Thursday, August 10, 2006
Islamist treason on the home front?
One of the largest arab communities in the U.S. is Dearborn, Michigan, which, as RedState points out, some journalists have taken to calling "Dearbornistan." Local Michiganders have often wondered if the homogenous arab population there would make it a logical hiding place for foreign terrorists in the U.S. Now comes news that some American-born Muslims, raised in Dearborn, have been arrested in Ohio on terrorism-related charges.
The article states,
Whether the cell phones were being sold to ship the profits to our enemies, or even more deviously, were being stockpiled for use in a terrorist operation, these two are enemies of America and Americans. They are actively supporting an enemy that is killing our troops abroad, and may be involved with groups that wish to kill civilians here at home. That's treason in my book, and if I remember correctly, that entitles them to--where is it here--(flipping of pages)--ah, yes, here it is: the death penalty.
Of course, the America-hating press and the Islamist sympathizers can be counted on for the ususal inanity:
I suppose I should feel better knowing that budding young terrorists learned the difference between a curveball and a slider. Somehow, I don't.
The lawyers take the cake though:
How to respond, how to respond. How 'bout this one: F*** you Rolf!
Yeah, I know, you're a lawyer and you've got a job to do protecting your clients. But I suspect you're still an American, Rolfy. Love your country enough to be an ethical attorney, and to not slander it in the defense of your clients. Don't equate terror-interdiction with institutionalized racism. Don't insult people who think the phrase "All-American" means something more than, "blows up women and children with gusto." If you can't find an argument to defend your client that doesn't involve using the language of deception and sedition, then maybe, just maybe, your clients deserve to swing.
But enough of the little picture, lets place this arrest (and the recent story about the missing Egyptians) in context. This country has no business allowing Muslims in. Period. Not as citizens. Not as permanent aliens. Not as guest workers. Not for a freakin' vacation.
I'm sure there are lots of Muslims who are fine people. Here's hoping that most of the American citizens who are Muslims fit that description (and I personally know a few who do). But some substantive percentage of the global Muslim population are anything but fine. Some percentage of them self-identify as enemies of America. They support our downfall, both economically, socially, and militarily. Some of them are willing to engage in the fight themselves.
I don't know what that number is: 5%? 10%? 25%? I do know this: the number is a lot higher than the 0.1% that most liberals would like to have you believe. Let the celebrations in Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran on 9/11 assure you of that. But whatever the percentage is, we need to protect ourselves from this group. Pretending that it's racist to keep out a group, 5% of which seeks your destruction, is just a form of national suicide.
Note: While I broke my own language guidelines in this post, the dishonesty of the defendant's attorneys absolutely called for it. Insulting the same people who would have been these terrorists victims, by calling them racist, is beyond the pale. These types of race-baiters don't understand that we view law-enforcement officers as our friends and co-citizens. Not an oppressive force.
Update: Check out the comments, where ManBeast offers an interesting poll that deals with the percentages I offered above. The situation is more bleak than I thought.
The article states,
Each was charged Wednesday with money laundering in support of terrorism. Prosecutors added a second felony charge on Thursday of soliciting or providing support for acts of terrorism. The two also were charged with a misdemeanor count of falsification.
Abulhassan and Houssaiky admitted buying about 600 phones in recent months at stores in southeast Ohio, sheriff's Maj. John Winstanley said. They sold the phones to someone in Dearborn, Winstanley said.
They two also had airplane passenger lists and airport security information when they were stopped on a traffic violated on Tuesday...
...The laundering charge alleges the two laundered between $5,000 and $25,000, Vessels said.
Whether the cell phones were being sold to ship the profits to our enemies, or even more deviously, were being stockpiled for use in a terrorist operation, these two are enemies of America and Americans. They are actively supporting an enemy that is killing our troops abroad, and may be involved with groups that wish to kill civilians here at home. That's treason in my book, and if I remember correctly, that entitles them to--where is it here--(flipping of pages)--ah, yes, here it is: the death penalty.
Of course, the America-hating press and the Islamist sympathizers can be counted on for the ususal inanity:
Family members of both men came to court with newspaper clippings showing they played high school sports in Dearborn.
I suppose I should feel better knowing that budding young terrorists learned the difference between a curveball and a slider. Somehow, I don't.
The lawyers take the cake though:
Their attorneys, contending the men are being targeted because they are Arab-Americans, entered not guilty pleas for them on the misdemeanor counts. Judge Janet Dyar-Welch set a preliminary hearing on the felony counts for Tuesday.
"These are all-American kids that unfortunately, in this day and age since 9-11, have names that call them into question," said Rolf Baumgartel, attorney for Houssaiky.
How to respond, how to respond. How 'bout this one: F*** you Rolf!
Yeah, I know, you're a lawyer and you've got a job to do protecting your clients. But I suspect you're still an American, Rolfy. Love your country enough to be an ethical attorney, and to not slander it in the defense of your clients. Don't equate terror-interdiction with institutionalized racism. Don't insult people who think the phrase "All-American" means something more than, "blows up women and children with gusto." If you can't find an argument to defend your client that doesn't involve using the language of deception and sedition, then maybe, just maybe, your clients deserve to swing.
But enough of the little picture, lets place this arrest (and the recent story about the missing Egyptians) in context. This country has no business allowing Muslims in. Period. Not as citizens. Not as permanent aliens. Not as guest workers. Not for a freakin' vacation.
I'm sure there are lots of Muslims who are fine people. Here's hoping that most of the American citizens who are Muslims fit that description (and I personally know a few who do). But some substantive percentage of the global Muslim population are anything but fine. Some percentage of them self-identify as enemies of America. They support our downfall, both economically, socially, and militarily. Some of them are willing to engage in the fight themselves.
I don't know what that number is: 5%? 10%? 25%? I do know this: the number is a lot higher than the 0.1% that most liberals would like to have you believe. Let the celebrations in Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran on 9/11 assure you of that. But whatever the percentage is, we need to protect ourselves from this group. Pretending that it's racist to keep out a group, 5% of which seeks your destruction, is just a form of national suicide.
Note: While I broke my own language guidelines in this post, the dishonesty of the defendant's attorneys absolutely called for it. Insulting the same people who would have been these terrorists victims, by calling them racist, is beyond the pale. These types of race-baiters don't understand that we view law-enforcement officers as our friends and co-citizens. Not an oppressive force.
Update: Check out the comments, where ManBeast offers an interesting poll that deals with the percentages I offered above. The situation is more bleak than I thought.
Labels:
GWOT
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AddThis
Always sniffing for the truth
Contributors
Links
- Love and Lunchmeat
- Long Island Prepper
- Fredo's Mets Blog
- Continental Sausage
- Human Events
- Maker's Mark
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Newt Gingrich
- NRO
- Pro Ecclesia
- Ralfy's Whisky Reviews
- Red Albany
- Res Publica et Cetera
- Sour Mash Manifesto
- Straight Bourbon
- Taki Mag
- The American Conservative
- The American Spectator
- The Anchoress Online
- The Politico
- The Weekly Standard
- Wild Turkey Bourbon
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(167)
-
▼
August
(18)
- AMSOL "Controversy" Revisited
- Bright and Uncommenty
- 2008 GOP update
- Consumption Tax
- Warms the curmudgeonly heart
- Be Like Mike Pat
- Sir Winston
- Stunning
- Sen. Allen steps in it
- Conceived in the USA, Made in China
- Code Red
- Islamist treason on the home front?
- Kristol a conservative?
- Joe Lieberman (I, CT)
- Rudy Watch: Rudy Giuliani - RINO and CINO?
- In which I choke on my own disbelief
- These are not the Egyptians you're looking for...
- Party of two, your table is broken
-
▼
August
(18)
17 comments:
GKCFan - You're view on the Muslim threat are way off. It's much worse than that. Take a look at the poll results cited by Ann Coulter here. They are a few years old, but I doubt sentiment in the Muslim community has changed much in our favor since then.
Specifically look at these very scary stats: "A poll by the Daily Telegraph found that 98 percent of Muslims between the ages of 20 and 45 said they would not fight for Britain – and 48 percent said they would fight for Osama bin Laden. " And "A Gallup poll taken at the end of last year found that only 18 percent of the people in nine Muslim nations believed the yarn about Arabs flying planes into buildings on Sept. 11. (Many subscribed to the Zionist plot theory.) This was based on almost 10,000 face-to-face interviews in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan and Morocco."
Although I take most of what Coulter says with a grain of salt, manbeast is on the mark here. I only wish I could speak openly about what I know but let's leave it at this--I would not be doing what I do if this threat was not real and palpable.
Even within my job I know many Muslims who hate terrorists and the difference is that these Americans are vocal about their stance. We always hear about how the vast majority of Muslims decry the myraid attacks carried out around the world but where is the outrage? Apparantly it's a silent protest because almost none of the Muslim leaders of this country do anything more than sit on their hands with an uncomfortable look on their faces after each terrorist act.
Granted, people can lie and vocal outrage would not guarantee their loyalty to this country but in a world where religion is the largest factor in sculpting people's beliefs, leaders have the responsibility to try to put out the fires of fundamentalism instead of fanning the flames (ouch, too much alliteration).
I don't see how we would ever be able to keep Muslims out of the country (again with the lying thing) but there should be some way to filter through all entrants into the US. Haven't figured out anything practical but I guess if I did I'd be more than just another grunt in this war.
And it sounds to me like GKCfan put a vote in the isolationism column...
Bottom line - this is a Muslim problem that needs a Muslim solution. If indeed the great majority of Muslims are peaceful, and their faith has been hijacked by a limited few extremists, then it is on them to reclaim their religion. D.C. is exactly right - where is the outrage?
If people who attended my church started going around burning crosses and physically attacking other groups in the name of Catholicism, you can be sure that I (and other members) would be a loud voice of opposition, until it was clear they had no home in the Catholic church. Why isn't the same going on more visibly in mosques around the world? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
I'll post my thoughts on isolationism below..
D.C. in an earlier post raised the point about an isolationist policy as a path to improved security, which I had also voiced (see "OccObs round table turns Taft-ian"). I struggle with this one a bit, but in the end agree it is the way to go. I think manbeast is right that true isolationism is a recipe for disaster in an increasingly global economy, but we can separate military isolationism from economic and create a balanced approach.
On the one hand, I truly believe that the long-term ultimate stability and security in the world cannot occur until all countries have: (1) open societies (free press, democracy) and (2) citizens with a stake in the game (ownership and voting rights, etc.) By having (1) and (2) you will essentially push the burden of policing the world's activities (a job which the US can't possibly do alone) down to the world's citizens. No one will allow his neighbor to knowingly engage in activities which are potentially harmful to him if he believes he will suffer a material loss as a result. Right now most people see nothing to lose; thus, they are at best apathetic and at worst supportive of terrorists in their own backyard. So to that end, I see a more engaged US policy, actively promoting democracy around the world, as the best way to go.
On the other hand, I think the example of Iraq shows us that we can't forcibly install democracies, as much as we'd like to. Until citizens want it for themselves, we can't truly effect the type of change necessary to make a difference. They need to be willing to stand up and die for their own rights; we can't do it for them. So practically speaking, I think military isolationism, coupled with strong defense and intelligence capabilities, is the best way to secure our borders. Put the world on notice that our isolationist policy should not be mistakenly viewed as 'defeat and retreat'; to do so would be a grave mistake on their part. We are willing to leave well enough alone so long as they keep their conflicts within their borders. But the minute they do anything to harm our interests, take 'em out.
This type of approach will also force all other countries (particularly European and Asian) to take a position on contentious issues, instead of taking a back seat and always allowing the US to lead and therefore serving as a lightning rod for all the blame and hatred.
Thanks, SheaHey.
I tend to write without prior thought to my comments. As a result I tend to ramble and miss points that I intended to bring up or support in a clearer manner.
Bottom line is, you said it brother.
SHK and D.C.--
I specifically avoided using the word "isolationst," not because I disagree with isolationism, but because it has become a smear word that unthinking neoconservatives use to shut off debate.
An "isolationist" is not worth talking to, according to many neocons (and of course, liberals), because isolationism is a historical relic that caused the Great Depression and led to the rise of Nazism. The fact that both of these claims are of questionable historical veracity is unimportant to some neocons. They like 'truthiness' as much as the libs. And the Kristol crew is primarily concerned (as Buchanan pointed out quoting the Weekly Standard) with a "war-fighting Republican Party," traditional conservatism be damned.
In reality, "isolationism," as those who use it as a smear understand it, does not really exist. Consider the following list: obtaining French assistance in the Revolutionary War, the Louisiana Purchase, the trans-Atlantic cotton trade, American interventionism in Cuba and Panama, colonial diplomacy over a divvied up China, the conquest of the Philippines, the reawakening of (truly) isolationist Japan, the giant trade surpluses created through massive exporting to foreign markets. All of these are examples of foreign interaction (be it diplomatic, military or economic) that were ongoing in a period where "isolationism" reigned supreme. The idea that isolationism means what the neocons would have you believe it does--ending all trade, stopping all immigration, bringing home all diplomats, ignoring the existence of all other nations, creating an energy shield over the US capable of deflecting any bombardment--this definition of isolationism is a canard, and used widely to discredit "isolationists."
This is why I prefer the term "non-interventionist," which I have seen recently to refer to SHK's idea of military isolationsm. Non-interventionists do not discount the possibility that military force is a real and necessary option in foreign policy, but do not believe that nation building is a sound use of resources.
I will not go so far as to say nation-building is impossible. For instance, success is possible in Iraq, if we are willing to commit another 5 years, another trillion dollars, reinstate the draft, and triple the size of our force there. Is the cost worth the benefit? Of course not.
If Bush and Rusmfeld had been right, if all we needed to do was sweep aside Hussein and the Iraqi Main Street would have started fresh with a pro-Western regime, it would have made sense. But as we can see, that was not the case.
And herein lies the main problem with neocons: they are utopian dreamers of the right the same way that Leninists were dreamers on the left. Both groups ignore cold hard reality in favor of ideological dogma. For the neocons, the belief is that we are fighting for "democracy" and "freedom," and that once these ideas reign supreme terrorists will be defeated. The cold hard reality is that "freedom" must be asserted by the individual and, by definition, cannot be imposed from without. Forcing "democracy" and "freedom" on people who don't want it a wasted effort. There may come a time when the Islamic world is ready to embrace a Western/classical liberal form of "freedom", but until that time we're wasting lives and resources.
Of course, we still need to maintain an advantage over other nations when it comes to military capability, especially in terms of technology, if we seek to protect our interests around the world. But if our main weapon in seeking the friendship of other nations is the threat of a B-2 strike, we might as well give up now. 300 million people will never rule the world through brute force. An America that serves as a model of individual liberty, personal virtue, thriving commerce and strong defense capabilities, however, will continue to inspire people all around the world, as it has for two centuries plus. When our force is merely a backup to our accumulated goodwill in foreign diplomacy (as it has been for much of our history), we will be able to free up a lot of resources towards more important domestic endeavors (namely, lightening the tax burden and allowing entrepreneurs to achieve the American dream).
D.C.:
I don't see how we would ever be able to keep Muslims out of the country (again with the lying thing)
Here's a start: if a country has over a 25% Muslim population, they will be blacked out for purposes of immigration.
I'm all for quiting the job of policing the world. All we get out of it is money spent, dead soldiers and a shitstorm of criticism from everywhere (especially our own MSM). We need to be a lot more selective about who we call friends and a lot less helpful to countries who repeatedly screw us over.
Nation building can work under the right conditions. Take post WWII Japan as an example. But, one of the main reasons it worked there and why it can't possibly work in the middle east is that there was effectively no religion in Japan at the time. You can't shove democracy down the throat of a community that already has a strong belief system. As everyone has said, the Muslim community are the only ones who can effect significant change. If the Muslim leadership in this country can't or won't express outrage at terrorism carried out in the name of Islam, we must express outrage at their inaction.
In the interest of actually making a point myself and not just repeating what everyone else has said ...
Of course, we still need to maintain an advantage over other nations when it comes to military capability, especially in terms of technology, if we seek to protect our interests around the world.
If you think we're dependent on foreign oil, we're way more dependent on foreign manufacturing. During the Reagan era, we had a booming defense industry. Much of the technology was made here. It was good for the economy. We all know it was great for our military capabilies (we'd have been throwing rocks in Iraq and Afghanistan if left up to the Democrats). It also gave communism that final push over the cliff, so it was good for foreign policy. These days most of our technology is manufactured in China. This is bad for the economy (look at the $100 billion trade gap - http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/toppartners.html). As I've said before, this is bad for foreign policy. My point is, we're destroying our military advantage. (Not to mention that we sell fighter jets to Saudi Arabia) So, if we are to embark on a period of non-intervention, we have a lot of work to do to prepare ourselves to defend our country after the French surrender. This will require significant defense spending (without raising taxes), closing the foreign trade gap, using our own natural resources (e.g. drilling in ANWR), etc. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but with the current political climate in this country, the Republican's abandonment of conservative policy and the sheep-like following of the MSM, I'm pessimistic about the chances of this happening any time soon.
manbeast makes an excellent point about the diminished capacity of American manufacturing. Pick any industry and the story is the same: cars (Big 3 vs. Japan), airplanes (Boeing vs. Airbus and Embraer), steel (Nucor vs. Mittal/Arcelor and Nippon), electronics (?? vs. Sony, Samsung, LG, Panasonic...), cell phones (Moto vs. Nokia, LG, Ericsson) etc. At least we still have Hollywood. (hmmm....)
We do still have technology and manufacturing edge in certain key areas: computer chips (Intel, AMD, IBM, TI, Moto, etc.), and most military systems (offensive and defensive).
But even a technology lead in military systems is not enough - we must also have the manufacturing capacity to back it up. What Japan failed to realize at Pearl Harbor was that US manufacturing capacity gave us a long-term view and ability. We could manufacture ships and planes faster than Japan and Germany could sink or destroy them. Even in the absence of the atomic bomb, this capacity would have all but guaranteed us certain victory at the end of WWII. (Fortunately a-bomb shaved years off the timeline.)
So I think that for any non-interventionist (to use GCK's phrase) policy to succeed, we must return to our glory days and increase our manufacturing capacity. The fact is, barring some devastating attack on our country which would force this policy, it is nearly impossible that such a policy would be enacted in the present business environment, where Wall St. only cares about making a buck as quickly as possible and what your quarterly outlook is.
To finish my thought...
If we're talking about being grounded in reality, let's look at realistic probabilities for the '08 Presidential race. We have, effectively, at two-party system as we've all agreed. This means the next President will be either a Democrat or Republican. If a Democrat wins, we'll pull out of Iraq with our tail between our legs and be known as the country that won't put up a fight. Looking at the Republican candidates that have a shot, I don't see one isolationist (correct me if I'm wrong). So the question is, what is better? Democratic cut & run? Or, Neocon hawkishness?
Beasty:
It is not religiosity or the lack thereof that allows for democracy to take root. This nation, when founded, was religiously zealous. Religious and non-religious nations can both be democratic. There is something peculiar, though, about the Islamist mentality that clashes with democracy. IMHO, it is the fact that Islamists do not believe in the importance of free will or conscience, since many of their religious leaders condone the killing of non-believers (see jihad, proudly invoked by Muslims all over the globe). Without a philosophical belief that individuals have a right to their own beliefs, democracy quickly degenerates into a power grab to subjugate those who disagree with you (see Iraq, right now).
Atheism is not necessarily an advantage when promoting democracy. A society in which personal responsibility has been completely destroyed in favor of "freedom," when it is a false freedom that encourages people to satisfy their every depravity, will be unable to function long as a democracy. This was a very real worry of our founding fathers. Take these two quotes from a great piece written by Thomas West at the Claremont Institute:
"...we tend to equate freedom with individuality, the right to choose, the right to do anything one pleases. The Founders rejected this view, for two reasons.
First, they thought a person is not really free if he is a slave to his irrational passions. We quoted earlier Madison's statement that the Athenian people were in the grip of 'the tyranny of their passions' when they condemned Socrates to death.
Second, the Founders believed that a people enslaved to their passions would be unable to restrain themselves from injuring each other. That would mean that government would have to enslave the slavish people politically as well — for their own survival. Madison explains: without sufficient self-control, 'nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another' (Federalist no. 55)."
To sum up the thinking of the founders, here's a quote Mr. West offered from the founding father, George Washington:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. . . . And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion."
Beasty & SHK,
Kudos on the great posts about manufacturing capabilities. One of you should write a post on it, specifically in terms of its impact on national defense. Its impact on widening wage gaps and the loss of the middle class might be worth a look as well.
ManBeast's point on the '08 election is also well taken. Right now I don't see a traditional conservative out there, although (as you know if you've been paying attention) I think Romney has possibilities. He has the opportunity to completely define himself from a foreign-policy stand point, since as a governor he didn't have to take official stands on these issues. Giuliani, Rice and McCain are, as we know, on record as neocons on foreign policy. It will be interesting to see how the election cycle unfolds.
I would just like to add how impressed I am with the dedication you guys display. I never fail to be amazed at the number of links, quotes, and resources you come up with to give a rational, fact-based opinion to your posts and comments.
I am ashamed of my lack of evidenciary material and study on these issues. I tend to shoot from the hip (hell, I don't even check my spelling before posting) and feel like an uninformed ass.
But my whole point is to offer kudos to gkc, shk, and the beast for your devotion to the cause. Gentlemen, I salute you.
You're too humble, D.C., but thanks for the shout out. The long-toothed skull shall always be proudly displayed at OccObs.
GKC, I don't agree with your contention that the religious state of a nation has nothing to do with its ability to adopt democracy. You can't compare the formation of the US with the rebuilding of Japan or Iraq. There was no nation to speak in North America at the time. Also, the founders came here to get away from religious persecution. So freedom of religion was at the forefront of their platform. My contention about religion (or lack thereof in Japan) is that without another power structure (like a Islamic Theocracy), and without a competing belief system like Islam (as you pointed out), it's much easier to establish new democracy.
Beast,
I wasn't comparing them. The situations were not the same with post-WWII Japan and colonial-era America. I was pointing out that, in spite of the differences, democracy was capable of thriving.
Religiosity, or lack thereof, is not in itself a plus or minus for the development of democracy. Rather, it is the specifics of the culture in question, and the nature of the religion they practice, that is a more useful guide.
I hear what you are saying about a competing power structure, and I think we are on the same page there. The problem with Islamism is that it seeks to control government, and thus is a power structure in competition with democracy. Christianity, in contrast, seeks to inform the individual conscience without exerting overt control over the levers of government. Which helps explain why democracy and Christianity have not proven to be at odds with each other, while Islam and democracy have.