like the "Christmas Miracle" underwear bomber parents did.

It goes to show that those who are in the know, know how dangerous Muslims can be. So much so that they will turn in their own children. That says a lot to me and makes me rethink a lot of previously held beliefs.

I think the Muslim community is more terrified by their own than we are because they hold a deeper appreciation for just how dangerous their zealots are.

AndrewPrice said...

Dane, I read a lot about various places on the West Coast, including Portland, but Oregon is one of the few states I've never visited. So I will take your word on it, but it sounds about right.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Ed. I suspect it was very hard for the family. I couldn't imagine turning in a family member. But then, I couldn't imagine having a family member becoming a terrorist.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I had forgotten about that. What a crock to go after kids with a lemonade stand. So much for not being a police state huh?

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, I think the parent deserve a tremendous amount of credit here, they have literally saved thousands of lives.

In terms of "profiling," I think the religion is an aspect that you need to consider in terms of how the religion may affect their behaviors -- the same way they try to crawl into the heads of other criminals. But to start with "lets look for Muslims" is a huge mistake. What you do instead, is look for people who are engaging in behavior that is likely to signal terroristic activities. That could include attending a radical mosque or something like that, but it would not include simply putting anyone who is a Muslim in the "better check them out" category.

Think of it this way. When dealing with Christian cultists, you look for cult-like behaviors (which can include attendance at the cult compound) and you analyze their behaviors in terms of how they religious views may cause them to act. But you don't start by just by searching all Christians.

Also, I don't think rounding up the Japanese (or Germans or Italians as was done) was good for anyone or that it accomplished anything positive.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, There are millions of Muslims in the United States, yet there are only a handful of terrorists. I don't see what basis you use to attribute the actions of that handful of terrorists to the millions of Muslims who have never done anything criminal.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Andrew
I do have people whom I call friends who a Muslims, however They are friends only not bosom buddies, there is a difference.

Other commenters have pointed out some excellent views on profiling and who to profile.

I think you are bolstering your argument by putting words in our mouths. Why would we want to profile 2 billion people? The number of Muslims in America is estimated at somewhere between 6 and 12 million. The low figure is probably closer to the truth because only Islamic organizations inflate the numbers to match their need for representation as a victim group. A good profiler knows that about half of those are males, and about one-third of those are between the ages of 15 and 35. Then, they would cut that down to members of certain Muslim groups (Wahhabis, for instance). That is a long way from profiling all Muslims. Then they would cut it down to those living in areas where major damage could be done. Or airports.

I don’t think that all Muslims are terrorists, but sadly experience and deadly attacks on civilians worldwide have certainly pointed out that a lot of Muslims buy into the fundamentalist (not radical) view of Islam. A significant number. I don’t suspect all Muslims. That is ridiculous to even suggest. The profile just lets security agents know that among a large group of people who might want to harm Americans, Muslims who are active in their madras or fundamentalist Muslim student groups, or are members of mosques with known radical ties are more likely than the general population to commit mass murder.

You talked about my prejudices. That would mean I’m prejudging people based on no facts. In fact you are making assumptions about me without knowing me or having all the facts. I am a lot of things, but I am not a fool. I base my so called prejudice on what has occurred over and over since September 11, 2001. And you assume that I am stupid enough to think that profiling of any kind solves a problem. It is just one way of many to help identify potential terrorists.

We should not profile all Christians because of a few cultists. But Christianity does not base its core beliefs on the death or submission of all others. The Quran does. There are very few Muslim teachers who will allow Mohammed’s words to be interpreted any other way. So where is the comparison? Interpretation is not allowed in the Muslim religion. The Quran says what it says, and it is not allowed for anyone to interpret it. Except for a very small number, Muslims are fundamentalists by definition.

AndrewPrice said...

"Anon" -- It is not uncommon for parents to turn in their children when they believe their children are killers or kidnappers. In fact, many serial killers and serial rapists are turned in by relatives. It is commendable on the part of the parents.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Andrew
Other commentators have offered some good insights to profiling.

I think you are bolstering your argument by putting words in our mouths. Why would we want to profile 2 billion people? The number of Muslims in America is estimated at somewhere between 6 and 12 million. The low figure is probably closer to the truth because only Islamist organizations inflate the numbers to match their need for representation as a victim group.

A good profiler knows that about half of those are males, and about one-third of those are between the ages of 15 and 35. Then, they would cut that down to members of certain Muslim groups (Wahhabis, for instance). That is a long way from profiling all Muslims. Then they would cut it down to those living in areas where major damage could be done. Or airports.

I don’t really think that ALL Muslims are terrorists, but sad experience and deadly attacks on civilians worldwide have certainly pointed out that a lot of Muslims buy into the fundamentalist (not radical) view of Islam. That in it's self is a significant number. One should not suspect all Muslims. That is ridiculous to even suggest. The profile just lets security agents know that among a large group of people who might want to harm Americans, Muslims who are active in madrassas or fundamentalist Muslim student groups, or are members of mosques with known radical ties are much more likely than the general population to commit mass murder.

You talked about my prejudices. That would mean I’m prejudging people based on no facts. In fact you are making assumptions about me without knowing me or having all the facts. I am a lot of things, but I am not a fool. I base my so called prejudice on what has occurred over and over since September 11, 2001. And you assume that I am stupid enough to think that profiling of any kind solves a problem. It is just one way of many to help identify potential terrorists.

We should not profile all Christians because of a few cultists. But Christianity does not base its core beliefs on the death or submission of all others. The Quran does. There are very few Muslim teachers who will allow Mohammed’s words to be interpreted any other way. So where is the comparison? Interpretation is not allowed in the Muslim religion. The Quran says what it says, and it is not allowed for anyone to interpret it. Except for a very small number, Muslims are fundamentalists by definition.

Tehachapi Tom said...

I think you are bolstering your argument by putting words in our mouths. Why would we want to profile 2 billion people? The number of Muslims in America is estimated at somewhere between 6 and 12 million. The low figure is probably closer to the truth because only Islamist organizations inflate the numbers to match their need for representation as a victim group. A good profiler knows that about half of those are males, and about one-third of those are between the ages of 15 and 35. Then, they would cut that down to members of certain Muslim groups (Wahhabis, for instance). That is a long way from profiling all Muslims. Then they would cut it down to those living in areas where major damage could be done. Or airports.

I don’t think that all Muslims are terrorists, but sad experience and deadly attacks on civilians worldwide have certainly pointed out that a lot of Muslims buy into the fundamentalist (not radical) view of Islam. A significant number. Don’t suspect all Muslims. That is ridiculous to even suggest. The profile just lets security agents know that among a large group of people who might want to harm Americans, Muslims who are active in madrassas or fundamentalist Muslim student groups, or are members of mosques with known radical ties are more likely than the general population to commit mass murder.

You talked about my prejudices. That would mean I’m prejudging people based on no facts. In fact you are making assumptions about me without knowing me or having all the facts. I am a lot of things, but I am not a fool. I base my so called prejudice on what has occurred over and over since September 11, 2001. And you assume that I am stupid enough to think that profiling of any kind solves a problem. It is just one way of many to help identify potential terrorists.

We should not profile all Christians because of a few cultists. But Christianity does not base its core beliefs on the death or submission of all others. The Quran does. There are very few Muslim teachers who will allow Mohammed’s words to be interpreted any other way. So where is the comparison? Interpretation is not allowed in the Muslim religion. The Quran says what it says, and it is not allowed for anyone to interpret it. Except for a very small number, Muslims are fundamentalists by definition.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Andrew
Among my varied friend there are more than a few Muslims.
I do not include them in my group of close friends, but do not exclude them from being associated with in a social gathering. Would I trust them with my life over theirs? No that could not occur. Are there friends who I would trust to that extent? Absolutely but none are Muslim.

I think you are bolstering your argument by putting words in our mouths. Why would we want to profile 2 billion people? The number of Muslims in America is estimated at somewhere between 6 and 12 million. The low figure is probably closer to the truth because only Islamist organizations inflate the numbers to match their need for representation as a victim group. A good profiler knows that about half of those are males, and about one-third of those are between the ages of 15 and 35. Then, they would cut that down to members of certain Muslim groups (Wahhabis, for instance). That is a long way from profiling all Muslims. Then they would cut it down to those living in areas where major damage could be done. Or airports.

more to follow

Tehachapi Tom said...

continuation

I don’t think that all Muslims are terrorists, but sad experience and deadly attacks on civilians worldwide have certainly pointed out that a lot of Muslims buy into the fundamentalist (not radical) view of Islam. A significant number. Don’t suspect all Muslims. That is ridiculous to even suggest. The profile just lets security agents know that among a large group of people who might want to harm Americans, Muslims who are active in madrassas or fundamentalist Muslim student groups, or are members of mosques with known radical ties are more likely than the general population to commit mass murder.

You talked about my prejudices. That would mean I’m prejudging people based on no facts. In fact you are making assumptions about me without knowing me or having all the facts. I am a lot of things, but I am not a fool. I base my so called prejudice on what has occurred over and over since September 11, 2001. And you assume that I am stupid enough to think that profiling of any kind solves a problem. It is just one way of many to help identify potential terrorists.

We should not profile all Christians because of a few cultists. But Christianity does not base its core beliefs on the death or submission of all others. The Quran does. There are very few Muslim teachers who will allow Mohammed’s words to be interpreted any other way. So where is the comparison? Interpretation is not allowed in the Muslim religion. The Quran says what it says, and it is not allowed for anyone to interpret it. Except for a very small number, Muslims are fundamentalists by definition.

AndrewPrice said...

No Tom, I am basing my responses to you on your words, not on anything I put into your mouth.

"true there are bad people in all ethnic groups but there is only one where it is embraced by the practitioners as well as the leaders.

I know of no other group who raise there children and then are thrilled when they go out and blow them selves up in order to kill others. They have to be subhuman."


Those are your words.

You are taking the actions of handful of people and attributing them to billions of people the world over.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: I just don't have as much sympathy as you do for the "millions of Muslims who haven't done anything." That is the major problem for so-called moderate Muslims. They haven't done much of anything. I'm afraid you are minimizing the actual nature of Islam. That is why I said "religious/political." If I believed for a minute that Islam is merely being misinterpreted or distorted by radicals, I might agree with you.

I don't doubt that there are many Americanized Muslims who don't believe their faith requires mass murder of infidels. But they are acting against the very basic belief of Islam--that the entire world must submit or die. There are only a "handful of terrorists" who have committed overt acts or attempted to do so, but there is a huge well of believers who simply haven't been approached yet and haven't made it abundantly clear that the Muslim communities abhor the fundamentalist nature of Islam as it is being preached in a huge number of mosques nationwide.

I had no sympathy for the millions of Southern racists who sat idly by as their preachers told them that God requires lynching blacks, murdering interracial couples and burning black churches. And today I can't develop any sympathy for the "innocent Muslims" who sit idly by as their preachers propound only two courses for non-Mulsims. Submit or die. Those are not my words. They are the words of the Koran.

As I've said before, when I see mass outpourings of moderate Muslim action against the "radical few," I will relax a bit. But for now, I'll stick to the old dictum "silence implies consent."

As you said to Stan, look for cult-like behavior. That which is standard fare for mosque pulpits would be considered cult-like in any other major religion. I will agree that it's "only a handful of terrorists" who attend Muslim services and who take it seriously when you agree that Barack Obama attended the same church for twenty years and didn't really know what the pastor was preaching.

I don't condemn Islam. I condemn its inability to recognize that what was appropriate and necessary fourteen hundred years ago may not apply today. And I don't think I'm "blaming all Muslims" when I'm at least a little suspicious of anyone who chooses to believe that Islam doesn't need to change. And for those who do believe that, the Koran provides a remedy for apostasy.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Andrew
There was a modification in my last response that did reduce the count from billions to a significantly more manageable number.

I could not count the heads in the videos of cheering and celebrating Muslims in most of the Muslim countries following 9/11. I'll wager the head count would exceed the modification number of potential Muslim suspects in America based upon the formula out lined.

I would really like to see a kinder and more gentle world.
But until that day arrives there is really no other way to effectively address the problem.

The quotes from my previous response is still valid.

If we were to only profile Muslims we would be toast. If we only profile people who act strange we will be toast again. There are people who have made their life's work creating security for others and they have created formulas for profiling. I feel we should be employing some of those methods instead of feeling grandma up as a prerequisite to getting on an airplane.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I understand your point, but I do think you both overestimate the number of Muslims involved in terrorism and underestimate the number of Muslims who condemn terrorism and who are trying to fight the terrorists. Keep in mind that we've only seen a couple of incidents in the US, the vast majority have been in places like Algeria, Egypt and Africa. And in each case, you have large numbers of Muslims fighting back and condemning the terror. There are groups setting up schools to fight the radicals. There are newspaper editors who have been killed for condemning terror. There is a large group of Imams who has put out fatahs stating that terrorism is against Islam. Etc. Even in the US, almost every Muslim group condemned each of the terrorist incidents. The perception to the contrary is largely fed by a media that seeks out the controversial ones as guests.

Have Muslims done enough? Not to my mind. And I can condemn them for not speaking out enough. But I can't take the next step and assume that they are supporters of terror or radical Islam or that they are anti-American.

I see this very much akin to the killing of that abortion doctor in Kansas. Most religious groups and anti-abortion groups condemned the killing. But some did so with a hint of "he got what he deserved" and a place like Big Hollywood was filled with people who were quite open about their view that the murder was justified. I can condemn them and the groups who gave hints of approval, but I would never have presumed to attribute those views to conservatives, anti-abortion advocates, or religions in general -- although, for political reasons, the left did their best to make that connection. I see the issue with Islam and terror being very similar.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: I think you've found more Muslims seriously condemning violence than I have. On the other hand, I think you are overly-generous about what comprises "mainstream" Islam. But I can agree with much of what you said in your comment. I just want to see more. Unlike you, I see some pushback occurring, but not nearly enough. I will agree that it's a small start, but it is a start.

Basically, I guess my view differs from yours in that I would prefer to err on the side of caution. To paraphrase Burke, "all that is necessary for the triumph of militant Islam is that good Muslims do nothing."

If there is a growing movement among American Muslims willing to condemn terrorist activities, I can only be very happy. But I still maintain that my study of Islam has taught me that there must be a true sea-change in the religion itself before we can let down our guard. Perhaps this is a beginning, but exegesis is not a big part of Islam yet. Let's hope you're right and that change can happen, in short order. And I'm always willing to change my mind when I see that the people of whom I'm suspicious change their minds. I like your optimistic view. I'm just not ready to embrace it until I see a lot more action and a lot less silence.

AndrewPrice said...

Tom, Reducing the number from billions to millions or even hundreds of thousands does nothing. The FBI is not the KGB, they don't have the resources to look at hundreds of thousands of people. Plus, you are ignoring all of my points. I don't think it is productive to continue this discussion.

StanH said...

Oh contraire Andrew, these are the things that make Commentarama a great read, my only regret is I had to go to bed, in the midst of a donnybrook, I’m East Coast and have a business to run.

“Abhorrent” was my qualifier on WWII internment. My statement was based on direct comment from my uncles, cousins, father-in-law, and business associates who were in mortal combat with the Axis powers, they hated their enemy, and most did until the day they died. Lets remember that there were a good many Americans (a handful) of Japanese, German, and Italian descent that returned to their homeland to fight against the Allies, the same can be said about Americans today, of Muslim descent.

My point is, if you draw a correlation between attitudes of 70+ years ago, and today, we’re whistleling by the graveyard. Unable to indentify our enemy, for fear of being labeled intolerant, or heaven forbid, racist. In the nearly fifteen hundred years, of the existence of the Religion of Peace, make no mistake, their intention for a worldwide caliphate are deadly serious, look too Europe today.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, LOL! A real donnybrook! ;-)

I don't disagree with you, but it's a mistake to target Muslims as a group.

I see two distinct problems here. On the one side you have people (largely leftists and elitists) who are pretending like Islam is perfectly fine and that we shouldn't mention its name or point out its flaws. That prevents us from finding genuine solutions. Indeed, there are serious questions about the compatibility of Islam with Western political/social thinking that need to be addressed if we are to solve this problem -- not to mention the problems within Islam (Islam is essentially in the middle of a three-way civil war).

So ignoring the role of Islam in this is abject stupidity that will continue to get people killed.

BUT, it is equally foolish treat all Muslims as suspects. The people advocating this approach are just as guilty as the left about standing in the way of solutions because you can't stop terrorism by killing all the terrorist. No one throughout history has ever been able to achieve that. And anyone who tells you that it can be done is truly an idiot. Moreover, the more you treat people like criminals, the more you will radicalize people who wouldn't otherwise have been radical.

The only real approach is an honest assessment of what the problem is and then you target the problems and the trouble makers. And like it or not, that will require the help of moderate Muslims. They are the only ones who can change the nature of Islam and who can root out the terrorists in their midsts.

Post a Comment