Reply With Quote
no time!
easier to question your sources than to use dat google.
Why don't you read the book?
no time!
easier to question your sources than to use dat google.
lol facts are overrated
Allahu Akbar actually means "I'm killing innocent civilians to end foreign occupation".
Why are you arguing as though anyone is suggesting religion is not a factor in suicide bombings? Try to keep up.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/0...-us-safe-afterWho Really Kept Us Safe After 9/11
The truth about homeland security
Steve Chapman | September 8, 2011
If there was any certainty in the weeks and months after the 9/11 attacks, it was that these were just the first in a campaign of terror on American soil. "You can just about bet on it," said Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee. New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said, "I anticipate another attack."
Gary Stubblefield, who directed the Naval Special Warfare Task Unit in the Pacific area, asserted that, as The Denver Post paraphrased, "the question is not if but when dozens of terrorist cells in the United States will unleash biological, chemical and perhaps nuclear weapons against U.S. cities." FBI Director Robert Mueller estimated the U.S. harbored "several hundred" extremists affiliated with Al Qaeda.
Americans had seen in Israel how a homegrown terrorist movement was able to kill hundreds of people with suicide bombings and other attacks. It seemed we could expect the same. A comment often heard was, "We are all Israelis now."
But the predictions have not come true. There have been very few attacks in this country by Islamic extremists—and nothing remotely on the scale of 9/11. The "sleeper cells" proved to be mostly nonexistent.
This surprising record has been attributed to excellent work by the FBI, CIA, and other law enforcement agencies, the war in Afghanistan, and the Bush administration's aggressive treatment of suspected terrorists. But on the list of those deserving credit, the first is a group hardly anyone would have predicted: American Muslims.
Millions of Muslims live in the United States. Had even a tiny percentage been radicalized enough to commit violence, they could have done immense damage. Despite all the efforts to upgrade security at a few crucial sites, it really wouldn't be hard for any group to kill lots of people.
A car bomb in a stadium parking lot, a couple of semi-automatic rifles in a shopping mall, a Molotov tail in a crowded bus, a bomb on a railroad track, a runaway pickup on a city sidewalk—there's an endless list of easy pickings.
There are too many targets to secure them all. It would have been a simple task for a handful of minimally trained volunteers to keep us in a constant state of fear.
But the volunteers, with rare exceptions, didn't come forward. Charles Kurzman, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, writes in Foreign Policy magazine that "approximately a dozen people in the country were convicted in the five years after 9/11 for having links with al-Qaida" and "fewer than 40 Muslim Americans planned or carried out acts of domestic terrorism."
That may sound like a lot, until you remember that there are 15,000 murders a year in this country. A report from the Rand Corp., a national security think tank, noted that of 83 terrorist attacks that took place between 9/11 and the end of 2009, only three "were clearly connected with the jihadist cause." Three!
No, it just means ObL understood the Pape theory of suicide attacks, which really only applies to the masses, not one individual. He wanted us there as a pretext to launch the masses into suicide attacks, not because he welcomed us. It was a means to his end of a great war with the west.
So, Muslims not being radicalized deserve credit? Got it. I would be on board if he gave credit to Muslims that ratted out their radicalized brethren. But, alas, he doesn't believe they exist in America.
A certain Army psychiatrist, named Hassan, and his radicalized Imam that fled the country when he became a wanted terrorist, beg to differ.
And, he fails to mention the threats and plots -- involving radicalized Muslims -- that have been thwarted over the intervening 10 years.
Your writer is an idiot.
Yeah I ask my Muslim neighbor every day why he didn't tell anyone about Hassan.
Wooly haired leftists at Reason? Who knew.
That's a defense?
Was there an attack?
Yes. Major Nidal Hassan massacred a bunch of soldiers at Fort Hood. Perhaps you forgot.
Not at all. Who defended it?
Who said anyone defended it?
I merely pointed out the writer's premise there have been no attacks because there are no radicalized Muslims in America is false.
Except, that's not what he said. Some posters can read, you know.
Goalposts!
His argument was intended to minimize the efforts of law enforcement and intelligence groups in preventing subsequent terror attacks and place the credit on a bunch of people that did, well, nothing except not radicalize.
That's what he said.
Both were emphasized.
No, those that actually kept the country safe were minimized by the proposition that Muslims who chose to not radicalize were on the same footing as the law enforcement and intelligence agents that actually were preventing attacks.
If he wanted to give any Muslims credit, he should have emphasized those who were providing intelligence to law enforcement and federal agents about the activities of their radicalized co-religionists. I believe those Muslims exist yet, no mention of them.
Why? Because it plays against his narrative that we should be grateful to Muslims that did absolutely nothing. It's like saying someone is crusading against bank robbers by not robbing banks.
Why can't we be grateful that some Muslims didn't radicalize AND to those who protect us from radicalized ones?
Because those who don't rob banks are different than those who turn their bank robbing friends in to the police.
You say that as if it's some great sacrifice for a Muslim to not radicalize.
You say this as though we all have bank robbing friends, like every Muslim knows an extremist Muslim.
No, I say that as though those Muslims who actually reported their radicalized co-religionists deserve the credit that would equate them to the law enforcement and federal agents that have prevented subsequent attacks; not the majority of Muslims that simply decided not to radicalize.
You and the author seem to conclude that radicalization is a hard proposition for Muslims to resist and that they should be commended for not doing so.
No, I don't think they should be commended. I just don't think they should be feared either, as you and your people keep insisting they should.
You have been proven wrong about the inherent extremism of American Muslims for the last ten years and now you're butthurt about it. If you were justified in your su ions about American Muslims, we would have suffered significantly more attacks since 9/11 than we have had. So you keep harping on the isolated Ft. Hood incident as if it's symptomatic of a much larger problem. It's pathetic.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions