New York Times article about American Muslim terrorists

[SpeedRacer 1]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/us/12assess.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&emc=eta1 Basically, we're getting the same problem that Europe has.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Gawain 0]

Quote

...many counterterrorism specialists reached a comforting conclusion: Muslims in the United States were not very vulnerable to radicalization.

First time I ever heard this.

Quote

“The notion of a difference between Europe and United States remains relevant,” Mr. Leiken said. But the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the American operations like drone strikes in Pakistan, are fueling radicalization at home, he said.

“Just the length of U.S. involvement in these countries is provoking more Muslim Americans to react,” Mr. Leiken said.

I think this does more to fuel a false propaganda campaign out of the middle east, without effective counter measures at home. News of a drone strike in the mountains of Pakistan and AQ can film a baby with missing limbs, caused by whatever (likely AQ itself) post it on the internet et voila!

The reluctance of American Muslim "leaders", Imams or teachers, to confront this perversion in absolute terms may as well be an endorsement.

Quote

Mr. Beutel, a Muslim convert from New Jersey, said the council started a grass-roots counterradicalization effort in 2005, but acknowledged that “for a while it was on the back burner.” He said, “Now we’re going to revive it.”

Case in point.

Quote

“To me, the most interesting thing about the five guys is that it was their parents that went immediately to the F.B.I.,” she said. “It was members of the American Muslim community that put a stop to whatever those men may have been planning.”

This is what needs to be encouraged. Headstrong teenagers need to be given a good thumping and shown that they do not, in fact, "know it all".

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Like many other specialists, Mr. Hoffman pointed to the United States’ combat in Muslim lands as the only obvious spur to many of the recent cases, especially those with a Pakistani connection.

“The longer we’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said, “the more some susceptible young men are coming to believe that it’s their duty to take up arms to defend their fellow Muslims.”

A few analysts, in fact, argue that Mr. Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan — intended to prevent a terrorist haven there — could backfire.

Robert A. Pape, a University of Chicago political scientist, contends that suicide attacks are almost always prompted by resentment of foreign troops, and that escalation in Afghanistan will fuel more plots.

It's nice to read the realistic views of people (e.g., Robert A. Pape) who actually understand that the US is not targeted because "terrorists hate us because of our freedoms." Such propaganda (e.g., terrorists hate us because of our freedoms) offers little, if any benefit, and could actually be counter-productive.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Like many other specialists, Mr. Hoffman pointed to the United States’ combat in Muslim lands as the only obvious spur to many of the recent cases, especially those with a Pakistani connection.

“The longer we’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said, “the more some susceptible young men are coming to believe that it’s their duty to take up arms to defend their fellow Muslims.”

A few analysts, in fact, argue that Mr. Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan — intended to prevent a terrorist haven there — could backfire.

Robert A. Pape, a University of Chicago political scientist, contends that suicide attacks are almost always prompted by resentment of foreign troops, and that escalation in Afghanistan will fuel more plots.

It's nice to read the realistic views of people (e.g., Robert A. Pape) who actually understand that the US is not targeted because "terrorists hate us because of our freedoms." Such propaganda (e.g., terrorists hate us because of our freedoms) offers little, if any benefit, and could actually be counter-productive.

Yeah, because in 2001 we had so many troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, Syria, Pakistan...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Like many other specialists, Mr. Hoffman pointed to the United States’ combat in Muslim lands as the only obvious spur to many of the recent cases, especially those with a Pakistani connection.

“The longer we’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said, “the more some susceptible young men are coming to believe that it’s their duty to take up arms to defend their fellow Muslims.”

A few analysts, in fact, argue that Mr. Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan — intended to prevent a terrorist haven there — could backfire.

Robert A. Pape, a University of Chicago political scientist, contends that suicide attacks are almost always prompted by resentment of foreign troops, and that escalation in Afghanistan will fuel more plots.

It's nice to read the realistic views of people (e.g., Robert A. Pape) who actually understand that the US is not targeted because "terrorists hate us because of our freedoms." Such propaganda (e.g., terrorists hate us because of our freedoms) offers little, if any benefit, and could actually be counter-productive.

Yeah, because in 2001 we had so many troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, Syria, Pakistan...

Perhaps you're too young to remember, but 2001 wasn't the first time the US used military force to intervene in the affairs of others, killing innocent civilians needlessly. Or, are you one of those people who believe that civilian casualties are only tragic if their on our side, otherwise their merely collateral damage.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Like many other specialists, Mr. Hoffman pointed to the United States’ combat in Muslim lands as the only obvious spur to many of the recent cases, especially those with a Pakistani connection.

“The longer we’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said, “the more some susceptible young men are coming to believe that it’s their duty to take up arms to defend their fellow Muslims.”

A few analysts, in fact, argue that Mr. Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan — intended to prevent a terrorist haven there — could backfire.

Robert A. Pape, a University of Chicago political scientist, contends that suicide attacks are almost always prompted by resentment of foreign troops, and that escalation in Afghanistan will fuel more plots.

It's nice to read the realistic views of people (e.g., Robert A. Pape) who actually understand that the US is not targeted because "terrorists hate us because of our freedoms." Such propaganda (e.g., terrorists hate us because of our freedoms) offers little, if any benefit, and could actually be counter-productive.

Yeah, because in 2001 we had so many troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, Syria, Pakistan...

Perhaps you're too young to remember, but 2001 wasn't the first time the US used military force to intervene in the affairs of others, killing innocent civilians needlessly. Or, are you one of those people who believe that civilian casualties are only tragic if their on our side, otherwise their merely collateral damage.

You're right, how could I forget the massacres that US troops have inflicted on civilians in Kuwait, Iraq, Israel, Labanon, Iran, Egypt, Somalia, the Balkans, Liberia......and all those fanatical US suicide bombers ripping through schools, airports and cities...

You don't need to patronize me over age, if we aren't close in age, then I'm old enough to wager I'm older...or maybe not, I'm no pup that's for sure.

You know how many civilians I shot at in Iraq? None. You know how many shot at me? None. The ones that shot at me stopped being civilians and picked a side. It was the wrong side.

I wonder how many more people would have died if we had actually involved ourselves directly in attempting to prevent the 1 million people who died in Rwanda or the nearly 1 million people being wiped out in Darfur...you're right. They're clearly better off without the US.

Do they teach this stuff in school or something? How bad we are?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Like many other specialists, Mr. Hoffman pointed to the United States’ combat in Muslim lands as the only obvious spur to many of the recent cases, especially those with a Pakistani connection.

“The longer we’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said, “the more some susceptible young men are coming to believe that it’s their duty to take up arms to defend their fellow Muslims.”

A few analysts, in fact, argue that Mr. Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan — intended to prevent a terrorist haven there — could backfire.

Robert A. Pape, a University of Chicago political scientist, contends that suicide attacks are almost always prompted by resentment of foreign troops, and that escalation in Afghanistan will fuel more plots.

It's nice to read the realistic views of people (e.g., Robert A. Pape) who actually understand that the US is not targeted because "terrorists hate us because of our freedoms." Such propaganda (e.g., terrorists hate us because of our freedoms) offers little, if any benefit, and could actually be counter-productive.

Yeah, because in 2001 we had so many troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, Syria, Pakistan...

No, they were in Saudi Arabia, Islam's holy land.

The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War was one of the main motives for Al Quaeda.

No coincidence that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

...many counterterrorism specialists reached a comforting conclusion: Muslims in the United States were not very vulnerable to radicalization.

First time I ever heard this.

The success of Muslim integration (versus radicalization) has been fairly standard perspective. There has been little data until recently to suggest otherwise. Kind of like Brian Jenkin’s old aphorism, which was true throughout the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s: “Terrorists want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead.” What was once true may be changing. The interesting question to me is why? And why now?

A 2007 study by the Pew Research Center found “US Muslims - most of whom are immigrants - believe in the American work ethic and reject extremism.”

Peter Bergen:

“…a key reason the United States escaped a serious terrorist attack has little to do with either the Bush or Obama administrations. In sharp contrast to Muslim populations in European countries like Britain -- where al Qaeda has found recruits for multiple serious terrorist plots -- the American Muslim community has largely rejected the ideological virus of militant Islam. The "American Dream" has generally worked well for Muslims in the United States, who are both better-educated and wealthier than the average American. More than a third of Muslim Americans have a graduate degree or better, compared with less than 10 percent of the population as a whole.”

W/r/t recent cases of Somali immigrants in Minnesota being recruited, Bruce Hoffman notes that “The fact that the radicalization, indoctrination and recruitment of young Somali-Americans to terrorism was apparently missed at all levels of our national and homeland security apparatus until it had already occurred, emphasizes the critical importance of federal, state and local authorities working closely together to identify, prevent and interdict such threats from several vantage points.”

Just a couple examples illustrating the widely held perspective, inside & outside, that American Muslims were much better integrated particularly than European counterparts.

So the questions are – was something missed along the way, is there a significant change, or are these recent cases outliers?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Do they teach this stuff in school or something? How bad we are?

Yes, you could probably find something that qualifies as that if you are looking for it.

More importantly, im-ever-ho, what is taught is to ask questions, sometimes hard questions that don't have easy answers. Questions that sometimes challenge the perspective one holds. How one responds to those challenges is what one hopefully learns ... & one can learn those lessons in many places inside and outside of the formal classroom.

As Dr. David Petraeus (& former asst prof) who holds a PhD from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University notes in an article he authored for the July-Aug 2007 issue of the conservative magazine, American Interest,:

"Through such schooling our officers are often surprised to discover just how diverse and divergent views can be. We only thought we knew the contours of debate on a given subject. We discover not only that some very smart folks see the world very differently than we do, but that they also see it very differently from each other. Debates we imagined to be two-sided turn out to be three-, four- or more-sided.

"It is sometimes said that the study of history, or government and politics, or other social science and humanities disciplines can help us ask the right questions, but cannot provide us specific answers to contemporary challenges. Certainly, a typical grad school experience—especially an interdisciplinary one like that provided at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School or SAIS at Johns Hopkins or Harvard’s Kennedy School—does help us to ask the right questions. However, in many cases, graduate school also provides real skills, knowledge and expertise on which one can draw in developing answers to those questions. I can give examples from my own experience.

"In my own experience, I found the most valuable situations to be those in which exceedingly bright senior professors held views substantially different from my own. I developed a particular friendship with one such professor at Princeton, one of the country’s leading international legal scholars at the time—even though we truly saw the world through different lenses.

"... grad school forces a person to redefine upward one’s own internal standards of excellence. That’s a very healthy experience, so much so that I especially recommend it for all young captains who think, to any degree, that they’re the stuff—which is to say, every young infantry captain. Of course, I also recommend it for aviators of all ranks and services—that should almost go without saying."

And perhaps, most important in the long run & for the nation, speaking to the civilian-military divide:

"Sending American military officers to graduate school also benefits our country as a whole by helping to bridge the gap between those in uniform and those who, since the advent of the all-volunteer force, have had little contact with the military. The truth is that, just as the military has developed certain stereotypes of academics, journalists and other civilians over the years, these groups in turn hold certain stereotypes about those in the military. It’s important that we in the military understand those we serve—the American people—and it is equally important that our citizens understand those in uniform who have raised their right hand and sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic."

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

You're right, how could I forget the massacres that US troops have inflicted on civilians in Kuwait, Iraq, Israel, Labanon, Iran, Egypt, Somalia, the Balkans, Liberia...

US Interventions

Would you care to count the civilian deaths that resulted from those interventions? How do you think surviving relatives view the US after their civilian loved ones die in US (or US supported) attacks?

Quote

The ones that shot at me stopped being civilians and picked a side.

That's a convenient way of defining civilians. By your logic, if the US were invaded for no good reason, and non-military persons resisted the invading forces, then the invading forces would be fully justified to shoot at and kill those non-military persons, since they would not really be civilians.

Forgive me for using a more realistic definition of civilians.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Do they teach this stuff in school or something? How bad we are?

Which is more politically convenient ?

A. "It's certainly possible that our government's interventionist foreign policy has given the terrorists motive for attacking the United States."

or

B. "They hate us for our freedom."

Option A would require that politicians admit that they might bear some responsibility for the situation. Which option do you think most would choose?

Please don't think that I'm saying attacks against the US are justified, I'm just saying that our foreign policy may have been a motivating factor behind them.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Do they teach this stuff in school or something? How bad we are?

Which is more politically convenient ?

A. "It's certainly possible that our government's interventionist foreign policy has given the terrorists motive for attacking the United States."

or

B. "They hate us for our freedom."

Option A would require that politicians Americans admit that they might bear some responsibility for the situation. Which option do you think most would choose?

Please don't think that I'm saying attacks against the US are justified, I'm just saying that our foreign policy may have been a motivating factor behind them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[justinb138 0]

I'd agree with that correction.

[Skyrad 0]

I'm suprised that it took so long for this to get into SC. What the article conveniantly doesn't mention is that these men were turned in by their family and the local Imam at thier Mosque called the FBI.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

By your logic, if the US were invaded for no good reason, and non-military persons resisted the invading forces, then the invading forces would be fully justified to shoot at and kill those non-military persons, since they would not really be civilians.

That's sounds about right.

If the non military persons were firing weapons at you, would you do nothing or try to defend yourself?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

You're right, how could I forget the massacres that US troops have inflicted on civilians in Kuwait, Iraq, Israel, Labanon, Iran, Egypt, Somalia, the Balkans, Liberia...

US Interventions

Would you care to count the civilian deaths that resulted from those interventions? How do you think surviving relatives view the US after their civilian loved ones die in US (or US supported) attacks?

You're the one that is convinced of all these deliberate, needless, wanton disregard for civilian welfare by our military, show me the data. Without you citing an official figure, or knowing where that data came from, or from what time period, how can I know, or have a dialogue with you on the subject.

Quote

Quote

The ones that shot at me stopped being civilians and picked a side.

That's a convenient way of defining civilians. By your logic, if the US were invaded for no good reason, and non-military persons resisted the invading forces, then the invading forces would be fully justified to shoot at and kill those non-military persons, since they would not really be civilians.

Forgive me for using a more realistic definition of civilians.

Convenience has nothing to do with it. If you think you could do better, why don't you go see for yourself. I have no issue with returning fire on someone trying to kill me. By your statement, and logic, they were right to kill me? Whatever dude. Combatants are no civilians. Don't believe me, go see what it's like to have someone shoot at you. Let me know how you fare while you calculate their status (civilian/combatant/soldier).....take your time...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[SpeedRacer 1]

I don't feel that I'm compromising my patriotism by pointing out that the criminals (Al Quaeda) had a motive for their crimes.

Anyway, it's a well-established fact that one of the chief motives for 9/11 was the continued presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War.

Look at any history or documentary of Osama bin Laden & Al Quaeda.

That said, Saudi Arabia's policies are also a HUGE factor. They embraced a fundamentalist Wahhabi-version of Islam, and encouraged these guys to go off & fight the USSR in Afghanistan, but they wound up creating a monster which turned against their own ruling party.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I'd agree with that correction.

Why, there have been more attacks by AQ in Europe than in the US in the past eight years. To put this burden all on the US amazes me. But, if we're destined to bear that burden, then I'd rather no apologize for it.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[shah269 0]

The parents called the FBI? GREAT!
Now we have to figure out who the hell was paying for these morons to fly to Pakistan and who was covering their costs. Once we have that person, we try them and hang them.

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[Skyrad 0]

I doubt it

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I don't think we should underestimate the importance of this event. Many, many Americans feel that most or all Muslims are at least complicit by silence with terrorism. These Americans have stood up (not without fear of violent reprisal) and said loudly "This is not what Islam is all about!. The local Imams are telling their congregations (and the TV cameras) that they must fight extremism in their own communities.
I think this will be sen historically as an important thing.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Without you citing an official figure, or knowing where that data came from, or from what time period, how can I know, or have a dialogue with you on the subject.

10/10 irony score. Way to avoid addressing my point, though (not that I'm surprised).

Quote

Convenience has nothing to do with it. If you think you could do better, why don't you go see for yourself. I have no issue with returning fire on someone trying to kill me. By your statement, and logic, they were right to kill me? Whatever dude. Combatants are no civilians. Don't believe me, go see what it's like to have someone shoot at you. Let me know how you fare while you calculate their status (civilian/combatant/soldier).....take your time...

It appears that convenience has everything to do with it w/r/t your argument. Just because a civilian resists a violent invasion by a foreign aggressor does not make them any less of a civilian. If non-military personnel came to US soil to attack our military personnel, then you could argue that they are combatants rather than civilians, but that is not what we're discussing. We're discussing civilians fighting back in self defense against foreign invaders.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

That said, Saudi Arabia's policies are also a HUGE factor. They embraced a fundamentalist Wahhabi-version of Islam, and encouraged these guys to go off & fight the USSR in Afghanistan, but they wound up creating a monster which turned against their own ruling party.

"In the late '80s, Pakistan's then head of state, Benazir Bhutto, told the first President George Bush, "You are creating a Frankenstein."

Source

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

I'd agree with that correction.

Why, there have been more attacks by AQ in Europe than in the US in the past eight years. To put this burden all on the US amazes me. But, if we're destined to bear that burden, then I'd rather no apologize for it.

I'm not "putting it all on the US", just saying that we shouldn't ignore the fact that actions (specifically foreign policy made by people we elected), can piss alot of people off.

By "bear that burden", do you mean accept the fact that our past foreign policy decisions might have given terrorists motive to attack us?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Without you citing an official figure, or knowing where that data came from, or from what time period, how can I know, or have a dialogue with you on the subject.

10/10 irony score. Way to avoid addressing my point, though (not that I'm surprised).

It sucks when your own tactics are used against you doesn't it:

Quote

I couldn't speak for the numbers you provided without naming or linking to sources in your first post, but net margin = profit/revenue. The time period is essential information in order to make it a useful statistic. It could be for the time to pump and process a single barrel of oil, a quarter, or for the entire year.

The only difference is that I had used figures to back my assertion. You have not. You've asserted twice, that US military personnel kill innocent civilians for no apparent reason. I'm taking that in the context that you mean outside of "collateral" damage. On the contrary, the US has trained its military, and developed weapons systems that are surgical in nature. I've seen what the other side does.

Quote

Quote

Convenience has nothing to do with it. If you think you could do better, why don't you go see for yourself. I have no issue with returning fire on someone trying to kill me. By your statement, and logic, they were right to kill me? Whatever dude. Combatants are no civilians. Don't believe me, go see what it's like to have someone shoot at you. Let me know how you fare while you calculate their status (civilian/combatant/soldier).....take your time...

It appears that convenience has everything to do with it w/r/t your argument. Just because a civilian resists a violent invasion by a foreign aggressor does not make them any less of a civilian. If non-military personnel came to US soil to attack our military personnel, then you could argue that they are combatants rather than civilians, but that is not what we're discussing. We're discussing civilians fighting back in self defense against foreign invaders.

Civilians are not combatants.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!