Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Quotes, Quips and Questions
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, July 01, 2006

Conservative columnist James Pinkerton in reaction to Ellen Ratner's applauding the Supreme Court ruling, advocating significantly expanded due process for the detainees at Gitmo on Fox and Friends.
"It's not like we have access to evidence. What are we going to do - go to Afghanistan and find witnesses and stuff and find out if they're guilty or not?"

[...]

"It was probably a mistake to ever bring them out of Afghanistan and Iraq to begin with, to take them to US soil . . . so that people like Ellen can get their hooks in them. I think we're having a test. Can we win a war with lawyers as the key force on the American side?"
My guess is, under the heading of 'two can play this game', the administration won't make that 'mistake' again.

Divider

Speaking of Hamden Cassandra at Villainous Company passes along a different analysis. Most intriguing is the link she provides to an Army lawyer who concludes that the ruling:
...means that detainees receive the more protective due process rights that the UCMJ provides [our military -ed.]. Where the Court is unwilling to entertain the notion that abiding by such procedures is impractical, it forces the military into providing essentially full due process rights to those that would not, but for the Court’s intransigence, be entitled to them.

Divider

Apparently Ohio has solved all of its other problems so it now feels compelled to go after an Amish farmer who has the temerity to give away raw milk. The Ohio Department of Agriculture is not amused:
"You can't just give milk away to someone other than yourself. It's a violation of the law," said LeeAnne Mizer, spokeswoman for the department.
Rule of law is important. Dumb laws, however, should be repealed. And this one fits that category quite nicely. It is simply the "war on drugs" writ small.

Divider

If you haven't read an ignorant rant in a while let me invite you to read this one. I highlighted it in a short post last night, but this one is not to be missed. It is entitled "Peckerwood Nation" and, unsurprisingly, found on the "Daily Kos", that "moderate" bastion of leftist thinking, or so some claim. It is literally stunning in its ignorance and at the same time amusing for its vituperative stereotyping. A true classic of the genre:
The Confederate battle flag became a revered symbol to the red staters.

This flag is flown by the descendents of the very cannon fodder mobilized on lies and racial hatred to fight a treasonous war against the legitimate government of their own country. Today it flies from suvs, trucks, cars, homes and statehouses in Dixie.
If ignorance were truly bliss, this fellow would be the happiest guy in the world.

Divider

Damning by faint praise? I'm not sure how to take this Madeline Albright quote:
"Americans are probably the most religious people in the world, aside from Iran," she said.
Heh ... oh, good.

Divider

Serbia's President Boris Tadic is not a happy man. Calling the sentence handed out by the U.N. war crimes tribunal in Amsterdam "scandalous" he said:
"People who steal at supermarkets are given two-year prison sentences."
Well yeah, unless they're looters in New Orleans. But then all the guy did in Serbia was allow his troops batter Serb prisoners with wooden planks, iron rods and baseball bats, and pull the teeth of some of them with rusty pliers leading to the death of 6. But you see he didn't do it. He just didn't stop it.

Obviously not at all as bad as Abu Ghraib or Gitmo. Thanks UN. Oh, and this war criminal was immediately released for "time served". Nice.

Divider

It appears that at least to some people whales and dolphins are more important than detecting enemy submarines:
“We’re asking the court to require the Navy to meet with us,” said Michael Jasny, a senior consultant with the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit group involved in the suit. “There are things that the Navy can do that could meet national security needs while protecting marine mammals.”
What the NRDC wants is stringent restrictions on the US Navy's use of sonar claiming its use leads to a number of strandings of ocean mammals a year. No word on whether they've approached any other navy about compliance with their request. Perhaps they're allergic to scornful belly laughs.

Divider

James Carville on Hillary Clinton and a possible run for the presidency:
For those who think that the politics of personal destruction might be rekindled against Hillary or her husband, we can only remind people how consistently that approach has backfired in the past. Bill Clinton would certainly be a huge asset if Hillary decided to run.
Possibly. But someone ought to remind Carville that Hillary isn't Bill nor does she have the same political magnetism Bill had. While Bill can be an asset, as far as I know, personality transplants still aren't possible and Hillary will still be Hillary.

Divider

Let the death threats begin. Former Austrailian Treasury Secretary John Stone on the problem with Muslims and the West:
We need to understand that the core of the Muslim problem - for the world, not merely for Australia - lies in the essence of Islam.

It is the problem of a culture that, for the past 500 years or so at least, has failed its adherents as its inward-looking theocracy has resulted in it falling further and further behind the West.

[...]

Until all that changes - and it can only be changed from within Islam, if indeed it can be changed at all - the Islamic culture will never reside in harmony with others.
I'm beginning to believe it really can't be changed at all. Read the rest of Stone's thoughts on the subject. They certainly wouldn't be categorized as "politically correct" I can promise you, but they do cut to the heart of the problem.

Divider

Billy Hollis passes along a quote that addresses the Net Neutrality, a subject which we've addressed frequently here at QandO. It comes from Christopher Wolf, co-chairman of Hands Off the Internet, a lobbying coalition of telecommunications companies:
“Wolf argued that if Web companies didn't pay for network upgrades, consumers would end up having to.”
As Billy says, "Apparently Wolf thinks that if the Web companies are forced to pay, then the money will drop out of the sky or something."

Heh ...
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
McQ writes:
I’m beginning to believe [Islam] really can’t be changed at all. Read the rest of Stone’s thoughts on the subject. They certainly wouldn’t be categorized as "politically correct" I can promise you, but they do cut to the heart of the problem.
No one is less "politically correct" about or knows better than Salman Rushdie what the dangers of Islamic theocrats are, well beyond their own borders and also when they reside in a Western nation. He has drifted from his Marxist moorings and now criticizes cultural relativism and those who reject universal individual rights.

Importantly, Rushdie knows and has experienced one of the many strains of Islam that are gentle, mystical and a danger to no one. But he also insists on being accurate regarding the real threat that some versions of Islam currently constitute. In an interview with Reason he tells it like it is, my emphasis:

Reason: You wrote an essay criticizing President Bush and other Western leaders for claiming after 9/11 that "this is not about Islam." In what way is this about Islam?

Rushdie: Well, you know, that was said for good reasons. It was said to minimize the backlash against Muslims. But just in terms of actual fact, it is absurd. It is not about football.

The fact that it is about a particular idea of Islam that many Muslims would reject does not mean it is not about Islam. The Christian Coalition is still about Christianity, even if it’s an idea of Christianity that many Christians might not go along with.

Reason: What they mean is that it is not about Islam properly understood. That it is about certain extreme followers of Islam who might not be interpreting the religion correctly.

Rushdie: Yes, but Wahhabi Islam is becoming very powerful these days. To say that it is not about Islam is to not take the world as it really is.

Reason: They are trying to make sure that Islam does not become synonymous with terrorism in the public mind.

Rushdie: Of course, there is nothing intrinsic linking any religion with any act of violence. The crusades don’t prove that Christianity was violent. The Inquisition doesn’t prove that Christianity tortures people. But that Christianity did torture people. This Islam did carry out this attack.

I think there is a desire, for virtuous reasons, to make this disassociation. You can respect those reasons, but there is a problem of truth. It reminds me a little bit of what Western socialists used to say during the worst excesses of the Soviet Union. They would say that that’s not really socialism. There is a real socialism that is about liberty, social justice, and so on, but that tyrannical regime over there which was actually existing socialism is not really Marxism. The problem was that that’s what there was. When that fell, in a way that whole intellectual construct of socialism fell with it. It became very difficult to ignore all these people coming out of the Soviet Union who detested the term socialism, because to them it meant tyranny. I think there is beginning to be that kind of disconnect in the discourse about Islam. There is an actually existing Islam which is not at all likeable.

If the Army of God or the Christian Reconstructionists were as pervasive and successfully implementing their theocratic notions of Christian justice as the Islamicists are succesful with their notions, it would be apt to be focusing on and railing against Xianity. But until these groups reach a much larger mass than they currently do, and given the critical mass of Islamic terrorism afflicting Rushdie and the Western world at large, it is prudent and, indeed, required to be vigilant about what Muslims enter our countries, and what they preach at their mosques when they get here.

The West needs to stand up for itself, and refuse to let fear, much less misguided notions of tolerance, cause to become forfeit its Enlightenment values and commitment to liberty, including free speech.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
McQ writes:
It is entitled "Peckerwood Nation" and, unsurprisingly, found on the "Daily Kos", that "moderate" bastion of leftist thinking, or so some claim.
Just reading through the first 10% or so of the comments responding to that Kos diarist and his diatribe, one finds a whole lot of repudiation:
am I the enemy now? I’m a white Southern male. Is this where you’re going? Choose your weapons, friend.
———-

I just get so tired of people bashing the entire South for things that they percieve about it that are not applicable to the vast majority of people in it. These kinds of diaries pop up on a regular basis around here and I do not find them productive in the least.
——

Wild fact free hate filled invectives to the fore! Ho! Raise the banners of stupidity, bigotry, and ignorance high. To the foe! Let us slay them with our sweeping generalizations and baseless sterotypes!

This worse than the tripe Anne Coulter serves up. Good heavens.

——

I am from Mississippi, and this is the most offensive thing I have ever read on Dailykos.

————-

the questions hovering in my mind as I read your rant are

1 - where do you live now?

2 - where did you grow up?

3 - I really hope that some of the southerners I know don’t see this diatribe. They’re always telling me that southerners have to put up with stereotypical nonsense and in specific cases, I’ve tried to make the point that they were being overly sensitive about something that was said. In this case, though, they’d be 100% right.

I have to admit that I expected to see some specific statistics or something that would back up your premise. Instead we got a page full of generalizations with no real supporting evidence and a lot of rage. Not the best way of persuading anyone of the validity of your statements.


 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Just reading through the first 10% or so of the comments responding to that Kos diarist and his diatribe, one finds a whole lot of repudiation:
Well that’s wonderful, Mona, but this isn’t about the commenters. If the same thing showed up here, it wouldn’t be about the commenters here either.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Yeah but McQ, come on, that guy is a diarist. Nearly anybody can start a diary at Kos. You say:
If the same thing showed up here, it wouldn’t be about the commenters here either.
You guys don’t have diarists — the three of you control what goes up in your respective names.

It just doesn’t seem fair, based on the open-ended nature of the diary set-up, and the fact that that guy especially got his head handed to him by a bunch of Kos commenters, to take a sarcastic swipe at Kos — "moderate" bastion of leftist thinking — based on that rancid diarist. It appears he is representative of no one but himself.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Nearly anybody can start a diary at Kos.
Really? In that case, what do you have to do to not be able to start a diary at Kos?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
one finds a whole lot of repudiation:
Sure but would you care to give a break out of Criticism v. Agreement Mona? IS it running 4:3, 1:: or 1 criticism: to 5 agreement?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
It just doesn’t seem fair, based on the open-ended nature of the diary set-up, and the fact that that guy especially got his head handed to him by a bunch of Kos commenters, to take a sarcastic swipe at Kos — "moderate" bastion of leftist thinking — based on that rancid diarist. It appears he is representative of no one but himself.
Fair? The guy obviously felt perfectly comfortable with the venue and equally comfortable with his subject.

He’s not the only one. I loved this title: "No immediate plans for internment of Iranian-Americans" about CA monitoring political protests. Read the entry. That’s fair, right?

Or this one: "Today’s Face of Homophobia: Arkansas’ Huckabee" with this lovely quote:
How can any sane man who has the ability and wit to make it into a governor’s mansion be so profoundly stupid and bigoted? Oh, right, the Bush brothers.
Or this beauty:
With a heart full of hate and head crippled by stupidity, Huckabee actually said: "I’m very disappointed that the court seems more interested in what’s good for gay couples than what’s good for children needing foster care."
Couldn’t be an honest difference of opinion about what constitutes a good home for children, can it? Has to be stupidity, homophobia and bigotry.

That’s fair, right? And you won’t find many comments at those entries dissenting.

And those are the result of a very cursory check.

But they’re all a part of what is "Kos", and frankly they don’t project a "moderate" image at all to me.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Monas "false flag" recruitment crusade continues...
It just doesn’t seem fair, based on the open-ended nature of the diary set-up, and the fact that that guy especially got his head handed to him by a bunch of Kos commenters, to take a sarcastic swipe at Kos — "moderate" bastion of leftist thinking — based on that rancid diarist. It appears he is representative of no one but himself
Wow....Kos as victim? If Kos is uncomfortable with what goes on the web site in his name, there’s a way for him to deal with it, right? Or does Kos not control the website?

Just asking...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
And another point:
It just doesn’t seem fair ... to take a sarcastic swipe at Kos — "moderate" bastion of leftist thinking — based on that rancid diarist.
I didn’t take a sarcastic swipe at Kos. I specifically said "the Daily Kos" which is the site, not the man. And I stand by that.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I didn’t take a sarcastic swipe at Kos. I specifically said "the Daily Kos" which is the site, not the man. And I stand by that.
Fair enough, but almost any site that allows diaries and doesn’t moderate — I’m told Kos allows just about anything as long as it doesn’t preach a party other than the Democratic one, that is, no selling the Green Party & etc. at his site — is going to be a source of some extreme and offensive posts. But this idea that they are all crazy, far-leftists over there just isn’t true. I myself didn’t realize that until this past year because (a) I didn’t read Kos, and (b) I made the mistake of accepting at face value the characterizations of his beliefs, and those of his frontpagers, that I read at right-wing sites. That diary is not representative of what usually goes on there.

A few months ago I started reading Armando at Swords Crossed (when he was still publicly posting) and he sometimes linked back to what he was saying at Kos — he is hardly some radical leftist. He unabashedly endorses "American exceptionalism" and fought tooth and nail with leftists who accuse Harry Truman of genocide and monstrous crimes, for having used the Atomic bomb in Japan.

He’s just a liberal Democrat, not a radical or Marxist. Kos seems to be the same. (And yes, yes, I know about the "screw ’em" comment, don’t accept Kos’s explanation for it, and think he should apologize; but a lot of people posting daily for 4-5 years are going to make at least one comment they should have sliced their fingers off before putting up. Tim Cavanaugh did it once at Reason, and had to take it down, reader response was so negative.)

I don’t spend my time monitoring Redstate or Freeperville for examples of right-wing excess, but I’m sure I could find indefensible postings/diaries.

It simply seems to me that if the political polarization in this country — which is severe to the point of being crippling — is going to be at all healed, "wingnuts" and "moonbats" who are actually well within the mainstream of American political traditions need to civilly talk with each other. Demonizing the largest political web site, a Democratic one, doesn’t seem to me to set us on that path. Opposing George Bush doesn’t make one crazy, a defeatist, a radical, a traitor or anything else necessarily pejorative.

Supporting George Bush at this point is hard for me to fathom, but I also don’t think it is right to simply dismiss all such people as "cultists," fascists or whatever the mindless hyperbole might be.








 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Fair enough, but almost any site that allows diaries and doesn’t moderate — I’m told Kos allows just about anything as long as it doesn’t preach a party other than the Democratic one, that is, no selling the Green Party & etc. at his site — is going to be a source of some extreme and offensive posts.
OK ... but they still reflect the essense of the site, don’t they? What he allows is his call. What it reflects is a result of his call and that of the perceptions of those who read it.
I don’t spend my time monitoring Redstate or Freeperville for examples of right-wing excess, but I’m sure I could find indefensible postings/diaries.
Which doesn’t at all change the fact that I had no problem whatsoever finding plenty of examples on the Daily Kos ... examples which hardly reflect what any fairminded person would call "moderate" thinking.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Mona, regarding your first post in this comments section. The post regarding Rushdie. I was right there with you, nodding my head until almost the end.

"...it is prudent and, indeed, required to be vigilant about what Muslims enter our countries, and what they preach at their mosques when they get here."

I actually had to read that twice. As a general preacher of civil liberties and a staunch defender of constitutional rights, why on earth are you essentially suggesting racial (or religious) profiling?

How can you explain this position in light of the many, many comments you have made regarding the absolutes of civil liberty in America. Racial and/or religious profiling is a tactic which can probably be shown to be highly effective. Indeed, McQ has posted a few articles and comments on it. At airports you don’t as a rule want the TSA guards to be searching eighty year old women, six year old kids, disabled people, etc. At the same time, the professional jihadists (not the homegrown, tell everybody I know that I’m going to bomb the local post office type) are adjusting their tactics. They understand profiling and are actively working to find ways around it (notice the rise in recruitment of so-called "white" jihadists).

I’m sure many, many people here at QandO (including some who are part of the law enforcement profession) will post volumes of statistics and examples highlighting how great profiling is. I’m sure volumes can also be produced on the effectiveness of Agent Orange, too. Simply because a tactic is found to be effective, does not mean that it is the only workable tactic or even necessarily the best tactic. Profiling is an issue which I earnestly believe is going to produce backlash and long-term consequences. This violates everything we believe in regarding civil liberties.

Please tell me that I have mis-interpreted your post here, Mona.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
Omar I don’t understand YOU, on this point about seeing and observing what’s happening in Mosques. The US government infiltrated the CPUSA, the Klan, and the Nazi’s because they represented violent threats to the civil order? IF the biggest threat is MUSLIM zealotry in Mosques and centres around the US, explain to me why it’s wrong to "profile?" Dude, I know that not EVEYRY Muslim is the enemy, and so does the US Government, BUT about 95% of the major terrorism committed against this government has been perpetrated by MUSLIMS.

Oversimplification: Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS.

It makes NO sense to put FBI informants into my parish, when was the last time Opus Dei or the Knights of Columbus sawed someone’s head off or detonated a bomb in a mrket place that killed 66 people? But, members of a number of mosques HAVE participated in these things or planned terrorist acts. In short, you want to look at ALL churches, even though we KNOW that only mosques are producing terrorists in the US?

It’s not profiling when the FBI looks at ITALIANS invovled in Organized Crime, traditionally Italians and immigrants on the East Coast ran gangs... No you aren’t going to find a lot of Mafiosi in Cambridge MASS., better to look at Lowell MA. You look where the bad guys are... right now they’re in Mosques and Islamic Societies in the US and probably only in a minority and an identifiable minority at that.

So yeah, I’m with Mona...
it is prudent and, indeed, required to be vigilant about what Muslims enter our countries, and what they preach at their mosques when they get here. It doesn’t make us "HATERS" it says we see a problem with SOME Muslims, and for whatever reasons Muslims aren’t callling the FBI with tips about them...and that’s probably because most Muslims don’t see there conspiracy, not because they side with the proto-terrorists, but absent Muslims spying on Muslims, I’m thinking it prudent to examine the members and leadership of a number of Mosques in this country.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Mona,

I don’t know about McQ, but my issue is that you have spent a huge amount of time ripping to shreds actual reasonable people such as Glen Reynolds along with others on the right to show why you decided to hang out with those such as Kos. That is hypocritical. If you want to argue that you want to support his movement because you want to defeat Bush, go ahead, just don’t ask us to swallow all this moderate versus extreme, civil vs. offensive swill.
I don’t spend my time monitoring Redstate or Freeperville for examples of right-wing excess, but I’m sure I could find indefensible postings/diaries.
Funny, I don’t hang out at Free Republic for exactly the reason I don’t spend too much time in Kos land. However, if I had to make the call the Daily Kos is worse. As for Red State, not my politics for the most part, but there is no comparison.
A few months ago I started reading Armando at Swords Crossed (when he was still publicly posting) and he sometimes linked back to what he was saying at Kos — he is hardly some radical leftist.
Armando? You smear all kinds of libertarians and other such as Reynolds and you bring up Armando? Radical leftist or liberal democrat he is offensive. Armando? Jeesh!
Opposing George Bush doesn’t make one crazy, a defeatist, a radical, a traitor or anything else necessarily pejorative.
Where in the hell you could get the idea QandO would think otherwise, or Glen Reynolds, me, etc. is beyond me. However, in the case of Armando and Kos, voting for Bush, especially being an actual Republican or conservative rather than a lesser of two evils supporter makes one crazy, a radical, a traitor, selfish, uncaring, homophobic, sexist and racist as well as a number of other things, but space hardly permits. Heck such people practically rub their hands together with glee at the thought of killing in the service of corporate interests which is why we went to war. Now I realize being called selfish and racist or not caring about the deaths of others has lost its bite due to its repetition, heck maybe you think it is true, but I might put it in the offensive category. Much more offensive than anything Reynolds, that extremist, has printed. Of course Glen is passive aggressive because he links to people with views you find offensive. Whereas Kos has merely designed an entire community for extremists to vent.
I’m told Kos allows just about anything as long as it doesn’t preach a party other than the Democratic one, that is, no selling the Green Party & etc. at his site
That is a defense? If I formed a web community and allowed all kinds of right wing nut cases in to rant and rave while keeping Jon Henke and Brendan Nyhan out because they weren’t Republican you would be on board with that? David Duke is okay, but Russ Feingold is verboten! I would get a free pass? Given the vicious smears you have produced against right wing sites I suggest you are full of it.

As I have said before criticize the right all you want, just don’t ask me to swallow that line of BS.
Supporting George Bush at this point is hard for me to fathom, but I also don’t think it is right to simply dismiss all such people as "cultists," fascists or whatever the mindless hyperbole might be.
Yes, but Kos and Armando do just that.
It simply seems to me that if the political polarization in this country — which is severe to the point of being crippling — is going to be at all healed, "wingnuts" and "moonbats" who are actually well within the mainstream of American political traditions need to civilly talk with each other. Demonizing the largest political web site, a Democratic one, doesn’t seem to me to set us on that path.
Given the examples we have seen in just this thread that is laughable, especially given your penchant for demonizing those whose rhetoric is far less objectionable. I have no problem demonizing hate filled sites of the right or left, and the Daily Kos is filled with hateful rhetoric, including Kos himself. I might also add you have let a bit seep out yourself. Go ahead and attack Coulter, just don’t expect us to take seriously the pleas for civility from someone who defends a site with as much vitriol as The Daily Kos. I applaud the call for civility, I suggest you talk to Kos.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Joe, don’t you know Opus Dei is in a race against time, trying to kill innocent archaeologists in their search for the truth concerning Mary Magdalene. Haven’t you seen the movie? Snark.

Sorry, I couldn’t resist that one. Actually, I have no problems with religious organizations [I belong to a few myself], although as a rule I’m distrustful of any society (religious or otherwise) that refuses to reveal its membership rolls to the public (Opus Dei, the Freemasons, etc.).

My point wasn’t really that profiling doesn’t work. It’s that profiling is not necessarily the best tactic. You pointed out a much more effective tactic, which is infiltration of known terrorist groups. The US government has so far been less than effective at this (I blame the Central (Lack) of Intelligence Agency [yes I stole that one right out of Meet the Fokkers, I’m sure Hoffman’s lawyers will be calling me any second]). Another great tactic has been investigation of the financial records of suspected terror organizations. CAIR, for example, was recently (within the past year) in court over a suit they filed against the gentleman who runs the anti-cair.com website. When the anti-cair guy filed a countersuit and demanded that CAIR produce their financials, they dropped the suit and retreated from their attacks on him. Wonder if they were hiding something?

These are the kinds of things that will advance the cause of the good guys in the war on terror. Having government agents snooping around Mosques, or the houses of worship of any religion strikes me as thoroughly un-American. Profiling as a whole (be it Arabs, Italians, Mormons, Amish, whomever) is just wrong. We are singling out entire ethinc groups because some of them belong to filthy little groups of violent revolutionaries. And how exactly are we doing the profiling? Skin color, age, shifty eyes? If this is ok to do to Muslims, why weren’t Irish Catholics stopped and frisked at airports during the heyday of the IRA? That’s it, everybody with red hair, pale skin, and freckles, up against the wall and spread ’em. Never know, might be an IRA terrorist.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
The Poet Omar - If this is ok to do to Muslims, why weren’t Irish Catholics stopped and frisked at airports during the heyday of the IRA? That’s it, everybody with red hair, pale skin, and freckles, up against the wall and spread ’em. Never know, might be an IRA terrorist.

Except the Irish were profiled. MI-5 tracked Irish Catholics movements and subjected them to extra scutiny in the UK, and MI-6 did overseas, obtaining cooperation from local intelligence agencies in nations like France, Canada, and yes, the USA to watch Irishers closely. Plenty were profiled, singled out, and questioned closely as they went through airports. The IRA was also infiltrated - because unlike the Islamoids, it was a nationalist/communist movement along ethnic lines - not a religious one with kin ties crucial in cell setups. The IRA gunman was not one step away from being a Priest. Making the Irish gunman potentially amenable to bribery or other political options to help turn him. The Muslim, even the famous "moderate Muslim" is almost certain, on the other hand, that betraying a Jihadi following the dictates of the Holy Qu’ran, even in a misguided way, will earn them a guaranteed spot in Hell.
The Poet Omar - It’s that profiling is not necessarily the best tactic. You pointed out a much more effective tactic, which is infiltration of known terrorist groups.


It would only be effective if it works, and then only effective if the faux-Islamoid was able to penetrate the highest ranks of Al Qaeda or 80 similar Muslim terrorist organizations currently operating independent of Al Qaeda. That we would have to find an infiltrator that can prove he is of a certain tribe, that his devoutness is proven by evidence to years of study of the Holy Qu’ran and attendent teachings, that the instant inquiries going out to associates iin the land he comes from testifying he is a good Muslim willing to kill infidel men, women, and children - makes infiltration extremely difficult.

No good Muslim would betray a Jihadi. Jihad is Islam’s highest calling and the only thing in Muslim theology that guarantees Paradise will be reached. It is like asking a believing Catholic to visit the Vatican and desecrate graves of past Popes. Guaranteed way to hell. That no Muslim in Pakistan, a country of 140 million is willing to betray bin Laden despite a bribe of 30 million for his betrayal for the past 5 years ought to inform the secular Americans that think that money and superagents can defeat an ancient, powerful Faith of the futility of that approach.

Since infiltration of the dozens and dozens of Islamoid terror groups hasn’t been done by us, or the Euros, and those that have infiltrated from Arab nations spy agencies are reluctant to snitch to infidels that they are acting against Holy Jihad, as that likely will get the spy and whoever sent them killed by their own countrymen if found out. Even the Indians, with 50 years of trying, have failed to get people into Kashmiri Jihad groups.

Even if infiltrated, an almost impossible obstacle, the Islamoids maintain a cell structure. Only 13 people in Al Qaeda knew of the 9/11 Plot. Not even the 15 Saudis brought in as muscle to make infidel passemgers submit knew that it was a martyrdom operation. They thought it was a conventional hijacking. So even if we find an apostate and send him into one of the 80 Jihad groups, chances are he will know nothing about the top secret projects underway that are compartmentalized in only a few "need to know" people, and certainly will know nothing about the activities of the other 79 groups trying to kill infidels.
These are the kinds of things that will advance the cause of the good guys in the war on terror. Having government agents snooping around Mosques, or the houses of worship of any religion strikes me as thoroughly un-American. Profiling as a whole (be it Arabs, Italians, Mormons, Amish, whomever) is just wrong.
You assume people on Jihad care about our values. Or, given it takes a village to raise a good little future infidel killing Jigadi, that such "moderates" will embrace the values of the West and reject their own peoples deeply held Faith and Culture.

Bush has basically said we "will borrow as much money as it takes" from China and Saudi Arabia "keep us all safe" and avoid profiling, being sweet on "Islamist privacy", and being "nation-building good guys". His opposition is mainly about how mean he is still is on the "rights" of the enemy, and how stingly he is with granting the "Lands of the Religion of Peace" more hundreds of billions in IOU’d treasure our kids will pay off.

The libertarian sillyness will end as more American blood is shed, or our Asian and Saudi creditors eventually cut us off from the "Security+ Premium Plan" we think we can afford forever.
 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
Interesting. "Libertarian silliness." C. Ford old boy, I suspect (though cannot prove) that you must be of the Buchananite wing of the Republican party. Casual disregard of civil liberties (known to some obviously exceptionally silly people as "freedom") harkens back to the bad old days of rounding up Japanese Americans and sticking them in detention camps, because we all know that such a feudal, clan based society would make infiltration impossible. I mean a truly devoted Japanese circa 1941 would never betray his fellows. We’d have to find a spy who was accepted in the Japanese community, was known to all and sundry to be a good Shinto believer, who, of course, accepted the godhood of the emperor and the natural superiority of Asians (especially Japanese) and then hope that he would risk his life and his afterlife to betray his fellows to the Allies. Hmm...

As to the Irish being profiled, well as you pointed out much of that profiling happened outside of the US. Once off the ranch, you no longer enjoy the protections of the Constitution. As for profiling in the US, if it really did happen I suspect that so minor an Irish Catholic personality as Ted Kennedy would have been up in arms about it. I don’t seem to remember the Irish profiling scandal of the late 70’s and early 80’s. My memory isn’t very good though, as I am constantly reminded.

Your grasp of Islamic theology leaves much to be desired. Yes, struggle is at the heart of Islam. No doubting that. But read a little further and you’ll see that struggle (jihad) begins within oneself. After one has reached the status of Ihsaan (excellence), then by all means begin the struggle to change the world (which begins with speech, then deeds, then, if all else fails, the sword). The jihadists are so far from Ihsaan as to make them not even Muslim anymore. They are the Islamic equivalent of Catholics who go to Mass on Christmas and Easter only, never make confession, and think its neat that they get a snack in the middle of mass.

I didn’t really grasp the meaning of your rant against Bush other than that you object to Islamism (hats off to you, so do I), don’t like giving billions of dollars in foreign aid to countries that don’t like us (again, right there with you), don’t believe in privacy (obviously one of those silly libertarian ideas), and how you just don’t like the man in general (again, we’re on common ground here).

As for the remark about moderate Muslims not being willing to betray jihadists, well that must mean that many, many Muslims worldwide will be enjoying a future in a very warm place. Strange how even imams (who you would think would understand how betraying jihadists would lead straight to h e double hockey sticks) are willing to issue fatwas and other condemnations against jihadists. That is, assuming the imams are wrong about the teachings of Islam and C. Ford is right. Hmm... wonder who my money is on.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
"— I’m told Kos allows just about anything as long as it doesn’t preach a party other than the Democratic one"
"...need to civilly talk with each other. Demonizing the largest political web site, a Democratic one, doesn’t seem to me to set us on that path"

Am I the only one that sees a bit of humor in these two passages?

," why on earth are you essentially suggesting racial (or religious) profiling?"

For the same reason it was prudent to subject Japanese, German, and Italian citizens to a little bit more scrutiny during WWII.
———————————-
"You pointed out a much more effective tactic, which is infiltration of known terrorist groups."

." Having government agents snooping around Mosques, or the houses of worship of any religion strikes me as thoroughly un-American. Profiling as a whole (be it Arabs, Italians, Mormons, Amish, whomever) is just wrong. We are singling out entire ethinc groups because some of them belong to filthy little groups of violent revolutionaries."

How would you go about trying to infiltrate Islamic terrorist groups without "snooping around Mosques"? And why on earth would we look in Amish communities for Islamic terrorists? If you want to go fishing for swordfish, you do not go to Lake Michigan.


"If this is ok to do to Muslims, why weren’t Irish Catholics stopped and frisked at airports during the heyday of the IRA?"

Could it possibly be that Irish Catholics were not trying to hijack airplanes?
————————————————————————-
" we all know that such a feudal, clan based society would make infiltration impossible"

Certainly by caucasion or negro agents.

). "The jihadists are so far from Ihsaan as to make them not even Muslim anymore"

That may be your opinion, but I doubt that they agree. Or care.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I’m with Omar, agree with Mona right up to the inference that profiling Muslims is good.

There is no good cause to be harrassing all Muslims. It is unfair and largely pointless. Rushdie clearly expressed the problem as Wahhabist Islam. This is a religion practiced by one small miserable, pathetic, backward country. A counry whose two contributions to the world are this poisonous religion and a whole bunch of oil.

No need to infringe the freedoms of American Muslims. This war could be won within weeks. Destroy Saudi Arabia, smash this evil regime. They are armed with two camels and a stick.


NB - this will not happen because oil would rise over $200 per barrel.

 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
Hello timactual! I haven’t seen you in awhile. I was starting to get worried. And thanks to unaha-closp for making a very good point. The biggest source of Salafism is Saudi Arabia and until that problem is dealt with, expect worldwide terror to continue.

Yes, I certainly see the irony in the statement about Kos. Which is why I never bother with him or his vulgar site.

German and Italian Americans may indeed have been subject to additional scrutiny during the Second World War. Japanese Americans were outright herded into detention centers. Are you suggesting this to be an effective tactic for Muslims? And how exactly do you tell a Muslim from any other person on the street? Sure round up every guy in a turban (half of them will be Sikhs). Round up every woman in a burqa (probably 90% will be Muslim). How about the rest? Japanese, as a rule, are easily distinguished from Latinos, Caucasians, Africans, etc. They were thus relatively easily herded together (although I highly suspect that some Chinese and Koreans were also caught in the net). Can you tell a Lebanese Maronite Christian from a Jordanian Muslim? How about a Turkism Muslim from say a Greek Orthodox Christian? Not every jihadist is a bozo running around with a Quaran in one hand and a schematic of the local nuclear power plant in the other. They have deep cover people, too.

Infiltrating Islamic groups is easy. Go to your local Musliam Student Association meetings or any CAIR office. Both are hotbeds of Salafism. You need not spned your time spying on the Friday evening services (which as a rule, are mostly attended by men, how are you going to keep track of female jihadists?). The Amish example was simply an indication of how ridiculous this whole idea is. The idea of spying on legitimate houses of worship and/or their members is revolting. Not only does it open the door to more abuse of power by government, but IMHO it backs over the boundary of separation of church and state, runs over it, then does figure 8’s over it. You don’t want religious leaders injecting religion into politics. Fine. But don’t inject politics into religion.

No, the IRA may not have targeted American airplanes. But they were certainly friendly with those who did. Also, I seem to remember them enjoying bombing public buildings and assasinating public figures (even those who were only symbolic, such as Lord Louis Mountbatten). The IRA was very much linked and embedded within the local communities in Dublin, Ulster, and, I daresay, in Boston. Yet profiling and harassment did not occur. And I’m glad that it didn’t. It would have been needlessly inflammatory and would have stunk of the worst of 19th century thinking, "No Irish allowed."

My comments on Japanese society circa 1941 (while true) were meant as a sarcastic rebuttal to C.Ford’ idea that Islamic society cannot be infiltrated because of the reasons he posted. I simply posted another similar society as an example of one that most assuredly was infiltrated.

The status of jihadists as essentially apostates has been confirmed not only by little ol me, but also by Muslim leaders worldwide. Many have issued fatwas against the jihadists. And I will go out on a limb and suggest that many of the world’s 1 billion + Muslims consider jihadists to be outcastes, to borrow a Hindu concept.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
"Rushdie clearly expressed the problem as Wahhabist Islam. This is a religion practiced by one small miserable, pathetic, backward country."

How do you differentiate Wahhabist from other Muslims? do they wear signs?

"The biggest source of Salafism is Saudi Arabia and until that problem is dealt with, expect worldwide terror to continue"

Assuming that Saudi Arabia started the problem, it now has a life of its own. When the state of Israel disappeared, the Jewish religion continued, and the same holds for worldwide Wahhabi terrorism.

"Are you suggesting this to be an effective tactic for Muslims?"

Purely for the sake of argumentation, yes it would be effective. Practical or moral? No.

"But they were certainly friendly with those who did..."

True, but irrelevant.

"I simply posted another similar society as an example of one that most assuredly was infiltrated."

"Infiltrating Islamic groups is easy."

Probably, but again, irrelevant. Islamic TERRORIST groups are the target, a much more difficult target.

Possibly, but not by caucasians or negros, so the pool of possible infiltrators was considerably smaller and the process that much more difficult.

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Timactual there we go again comparing apples and oranges. The survival of the diaspora after the destruction of Israel by Rome has absolutely nothing to do with state financed Salafi Muslim groups. Remove Saudi as a major player (and all of the money, too), close down the Salafi madrasses and where will the Salafis be? In the history books. They will be remembered only as a deviant sect of bloodthirsty fundamentalists.

Salafism has no deep roots. It exists only because of massive financial aid given by states that support terror such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, etc. Without constant support, most Salafis become just like your cranky old uncle who complains that people aren’t as religious as they used to be. The few real die-hard types will self-annihilate within a few years of the closing down of the support that Salafism gets. No leadership + no money = no jihadists.

Salafis are generally easy to spot. They don’t usually make a secret of their beliefs. Terror groups recruit, as a rule, from larger Islamic organizations that are friendly to their cause. Hence infiltration is easy. There is no predominant ethnic group within Islam. Any white, black, Asian, Latino, Scandinavian, Eskimo, etc. can become Muslim without raising any eyebrows. If all Muslims were Arabs, then it would be harder to infiltrate Muslim groups. This is not the case and the pool of potential infiltrators is pretty much members of every ethnic group on the planet.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
How do you differentiate Wahhabist from other Muslims? do they wear signs?

Don’t need to. All you need to do is identify Wahhabism as the enemy and then go looking for the most effective way to hurt it. Taking away the Saudi millions in state support they get is the most effective way of hurting them.

Assuming that Saudi Arabia started the problem, it now has a life of its own. When the state of Israel disappeared, the Jewish religion continued, and the same holds for worldwide Wahhabi terrorism.

Yes exactly, congratulations! At the risk of sounding slightly callous let me explain.

Prior to its destruction Israel had converted Kazakhs to Judaism, spreading the religion into central Asia. Israel was a kingdom that was strong, it’s people rebelled against and withstood the might of Rome for 5 years. But then it was gone. For the next 2000 years Jews lived at the mercy of every other land, they were killed in pogroms by English nobility, Polack peasents and Nazi Germans, so weak they could not defend themselves. The Kazakhs are not Jewish now. The reimergence of Israel has stopped the pogroms and Jews are strong again.

What happened to the Jews I would love to see happen to the Wahhabists. Them surviving 2000 years unlikely, I’d give them 50.
 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
Madeline Albright’s quote manages to be ignorant about America, Iran, and a number of other countries simultaneously.
 
Written By: Eric J
URL: http://flig.us

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider