Protect and Defend

Welcome to my blog, Protect and Defend. You don’t have to understand me. You only have to agree with me. I can live with losing the good fight, but I can not live with not fighting that good fight at all. - Publius

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Profiling terrorists by name

Richard Reid
Jose Padilla
Germaine Lindsay
Don Stewart-Whyte

Do any of these names sound familiar? Reid is the shoe bomber, Padilla is the Chicago native arrested four years ago for involvement in an alleged al-Qaeda plot to detonate a radiological bomb, Lindsay was the Jamaican-born Briton who was involved in the London Tunnel bombings last summer, and Stewart-Whyte is one of at least three English converts to Islam recently arrested for the plot to blow up passenger jets over the Atlantic.

All of them are separated by different racial and ethnic backgrounds, but they are all joined together with the common characteristic of being converts to Islam. According to Gustavo de Aristegui, a Spanish terrorism expert, “Originally, jihadist groups were suspicious of converts…But they’re realizing that…someone with a Western name and blue eyes is going to raise fewer suspicions. Converts can be virtually impossible to detect…” (Time, August 28, 2006, p.37).

And why do these men convert to Islam? Time magazine says the most common reason for conversion to Islam as the “increasingly secular world in which society’s rules get looser by the day” (Time, August 28, 2006, p.37).

So for those of you against “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, or against school prayer, or against nativity scenes, or against posting the 10 Commandments in schools or public buildings, or against Christmas Trees in public areas, or for those of you for legalizing drugs and prostitution, or for those of you for easing restrictions on pornography, think about what you are doing. A secular country will breed more terrorists, and a country with an anything goes attitude will breed more terrorists, and both will make us all a lot less safe.

6 Comments:

Blogger Rogue Mariner said...

So by not falling rank and file with Christianity, I'm letting the terrorists win. That's great. So when do we just go ahead and throw Freedom of Religion out? These guys that fall in with those groups would have joined something else, had they been accepted into it. This will sound mean, but it's as close to the real truth as your article from Time. These aer the guys who got picked on a lot in school, never had a group of friends and spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to make their sad social status someone else's fault. These groups give them that opportunity, and now "they're gonna get everyone back." They aren't looking for some higher cause or a more moral, upstanding sociey. They're people who weren't "cool" growing up, and they finally found a group who would take them. Unfortunately, they don't get that the group doesn't like them for them, the group likes them because it adds numbers to their cause.

Thu Aug 31, 05:45:00 AM  
Blogger quakerdave said...

.. but the theocracies give them their marching orders.

So, if I'm not with you, I'm with "the terrorists"? Well, smack me down and call me Ali-Akbar, I guess.

Fundamentalism, no matter in whose name it's practiced, is inherently wrong.

Thu Aug 31, 01:16:00 PM  
Blogger Brooke said...

I don't know about this... It seems like the argument the left gives that by using the military abroad, we breed more terrorists here.

People will always search for something greater than themselves, be it God, Allah, being part of a 'community', drugs, or having the most posessions on their block.

I think these guys would've found something nasty to get into no matter what.... But Islam DID afford them the opportunity to do evil in this case!

Thu Aug 31, 07:12:00 PM  
Blogger quakerdave said...

No, brook, that's not what The Left is saying. As a Leftist, I'll only speak for myself here:

By invading a country that was not involved in the 9-11 massacre, we 1.) gave the terrorists who were already terrorists a place to go kill Americans at will, and to get on-the-job training in terrorist tactics. We also 2.) squandered all the good will and sympathy that the rest of the world - including much of the Muslim world - felt after the atrocity of that day. It was a war of choice - the President's choice. In that process, we angered the entire Middle East, Muslim, Arab, and what-have-you, and gave those who use their bastardized version of Islam as an excuse to behave like barbarians a new way to gain power.

I abhor all warmaking, but let's imagine this alternative scenario for a moment, just for the sake of argument. Humor me:

- The attacks of September 11, 2001 take place.

- The Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, all those folks, who should have, over the preceding years, been contingency planning for an invasion of Afghanistan at some point, actually DO invade in an expedient fashion. In other words, they don't wait three months before commencing a carpet-bombing campaign (which killed a lot of civilians, if you recall). Say we actually got "boots on the ground" within a month or two of 9-11.

- Say 35,000 (not 3,000) U.S. troops are committed, along with those from other countries.

- By the end of 2002, bin Laden is dead or captured. The criminal network he ran is eliminated, at least in that country. The Taliban is wiped out, the country is no longer a safe harbor for terorists, and a democratic government starts to take control of a country that has always been tribal, always been divided, and always been subject to the whims of outside powers, but which has NEVER been conquered by one.

- Some coalition troops remain in Afghanistan to help the new government maintain stability, and to train the army of the new democracy. The rest come HOME by the spring of 2003.

- Notice the word "Iraq" never appears anyplace there.

If history had gone down this way - a way that actually made some logical sense after we were attacked (you know, going after those who attacked us, like the president said when he went to Ground Zero), would we be having this other conversation? Seriously. I don't know the answer.

You tell me what you think. That's what one Leftist thinks and wonders about almost every stinking day.

Thu Aug 31, 11:31:00 PM  
Blogger quakerdave said...

Pardon my misspellings and missing punctuation: fingers sometimes precede brain functioning when I rant...

Fri Sep 01, 12:28:00 AM  
Blogger Alec said...

Sooooooo...from your post, I retain the following:

1) Radical Islamic terrorists hate secular, pluralistic democracies, in which adherents of multiple faiths (or no faith at all) are forced to reach an understanding and live among one another.

2) Western states, by elevating freedom of religion, thought and association to a degree unparalleled in recent history, have pissed off radical Islamic terrorists (our enemy, I thought).

3) Christian conservatives also hate secularims, pluralism and, well, to be fair, democracy that is not on their terms.

4) Therefore, we should adopt the practices of our enemy, albeit with a slightly different creed and a slightly better PR job, to beat our enemy.

Uh huh.

Or, you know, we could just realize that the core of the problem is religious fundamentalism, and work to stamp it out wherever it rears its ugly head. And yes, even when it is guised in the clothing of Marxism or similar "comprehensive" worldviews.

BTW, good to see that conservatives are finally realizing the patently obvious: racial profiling in this conflict does not work. Radical Islamic terrorists will simply employ Caucasian terrorists to do their bidding (the converts you so lovingly mention). Remember when we all told Ann Coulter and her cronies about that? And they called us supporters of terrorism?

Yet another reason to vote Dem in November. Behind the times, the Republicans appear to be.

Yoda impression over.

Fri Sep 01, 02:55:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home