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

[Jojo Bags]

6 hours ago, mirkwood said:

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

Radicalization of Muslim youth doesn't happen in the YMCA, nor does it happen in white neighborhoods, or in Black or Asian gangs.  It happens in mosques and areas where Muslims congregate.  It goes back to the propensity to commit crime.  Where would you look for someone who has the propensity to commit crime?  If you are looking for gangbangers, you look in areas where gangbangers congregate.  If you are looking for radical right-wing Mormon terrorists, you look in Utah and other places with a high number of Mormons.  You don't look in San Francisco.

What you do is keep an eye on the mosques that have radical Imams that preach hate and intolerance.  You watch who comes and goes.  With the Japanese Americans in WWII, there was not one single documented incidence of terrorism or sabotage.  You can't say the same thing with Muslims who are American.  Muslims have established that they can and do radicalize, and that their radicals kill anyone who doesn't agree with their brand of religion.  That's enough to make me leery of anyone frequenting radical Imams or radical websites.  I would watch them closer than a hawk watches a mouse.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Jojo Bags

[mirkwood]

[Just_A_Guy]

On 3/22/2016 at 5:05 PM, 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.

Well, statistically, eight percent of 'em are willing to kill civilians in furtherance of their religion.

Now, if eight percent of Christians are also willing to kill civilians in furtherance of their religion--then I agree, Muslims merit no special treatment from law enforcement.  But if that eight-percent figure is above the national average, than I say--of course we should be giving them special scrutiny.

[anatess2]

If Trump would have said this... even as nicely worded as Cruz said it... the internet will be awash with new Trump bigotry upheavals.

This is the United States.  What exactly is a Muslim Neighborhood in the United States?  50% Muslims in a subdivision?  Inner Cities with Muslim residents?  5 Muslims families huddled in an apartment in a 100-unit apartment complex?

That comment is widely vacuous.  Mosques.  That's what you mean.  All these radicals are devout Muslims.  They go to Mosques.  But no... that's too anti-religion sounding.  Focus group says so.

Hey.  I don't mind Cruz.  If I was American and he was the nominee, I'd vote for him.

[LeSellers]

30 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Mosques.  That's what you mean.  All these radicals are devout Muslims.  They go to Mosques.  But no... that's too anti-religion sounding.  Focus group says so.

Political correctness will end up killing us. As it was intended to.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

29 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Political correctness will end up killing us. As it was intended to.

Lehi

Lehi, we are both pretty libertarian (that's a compliment, I voted for the libertarian republican in 08 and 12. Huge fan of his son). Anti-welfare state, anti-tax, pro-gun, etc. Aren't you slightly worried about the government cracking down on a religion? 

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Lehi, we are both pretty libertarian (that's a compliment, I voted for the libertarian republican in 08 and 12. Huge fan of his son). Anti-welfare state, anti-tax, pro-gun, etc. Aren't you slightly worried about the government cracking down on a religion? 

Libertarianism does not require that we blindfold ourselves and jump into a pit of crocodiles.

I'm not asking for government to curtail speech, not even religious speech. I'm not asking that they shut down mosques or throw the imams into prison. I am asking that we know what they're saying, and to be aware of where the threat is.

We need not even plant bugs in the mosques. But it is permissible for us to listen to what they broadcast, what the congregants (if that's the word) say to each other in the parking lot.

But most of all, we need to believe them when they threaten to kill us. We need to put aside the naïve assumption that Muslims are "just like us". They are not. Yes, they put their pants on (when they wear pants) one leg at a time. But, even though all Muslims are not terrorists, (nearly) all terrorists are Muslims. This is true around the world, not just in USmerica. Not just in Brussels. Not just in Paris. Not just in London. In Iraq. In Lebanon. In Syria. In Pakistan. In Afghanistan. And the list goes on, seemingly endlessly.

It's not just ISIS. We have almost forgotten al Queda, Hamas, and the host of other terrorist groups, all Muslim. ISIS is just the latest incarnation of evil in the Islamic world, one from a millennium and a half since Mohamet stepped off of the (Dome of the) Rock.

I advocate vigilance, not vigilantism; wariness, not war. But to be wary, to be alert, means to know who the enemy is, and where he hides.

Lehi

Edited March 25, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Libertarianism does not require that we blindfold ourselves and jump into a pit of crocodiles.

I'm not asking for government to curtail speech, not even religious speech. I'm not asking that they shut down mosques or throw the imams into prison. I am asking that we know what they're saying, and to be aware of where the threat is.

We need not even plant bugs in the mosques. But it is permissible for us to listen to what they broadcast, what the congregants (if that's the word) say to each other in the parking lot.

But most of all, we need to believe them when they threaten to kill us. We need to put aside the naïve assumption that Muslims are "just like us". They are not. Yes, they put their pants on (when they wear pants) one leg at a time. Bu, even though all Muslims are not terrorists, (nearly) all terrorists are Muslims. This is true around the world, not just in USmerica. Not just in Brussels. Not just in Paris. Not just in London. In Iraq. In Lebanon. In Syria. In Pakistan. In Afghanistan. And the list goes on, seemingly endlessly.

It's not just ISIS. We have almost forgotten al Queda, Hamas, and the host of other terrorist groups, all Muslim. ISIS is just the latest incarnation of evil in the Islamic world, one of a millennium and a half since Mohamet stepped off of the (Dome of the) Rock.

I advocate vigilance, not vigilantism, wariness, not war. But to be wary, to be observant, means to know who the enemy is, and where he hides.

Lehi

 I see what you mean and surprisingly, don't really disagree. It was a question, nothing more. 

[Guest MormonGator]

I think a sign of maturity is realizing that not everyone agrees with you on everything. American liberals (and liberals everywhere, really) need to accept that no matter how tolerant and loving you are (and those are wonderful qualities. Not an insult at all) there are people who want to kill you. And you can't love them into peace. 

[Guest Godless]

4 hours ago, mirkwood said:

I've been saying this for some time now. Peaceful Muslims are the primary target of radical Islamist violence. Muslims are not the enemy. If anything, they have the potential to be our strongest ally. 

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

American liberals (and liberals everywhere, really) need to accept that no matter how tolerant and loving you are (and those are wonderful qualities. Not an insult at all) there are people who want to kill you. And you can't love them into peace. 

Yup. I learned that very quickly on MSR Tampa in 2004.

[LeSellers]

9 minutes ago, Godless said:

Peaceful Muslims are the primary target of radical Islamist violence. Muslims are not the enemy. If anything, they have the potential to be our strongest ally.

I recall the quote from J.K.Rowlings: Harry is speaking of the death eaters, and says, "We'd be the best of mates if they'd just stop trying to kill me."

Lehi

[Guest Godless]

19 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

I recall the quote from J.K.Rowlings: Harry is speaking of the death eaters, and says, "We'd be the best of mates if they'd just stop trying to kill me."

Lehi

That analogy is only accurate in this case if the majority of the death eaters 1) Have no interest in killing Harry, AND 2) Are systematically been killed off themselves by a violent death eater minority. Peaceful Muslims exist, they represent a majority of the Muslim faith, and they're being subjected to far more violence at the hands of ISIS than non-Muslims are. Muslims are not the enemy.

To be clear, I have absolutely no objection to investigating and conducting surveillance on Muslim organizations that are known to be sympathetic to extremist groups. That's not what Cruz is proposing. His exact words were: "We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized." Yes, we need to be reaching out to Muslim communities in the US, but not with law enforcement patrols. Every time the violent Muslim minority strikes, we react out of fear and ignorance against the entire religion. The result is more radicalization. The only way we can fight that radicalization is to stop being the enemy of the Muslim religion. By all means, seek out and eradicate those who are already radicalized and ready to do harm to others. But don't compromise the religious liberty of the innocent to do so. Islam is the second-largest religion in the world. Muslims could be very powerful allies if we gave them a chance. I've seen it work first-hand. In a country filled with people who feared for their lives, there were brave Iraqis who put their lives and the lives of their families in danger to help US forces exterminate the Al Qaeda groups that were terrorizing their communities. Many of our war veterans owe their lives to local nationals and interpreters who helped as much as they could despite the threat of repercussions. We earned their trust though community outreach, not security patrols. 

[LeSellers]

12 hours ago, Godless said:

 Peaceful Muslims exist, they represent a majority of the Muslim faith, and they're being subjected to far more violence at the hands of ISIS than non-Muslims are. Muslims are not the enemy.

I agree, there are peaceful Muslims, and they are the majority. That hardly means we should close our eyes and accept that everyone who claims refugee status, or even who's already in USmerica, is peaceful.

There are millions of non-peaceful Muslims. Who is who? There is no way to tell. The Muslims cannot distinguish one from the other. Muslim mothers are perfectly willing, proud even, to sacrifice their children as suicide bombers, and "martyrs". Once peaceful Muslims become jihadists, people who are not Muslim become Muslim, and they sometimes become violent. Around the world (a very small place, thanks to the Wright brothers and Alexander Graham Bell), there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who activley want Sharia as the dominant legal system wherever they live, and that includes a sizable fraction of those here, and certainly in Europe.

The question I, among others, asked long ago: how do we tell a peaceful Muslim from a violent jihadist?

The only way to know, or even make an intelligent guess is to keep watching them, to be alert, to understand that there is no tattoo, no haircut, no tie pattern, that flags a jihadist. often the first indicator is a bomb or a bullet that's just killed someone.

But, that may be the first indicator, but we can assume that it is only because no one noticed that "other thing" a month earlier.

Little old ladies in wheelchairs don't hijack aircraft, but we treat them as if they do, all the while ignoring the Muslims, speaking Arabic and demanding prayer time'n'space in airports. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.

Lehi

[unixknight]

I've always been of a divided mind in this issue.  While I don't disagree with what @LeSellers is getting at, I'm wary of how a system of surveillance could, over time, be abused or just start crossing the Constitutional line. 

Besides which, it's one thing to entrust the Government with the ability to closely watch communities of a particular religious group when the President and/or the Congress is friendly to your, but would we still want a precedent like that in place when we have a Government that's hostile to our belief system?  Heck, the one we have has a miserable track record of relations with the LDS Church and it got a lot better for a while, but now seems to be sliding back.  Is this something we want?  A Government that's got a precedent for increased security and attention on religious groups?  Is it worth it?  Is there no other way to minimize or prevent the type of chaos we are seeing in Europe?

[LeSellers]

6 hours ago, unixknight said:

I've always been of a divided mind in this issue.  While I don't disagree with what @LeSellers is getting at, I'm wary of how a system of surveillance could, over time, be abused or just start crossing the Constitutional line.

Please recall that I am not asking the government to monitor Imams' speeches, or put bugs in their mosques. But we can hear what they are saying on social media, and believe them when they say they want to kill us. We can track people who go to Pakistan or the kingdom, or Afghanistan, where almost all radicalized Muslims go for training or indoctrination.

Yes, we run a risk of government's stepping over the line, but that's a risk we face everyday anyway: government's first goal is to grow and to become more intrusive no matter the situation. So we should be as watchful against the state as we are about Muslims and the KKK.

Lehi

Edited March 25, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest MormonGator]

20 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I've always been of a divided mind in this issue.  While I don't disagree with what @LeSellers is getting at, I'm wary of how a system of surveillance could, over time, be abused or just start crossing the Constitutional line. 

 

Exactly. I'm all about keeping us safe, and I obviously have no desire to see innocent people being killed by radical lunatics who give all religious people a bad name....

but give the government an inch... 

[unixknight]

I know you aren't calling for that, but I'll bet that's where it would ultimately go.

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I know you aren't calling for that, but I'll bet that's where it would ultimately go.

100% correct. It's called a "slippery slope" for a reason. I don't think most police officers would go hardcore Jack Bauer on every muslim they see though, in fairness. 

Edited March 25, 2016 by MormonGator

[unixknight]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

100% correct. It's called a "slippery slope" for a reason. I don't think most police officers would go hardcore Jack Bauer on every muslim they see though, in fairness. 

No, I don't think so either.  What I'm worried about is higher level stuff.  Slippery Slope isn't a fallacy when there's an established pattern... 

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, unixknight said:

No, I don't think so either.  What I'm worried about is higher level stuff.  Slippery Slope isn't a fallacy when there's an established pattern... 

Exactly

[Jojo Bags]

22 hours ago, LeSellers said:

It's not just ISIS. We have almost forgotten al Queda, Hamas, and the host of other terrorist groups, all Muslim. ISIS is just the latest incarnation of evil in the Islamic world, one from a millennium and a half since Mohamet stepped off of the (Dome of the) Rock.

And what is so disgusting is that al Queda, the Taliban, and ISIS were all started by people within the U.S. Government.

[anatess2]

On ‎3‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 7:27 PM, mirkwood said:

Well... maybe because they're not all ISIS attacks?

I'll use the Yemen one for an example.  Yemen is currently embroiled in war.  The Houthis are rebelling against the Yemen government and effectively deposed them last year.  Saudi formed a coalition with other Muslim nations to retake the Yemen government from the Houtis.  They've been bombing each other over there.  Saudi dropped a bomb back on March 15 in some market and a few days later 2 Houthi mosques blows up.  Nobody wants to claim the mosques bombing because that is not a good thing for Saudis to admit to.

ISIS found no problem claiming that event for their own.  Highly skeptical that it is theirs.

Anyway, if you're gonna make Breaking News out of all the casualties of war in Yemen, you'll be breaking news daily.  It's a warzone folks.

Turkey... Kurds in Turkey want to secede from the government.  They want their own State.  They keep on making rebel noises.  ISIS claims its theirs... it isn't... it's Kurdish.  If this is breaking news then Philippine Islamic uprisings will also be breaking news... they're not breaking news.  They're not even breaking news in the Philippines.

Afghanistan... the march of ISIS through the Levant has been on the news daily.  It gets buried under the latest Trump circus, but it's been there.

The Muslim against Belgium/Paris/US is big news because... you don't expect those there.  It's like black people killing each other in Chicago is not news.  Have a black guy shoot a white socialite of New York... Breaking News.

And etcetera, etcetera.

But yes, this does give the skewed impression that Muslims are only killing Westerners... if you're a drive-by media consumer.  But, if you give it 5 seconds to think about it... why the heck do we have Syrian Refugees if ISIS was not killing Muslims?  So yeah, I put this on the heads of the American news consumer in equal measure as the American media.

Edited March 25, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Jojo Bags said:

And what is so disgusting is that al Queda, the Taliban, and ISIS were all started by people within the U.S. Government.

 In fairness to the US government, no one can see the future, and in the real world alliances and a national self interest can change. Welcome to reality. Have some chips. 

And even if the US Government "started" those organizations, when your dog bites the hand of your baby, you better find a kennel. 

Edited March 26, 2016 by MormonGator

[zil]

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Welcome to reality. Have some chips. 

Does this reality of yours come with dips, too?

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, zil said:

Does this reality of yours come with dips, too?

Zil Dear? Once you left the compound, you are no longer invited to any parties.