is this man a terrorist?

[dawgfan]

A lengthy look at a terrorism prosecution that didn't go as planned:

A terrorism case that went awry (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002097570_sami22m.html)

[Franklinnoble]

Yeah, he looks like a terrorist to me.

[dawgfan]

Yeah, he looks like a terrorist to me.

Well, we all know that looks are everything. By this line of thinking any middle-eastern man with a long, scraggly beard must be a terrorist, right?

[Glengoyne]

I have used this case as an example of my problem with Ashcroft's Justice Department and their enforcement of the Patriot Act. I really do hope someone over there gets on top of this stuff sooner rather than later.

[Franklinnoble]

Well, we all know that looks are everything. By this line of thinking any middle-eastern man with a long, scraggly beard must be a terrorist, right?

I think his activities were suspicious, at best.

I've always maintained that anyone in this country on a visa from an arab nation should have been immediately deported on 9/12/01. They can be let back in when we get our sh!t together at the INS.

[dawgfan]

I think his activities were suspicious, at best.

So let's say you do some website work for a company. It turns out that this company is a front for the mafia, but you didn't know that. Should you be held accountable for any profit the mafia gained from that website?

I fail to see any tangible evidence that this guy knowingly helped terrorist organizations.

I've always maintained that anyone in this country on a visa from an arab nation should have been immediately deported on 9/12/01. They can be let back in when we get our sh!t together at the INS.

I don't even know how to respond to a statement as close-minded as this. Yes, round up all the Arabs and send 'em home! Good thing we put all those Asian-Americans on the west coast under house arrest in camps during WWII, that was something to be proud of.

[Glengoyne]

I've always maintained that anyone in this country on a visa from an arab nation should have been immediately deported on 9/12/01. They can be let back in when we get our sh!t together at the INS.
What no internment camps? We could do it for THEIR own safety, even.

[Franklinnoble]

So let's say you do some website work for a company. It turns out that this company is a front for the mafia, but you didn't know that. Should you be held accountable for any profit the mafia gained from that website?

I fail to see any tangible evidence that this guy knowingly helped terrorist organizations.


I guess the $300,000 (that he didn't have) that he donated to a "charity" was kosher. As well as the links to Hamas on his websites.


I don't even know how to respond to a statement as close-minded as this. Yes, round up all the Arabs and send 'em home! Good thing we put all those Asian-Americans on the west coast under house arrest in camps during WWII, that was something to be proud of.

If you spent a few hours reading the Koran or had any real knowledge of how non-Muslims are treated in arab nations, you'd probably realize that these people have a real hard-on for Christians and Americans, and you'd want them the fuck outta here in a hurry. But go ahead... keep your head in the sand.

[dawgfan]

I guess the $300,000 (that he didn't have) that he donated to a "charity" was kosher. As well as the links to Hamas on his websites.

From the article:

Over five years, prosecutors say, he donated as much as $300,000 to Islamic charities — a figure defense lawyers disputed, saying it was wrong by about half, and that most of the total was a donation from a rich uncle that al-Hussayen passed along. The figure remains in dispute.

What is clear, however, is that al-Hussayen gave generously, like all faithful Muslims, who are required to donate substantially each year.

Al-Hussayen also was Webmaster for one of the charities, the Islamic Assembly of North America. The group, like many other Islamic charities, has been investigated for links to terrorist-financing networks, but no charges have been filed and the U.S. has not outlawed it.

Basically, the answer to your question is yes, the donations were kosher so far as we can tell. To put it another way, there isn't any conclusive evidence the donations weren't OK.

As to the links to terrorists, well:

• On al-Hussayen's Web pages, prosecutors argued, you could click on links that would allow you to donate to Hamas, which the U.S. has designated a terrorist organization. Not so fast, the defense replied. Those links were removed from the site before al-Hussayen became Webmaster.

• The links might be hidden, prosecutors countered, but al-Hussayen was still funneling potential donors to Hamas. That's because a would-be terrorist could still donate via al-Hussayen's Web sites if he knew what to type into the address bar. Ridiculous, the defense replied.

"If you really want to have a page that will allow people to make donations to Hamas, it makes no sense to hide it," said Nevin, al-Hussayen's attorney.

• But how to explain the Islamic edicts, or fatwas, the prosecution countered? One of the edicts, written by a radical sheik and posted months before 9/11, advocated "suicide operations" and "bringing down an airplane on an important location."

Surely, a devoted Muslim reading that statement could be incited to violence. However, as the defense pointed out, another prosecution witness, Reuven Paz, admitted he had much of the same material posted on his Web site, as did the BBC

The jury didn't buy these accusations either.

If you spent a few hours reading the Koran or had any real knowledge of how non-Muslims are treated in arab nations, you'd probably realize that these people have a real hard-on for Christians and Americans, and you'd want them the fuck outta here in a hurry. But go ahead... keep your head in the sand.

Is my head in the sand, or is yours up your ass? If you'd spent any time studying the Koran and Islam, you'd know that it is a non-violent religion. I'm sure you can find bits that contradict this contention, just like you can find some really outrageous stuff in the Bible that almost no Christian or Jew supports (i.e. most of Leviticus for example).

And just like there have been fanatics that have twisted the words of the Bible and the meaning of Christianity to do horrible things, so there are similar fanatics twisting the teachings of the Koran and Islam to espouse and promote horrible things.

I'm fully aware that there are many in the middle east that hate the U.S. and promote a bastardized version of Islam to call for jihad against us, but there are a great deal more that don't wish violence upon us and take a more reasonable position about the U.S. An outright banishment of all arabians from the U.S. post 9/11 would've served only to push those more tolerant arabian muslims away from acceptence of the U.S. and toward the radical mullahs and terrorists.

The answer is not to shut ourselves off from the arab world - it's to engage them constructively and work together to dim the influence of the radical fringe.

[Franklinnoble]

I'm fully aware that there are many in the middle east that hate the U.S. and promote a bastardized version of Islam to call for jihad against us, but there are a great deal more that don't wish violence upon us and take a more reasonable position about the U.S. An outright banishment of all arabians from the U.S. post 9/11 would've served only to push those more tolerant arabian muslims away from acceptence of the U.S. and toward the radical mullahs and terrorists.

The answer is not to shut ourselves off from the arab world - it's to engage them constructively and work together to dim the influence of the radical fringe.

Not many in the middle east - most. It's a fact. I have not had the privilege of traveling there yet myself, but my father and two of my brothers have, along with several friends of mine. Christians and Americans are harshly persecuted over there, in a manner that makes the treatment received by Mr. al-Hussayen look like a cakewalk. They hate us. Period.

I'm not suggesting we shut ourselves off, but we don't need to extend them the same courtesy that we grant to native born citizens. Frankly, the best thing that can come out of the current conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq is the "Americanization" of some of the urban centers over there. Once they realize that "the great Satan" only wants to buy their oil and sell them some cheeseburgers and pop music, they'll chill out. But as long as the fundamentalist despots remain in control, generations of Arabs are being weaned on hatred towards westerners. I see no reason to invite them into this country until they get an attitude adjustment.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The answer is not to shut ourselves off from the reality of the arab world - it's to engage them with superior firepower.

Fixed it for you.

[dawgfan]

Not many in the middle east - most. It's a fact.

Bullshit. It's your opinion, and it's not shared by many experts.

They hate us. Period.

A gross oversimplification. Do some over there hate us? You bet. Many others are neutral with regards to the U.S. and the West - they're not big fans of either us or the radical Islamic mullahs. Most are just tired of despots ruling their country and are tired of their poor standard of living.

But as long as the fundamentalist despots remain in control, generations of Arabs are being weaned on hatred towards westerners. I see no reason to invite them into this country until they get an attitude adjustment.

The influence of the radical mullahs and their primitive hate-filled schools is something we need to address, without question. But shutting off our country from all from that region is stupid. Screen the visa candidates with great caution, absolutely, but there's no good reason to keep out those who have no ties to terrorism and who are genuinely in this country to learn. More often than not, these are the people that will return to their homelands with a much better understanding of the U.S. and will use their experience as a beacon in trying to modernize their homelands and marginalize the influence of the primitive-thinking radicals that are holding back the progress of their countries.

[dawgfan]

Fixed it for you.

More progressive thinking from one of our brightest minds. I wouldn't have expected anything less from you.

[JonInMiddleGA]

More progressive thinking from one of our brightest minds. I wouldn't have expected anything less from you.

Nor me from you. I think you hit the peak of my expectations right around the hysterically funny part about it being a "non-violent religion". My only real disappointment is that you didn't use the ever-popular phrase "religion of peace" instead.

[dawgfan]

Nor me from you. I think you hit the peak of my expectations right around the hysterically funny part about it being a "non-violent religion". My only real disappointment is that you didn't use the ever-popular phrase "religion of peace" instead.

Jon, if you truly think Islam is any less of a non-violent religion than Christianity or Judaism, you have your head up your ass.

There is a definite problem with radical Islamic mullahs in the middle east, but that is primarily due to cultural factors, not religious ones. These radical Mulsims are no more representative of the religion than the KKK is of Christianity.

[JonInMiddleGA]

[QUOTE=dawgfan]Jon, if you truly think Islam is any less of a non-violent religion than Christianity or Judaism, you have your head up your ass.[QUOTE]

And if haven't figured out the situation, you haven't been paying attention for a very long time.

You don't talk to rattlesnakes, you don't negotiate with them, you apply a sharp gardening instrument to them.

Stand over in the corner & wring your hands if you like, just don't get in the way of those who understand what needs to be done. But if you choose to become an obstruction, at least don't feign surprise when you discover that gardening instruments aren't particularly choosy if there's the occasional copperhead in the pile alongside the rattlers.

[dawgfan]

Jon, I'm not a head-in-the-sand peacenik that thinks war is never the answer. There is no question that the operations in Afghanistan were necessary and justified. There is no question that our field operatives in the middle east should be allowed to do whatever is necessary to combat terrorist cells, things that would get you jailed for life in this country. I think the war in Iraq was a war of choice, and I wasn't ultimately opposed to military action there - I just think we handled it poorly and that it wasn't yet the final, best option, but that's a whole 'nother thread that's been rehashed here a million times already.

I have no illusions that there are many people out there with a blind hatred for the U.S. and the desire and ability to do damage to us. What I object to is a categorical dismissal of an entire region and religion based on the extremist actions of a minority within that population. War is not the only option in all circumstances. War with Iran regarding their potential to produce nuclear weapons is not the only option. War with Syria for their support of terrorists isn't the only option. Our wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan are only part of the means by which those areas can be made to be less of a threat to the U.S. When these areas become prosperous regions where the populace has a greater say in their governments, that's when terrorism will become so marginalized as to be of little consequence. Simply blowing them up with our superior firepower only kills this generation of terrorists - it does nothing to prevent the next one.

If you can't grasp that, then I don't see any point in arguing about this further.

[judicial clerk]

Will someone please hurry up and invent a cheap alternative to oil. If this happens, the middle east becomes central africa and the US won't care any more and the terrorists will lose some of their funding.

Islam, along with most major religions, have been spread and defended through violence. My understanding is that prior to the crusades, muslim leaders were tolerant of other monotheistic religions in their property. they tended to believe that these groups, such as Jews and christians, were qworshiping the same god as the Muslims were, although the other groups were getting some things wrong. Of course, as far as pagans or athietsts were concerned, I think it was pretty much 'off with their heads'.

I do think it is a mistake to judge all people form the middle east based on the actions of the 9/11 terrorists. It seems that only those who would not be effected would be willing to take such drastic measures. What if we decided to base our profiling on Timothy McVeigh. If we started to suspect every white, lower-middle class vet of being a terrorist american citizens would be incredulous. I will admit, however, that FN's idea of deporting all foreign nationals from the middle east is different than interning them. I do think that the US has the right to restrict its borders. Instead of kicking foreign nationals out of the country, the japanese internment during WWII amounted to imprisoning american citizen for the most part who happened to be japanese americans. (as an extra bit of unimportant information, the US did have a military unit in the European theatre made up only of japanese americans and apparently this unit unleashed the freaking fury on the Axis. It killed more of the enemy or was awarded more medals for bravery (or something like that) than any other unit of its size).

[Crapshoot]

I think his activities were suspicious, at best.

I've always maintained that anyone in this country on a visa from an arab nation should have been immediately deported on 9/12/01. They can be let back in when we get our sh!t together at the INS.

Wow- you're a dumbass. If you're brown, you're out- wonderful philosophy. Who cares that thousands of individuals who've done nothing wrong would be out of a job/life as they know it/ etc - they are guility until proven innocent.

[JonInMiddleGA]

the US did have a military unit in the European theatre made up only of japanese americans and apparently this unit unleashed the freaking fury on the Axis. It killed more of the enemy or was awarded more medals for bravery (or something like that) than any other unit of its size).

I knew this story but I confess to having to look up the unit number:

By wars end, the combined 100th Infantry Battalion/442nd Regimental Combat Team, com*posed almost entirely of Japanese Americans, was the most decorated U.S. military unit for its size and length of service. Never numbering more than 4,500 men, the 100th/442nd consisted of extra*ordinarily aggressive fighters. The soldiers of these units earned a total of 18,143 individual decora*tions and took a casualty rate of 300 percent

This isn't the link where I found the blurb above, but it looks like a better & more detailed site overall
http://www.njamf.com/hero.htm

[sterlingice]

It's scary. I was just talking about this with a friend last night, going through the grad students in EECS playing "Terrorist or Grad Student" and it was hard. All of our grad students are either surly or vacant looking Arab or Indian students or look like Tim McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski. Oh those wacky EE's, CoE's, and CS's.

SI

[Franklinnoble]

Wow- you're a dumbass. If you're brown, you're out- wonderful philosophy. Who cares that thousands of individuals who've done nothing wrong would be out of a job/life as they know it/ etc - they are guility until proven innocent.

Why is it people around here always resort to calling me names? I mean, come on, I have feelings too.

You're forgetting a key detail - these people are NOT UNITED STATES CITIZENS. Why in the hell do you people insist on the need for them to be treated with the same rights as citizens?

Yes, I'm sure many of them are just here for better jobs and a greater standard of living. But many are here with a more malicious intent. At the least, they're here to plant mosques and spread Islam (this is a fact - literally billions in Arab oil money is earmarked for this purpose). At worst, they're here to attend flight school and fly commercial airliners into buildings (also a fact - do you really think there aren't hundreds of terrorists in this country right now, legally, with Saudi visas, plotting a new attack?) Until we sort it out, the borders need to be tightened, and aliens with arab nation visas need to be expelled.

They are NOT citizens. They ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION. I'm not saying expel them forever. I'm saying remove them until a secure screening process is in place for those that want to come back in.

But, whatever. Call me an ass. Maybe you've already forgotten what happened just over three years ago. Do yourselves a favor - find a copy of the news footage from 9/11. Watch a few Osama Bin Laden tapes. Watch Al Jazeera for a few hours. Spend some time reading testimonials of westerners who have been to arab nations. Get a clue. Know your enemy. Because he's more than happy to sell you the gasoline for your car, and take the money to pay for a suicide bomber to blow your ass up, while CNN, the liberal media, and the tools in Hollywood paint the United States as the bad guy in the war on terror.

[yabanci]

reactionaries are so amusing.

[dawgfan]

But, whatever. Call me an ass. Maybe you've already forgotten what happened just over three years ago. Do yourselves a favor - find a copy of the news footage from 9/11. Watch a few Osama Bin Laden tapes. Watch Al Jazeera for a few hours. Spend some time reading testimonials of westerners who have been to arab nations. Get a clue. Know your enemy. Because he's more than happy to sell you the gasoline for your car, and take the money to pay for a suicide bomber to blow your ass up, while CNN, the liberal media, and the tools in Hollywood paint the United States as the bad guy in the war on terror.

Fuck you. Don't patronize me with this bullshit - I am no less aware or affected by what happened on 9/11 than you are, and no amount of ultra-conservative flag-waving anti-Muslim rhetoric changes that fact. To intimate otherwise is an insult of the most vile and despicable kind. You don't own 9/11, so quit pretending like you do.

Here's an idea - try spreading your knowledge base a little bit. Have you ever heard of Thomas Friedman? Ever read any of his stuff? Try it - you might just expand your mind a little and learn something.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sometimes things need to be done, and since I'm long past tired of watching obvious b.s. be allowed to stand for truth, I'll go ahead --

I am no less aware or affected by what happened on 9/11 than you are

Bullshit.

From the bleeding heart crap you've posted in this thread, it's pretty obvious to anybody who has been paying attention that you ARE "less affected" by the events of September 11th than a lot of people ... since there seems to be a pretty large light bulb that hasn't gone on for you yet.

And I haven't seen anybody lay claim to "owning" 9/11 -- the reality of the situation is free to anyone willing or able to accept it. There's just some people who, for whatever reason, haven't been willing or able to do so.
That's fine, to a point, you can strip naked & wallow in your naiveity for all I care ... unless you get in the way of the containment and/or elimination of the enemy. Once that happens, you've crossed the line into rendering aid & comfort and you aren't much better than they are.

Now, have at it -- bitch, moan, wring your hands, raise all manner of hell, pitch a grade A fit ... but it'll do nothing to change the fact that everybody isn't going to fall for it.

[Blackadar]

You can't argue with people like Franklinoble, who has found a convenient target for his fears and hatred.

As for Jon, he's never met anyone not like him that he wouldn't rather attack. He's a sad excuse for a human being and even less of an American.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sometimes things need to be done, and since I'm long past tired of watching obvious b.s. be allowed to stand for truth, I'll go ahead --

I am no less aware or affected by what happened on 9/11 than you are

Bullshit.

From the bleeding heart crap you've posted in this thread, it's pretty obvious to anybody who has been paying attention that you ARE "less affected" by the events of September 11th than a lot of people ... since there seems to be a pretty large light bulb that hasn't gone on for you yet.

And I haven't seen anybody lay claim to "owning" 9/11 -- the reality of the situation is free to anyone willing or able to accept it. There's just some people who, for whatever reason, haven't been willing or able to do so.
That's fine, to a point, you can strip naked & wallow in your naiveity for all I care ... unless you get in the way of the containment and/or elimination of the enemy. Once that happens, you've crossed the line into rendering aid & comfort and you aren't much better than they are.

Now, have at it -- bitch, moan, wring your hands, raise all manner of hell, pitch a grade A fit ... but it'll do nothing to change the fact that everybody isn't going to fall for it.

[Blackadar]

Sometimes things need to be done, and since I'm long past tired of watching obvious b.s. be allowed to stand for truth, I'll go ahead --



Bullshit.

From the bleeding heart crap you've posted in this thread, it's pretty obvious to anybody who has been paying attention that you ARE "less affected" by the events of September 11th than a lot of people ... since there seems to be a pretty large light bulb that hasn't gone on for you yet.

And I haven't seen anybody lay claim to "owning" 9/11 -- the reality of the situation is free to anyone willing or able to accept it. There's just some people who, for whatever reason, haven't been willing or able to do so.
That's fine, to a point, you can strip naked & wallow in your naiveity for all I care ... unless you get in the way of the containment and/or elimination of the enemy. Once that happens, you've crossed the line into rendering aid & comfort and you aren't much better than they are.

Now, have at it -- bitch, moan, wring your hands, raise all manner of hell, pitch a grade A fit ... but it'll do nothing to change the fact that everybody isn't going to fall for it.

Actually, of everyone on this board, I think you are the least affected by 9/11. The only thing it seems to mean to you is to give your desire to kill or convert all the Muslims in the world some legitimacy. You are truly pathetic.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Actually, of everyone on this board, I think you are the least affected by 9/11.

Oddly enough, I might not argue with you too much on that point. I believe I may have even mentioned something to that effect on at least a couple of occasions myself.

I'd probably add some qualifier like "among the least affected", just to keep from selling the foresight of a few others short, but other than that, you actually managed to post a sentence that I pretty much agree with.

[albionmoonlight]

Kirby Puckett, guys. Kirby Puckett.

No one is convincing anyone of anything in this thread. Just let it go.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Kirby Puckett, guys. Kirby Puckett.
No one is convincing anyone of anything in this thread. Just let it go.

Sounds a lot like pretty every other non-sports (and some of the sports) and/or non-news-of-the-weird thread here.

Hell, even I've reached the conclusion we're half past the point for a "non-sports" forum only, most of the other boards I visit that allow a broad range of topics have taken that step and it seems to work pretty well.

If we can have a HatTrick forum, a strategy forum, and an only slightly busier PC/Console games forum, I think there's a pretty big hole here for somewhere to put everything that isn't sports. As long as we don't discuss the NBA, the NFL, or the NCAA, things ought to be pretty calm ;)

[John Galt]

They are NOT citizens. They ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION. I'm not saying expel them forever. I'm saying remove them until a secure screening process is in place for those that want to come back in.


There are so many ugly things in this thread, but I just wanted to correct this factual error. Non-citizens ARE protected by the Constitution and have been so since its adoption. Citizenship is largely unrelated to the rights afforded in the Constitution.

[Crapshoot]

Why is it people around here always resort to calling me names? I mean, come on, I have feelings too.

You're forgetting a key detail - these people are NOT UNITED STATES CITIZENS. Why in the hell do you people insist on the need for them to be treated with the same rights as citizens?

Yes, I'm sure many of them are just here for better jobs and a greater standard of living. But many are here with a more malicious intent. At the least, they're here to plant mosques and spread Islam (this is a fact - literally billions in Arab oil money is earmarked for this purpose). At worst, they're here to attend flight school and fly commercial airliners into buildings (also a fact - do you really think there aren't hundreds of terrorists in this country right now, legally, with Saudi visas, plotting a new attack?) Until we sort it out, the borders need to be tightened, and aliens with arab nation visas need to be expelled.

They are NOT citizens. They ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION. I'm not saying expel them forever. I'm saying remove them until a secure screening process is in place for those that want to come back in.

But, whatever. Call me an ass. Maybe you've already forgotten what happened just over three years ago. Do yourselves a favor - find a copy of the news footage from 9/11. Watch a few Osama Bin Laden tapes. Watch Al Jazeera for a few hours. Spend some time reading testimonials of westerners who have been to arab nations. Get a clue. Know your enemy. Because he's more than happy to sell you the gasoline for your car, and take the money to pay for a suicide bomber to blow your ass up, while CNN, the liberal media, and the tools in Hollywood paint the United States as the bad guy in the war on terror.


What the hell ? Why dont you pull a Randy Weaver- everyone's out to get you. And Im not surprised that a self-proclaimed born again Christian is afraid of Muslims spending money to try and covert people- we'll just forget those Christian conversion missions- I mean, when you fund those in poor asian and african countries- well that's a-okay ! And so what- every religion attempts to find new believers- your bigotry towards it does not justify a different stance for Islam as opposed to Christianity. As for bombs or terror - Don't tell me about bombs jackass- I've actually gone through it, not gotten the jist from a fellow dittohead.

What you are Franklin, is the perfect picture of the ugly American - and that's a shame- because you let your fear towards a few influcence your view of many - for no reason other than religious belief or skin color. There are 1 billion muslims in the world Franklin- and its the fastest growing religion in the world - hiding under a rock and saying all of them are Terrorists isnt' going to get it done . You cannot kill them all, despite whatever you may wish. 20 years from now the Muslim population of the world will far exceed Christianity - all demographics point that way.

[rkmsuf]

That's all right 'cause my body's in motion
It's supposed to look like a fit or a convulsion
Anyone can play this game
This is my dance, y'all, Humpty Hump's my name
No two people will do it the same
Ya got it down when ya appear to be in pain
Humpin', funkin', jumpin',
jig around, shakin' ya rump,
and when the dude a chump pump points a finger like a stump
tell him step off, I'm doin' the Hump.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2004/11/21/2002097268.jpg

[Franklinnoble]

What the hell ? Why dont you pull a Randy Weaver- everyone's out to get you. And Im not surprised that a self-proclaimed born again Christian is afraid of Muslims spending money to try and covert people- we'll just forget those Christian conversion missions- I mean, when you fund those in poor asian and african countries- well that's a-okay ! And so what- every religion attempts to find new believers- your bigotry towards it does not justify a different stance for Islam as opposed to Christianity. As for bombs or terror - Don't tell me about bombs jackass- I've actually gone through it, not gotten the jist from a fellow dittohead.

What you are Franklin, is the perfect picture of the ugly American - and that's a shame- because you let your fear towards a few influcence your view of many - for no reason other than religious belief or skin color. There are 1 billion muslims in the world Franklin- and its the fastest growing religion in the world - hiding under a rock and saying all of them are Terrorists isnt' going to get it done . You cannot kill them all, despite whatever you may wish. 20 years from now the Muslim population of the world will far exceed Christianity - all demographics point that way.


Whatever. I give up. If you're right, I hope you're comfortable with ritual prayer 5 times a day and a month of fasting every year. And save up for that trip to Mecca. Because in Arab cultures, if you're not a Muslim, you don't exist. You can't get a job. You can't get any benefits of any kind. And you'll be lucky if they don't just flat-out kill your ass for remaining an infidel.

But, yeah, go on and compare that to Christianity. And call me the ignorant ass.

[lurker]

You're really not making born-again Christians look good, you know. By your thinking, I'd be forced to conclude that all Christians are narrow-minded asshole hypocrites. Good thing I don't think like you.

[Warhammer]

*Gets some change out of his pocket, throws it in the ring*

There are so many ugly things in this thread, but I just wanted to correct this factual error. Non-citizens ARE protected by the Constitution and have been so since its adoption. Citizenship is largely unrelated to the rights afforded in the Constitution.

Reading through the Constitution I find this:

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The Constitution does not extend the rights of US Citizens to those of foreign countries. All it says is that the Courts will try people under the laws of the United States. There is a difference, slight, but I think it is significant. It does not give them the right to vote, run for office, etc. They are only protected in specific cases outlined by our laws. So, if we decide to deport all foreign-born Muslims, then we can, provided we do not have a law on the books stipulating otherwise. Conversely, if we decide to kill them all (just an example), we are all subject to prosecution for murder.

Regarding Muslims in the Middle East, why do we not see people fighting against the militant Muslims? Why are there no people standing up for Christians in the region? Their silence is deafening. If Islam is a religion of peace, why did the Mohammed and his immediate successors establish a Muslim empire, by attacking Persia and the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) in the early 600s (620-640, but the period of Muslim conquest was not stemmed until the 700s.)? Why was one their precepts spreading religion by the sword? Since Mohammed founded the religion, if it is a religion of peace, why did he fight his wars? Would this not contradict his teachings?

I do not have a closed mind to Islam, but I have a number of questions no one has ever answered to my satisfaction regarding Islam.

[Franklinnoble]

You're really not making born-again Christians look good, you know. By your thinking, I'd be forced to conclude that all Christians are narrow-minded asshole hypocrites. Good thing I don't think like you.

Being a Christian isn't about winning a popularity contest.

[John Galt]

*Gets some change out of his pocket, throws it in the ring*



Reading through the Constitution I find this:



The Constitution does not extend the rights of US Citizens to those of foreign countries. All it says is that the Courts will try people under the laws of the United States. There is a difference, slight, but I think it is significant. It does not give them the right to vote, run for office, etc. They are only protected in specific cases outlined by our laws. So, if we decide to deport all foreign-born Muslims, then we can, provided we do not have a law on the books stipulating otherwise. Conversely, if we decide to kill them all (just an example), we are all subject to prosecution for murder.

Regarding Muslims in the Middle East, why do we not see people fighting against the militant Muslims? Why are there no people standing up for Christians in the region? Their silence is deafening. If Islam is a religion of peace, why did the Mohammed and his immediate successors establish a Muslim empire, by attacking Persia and the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) in the early 600s (620-640, but the period of Muslim conquest was not stemmed until the 700s.)? Why was one their precepts spreading religion by the sword? Since Mohammed founded the religion, if it is a religion of peace, why did he fight his wars? Would this not contradict his teachings?

I do not have a closed mind to Islam, but I have a number of questions no one has ever answered to my satisfaction regarding Islam.

That section of the Constitution pertains to federal court jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with rights afforded to non-citizens. The purpose of that provision is to keep certain types of cases out of federal courts, not to restrict rights. You should note that the Bill of Rights provisions do not limit their scope to non-citizens. This is largely why immigrants are afforded due process before deportation.

Here is an article on the subject made soon after 9/11:

http://slate.msn.com/id/1008367/

The Constitution (specifically the 14th Amendment) often uses the phrase "all persons" which is construed to mean non-citizens as well.

[Warhammer]

That section of the Constitution pertains to federal court jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with rights afforded to non-citizens. The purpose of that provision is to keep certain types of cases out of federal courts, not to restrict rights. You should note that the Bill of Rights provisions do not limit their scope to non-citizens. This is largely why immigrants are afforded due process before deportation.

I beg to differ, it is the job of the Judicial Branch to protect the citizens from the executive branch of the government. The clause I referenced establishes their jurisdiction in a dispute between the United States or the people, against a foreigner.

As mentioned in the Constitution, any powers not specified herein is reserved for the States and the People.

The fact that the amendments to the Constitution do not specifically call out foreigners being subject to them gives that right to the states and the people. You could claim that it is ambiguous on the subject. However, I think there is a reason for applying the Constitution to foreigners as well.

However, if you apply the rights of the Constitution to all foreigners, then how can we deport any foreigner, since he would immediately be protected by the Constitution upon crossing the border, whether here legally or not.

Our government hopes our citizens will be treated fairly under the law elsewhere, so we do the same here, a quid pro quo, if you will.

[John Galt]

I beg to differ, it is the job of the Judicial Branch to protect the citizens from the executive branch of the government. The clause I referenced establishes their jurisdiction in a dispute between the United States or the people, against a foreigner.

As mentioned in the Constitution, any powers not specified herein is reserved for the States and the People.

The fact that the amendments to the Constitution do not specifically call out foreigners being subject to them gives that right to the states and the people. You could claim that it is ambiguous on the subject. However, I think there is a reason for applying the Constitution to foreigners as well.

However, if you apply the rights of the Constitution to all foreigners, then how can we deport any foreigner, since he would immediately be protected by the Constitution upon crossing the border, whether here legally or not.

Our government hopes our citizens will be treated fairly under the law elsewhere, so we do the same here, a quid pro quo, if you will.

You are arguing against well settled law and based on an interpretation of the Constitution that lacks textual support. You state various facts which are wholly unrelated to the current issue. Yes, the judicial branch can check the executive branch. Yes, some powers are given to the states and people. Yes, the federal judiciary cannot hear cases between two non-citizens (but can hear cases between a citizen and a non-citizen).

When the 14th Amendment said "all persons," it meant all persons. When the country was formed, many people in the US were non-citizens, yet they received the rights of citizens.

As for your deportation hypothetical, I can't even make sense of it, so I don't know what to say.

If someone wants to argue that the Constitutional protections of due process and other fundamental rights SHOULD not apply to non-citizens, that is fine, but FACTUALLY, they do currently apply.

edit: after rereading your posts, I think I understand where your confusion lies. The Constitution affords protections to non-citizens IN the United States, not non-citizens outside of the US.

[judicial clerk]

Here is an article on the subject made soon after 9/11:

http://slate.msn.com/id/1008367/

I have learned something today.

20 years from now the Muslim population of the world will far exceed Christianity - all demographics point that way.


I thought that christians far outnumbered muslims throughout the world. But I am also suprised to hear that there are 1 billion muslims in the world. If you can back these assertions up with a link or a cite then I will admit to having learned two things today.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I beg to differ, it is the job of the Judicial Branch to protect the citizens from the executive branch of the government. The clause I referenced establishes their jurisdiction in a dispute between the United States or the people, against a foreigner.


You're reading way too much into that jurisdiction thing. There are a lot of types of cases that the federal court system does not hear, and that has nothing to do with the protection of citizens from the executive branch.

If I get into a car crash with someone who lives down the street from me and sue him for $30k in damages, I'm barred by law from taking that case to a federal court. What does that mean? Nothing. It means I file suit in a state court. It has nothing to do with my rights, it just a matter of how the cases get distributed between state and federal courts.

The blurb you're quoting is an effort within the constitution to restrict the coverage of the federal court system relative to the state courts. It has nothing to do with creating or removing the rights of individuals.

[dawgfan]

Bullshit.

From the bleeding heart crap you've posted in this thread, it's pretty obvious to anybody who has been paying attention that you ARE "less affected" by the events of September 11th than a lot of people ... since there seems to be a pretty large light bulb that hasn't gone on for you yet.

And I haven't seen anybody lay claim to "owning" 9/11 -- the reality of the situation is free to anyone willing or able to accept it. There's just some people who, for whatever reason, haven't been willing or able to do so.
That's fine, to a point, you can strip naked & wallow in your naiveity for all I care ... unless you get in the way of the containment and/or elimination of the enemy. Once that happens, you've crossed the line into rendering aid & comfort and you aren't much better than they are.

Now, have at it -- bitch, moan, wring your hands, raise all manner of hell, pitch a grade A fit ... but it'll do nothing to change the fact that everybody isn't going to fall for it.

You are a pathetic excuse for a human being Jon. At this point I see very little difference between you and any number of Muslim Mullahs with their madrasas, indoctrinating a generation of children to hate the West. Like you, they don't represent the majority of their people, but they are a growing threat. It is up to the more edjucated, moderate Muslims to step forward and reclaim Islam from these fundamentalist extremists, and it's up to moderates and progressives in this country to make sure extremists like you don't control the discussion of foreign policy.

Questioning the affect 9/11 had on me is an insult of the highest order. You crossed a line Jon.

[Arles]

Jon, if you truly think Islam is any less of a non-violent religion than Christianity or Judaism, you have your head up your ass.
I hear this a lot, and it may be true. But I look at the facts and they show Muslims (be it from Egypt, Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, parts of Europe or Russia) are overwhelmingly more likely to resort to terrorism than any other religion. Why is that? Why don't we see Israelis going into Gaza with suicide bombs? Or jewish people from Tajikistan or Russia take Muslims Chechnyan kids hostage and execute them? Or Christians in Europe blowing up French Mosques? Why aren't inner city US Christians (many living in poverty) resorting to terrorism against the higher classes in the US and blowing up office buildings and government installations?

While Islam as a religion may very well be as "non-violent" as Christianity or Judaism, the practicers of that religion are significantly more violent and more apt to use terrorism as a group than other religions (ie, Jewish and Christian) in similar economic and social classes.

That can't simply be a coincidence.

[John Galt]

I hear this a lot, and it may be true. But I look at the facts and they show Muslims (be it from Egypt, Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, parts of Europe or Russia) are overwhelmingly more likely to resort to terrorism than any other religion. Why is that? Why don't we see Israelis going into Gaza with suicide bombs? Or jewish people from Tajikistan or Russia take Muslims Chechnyan kids hostage and execute them? Or Christians in Europe blowing up French Mosques? Why aren't inner city US Christians (many living in poverty) resorting to terrorism against the higher classes in the US and blowing up office buildings and government installations?

While Islam as a religion may very well be as "non-violent" as Christianity or Judaism, the practicers of that religion are significantly more violent and more apt to use terrorism as a group than other religions (ie, Jewish and Christian) in similar economic and social classes.

That can't simply be a coincidence.

Maybe it is because Muslim nations are overwhelmingly poor and have less advanced militarities. Necessity is the mother of invention.

And numerous other religions (and atheists) have a long history of practicing different horrific means of warfare.

[Desnudo]

If he lives in Idaho, there's a better than average chance he's crazy. I'd say terrorist.

[Esquared1]

I hear this a lot, and it may be true. But I look at the facts and they show Muslims (be it from Egypt, Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, parts of Europe or Russia) are overwhelmingly more likely to resort to terrorism than any other religion. Why is that? Why don't we see Israelis going into Gaza with suicide bombs? Or jewish people from Tajikistan or Russia take Muslims Chechnyan kids hostage and execute them? Or Christians in Europe blowing up French Mosques? Why aren't inner city US Christians (many living in poverty) resorting to terrorism against the higher classes in the US and blowing up office buildings and government installations?

While Islam as a religion may very well be as "non-violent" as Christianity or Judaism, the practicers of that religion are significantly more violent and more apt to use terrorism as a group than other religions (ie, Jewish and Christian) in similar economic and social classes.

That can't simply be a coincidence.


As a prof once said: "Correlation does not necessiarily imply causation"

IMHO, terrorist-type actions are one of the only means at their disposial. True, you don't see Christians doing the same. . . except maybe the IRA in the mid-70s. . .

First off, I'm not appoaching this as a "terrorist apoligist". I'm also far from perfect, and I have my own strengths and weaknesses. I guess what I would really like to do is add to this a different way to look at this. To this end, please consider the totality of what I write.

In every struggle, those who perceive injustice will use what ever means possible to try to further their cause. I believe, in America, we use different ends. . . simply because we simply have a wide variety of means at our disposial. As Americans, are relatively richer than most of the globe, and both at a governmental level and an individual level, we can simply use other means.

For those in Arab countries, they are more improverished. In my opinion, simple "strapping a bomb to your chest" is fairly simple AND cheap. All you need is one bomb and one person.

I know it makes it difficult to stop, being that all it takes one person and a bomb to take out 50, or four guys, fake ids, four plane tickets, and four box cutters to take a plane. In many ways, it's not fair.

I guess I am one who looks toward history for parellels for things. I guess the biggest one is how we even came to be America. During the Revelutionary War, the colonist forces did terribly when they lined up against the British and fought. When they used resources and tatics at their disposial like hiding in the woods, and using snipers, they had much more success. The British complained that the colonists were being savages.

IMHO, this belief that we are facing a bunch of savage, Islamic nut-jobs who only look at America in psychopathic terms misses the point - they have the same ability as us to analyze their resources and make the best of them. It so happens that theirs exposes our weaknesses as a society and within our military. To quell their force, we assume they are savage so we cannot adjust to their tactics, and when we confrount them, we have to do so with great collaterial damage.

In the grand picture, I think it is more than the religious factors those above have posted. I think we all need to consider the "economics" factors in. I know there is plenty of blame, including the governments who do not provide wealth to their subjects, hence their poverty, but I wanted to pass on one other way to look at this.

Carry on with your yelling at each other. :)

[Franklinnoble]

Maybe it is because Muslim nations are overwhelmingly poor and have less advanced militarities. Necessity is the mother of invention.

And numerous other religions (and atheists) have a long history of practicing different horrific means of warfare.

Yeah, because the Saudis are so damned broke.

That's B.S.

Saudi Arabian oil sheikhs pay $25k-$50k a pop to your family if you strap a bomb to your chest and blow it up in Israel. (why a peaceful bunch like the Muslims don't just feed their people is beyond me)

They have ample funds to support a strong military. They choose to use terrorism because it's a way to wage war without declaring war. The Saudis (and every other Arab nation) wish to annihilate Israel. Make no mistake - they are the aggressor in that conflict. The problem is, they know they have no chance at winning in open combat. The six days war taught them that. Nowadays, they'd simply have their asses handed to them if they did like they really wanted and rolled tanks into Israel.

So, they resort to terrorism. Because they starve their own people into desperation, fill their minds with this jihad crap, and then pay them to take their own lives, kill the enemy, secure a spot in paradise, and secure their families, all in one fell swoop.

Go ahead. Call bullshit. And then do some research on how much of Saddam Hussein's "oil for food" actually made it to the mouths of his starving people. Do some research on how the elite oil sheikhs in Saudi Arabia and other arab nations hoard absurd fortunes while their people starve.

Sure, the palestinians are poor, and they can't afford an army. They don't even have a country. I hope that Arafat's wife consoles them from France while she lives on the $22 million annual stipend that she receives, which represents a fraction of the fortune that Arafat hoarded away while he plotted suicide bombings using his own people as ammunition. Nevermind that all these surrounding arab nations could have easily granted land to Palestine... noooo... they MUST have Israel. They MUST kill the Israelis.

Please spare me the crap about the poor, downtrodden arab nations. They are victims of their own sick despotism.

[dawgfan]

I hear this a lot, and it may be true. But I look at the facts and they show Muslims (be it from Egypt, Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, parts of Europe or Russia) are overwhelmingly more likely to resort to terrorism than any other religion. Why is that? Why don't we see Israelis going into Gaza with suicide bombs? Or jewish people from Tajikistan or Russia take Muslims Chechnyan kids hostage and execute them? Or Christians in Europe blowing up French Mosques? Why aren't inner city US Christians (many living in poverty) resorting to terrorism against the higher classes in the US and blowing up office buildings and government installations?

While Islam as a religion may very well be as "non-violent" as Christianity or Judaism, the practicers of that religion are significantly more violent and more apt to use terrorism as a group than other religions (ie, Jewish and Christian) in similar economic and social classes.

That can't simply be a coincidence.

It's not a coincidence, but it's also a more complex answer than what you may be suggesting. There is no question that the world of Islam has a real problem with the fundamentalist/extremist branch that is primarily centered in the Arab world. But let's be clear about this - these extremists are no more a good representation of what the Muslim faith is about than the KKK is about Christianity.

Why are there so many extremist Muslims? The economic conditions of the Arab world foster this kind of thinking, and you can also put a lot of blame on cultural traditions of these people as well that have warped Islam in that area of the world.

The Islamic faith is deeply in need of a reformation movement similar to what happened with Christianity where the people take back some measure of control over the interpretations of their faith from the theocracy. There are progressive Muslims in the Middle East that are ashamed by Osama and don't agree with hard-line theocracies like the Taliban or the old-guard in Iran and to a lesser extent the Saudi princes. They don't have enough clout at the moment though to make this happen. There are a few brave souls that are standing up and challenging the old guard like Hashem Aghajari in Iran, but there needs to be more, and the West needs to be doing all they can to encourage this and set conditions that foster this thinking.

Many in this country buy into the notion of Iran as an evil state, and there is much to be concerned about there. But we should also understand that there is a new generation of Iranians that have grown up in the wake of the Islamic revolution there and don't share the older generation's contempt for the U.S. and the West. They have grown up in democracy (granted, one tightly controlled by the old-guard clergy) but that relative freedom has them wanting more, and wanting to modernize their country. When Aghajari spoke out against blindly following the clerics in his country and was condemned to death by the courts, there were massive protests led by students that pressured the old-guard into reversing their decision and greatly reducing his charges and punishment. There is potential there for Iran to grow out of their fundamentalist roots and become a modernized, more open democacy in the Middle East.

[Klinglerware]

While Islam as a religion may very well be as "non-violent" as Christianity or Judaism, the practicers of that religion are significantly more violent and more apt to use terrorism as a group than other religions (ie, Jewish and Christian) in similar economic and social classes.


Actually, the data just doesn't fit that argument. If you look at the hard data, while Islamic groups do their fair share of damage, the plurality of incidents in the past 25 years are the result of Latin American and Western European terrorist groups. These groups are a hodge podge of many different ideologies, ethnicities, and religions (a lot of them are from Christian nations). No one group can truly claim to be (or be labelled as) the main instigators of terror. I'm getting the data from the MIPT database on the web. It's quite fascinating stuff...

[Glengoyne]

Maybe it is because Muslim nations are overwhelmingly poor and have less advanced militarities. Necessity is the mother of invention.

And numerous other religions (and atheists) have a long history of practicing different horrific means of warfare.
I don't agree with Arles's position, nor those espoused by others in this thread, but your comments and the "Necessity is the mother of invention" bit sounds a bit too much like condoning the use of Terrorist tactics.

I believe the core reasons for terror do have root in the overwhelming poverty in the middle east, but I don't think you can remove the role a perverted brand of Islam plays in terrorism. Poor jobless young men and women are unhappy with their lot in life, all the while their government blames all of their problems on Israel and America. Then you have these millitant, and I would submit "evil", mullahs spreading hatred amongst these already desperate individuals.

Terrorism can't be condoned, and those who practice it will not be taken seriously until they have ceased.

[John Galt]

Yeah, because the Saudis are so damned broke.

That's B.S.

Saudi Arabian oil sheikhs pay $25k-$50k a pop to your family if you strap a bomb to your chest and blow it up in Israel. (why a peaceful bunch like the Muslims don't just feed their people is beyond me)

They have ample funds to support a strong military. They choose to use terrorism because it's a way to wage war without declaring war. The Saudis (and every other Arab nation) wish to annihilate Israel. Make no mistake - they are the aggressor in that conflict. The problem is, they know they have no chance at winning in open combat. The six days war taught them that. Nowadays, they'd simply have their asses handed to them if they did like they really wanted and rolled tanks into Israel.

So, they resort to terrorism. Because they starve their own people into desperation, fill their minds with this jihad crap, and then pay them to take their own lives, kill the enemy, secure a spot in paradise, and secure their families, all in one fell swoop.

Go ahead. Call bullshit. And then do some research on how much of Saddam Hussein's "oil for food" actually made it to the mouths of his starving people. Do some research on how the elite oil sheikhs in Saudi Arabia and other arab nations hoard absurd fortunes while their people starve.

Sure, the palestinians are poor, and they can't afford an army. They don't even have a country. I hope that Arafat's wife consoles them from France while she lives on the $22 million annual stipend that she receives, which represents a fraction of the fortune that Arafat hoarded away while he plotted suicide bombings using his own people as ammunition. Nevermind that all these surrounding arab nations could have easily granted land to Palestine... noooo... they MUST have Israel. They MUST kill the Israelis.

Please spare me the crap about the poor, downtrodden arab nations. They are victims of their own sick despotism.

Esquared1 has offered a thorough response, but let me add a few points. First, the fact that Muslim individuals and even governments have wealth does not mean that they can launch a successful frontal attack on Israel or the US. Terrorism is a cheaper means to an end. Also, not all of the Muslim governments are hostile to Israel. Second, I find it odd that you sight Saudi Arabia because the Iraq war (and the Bush Administration in general) have brought us even closer to their government. That is one of the reasons I opposed the war. Third, as to the oil-for-food scam, that is one of the primary reasons I argued for lifting sanctions (and not invasion).

I think you are generalizing and projecting a lot onto a group of people that are far from monolithic. I've spent some time in Arab and Muslim countries and I think they are very diverse places with many similarities to the US. I think the image you are painting is far from reality in many countries around the globe.

[John Galt]

I don't agree with Arles's position, nor those espoused by others in this thread, but your comments and the "Necessity is the mother of invention" bit sounds a bit too much like condoning the use of Terrorist tactics.

I believe the core reasons for terror do have root in the overwhelming poverty in the middle east, but I don't think you can remove the role a perverted brand of Islam plays in terrorism. Poor jobless young men and women are unhappy with their lot in life, all the while their government blames all of their problems on Israel and America. Then you have these millitant, and I would submit "evil", mullahs spreading hatred amongst these already desperate individuals.

Terrorism can't be condoned, and those who practice it will not be taken seriously until they have ceased.

I've never condoned terrorism. I've also never condoned the US's war against terrorism. They are both wrong and horribly misguided approaches.

[dawgfan]

I don't agree with Arles's position, nor those espoused by others in this thread, but your comments and the "Necessity is the mother of invention" bit sounds a bit too much like condoning the use of Terrorist tactics.

I believe the core reasons for terror do have root in the overwhelming poverty in the middle east, but I don't think you can remove the role a perverted brand of Islam plays in terrorism. Poor jobless young men and women are unhappy with their lot in life, all the while their government blames all of their problems on Israel and America. Then you have these millitant, and I would submit "evil", mullahs spreading hatred amongst these already desperate individuals.

Terrorism can't be condoned, and those who practice it will not be taken seriously until they have ceased.

Well put - I agree.

To be fair though, I think you misinterpret what JG was saying - I don't think he was condoning the use of terrorism, but pointing out that they were using the only means at their disposal to exress their rage. There's no question that the methods they use cross clear lines of civilized behavior.

[Franklinnoble]

First, the fact that Muslim individuals and even governments have wealth does not mean that they can launch a successful frontal attack on Israel or the US. Terrorism is a cheaper means to an end. .

Why do they need to attack Israel or the U.S. in the first place? That's the root of the problem.

[John Galt]

Why do they need to attack Israel or the U.S. in the first place? That's the root of the problem.

Who is "they?" That matters a lot. As for the "root" of the problem, I think that is a pretty subjective stopping point. For Palestinians, a lot of them live in virtual apartheid and want self determination. For some nations, racism and anti-semitism is the reason. For others, I'd say that US foreign policy and imperialism drives their anger. There are an incredible number of reasons.

I do believe that countries trying to attack the US is a problem. I just happen to believe that the current policies of the Bush administration will only increase those attacks (and the damage they cause). It is strange that you cite the demographics of Muslims overtaking Christians in the world. Isn't that a reason why we should try to "get along" as opposed to starting a war which will only increase in magnitude for decades?

[Glengoyne]

I've never condoned terrorism. I've also never condoned the US's war against terrorism. They are both wrong and horribly misguided approaches.
I didn't mean to imply that you were condoning terrorism. I just think that terror as a political tool needs to be stopped. I believe it is wrong to say "Well, they have no other choice, to communicate their views". In my mind you might as well add "Since they have no other choice, it is OKAY for them to use terror to achieve their goals".

I do disagree with you on the US's war on terror. I have no problem with any reaction taken by the targets of terrorism against those willing practice it. This is why Israel, has to commit some pretty aggregious wrongdoings before I have any sympathy to the Palestinian Leadership. I feel sympathy for the innocent people, but I blame the Palestinian Authority's stance on terrorism much more than I do the Israeli's.

I believe Terror must be squashed like a bug. I don't oppose a carrot and stick approach to promoting change in the Middle East, but I expect the stick to be very real, and more than just a threat.

[Arles]

It's not a coincidence, but it's also a more complex answer than what you may be suggesting. There is no question that the world of Islam has a real problem with the fundamentalist/extremist branch that is primarily centered in the Arab world. But let's be clear about this - these extremists are no more a good representation of what the Muslim faith is about than the KKK is about Christianity.

Why are there so many extremist Muslims? The economic conditions of the Arab world foster this kind of thinking, and you can also put a lot of blame on cultural traditions of these people as well that have warped Islam in that area of the world.
I agree 100%. But at what point do we face the facts that many islamic leaders have made a choice to have an oppressive regime and support terror as a viable action. No other religion or culture's leaders have made that leap - even many in similar downtrodden circumstances (ie, Mexico and parts of Eastern Europe).

The point here is that many islamic leaders and leaders of Islamic countries (Bin Laden, Hussein, leaders of these jihadist groups, the late Arafat, ...) have embraced terrorism as a way to do business. That's been there choice and they've surrounded this choice with the Muslim religion. No other religion has that many influential leaders embracing terror as a viable activity. So, I completely reject that the muslim people as a whole are no different than Jewish or Christians. Until the true muslims take back their religion and their leadership people from these extremists, they are going to be associated wih them. And while that is certainly unfortunate, it is within their own control to publically distance themselves from these extremists and start removing them from power.

Saying they have no control over this as a culture is providing a free pass to this behavior and enabling the extremists to continue unfettered.