What an astonishingly specious argument. The fact that a handful of Muslim terrorists killed the vast percentage of terrorist victims does not mean that large numbers of Muslims are terrorists. Most terrorists in the US are Americans and not Muslims at all. 

As for the Islamic extremists who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks you must be living in la la land if you think they did it all by themselves. 

Over 1,900 High Rise Architects (many of them American and many with 30 and even 40 years of experience), structural engineers, chemists, physicists, military and civilian explosives experts, demolition experts and leading academics have stated (backed up by heaps of evidence) that the towers could not possibly have collapsed the way they did and that the official report is not just wrong but a pack of lies - a huge cover up. 

Of course sitting in your arm chair you might imagine you know best but what rebuttals can you offer to their testimony? 

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/home.html 

And before you or Don starts banging on about conspiracy theory nut jobs I would urge you to actually watch the film. If you do so and you think there are no grounds whatsoever for a new inquirery and that the official report is wholly accurate and reliable I would be very surprised. These experts (professors of architecture from top US universities etc.) make no conspiracy claims, they merely state that the official report is massively wrong. They have no (perceivable) political or conspiracy axe to grind.

Just read a news article that referred to the US Department of Justice web site. The article said that although Muslims only represent about 1 percent of the American population, they constitute defendants in 186 of the 228 cases the DOJ lists.

Also, saw last night that three college friends of the younger Boston bomber had been arrested for lying to the FBI, and for attempting to dispose of evidence (bomb making materials as well as a laptop).  Apparently, they just wanted to help their friend "stay out of trouble".  Ok, when I was 19, I did some pretty stupid things...but nothing like this.  These three young men are looking at 5-8 years in prison for their extremely bad decisions.

I am enjoying my stay in South Africa, and have been watching the Al Jazeera English news channel quite a bit.  I must say I find their reporting to be quite interesting, and reasonably objective as well.  I just read that they've purchased a US cable channel (Current TV).  I hope this means AJE will be available in the US, since they report on events in the Islamic world that rarely make it to US news channels.

ATB.

Hook

PS - @Russ - Yes, agreed -- am convinced the US would have declared war on Germany over U-boat activity, even if Pearl had never happened.

Hook: Tell me honestly if you would rather I didn't further misdirect this thread, but I am finding it very interesting that the two bombers and their loving parents managed to screw the city and state (and I think to some extent the Federal Government out of some hundred grand of public assistance money after seeking asylum, then taking extended trips back "home".  Now I have to admit to being a fiscal conservative who feels that, in the long run, welfare entitlements hurt the folks who depend on them more than they help.  But beyond that, (an issue on which reasonable people can disagree and remain friends--and one in which I am most likely in the minority on this thread), if indeed the states or the national government have in fact created entitlements for people just coming to this country, I think that needs to be revisited. 

Also, while it creates a very bitter taste in the back of my mouth, I am doing to add that I think we may need to consider either quotas or very strict limitations on the number of visas we grant to persons from parts of the Earth which have shown a tendency to want to do us harm.  I know I'm not the first to say this, but I think we need to consider such measures, not only with regard to the Middle East and surrounding areas, but perhaps to those from Mainland China as well.  Ideally, we would not want to do this, but given our obvious inability (not picking on the Democrats here--because it applies to both parties--think Saudis and 9-11) to track folks once they are here and determine whether they have violated the terms of their visas, I am wondering if it isn't the only partial solution--to a problem that does not have a complete solution.

We are an inclusive nation, with a liberal Constitution--and inclusive and liberal we would like to remain.  But even an open, inclusive, liberal democratic republic does not owe the rest of the World a duty to commit suicide.

Hook, what you say about Al Jazeera is interesting.  I have only read English translations of excerpts--some of which were pretty damning.  I am always hoping to see examples of World Islam decrying terrorism.  Your news is encouraging.

Best regards,

Russ

Hi Russ -

I know others feel differently, but I do not have a strong sense of ownership with threads I start (not that I kick off that many).  Haim's point is well taken, but I would just as soon see threads go where interest takes them.  This thread's topic -- a terrorist act from today's headlines -- led, IMO, quite naturally to a more historical perspective.  TBH, I'm a little surprised we haven't worked our way back to the dismantling of the Ottoman empire by the UK and France after WWI, which led to the eventual establishment of Israel.  ;-)

As far as public aid money for immigrants, I try to take an investment perspective -- most investments pay off, and some don't. These clearly didn't. My understanding is that this Chechen family was granted political asylum, so they came here as friends of the US. Our aid simply gave them a foothold here. Fast forward a few years, and both boys seemed to be on the right track to becoming productive citizens -- one a promising athlete, and the other college bound...but then it all went so terribly wrong.  The optimist in me wants to believe that in the vast majority of cases, public aid for immigrants pays off handsomely.  I also think it would be a terrible shame for this one family to ruin the programs for so many others who seek asylum here, and deserve our help. I'm talking about future doctors, scientists, soldiers and teachers. We need their talent as much as they need our aid. IMO, it is the fundamental basis of American "exceptionalism" -- our country attracts and develops the best and brightest from all over the world. We just have to do a better job going forward of making sure they stay here!

While it would be nice to be able to keep all of the bad guys out, I think we can agree that will never be possible. But I have to believe that the vast majority  of our immigrants turn out to be honest, law abiding people with good hearts and strong family ties.  As such, I would never seek to deny them the basic human need to visit their family abroad (on their own dime of course). After all, that's exactly what I am doing right now, having married a South African 33 years ago.  And like so many other foreigners who have made the US their home, Mrs. Hook has, since 1984, visited her family as a proud US citizen.

ATB.

Hook

You do know that the US isn't the only place that has terrorists, don't you?

You'll also be aware of the nationality and religion of the terrorist who committed the second biggest act of terrorism on CONUS - Timothy McVeigh, US National.

If you just want to look at the US, only 6% of terrorist attacks between 1980 and 2005 where carried out by Muslim extremists. 

As I like to back up my comments, here is my source.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contr...rist-attacks-us-soil

Rather than "us" proving you wrong, please provide source for this.

Greater threats?

How about poverty, social division, inequity of healthcare provision, pollution, violent crime, obesity and endemic drug use.....

I'll wager any one of this little lot kills far, far more than Al Qaeda ever does.

Wars and foreign enemies are convenient ways to look away from our front room sometimes.

Bruce

I would have an each way bet that you only need drug use to kill more than Al Qaeda

Sorry, but I accidentally omitted one word from my last sentance.  I meant to write:  "...a single greater terrorist threat to US citizens today".  

Of course there are threats other than terrorism.

I think the problem here is confusing terrorism, and political extremism, with Jihad. My opinion is that the bombers were acting according to the tenets of Jihad.

Hook: Thanks.  I feel the same lack of ownership of my threads that you do, and in fact find that I frequently hijack my own.    Still, especially given the manner in which I get carried away, I sometimes feel hesitant to step on someone's toes by taking it too far afield.

Please rest assured that I was not saying no one who immigrates to the U.S. should return home for a visit.  But, in the case of those seeking refugee status (not yet in the U.S., I believe,) or asylum (already here but not wishing to return), the basis has to be that their desire not to return is based on persecution or a reasonable fear thereof, due to race, religion, social group membership, creed--etc.  So to my mind, returning to one's home country, especially for an extended period, is to me indicative of a lack of sincerity in the original claim.

I am less optimistic than you about the positive effects of public assistance in general and for newly arrived immigrants, in particular.  I used to be, believe it or not, pretty far to the left on that issue, among others.  I suppose old age is a part of it.  Of course you are right that our very inclusiveness and the talent and desire of our immigrants has helped create our exceptionalism.  But the great waves of immigrants (Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, Irish, and European Jews) came to this country with no expectation of assistance.  Oh, to be sure, many of them looked upon the U.S., compared to their homelands, as having the streets paved with gold.  But in fact, they had it damned hard--sometimes for generations--before achieving success.  It is so very hard, I recognize, to keep a "floor" under the poor, and I am not one who thinks we could not afford to help many people in this country, but I just feel the creation of a culture of dependency in so many is not a good thing.

As to immigrants from Mexico, living in Texas, I have seen the ups and downs of this question.  During my youth, we hired illegals on our small family ranch.  They were (and in many cases, still are) the hardest working, most conscientious people on Earth.  It is never too hot, never too cold, never too anything to prevent their wanting to work hard.  And yes, their labor and their goodness has been abused.  Today, with the cartels, the crime rate along our border with Mexico has ballooned out of all proportion.  The extension of public assistance benefits (and yes, citizenship to babies born here) has created a problem that neither party has been willing to even address.  I do not blame President Obama any more than President Bush--at least his polices were somewhat sane--increasing his voting block!

And the "War on Poverty" which was begun in the 'sixties has not succeeded in lowering the government-defined poverty level one bit.  Of course, I believe that for most of the families to which the term "poverty" is applied in this country today, actual quality of life is not nearly so dire as in the 'sixties--especially in the inner cities and the rural South.

Best regards,

Russ

Hook: Well stated, I must say.  My own strategy with condescending pretenders (after one or two shots across the bow) is simply to sail off and ignore them.  I must say, however, that I do admire the broadsides you delivered. 

One additional remark I would make with regard to Timothy McVeigh--a self-described Christian and political extremist of the worst order.  I happen to agree with many of the values expressed by McVeigh and his partner in crime.  Unlike him, I think the Department of Justice absolutely had to go into the Waco compound and get the children out of there.  Like him, I am convinced that they botched the job horribly by not apprehending the leader out on the street.  Then burning the place down--though unintentional-- was quite simply an outrageous act of stupidity.  However, (and most important) unlike McVeigh, I do not believe that anyone has the right to take revenge into his own hands and execute helpless men, women, and children.  And here is the best, and most salient point:  The sonofabitch is dead!  We executed the cowardly, slimy little bastard--and his cohort is rotting in prison.  The point of course, whether one agrees with the death penalty or not, is that when people who call themselves Christians kill others in the name of God or Country--we either execute them or put them in jail.  We do not dance in the streets and celebrate the deaths of our fellow human beings because we consider them infidels.  I know many Christians and I have no doubt that many of them (sadly enough) believe that Muslims or Jews are infidels unworthy of salvation.  But they don't commit mass murder in order to send them to Hell all the quicker!  At the worst, they probably pray for their conversion.

MikeB and  Bruce: Of course you are right!  Any one of a number of undesirable categories of evil kill more people than events such as 9-11, the Fort Hood shootings, or Oklahoma City.  Drug use is a good example.  Perhaps poor health care will be another when the reality of the train wreck that is Obamacare is fully implemented in all its 15,000 glorious pages.  In my own state, admittedly huge in population, we are not even half through the year and deaths from auto/motorcycle/pedestrian accidents is nearing the 400 mark.  Something often unstated is the number of kids in inner cities who are killed in gang violence every day.  Mentioning this fact is problematical for the weak at heart because, since most of those kids are black, there is grave risk of being automatically tagged as racist. 

But human beings are what we are.  The sudden, gratuitous act of intentional violence, especially the act without even a pretense of reason, will always draw more attention and vilification than more insidious phenomena.  And in fact, under the current Administration, there has been a very real attempt to minimize these sudden, vicious attacks, by means of repackaging and relabeling: "Terrorism" has renamed "Man-Caused Disasters"; Bush's "War on Terror" has become "Overseas Contingency Operations."  Spokespersons for the Administration, as well as sympathetic anchors and commentators speak of attacks such as the one in Boston as  "tragedies".  In the truest connotation of that word, Boston was not a "tragedy".  It was a vicious assault.  A car wreck is a tragedy.  Similarly, in dealing with the the Muslim American who killed 12 of his fellow servicemen and wounded some 34 more at Fort Hood, (while invoking the name of God), the Administration categorized the act as one of "workplace-related violence", thus downgrading the event linguistically to the level of the paranoid wacko who gets fired and kills a couple of his co-workers.  I am fine with labeling the latter's actions as "terrorism", but for God's sake, we need to be able to distinguish, as Hook points out, between such acts--motivated as they are by sudden anger, jealousy, depression, or just plain mental illness, and those done for religio-polititical purposes.

Calling a pig a princess ain't gonna change the taste of bacon.

Best regards,

Russ

Hawk: What are the implications of the distinction you draw between Jihad on the one hand and political extremism/terrorism, on the other.  I am failing to understand.

Best regards,

Russ

I'm glad you brought it up Sniper. I wasn't gonna come out with it first but it's plain obvious that 9/11 was an inside job. I don't know who was involved, whether it was the FBI, CIA or whoever but the twin towers were brought down with the involvement and help of some section of the US government / state. There is no way on earth the two towers could have collapsed in free fall speed the way they did. Even a layman applying his very basic knowledge of physics will have to admit that the collapse resembled a controlled demolition. The problem is it's so outrageous nobody wants to believe it.

My take on it is that the US needed a new enemy concept to justify its hegemonic military ambitions and strengthen its geopolitical dominance. Communism was no longer suitable as the evil enemy, hence, a new enemy needed to be created. Islamic terror, Al Qaida, you name it. Without 9/11 the US  would not have won support for the invasion of Afghanistan, which began just a month after 9/11. Nor would the Bush administration have won it's case for war against Iraq. The main beneficiaries of the Iraq war were of course the Pentagon, private security and construction companies such as Halliburton and the big Oil companies. The Iraq war was big business and still is since much of the oil field contracts are now in US and UK hands. Funny enough former Vice President Dick Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000. He retired during the 2000 presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $36 million. After the war Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's office took control of every aspect of Halliburton's $7 billion Iraqi oil/infrastructure contract.

It's all a coincidence, I know.

ATB

tp

TMP - It's all in the public domain, you'll have to put some effort into researching it yourself. The link provided by Sniper in his post above is a good starting place though....

ATB

tp 

Terrorism is always violent, but Jihad is not. Russ, the thing is, as evidenced in this thread, people are getting caught up in arguing who commits the majority of terrorist acts. Is it this group, or that group, or a certain religion, etc. When something like the bombing in Boston is discussed, there is the question of whether or not it was done in the name of Islam if a Muslim is involved. If you think it was done in the name of Islam, because a Muslim was involved, you risk being called Islamaphobic, or of stereotyping, etc. I think, without getting into semantics, that it is simply the essence of Jihad. A Muslim scholar here, as the events in Boston were unfolding, told the newspaper that her worst fear was that the perpetrator(s) would turn out to be Muslim. I'm sure a lot of Muslims felt that way. The majority of Muslims are peaceful human beings. The acts are performed by extremists, who comprise a very small percentage of their community.

The big question is, where does it all begin? There are conflicts all over the globe involving Islam. Does the world, at large, have a thing against Muslims? I don't think so. I think it is what it is. I'm not trying to be hateful. I just think that what is taking place will always occur, and it comes down to the basic tenet of Islam. It is Jihad, performed in the name of Allah, and is meant to make Islam supreme. Sometimes it manifests violently, often it is peaceful.

TMP, 

I provided a link to their website. Of course if you are not an experienced and renowned high rise architect, structural engineer, chemical engineer, physicist, explosives expert or demolition consultant you would have a hard job proving me wrong as I will simply cite the evidence of expert witnesses. Watch the film - they line up expert after expert (detailing their qualifications and experience etc) and they pummel you with the evidence - there is even a psychologist who explains why some people refuse to see the truth even when it is right in front of their noses. 

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 there were many 'conspiracy theory' nut jobs rambling incoherently but these days there are huge numbers of highly qualified professionals and even award winning scientists who are highly organised and determined to be listened to. One day it will be common knowledge 9/11 was an inside job. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4 here is the film

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o - another

Remember, there is no conspiracy theory in this film - it just deals with the scientific evidence that shows that the official version is a lie and cover-up. 

What an astonishing twist of ideas. "The fact that a handful of Muslim terrorist killed the vast percentage of  terrorists victims" is the only thing I talked about. How can you assume to know my views of Muslims in general when I haven't said a word about them?To your knowledge, I am well aware that all terrorists are a miniscule fringe minority of the societies they come from regardless of nationality or religion.

Sitting on my armchair and examining the stats where the attack of 9/11 is bundle together with a bunch of 'terrorist incidents' constituting arsons, attempt arsons, vandalism and destruction of property, many of them with no casualties, I cannot stop admiring the water down job to 6% of Moslem terrorism in the US. Is this really the number that counts?

Now, let me ask you a hypothetical question. Suppose that you were in charge of protecting the US from terrorists attacks. Would you use only 6% (same percentage of Moslem terrorist attacks) of your resources to focus on Moslem terrorist threat or 94% of it (percentage of killing achieved by the same guys)?

And as for the other tosh about 'democratically elected governments' going to war with UN approval - you might want to watch this - 

How George W Bush Stole his Election- BBC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0grkxe5uPk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4aKOhbbK9E

And what is the UN? It is a collection of nations who are to a greater or lesser degree corrupt and therefore if the parts are corrupt the whole is corrupt and the whole was bullied and hoodwinked into supporting an illegal war by the most powerful country in the UN so where is the legitimacy for war? 

And then there is all this talk about 'acts of terrorism' and in fact, there is no clear definition of what terrorism actually is - here is Noam Chomsky who says that for the past 30 years academics and politicians have been striving for a definition of terrorism - 'There is no good definition of terrorism that includes what they do to us but does not include what we d to them.' 

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/usa-top-terrorist-state/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TopDocumentaryFilms+%28Top+Documentary+Films+-+Watch+Free+Documentaries+Online%29&utm_content=FaceBook - go to 22 mins

If I were in charge of the US there would be no support for Israel. How dare Israel and the US threaten to bomb Iran (a threat which is illegal by the way) on the mere suspicion that Iran MIGHT use nuclear weapons IF they had any (and there is no proof they are even attempting to manufacture nuclear weapons much less use them) when Israel has illegal nuclear weapons and refuses to sign the NPT and the US is the only country in the world who has actually used nuclear weapons. The Muslim world sees the hypocrisy even if the western media does not. I would not have invaded Iraq either therefore if I were in charge of America or its anti-terrorism capability I would only have to worry about the many home grown nut jobs in the US and not those terrorists i had helped to create. 

Tp, 

We are in complete agreement

I think The Hawk raises a very interesting and valid point, and I agree with him completely.

To begin with, I have absolutely no problem at all with proselytism.  If that is what Jihad means to the average Muslim, then that's cool by me. It means I can politely say "no thank you" to Muslims just as I do to Jehovah's Witnesses, and they will leave me alone in peace, correct?  In fact, it doesn't even bother me that they label me an "infidel", so long as that only means a "non-believer". I am guessing that pretty much all faiths have some word to describe people who are "not of my faith".

The problem, of course, is that the concept of Jihad has become widely radicalized, and terrorism has become an accepted practice for achieving Al Queda's long-stated goal of establishing a pan-Islamic caliphate throughout the entire world. And before anyone accuses of Islamaphobia, and of pulling that factoid out of the air, I would suggest reading a rather remarkable book: "al-Zarqawi - al-Qaida's Second Generation".  Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein got the leader of Al Queda in Iraq to completely open up about their long term goals and strategies.  He detailed Al Queda's seven phase plan, including an "all-out war" with the west beginning in 2016.

So, was this just craziness? Was this just the rantings of one single lunatic?  Perhaps, to some degree they were. But these interviews were done back in 2005, when al-Zarqawi was second only to Bin Laden, and he is on record saying that their next great victory would be by the "Mujaheddin in Syria"...with Turkey and, of course, Israel, to follow.  Again, that was eight years ago.

I sincerely hope that what's happening in Syria today is not a blueprint for Turkey's future.

Hook

RE:  In fact, it doesn't even bother me that they label me an "infidel", so long as that only means a "non-believer". I am guessing that pretty much all faiths have some word to describe people who are "not of my faith".

At my RC junior school,  the word was "non-catholics"  & it was used as derogatory term & the non-RC kids were treated almost like 2nd class subs.  In mature years hindsight,  it was religious discrimination, pure & simple,  & hardly setting good examples.  

--------------------------

Howz SA Hook ???

Hope the shares in Windhoek Lager have taken a sharp upturn

Just got back from a short private business trip,  we both go for 4 weeks of pleasure in September