AND THE HIGHEST AWARD, THE RED FROG, GOES TO JAN IN COLORADO!
Posted on 04/26/2005 7:55:09 AM PDT by jan in Colorado
What steps should Western border agencies take to defend their homelands from harm by Islamists?
In the case of non-citizens, the answer is simple: Don't let Islamists in. Exclude not just potential terrorists but also anyone who supports the totalitarian goals of radical Islam. Just as civilized countries did not welcome fascists in the early 1940s (or communists a decade later), they need not welcome Islamists today.
But what about one's own citizens who cross the border? They could be leaving to fight for the Taliban or returning from a course on terrorism techniques. Or perhaps they studied with enemies of the West who incited them to sabotage or sedition. Clearly, the authorities should take steps to find out more about their activities, especially given the dangerous jihadi culture already in place in many Western countries, including Canada.
This question arose in late December 2004, after a three-day Islamist conference, "Reviving the Islamic Spirit," took place in Toronto. The event, boasting a host of high-profile Islamist speakers such as Bilal Philips, Zaid Shakir, Siraj Wahhaj, and Hamza Yusuf, alarmed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), America's new border agency..
Excerpt... Read more at http://www.JewishWorldReview.com
(Excerpt) Read more at JewishWorldReview.com ...
>"...and ask AAC if he's found the word "hypocrite" in his dictionary yet."<
A truly puzzling connection attempted here.
Did I at some point advocate throwing gays off tall buildings? beating them with bats? doing such to Muslims?
If so,I must apologise - in similar spirit to some of the apologies and obeisances tendered by RS and/or Gondring during the latter course of this thread - because it seems I have altogether forgotten those egregious imprecations toward violence.
Perhaps posting a link to the offending statement would quicken my conscience? I don't agree with the lifestyle choice, but gay-bashing has never been my "sport". I also eschew the *P.R.O.P., but again, I'm just not reaching for my "Louisville Slugger"...
A.A.C.
Apologies, AAC...I was not implying you were a hypocrite.
I was pointing out Fred Nerks' comment in that old message as contrasted with the one taking me to task for no sense of humour.
I believe all is now well.
They knew who these people were. As others have pointed out on the previous thread, months ago, the fingerprints couldn't have told them anything about identification of these people--there's no database to compare to for citizenship. And the fact that they released these people after fingerprinting them just shows that they actually did know who they were--citizens.
Meanwhile, we allow non-citizens to stroll across our borders every day down south.
Thank you...you made my point well! We should be going to war with those who threaten our national security. Australia and the US should not be going to war with "a religion"...especially by defining it so broadly that it encompasses the peaceful.
(If you say no Muslim can be peaceful, then what would you call those who self-describe themselves as Muslim and are peaceful...if not "moderate Muslim"? If we call them XYZZIANS, then let's agree not to target XYZZIANS and just go after Muslims, who are the militant.)
>"On top of all this, we get use of words like "muzzies"...as if the use of similarly hostile terms for Jews would be welcome."<
Hmmm...
It was actually just a neutral plural diminutive (sort of like calling ten guys named 'Robert' a bunch of Bobs...), and not an insulting, inflammatory pejorative. Honestly.
Unless it was promoted overnight in conjunction with the (apparent) demotion of the dynamic cultural meaning of 'bigot'.
Any Jewish folk out there care to observe whether 'muzzie' carries the same vitriolic sting as (words I never use) 'y*d' or 'k*ke'.
Any African americans feel that it is equivalent to the 'n' word?
I doubt the Irish among us would find it as charming as 'm*ck'
Certainly not comparable to calling a Catholic a 'papist'.
As an American of Italian heritage, I do not believe it is at all like d*go, guinea, or w*p.
BTW, digressing briefly on a previous issue:
"Under authority of Executive Order 9066, which first authorized the internment of the Japanese, General DeWitt began relocation and internment of Italian Americans in California. Over 10,000 Italians deemed enemy aliens were forcibly evacuated from their homes and over 52,000 were subject to strict curfew regulations...During World War II, an estimated 1.5 million Americans of Italian descent served in the U.S. military, constituting one of the largest segments of the US combat forces of about 12 million."
(Source: commdocs.house.gov/)
Black men made up 7.91% (or between 57k and 58k) of the enlisted men in the Army in WWII, meaning there were about 733,250 enlisted men.
40% of that would be 293,300. If it is reasonable to extract that with five branches of the service, approximately 1 in 5 were in the US Army, then the assertion stated as fact in the PBS documentary looks very plausible.
Plainly, they were not only definitely 12.5% of total US combat forces (1.5 million out of 12 million), but also of high probability, 40% of Army enlistees.
(Math is my own, double-check as you wish.)
A.A.C.
Apologies, AAC...I was not implying you were a hypocrite.
Ok, fair enough.
A.A.C.
Sometimes it seems that it's all a game of some sort, whose purpose IS to cause a Flame war, or make you so frustrated that you will blow your top or just quit.
I have chosen NOT to get involved this time because there is no way to have a frank discussion or debate with people who will not listen, or who just enjoy being smart alecs.
You are doing a great job in your responses, as is the untiring Fred Nerks, especially with the able Ariamne and Bennett 46 protecting the flanks.
Keep up the good work, my FRiends.
"What is it that suggests that their lust for wealth, their desire to impose Islam at swordpoint, and destroy any other religion or culture are all somehow unrelated, ...."
Is the Sudan government run by fanatic islamics, or simply thugs who are after their own power using the mask of religion to further their secular goals ?
"It was actually just a neutral plural diminutive (sort of like calling ten guys named 'Robert' a bunch of Bobs...), and not an insulting, inflammatory pejorative. Honestly.
Unless it was promoted overnight in conjunction with the (apparent) demotion of the dynamic cultural meaning of 'bigot'."
LOL - a Kerryism!
It was an honest mistake --- unless it wasn't.
Good post,
but these points, proven by the fact that IEDs are NOT being set off by the millions of Muslims in the US, are lost on those who seek to create problems.
"...But these were well traveled guys who knew the difference between hype and reality. They didn't base their opinion on information from the MSM."
It's a shame that so many here seem to base their opinions on the hype.
"What I think will draw fanatical forces away from Muslim nations is the call to Jihad in Iraq. ..."
Bush is drawing the crazies into the killing machine and keeping them out of the streets of Detroit.
>"LOL - a Kerryism!
It was an honest mistake --- unless it wasn't."<
No.
Humor, not equivocation. Specifically, sarcasm.
Black men made up 7.91% (or between 57k and 58k) of the enlisted men in the Army in WWII, meaning there were about 733,250 enlisted men.
These stats, for example, are misleading...I think you're mixing snapshot stats with totals from the war. Plus, recall that the Air Corps was part of the army then.
Without the Air Corps, there were about 6 million men in the Army alone--and they weren't mostly officers! :-)
It would have been hard to fight the war we did with only 800,000 enlisted men in the Army...remember that 16 million Americans served, combat and non-combat. In the 10 days including and following D-Day, more than 300,000 Americans landed in Normandy.
I'm not minimizing the contribution of Italian-Americans; I'm just looking to get to the bottom of the numbers. :-)
You are far more articulate than any of us Jan.
Thank you for your eloquent post.
You have been entrusted with a special Gift, you know.
God bless you, my friend!
AND THE HIGHEST AWARD, THE RED FROG, GOES TO JAN IN COLORADO!
Sorry, Mom! ;-)
You're right, of course... :-)
I highly respect Texas Cowboy and the courage he showed in his response to your earlier post. I highly respect you for playing referee and reminding us all that while we disagree, we should be clear not to let our venting cross a line. I highly respect those who remind us of the origins of Islam. I highly respect those who also lost a great deal on 9/11.
And you're right...I hope we are all on the SAME side, and just have different ideas how to get there. One thing I don't want to happen is to have the terrorists drive a wedge between good people.
Again, thank you, Jan. I love your writing.
And I'll try to play nicer...lest I get sent to time out. ;-)
I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis and statement. It is the fact that we are all supposed to be on the same "team", so to speak, that the name calling and posturing gets to me.
Friends can sit down and discuss anything from sports, through religion to politics and beyond and disagree, while still respecting each others opinion. Sometimes you may change a friend's mind, or your mind may be changed, or you may simply agree to disagree.
The same should be true when you are speaking with FRiends posting here, and it doesn't sometimes.
Allow me some "soapbox time" now if you will:
On the old border thread there was outright hatred due to the comments of one or two posters who liked to bandy the words BIGOT and FASCIST around, thankfully they are gone, but it created an atmosphere of distrust for contrary opinions.
Added to that problem is the problem of being a too strict in one's ideology and adopting an ACLU-like attitude towards rights, instead of trying to see the sitution from other angles and trying to actually understand why certain posters feel as they do concerning the "rights" of those they see as enemies, traitors, Quislings, etc.
It all begins and ends with September 11, 2001.
It is easy to quote the Constitution and fret about the rights of alleged American citizens, it is not easy to sit there and listen to such a defense when someone lost friends and relatives in the slaughter.
It is not easy to stand idly by and worry about the rights of certain people when someone believes that they are somehow in league with the spawns of Satan that flew thos planes into their innocent targets and killed thousands whose ONLY crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I believe strongly in the Bill of Rights and the entire Constitution, but I also believe that we need to adjust ourselves to the fact that we are now living in a "New" America, and accept a loss of some freedom for the greater good of all Americans, with the hope that those freedoms will be fully restored one day, when the evil has been eradicated, not jailed, GONE!
Those of you who disagree with me go ahead and rebut me, but don't ping me because I will not debate you on this, I will NOT change my mind.
A real American understands and cooperates with the tough, nearly impossible job, faced by our country to protect us within our country, and unless you experienced a personal loss on that "Black Tuesday", and smelled the odor for weeks afterward, and watched the barges of debris sail by on a daily basis for weeks, thaen you cannot tell me I am wrong in how I feel.
The Muslims at the border should have just shut their mouths and dealt with it, like good Americans who understood that the country had changed...
All changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.
We now return you to your regular programming.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.