Thanks for answering Daisy Cutter I now have new questions.
We now seem to be down to: Profiling Muslims
How do we accomplish this, do we just simply dismiss all of them form Government Service. We have to be sure right, with no Muslims we wouldn’t need Muslim chaplains correct? If not, how do we know when we have a ‘good’ vs. a ‘bad’ muslim being that’s all we’d be able to go by? Do NoI members count? Do we let them stay in but spy on them. Let’s see some details.
Btw, your quote from the Senator is what’s known as an opinion, which of course he’s allowed to have. But you’ve heard that saying about opinions right? Just because he agrees with you doesn’t make him right.
I have to agree for the most part with Daisy Cutter. I mean it’s not as if every time someone from a particular group is found guilty of something you have to suspect everyone from that group, but it becomes a wider pattern you have to pay attention. This latest group of arrests is not the first of its type - there was also the guy who threw the grenade at the outset of the war.
And it’s not like it is some random correlation. It is pretty obvious that there is a minority of Muslims in this country who are sympathetic to the terrorists and their aims. So it’s not a shot out of the blue if one of them acts on these sympathies.
Manhattan’s point about the historical profile of spies is ridiculous. In addition to the point already raised by DC (about the different nature of the opposition over time) it is also most likely that the percentages given are roughly in proportion to the percentage of people of that background who worked in the relevant agencies. Further, even if this were not the case, as a practical matter, any profile which includes 90% of the population is a pointless one.
People have brought up the fact that the army already does background checks. However, a potential weakness of these checks is revealed in this very thread. Well-meaning people are reluctant to “condemn” anyone based on their religion or ethnic background, and as a result tend to downplay the possible significance of these factors. And the army, which is ultimately answerable to politically sensitive types, is quite possibly even more this way. Furthermore, the US government has a difficult diplomatic situation, in which it seeks to avoid at all costs the notion that its war on terrorism is in fact a war on Islam (something many Muslims are inclined to believe) and any official policy which seems to reflect a negative view of Muslims will tend to undercut these efforts. So there is reason to believe that the army may be downplaying the significance of these factors.
Although I should add that the issues brought up in the preceding paragraph are valid, and cannot be dismissed. But the profiling issues are also valid - they should be weighed against other concerns instead of being dismissed out of hand.
That posting of yours is a load of hooey, Dogface. In the first place, the government is working at preventing violence and murder. In the second place, the government is working at preventing undesirable individuals in the military. In the third place, I did not make an excuse. Lastly, those of the five who are found guilty will be punished according to law & those who commit violent crimes are punished according to law if & when they are found guilty.
But carry on with pretending my stance is something different than I clearly stated it.
What has Yee been charged with so far? Nothing. He may or may not have had documents in his possession. There is very little information out. As Daisy Cutter notes Chaplain Yee has written several times on the subject of anti-Muslim attitudes -it is possible that he became “radicalized” during his tenure at Gitmo and dealing with the prisoners and there treatment. But we know nothing.
Airman al Halabi however, has been charged based on his possession of classified documents somewhere inappropriate. There is also rumors of individuals from the Navy and Marine Corps being investigated.
I think we should hold off on going full court press on anyone until we actually have some information - what were these individuals doing, what was there motivation. From what we know right now, these individuals could have been involved in anything from whistleblowing to cooperating with Al Qaeda. Given that these servicemen are in custody, I think we should wait until we are given some sort of information before we rush to judge all Muslim servicemen.
Could it be argued that the current spasm of arrests and investigations is actually a proof that the military is on top of the issue rather than clueless and PC-obsessed as some have posited?
So I would put to you the same questions I asked Daisy Cutter? What predictive value would profining have? Who do we look at, what do we do with them? Should we be looking at nationals from certain countries, the entire Middle East, how about American born converts, certain sects, again does NOI count? Further wouldn’t this then in fact make it a war against Islam?
Anybody else ready for the witch hunt that is going to follow this incident.
The fact is folks like Daisy Cutter are going to have the ear of the current administration because it plays into their fears. How much weeding out is going to happen? What extent is profiling going to happen and who are suddenly going to find themselves under a microscope?
These things always start like this. Salem, the Red Scare and now the Green scare. One incident where security fails makes people panic.
First it is, “How did they get through?”
Then “How are we going to prvent it from happening again?”
Then comes the hysterical cries of “How many more of them are already out there?”
Finally the invisible boogey men are everywhere in every place trying to undermine our way of life. Soon the false accusations start flying.
Trust me you can profile, tighten security, isolate populations, restrict who can do what and with whom and there will still be a fear that it is not enough.
All the while you’ll be stomping on the rights of your fellow citizens because they are seen as the enemy by the fluke of sharing a common trait with the real enemy (In this case religion)
I read an article in today’s Washington Post newspaper that deals with this situation. It seems that the muslim chaplains in military service were trained under the auspices of the Wahhabi sect of Islam. A Shiite organization wanted to be consulted as an accredited source of muslim chaplains. You should go to www.washingtonpost.com in order to read the whole article. Makes sense to me.
Yes, the common sense of bigotry. Screen them how you want and no matter how hard you try, bad guys are still going to slip through the cracks. So what’s next – prohibiting the “target group” from serving in the military? Convenient, except when the US government’s policy shifts as frequently as it does, we’ll be chucking soldiers left and right.
Or would you just prefer to stick to religion as the defining factor?
Are you familiar with Torquemada?
Precisely. Therefore, screening is even more onerous; heck, even white boys can become compromised.
To the pro-profilers: By which religion may we eliminate the only material military espionage threats we have had on our soil? Which religion can we blame for Benedict Arnold’s actions? (Please read his statement to General Washington, if you’re interested).
And now we have, shall we say, Exposition.
There is no wedge being forced between military Muslims and their Oath, but if we continue this persecution talk, we’ll have a rough time on our hands. The divide is forming over our acts as The United States of America – check it out, True Test of Shiite Adamance – and the complicity of our allies. I can guarantee you, dinars for donuts, many people feel similar to Captain Yee. They’re probably just white guys like Mr. Lindh, who will surely be keeping a lower profile by now.
The divide isn’t between Faith and Duty. It’s between Duty and Honor and it’s a much finer line.
Well, if what you say is true, that there are many more people who are roaming around, who are enemies of the USA, then all the more reason to weed out these dangerous people, before they can enact out their sick schemes. And you bring up Lindh being a white guy. I have already stated, that I don’t really see this as a race thing. Extremist muslims, willing to do harm to American citiizens come in all colors. White/black/brown/yellow has nothing to do with it.
You continue to make the case that (a) you have no clue as to what you’re talking about, and (b) that you are a bigot in no uncertain terms.
You whined on page one that the Muslim chaplains in the military should be investigated for ties to Muslim terrorist organizations and that’s just because they’re Muslims! Well, I’m Christian & last I heard, McVeigh was Christian. Shouldn’t I, then, be investigated for whatever ties I may have had with him? Shouldn’t every single Christian in the Armed Forces be investigated for the same?
You last posting is essentially, “Wah! I want profiling, dangit! It doesn’t matter that the terrorists may come in a whole bunch of different categories, but dagnabit I want profiling of just the danged Muslims!”
And you wonder why I felt the need to post that brick wall on page one, no doubt.
Regardless, turning a blind eye to militant Islamism is foolish. We had Akbar, over in Kuwait, that decided to frag a tent full of soldiers. We now have at least 3 from Gitmo, that are in various states of arrest and investigation. There is obviously a problem, not the least of which is the politcally-correct handwringing that many seem to take delight in.
With it or on it, Daisy Cutter: now’s your big two-fold opportunity, to dispel our perceptions that you’re a bigot and give us the solution to this thorny issue. Propose a Muslim or proto-Muslim ASVAB, I’d love to see it. And thanks for addressing the tiniest convenient snip of my post – it only serves to amplify your dearth of knowledge on the subject.
Brutus, I appreciate your view on the militant Islamism, but to categorize opposing views as “pc handwringing” is far too shortsighted for you. Going after Muslims is not the answer; this persecution will only foment further (and likely closeted) rage from more of our own citizens.
Who is saying that Muslims should not be allowed to serve? Nobody, so relax.
What I am saying, though, is that there certainly does appear to be a need to do some background investigations. Good on you for serving, but what skin off your back is it if you get a more strenuous background check than others? (Assuming you are a Muslim.)
Well, you have a right to your opinion, many people disagree with you, including at least one senator, which I posted a quote from previously.
Well, I’m certainly glad you’re not in charge of Homeland security or anything like that. Who do you suggest we look at ? A bunch of Hindus for ties to muslim terrorists ? So called “legitimate” muslim charity organisations have been busted left and right for alleged ties to terrorism, including the biggest one in the USA. I bet you would have investigated christian charities instead right ?
Yeah, those horrible Christians, they are a huge threat to the USA.:rolleyes: Christian preists are preaching for the destruction of the USA every single day. Christian people are hijacking planes left and right and blowing up our buildings, slaughtering thousands of civilians. We just invaded two Christian countries, and are now trying to install democracy there. The biggest threat to the USA is without a doubt Christian extremists. Seriously, are you for real ? Don’t bother to bring up McVeigh or Oklahoma city, one lunatic doesn’t compare to a world wide conspiracy calling for the destruction of the USA.
Well, that’s my whole point, they don’t come in a whole bunch of categories, they all have one common trait, and that is that they are all muslims, hence the name muslim terrorists. How about some common sense, and detective skills here ?
Background investigations are required for all personnel applying for entry into the Armed Forces of the United States of America. It’s not a big secret that they exist.
Christians have been hijacking planes in the past. Not all of the terrorists have been Muslims. Planes are not being flown into buildings all the time. Bomb threats and bombings have been occurring a bit more than twice in the last ten years. One guess what faith group is represented by the folks doing those quaint little stunts.
Not all Muslim clerics have been preaching death & destruction of the United States.
I’ll cogitate on the Pit posting you seriously deserve for this, Daisy Cutter and post it sometime after class tomorrow.
This question seems to imply that you disagree with the entire concept of profiling, not just with the specific profiling of Muslims. That might be beyond the scope of this thread - I believe profiling for other factors is pretty accepted. I don’t consider myself an expert on screening or profiling methods - all I would say is that this factor can be treated as other factors are considered.
In general, my impression is that profilers don’t usually use any specific factor as the sum of the profile - that it usually involves a combination of factors. And that the factors themselves can be narrowed down more closely once the matter is studied. (In this case, it might seem to an outsider that the risk factor is “Muslims”, but it is possible that once the matter is studied more closely it will turn out that it is “people who belong to such-and-such subset of Islam, who studied in such-and-such type of school, and affiliate with such-and-such groups”, and so on.) And I would imagine that there would be some level of risk that would be high enough to reject an applicant entirely and another that would merely warrant a bit more monitoring. But again, I am no expert on these matters - I am merely accepting the fact that the concept of profiling does exist.
As above, that’s something that should be investigated. The fact that you and I don’t know enough about the subject to answer such questions does not mean that they should not be investigated at all.
It wouldn’t be one, but it might feed that perception. This is a factor to consider, as I mentioned above.
Don’t bother to bring up McVeigh or Oklahoma city, one lunatic doesn’t compare to a world wide conspiracy calling for the destruction of the USA.