Last week's arrest of four men in the Bronx, New York on charges of plotting to bomb two synagogues and shoot down a military aircraft with a missile has revived an ongoing debate about the connection between Islam and terrorism and the twin pitfalls of religious bigotry and willfully blind political correctness.
The New York Times has been assailed by conservative critics such as Dallas Morning News columnist and blogger Rod Dreher for downplaying a troubling aspect of the case: all the suspects are Muslims. (They had converted to Islam while in prison for drug offenses, theft, and other crimes.) The first Times report on May 20 mentioned this fact only in passing—despite a statement by New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly at a press conference that the four had talked frankly about wanting to "commit jihad."
. . .
By contrast, the opening line of the New York Post story on the arrests referred to "four homegrown Muslim terrorists on a mission from hell"—inflammatory, to be sure, but arguably far more accurate.As is frequently her way, Ms. Young beats me to the punch:
To some on the left, any mention of Islamic extremism is a bigoted right-wing scare tactic. On his blog, Nation magazine columnist Robert Dreyfuss dismisses the New York terror plot as "bogus" and asserts that every alleged plot by Muslim terrorists on U.S. soil after the World Trade Center attack has been "nonsense" cooked up by the FBI: "Since 9/11 not a single American has even been punched in the nose by an angry Muslim, as far as I can tell." (Tell that to the victims of Mohammed Taheri-azar, who plowed a Jeep into a crowd of students at the University of North Carolina in 2006 and later told authorities that he wanted to follow in the footsteps of September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and "avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world.") And while most of the plots uncovered by the authorities seem to have been the work of inept losers, one does not have to be a genius to inflict a lot of damage. If the September 11 hijackers had been caught, how many people would have scoffed at the plot to fly hijacked planes into buildings as absurdly improbable?
And she beats me to another frequent observation of mine. I was not aware of this specific item, but I have gotten tired of pointing the main point out to my 'Conservative' friends, who are just like Leftists, they just have a different set of issues:
Yet anti-Muslim hysteria on the right is no myth, either. In February 2007, when a teenager named Sulejmen Talovic went on a shooting rampage at a Salt Lake City, Utah shopping mall, killing five people, some right-wing websites excoriated the media for ignoring the "Muslim connection"—the shooter's background as a Bosnian Muslim immigrant. Never mind that there was nothing to suggest that Talovic was a Muslim zealot or that religion had anything to do with his actions. (Shooting sprees by troubled young men of other religious backgrounds are not exactly unknown.)The whole article is quite excellent.
Some surprisingly good comments too, and they include some marketing advice for Muslims. I could do without the "white southern redneck" talk, but see my comment above about people really being alike, just with a different set of issues.
I vote this as the winning thread comment:
Mister DNA | May 29, 2009, 5:57pm | #
Changing the spelling of fatwa to phatwa would go a long way towards changing Islam's image.
Also, I would suggest replacing the Koran with something more recent. Say, the January 1973 issue of National Lampoon, for example.
Omar | May 30, 2009, 9:52am | #
Isildur:
" . . . your wall-of-bullshit approach to posting means that nobody bothers to read what you have to say."
_______
I read it, to the end.
__________________
As for our Salt Lake teenager . . . Maybe not "jihad" in the usual way, but there are several disturbing indicators. Seems he was wearing a miniature Quran around his neck at the time of the shooting (a detail that somehow escaped disclosure until recently) and shortly before the shootings he'd bragged about his grandfather being "part of the jihad."
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/05/2.html
If I'm not mistaken, his cousin "Omerovic" was also jailed for sending threatening jihadic letters to US officals. . . . "Death to US, death to Israel" stuff. Here's the most complete run down I've seen. Mentions eveything except the miniature Quran, which was (apparently) DELIBERTATELY withheld from the media. Wonder why?
http://islam-watch.org/Serbianna/Utah-shopping-mall-killing-jihad.htm
MJ | May 30, 2009, 10:07am | #
"let's just call it 'violent religious extremism' in all media from here on out."-isildur
While we're at it we can call violent Marxist movements "violent atheist movements".
Buck Smith | May 30, 2009, 10:26am | #
The DC sniper is another example of domestic attack by Muslim since 9-11.
One of the attacks that has been foiled since 9-11 was an plot by some Bosnian Muslims to attack a US army base. Their motivation was anger at the US for NOT intervening to stop the massacre of Bosnians by Serbs in the 90s. If we intervene the jihadis are mad cause we intervene, if we don’t they're mad anyway. My opinion is one more attack in the US on the scale of 9-11 and the gloves will come off. Radical Islam contains the seeds of its destruction.Anonymous | May 30, 2009, 10:29am | #
Back to the Islam slogans...
"Islam, it's a blast!"
May 29, 2009By doing something I've always thought we should do -- charging criminals for their jail stay. Tracy Loew writes in USA Today:
Get arrested in Springfield, Ore., this fall, and you might spend the night in jail -- then get a bill for your stay.The city plans to charge convicted criminals up to $60 a night, depending on their ability to pay, when a new 100-bed lockup opens in October, Springfield Police Chief Jerry Smith says. Thus, the city could recoup most of its cost of about $70 a day.
"These people are the ones who cause the cost to operate a jail, so they ought to be the ones to pay it, not private citizens," Smith says.
The economic recession is spurring several local governments to turn to pay-to-stay programs, says Sara Totonchi, public policy director for the Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights, which fights legislation that imposes such fees on inmates.
"In these difficult economic times, policymakers are looking for different options to save money," Totonchi says.
Oh, boohoo. You do the crime -- don't expect me to pay for your time. And that has nothing to do with the way our elected and appointed idiots mismanage our tax dollars and our prisons.
And while we're at it, I think criminals should have to stay in jail until they earn money to pay restitution to their victims.
I disagree about as strongly as possible. All this does is set-up a system of perpetual employment for the legal and law enforcement system. We already have enough problems with cops taking property under questionable circumstances. We have for decades. Now we are going to begin a billing system for housing convicted criminals?
How about this: make jail as expensive and safe as possible and get rid of a bunch of stupid laws that make it all too easy for government actors to incarcerate such a large percentage of our population. Perhaps if jail was more expensive to society our representatives would not be so happy to make so many perfectly harmless things illegal.
In the future, at least the one I was thinking in my book, pretty much the last things people will be getting jailed for (in the USA) are non-violent crimes. Sadly, every time I think we are about to go in that direction we are deflected.
A great piece from Slate on how attorney general grandstanding has made life worse for cops andprostitutes
Prostitutes Get Screwed (and a Happy Ending)
. . .
• Why shutting down Craigslist's "Erotic Services" section could make prostitution more dangerous, and make it more difficult for police to solve cases where prostitutes have been harmed.
Since these government types truly deserve some sort of punishment, don't forget to check out the Nina Hartley walling demonstration video.(NOT work safe).
Reports last week suggested that the Newburgh four -- the men arrested Wednesday for plotting to bomb two New York synagogues -- perhaps weren't theswiftest ships in her majesty's fleet. But over the weekend, people close to the four came forward to describe how the government informant at the center of the case against them -- the man known to the suspects as Maqsood -- aggressively courted the men before luring them into an imagined jihad.
Kyle Jordan | May 26, 2009, 8:08am | #
"D.C. councilman blames pizza for crime."
That article made my head hurt.
"How a government informer wooed the Newburgh 4."
I don't really feel sorry for these guys simply because they chose to carry it through but there is definitely something wrong if this "Maqsood" badgered them as much as claimed. I guess it's no longer enough to just claim terrorism threats or let would be actual terrorists use our systems against us (something that will ALWAYS happen). We now have to actively manufacture them.Abdul | May 26, 2009, 9:09am | #
I doubt there is a ton of Al-Qaeda operatives in Kansas to recieve such messages...
MNG,
They got 19 people into America for September 11th. After that, they got Jose Padilla in (even if he was captured soon thereafter). Whatever you want to say about his treatment or detention, no one questions that Padilla recieved training from Al Quaeda.
And all Al quaeda needs is a few people to get in to america to amount an escape attempt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_helicopter_prison_escapes
Unlike these guys in the 27 helicopter escapes in the Wikipedia article, Al Quaeda has shown that they are willing to trade their own lives for publicity in suicidal attacks.
One of the great advantages of gitmo is that we got Castro to run interference for us. The US is an open society, one where stealing firearms or hijacking a helicopter is far easier than in Cuba.
The decision to close gitmo has nothing to do with the issues of due process for detainees or concerns about humanitarian treatment. Detainees can be denied due process and treated inhumanely in the US just as well as outside it. This decision is only about public relations.
Calif. Ruling Shows Hurdles Remain for Gay MarriageWashington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved constitutional amendment Tuesday that bans same-sex marriage in the state.
The court said, however, that those couples who wed in the state under an earlier opinion from the court, will be considered married.
Now, if they would just get rid of heterosexual marriage maybe we will be approaching equality.
Some interesting comments from the Reasonids:
♪ May 26, 2009, 1:45pm #
There was actually a brief filed at the time after the first ballot proposal was overturned that would have put a halt on marring same-sex couples until the second ballot proposal was voted on. This would have been prudent in a time when the question was in flux.
Also, "gay marriage" is a misnomer. Nobody asks for sexual preference when filling out a marriage license.
ellipsis May 26, 2009, 5:47pm #
The Hef seems to be able to find multiple girlfriends. What if he wanted to marry all of them? The only thing that would change is the (now) wives ability to get tax deductions and estate matters.
Marriage used to be a license to have sex. That's why polygamy was banned, because the LDS was considered a freakshow. In modern times, marriage has nothing to do with sex. And yes I know I'm condensing, but bear with me. Polygamy wasn't even banned in the US until 1862, and only because of what amounted to religious persecution. The Merrill anti-Bigamy Act should have been overturned on first amendment grounds. But the majority is always willing to throw any odd practices under the bus for the morality of America.
I think polygamy should be legal - along with any other human marriage arrangement - but considering how hard it is to get same-sex marriage legalized, I doubt it'll happen any time soon.
Marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Anything else is NOT marriage. It may be a civil union, but it is not marriage.
I think the argument that the government should not issue marriage licenses is a valid one. Perhaps the government should issue "civil union" licenses and then if a man and woman want to get married, they may do so in whatever ceremony they wish. Then, everyone has equal rights and we don't redefine words.
For me, it's as much a logical argument as anything else. We might as well pass legislation that says day is night and night is day. That won't change the fact that the sun is visible at about the same time every day (oops, night) - we'll just change what that period of time is called.
For the record: I am against government involvement in marriage and that is one thing my fictional character of this name shares with me.
In other news, our crazy immigration policy was a factor in a friend of mine, who I used to date, getting married so that she does not have to keep going back to England for visa renewals.
When the landlady of my Toronto apartment building said an outraged
neighbour had filed a complaint about me over an apparently inappropriate
hallway interaction with his wife, my mind raced through the countless
conversations I've had with fellow tenants, none of which seemed a possible
source of offence.
It turns out, it wasn't a salacious transaction that had caused the
complaint, but rather a neighbourly and -- to me -- entirely forgettable
greeting, little more than a brief "good morning" as I passed my neighbours on
the way to work.
Still, it was enough of an affront for the man -- once a doctor somewhere
in the Middle East, my landlady clarified -- to feel I had broken a cultural
taboo. The incident started an awkward feud which has involved warnings not to
repeat my indiscretion and one face-to-face shouting match, which included
allusions to my impending death.
 |
| Now only 99¢ |
