Redstate

You tell me whether this makes the news tonight.

With respect, why should it?  So a Muslim isn't actually appalled at the bombings.  I don't see why the views of some random guy in a car soemwhere in Leeds is news.

Why is this news?  Anyone want to clue Brian in?

It will eventually show up, in the context of a convoluted psychological exegesis of why some young Muslims in Britain are reacting to the bombings with glee -- because, you see, they have been persecuted there.  Calls for greater sympathy and tolerance will be trumpeted from the rooftops, long reminders of the terrible sense of shame and guilt that Westerners should feel will be promulgated, and new social services will be arranged with dispatch to address and correct this latest manifestation of institutional minority abuse and racism.  Obviously the correct response is for Britons to condemn themselves.  After all, they have only themselves to blame.

Interesting. We read an account that indicates sneering laughter at the murder of innocents, and The Brian translates that into "isn't actually appalled."

I don't see why the views of some random guy in a car soemwhere in Leeds is news.

Because, (1) he is not "some random guy" but a member of the community in which the first post-bombing arrests were made, and (2) the views may reflect the broader opinion within that community.

News? Nah. Let's go back to Michael Jackson and hurricanes.

You ask the average teenager and they are likely to give a pretty crappy response.

There's a lot of editorializing and conclusion-drawing regarding Muslims communities in general based on an undisclosed tape of a single car-load of individuals, who are alleged to "know[] them all" (all the bombers?).  It's unwarranted.  Indeed, assuming that Trevino's source is reporting the matter correctly, it's somewhat akin to drawing conclusions about the Basque community's reactions to the recent bombings in northern Spain by interviewing the Basque separatists who planted the bombs.  

It seems to me that the better reaction would be:  What haven't these guys been questioned?  They know the freakin' bombers, at least according to this tape.  And let's get the tape to Scotland yard, pronto, rather than argue on a blog post.  Etc.  Etc.

I'll readily agree that the significant numbers of Muslims need to experience the Enlightenment, and that there are cells of al Quada operatives and sympathizes worldwide, some of whom are drawn from their local communities.  But the breathless description set forth above is not useful; it's not targeted; and, if taken to its implied extreme, will result in evil.  

Indeed, it's not "foolish goodness," as Trevino suggests, to be proportional and measured in our reactions.  It's prudence.  It's wisdom.  It's  thinking before we act -- and not drawing our courage from ignorance.

(It's my tagline.)

It appears that they knew the bombers.

or dump it on a public ftp so we can all see it ourselves?

Is this some reporter doing random street interviews?  If so then it'd be kind of hard to dismiss the obvious conclusions though no doubt some will go to any lengths to rationalize it away.

That's where we part ways.  I don't think we've done that much at all.

And no, I'm not speaking of overreacting.

That he is a part of a system of muslim communities that are producing people who will kill themselves and you and yours?

How is it possible to pretend it is not news?

that the people in the car were simply scamming the reporter for money.  

on the bike in the car.  Makes perfect sense.

I'll have the tape in a couple of days, hopefully.  Sorry for the wait.

I can't really say what's going on.  

I can say that there are several possible answers.  You seem to already know the answer.

I didn't translate anything.  The dude said he was appalled.  I acknowledged the obvious fact that he wasn't.

Because, (1) he is not "some random guy" but a member of the community in which the first post-bombing arrests were made, and (2) the views may reflect the broader opinion within that community.

I'm sorry, but that pretty much sounds like "some random guy" to me.  If there is evidence that a) he actually had something to do with the bombings, or b) represented a majority of British Muslims, trevino did not provide it.

I'm not sure how your link supports the idea that his "views may reflect the broader opinion within that community." The article makes it clear that, despite a significant amount of restlessness among Muslim youth, those wanting to engage in violence are still a minority among Muslims.

Because it's one guy, and it's easy to find one guy who will say anything.  Again, if there is evidence that this one guy is indeed "part of a system of muslim communities that are producing people who will kill themselves and you and yours," it was not provided in the story.

How can you spread this stuff without backing it up with the video? Why is it so important that you say this now?

Yes, how could Trevino possibly resort to unnamed sources? The gall of this guy! No serious news organization ever uses unnamed sources in its . . . oh, wait: they do so all the time.

....if there is evidence that this one guy is indeed "part of a system of muslim communities that are producing people who will kill themselves and you and yours"....

If?  Where have you been since 9/11/01?  Or since 1979, really?

The dude said he was appalled.  I acknowledged the obvious fact that he wasn't.

According to the post, he said he was "traumatized," not appalled. But I see why you used that formulation now. My mistake.

How can you spread this stuff without backing it up with the video?

Easily.  I trust my man.

Why is it so important that you say this now?

You prefer it tomorrow?

Thank the source by the way.  Hopefully he/she is far enough removed so it can't be traced back to him/her.  If there's any risk whatsoever I, for one, won't hold it against anyone if it's never released here on RS.  

the video before drawing conclusions should lead one to assume I already have the answers.  You on the other hand have already postulated it's youth gone wild or a con job.  Good job with that soapbox.

plenty of teenagers I knew after 9-11 weren't giggly or sarcastic.  Most I knew were pretty horrified.

With respect, why should it?  So a Muslim isn't actually appalled at the bombings.  I don't see why the views of some random guy in a car soemwhere [sic] in Leeds is news.

The driver of the car, far from being some random guy, is recommended to the interviewer by the guy on the bike b/c "[he] knows all of them [the homicide bombers]."  Given that connection it would seem newsworthy that acquaintances of the murderers were visibly amused at the suffering of innocents.  The reaction and responses of this individual reveal the very real likelihood that the community would not only conceal future terrorists but also may very well abet in said future crimes.

The plainly visible contempt for the society that allows them immensely improved liberties and freedoms is not only newsworthy - it should be required viewing for all of us who cannot help but be engaged in a global struggle with Islamofascist terrorists.

Passenger (through smirks and half-concealed laughter): No comment. Haha. (tries to compose himself, but fails)

Passenger: (tries again to compose himself; fails) We are. (looks away, concealing a grin).

Puff-puff and pass the composure...

According to the post, he said he was "traumatized," not appalled.

My bad.  I had "appalled" on the brain from trevino's comment that "No cause for worry, though, Sir Iqbal Sacranie is appalled."

I do not care to guess how the British will respond to rush-hour slaughterers from the next neighborhood over, but I have no doubt that Americans will, at some point, say, "Enough is enough."

I do fear, though, that the response will not be bloodless. The longer our leaders continue to utter the tired peities about Our Friends The Saudis™ and Islam, The Religion Of Peace™, the more likely it will be, I think, that the American reaction to these creches of death cultists will be of Jacksonian character.

Again, with respect, there's a big difference - a gaping moral and legal chasm - between not showing appropriate traumatization, and killing me and mine.

I don't see how this guy is guilty of anything more than mouthing off to a reporter, albeit in a particularly crass way.

So a Muslim isn't actually appalled at the bombings.  I don't see why the views of some random guy in a car soemwhere in Leeds is news.

"Muslim Youth Thinks Brits Got What They Deserved" - You're right, there's no story there. (Is it because we think they're incapable of decency, or that, deep down, we feel that their hatred of us is justified?)

This is the headline I'm waiting for: "Muslim Leadership, Community Decry Indiscriminate Violence". So far, the silence is deafening.

At least in America.  Jacob Morely in the WaPo.

From the clip provided, it's not clear who "them" are.  And even if the bike rider did mean "them" to be the bombers, it's not clear that he's a reliable source for that information, since the bombing suspects have not yet been identified by name.

The headline isn't quite what you wanted, but the response has been strong:

The other important difference between the London bombings and 9/11 has been the response of the world of Islam. For months after 9/11, I kept writing that it was sad and disturbing that Muslims were reluctant to condemn the attacks. This time is different. Major Muslim groups in Britain have unambiguously denounced the bombings. Even the so-called fundamentalist organisations have condemned it. The Muslim Association of Britain, a hard-line group with alleged ties to militants in the Middle East, called the bombings "heinous and repulsive" and urged Muslims to help the emergency services and police. "We have faith in Britain and British people that we as a country will not be defeated by this," said its spokesman, Anas Altikriti.

The response outside Britain has also been much stronger than ever before. The grand imam of Al-Azhar, Shaikh Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, condemned the bombers but went further, rejecting the argument that this attack could be justified as an attempt to force Britain out of Iraq. "This is illogical and cannot be the motive for killing innocent civilians," he said. More striking have been the condemnations from radical groups like Hamas, Hizbullah and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, all of which have denounced the bombings. Many of them have, of course, coupled their attacks on the terrorists with denunciations of American and British policies in the Middle East, particularly regarding Iraq and the Palestinian territories. But that kind of rhetoric is old news. What is new here is the fact that no one, not even Hamas, can continue to condone or even stay silent about these barbarities. September 11 shocked the Arab psyche. For months afterward, Arabs and many Muslims went through phases recognisable to psychologists: shock, denial, anger. (Remember those absurd claims that 9/11 was a Mossad plot?) They are finally, slowly, moving toward recognising that there is a great dysfunction in the world of Islam, which has allowed Muslims to concoct wild conspiracy theories, blame others for their problems and, worst of all, condone grotesque violence.

By itself it is, of course, "proof" of nothing. But it is an indication that the Muslim community in that area consider themselves Muslims or Arabs first and Britons second. The openness of American society to immigration has been predicated historically on the belief that the new immigrants will by and large assimilate themselves into our culture, accepting our basic beliefs (respect for life, individual liberty, religious tolerance, and human equality) as their own. If a particular new immigrant community is unwilling to do so, and in fact revels in the slaughter of innocents, then that should have a dramatic impact on our immigration policy. Note again that I by no means claim the video is "proof" of that. There can be no one simple piece of "proof" of such a complex idea. But it is evidence of the community attitude.

in the local community for sure.  Fox News cited a Sky News report that the parents of one of the suspected terrorists had reported him missing to the authorities.

Later I watched video of the Scotland Yard press conference where they explicitly state that at least one of the bombers was reported to the Casualty Department (emergency room / 911 equivalent in Britain I think).

Both of those facts imply that parents had exhausted their local search for a missing son.  It would seem to be a safe assumption that the parents called the sons friends and checked with their neighbors and probably called the local police department too.  It's almost surely a little known secret who the aforementioned bomber is.

Also noteworthy is that there is not an explicit freedom of the press in the UK.  The government can, and I'm sure does, cite national security to prevent journalists from publishing information that they deem vital to their investigation.  I'm of the opinion that the bomber's identity (the single bomber mentioned in my first two paragraphs) would have already been mentioned in the USA along with the cited CCTV videos showing the 4 bombers meeting at King's Cross Rail Station prior to embarking on their murderous errand.

~Big Tom

the hair, teeth, and eyeballs of four others are scattered over parts of London.

Whenever I read the Khaleej Times, I turn straight to the sports pages.

Commentaries on the bombings in London from the Left in Britain (and elsewhere) I can suggest this article, where you will find links to The Guardian, the Telegraph, the Socialist Worker's Party, some group called "Solidarity Online" (which is now experiencing mysterious problems with its MySQL database), the Movement for a Socialist Future (which explains, helpfully:  Terrorism cannot be defeated by the "war on terror", which only deepens the problem because it refuses to address the causes of terrorism. All those opposed to these barbarous attacks should redouble their efforts to campaign for deep-going democratic political change"); an explanation of how the BBC voted for the "T" word before it voted against it...

Anyway, please read the article for yourselves, there are about a dozen other links that are more worthwhile to read for yourself than anything I could convey in this short space.

According to this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162290,00.html

A recent poll showed that 13% of the Muslim respondents in Britan thought that "more attacks are justified".

And I suspect that the percentages are probably close to the same in Muslim communities here in the States.

So tell me one thing, all of you oh-so tolerant and politically correct folks who keep announcing that "Islam is a Religion of Peace".  Tell me how many Americans are going to have to die before you are willing to confront the fact that there are in all probability a large number of suicidial maniacs in our midst who will gladly blow themselves up if they can kill a bunch of us in the process.

And then tell me what you would suggest that we do about it when it starts happening.  Because it is going to.  And I will offer the opinion that there is going to come a point at which, if there is not a fairly effective "official" solution in place, it will in fact come down to some very ugly vigilante stuff.

I'd sincerely hate to see us stoop to that level.  But if the officials won't act, and it gets going the way it seems to be headed, I predict that the time will come when the people who feel they are being targeted will have had enough.

Better to discuss the potential in advance than to deny that it exists.  That way lie some fairly nasty outcomes.

September 11 shocked the Arab psyche. For months afterward, Arabs and many Muslims went through phases recognisable to psychologists: shock, denial, anger.

He forgot ululation and celebratory gunfire.

I understand the frustration that would cause you to write your update.  But I don't see any practical action that you can take.  What exactly are you suggesting?

The problem is that there are too many innocents in these neighborhoods that you are talking about.  Peolpe who are just trying to do the best they can.  I can't imagine that there are more than a handful of people that have evil intentions in their heart.

Or, let me ask it another way.  How is what you are suggesting different than what they are doing?  They are trying to make violence between cultures.  How does what you are suggesting not help them get what they want?

I realize that this post is pretty confrontational.  I am being sincere and not trying to be a wise-ass.  It is just that when you say things like "the question of what to do with those communities moves to the fore," it makes me squirm.  That has no place in the moral code that I was taught, one that I identify with being American.

....if you think that's un-American, I think you're unfamiliar with a great deal of our history.

Director of the "London Center for Islamic History".

http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=748

He says that:

"The term "civilians" does not exist in Islamic religious law. Dr. Karmi is sitting here, and I am sitting here, and I'm familiar with religious law. There is no such term as "civilians" in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb or not."

So it's apparently OK to kill any of us you can, if you are a good Muslim of his sect.

I'm as tolerant as most anyone is, but when people start blowing up around me, I get a little bit on the "intolerant" side fairly quickly.

If you want to be more tolerant, they can blow up in your yard.  But I suspect that my patience is going to wear out eventually.

Tolerant is not equal to suicidial in my book.  When tolerance starts looking like a death wish, it's about time to start re-evaluating.

Tell me Josh. What do you recommend we do? Concentration camps? Massive shippings of folks back to countries their parents were born in? What?

You're good at stirring up fear and anger, but you stop short of recommending a solution. Isn't it about time you did that?

...but I figured I'd answer anyway.

These "men" are the enemy, and they're walking free in the streets right now because the liberals are too busy defending them with their "free speech" and "right to dissent" BS. (clue for the moonbats - you don't have a right to dissent if it means you're taking sides with the enemy - that's TREASON).

This is a perfect example of what's wrong with the ragheads. Jihad Joe here and his buddies are confirmation of everything we've been trying (with mixed results) to communicate to the world: most Muslims hate non-Muslims and will support any effort to kill other non-Muslims.

If there had been a bombing in a Muslim part of the UK you'd see us all lining up in solidarity here, because a person is a person, even if he is a Muslim. Christian churches would line up behind the Muslims in decrying the attack. But there's two problems: one, Muslims love it when we (non-Muslims) die; two, Muslims are very rarely targetted in terrorist attacks. Sure, some of them died in the WTC, but there were more Christians than Muslims there, and Christians were the targets.

These guys are the perfect example of the enemy we aren't fighting - they may not be actively blowing themselves up to kill us (yet). But they won't support us in the fight against their brethren BECAUSE THEY AGREE WITH THE TERRORISTS. That makes them little different from the jackals who murdered our people on 9/11 and 7/7.

Just my thoughts.

(first time poster, long time reader - just tossing a "big hello" out to all of you :-) )

-noraa.

I know that it has happened before, like during WWII when we had the Japanese internment camps.

But the original settlers came here to escape persecution for their religous beliefs in Europe.  That is why to this day we hold religous freedom to be one of the most important.

And I realize I am mixing culture and religion.  They kind of go hand in hand in this case.  You are free to explain to me what else I am missing.  How is it American?

But you ignored most of my remark.  While history is interesting, I don't think it applies here.  It isn't like there are open hostilities with a country that must be defeated.  Show me a time in history where there have been no terrorists.  By their very nature there is an endless supply.  But that doesn't me that we can round up whole communities and ship them off to internment camps for the rest of their lives, and their children's lives, etc.  How is that working out for Israel?

Yes, it worked during WWII.  Innocents were sent away, just as those who would have posed an intelligence or sabotage threat.  And I think it was the right thing to do in that situation.  But for the one we have now it is not.

If you have another example, I would like to hear it.  I honestly don't think it right to do.  You are free to disagree.  I welcome the debate.  Change my mind.

That someone cannot comment upon the existence of a problem as a matter of news without proposing an instantly workable solution to the problem?

The snarky tone of your very first comment does not bode well for a long tenure here. Please try and show a little more respect.

Thanks for contributing, but we generally frown on the usage of the term "ragheads" here, as it is pretty clearly a racial slur, which is against the posting rules of this site (you may examine them at your leisure by clicking on the "posting rules" button).

Also, I think your post generalizes a bit too much, but I'll let those you are debating with deal with that point.

Josh and I go back years on this. I've been asking him to clarify his solution for years. The "snarky" tone as you call it will be more than understood by him. Thanks for your advice though.

Good to see you again, and we'll make a note of it so that AGAG's torture squads -- complete with precedent-chocked memos -- can round you up. Say hi to Kimmitt. He'll be in the bright red jumpsuit. Makes him an easier target.

I'm sure Josh isn't pushing for concentration camps or mass ostracisms. Rather, he's setting the paving stones for genocide. Great catch.

Didn't know who you were except that this was your first post here, I'll leave it to Josh to deal with you.

Cheers.

....here's your one and only warning, for racist content.  Shame.

I go to church -- church! -- with Arabs.

I've had this discussion in other places, and it seems to come down to the same thing most times.

The patrons of tolerance and civility say "you CAN'T do this".  And you "CAN'T" do that.  And so on and so forth, in a very tolerant and multicultural voice.

And on a lot of levels, I'd love to be able to agree with them.  Because, be it noted, I'm no fonder of the outcomes that I'm predicting than they are.  But I'm a pragmatist.

And you tell me.  How many suicide attacks by members of the local Muslim community are going to occur in Detroit, or LA, or London, or wherever, before the tipping point is reached?  Like I said, I'm a pragmatist.  And I can assure you that it will eventually be reached, unless there is a plan in place in advance.

Sooner or later, if it goes on, the majority of the population is going to start looking at these people just like they do at child molesters.  And for the same reason.  Too many of them seem to want to murder babies for their own gratification.

If that becomes the public perception, what do you think is going to happen?  Best to have a plan in place to pre-empt that outcome, don't you think?

I've been asking him to clarify his solution for years.

And you've been getting answers for years.  Not sure why they are forgotten so swiftly.

In any case, Leon is right: one does not need a solution to identify the problem.

It's simply time for Josh to declare what solutions he thinks are appropriate. He's been stirring up fear and anger for too long to hide behind the excuse that he's merely discussing the issue any longer.

Oh, and when the goon squads come for me, do wear a red rose or something so I can pick you out of the mob...and I do mean "pick you out." ;-p

I'll admit that since I've never posted before I didn't bother to read the rules, for which I sincerely apologize (I'm kind of a do-it-yourselfer - "I don't need no stinking instruction manuals"). I just read them, so I'll stick to them from now on.

I won't debate calling "ragheads" a racial slur, except to say that we use it at work and with company all the time. We don't use the n-word, as we all agree that one is utterly inappropriate, but no one I know considers the word I used a racial slur. I guess it's just an example of different standards for different company. Might make an interesting diary about how "PC and how the liberals are enslaving us with their language" or some (more articulate) thesis.

Either way, I apologize, and I won't use it again.

-noraa.

that's irresponsible.

You're shouting "fire" in a movie theate with lines like "the question of what to do with those communities moves to the fore."

Stands out better in the torchlight.

Edward and Trevino are pretty familiar with each other, so it really isn't as bad as it looks.  He's also a pretty sensible guy, regardless of the makeup of his blog :D
-bro

... but I wasn't talking about Arabs in general - I was speaking more about Muslims and their Jihad against Christianity, which these individuals are a perfect example of (which - I thought was trevino's point - it's been a long day, and perhaps I just need to go to bed). I've withdrawn my overbroad language, but I think some of my generalizations hold up, given the facts, and given this example.

-noraa.

And, if you want to do such a diary, you are certainly welcome. This, however, is not such an instance. "Ragheads" is a term that is clearly offensive (and designed to be) to virtually everyone of Arab descent.

A good rule of thumb is that if the term ceased to be a term solely of distinction and wanders into the area of derision, it's not something that should be used.

that bombing civilian transportation was verboten.  Apparently I was the only one that thought the irony noteworthy.

It was cited in an article along with others condemning the attacks.  I'll track it down again if you want.  Leaders have spoken out against the attacks.  There's no denying that.  You can argue how sincere the speakers were but they did atleast speak.

he could put up a post like this and not have me overreact...consistency is important.

All the same, I think the Muslims in the footage were atypical. I've lived in England and know plenty of Muslims there who were sincerely more than horrified at the attacks.

It reminds me of the interviews with folks in Eric Rudolph's hometown.

are jihadists out to destroy Western Civilization.

There is at least one Muslim that posts here, and he most certainly isn't a jihadist.

When you shout "fire" in a theater, the solution (to most people) is pretty intuitive.

Yes, Edward.  I've been doing that.  Not the persons under discussion.  Heavens, no.  They've been stirring up -- well, tolerance!

I only wish that last sentence was a joke.

People acting intuitively. It's rarely the best response to any situation.

radical US citizens started bombing other US citizens the less radical muslims among us would start standing up to them.

It isn't that there aren't muslims here in the US who wouldn't participate, I just think there are a lot of muslims here in the US who wouldn't put up with it, and I don't think they would sit around making excuses for them.

I mean honestly what excuse can you make for a US citizen bombing a subway in the name of Allah?

is a bad idea?

This latest jihad attack in London again makes us have to confront what policies to put in place to prevent future attacks.

We are in an undeclared war with radical islam (not all islam), so radical islamists, to the extent that they can be identified, cannot be allowed to have freedom of movement in the USA. Deportation of radical islamist is not the death penalty and it is not permanent internment.  They can continue to be islamofascist in their country of origin.

Sadly, what other choice is there?

any good solutions that are palatable to the populace.

The problem he brings up is a real one, and it is one that may not ever have a good answer.

Do you deny the problem?  Or do you have your own solution?  What is it?

Did you read the interviews of folks in Eric Rudolph's hometown. They were just as protective, dismissive of the strangers asking, and more or less defensive of his actions. It was simply folks protecting their own. To outsiders it was horrifying, but after taking a deep breath and considering it in context, it wasn't as dangerous as it might have first seemed.

In other words, don't magnify one small group's reaction into a systemic community-wide problem.

....I see no need to not state the obvious.  Which is, in this case, that Muslim communities in the West contain within them significant sources of danger to the societies of which they are a larger part.  All the idiot braying about how these are merely a few among many, or how the villains aren't "real" Muslims, fails to alter this basic fact.

Now, you want solutions?  They are easy enough.  Halting or radically restricting immigration of Muslims is a start.  Stepped-up policing and intelligence-gathering within the relevant communities -- included the dreaded profiling -- is a start.  Refusing to grant rhetorical or symbolic succor to the relevant ideologies in the public square is a start.  Subjecting the relevant beliefs and ideologies ot the same level of ridicule that, say, orthodox Catholics receive in popular culture would be a start.  Note, please, that all these things can be done without violating the basic rights of any law-abiding, loyal person.  Note further that I would advocate the same measures for any dangerous social stratum prone to produce violent members, including Southern whites pre-1980.

Oh, sorry, you thought I meant genocide, didn't you?

most definitely.

Deportation of radical islamists is not the death penalty and it is not permanent internment.

Amen!

Is that when people hear "fire" their basic instict is to get the heck away from the fire.

Which is pretty sound, if you ask me. What you are complaining about is not the instict itself, but the technique with which the instinct is to be obeyed.

I'd agree with two of your suggestions:

• Stepped-up policing and intelligence-gathering within the relevant communities
  
• Subjecting the relevant beliefs and ideologies ot the same level of ridicule that, say, orthodox Catholics receive in popular culture  (although if you watch Mad TV, you'll note that already exists here in the US).

I can't agree to the others, though:

• Halting or radically restricting immigration of Muslims (it must be across the board if restrictions are enacted)
  
• Profiling (not at all sure why this doesn't strike you as a violation of their basic rights)

what I'm complaining about is the example of someone who stands in the middle of a theater shouts "fire" vs. the person who stands and suggests everyone move quickly through the exits without saying any more than that. One is the hallmark of civilized people.

in another comment.

I agree there's a problem. I'm actually more inclined to be harsh on the Muslim communities (within limits) than most people. But I think you do it politically, through channels that encourage Muslim leadership to do the dirty work, and not in ways that lead nonMuslims to feel they need to take up pitch forks and torches.

Halting or radically restricting immigration of Muslims (it must be across the board if restrictions are enacted)

Why, Edward? Why can't we make our immigration policy subject to our national interest and, if we deem it necessary, discriminate against Muslims?

Halting or radically restricting immigration of Muslims (it must be across the board if restrictions are enacted)

Why exactly?  Last time I checked there was no constitutional requirement to allow anyone into the US just because they wanted to come.  I see no problem with subjecting Muslims (or those coming from Muslim nations) to strict scrutiny before they are allowed to enter the US.  Especially given the fact that the INS currently doesn't seem to give a hoot if somebody overstays their visas.

Profiling (not at all sure why this doesn't strike you as a violation of their basic rights)

While I don't think we should be stopping random Muslims on the street to search them, I honestly don't see the reasoning behind subjecting a 70 year old grandma to a body and luggage search while the 20 something middle eastern looking man is given a pass, because they don't want to appear to be profiling.

Last time I checked there wasn't a single 70 year old grandma flying those airplanes into buildings, or strapping on bombs to blow themselves up on a subway.

....you're not pointing out the same exits that I am.  But then, we see different things to preserve here.

Link

The author does have a point.  And it's a vicious, reinforcing circle if left to its own devices.  Chicken or the egg as to which happens first but...each group marginalizes the other leading to more of the same.  I honestly have no idea how one would correct this unless one of the sides took corrective actions themselves.  Needless to say I don't have much faith in either group but less so with regards to political demagogues.

First, where is there any "right" to emigrate to the United States -- or become a citizen?

Second, how on earth does profiling violate rights?  Do you seriously suggest that Midwestern Swedes receive the same attention from the FBI as Saudis in Manhattan?

"discriminat[ion]" will lead to increased alienation and malcontent, two of the current ills that leads British Muslims to align with the terrorists in the first place. You'll be playing into the terrorists hands.

Besides, Britian's Muslim families have as much right as any other group to help their families immigrate. It's human nature, and, again, targeting them for denial of that will increase, not decrease, hostilities.

Someone who yells "fire" and nothing further is better than someone who sits still and says nothing at all.

1. Emigration laws must be fair. See my response to Paul for more about why.
   
2. It needs to appear that they do. Muslims at the airport, for example, need to see as many Midwestern Swedes stopped and searched. One has a right to be treated equally.

everyone has the right in this country to be treated equally. It's really that simple.

"discriminat[ion]" will lead to increased alienation and malcontent

I hate to point this out, but in the present absence of "discrimination," we are getting enough "alienation and malcontent" to slaughter c.50 innocents on their way to work.  To say nothing of three thousand innocents four years back.  Your way, it ain't working.

I further suggest that you may wish to consider that "the current ills that leads British Muslims to align with the terrorists" are not primarily external phenomena, but rather intrinsic to the belief system in question.

Josh stands up and yells, "Fire".

Your response, initially, is to say, "That's really bad form of you to say Fire without proposing a clear and concise exit plan."

THAT was what I called baloney on.

If you would like to now say, "That's really bad form of you, since there is no fire." That's your prerogative, and we can take up the discussion from there.

You're crazy to say such a thing, but everyone's entitled to their own wrong opinion.

Emigration laws must be fair.

They must be "fair" to the societies they purport to protect, not to the prospective immigrant.

It needs to appear that they do.

To spare feelings?  Come now.  No.

You might benefit from a focus on the welfare of, say, the United States, rather than particular individuals who may wish it ill.

Well, let me start by saying that trevino did really put forward a plan.  Just that something needed to be done.  So I don't really feel that obligated to.  As a matter of fact, that is exactly what my original post was asking.

All I know is that when I read the update, I got a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach.  So I admit that it was a gut and emotional reaction.  That is why I was asking for a discussion (debate) to try and change my mind.

The problem that I see from the extention that I made of using internment camps is: who do you put there?  I would think that in the US, and especially places like Detroit, the muslim community is not limited to those of middle eastern or arab descent.  There are a lot of blacks in the muslim community, and it isn't as if they don't already live in a different world than you and me in the inner cities.

But I degress.  You also have people like (what was his name?) Walker?  That young white kid from California that was caught in Afganistan.  Hell, he even met Bin Laden.  He was just a dumb teenage white boy.  My point is that there is no way to put a stark line around which people should be sent to the camp?  Would you be OK with it if you were included in that group, for whatever reason?

Anyway, I know there is a lot of conjecture there, but so is what trevino implies.

So my suggestion would be to put a lot more resources into covert operations to infiltrate these operations, like that Walker kid did.  I would even be willing to have them break some laws, if they needed to.

So that is my suggestion.  What is yours?

First, and foremost, there most definitely is no absence of "discrimination" in England. That's the most openly racist society I've ever lived in, and Muslims are called the "N" word and worse on a daily basis, so the alientation and malcontent exists. waiting to be directed.

Secondly, they've had that belief system for generations now. If that inherently made them terrorists, we would have seen this before now.

Thirdly, the recruiters have the best selling tool imaginable in the "crusaders" occupying Iraq.

and what about the individuals who wish it no ill at all but simply happen to be Muslim?

They should sacrifice their rights, subject themselves to constant humiliation, all so some 70-year-old granny glides through security?

Hell no!

with how the discrimination will make people feel, so long as it begins the process of removing the potential Muslim terrorists from our country. Removing said Muslims is the only sure way (and a non-violent way!) to eliminate the threat of Muslim terrorism.

Obviously we cannot deport American citizens, but any Muslim immigrant who shows the least sympathy for violent jihad should be deported summarily. As Sandbox said below, it's not internment; it's not even Gitmo. It is the justified precaution of every sovereign nation to pursue its national interest through its immigration policy.

Josh is shouting "fire" based on one anecdote (revealing nothing more perhaps than one derelict smoking a cigarette). You're willing to have untold dozens of people potentially rampled when all that's really necessary is for the usher to address the smoker?

I would not be surprised if 13% of Americans would justify ANYTHING our military did.  

any Muslim immigrant who shows the least sympathy for violent jihad should be deported summarily

I think that's appropriate in any country. I'm at a total loss as to why Parliament doesn't change the UK's laws to chuck out the Imam spouting hate over there.

Zero tolerance for hate speech, and anyone who's not willing to accept the rights of the people of their adopted home to resolve problems politically (versus violently) should be sent back so fast their head's spin.

That's not the same as discriminating against law-abiding Muslims who want to emigrate, though, which is closer to what I understood Josh to be recommending.

In an odd sort of way I think that many of the radical islamists will understand why they are being deported.

Look, you tell them, it's because of your ideology--you want to kill or convert the rest of us.  We read this on your websites, hear it from your radical Imams, etc. ,etc. At first we thought you were just "expressing" yourselves, ranting, so we didn't take it that seriously.  But after 911, Bali (...then just fill in all the other jihad attacks) we have come to the conclusion that you are really serious.  And now we are afraid of you--we are scared--it's only natural to be afraid of someone who wants to kill you--right?  So we don't know what else to do other then send you back.

Also, you will get along better in your country of origin--we can't see it working here in the USA. Sorry.

Terrorists is in the low teens, worldwide. The number of young, Muslim, male terrorists is somewhat higher, worldwide. In a world of limited resources, it sometimes makes sense to allocate resources based on rational probabilities and cost/benefit analyses.

In the context of respecting the civil rights of all, regardless of race creed or color, I'm probably about as far to left as anyone you're going to find here on RS.

The response of the Muslim from Leeds to the reporter's questions may indicate he knows more than he's letting on about the UK bombers, or it may indicate that he is simply extraordinarily resentful toward the English.  We don't know.

The bottom line is this: we have a problem.  The context of the problem is that western nations include large populations of people who neither subscribe to nor accept the traditional western values of pluralism and tolerance.  The problem itself is that this context offers a sympathetic environment for people that want to kill us.

Here is an excerpt from a lesson about Islam, offered up on the website of a Boston area mosque:

For example, simply believing that it is permissible to rule by Western "liberal" and "democratic" laws in lieu of the Divinely Revealed Law of Almighty God makes one a "polytheist". Certainly, a person who does such a thing, whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim, doesn't ever believe that there is another Almighty Creator and Sovereign Lord. However, for all practical purposes, such a person has take another "god", whether they choose to admit it or not. In this way they are associating partners with Almighty God (Arabic: shirk), and thus become a "polytheist" in a practical sense, regardless of their lip-service to "monotheism".

How do people that believe this ever integrate into a democratic western society?

Folks from a bewildering variety of cultural, ethnic, and religious backgrounds have found a place for themselves in the US and, to a lesser extent, other western nations.  It's often taken a generation or more for these immigrants to fully assimilate into the culture of their new home.

I, strenuously, do not advocate excluding Muslim immigration.  I do not advocate indiscriminate rounding up of Muslims for interrogation, preventive detention, or other similar things.

I do, however, think it is reasonable to ask folks emigrating to our country to have an interest and willingness to become American, English, Dutch, or what have you.  That means accepting western values of mutual tolerance and respect.  It means not viewing an acceptance of civil law as a condemnable form of polytheism.  

And, certainly, it means not tolerating the presence of people who murder their neighbors.

It is, perhaps, unfortunate, but given the facts on the ground western Muslims must decide where their loyalties lie.  If they cannot in good conscience live in a western society, with its requirements of tolerance and mutual respect for differences, they should not come to the west.  If they can in good faith come to the west, they must not tolerate the presence among them of those who mean us harm.

Again, to be clear, I do not advocate indiscrimately singling out Muslims for discriminatory treatment.  I do call out to Muslims in the west to decide whether they want to be a part of our society, or not.  If so, they must accept that their neighbors may believe differently than they do.  If not, they may want to consider why they want to be here.

In any case, there is simply no room for tolerating the butchering of innocent people who are simply going about their business.  And, there is no room for accepting tolerance of that in others.

Cheers -

And to most Americans, as well as anyone who bothered to read the document.

upset and appalled by the depraved and degenerate radical faction which commits murder in the name of Islam ...

Could someone kindly point out where the fatwa demanding the life of Salman Rusdies has been withdrawn and a fatwa against Osama Bin Laden has taken it's place?

:::sigh::: thought so

Attention dhimmis-in-training, DO let me know when the 'moderate' moslem community does more than apologize for kaffir public consumption.

Until then...apology NOT accepted.

you can treat one segment of the population who've done nothing wrong differently from the others?

I'm glad we agree on at least this, but I also favor a ceasation of all Muslim immigration until such time as we the people become convinced that this jihadist fever has passed (if it ever will pass).

I would much rather the cops focus their resources on the guys who are more likely to be the bombers.

Passing over the guy from Pakistan and searching the 50 year old Swedish looking grandmother to spare the Pakistani's feelings is a waste of resources and puts everyone else on the transportatoin at risk.

There is a good reason to profile in certain situations, and protecting some 200 odd people on an airplane is a reasonable time to profile and who cares about their feelings.

...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

There's also:

"Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

And

"Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

And an enabling clause:

"Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

I mean, sillyhead that I am, I took that bit about the Constitution not being a suicide pact seriously.

Before you go muttering about equal protection, ask yourself if every right and every limitation on government is absolute.

Not to worry, Darleen.  Thomas Friedman in today's New York Times said the same thing.  I am sure that once all the moderate muslims read his column the appropriate fatwas will follow.

I don't trust anonymous sources from anyone. Not from someone who has been a journalist for 30 years and certainly not from some stranger on the WWW. You may be able to personally vouch for this person, but I don't even know who you are.

C'mon, just because the liberal media does something doesn't mean we should too.