Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Muslims, Refugees and Extremists

I am fine with vetting and accepting the refugees per the current system and accepting them into the USA. I am happy the hackers have found a better use for their "talents".  However the lack of action by the supposed "moderate Muslims" frustrates me to no end.

CNN Obama's Thoughts
MP ISIS Trap
MP Anonymous Fighting ISIS
"My question is when will the main stream peaceful Muslims that I hear so much about say enough is enough and start aggressively turning against the radicals? And begin working with the authorities to arrest them?

Our own local Muslim community Leaders were concerned that the outreach program served a secondary purpose of finding and stopping radical members within their society. Why would any peace loving and supporting group of individuals try to block those activities?

Multiple millions of Muslims are running from their country instead of fixing it. Something is strange in that. Maybe us Protestants and Catholics should start going at it... I do agree that ISIS and Al Qaeda are worse than most. But the idea that they needed Saddam Hussein to keep the Shiites and Sunnis from killing other speaks to deeper and more pervasive problems." G2A
I just couldn't see us Christians running from our country and standing by rather silently as a radical Christian offshoot started beheading people. Thoughts? 

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Have you ever noticed that when a member of a minority, particularly one that has been a target of discrimination, does something wrong, every other member of that minority is some way held responsible? In this respect, the actual minorities concerned are interchangeable. Here is the way it goes:

Member of minority X, does something awful. Immediately calls go out that all members of minority X, in some fashion or another bear some responsibility for the the thing done. Lately, minority X, has been Muslims, or black people. But in our history, it's been others too, Catholics, Jews, the Irish, whatever.

Does it work that way for majorities? Can we think of incidents where all white people or perhaps just mainstream white people, for example, are expected to speak out when some white person does something awful?

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
Everyday caucasian people are expected to report poor behavior by other caucasion people, and they usually do. Be it terrorist activities, white collar crime, rape, spousal abuse, hate crimes, serial killing, etc. That is why our society is so peaceful and law abiding.

I think you missed the mark.

John said...

And please remember that "Peaceful Muslims" are NOT supposed to be the minority in the Middle East. We are told that they are the vast Majority who should be reporting and controlling the "small minority" of violent extremists.

Laurie said...

My main thought on this issue is that I find the prospect of any of the GOP presidential candiates becoming commander and chief very scary. So which of the GOP candidates do you think is up to the job?

also, I think your way underestimating the difficulty for the citizens of Syria and Iraq to combat terrorism and take control of your countries. I really don't get what you think should be happening there.

John said...

I think Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush would do as well or better than Obama.

What would happen in America if extremists blew up a building? Would the majority of citizens scatter and run or would they support finding and stopping the extremists?

The Liberal story goes that the USA caused this mess by toppling a brutal dictator.

The second Liberal story goes that the vast majority of Muslims want peace and order, and anyone who doubts this is Islamaphobic.

Of course the stories are at odds with each other. If the vast majority wanted peace and order they would have fought for it. Unfortunately they apparently preferred to continue the long running fights for control and vengeance.

One must remember that these folks are not us... They have been raised in a world that has been fighting pretty much forever. I am not sure how to deprogram that from a culture and the people who were raised in it?

Laurie said...

I know full well it is a waste of time trying to persuade you Rubio is not up to the job which is why I am putting only 30 seconds into posting this link;

ISIS Is Not Waging a War Against Western Civilization

I think the story Rubio tells is nonsensical and dangerous if it would be used to guide our response to ISIS.

Laurie said...

and about Jeb! I agree with Kevin Drum that he missed an opportunity to show his leadership potential:

Jeb Bush Has Missed a Chance to Revitalize His Campaign

John said...

Now listen to Rubio without the biased fool spinning every word... I mean look at the name of one of his books..."The Good Fight: Why Liberals—and Only Liberals—Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again"

I mean what Marco said is 100% correct and he clearly identified the villain as people with "their radical Sunni Islamic view". No where in this does he throw all Muslims under the bus.

These radical folks like the Taliban are offended by our Western Culture and would be happy to eliminate it. Do you disagree? How would you look in a Burqa?

John said...

I did not say that Jeb will win the election. I said he would do well as Commander in Chief.

I mean with Obama in office the bar is currently set pretty low.

Sean said...

The notion that "they hate us because of our freedoms" is idiotic drivel designed to make conservatives feel better about themselves and to prevent real introspection about whether our actions have contributed to the problem.

Beinart's retelling of history is correct. ISIS attacks those who stand between it and power -- and most of the time ISIS has been attacking other Muslims, not the West. This conflict is exactly the sort of geopolitical battle that Rubio says it isn't.

Laurie said...

Once again I like to let others to make the arguments that republicans are out of their league on national security:

When Will Republicans at Last Get Serious About National Security?

John said...

I think you 2 should do some reading and not under estimate the power of a cult.

Laurie said...

I skim read that article when it was first published.I browse the Atlantic every day. It seems to me we need a leader very capable in handling a high level of complexity in dealing with this threat. Insisting that the words radical Islamic terrorism be used and refusing to take in Muslim refugees seems like it would help ISIS in their recruiting.

John said...

Not openly stating that these folks are part of a fundamentalist doomsday cult that is based on the early Muslim teachings is not any better. And likely much worse. As the article says, these folks are not like Assad or Saddam Hussein who just wanted power in their country.

Now the Taliban may have been like that and are probably kicking themselves for ever letting Al Queda have a training facility in their country... Afghanistan could have been the Islamic Caliphate had the fundamentalists really wanted one. However they really don't care if they get one.

Please remember that religious zealots like these likely see this world as just a stepping stone on their way to heaven. And if they believe that killing sinful non-believers is the way to get there, that is what they will do.

Sean said...

Whether ISIS is a "fundamentalist doomsday cult" has little bearing on how you approach them from a counter-terrorism perspective. The reality is that ISIS isn't lashing out at any non-believers, they're lashing out at those who are threats to them. In fact, their actions are perfectly rational and predictable from what Rubio would call the dreaded geopolitical perspective. The attack on the Russian airliner came shortly after the Russians began actively defending the Assad regime. France has been participating in the air campaign against ISIS targets. They didn't attack Norway or Brazil because they allow women to go to school.

(It's the same sort of nonsense that conservatives spout about Iran. They make it sound like Iran is foaming-at-the-mouth radical, when in fact everything they do is quite rational (from their perspective).)

So the point is that whether ISIS is a doomsday cult or not, the calculations for us remain the same. They control a swath of land in Syria (which is embroiled in a three-way civil war) and Iraq (which is nominally held together by a weak central government). Arming and supporting the Kurds is good idea, but that only gets you so far. The Kurds are only interested in freeing their own territory (and unifying areas of Turkey, Iraq, and Syria under their own flag). The Shia-led Iraqi government has a weak army and has consistently marginalized the Sunni minority which means they either need to pacify that population or engage in serious political reform. They have shown no capacity to do either to this point.

So, if you want something approaching a quick end to this problem, you're going to need an occupation force of probably 100,000+ troops, many of which are going to need to be U.S. tropps, and you're going to need to commit them indefinitely. There's no Assad alternative that can be quickly stood up in Damascus.

Is that what you're willing to do? Do you have a better plan? If you don't have a better plan, then stop criticizing the President.

Sean said...

In the last 10 days, prominent Republicans have proposed:

* a domestic "deportation force" that would round up 500,000 illegal immigrants a month and send them home
* the prospect of identifying people of a certain religion in a national database or identifying their religion on a government ID
* limiting the right to free assembly for individuals of a certain religion
* restrictions on and/or shutting down the churches of a certain religion
* establishing religious tests for immigration to the U.S.
* establishing a government office to promote the values of a certain religious heritage

Liberty! Small government!


John said...

Sources of the statements? I want to see how "prominent" these folks are.

John said...

Sean,
Now I know there were problems in Iraq in 2009 when Obama took over. Now they are much much worse in Iraq and Syria... And France, Lebanon, Libya, Egypt, etc for that matter.

I am sorry but he sitting President ends up with the buck stopping on their desk when they are the Leader of the free world.

This is an interesting list.

Sean said...

In order:

Trump
Trump
Rubio
Trump
Cruz
Kasich

Sean said...

I agree that things are in many ways worse than when Obama took over. The problem is that there isn't an obvious alternative course to the one he has taken.

The American people are, I think, rightfully tired of having ground troops on the ground in the midst of a civil war in the Middle East.

It's fascinating that some are willing to fundamentally reorganize our society based on an event in Paris but these same folks barely bat an eye when a white kid kills 26 people at an elementary school.

John said...

I have to agree with you that Trump, Cruz and Kasich appear to be as crazy as usual.

I guess I don't disagree with Rubio or Bush.

“It’s not about closing down mosques. It’s about closing down any place - whether it's a cafe, a diner an Internet site - any place where radicals are being inspired." Rubio went on to say the bigger problem is finding out where the places are, citing limits on intelligence gathering. "Any facility that is being used to radicalize and inspire attacks against the United States should be a place that we look at."

Sean said...

The problem with what Rubio is saying is that essentially he's denying Muslims the right of free assembly. Any gathering of Muslims is deemed suspect and worthy of investigation.

John said...

It is a balancing act. Remember WACO

Freedom of Religion is great. As long as their "religion" is not focused on "killing non-believers".

Sean said...

Nothing happened in Waco until there was evidence that members of the Branch Davidians were involved in illegal activity. The comments by the Republican contenders are assuming Muslims are guilty merely on the basis of their religion.

jerrye92002 said...

Something that seems to have been forgotten is two official statements from ISIS themselves: their desire to have a worldwide caliphate, and their desire to destroy the Western "infidel" culture. Hardly seems compatible with a "live and let live" approach, let alone a peaceful one. I think Rubio was the one asking what one does with a rabid dog in the middle of town.

John said...

Does this really say to you that we need to watch every Muslim gathering place?

"Any facility that is being used to radicalize and inspire attacks against the United States should be a place that we look at."

I must be reading it very differently. To me this no different than saying...

"Any facility that is being used to by mobsters to plan and operate their illegal business within the the United States should be a place that we look at."

jerrye92002 said...

I guess I don't see it any differently, either. The question is, what's wrong with either proposition?

Sean said...

Holding radical views is not, in and of itself, a crime. And the only way you're going to know if folks are being "radicalized" when they're hanging out at the coffee shop is to be doing massive, comprehensive surveillance on the Muslim community.

John said...

Conspiracy

John said...

I had a thought. I wonder if the police monitor all Olive Gardens just in case an Italian crime family is working out of it?

jerrye92002 said...

Supposedly, surveillance requires "probable cause," and if the authorities have it, why would you object?

Sean said...

Holding radical views is not in and of itself a crime, even conspiracy. (By that view, those on the radical right -- militia movements and the like -- would be similarly suspect.)

Sean said...

I have no problem with surveillance if there is probable cause. What many Republicans are talking about, though, takes steps against Muslim populations without probable cause.

jerrye92002 said...

Sean, I think you're talking gray areas here. It depends on what you mean by "step" and what you mean by "Muslim populations" and what you mean by "probable cause." I'm old school by noting that 20 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were young, single, radical Muslim men. That to me makes that "population" suspect, though it would take some additional overt (or discovered covert) action or statement to, in my opinion, give "probable cause" for more specific surveillance.

Obama wants to claim that most of these Syrian refugees are women and children and orphans. We know that's a lie, and it's a very dangerous one. How many wolves do you want to let in among your sheep? Just a few?