July 15, 2005
Deceit: Weapon of Choice
The dust has settled, and by now, the terrorists carrying out the attack on London have been identified. The most troubling aspect I’ve found was how three of the four seemed to be simply normal; nothing suspicious about them at all. Though not typical, this is not an isolated personality description of an eventual suicide bomber.
But even more troubling is to be told, after 9/11, 3/11, Theo van Gogh, and 7/7, that it is only the extremist trying to destroy our way of life and that most Muslims are real freedom loving people wanting the good life. Although this may hold true in most circumstances, how do I know whether or not the Muslim living next door to me is benevolent or actually in cahoots with extremist?
Sun Tzu wrote, in The Art of War, that one of the fundamental arts of waging war is "All warfare is based on deception."
Some descriptions for three of the four suspected suicide bombers in London's attack:
From July 14's Wall Street Journal:
Shahzad Tanweer often stayed up late to watch cricket matches on television. "He had no interest in anything else," never reading newspapers of taking note of politics, says his uncle, Bashir Ahmed.
From The Guardian:
For most of his short life, Hasib Hussain's horizons stretched little further than the lattice-work of narrow streets and Victorian terraces of Holbeck, on the southern outskirts of Leeds city centre.Like his older brother and two older sisters, he went to a nursery 200 metres from home while his father, Mahmood, and mother, Maniza, were at work.
At the primary school next door he was said to be a normal, unremarkable pupil. After school he bought his sweets from Ajimal Singh's corner shop, like all the other children, and kicked a plastic football around the street.
From This is London:
The family of teenage suicide bomber Hasib Hussain spoke of their "devastation" and described their son as a "loving and normal young man".In a statement issued through West Yorkshire Police, they expressed their disbelief that the 18-year-old was involved in the bus attack which killed 14 people. "Hasib was a loving and normal young man who gave us no concern and we are having difficulty taking this in," said his family.
From UTV Internet:
MOHAMMAD SIDIQUE KHAN: As a learning mentor in primary schools, he helped immigrant children settle into education when they arrived in Britain....
"He kept himself to himself," he said. "He was a nice bloke, but who would have thought he would have done something like this?
"Most people are shocked and cannot believe this would happen on their own doorstep."
He added: "I never knew he had a religious background. I go to the local mosque and have never seen him there."
That's right, a "loving and normal" young man carrying out the attack with a "nice bloke."
It's more like this - from WorldNetDaily:
Imagine you've got a Muslim neighbor who is actually a radical, but hasn't yet revealed to you his inner radical thoughts. He may seem like a nice family-oriented, hard-working, reliable guy, but then at a barbecue he tells his private view that the "worldwide Jewish movement" is the embodiment of evil, and that Israel must be destroyed.One moment you think he's a reasonably normal guy, and a moment later you realize he lives in a very dark world. Still, there he is, smiling at you while he flips a burger and offers you another cold soda.
The respected Thomas Friedman from the New York Times even writes:
When jihadist-style bombings happen in Riyadh, that is a Muslim-Muslim problem. That is a police problem for Saudi Arabia. But when Al-Qaeda-like bombings come to the London Underground, that becomes a civilizational problem. Every Muslim living in a Western society suddenly becomes a suspect, becomes a potential walking bomb....
And the West will do it in a rough, crude way - by simply shutting them out, denying them visas and making every Muslim in its midst guilty until proven innocent.
If we really are in a holy war, then our enemies are obviously using deceit.
No wonder Islamophobia is on the rise.
Note: I'm not writing this piece to vilify Muslims, but instead feel it is necessary to add this idea to the intellectual table for discussion... after all, in the GRAND SCHEME Islam is at war with the West (Charles Martel - September 11th).
Posted by Mike Tate at July 15, 2005 09:44 PMThere’s been a lot of press coverage of Western anxiety over inflaming the Muslim World.
Unfortunately, the Muslim World, as a result of their passivity and failure to meaningfully confront the extremism is in danger of inflaming the Western Street, something which your post portends. I’ve already heard reports of hate crimes in England following the London bombings—a troubling sign.
I have no doubt that the majority of Muslims stongly dislike what a violent few are doing in their name. I also have no doubt that the reason they don’t speak up is fear of the extremists—it’s got to be a terrifying thing, and it’s always easier just to keep your head down and try not to attract attention.
However, the time is rapidly approaching when there will be more to fear from “us” than the criminals in their midst who are terrorizing them.
I’m not condoning this, but it’s a reality. And a reality that they, not us, will ultimately have to confront.
The goal of terrorism is not military victory. That is the goal of armies and nations. The goal of terrorism is to provoke such a heinous overreaction on the part of those terrorized, that those terrorized become terrorists, anarchists, and murderers themselves, causing dissent and civil strife and chaos in the populations being terrorized. In other words, the goal of terrorism is to cause the enemy to fall upon their own swords so to speak in the eyes of their more civilized constitutents.
Terrorist acts are barbarian and uncivilized. If those who are terrorized respond in barbaric and uncivilized ways, the terrorists have won a major battle, for they then turn the evidence of barbaric and uncivilized acts of their opponents to their advantage to increase their ranks and rationale for existing as terrorists in the first place.
In part, George Bush and his company won the first battle in taking down the Taliban, but, lost the 2nd and 3rd battles to the terrorists by invading Iraq without securing evidence to support the reasons for invasion, and by use of torture and refusal to comply with Geneva Conventions in dealing with suspects and prisoners.
The Terrorists are now losing battle #4, Islamic society sympathy, with the media coverage of innocent women and children appearing as targets of the terrorists.
That’s 2 battles won by the terrorists, and 2 lost to their opponents. There are a great many more battles to take place, and the faces and geography of future battles will change frequently. In the end, the terrorists will lose IF the world can keep its civility and adherence to the principles which made them civilized. But every failure in that regard, is a battle won by the terrorists, and prolongs their existence and replacements to continue their fight against civilized western and Middle Eastern societies.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 16, 2005 01:50 AMDavid, I agree with most of your conclusions with the exception of a few. We can not fight and win this war by being sensitive to the perceptions of the gray areas of law, it is well past time to call a spade a spade and Saddam was a spade. There was a plethora of reasons to invade Iraq, all valid, in fact I thought we should have done it ten years ago. The Geneva Convention does not apply. These animals represent no sovereign nation, they where no uniform, they don’t respect any other nations sovereignty and they SHOOT SCHOOL CHILDREN IN THE BACK AS THEY RAN FOR THEIR LIVES. I will pay for the bullets to put through their heads. The way to win this war is exactly how we are approaching it, show absolutely no mercy to terrorists and continue to give 100% support to the peaceful muslims that are attempting to rebuild their lives.
Posted by: Jay at July 16, 2005 07:56 AMWhy is it I get the feeling only Democrats watched and studied the Battle of Algiers?
As for the English Reaction, the British Government has emphasized that this is a law enforcement problem and not a “War”. Hence, the subdued reaction of the general public.
As for the Arabs we support, the Regimes of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, etc. are some of the most oppressive anywhere and despised by those who fled them. Standard Bush Policy indeed.
Posted by: Aldous at July 16, 2005 08:20 AMThe “Battle of Algiers” is a good movie, but the underlying reality is even worse. I am not sure what lessons a civilized person should draw for it. The whole idea is that a really nasty enemy can do things beyond the scope of a good person to deal with, and if the good person also becomes nasty the whole game is lost. But we still don’t have a solution to the evil enemy. The other interesting lesson is that Algeria did not become a nice place to live after the French left and forty years later a county with great potential wealth still sucks.
One thing the French did poorly in Algeria was to co-op the local Arabs. They actually threw away many opportunities, especially right after WW II. I don’t mean persuade, but rather give them a positive stake in the outcome. That is why I think we have a better change now. When you see the lack of popular support for the insurrection in Iraq and the erosion of what support it seemed to have, you realize that even if Iraqis don’t care for the coalition, they like the insurrection even less.
In the UK there is strong indication that the Muslim community in UK opposed these acts of terror and they seem to be cooperating with authorities to find some of the other bad guys.
We have to remember that the guys who actually blow themselves up are a bunch of pathetic losers who are probably mentally disturbed and sexually frustrated (hence the emphasis on women in heaven). They are not the main component of the problem. The real bad guys are those who convince them to do these things and tell them that they will get their heavenly virgins.
I have never felt comfortable with our support for places like Saudi and the Bush Administration has been altering the fifty year old American policy enough to make them nervous. This is good. The danger is the alternative. There are no good alternatives currently available.
I was recently talking to a group of Uzbeks who oppose their current government. As you probably know, the U.S. is in some trouble there because of our support for human rights. They told me that they appreciated the U.S. support, but that the worst case probably alternative was not oppression, but anarchy (which would also have an oppressive component. They also had no real idea what we should do except to be ready to react to changes. Not much of a plan, but the best available. Sometimes that is all we can have.
The terrorists are responsible for their own actions, especially those who deceived and/or betrayed others to carry out their mission.
But it’s only to be expected. Those terrorists who lack this kind of discipline get caught, and the terrorists know this.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 16, 2005 10:14 AMMike T. -
As an Arab American, I would have taken vociferous issue with your post a few years ago. But now it’s harder. I would much rather read in the paper that the suicide bombers were disengaged, unpleasant, immoral schmucks (like the 9/11 murderers, by some accounts) than that they were “nice blokes”. As you said, that leaves the average Britisher in a distinctly uncomfortable position.
The one consolation we on this side of the pond can take is that the only American to have joined our enemies was that geeky looking guy who we found in Afghanistan. There’s obviously more Arabs and Muslims in the U.K. than here, and the U.K. has been far, far more accommodating; building mosques, etc. But as Friedman wrote in his NYTimes piece, some Muslims aren’t willing to accept religious equality in the public square, and some of these are willing to take violent exception.
I hope this is still true: in the U.S., we do a better job than anyone in the world of assimilating and relating to our immigrants. No terrorism will be waged by American-born Muslims because they and their friends and family will understand that they do have a stake in our society. Terrorism may occur, but it will be done by foreigners, like the 9/11 killers who had lived in Germany until they were dispatched here on their mission of evil.
If a few American Muslims ever join their nihilist British cousins, then I will be wrong, and we’ll have some very hard questions to answer. Do we give up civil liberties for all, and submit to more government nosiness? Or do we give up Equal Treatment, and subject only Arab Muslims to government nosiness? Or do we accept the risk, and risk death for our freedom.
I say now, and I hope I say then, “Give me liberty, or give me death.” I’d rather have my legs blown off by terrorists than my freedoms cut out from under me by well-meaning Washingtonians.
Posted by: Chops at July 16, 2005 11:17 AMA connection to the london bombings has been traced to a one time student at NC State university. This was broadcast on WRAL TV in Raleigh, North Carolina.
A link which I cannot get to come up in red is supplied. http://www.wral.com/
Chops -
The U.S. is no longer a melting pot. Political correctness does not allow for assimilation, but instead fosters multiculturalism. Look at Dearborn, Michigan.
Posted by: Mike T. at July 16, 2005 11:41 AMNow I am pissed. I follow the instructions and as long as I type the word microsoft in I can get the word Microsoft to come up red but, I cant get it from the preview area to the comments box. I can’t get the red word or phrase into the damn text of the comments. I can get the red microsoft word into the sentance as the address by highlighting it and doing a short cut thing but, in black.
Its a good thing I live in a single story house so the computer will not have far to go when I throw it out the damn window.
steve smith -
Whenever I type, I’m typing in pure HTML…read this webpage on how to make HTML links:
Posted by: Mike T. at July 16, 2005 12:03 PMMike T,
Thank you very much for your patience and help. I will be practicing this until I get it right.
BTW, I am still very much a right wing conservative. I am hoping with links I can make stronger arguments.
Posted by: steve smith at July 16, 2005 12:38 PMDavid R. Remer & Chops,
Your posts were excellent.
Terrorism is caused by hate, no…extreme hate. A hate that is brought on by many reasons, some reasonable but most just plain stupid.
I hate to make referances to the crusades, but our reality forces us to look at our past to learn for the future. In the crusades religious leaders proclaimed that Christians must reclaim Jerusalem from the hythens. In modern time Muslim leader (not all of them) proclaim that western ideals are evil and that Muslims must take back morality from the hythen west. But the sad reality is that holy wars fought in the past were fought with swords and armies. Now we live in age where a small briefcase can destroy a city.
H.G. Wells put it best, “Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.”
Its been more then 500 years since the crusades, and I fear education is limping along.
Mike T.,
Was this a peaceful protest, the link didn’t say? I’m not an American Arab or Muslim. I still think Isreal is wrong. I think we’re wrong for propping up Isreal and giving them the weapons to create mass terror for the Palestinians.
While the Palestinians practice terrorist tactics too, the Isrealis are not any better and are perhaps worse because they kill so many. Didn’t the Palestinians have that land BEFORE it was gifted to the Jews after WWII? Isreal has become exactly what David described.
And America supports them!
It’s no wonder American Muslims feel the need to protest. Remember, it is their right to do so. And it seems to me they have a valid point. Why should they keep quiet and yet the people who disagreed with the Iraq war should retain the right to speak out?
Posted by: Stephanie at July 16, 2005 02:31 PMStephanie -
Consider this fact, from OpinionJournal:
…there is disturbingly strong support in the Detroit-area Islamic community for terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah—a fact regularly documented even in the normally pliant Detroit media…
I realize it is there right to protest, but it is disturbing to view signs featuring Khomeini.
Posted by: Mike T. at July 16, 2005 02:46 PM“Didn’t the Palestinians have that land BEFORE it was gifted to the Jews after WWII?”
NO! I know I will open myself to the wrath of the left, but Israel was given the land by God. The land was promised to Abraham & his descendants. This hapened during the life of Abraham. Need proof? The Dome of the Rock (Muslin’s 3rd holy site) is built upon the ruins of King Solomon’s Temple. When Solomon built the Temple; Allah, Mohammad, & the word Muslim did not exist. The Roman’s drove the Jews out of Israel & destoyed the Temple in 70AD.
Perplexed
Posted by: Perplexed at July 16, 2005 02:53 PMPerplexed,
I am a conservative, and while I feel no wrath towards you, I must take your logic a little further than you did.
I know that God gave the land to the ancient Jews. Then, they disobeyed Him and He took the land away and gave it to the Roman’s. In fact, if I remember correctly this happened SEVERAL times. Then the land was fought over by Jews, Muslims and Christians alike for centuries. Then God used the international community to give the Jews the land back.
And the Jews still aren’t obeying him!!!
If you are going to argue the Jews deserve the land by the decree of God then the Jews better obey the laws of God or they lose the land. That’s always been God’s deal (covenant).
Posted by: Stephanie at July 16, 2005 03:31 PMAnn Coulter said it like this, “Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims — at least all terrorists capable of assembling a murderous plot against America that leaves 7,000 people dead in under two hours.” All the major terrorists attack in the USA have been carried out by Muslims (even McVeigh/Nichols had contacts with Islamist). It’s scary when millions of ‘peaceful’ Muslims in the USA/West may have secret, hidden pleasure when each one of these attacks i carried out. Although this is something we cannot prove, we can logically make such a conclusion when even CAIR sides with extremist.
Posted by: James Chappelear at July 16, 2005 03:33 PMWhile I would definitely like to see terrorism stop here in the USA, that’s not the only terrorism I’d like to see stopped. The Isrealis terrorize the Palestinians, too. We have a history of terrorizing our enemies. The Germans. The IRA. Terrorism is not limited to Muslims by any stretch of the imagination. It’s a tactic that’s been used and re-used for quite awhile. Even Tolkien used it in Lord of the Rings stories.
Posted by: Stephanie at July 16, 2005 06:33 PMStephanie:
Your question was, “Didn’t the Palestinians have that land BEFORE it was gifted to the Jews after WWII?”
My answer to you was, “The Dome of the Rock (Muslin’s 3rd holy site) is built upon the ruins of King Solomon’s Temple.” Which meant, the Jews were in the land before the Muslims. I believe that is a simple & logical answer. The Jews were there first. I didn’t discuss whether the Jews obeyed or disobeyed God. I simply stated the Jews were there first. Where they there first? I did not say the Jews deserved the land, I simply made the statement that God gave the land to the Jews through Abraham.
Do you differentiate between the “ancient Jews” & Jews of today? Since you seem to be an expert on the subject, can you tell me where you got your information that when they “disobeyed Him” … “He took the land away and gave it to the Roman’s”?
Perplexed
You can’t recognize ancient claims to modern real estate. I also don’t think we can recognize divine gifts. If God actually wants anyone to have anything, I don’t expect he needs human help to make it so.
One more thing, ancestry is usually a problem. People may believe they are descended from some earlier group, but they are often mistaken. DNA evidence is showing many people are related in unexpected ways.
The Jewish-Palestinian thing is more complicated anyway. That area was always a mixing area. The ancestors of many of the Palestinians are also relatively recent immigrants.
What we have is a modern political problem and we should not cloud it with old claims. Every group of people today is living on land they pushed somebody else off some time in the past. I can think of three exceptions. There might be more, but not many. So forgot the old grievances.
Posted by: jack at July 16, 2005 10:07 PMCome on now, you are thinking like a westerner. Start thinking like a Jew or Muslim. Everything about the Middle East is built upon ancient claims. Let me use Iraq as an example. The tribal feuds of the Sunnis, Kurds, & Shiites are based upon territories they once had, until the Brits (or whoever) reassigned the land & changed the boundaries. The Jews claim the land as a divine gift from God & the Muslims claim the same land for the same reason.
“What we have is a modern political problem and we should not cloud it with old claims.”
That is impossible. If religion does not play a part, why did OBL become so angry at the US for having bases in Saudi Arabia? We were the invading infidel trespassing on sacred soil. Why were our troops not allowed to carry their Bibles in public? Why were restrictions placed upon our female troops when in public? Religion is everything in that part of the world.
“One more thing, ancestry is usually a problem. People may believe they are descended from some earlier group, but they are often mistaken.”
When the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70AD, they scattered the Jews from their homeland. They were a people without a nation. Name me one other nationality of people who were scattered throughout the world for 1900 years & yet maintained their religious beliefs, language, & identity. When the Jews became a nation in 1948, their customs, beliefs, & language was exactly the same as before, even though they came from many countries.
I agree with you that the land of Palestine has always been a melting pot of people. But the Jews will tell you God gave them the power & authority in Old Testament times to take the land & drive others out. That is why there is so much disagreement with the Orthodox Jew concerning Gaza & the West Bank. They believe it is their land.
Perplexed
Perplexed,
Yes, you’re right. God gave the land to the Jews. And took it away and then gave it back. I don’t know the mind of God, but I’m assuming God kept the pattern of giving them the land and taking it away, depending on their faith. The Babylonians got it because the Jews were unfaithful. That is Biblical. The Old Testament ends with Malachi, and in there the Jews are being chastised AGAIN for being unfaithful.
The New Testament starts with the Romans occupying the Jews. While there is approximately 350-400 years between the two books, there were several episodes where the Jews lost their lands in that time period. The first time the land was regained by a priest named Mattathias and his sons, Mattathias was given the honorary name of Maccabee. After he regained the land the Jews lost it again in 63 BC, to the Romans.
This quote is from Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia:
The end of Israel as an independent state in the ancient world occurred when Rome’s general, Pompey the Great, captured Jerusalem in 63BC. Israel would not be politically independent again for more than 2,000 years — until AD 1948, when the modern state was created.
From these facts you can draw several conclusions.
1) God cannot keep His promises, which is why the Jews couldn’t keep their land.
2) The Jews were lying and thus never entitled to the land in the first place.
3) The Jews wouldn’t keep their promises, so God didn’t let them keep their land.
I prefer the third possibility myself, but what you believe is up to you.
Posted by: Stephanie at July 16, 2005 11:10 PMMy husband just informed me that what I just said is considered “classic anti-Semitism” and for that I sincerely apologize. I’m not an anti-Semite and I’m not suggesting we take away the land of the Jews. I’m merely suggesting that we not exclude the Palestinians solely on the basis of the Jews gift from God.
Posted by: Stephanie at July 16, 2005 11:19 PMWebster’s New World Dictionary (Third College Edition)’s definition:
Semite n. 1) a person regarded as descended from Shem 2) a member of any of the peoples speaking a Semitic language, including the Hebrews, Arabs, Assyrians, Phoenicians, ect. 3) Jew: a loose usuage.
Giving the Palestinians and the Israelis equal consideration isn’t as anti-Semetic as some would claim.
Posted by: Stephanie at July 16, 2005 11:23 PMJack,
I agree and apologize for clouding the issue. Out of curiosity, what three examples do you know of?
Posted by: Stephanie at July 16, 2005 11:25 PMStephanie
Your number one conclusion is impossible.
You said that God could not keep his promises. If that were a possiblity, then God would not and could not be God. By allowing that your statement could be a fact then allows that the Deity of God does not exist and is the same as calling God a liar.
Stephanie
The three I can think of are the Norse who came to their places after the last ice age and are still there in Norway and Iceland, Australian Aborigines and some Polynesians who evidently colonized never occupied lands.
If you make the group very broad you can include greater numbers, Native Americans, for example, but their history is so bloody and various tribes exchanged territories so often that I don’t think it is meaningful.
Folks, the discussion of the religious historical bases for the political tensions in the Middle East and our role there is well within the scope and purpose of this site.
Let’s please be careful we do not take the discussion into the area of debating each other’s religious beliefs. That is not within the scope of this web site.
Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at July 17, 2005 04:41 AMTom,
That was my point, that’s why I don’t choose number. I don’t choose number two, because that would negate the entire Bible. That leaves me with number three. But, I’ve been strongly advised not to discuss this further, because the logic I used apparently has been used to justify hating Jews, which is not at all my purpose. I’ve met some very nice Jews, attended synagogue on several occasions and I love dreidels, those things are just really cool. The Jews have a very interesting culture and should be commended for keeping it alive for so long despite the many adversities they’ve faced.
More to my point, I do not consider Jerusalem holy land. Considering all the blood from all the various peoples that has been spilt over that land, I would say it is cursed not blessed. If I thought it were at all possible, I’d readily suggest the UN move both Israelis and Palestinians off that land, give it to a totally neutral people (perhaps the Australian Aborigines?) and move the Israelis and Palestinians to different lands that are far apart from each other. While I realize this isn’t going to happen, I think the world would be much better off if it did.
Posted by: Stephanie at July 17, 2005 04:42 AMAs per the topic of this thread, has anyone actually figured out how a person becomes a terrorist? Obviously they’re not all crazy people who run around hating everything they see.
Yet, if we give in to fear and treat all Muslims or Arabs (they are two different groups that overlap but not necessarily so, after all) like they’re criminals, we all lose for all the great things we miss out on by associating with the peaceful Muslim and Arab contributors to our society. (Not to mention really great food!)
Our government and our scientists love to research things and figure out how they work. Has either done this (successfully) with the mentality (mentalities?) of terrorists?
Posted by: Stephanie at July 17, 2005 04:52 AMStephanie, great question. I would hope that our intelligence community has psychologists whose job it is to assess and define the conversion process of a non-terrorist to a terrorist. Since the process involves identification with a group, adoption of that groups’s values and ends, and receiving personal satisfaction, motivation, and self-esteem fulfillment from the group, I don’t think an ethnic-centric analysis of the conversion process is going to be very different from our general knowledge on these same topics for western individuals.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 17, 2005 05:06 AMIt appears that the London bomb conspiracy involved an individual who had attended NC State University in Raleigh, NC and majored in Biochemical Engineering. It is suspected that he made the bombs used in the London terrorist attacks.
As the story is related on TV, he had visited Pakistan not long ago for some type of training and had an apartment in London. Now evidently
they are looking for him in Egypt.
Another perfect example (if this story is true) of how we welcome these “students” so that they can do this lind of thing to us and our allies.
THIS MUST STOP.
Posted by: steve smith at July 17, 2005 12:23 PMThis guy probably attended NC State on a free grant from the government.
Perplexed
Posted by: Perplexed at July 17, 2005 05:23 PMConsidering some of the things taught at our universities today, I would suspect some of those students came here with good intentions and left with festering disgust towards us that was all too easy for the extremists to fan into hatred.
My husband’s post-high school experience was an excellent example. After high school he joined the army and attended Reed College at the same time. It was a VERY bad idea. This was in the late 80’s so the army was still teaching it’s soldiers to “kill the Commies” and after a summer of that my husband went to school. When he arrived on campus he found himself “surround by the enemy” in his own words as the “liberal” in the words “liberal arts college” hit home. On their signs was (and may yet be) written the words, “Communism, Atheism and Free Love.” Needless to say, he was not able to be in the army and attend Reed college at the same time and ended up failing out of both from the stress.
If a good Muslim kid were to come over here, hoping to have an educational experience that prepared him to compete in our vastly technical world and, in order to get that, was forced to take classes about sex education, have his science teachers give lectures on how to (and how not to) make home-made drugs, and how our society stymies his intellectual growth by placing moral restrictions on him, then I would understand why he’d return home feeling disillusioned and disgusted with the “decadent West.” Say then, an Islamic Jihadist approaches him, promising he can help put the West in its place and return righteousness to the world… Not every kid may buy it, but we’re certainly not giving these students much reason not to buy it.
I’m not using this as justification for terrorists, but claiming these kids come here with the intention of betraying us isn’t exactly fair when being here in and of itself very well might have driven them betray us. Our universities are, unfortunately, not our best examples of goodness, civility and righteousness in America.
Posted by: Stephanie at July 17, 2005 05:53 PMHow to become a Terrorist:
1. The King of England needed to finance his Wars so he increased the Taxes of his far flung Colony.
2. The Colony in question thought the King of England in general and the Tax in particular to be corrupt and evil.
3. The Colony stops paying.
4. England sends an Army to New York.
5. Fighting commences.
6. Colony declares Independence.
7. War erupts. Civilians killed/murdered. Blah, blah, blah.
8. Colonists win. Colonists declare themselves Freedom Fighters instead of the Rebels/Terrorists England calls them.
And that is how you have a Terrorist.
Posted by: Aldous at July 18, 2005 03:58 AMHow to become a moron:
1. Join the Democratic Party
2. Extrapolate only those facts that support your agenda.
3. Hide your head in the sand on important world security issues.
4. Defend the rights of any and all minorities despite to repercussions to the majority.
5. Continue to screech and wail about perceived injustices to your senses all the while ignoring the fact that you vision is foogy and is not supported by any conviction or coherent platform.
Anf lo and behold, you have a moron.
Posted by: Jay at July 18, 2005 09:03 AMStephanie,
I do not disagree with your comments about some students having expectations different than they experience when coming here for an education at the university level and becoming disillusioned, etc.
My point now and, in many posts prior to this is that we make it all too easy for these people to enroll and, IMO there is a very high number of such individuals who are here to get the necessary knowledge to take home and strike back at us.
Moreover, and this is the scary part, there are a large number who become educated and STAY, either waiting for instructions to engage in a terrorist act or, who take professional positions in research, medicine, biochemistry, food and hospitality and may be already moving in a direction counter to our expectations.
Posted by: steve smith at July 18, 2005 10:45 AMSteve,
I’ve heard it before. And yes, you very well be right, to a certain extent. But where’s your proof? You are making it sound like this is a wide-spread phenomenon, they’re all around us, they’re closing in, be afraid, be very afraid….
If we close up our borders entirely, lock all “suspect” individuals out with no individual proof that there’s cause to do so, then they’ve won. We would have then just lost our ideals. We’re not America any more, because America is the land of the free, not the land of the fear.
Prejudice against Muslims or Arabs is not justified. America has had that knee-jerk reaction before, and has always regretted it and been ashamed. Let’s not repeat the cycle, please.
Posted by: Stephanie at July 18, 2005 11:39 AMStephanie,
Basically, I am “anti” anyone who is in this country illegally. Also I am “anti” anyone who is this country legally who has no intention of becoming a citizen, yet enjoys the benefits of citizenship.
I am “anti” having to communicate with people in languages other than English. I believe there should be a time limit on learning the language.
I am sick of looking at roadside signs that show a dog taking a crap with a big circle and an X through it.
It is disgusting to call a customer service number and hear a message asking me what language I want to use for the purpose of my call.
I am tired of going to a doctor who I cant understand as he is trying to tell me what’s wrong with me and see him get annoyed because I have to ask him to repeat himself several times.
Posted by: steve smith at July 19, 2005 11:09 AMIt’s not a holy war.
Just because some hijack and use and abuse a religion, doesn’t make it a holy war.
Should the muslim nations that remain silent and have no outrage at the crimes and terrorism by muslim extremists be obligated to denounce and show outrage ?
No. But, it is somewhat revealing isn’t it ?
steve smith,
I’m sick of Illegal trespassers too. And there’s plenty of ‘em here in Texas. They abuse and burden our health care systems, law enforcement systems, public schools, and bring crime and disease with them. And for all those victimized one way or another, that’s a crime that should have never happened. And, Bush has the audacity to call the Minute Men vigilantes ? National Security is a big joke when borders and coastlines are wide-open. Isn’t protecting the borders part of National Defense ? If so, the federal government is failing us miserable, since they’re failing to perform one of their most basic duties to the people.
