Cruz calls for special patrols of Muslim neighborhoods....grrr

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Quote

 

Texas Senator Ted Cruz called for law enforcement in the U.S. to clamp down on Muslim neighborhoods in an effort to stop them from becoming “radicalized” after the terror attacks in Brussels.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/ted-cruz-responds-to-brussels-attack-by-calling-for-special-patrols-of-muslim-neighborhoods/comments/

 

 

I'm seriously disgusted by this.  Does Cruz not remember the Japanese Interment Camps of WWII?  Maybe he thought those were a good idea too?  Disgusting.  

[Vort]

Looks like crappy reporting to me -- par for that site. Based on what that worthless site claims, Cruz called for "law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods". Nothing there about interment camps.

If I lived in a dangerous neighborhood that harbored terrorists, I would want law enforcement to patrol and secure it. Wouldn't you?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Muslim and terrorist are not the same.  Some terrorists are Muslim, but not all Muslims are terrorists.

And no, he didn't mention internment camps, but treating peaceful American Muslims like terrorist out of our fears is what we did to the Japanese in WWII.  It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

[Vort]

24 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Muslim and terrorist are not the same.  Some terrorists are Muslim, but not all Muslims are terrorists.

Who suggested they were?

25 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

And no, he didn't mention internment camps, but treating peaceful American Muslims like terrorist out of our fears is what we did to the Japanese in WWII.  It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

Who said anything about treating American Muslims like WWII Japanese? Sounds like you're making a bunch of unwarranted, perhaps bigoted, assumptions. Godwin's Law much?

[mirkwood]

If not in Muslim neighborhoods where would you suggest we seek the radicals and terrorists out to counter them?

[Guest]

There is a thin line to tread here.  And my position will go back and forth a bit.  So, don't think I've held a hard line until you hear me out.

The Japanese were placed in a prison.  Cruz is saying investigate (patrol and secure) .  This is a big difference.  And that is why I criticize the comparison.

The only real problem is that to "investigate" (patrol and secure) in this case requires religious profiling.  And that is what is eschewed.  But why?  As long as it is based on a lot of fact, any type of profiling is no different than an insurance company saying fat people are at greater risk for heart attack.  That's profiling.  Why is that ok?

Well, the fact is that any crime is committed by a very small percentage of people.  Thus while most Muslims are peaceful, the small percentage that are not can create a LOT of havoc.  But is that enough to put all Muslims under scrutiny?

That depends on the level of scrutiny.  We all have certain Consitutional rights.  As long as the police don't violate them, and they proceed with the assumption of innocence, they are well within their rights to profile all they want.

But how easy is it to go over the line.  If they go into a Muslim neighborhood looking for a terrorist, chances are they'll find one, whether real or not.  This is the real problem.  Police, by and large are good people.  But anyone who is focused on finding something will end up finding it even if it's false.  And when does profiling and investigating become harassment?  How do we get away from that?

The truth is that police can only help in limited capacities.  The police and detective shows on TV are fantasy.  There are not a lot of detectives like Kate Beckett.  And there are a LOT of Muslims in the country.  So, I'd ask, why is it that the small government conservatives who believe that government is not the answer continually go to government for woes like this one?  

If it were a coordinated attack from without, then let them defend our borders.  If there is reason to believe they are an organized mob within the country, then treat it like they would any RICO case.  If it is an isolated event, get the cops to investigate isolated events.  If it is... then...

But to fight an ideology with government is a completely different matter.  The only real way to fight a system of terrorism such as what we're up against is through God with individual vigilance.  Governments are not going to be able to solve this one.

 

Edited March 22, 2016 by Guest

[mirkwood]

The full statement he made (from his Facebook page).

 

Today radical Islamic terrorists targeted the men and women of Brussels as they went to work on a spring morning. In a series of co-ordinated attacks they murdered and maimed dozens of innocent commuters at subway stations and travelers at the airport.

For the terrorists, the identities of the victims were irrelevant. They –we—are all part of an intolerable culture that they have vowed to destroy.

For years, the west has tried to deny this enemy exists out of a combination of... political correctness and fear. We can no longer afford either.

Our European allies are now seeing what comes of a toxic mix of migrants who have been infiltrated by terrorists and isolated, radical Muslim neighborhoods.

We will do what we can to help them fight this scourge, and redouble our efforts to make sure it does not happen here.

We need to immediately halt the flow of refugees from countries with a significant al Qaida or ISIS presence.

We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.

We need to secure the southern border to prevent terrorist infiltration.

And we need to execute a coherent campaign to utterly destroy ISIS.

The days of the United States voluntarily surrendering to the enemy to show how progressive and enlightened we can be are at an end. Our country is at stake.

[prisonchaplain]

IMHO, Cruz is trying to sound like a reasonable angry person. Read:  I understand Trump and his followers' anger. I respect that. But, with me you'll get a rationale, intelligent, anger.

Bottom line:  Yeah, it was a dumb thing to say/do. Any focus that's needed is likely already being carried out by intelligence agencies. Cruz is pandering a bit here. Disappointing, but where are Republicans gonna go (other than the Trump Train, for those so inclined)?

Edited March 22, 2016 by prisonchaplain

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

23 minutes ago, Vort said:

Who suggested they were?

Who said anything about treating American Muslims like WWII Japanese? Sounds like you're making a bunch of unwarranted, perhaps bigoted, assumptions. Godwin's Law much?

No making unwarranted, bigoted assumptions is what Cruz is doing.  

[Vort]

44 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

No making unwarranted, bigoted assumptions is what Cruz is doing.  

Perhaps you're right. Let's hear how. Specify exactly what he said that is unwarranted or bigoted, or for that matter even incorrect.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Vort

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Perhaps you're right. Let's hear how. Specify exactly what he said that is unwarranted or bigoted, or for that matter even incorrect.

He says we need to secure Muslim neighborhoods. What did the people in those neighborhoods do to warrant such treatment. One of the wonderfulthings about our country is "innocent until proven guilty". And that is for people that have actually been accused of something. The people in those Muslim neighborhoods have not done anything to warrant suspicion.

As you know, in WWII the American people panicked. Japan had attacked us, and people assumed that Japanese Americans might side with the Japanese. But currently people agree that it was wrong to make that assumption. 

Now Cruz is making a similar assumption...if people are Muslim they might side with the terrorists. That is wrong in therror same way. It's unwarranted, bigoted and incorrect.

As PC said the Intelligence Agencies can make more fair and targeted actions. And their actions will be based on actual Intel not an assumption of guilt based on a person's religion.

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

He says we need to secure Muslim neighborhoods. What did the people in those neighborhoods do to warrant such treatment. One of the wonderfulthings about our country is "innocent until proven guilty". And that is for people that have actually been accused of something. The people in those Muslim neighborhoods have not done anything to warrant suspicion.

Please explain how making a neighborhood secure is bigoted, or that only bad people "warrant such treatment". I thought only good people warranted security.

15 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

...people assumed that Japanese Americans might side with the Japanese. But currently people agree that it was wrong to make that assumption. Now Cruz is making a similar assumption...if people are Muslim they might side with the terrorists.

This is absurd. The terrorists are self-proclaimed Muslims. Cruz is saying, let's secure the Muslim neighborhoods for everyone's sake -- including the innocent Muslims. Or do you suppose Muslims are excited about the prospect of murderous terrorists in their midst?

Sounds like the bigotry here is yours in reading falsehoods into Cruz's simple words. I realize conservative-baiting is a popular sport with the media and the Left in general, but I would think those here would be above such actions.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Do you really think he's trying to protect Muslims? What would be the basis for that? When have the terrorists attacked other Muslims? 

ETA: He specifically said we need police to make sure they don't become radicalized. That's not about protecting them.

Can you possibly stick to the topic and leave off with the personal attacks? 

Edited March 22, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[LeSellers]

17 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

When have the terrorists attacked other Muslims?

More Muslims are killed by other (presumably radical) Muslims than are others. ISIS/L kills them by their thousands in Afghanistan, Syria, and throughout the Middle East and further eastward. The same is true in Paris and Brussels, and London and Liverpool.

From what I've read, it seems that it is coming close to true in USmerica, as well. Honor killings among a religious group that must not be named to avoid the scandal of "racism" are on the rise, and in high rtmbn towns like Dearborn there are tensions between Muslims of various stripes. If it doesn't end in bloodshed, it will be a wonder.

Lehi

Edited March 22, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Lehi, okay. Thanks for explaining that. 

I still don't think that was Cruz's point though.  He said, "Before they become radicalized" not "before they get attacked or victimized."

[LeSellers]

8 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Lehi, okay. Thanks for explaining that.

No problem. We USmericans tend to forget there is a whole world beyond seas.

8 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I still don't think that was Cruz's point though.  He said, "Before they become radicalized" not "before they get attacked or victimized."

I'm not trying to explain Cruz: I am not his biggest fan. (Nor a fan of Trump or Kasich, for that matter)

But, in defense of the idea, even as you interpret it, we have had a spate of Muslim terrorist attacks in USmerica from "homegrown" terrorists. They do not all go to Pakistan to get radicalized (and even if they did, why else would they go?), so it happens here, and it happens in local Mosques (one near here, in Denver, produced a father'n'son team that got stopped only barely). So, why not monitor them? I know that not LDS would object (except in principle, and I'd agree with them) if the FBI sent agents to listen to Sacrament Meeting talks, aside, perhaps, from the snoring. We have dozens of records of Imams who have encouraged jihad, and I don't mean personal struggle with internal conflicts.

Lehi

[zil]

LP: It seems like you're reading "patrol and secure" as "guard and lock down" like one would do to a prison.  I read "patrol and secure" and I see police cars driving through the neighborhoods a bit more often, beat cops walking the streets and talking to residents more often, and if / when potential danger is observed, they do their job and investigate within the confines of the law.

Of course, I also asked myself when I read this part of his statement, "why do we need to empower them? this sounds like their normal job."  And the only reason I could think of is if some PC nonsense prevents them from stepping up patrols in high-risk areas lest that be seen as profiling.  If he's suggesting they be empowered to go beyond what the law allows, then I disagree with him, but I'm not willing to assume he does - that will need to be proven to me.

[Guest MormonGator]

America is founded on individual rights. While I'm not naive to the troubling aspects of Islam, I'm not wildly in favor of "cracking down" or "stepping up a watch" at my local mosque. They have every right to practice their religion. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Lehi and Zil, I appreciate your point of view, and while I am still very suspicious, I'll try to keep your points in mind as possibilities.

[Guest MormonGator]

22 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Lehi and Zil, I appreciate your point of view, and while I am still very suspicious, I'll try to keep your points in mind as possibilities.

The challenge of the future (gosh, that sounds so melodramatic. Sorry) is how to keep us safe, combat terrorism while assuring our civil liberties are available to everyone. 

I know many peace loving Muslims. 

Edited March 23, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

The challenge of the future (gosh, that sounds so melodramatic. Sorry) is how to keep us safe, combat terrorism while keeping civil liberties available to everyone. 

True.  It's a difficult challenge in any case, but even more so when we can't agree on which path to take.   

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

When have the terrorists attacked other Muslims? 

 

Iraq for starters.

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

They do not all go to Pakistan to get radicalized (and even if they did, why else would they go?), so it happens here, and it happens in local Mosques (one near here, in Denver, produced a father'n'son team that got stopped only barely). So, why not monitor them?

I wish I could say more about things I know.  I can say that there is a lot more radical Islam in the US then the general population knows or hears about.

[LeSellers]

20 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

I wish I could say more about things I know.

So do I, mirkwood, so do I.

Lehi

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 hour ago, mirkwood said:

Iraq for starters.

Thanks, Lehi, already set me straight.