How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Ralph Peters vs. Deadly Political Correc   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Ralph Peters vs. Deadly Political Correctness

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


75 posted 11-15-2009 07:38 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

More violence by Irish folks than Muslims in London?  What!  Let's ignore that posthaste!

Bob,Bob, Bob....sarcasm is not one of your stronger suits, I'm afraid.

OK, let's take the Irish, as an example. If the English were in a war against terrorism against the Irish at this time, and one of the Irish members of the English Army, a major, was in contact with the IRA, had business cards that read Soldier of Ireland, gave speeches to other military personnel about how the IRA was more willing to die for their cause than the English were to live for theirs, among other things, do you really think British intelligence would not pay special attention to the fellow? Would not conduct some kind of investigation without concern for being branded prejudiced against Irish? Even the English aren't that foolish.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


76 posted 11-15-2009 07:43 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Grinch


If you don't mind, I will use a situation to explain what I meant: If there were a group of soldiers and one of them were noticeably Muslim, but the rest were not noticeably religious,  then the Muslim would stick out more, yes, because of his religious aspect, and the others would be the "average".    On one hand, I would be more careful toward him to be more sensitive about his religious beliefs.  But on the other hand, I would also be more careful to watch out for signs of his religious belief going too far and becoming extreme, not because he is involved in the Muslim religion in and of itself, but because the Muslim religion has become so involved in terrorism. Not because being a Muslim is to blame, but because the extent to which Islam is abused is to blame.  Who can look at how much abuse of Islam for violence is going on and say that it is unreasonable to be more vigilant and careful about Muslims, especially when they enter important offices to serve the country?  

[This message has been edited by Essorant (11-15-2009 08:32 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


77 posted 11-15-2009 07:47 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Being disturbed -- it wouldn't have mattered if he was a Freemason, a Republican, or a Shaker --

Really? So a person who is just disturbed versus a person who is disturbed, a member of the military, a person in contact with a terrorist organization who has to declared to destroy the United States, a person who declares himself a soldier of the faith terrorists are using to declare their jihad against America, would be a wash, with none of that mattering? Interesting.

Sure, the FBI checked him out....and, somewhere along the road, some power-that-be decided to back off and not pursue it, quite probably for political correctness reasons.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


78 posted 11-15-2009 08:30 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

The only difference any of those things make Mike, is the target and the opportunity:

quote:

Police found right-wing political books, brass knuckles, empty shotgun shell boxes and a handgun in the Powell home of a man who said he attacked a church in order to kill liberals "who are ruining the country," court records show.

Knoxville police Sunday evening searched the Levy Drive home of Jim David Adkisson after he allegedly entered the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church and killed two people and wounded six others during the presentation of a children's musical.

Knoxville Police Department Officer Steve Still requested the search warrant after interviewing Adkisson. who was subdued by several church members after firing three rounds from a 12-gauge shotgun into the congregation.

Adkisson targeted the church, Still wrote in the document obtained by WBIR-TV, Channel 10, "because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets."

Adkisson told Still that "he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office."

Adkisson told officers he left the house unlocked for them because "he expected to be killed during the assault."

Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.

The shotgun-wielding suspect in Sunday's mass shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church was motivated by a hatred of "the liberal movement," and he planned to shoot until police shot him, Knoxville Police Chief Sterling P. Owen IV said this morning. http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-sus  pects-car/



quote:

Sure, the FBI checked him out....and, somewhere along the road, some power-that-be decided to back off and not pursue it, quite probably for political correctness reasons.



This is totally devoid of logic Mike, considering your aforementioned point that we're in a war with Al Quaeda and the numerous terrorist rings and plots foiled by the FBI.  Doesn't really make sense does it?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/05/20/2009-05-20_fbi_arrest_four_in_alleged_plot_to_car_bomb_bronx_synagogue.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/09/15/2009-09-15_queens_terror_raids_part_of_fbi_probe_into_denverbased_cell_plotting_attack_on_9.html
http://newyork.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/nyfo071609.htm
http://newyork.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/nyfo092809.htm
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/fbi-foils-terror-bid-attack-india-and-denmark
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


79 posted 11-15-2009 08:44 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

My point, LR. It makes no sense at all. I doubt that the FBI had anything to do with squelching the findings. It was more likely done by our sterling politicians somewhere up the  ladder...and whoever they are, or whichever side of the aisle they sit on, they should be required to write letters of apology to all of the victims' families to atone for their stupidity.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


80 posted 11-15-2009 09:02 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Last December, the surveillance of Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Yemeni-American cleric accused by the U.S. of having ties to al-Qaeda, revealed that he had received between 10 and 20 e-mails from Hasan. But the fact that a U.S. military officer was communicating with a Yemen-based cleric who openly supports jihadist causes did not prompt the bureau to open an investigation into Hasan's activities.

Peter Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, warned on Monday of "the possibility that serious issues exist with respect to the performance of U.S. intelligence agencies" in the Fort Hood case. The FBI will likely come under special scrutiny when the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, briefs the Senate and House committees next week. "There are a lot of questions of what the FBI did and did not do," says an official familiar with the investigation, speaking on condition of anonymity. "There were red flags, and there were signs that should have raised alarms. The [intel] community did have information on this guy ... could they have acted?"

But the bureau has hit back, arguing that since the Hasan-al-Awlaki exchanges were "explainable by [Hasan's] research and nothing else derogatory was found, [investigators] concluded that Major Hasan was not involved in terrorist activities or terrorist planning." (Hasan had been conducting research into the attitudes of Muslim soldiers at war with other Muslims.)

Whether or not the FBI might have intervened depends on what, exactly, was in the e-mails between Hasan and al-Awlaki. The FBI has not released any transcripts, but officials say the exchanges were innocuous, and in no way suggested that Hasan was seeking guidance or help in planning for a terrorist attack. Says one counterterrorism official who spoke on condition of anonymity, "This wasn't Hasan saying, 'Preacher, bless me because I'm about to martyr myself.' Hasan's questions were more generic, and consistent with his stated aim, to research the attitudes of Muslim soldiers at war with fellow believers."

Besides, some officials point out, there's nothing illegal about writing to al-Awlaki: the Yemeni American is not under any kind of indictment in the U.S. But even if the exchanges were innocuous, should the fact that Hasan was a serving military officer not have set off some trip wires?

The FBI's defenders say investigators would, at any one time, have been monitoring hundreds, possibly thousands of exchanges between al-Awlaki and interlocutors in the U.S. Many of them would be disaffected young men, expressing rage against the West and support for the activities of jihadis everywhere. Then along comes this communication from a senior military officer. It's innocuous, and well within the scope of the officer's legitimate area of interest and research. Rather than raise any alarm, say intelligence officials, the communications from Hasan would have seemed "safe" and been put aside, while FBI monitors to focused on al-Awlaki's other, potentially more worrisome correspondents on these shores.

Says Juan Carlos Zarate, who was President George W. Bush's Deputy National Security Adviser for combating terrorism: "Given the cover [Hasan] used, as someone researching the effects on Muslim soldiers of operating in Muslim countries [his approaching al-Awlaki] was not wholly illegitimate. It doesn't raise the specter of dangerous or criminal activity." In those circumstances, the officials monitoring the communications between the psychiatrist and the imam might reasonably assume that Hasan was doing "legitimate research, on behalf of the U.S. military," he adds.

Intel experts say if, in fact, there's any blame to be assigned for missing danger signs, it should be focused on the military. They say that some of Hasan's flaky behavior at Walter Reed should have alerted his superior officers — especially his fellow psychiatrists — that something was amiss.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1937574,00.html#ixzz0Wz3vQBOq



It doesn't appear that the investigation ever went to the level of a 'politician' Mike -- no matter how much I'd like to blame Bush!
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


81 posted 11-16-2009 01:37 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:


Really? So a person who is just disturbed versus a person who is disturbed, a member of the military, a person in contact with a terrorist organization who has to declared to destroy the United States, a person who declares himself a soldier of the faith terrorists are using to declare their jihad against America, would be a wash, with none of that mattering? Interesting.




     In a Free society, Mike, it really shouldn't.  In a free society people aren't sanctioned for thoughts or affiliations with organizations of ducks  — for example the Republican Party, or Jews, or Short People.  They are sanctioned for actions and deeds.  This is why you are the natural ally of people who would attack the freedoms of this country in many ways, because you're so ready to ditch the freedoms and become more and more like those people who hate the basic freedoms that this country once stood for.  Freedom of association and freedom of assembly being among those freedoms, but freedom of speech being part of the package as well.

     Why wouldn't such a person as Major Hasan still have those freedoms?

     The fact that nobody thought it was worth listening to the man and perhaps getting him out of the army or providing Conscientious Objector Status for Muslims in his situation goes over your head.  Sometimes you can ignore complaints without consequences; and I think you've grown to count on that.  Sometimes, you can't.  There is Conscientious Objector Status available for almost everybody in this country, and for good reason.  There should be provision made for folks like Major Hasan — not that I think in his case it would have made significant difference, but I think that it would help in the cases of other Muslims in similar situations.  Hasan should have been weeded out of the service.

     His right to hold the opinions he holds, in service or out of service are part of his freedom as an American.  You take it for granted for yourself.  The only reason you can take it for granted for yourself is that it is a right granted to all Americans and jealously safeguarded.  It isn't only the right of the people who agree with you.  I disagree with you a lot of the time and still support your right to have your own opinion.  That's not because I agree with it or think it's a harmless opinion or one that isn't on many occasions a dangerous opinion.  It means that that's the nature of the American social contract.

     If you think that somebody is dangerous and can prove it, then you have options.  Danger to self or others is generally grounds for involuntary commitment in this country, which must be reviewed on a regular basis depending on State Law.  In Massachusetts, the state that I'm most familiar with, it used to be reviewed every six months.  If there had been thoughts that Major Hasan was a danger to himself or others, that would have been an avenue to follow.  I have known Psychiatrists that such actions have been taken against, the same as I've known other people such actions have been taken against.  

     Rather than following perfectly straightforward avenues such as this to protect self and others, you suggest that we attack the constitution that protects everybody and thus reduce us to a society without liberties governed only by the fear of freedom.  It is a position that is well worth rethinking.

     Yes, really.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


82 posted 11-16-2009 11:20 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

This is why you are the natural ally of people who would attack the freedoms of this country in many ways, because you're so ready to ditch the freedoms and become more and more like those people who hate the basic freedoms that this country once stood for.

Why, thank you, Bob. I didn't realize that about myself. To get my response to that statement you will have to read my mind because I wouldn't dare print it here. I;ve come to like the place a little too much for that.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


83 posted 11-16-2009 03:20 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


To understand the nature of the problem, a quick look at the origins and evolution of Islamic extremism in America and its sponsors is essential. Radical Islam made its first appearance in America in 1963 at the University of Illinois with the founding of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) by group of Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimin) immigrant activists with money from the Saudi front organization Muslim World League (MWL). In the decade following the founding of the MSA, many of today’s self-proclaimed leading Islamic organizations were spun off from it and began acting independently — though neither the ideological nor the organizational ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and its Saudi paymasters were ever severed. These included the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), and a number of smaller groups.

In the 1990s, this network was augmented with a number of other radical-Islamist organizations affiliated with the Brotherhood, such as the Muslim Political Affairs Council (MPAC) and the above-ground incarnation of the clandestine Brotherhood, registered in 1993 as the Muslim American Society (MAS). What they all had in common was adherence to the hate-filled Wahhabi-Salafi Islamist ideology and a visceral dislike for America and the West, leading at least some of them to see their ultimate objective as “destroying Western civilization from within,” as an internal Brotherhood document put it succinctly. To understand the magnitude of the problem, it is worth recalling that as early as the period of 1980 to 1985, according to the Muslim World League Journal, some 60 American Islamic organizations were financed by Wahhabi interests. In 1991, the Brotherhood counted 29 American Islamic organizations among its allies; the MSA, which openly lionizes Osama bin Laden, now boasts over 1,000 college chapters in North America.

With the help of huge inflows of mostly Saudi money, these radical networks, which should more appropriately be seen as branches of the same organization run by a few dozen individuals through a system of interlocking directorships, have made radical Islam the dominant idiom of the American Muslim establishment, despite the fact that most American Muslims are well-integrated, economically prosperous, and not given to extremism. Taken together, this network, which controls a majority of American mosques, Islamic cultural centers, charities, and schools, is nothing short of an Islamist fifth column radicalizing large numbers of American Muslims and increasingly capable of infiltrating our government and key institutions including the military. Unfortunately, neither the U.S. government, nor the FBI, nor the military understands that what this fifth column is engaged in is not religion but political sedition and the subversion of our constitutional order under the guise of religion — both of which are prohibited under current U.S. law.

A gentleman by the name of Abdurahman Alamoudi provides a typical example of the Islamist modus operandi. In October 2004, he was sentenced to 23 years in prison for terrorism-related activities, and he is currently serving his sentence in a federal penitentiary. Prior to that, Alamoudi had been a kingpin of the Islamist network as a key official in a dozen top Islamist organizations and five charities suspected of funding terrorism. Despite that, Alamoudi evidently enjoyed unimpeded access to the White House under Presidents Clinton and Bush, and also served as a State Department “goodwill ambassador” in the Middle East and a U.S. Information Agency speaker abroad. Most important, as a founder of an organization called American Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council (AMAFVAC), this radical Islamist became the first exclusive endorsing agent for Muslim chaplains for all branches of the U.S. armed forces and was able to place Islamist extremists in the military virtually at will.


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODUxNjdkN2M0MzRlYmMzOWFmMDcwMjVmZDA0MmFiZjI=

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


84 posted 11-17-2009 11:48 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear John,

          I just had a look at the piece in [i]The National Review[i].  It was another piece in [i]The National Review[i] with the name of "The Enemy" changed, but the message the same.  It could have been "The Spanish" a hundred years ago, and then "The Unions," and then "The Communists" and so on.  I think that some of the enemies are real and represent real evil, and others simply aren't.  Some are results of our own blundering.  We might have had World War II if Versailles wasn't such a cut throat piece of work as a treaty —  nobody can say — but then we might not have, either.  The United States wasn't all that thrilled about it.

     Your comments about Muslim extremists are hard to respond to.  First, you hide behind a smoke screen of obfuscation about "Ducks," and then you offer a piece of somebody else's comment.  It's as though you're tossing chum in the water.  In this case, however, you've said that the majority of the mosques are radical, and the majority of the members are not.  I think it's reasonably clear from the reasonable calm we have in our streets that the majority of the Muslims in this country are not radical.  The truth of how radical the mosques and the clergy may be is not something that I believe from your NR posting.

     My thinking is like this — if the clergy was radical and preaching radical Islamic Wahabi theology, there would be a lot more angry Muslims in the streets.  There aren't very many.  Overall, we are likely to have as many Identity Christian nutcases running around (or Meyer Kahane wannabees, for that matter) as fanatic Muslims.  Having spent a lot of the last 40 years or so in Boston, I can tell you that there were an awful lot of IRA sympathizers and fundraisers pumping dough back into Northern Ireland, and very happy to do so.  Perhaps you think those bozos weren't connected with your Muslim terrorist friends.  

     I say that going after Muslims is an attack on Freedom of Religion and on the Constitution.  If anybody steps out of line, there are laws about that.  

     As for Major Hasan, he should have been spotted, and he should have been treated.  Armed forces policy about its folks is not what it should be in offering mental health services, and the way the service is currently structured is a virtual demand for troops to have major problems.  The troops, once again, have not been given enough support.

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Ralph Peters vs. Deadly Political Correc   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors