Muslims in the Military

The Washington Times ^ | September 25, 2003 | Editorial

[RoughDobermann]

Unfair to the non-radical, peaceful Muslims, obviously.

[Bob Eimiller]

Hey Grayout.... I think you should see a recruter and volunteer for the infantry... request a Persian Gulf war zone and plead to share a fox hole with an "Islamic American" ... be sure his weapon will be clean and in working order...I'm sure a few grenades will be on his belt and his bayonette will be sharp...

Make sure you relax and sleep with both of your eyes closed... OK?

[Bob Eimiller]

recruiter

[truthandlife]

BUMP

[flyer182]

All I know is that we are at war not with a nation but with a thought process. No different then communist, or nazi's. I am sure that there were good folks who called themselves communist and nazi's also, and did not personnaly take any action on those ideals. But there membership of and identification with makes them just as complicit for the crimes of there more fanactical brethren.

[quidnunc]

RoughDobermann wrote: Unfair to the non-radical, peaceful Muslims, obviously.

Are you seriously suggesting that the safety of all Americans be placed in jeopardy to spare the feelings of those non-radical, peaceful Muslims?

What about your own personal safety, or that of your wife and children?

Or if you don't have a wife or children what about the safety of your parents and siblings?

[browardchad]

I'm not apologizing for anyone.

I think a lot of folks can't tell the difference between the majority peaceful law abiding Muslims and the terrorists because they don't want to. Its just an easy way to justify paranoia, ignorance, and flat out hatred.

The major difficulty with this statement is that, for the past two years, we have seen so little evidence of "the majority of peaceful law abiding Muslims" that their existence has been logically called into question. What we have seen is the government and the media giving deference to organizations, such as CAIR, ISNA, AMC, that have been proven to have terrorist/extremist ties, and who are attempting to silence criticism of their highly questionable activities with cries of "racism" and "persecution."

What you are seeing is backlash effect, as the evidence of the senses -- in the form of violence, rhetoric, betrayal, and printed materials filled with naked hatred -- overwhelms political correctness.

To use the words of Robert Spencer:

The issues here are too important to be relegated to politically correct silence, wishful thinking, or lies of intimidation or politeness. It is incumbent on us to look squarely at the truth."

That "us" includes Muslims in America.

[rrrod]

well for one thing..id like to see deomocRATS not being allowed to serve..national security ya know

[RoughDobermann]

Are you seriously suggesting that the safety of all Americans be placed in jeopardy to spare the feelings of those non-radical, peaceful Muslims?

Yes, I am, if "guaranteeing" our safety includes the process of watching the activities of all Muslims. It's called freedom. The last time I checked, some of the "all Americans" includes Muslims.

I take it you are not a non-radical, peaceful Muslim, are you?

[MEGoody]

"My problem here is that, I think a lot of folks can't tell the difference between the majority peaceful law abiding Muslims and the terrorists because they don't want to."

How do you tell the difference? What should the military have done to root out Yee from the beginning? Which of the actions you list would be acceptable to you?

[quidnunc]

RoughDobermann wrote: (Are you seriously suggesting that the safety of all Americans be placed in jeopardy to spare the feelings of those non-radical, peaceful Muslims?) Yes, I am, if "guaranteeing" our safety includes the process of watching the activities of all Muslims. It's called freedom. The last time I checked, some of the "all Americans" includes Muslims.

And what of the the freedom from the threat of being blown to smithereens or being obliterated in the flaming wreckage of a downed airliner, is this not also a vital civil liberty?

The measures used to investigate suspected terroristrs are no more intrusive than those used to investigate suspected white-collar criminals.

The Muslim jihadists and those advocating for them invoke civil liberties in order to be in a position to eliminate them at a later time.

[RoughDobermann]

And what of the the freedom from the threat of being blown to smithereens or being obliterated in the flaming wreckage of a downed airliner, is this not also a vital civil liberty?

Of course it is. But should EVERY Muslim be a suspect? Yes or no? If your answer is yes, then we have nothing else to say.

The measures used to investigate suspected terroristrs are no more intrusive than those used to investigate suspected white-collar criminals.

Agreed, and if there is evidence that particular Muslims are considering or engaging in terrorist activity, they should be investigated. But, should every Muslim be investigated or be considered a suspect? No.

[quidnunc]

Fact: Not all Muslims are terrorists or memmbers of their support group.

Fact: All terrorists and practically all their support group are Muslims.

Fact: The Muslim terrorists by and large move within the Muslim community in the U.S.

So in view of these facts where do you propose that we look for terrorists, in Lutheran churches, Farm Bureau picnics or Knights of Columbus lodges?

No, you have to look where Muslims congregate.

Our domestic counter-terrorism efforts must, of necessity be directed at Muslim organizations.

And if we don't want more 9/11s we have to be proactive, not reactive.

[RoughDobermann]

Our domestic counter-terrorism efforts must, of necessity be directed at Muslim organizations

I don't disagree, but which? All of them?

[quidnunc]

We have reason to believe that the Saudis have placed hard-line Wahhhabi clerics in 80% of the mosques in the u.S.

Therefore all mosques in America should be given a look-see to determine if they liable to be harboring terrorists.

The same goes for Muslim gatherings such as conventions.

The investigation of Muslim groups doesn't have to be high-profile or intrusive to be effective.

But the Muslim radicals are in the ascendency world-wide so we have to keep abreast of what's going on in the American ummah.

[quidnunc]

grayout wrote: (Fact: All terrorists and practically all their support group are Muslims.) Fact: Your facts are wrong. Aum Shinrikyo, FARC, ELN, Nov 17th, Revolutionary Peoples Struggle, Basque Fatherland, IRA, Kurdistan Workers Party, Kahane Chai, Tupac Amaru, and a slew of left and right wing domestic terrorists. None of those are jihadist related.

That comment is a nothing but casuistry.

The subject of this thread and this discussion is Islamofascism, which is the only terrorist movement posing a mortal threat to America.