by Jack
Right after Post Scripts took on Brian Levin (shown left), a professor at California State University at San Bernardino and director of its Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, Comedian Bill invited him to his late-night show. Mahr took issue with comparing Islamic extremism with all fundamentalism as being on an equal basis and I found this very interesting considering Mahr’s politics.
Speaking of those other religions Mahr said, “You know what — that’s liberal bull shi* right there … they’re not as dangerous! I mean there’s only one faith, for example, that kills you or wants to kill you if you draw a bad cartoon of the Prophet. There’s only one faith that kills you or wants to kill you if you renounce the faith. An ex-Muslim is a very dangerous thing. Talk to Salman Rushdie after the show about Christian versus Islam. So you know, I’m just saying, let’s keep it real.”
“All religious are not alike,” he continued. “As many people have pointed out — ‘The Book of Mormon,’ did you see the show? … OK, can you imagine if they did ‘The Book of Islam’? Could they do that? There’s only one religion that threatens violence and carries it out for things like that. Could they do “The Book of Islam” on Broadway?”
The guest responded in typical liberal fashion by saying, ”possibly so.” Maher dismissed this as being intellectually dishonest, and further he became visibly irritated when Levin suggested he was promoting “Islamic hatred.” Only the race card tactic didn’t work this time.
“You’re wrong about that, and you’re wrong about your facts,” said Maher. “Now, obviously, most Muslim people are not terrorists. But ask most Muslim people in the world — if you insult the Prophet, do you have what’s coming to you? It’s more than just a fringe element.”
Mahr is coming a little late to the parade compared to most of us, but at least he gets it. This has to be a serious blow to those head-in-the clouds liberals and that’s good, because they’re part the problem that’s holding back a serious dialog.
I’m now convinced that anyone objectively looking at this religion that still does not agree that Islam is a violence prone religion more than any other, is either extremely ignorant or they are being deliberately dishonest, as Mahr inferred of Levin.
There should be no safe shelter for the today’s Islamic apologists who point out the evil transgression of Christendom in 11th century. We’re not living in the 11th century, we’re living in 2013 and thankfully most of have evolved our sense of humanity and responsibility as civilized people and we left the morals of the 11th century where they belong. So that duck won’t fly anymore, we’ve heard it over and over and the consensus is it’s absurd and wrong, there’s no justification for equating that vi0lence with today’s violence.
To make another serious point, let me take it to an illogical extreme: Imagine for the moment, if past violence (terrorism) done in the name of Islam were instead done by members of the American Cancer Society. Okay, I know absurd…by go with me for a moment. So, lets say, every time there is bombing in a market place, on a bus, or in a hotel lobby or it’s a beheading for adultery, apostasy or family honor, it was connected to members of the American Cancer Society. And when maniacal plots are broken up just before the attacks… its members of the American Cancer Society that are involved. And imagine all that and more as this list of violence grows and grows. Eventually we’re going to arrive at a point when a rational person has to say, I’m not so sure it’s a good idea to let armed members of the American Cancer Society into our military, because you never know which way they’re going to shoot! That rational person is going to say, it’s probably not wise to let American Cancer Society members be in charge of top secret information, they might sell us out. And it will be just as prudent for that person to think, maybe we should rethink letting them into Congress too? Because when push comes to shove they have divided loyalties and it’s a high risk gamble to say which side they’re on. We don’t need to take that extreme risk in dangerous times like these, under the guise of freedom of religion – our founders never intended us to do that and I’ll prove it.
We know that you can’t join the military if you are a present of past member of certain groups, be it a drug cartel, Hell’s Angles, Nazi Party or KKK. We’ve said they are a high risk element that we don’t need to accommodate. It’s been past practice upheld by the Supreme Court that sometimes (although rarely) its necessary to protect freedom by not allowing groups to abuse it and turn it into a weapon to be used against us. This is nothing new, like I said, we’ve been there before and we’ve established limits on many freedoms. Most recently we’ve held that it’s not an encroachment on the 2nd amendment to prevent certain classes of people from owning firearms. In other cases we’ve limited what one can say under protection of the 1st amendment. There are also limits on the 3rd and 5th amendments and they are all limited by exceptions allowed for national security and the protection of life, which is our highest moral duty.
What We Agree On:
Pretending as if other religious extremists are just as big a threat to us as Islamist terrorists is stupid. We should be wary of religious extremists of all types, but the largest and most powerful network of religious extremists currently belongs to Islam. They have the backing of several governments and they exist in nearly every country. Dismissing this by saying “all religions have their kooks” isn’t helpful or enlightening.
What We Disagree On:
This is not justification for denying Muslims entry into the military or Congress on the basis of their religion. Islam itself is not a terrorist group. It is not a violent fringe movement or a hate group like the Ku Klux Klan. It is a religion, and it is protected by the First Amendment. The Constitution also says that “no religious test” shall be imposed on any member of Congress.
Our existing background checks for military members can do the job if they are enforced. There were huge red flags in the case of Major Hassan, and he should have and could have been stopped long before his heinous act of terrorism. The fact that he was Muslim was not in itself a red flag, but his extremist leanings seemed clear before he acted.
If our nation decided to designate Muslims as a whole a hate group, what do you think the effect of that will be? I don’t think it will cause a whole lot of Muslims to convert or give up their beliefs. It won’t cause a reduction in terrorism. It will only promote more radicalization and polarization. It will add fuel to the fire for extremists leaders who claim that the West is at war with Islam. It will erase the voices of moderation who are trying to reform their religion and bring it into the 21st century. It will divide our nation further. It will lead to an increase in both Islamist terrorist attacks and hate crimes against peaceful Muslims (there have been at least two since the Boston bombing). I don’t know if you’ve thought through the ramifications of such a move.
Chris…you said the following
“What We Agree On:
Pretending as if other religious extremists are just as big a threat to us as Islamist terrorists is stupid. We should be wary of religious extremists of all types, but the largest and most powerful network of religious extremists currently belongs to Islam. They have the backing of several governments and they exist in nearly every country. Dismissing this by saying “all religions have their kooks” isn’t helpful or enlightening.
Jack: Yes, we can agree on that and may I add. We must also hold all religions and all people and all organizations accountable when they do violence. Nobody should get a free ride for the sake of politics.
“What We Disagree On:
This is not justification for denying Muslims entry into the military or Congress on the basis of their religion. Islam itself is not a terrorist group. It is not a violent fringe movement or a hate group like the Ku Klux Klan. It is a religion, and it is protected by the First Amendment. The Constitution also says that “no religious test” shall be imposed on any member of Congress.
Jack: Chris…I’m saying this is justification for having a dialog aobut it. The KKK have done far less damage and they are excluded from security positions in the government and we say that’s reasonable. We should not be hypocrites when it comes to risk v political correctness, we need an open dialog where all views can be heard and evaluated.
Our existing background checks for military members can do the job if they are enforced. There were huge red flags in the case of Major Hassan, and he should have and could have been stopped long before his heinous act of terrorism. The fact that he was Muslim was not in itself a red flag, but his extremist leanings seemed clear before he acted.
Jack: Yes, he should have been. As you have pointed out, security checks often fall short of the goal and in the case of the younger Bostom Bomber, he was very popular, well liked and was by all accounts a typical American kind of young man. Yet here he is in the video standing behind an 8 year old with a bomb.
“If our nation decided to designate Muslims as a whole a hate group, what do you think the effect of that will be? I don’t think it will cause a whole lot of Muslims to convert or give up their beliefs. It won’t cause a reduction in terrorism. It will only promote more radicalization and polarization. It will add fuel to the fire for extremists leaders who claim that the West is at war with Islam. It will erase the voices of moderation who are trying to reform their religion and bring it into the 21st century. It will divide our nation further. It will lead to an increase in both Islamist terrorist attacks and hate crimes against peaceful Muslims (there have been at least two since the Boston bombing). I don’t know if you’ve thought through the ramifications of such a move.
Jack: Chris we should think it through, this is reasonable and so we agree again. Question: Is a hate group the automatic designation if one is a security risk? I don’t think so. I raise the security issue, you raise the hate issue. Widely different subjects in my opinion, although on second thought hate does seem to be at the core of Muslims killings.
If Muslims are considered a security risk, they could be limited in what positions in government they hold. We should always allow for exceptions, but if it should come to that it will happen only if terrible things happen to us. I.e., we’re repeatedly attacked from within by Muslims. That damage would have to be great and compelling. Those will be very dark days and I don’t want that to happen. One of the best ways is to limit that potential threat now, before it becomes uncontrollable.
If I were a Muslim and I was limited in the security clearance I could have in US gov. I would not be happy, but I would eventually have to understand it’s because of my associates. There was a logical reason for this limitation…I would have to understand it was not something dreamed up out of biggotry, but reality.
“If I were a Muslim and I was limited in the security clearance I could have in US gov. I would not be happy, but I would eventually have to understand it’s because of my associates. There was a logical reason for this limitation…I would have to understand it was not something dreamed up out of biggotry, but reality.”
Jack, this same justification has been used for every bigoted policy ever made in human history. Would you also expect Japanese people who were interned during WWII to be so understanding? Do you think they should have seen their internment as justified and non-bigoted?
Chris that’s just not so. The actions I’m talking about is merely limiting access to areas of national security by members of a group that have demonstrated tens of thousands of times a propencity to violence and to turn on us… even as we call them friends. This was not the case in WWII with Japanese internment. There was a racial element there mixed in with a security issue and therefore this is not a valid comparison.
Frankly, I don’t take Maher seriously on anything. He is just another ass with a microphone.
yeah, but he’s their ass and when he rips on one of them you gotta take some consolation in that, right?
In the early 80’s there was once a construction project at the main entrance to LLNL on which several fully colored Hell’s Angels were working.
That subcontractor did not last long. As I recall, none were put in concentration camps. They were simply made an unwelcome security risk. Duh.
Jack: “Chris that’s just not so. The actions I’m talking about is merely limiting access to areas of national security by members of a group that have demonstrated tens of thousands of times a propencity to violence and to turn on us…”
I don’t believe it is accurate to call Muslims “members of a group that have demonstrated a propensity to violence and to turn on us.” Muslims are a HUGE group, of which the violent are a small (but powerful) minority. It is un-American to argue that they should be deprived their constitutional rights. And it is hypocritical for you, of all people, to argue that we should violate the Constitution in such an egregious way.
“This was not the case in WWII with Japanese internment. There was a racial element there mixed in with a security issue and therefore this is not a valid comparison.”
And there’s no racial element mixed into the debate over Islam? Come on, Jack. We’ve had people in this country attacked simply for looking Middle Eastern. This has already happened twice since the Boston attacks.
Glenn Beck and other conservatives aggressively went after the “Saudi national” who was initially reported as a suspect in the bombings, even publishing his name and address and saying Obama should be impeached for some kind of “cover-up”…and it turns out he had nothing to do with the violence.
Your solution would truly make Muslims into second-class citizens in this country, and would only exacerbate these problems. It would also do nothing to protect us from terrorism, and would encourage more acts of terror.
Thankfully, it would never get past the Supreme Court.
Jack: “I would eventually have to understand it’s because of my associates. There was a logical reason for this limitation…I would have to understand it was not something dreamed up out of biggotry, but reality.”
Just like any other citizens that is denied security clearance for any number of reasons.
But I’m afraid the newer crop of Americans weened on the idea that everything is a civil rights issue will never understand what you are suggesting Jack. Which means that instead of a complete defeat of this enemy we will spend decades in a slow managerial war with many more casualties than we would have had had we been willing to take the kinds of precautions that would get the job done.
Of course what may also be true is that we can’t really be certain that our leaders are always on the side of America anymore…can we? Radicals have taken over the Democrat Party…they don’t really seem to recognize America as a beacon and protector of freedom.
You make a good point Tina and one that has no easy answer. There will always be those among us who would sell us out for money, sex, power, or for their political agenda because they are flawed people. Look at Bradley Manning, a US soldier, he thought he was doing the right thing by stealing secrets to give to Wiki Leaks and did a great deal of damage to our foreign relations. This is an age old problem, even happened to Jesus. We can only do our best, lock down our secrets, try to screen out the bad apples.
But, back to Muslims. Did you see the female Muslim reporter ask White House spokesman Jay Carney if he considered the 11 deaths of women and children in Afghanistan yesterday an act of terrorism by America? She spoke with an accent – don’t know if she was a citizen. But, to ask this question says a lot about the agenda of the person asking. The USA is victimized by such biggoted ignorance every day and they do us a lot of harm. They create hate and I think that’s what this Muslim woman was after…if she is not a complete idiot then she knows the difference between collateral damage in a hot war and deliberately targeting innocent women and children as a terrorist. I think she just chose this as an opportunity to stick it to America on national TV. We don’t need that kind of thing being protected here, the risks are getting too high.
Carney gave some lame answer about contact the Dept. of Defense because he didn’t know any details, no denial of course, no explanation to educated her (and others) and thereby destroy her “Gotcha!” question. He was way too nice.
Tina: “Just like any other citizens that is denied security clearance for any number of reasons.”
Um, no. That’s not what Jack is talking about at all. He is talking about denying security clearance to ALL Muslims, as a general rule. In no way is that similar to an individual citizen being denied clearance for an individual reason.
“But I’m afraid the newer crop of Americans weened on the idea that everything is a civil rights issue will never understand what you are suggesting Jack.”
The idea of religious freedom is not a new idea, Tina. You can find it in that Constitution that you claim to love, when it’s convenient for you. Religious freedom IS a civil rights issue. Period.
“Which means that instead of a complete defeat of this enemy we will spend decades in a slow managerial war with many more casualties than we would have had had we been willing to take the kinds of precautions that would get the job done.”
Neither of you have shown any evidence, or made any compelling logical argument, for how Jack’s “precautions” would prevent anything or lead to a swifter conclusion to the war on terror. You haven’t even shown that Muslims gaining high security clearance in the U.S. is even a problem.
I’d also add that it’s naive to think a “complete defeat” of terrorism is even possible.
“Radicals have taken over the Democrat Party…they don’t really seem to recognize America as a beacon and protector of freedom.”
As opposed to you and Jack, who would make America a beacon and protector of freedom…by denying members of the third largest religion their constitutional rights? By carving out “exceptions” to religious freedom? By restricting freedom in the name of security?
Pure hypocrisy.
“Neither of you have shown any evidence, or made any compelling logical argument, for how Jack’s “precautions” would prevent anything or lead to a swifter conclusion to the war on terror. You haven’t even shown that Muslims gaining high security clearance in the U.S. is even a problem.”
Now Chris you’re just being completey absurd and you obviously don’t give a rip about having a dialog. I originally had a very narrow focus, then you changed the whole paradigm. Short of God, nobody in this world can answer what you pose, but you accuse us of your twisted version of hypocrisy because we don’t have a quicky answer to satisfy you? lol Get real.
So you say the Muslims are the 3rd largest religion in the world, so whats your point… might makes right? When they get to be a 3rd of population here you and your liberal pals can bend over and kiss your lofty priciples good-bye. They’ll make short work of tolerance for gays, womens rights, and a lot of people who are obnoxious and offend Allah. Bet your name will be right at the hit top of the list, right next me and Tina.
So, how far should we go in curtailing the rights of Muslims? Ann Coulter argues that the bomber’s wife “ought to be in prison for wearing a hijab:”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ann-coulter-uses-boston-bombing-to-tear-into-amnesty-shows-how-we-need-better-immigrants/
Jack here’s a question for you. The following was reported in one publication today (sorry I didn’t get the link):
Does it strike you as strange that this bombers weapon of choice, according to this US Attorney, was called a WMD?
I mean I get that the bombs were constructed to do mass damage but, really, when I consider the fit that our lefty friends had over whether or not there were WMD’s in Iraq I can only smile. How they toss words around when it suits them…it’s like Frisbee day at the dog park, well, as long as it’s them doing the tossing.
I heard that murder charges were yet to be filed at the state level, however what has been filed so far carries the death penalty. Question for anyone: Can he plead out to avoid the death penalty? I don’t think thats automatic, we have to allow it, but that’s what one reporter said today on the news.
I think skipping around his Miranda rights was probably not necessary for national security. Enough time has passed that the urgency exception may be compromised. Would rather he was admonished so there’s no suppression of evidence. He knows his life is over, what’s to lose about telling his story now, maybe it will garner him some sympathy? I probably would have admonished him.
Tina, I think the WMD phrase was for definately for effect, but also it was to align themselves in public with the new elements of the criminal violation they were about to charge the bomber with.
The problem with this “group” is that they are able to hide like no other that has waged war on us. They can and do blend into our society. They are even instructed to do so! Moderates who do not join in with the very radical extremists still donate to “charities” that fund extreme groups and would find it difficult, because of the tenets of the religion, to speak out or refrain from participating.
Chris asks that we do basically nothing. Limit profiling, no restrictions, open the border, sponsor and fund schooling, and let them access our generous safety net. Welcome them with open arms. Most of all NEVER express concern, worry, or considerations about the religion (cause if you do you are a bigot) no matter what!
Excuse me but isn’t this tantamount to turning America into an Islamic state where in the end the Muslim religion determines the rules?
These two terrorists were successful because our security did not do enough to stop them. They were also successful because they were able to blend in.
I go back to the use of language as it pertains to how we screen people who might pose a threat, and who we allow into our country, and who we allow to become citizens or serve in our government or the military. When any words that would place a person in question are struck from use in our government how can any Muslim ever land on a list that will help to keep Americans safe?
Maybe it’s okay with Chris. Maybe living under Muslim rule, rather than in a free republic, would be okay with him.
I welcome anyone here who honestly wants to live in our free republic…others I am not interested in welcoming.
Jack: “f she is not a complete idiot then she knows the difference between collateral damage in a hot war and deliberately targeting innocent women and children as a terrorist.”
Since she was asking Jay Carney she probably wasn’t an idiot. However those who will justify what they do by denying the truth about terrorists will probably not see the difference, they’re too busy placing all of the responsibility for the terror acts in the world on us. I think a number of our progressives have the same opinion.
Jack the Boston case offers plenty of reasons to rethink how this administration is doing national security and there is no time like the present. I fear it will be pushed into the work related violence category before all is said and done and nothing will change unless we can remove those from office that refuse even to name the enemy.
Jack: “Short of God, nobody in this world can answer what you pose,”
Ridiculous. All you would need to do is show evidence that radical Muslims have infiltrated the government, and that our traditional system of background checks haven’t gotten the job done. That’s hardly an unreasonable standard. You’re advocating a restriction of liberty in the name of heightened security; demonstrating that the security problem you name *actually exists*, and would be reduced by the policy you propose, is *literally* the least you could do.
This is what proponents of expanding background checks for guns did. They conducted investigations and showed that many criminals were getting their guns from unlicensed dealers at gun shows. They showed that there was a problem, and they proposed a reasonable solution. And, unlike barring Muslims from Congress, expanding background checks on guns doesn’t actually violate the Constitution.
This whole conversation is deeply ironic given your stance on background checks. Apparently, according to you, it is absolutely unthinkable to restrict liberty in the name of security, unless of course it only restricts the liberty of a religious minority, in which case everybody be cool. Evidence showing that such a restriction is necessary and will actually reduce risk, while not violating the Constitution, is apparently not required.
“So you say the Muslims are the 3rd largest religion in the world, so whats your point… might makes right?”
No, my point is that they are entitled to religious freedom. The groups you named (Hell’s Angels, KKK) are not religions. My other point is that in a religion this large, there is a lot of diversity of opinion, and you can’t generalize or assume that all members of that religion are a security risk.
“When they get to be a 3rd of population here you and your liberal pals can bend over and kiss your lofty priciples good-bye.”
Jack, you can’t deny any and all bigotry and then make statements like this! A growing Muslim population does not necessarily equate to the implementation of Sharia law. That is a totally bigoted assumption. Most Muslims come here to get *away* from religious persecution. Most go about their lives here like normal Americans. We must be optimistic and encourage the reformation within Islam here in America. Statements like the above are not helpful.
Tina: “Most of all NEVER express concern, worry, or considerations about the religion (cause if you do you are a bigot) no matter what!”
If you insist on making absurd strawman arguments, it would behoove you to avoid making ones that are directly contradicted by my very first comment on this article:
“Pretending as if other religious extremists are just as big a threat to us as Islamist terrorists is stupid. We should be wary of religious extremists of all types, but the largest and most powerful network of religious extremists currently belongs to Islam. They have the backing of several governments and they exist in nearly every country.”
See that? That is me “express[ing] concern, worry, or considerations about the religion.”
And see the part of your comment I quote at the beginning of this one? That’s you lying. About me. Again.
Because it’s relavent here too:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Article VI, Paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
Chris: “See that? That is me “express[ing] concern, worry, or considerations about the religion.”
Unless your words are backed up with support for uncomfortable but necessary policy your expression is empty and meaningless. It covers your a** but has no teeth. You get to look tolerant but you only pretend to carry a big stick. The problem for me is that I don’t believe you would ever follow through if the big stick had to be used.
The problem you have, IMHO, is that you only think in terms of civil rights. Civil responsibilities are more difficult in terms of putting your butt on the line and taking the appropriate steps. You hide in a little box and will get away with it because you will probably never be called upon to make a hard decision. Unfortunately for us, the President resides with you in this box and that makes him ineffective and incompetent to serve as Commander-in Chief and defender of our nation.
Chris you can call me a liar all day long and that will not make it true. What is true, from my perspective, is that you will not step outside of that comfy PC box to have a real grown up conversation. How do I know? You are more interested in insulting me than in understanding the argument or position. In your first comment you wrote:
It has not been suggested that they be denied based on their religion. It has been suggested that their religion could be cause for close scrutiny and denial based on loyalties and radical sympathies and understanding of the religion. It’s not fair but it is the unfortunate reality we must deal with if we are ever going to defeat the extremists and adequately protect our nation, our values and the freedoms and rights we enjoy.
There have been several successful attacks on Americans under the PC President. You OK with that?
Tina: “Unless your words are backed up with support for uncomfortable but necessary policy your expression is empty and meaningless.”
The problem is you haven’t even attempted to show how your suggested policy is “necessary.” So you’re just making empty accusations at this point.
“Unfortunately for us, the President resides with you in this box and that makes him ineffective and incompetent to serve as Commander-in Chief and defender of our nation.”
This president sent SEALS into Pakistan after making finding bin Laden a priority again–two things his predecessor was unwilling to do. I supported these actions.
“It has not been suggested that they be denied based on their religion.”
Yes, it has.
“It has been suggested that their religion could be cause for close scrutiny and denial based on loyalties and radical sympathies and understanding of the religion.”
You are, as usual, trying to downplay the argument. What Jack actually said was that Muslims should not be allowed in Congress or in the military. I am all for “close scrutiny.” If radical ties are discovered, of course that individual should be denied. But they should not be denied simply because of their religion, which was Jack’s initial proposal.
“There have been several successful attacks on Americans under the PC President. You OK with that?”
What a ridiculous, hateful question. There were several successful attacks on Americans under Bush as well. Were you OK with that? Do you see how that’s a totally unfair question?
Obama’s anti-terror policy has been nearly indistinguishable from Bush’s anyway, as any rational observer can see, so this whole argument is absurd.
I have to reply to something brought up earlier:
Jack: “Did you see the female Muslim reporter ask White House spokesman Jay Carney if he considered the 11 deaths of women and children in Afghanistan yesterday an act of terrorism by America? She spoke with an accent – don’t know if she was a citizen. But, to ask this question says a lot about the agenda of the person asking. The USA is victimized by such biggoted ignorance every day and they do us a lot of harm. They create hate and I think that’s what this Muslim woman was after…if she is not a complete idiot then she knows the difference between collateral damage in a hot war and deliberately targeting innocent women and children as a terrorist.”
A grieving mother does not see much of a difference. Whether her child is killed by a terrorist or a U.S. drone strike, the effect is the same.
And the effect on us isn’t so great either, Farea al-Muslimi argued in front of a Senate Judiciary Committee:
“Most of the world has never heard of Wessab. But just six days ago, my village was struck by a drone, in an attack that terrified thousands of simple, poor farmers,” Muslimi said in prepared testimony. “The drone strike and its impact tore my heart, much as the tragic bombings in Boston last week tore your hearts and also mine.”
Muslimi testified that he was with an American colleague in the town of Abyan last year when the local residents suddenly became worried.
“They were moving erratically and frantically pointing toward the sky. Based on their past experiences with drone strikes, they told us that the thing hovering above us -– out of sight and making a strange humming noise -– was an American drone. My heart sank. I was helpless. It was the first time that I had earnestly feared for my life, or for an American friend’s life in Yemen. I was standing there at the mercy of a drone. I also couldn’t help but think that the operator of this drone just might be my American friend with whom I had the warmest and deepest friendship in America,” Muslimi said.
“My mind was racing and my heart was torn,” Muslimi continued in his statement. “I was torn between the great country that I know and love and the drone above my head that could not differentiate between me and some AQAP militant. It was one of the most divisive and difficult feelings I have ever encountered. That feeling, multiplied by the highest number mathematicians have, gripped me when my village was droned just days ago. It is the worst feeling I have ever had. I was devastated for days because I knew that the bombing in my village by the United States would empower militants…
…The killing of innocent civilians by U.S. missiles in Yemen is helping to destabilize my country and
create an environment from which AQAP benefits. Every time an innocent civilian is killed or maimed
by a U.S. drone strike or another targeted killing, it is felt by Yemenis across the country. These strikes
often cause animosity towards the United States and create a backlash that undermines the national
security goals of the United States. The U.S. strikes also increase my people’s hatred against the
central government, which is seen as propped up by the Persian Gulf governments and the United
States.
I know that some policy makers in the United States and Yemen claim that AQAP does not use drone
strikes as a tool to recruit more people to their cause. This is incorrect. The case of the Toaiman
family in Mareb, as reported by NPR based on a trip in which I participated, is one specific example.
The Toaiman’s oldest son joined AQAP hoping to avenge the death of his father, an innocent civilian
killed by a drone strike in October 2011. The son has 28 brothers waiting to do so as well. One of his
youngest brothers, a 9 year old, carries a picture of a plane in his pocket. The boy openly states that he
wants revenge and identifies his father’s killer as “America.”
But the main issue is not whether AQAP recruits more terrorists because of drone strikes. AQAP’s
power and influence has never been based on the number of members in its ranks. AQAP recruits and
retains power through its ideology, which relies in large part on the Yemeni people believing that
America is at war with them.”
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/04-23-13Al-MuslimiTestimony.pdf
You should really read his entire testimony; it is extremely powerful, and al-Muslimi makes his love for America clear.
So, Chris, under whose command are these drones being deployed?
Chris: “This president sent SEALS into Pakistan after making finding bin Laden a priority again–two things his predecessor was unwilling to do.”
The President had to be dragged kicking and screaming to make the call. The footwork was accomplished by his predecessor and security personnel that could actually use words like Islam and radical Muslim and the actual killing was done by the Seals. Your guy basically showed up to take a bow according to Richard Miniter
An exchange:
Pie Guevara: “So, Chris, under whose command are these drones being deployed?”
Is this supposed to be a gotcha? I have been extremely vocal about my opposition to Obama’s drone strike program here at this site.
Tina: “The President had to be dragged kicking and screaming to make the call.”
You’re basing this on rumors and what you want to believe. There is no evidence of this. Obama’s statements during his campaign where he said that he would make bin Laden a priority again, and go into Pakistan if necessary, are evidence that this was his call.
“How about I write the sentence differently: “Based on their understanding of their religion and their radical sympathies and loyalties, their religion could cause greater scrutiny and be a factor in denying them…””
You’re not just writing that differently, you’re making a completely different argument. This is not the same as saying that Muslims should be denied entry into Congress, which was Jack’s original argument–which you call a “very reasonable idea” even in your last comment!
I am all for closer scrutiny. Vet the hell out of them! But we can’t make a law saying that all Muslims are banned from Congress and the military. That’s clearly unconstitutional. But apparently the Constitution only matters when it’s convenient to you.