From the American Prospect on how it's practically impossible to profile homegrown terrorists:
Another study found only broad trends among domestic jihadist terrorists, specifically that they are overwhelmingly male and about two-thirds of them are younger than 30 years old. As the above discussion may suggest, generalizing about the individuals involved is problematic. Indeed, there does not appear to be a common thread connecting the U.S. Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan with the Caucasian convert, Daniel Patrick Boyd; the Afghan immigrant Najibullah Zazi with Carlos Bledsoe, an African American of a happy childhood who converted to Islam and renamed himself Abdulhakim Muhammed; David Headley, who was born Daood Gilani to a successful Pakistani immigrant father and American mother, with Talib Islam, who was born Michael Finton and raised in multiple foster homes; or the educated pharmacist Tarek Mehanna, with the Somali American from Minneapolis Shirwa Ahmed, who traveled to the land of his birth and became the first U.S. citizen suicide bomber.
Yup, not much in common there ... So, let's keep on giving the third degree at the airport to the 86-year-old retired general who tried to sneak his Medal of Honor on his trip to address cadets at West Point.
Posts
82 comments:
Political correctness makes you lol stupid.
Steve,
OT, but you should read Franzen's new novel Freedom. It addresses some of the themes you blog about (Neocons, Iraq, Jews, the Midwest, etc).
"Yup, not much in common there"
They all are amateur philatelists? They all own welsh corgies? Help me out here, Steve.
Wow. Just wow.
As Sherlock Holmes says, "...when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Are they Methodists? No. Episcopalians? No. Catholics? Greek Orthodox? No. Buddhists? No. Hindus? Assuredly not. Hmmm. Lutherans? No.
My guess is that the affirmative action crowd manning these checkpoints saw the word 'honor' and probably couldn't figure out what it meant.
why our system, society and government are inevitably going to collapse.
Steve,
Did you get a chance to see the new show "Outsourced" last night? Curious to hear what you have to say about it, if there is anything useful to say about it. Although I'm a fervent nationalist, constantly lashing out against offshoring and mass immigration, I actually thought it was ok. I especially liked the hot British-Indian actress Rebecca Hazlewood, although she's not quite as attractive as Padma Lakshmi. Maybe if all of our immigrants looked like them, I'd give the H1B program some second thoughts....
Muslim immigrants are more dangerous than christian hispanic latinos and yes more dangerous than gypsies too
Beyond parody -- that is utterly amazing, and not in a good way.
Post-9/11 we had a limited number of choices about how to respond.
Abroad, the choice was between a quick, cheap, and brutal retaliation by air on the country bearing primary responsibility (Saudi Arabia); or a long, drawn-out, pointless attempt at nation-building in two countries with no real responsibility in the matter that would cost us over half a trillion dollars and several thousand more American lives.
Naturally we chose the latter.
At home the choice was between a small, efficient effort targetting men of the Muslim persuasion, repatriating Muslims not yet citizens, while simultaneously banning any more Muslims from entry; or a large, expensive, inefficient effort costing vast sums of money and wasting enormous amounts of peoples' time.
Naturally, we chose the latter.
And people wonder why so many Americans are angry. I wish that anger were better directed, but our culture has made us all so incredibly stupid.
This is worst than any example used to show how bad Pravda was when I was a child.
At least Pravda would selectively hide obvious facts and bury the truth under the pretense of a supposedly greater ideology struggle.
Their names all consist of at least four syllables. Pattern recognition isn't really as tough as they'd have you believe.
I second jack strocchi.
And add, liberalism equals suicide.
In this case it is you, Steve, who is missing the point. The author's question is how to profile a Muslim terrorist. How do we separate a Muslim terrorist from a peaceful Muslim? That is why the author only listed Muslim terrorists. Obviously, he could have listed the many non-Muslim terrorists we have (Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, etc), but that didn't relate to his question.
I don't think Boston was such a big source of IRA funding because of the all-pervasive influence of Islam, but perhaps I just didn't drink enough Koolaid?
The report is available here if you've got the stomach for it. At least they mention Islam and Jihadist a few times.
Steve, That's not really fair.... Mohammed Atta was also a Congressional Medal of Honor winner, I'm fairly certain. It was either him or Alvin York.
Dan in DC
So here you have a pretty good allegory for 21st century America: some guy named Obama is President, while Joe Foss gets frisked at the airport.
To warm your heart on April 15.
This couldn't have been any more absurd if it were from the Onion.
From the article: "Another study found it's practically impossible to profile 'domestic jihadist terrorists'" [emphasis added].
I take that to mean in PC code that beyond noting they were all male, youngish and Muslim, there aren't any particular markers. They're actually admitting the obvious, albeit in a sneaky way. It's just that they can't bring themselves to use the "I" word or the "M" word. After all, even their bitterest foes wouldn't call, say, Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph "jihadist".
More ominously, from Adam Serwer's blog: "Here's another problem. The most successful homegrown terror plots, at least in the sense of actually resulting in someone getting killed, didn't involve bombs or weapons of mass destruction, or even multiple conspirators. Major Hasan's attack on Ft. Hood that killed 13 people and Mohammed shooting two army recruiters, one of whom died, involved someone simply picking up a gun and deciding they wanted to kill people. In Hasan's case there were some warning signs about radicalization that were missed. But in general it's extremely hard, in a country that respects the individual right to bear arms, to prevent someone who wants to get a gun and shoot people from doing just that, no matter what the motivation.[emphasis added] It's a very low-cost form of terrorism, and its effect is magnified by the ongoing domestic political dynamic here in the U.S.
Of course, the amount of damage sustained as a result of such attacks is partially dependent on how we react to them."
How disingenous. To repeat, he writes: "But in general it's extremely hard, in a country that respects the individual right to bear arms, to prevent someone who wants to get a gun and shoot people from doing just that, no matter what the motivation.[emphasis added] It's a very low-cost form of terrorism."
No. Someone getting a gun and shooting people is only a very low-cost form of terrorism when that someone is a Muslim. The occasional outbreaks of workplace or domestic violence that claim the lives of innocent family members, coworkers and bystanders are horrific and tragic but they are not terroristic. It's as if he's saying, "Muslims don't kill people, guns kill people". But the fact is the "jihadist" terror attack that's had the biggest impact was the one on 9/11 and IIRC, guns weren't the weapons of choice, planes and box cutters were.
It is true that the foiled "jihadist" bomb plots were forgotten shortly after they happened yet Nidal is well-remembered. But his success as a "jihadist" terrorist isn't due to his abusing his First Amendment right to bear arms (after all, he was in the army anyway), as this author so shamefully suggests. It's due to the US Army have transformed itself into an army of the world, rather than remaining an army designed and ready to defend the US and her citizens at home and abroad. His success is due to the leftwing insistence on valuing certain abstractions more than human life, the same insistence that prompted the treacherous General Casey to say, "“Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse."
Long story short: because our government refuses to protect its citizens, they are at the mercy of Muslim terrorists, domestic and foreign.
P.S. The link took me not to the Washington Monthly but to some blog at The American Prospect so my quotations from it may not match what was quoted in Steve's blog entry.
Of course everyone on this blog understands the wisdom of ending all immigration of muslims to the USA. Actually the majority of the USA is in favor of ending muslim immigration.
The problem is that this blog is nearly an all - male group. Ever wonder why so few females are ready to be supportive of this blog?
Femles that have political power in this country are the wives of the upper middle class cognitive elite. If you antagonize the wives of the cognitive elite, you are sunk.
Every single man I know has a wife that depends on immigrant women to clean the house or watch the kids or both.
The women who marry elite men feel that their lifestyle depends on massive immigration.
In my humble opinion, cognitive elite women fall in to only two categories
1. women who can't afford to hire immigrants to do household work who still want massive immigration because it is the bleeding heart sympathetic statue of liberty thing to do
2. women who can afford to hire immigrants to do household work who want massive immigration because it frees up their time for other things by having immigrants do all the household stuff
Now, all of the women I know are married to men who are in the cognitive elite and all of them insulate themselves from the crowded schools and hospitals caused by immigrants.
But I am trying to explain why something that seems so obvious to most men (the need to end immigration) is so strongly opposed by most elite women.
How many cognitively elite women have the readers of the blog ever discussed immigration with?
Even something that is 100% sensible, like ending muslim immigration, or ending immigration of immigrants like Obama's aunt who go directly and permanently on to welfare can't get any traction with wives of the cognitive elite.
Their thinking is, it is a slippery slope. Start with prohibiting muslims and welfare cases and eventually you will prohibit the nannies and maids that they depend on
I personally am against a guest worker program. I am concerned that letting millions of low IQ unskilled nannies and maids come in as guest workers will ruin our country with anchor babies. However I am honest enough to bite the bullet and concede that unless I capitulate on this point there will be no common sense immigration changes.
Are the readers of this blog letting the best be the enemy of the good ?
Completely OT, but it just occurred to me: Why is it legitimate to talk publicly about the religion of Supreme Court Nominees but not Federal Reserve Governors? e.g. we all have been informed by the media who is Catholic on the court and who is Jewish and how no one is Protestant this time around. And I think this has been going on for a long time. But that same discussion is verboten when it comes to the Federal Reserve. What is it about that latter institution that commands so much secrecy?
Behind a lot of this "failure" to be able actually to do t h i s or
t h a t
is the cynical awareness that as a federal agent if if you can end up focusing on behaviors that are actually not crimes, you ain't gonna have to take the witness stand and have some defense lawyer reveal your ineptness, bureaucratic perversities, etc. Then, too, while your work is worthless for prosecutorial purposes, it sure might be $ought after by outfits $truggling again$t "hate" and other mind crime$. The headline issue is terminal cultural meltdown. It's here.
US intelligence outfits know what to look for, this is BS. Able Danger and several FBI agents located a few of the 9/11 terrorists long before the attack, but were stonewalled by bureaucrats and that told them their intelligence was in-actionable. Anybody else wonder what documents Sandy Burgled and then destroyed while working on Hillary's campaign?
If Islamic terrorism was such a huge concern, the US would place a moratorium on immigration from Islamic countries and secure our border so a single Islamic terrorist could not sneak through. If they were serious about stopping terrorism, they would have taken these measures years ago, but they really are not.
jack strocchi: "Political correctness makes you lol stupid."
Yes, but it also makes you want to become stupid. You need to train yourself never to notice the obvious, especially if the obvious leads to heretical(i.e. conservative) viewpoints.
Chief Seattle: "Why is it legitimate to talk publicly about the religion of Supreme Court Nominees but not Federal Reserve Governors?"
Because one's religious viewpoints can influence a Justice's vote on sensitive and controversial moral issues. Religious opinions don't matter much when it comes to monetary policy. But we do care about what school of economic thought(Monetarist, Keynesian) a Federal Reserve Governor belongs to.
This is worst than any example used to show how bad Pravda was when I was a child.
My young adult years were spent among commies in full power. I am very serious: In Pravda, there wasn't anything, anything at all even remotely approaching what Adam Serwer displayed in that piece.
How do we separate a Muslim terrorist from a peaceful Muslim?
Stop allowing Muslim immigration (and worse, actively seeking out Muslims to come live here) and you don't have any problem with Muslim terrorism in America. You separate all Muslims from America.
I don't think Boston was such a big source of IRA funding because of the all-pervasive influence of Islam, but perhaps I just didn't drink enough Koolaid?
If you think that Boston was a big source of IRA funding, you've OD'd on the Koolaid.
One thing that I disliked about the Harry Potter series was the refusal among other-wise rational adults to utter the name 'Voldemort'. It seemed stupid.
But for the last 9 years, it's almost impossible to get many other-wise rational adults to recognize the connection between Islam and terrorism.
Perhaps we aught to refer to Islam as 'the religion that must not be named'.
Still didn't like that part about the Potter series though.
What's more interesting is to know who the authors of the article in the Washington Monthly are. There is a certain type of liberal, usually associated with a certain ethny, that knows the score exactly, but chooses to say the opposite out of sheer arrogance and intention, enjoying the mind-fuck which this induces in normal people and the fact that normal people eventually surrender to this conscious, aggressive counter-logic. That of course is the aim.
not quite as attractive as Padma Lakshmi.
You're not going to have any problem at all, guy. Just get down to the corner of Larkin and Post streets in SF. You'll find 3 or 4 enthusiasts who look just like her. With something extra, too. Jeez.
The problem is, PC kills. Its that simple. Modern Liberal Dogma makes profiling on Muslim status impossible. Indeed, Modern Liberal Dogma suggests that Islam and Muslims are *SUPERIOR* to Christianity and Westerners.
Now, that is a remarkable thing. It is unimaginable for a Buddhist, or a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Shinto-ist to state that say, a Christian would be superior, or Christianity be superior.
Why then do Modern Liberals hold this dogma of relative inferiority of their own historic, traditional religion (and race and culture and everything else)?
It is my theory, which I posted yesterday, that the relative "beta-ness" of the Average Western Male makes the tradition and culture and heritage of the West all seem inferior to an exotic, dominant other, given female domination of the West based on consumer spending and marketing.
Think about it, watch random ads on any non-Sports TV show, and look at the images. You will see very few positive images of traditional Western men.
Hence the dogma against profiling. It might upset the idea that the other is of greater value than native men.
Kylie -- After 9/11, the choice *WAS* to retaliate, but also to make deterrence real. Since 1972 (murder of US diplomats by Arafat in Sudan), the US has been limp and weak in responding to provocations, and that as Putin noted after Beslan gets the weak beaten.
Pakistan was as much a nexus of 9/11 (the Taliban and AQ being intimately entwined with the ISI and military) as Saudi Arabia. I would have been fine with simply nuking Pakistan into oblivion and be done with it. It would have made Iraq irrelevant, and provoked rational fear and deterrence.
HOWEVER, both the Liberal Dogma and the Paleo Right want to pretend we are not CONNECTED with the Muslim world. We are. Globally, we depend on the price of oil being set by OPEC which in practice means the Saudis. If you don't want to live in South Central or Harlem, you need cheap oil. The Internet, global jet travel, satellite TV, and more means communications flows decentralized both ways between Islam and the West. Mass Muslim immigration into Europe and differential birth rates makes Europe a Muslim continent.
ANY Security policy cannot be "one and done" because the Muslim world and our intimate connection to it ... is not going away. Now we have chosen "zap a jihadi" in Afghanistan through drone networks and CIA mini-militia/armies. Pretending desperately that we don't need to constantly produce deterrence and rational fear in our world in which Pakistan has nukes and Iran will soon have them, and then everyone else. Its better than nothing. But still pathetic.
Cont'd. This means that if we want to "zap a jihadi" we need folks nearby (time and distance makes doing that from say, Central Command in Florida a non-starter just as in Clinton days). It means a permanent presence in Afghanistan, permanently paying a CIA army in Afghanistan, permanently hunting Jihadis in Pakistan covertly, permanently being involved in places like Somalia, or the Sudan, where Jihadis take refuge, and so on. Killing them with drones or native mercenaries so they can't organize. Create a big strike against the US that makes them famous, important, rich and powerful, like bin Laden or Zawahari. Both planning to overthrown their own governments with exile armies like Mohammed.
I'll leave you all with a disquieting formula. Native born, US White converts to Islam + AQ organization + AQ's known progress in chemical weapons + cheap UAV = disaster in the US. Covered NFL stadiums? You would not even need highly trained suicidal guys. Since it is just a question of basic technology: a radio controlled, tv camera UAV, with a payload, delivered successfully, probably over the course of several miles at most, at a target filled with people.
What is notable about the native-born or naturalized jihadis is they failed mostly because their improvised explosive skills were lacking. Shazad, failed because his Times Square bomb was of poor quality. Ditto the Eunuch Bomber. The enemy is not stupid, this is surely being addressed. There are a lot of people who can provide technical expertise in this area, and chemical weapons date back to 1915 or so.
Wilson, I had never heard anyone raise the question you did, of why we didn't after 9/11 choose the option of "a quick, cheap, and brutal retaliation by air on the country bearing primary responsibility (Saudi Arabia)." Interesting question. Intuitively I kind of like the idea (esp of scaring the crap out of the sheikhs who must be secretly funding Al Qaeda). But don't you think the result might have been, e.g., overthrow of the Saudi regime by wacko fundamentalists? It would be interesting to know what Saudi experts would say about your plan (if you seen any commentary on it, please post links). Anyway, thanks for raising an interesting thought.
CB
"Ever wonder why so few females are ready to be supportive of this blog?"
Because most of the guys who comment here are woman-hating losers.
Anonymous said: "White people go around for 500 years raping looting and killing and it is okay."
Oh, yeah. 'Cause only White people have been doing that sort of thing.
The women who marry elite men feel that their lifestyle depends on massive immigration.
Oh, you again. Why don't you guys boilerplate in all the rebuttals you get the first time around, so we don't have to go through the motions again?
Wrong mag, tho. you link to American Prospect, not to Washington Monthly.
Wilson said...At home the choice was between a small, efficient effort targetting men of the Muslim persuasion, repatriating Muslims not yet citizens, while simultaneously banning any more Muslims from entry; or a large, expensive, inefficient effort costing vast sums of money and wasting enormous amounts of peoples' time.
Hear, hear! If Bush hadn't had the "invite the world, invade the world" mindset, he would have treated the 9/11 attack as what it was--a failure of border control. The priority should have been on tightening the borders and keeping the kinds of people who did it out of our country from then on.
I personally am against a guest worker program. I am concerned that letting millions of low IQ unskilled nannies and maids come in as guest workers will ruin our country with anchor babies. However I am honest enough to bite the bullet and concede that unless I capitulate on this point there will be no common sense immigration changes.
I think people take issue with your henpecked husbands theory, so your perfect/good argument is premature.
That said, if I accepted your premises, I'd say "yes, I'd prefer a solid guest worker program to what we have now."
Solid, as in, employ a non-citizen without a valid card, lose your home, car, and business like drug dealers do.
But, asset forfeiture is the key here, not a guest worker program.
Speaking of jokes...
Walter Mondale once said about Reagan's zinger, (paraphrasing, "I will not make age an issue in this campaign; I will not exploit my opponent's youth and inexperience") that if you look closely at him in the video while he's laughing, you'll notice a tear.
I think the Democrats on the Hill today were simultaneously laughing and wiping away tears due to Stephen Colbert.
A moment for the ages.
The best part I think was Conyers trying to avert the catastrophe so clearly coming, but was overruled by the doughy naive woman who thought it would be the coolest.
A thousand mash-up partisan videos shall bloom.
I don't think Boston was such a big source of IRA funding because of the all-pervasive influence of Islam, but perhaps I just didn't drink enough Koolaid?
--
I remember those days when the IRA would attack targets in the US. British embassy hit bad back in 1983. Aer Lingus plane right into it...
I don't think Boston was such a big source of IRA funding because of the all-pervasive influence of Islam, but perhaps I just didn't drink enough Koolaid?
--
I remember those days when the IRA would attack targets in the US. British embassy hit bad back in 1983. Aer Lingus plane right into it...
Newflash, geniuses: being "cognitively elite" means that you don't scrub your own toilet, male or female. Of course society is set up to provide the upper classes with domestic staff. When has this not been true? Guest worker programs FTW.
White people go around for 500 years raping looting and killing and it is okay.
You people make me sick.
You're absolutely correct. Unfortunately, it's a feature of our ethnicity over which we no control. And it IS okay with us.
My advice to you is to gather up your family and your co-ethnic friends and get as far the hell away from white people as you possibly can. People of color such as yourself simply aren't safe in our countries.
Better do it now, before we snap again.
An Anonymous said:
Of course everyone on this blog understands the wisdom of ending all immigration of muslims to the USA. Actually the majority of the USA is in favor of ending muslim immigration.
The problem is that this blog is nearly an all - male group. Ever wonder why so few females are ready to be supportive of this blog?
...
But I am trying to explain why something that seems so obvious to most men (the need to end immigration) is so strongly opposed by most elite women.
Rather than delving into economic motivations --- which outside Marxian or Randian thinking bears less input into conscious policy than visceral emotionalism --- or perceived misogny of commentators ( which pales massively beside traditional Jewish Hatred of Women, or the muslim variant in their duaghter religion ), I might suggest it is because of women's natural social conservatism. The same which famously stopped the French [ fanatically ] Left from giving votes to women until 1945.
As an absolute monarchist I am dubious about all such labels as conservative, liberal, radical or right and left: they all mean what the speaker imagines they mean, and they all kinda blur into each other according to both time and convenience; and they will each betray in a heart-beat.
It was remarked that had Lady Thatcher been born in Minsk she would have been a devout part of the communist establishment, since that was the '[ politically ] conservative' default in Brezhnev's USSR. Whereas many western communists might have become anti-establishment in that regime solely because they would remain 'rebels' in any environment ( as was said centuries before of the repulsive John Lilburne, and Percy Shelley later ).
Socially women as a group will default to the security of the established condition, whatever that may be, which means that the current social conservative paradigm is the reigning 'liberalism': they may vote for lower taxes, they may despise the [ white ] poor and lazy, they may be social snobs, they may make large amounts as lawyers and businesswomen: but they will not challenge socially accepted dogma born of the progressive infinite inattainable quest for universal equality and love.
Otherwise they would be bad people.
THIS is ridiculous
A trainee accountant who posted a message on Twitter threatening to blow an airport "sky high" began an appeal against his conviction and sentence yesterday, arguing that nobody would ever have taken his message seriously.
Chambers, from Doncaster, South Yorkshire, claimed he sent the tweet to his 600 "followers" in a moment of frustration after nearby Robin Hood Airport was closed by snow in January. The message read: "Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!"
I'll leave you all with a disquieting formula. Native born, US White converts to Islam + AQ organization + AQ's known progress in chemical weapons + cheap UAV = disaster in the US. Covered NFL stadiums? You would not even need highly trained suicidal guys.
Whiskey, that is about 1/128th away from the shop worn Jewish Lefty canard that white Christian militiae from deepest and darkest -- "darkest," so to speak -- Middle America are as a much a threat to the USA as Mudlim terrorists.
Maybe you're going to join up with the jihadis, Whiskey. We'd better keep an eye on you.
Well a warm hello to commenter jack strocchi over here, from j.p. zenger over at LP.
Crossed the Pacific, eh? Surprised our canoes didn't spot each other during the voyage.
Onya, mate!
Mohammed Atta was also a Congressional Medal of Honor winner, I'm fairly certain. It was either him or Alvin York.
LOL'ed.
Gotta remember that one if we have a POTY contest come late December...
@ Chief Seattle
We are certainly no more overrepresented in the Federal Reserve than in any other financial institution.
To be fair to airport security et al., if the terrorists were smart they'd recruit more hijackers/suicide bombers who look like and go by Daniel Patrick Boyd not Abdulhakim Muhammed.
***Chief Seattle: "Why is it legitimate to talk publicly about the religion of Supreme Court Nominees but not Federal Reserve Governors?"
Because one's religious viewpoints can influence a Justice's vote on sensitive and controversial moral issues. Religious opinions don't matter much when it comes to monetary policy. But we do care about what school of economic thought(Monetarist, Keynesian) a Federal Reserve Governor belongs to.***
Erm....I think you missed Chief Seattle's point. It's not about religious opinions per se. It isn't about schools of economic thought, either.
Hi Steve. Would you mind giving Waiting for Superman the Sailer treatment?
"In this case it is you, Steve, who is missing the point. The author's question is how to profile a Muslim terrorist."
Umm, no, actually you are missing the point. The quote clearly refers to "jihadist terrorists"; the writer can't even use the word "muslim" and "terrorist" in the same sentence. That is the irony here: the writer starts out with actual muslim terrorists, and yet he can't think of anything that might be a unifying feature of such people. So the writer ignores the fact that they are all militant muslims, and instead natters on and on about how different they are from each other in every other respect that does not touch on their islamicism.
"Religious opinions don't matter much when it comes to monetary policy. "
A few moment's thought or a quick search on usury will debunk that crazy statement. If you mean we expect our Fed Governors to be professional economists and not to take their marching orders from the Pope - don't we expect the same of our Judges?
And you'd never catch the same member of the media who pointed out that John Roberts is Catholic or Kagan is Jewish claiming that all Catholics or Jews had similar biases. They would mutter something about "representing the diversity of the country". So what is it about the Federal Reserve that is so magical that the backgrounds of the Governors can't be publicly discussed.
Google backs me up on this. Ben Bernanke and Elena Kagan each have roughly 1.5 million hits. But add "Jewish" and Kagan has 250K and Bernanke only 140K. Likewise "Antonin Scalia" has 370K hits. Add "Catholic" it's down to 80K. About the same 1:5 ratio as Kagan. Alan Greenspan gives about 1.4 million hits. Add "Jewish" it's down to 83K - about 1:16.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck. It's a fucking duck.
It's not a group that "looks like America," either.
The quote clearly refers to "jihadist terrorists".
Thank you for proving my point that Adam Serwer was only talking about Muslim terrorists (hence the term "jihadist"). Obviously, if you are trying to pinpoint terrorists within the Muslim population, it wouldn't help to look for Muslims within the Muslim population.
Steve struck out with this post and he has received a standing ovation for his whiff.
"Thank you for proving my point that Adam Serwer was only talking about Muslim terrorists (hence the term "jihadist"). Obviously, if you are trying to pinpoint terrorists within the Muslim population, it wouldn't help to look for Muslims within the Muslim population.
Steve struck out with this post and he has received a standing ovation for his whiff."
And thanks for demonstrating once again that you completely missed the point of Steve's blog.
It's not about how to differentiate between Muslim jihadists and Muslim non-jihadists.
It is about the PC-writer's aversion to putting "muslim" and "terrorist" in the same sentence. Hence the use of circumlocutions like "jihadist terrorist".
You aren't very good at detecting humor or irony, bud. You keep missing the point.
"Thank you for proving my point that Adam Serwer was only talking about Muslim terrorists (hence the term "jihadist")."
We all knew that the writer was talking about Muslim terrorists, you know. Why do you think you are scoring some kind of point, here? You are only demonstrating that you didn't understand Steve's point.
"Obviously, if you are trying to pinpoint terrorists within the Muslim population, it wouldn't help to look for Muslims within the Muslim population."
The article is about pinpointing terrorists within the American population, not within the Muslim population. Hence the reference to "domestic jihadist terrorists".
"Steve struck out with this post and he has received a standing ovation for his whiff."
Before you anoint yourself as some kind of sage, you might want to actually read what Steve wrote, again, and get a freaking clue about the point he was making:
"Yup, not much in common there ... So, let's keep on giving the third degree at the airport to the 86-year-old retired general who tried to sneak his Medal of Honor on his trip to address cadets at West Point."
"Another study found only broad trends among domestic jihadist terrorists"
The irony of course is that, when it comes to white males, your typical MSM writer, and the "experts" that he trusts, are capable of "profiling" the domestic "whitist" terrorist down to the finest detail (ain't that right, Richard Jewell?).
But no, comes the "domestic jihadist terrorist" and suddenly it's all vague contours and polymorphous generalities. No patterns to see here, move along.
We had an existing Muslim population of a several million cirizens on 9/11, so while we could have and should have got control of immigration, that would have left the homegrown population here. Of them, a really tiny fraction have had anything to do with terrorism, and a lot of the domestic terrorist conspiracies reported in the media were broken because one or more of the domestic Muslims involved were reporting everything back to FBI. If that population had been more inclined toward terrorist attacks, we'd have seen some stuff blowing up constantly.
This Adam Serwer is indeed a politically correct moron, but still, the homogeneity that he was too blinkered and stupid to notice is one of religion. (Because some of those people on the list were white Islamic converts.) Unfortunately, if the dangerous group is defined by religion as against ancestry, then we have a big problem even if we aren't affected by political correctness. How do we identify white Islamic converts at the airport?
The problem is that this blog is nearly an all - male group.
It's amazing how some comment strings here are fascinating, and others are insane.
But anyway, I've managed discussion forums for a long time, and it's really quite silly to assume that females post under overtly female names. Some women post under male monikers, others choose ambiguous ones. Some post as "anonymous".
Research shows most commenters at any political/general interest site are 2:1 male. It's probably true here, as well, so it has nothing to do with the subject matter or the female need for domestics.
And commenters != readers. Research shows that commenters consistently represent about 10% of any site's readership, and rarely are they representative of the overall readership's views.
The American Prospect, subtitle Liberal Intelligence. LOL.
"Arab/Muslim terrorists kill a few people and all of sudden they are bad people."
Muslim terrorists aren't bad people?
That's how you expressed it. Arab/Muslim TERRORISTS.
"White people go around for 500 years raping looting and killing and it is okay."
Says who?
"You people make me sick."
What do you mean "you people"? Racist much?
We get it, you're sore about the mean IQ thing. Look, Asians have an even higher one, ok? And you don't see us freaking out and posting stupid, racist stuff on your blog about it.
It's frustrating when your opponents' positions are so nonsensical that they can't be satirized.
Outside Israel, the American incursions of the last decades, and maybe British India ( which involved a tiny proportion of Britons relative to the occupied ) I can't think of any great Western invasions of the Middle East and adjacent areas from 1500 to 2000... Or interest.
I'm sure this is true: you can't think of any. Dig up a map from 1920, study it for a few minutes. Maybe some thoughts will enter your head.
At that time, there were precisely 4 independent entities in the muslim world. Turkey, Persia, the future Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. (I don't say "countries", because the latter two were not countries as we know the concept.)
Everything else was French, British or Russian.
"Hear, hear! If Bush hadn't had the "invite the world, invade the world" mindset, he would have treated the 9/11 attack as what it was--a failure of border control."
Well the whole point of the 9/11 response was to make the American people think it was about anything but border control. I can just imagine the Chamber of Commerce's open borders lobbyists trying to come up with a strategy in the early post-9/11 to distract the American people form just such a conclusion. POrobably met with a few pols, too - up to and including George Bush.
Thank you for proving my point that Adam Serwer was only talking about Muslim terrorists (hence the term "jihadist"). Obviously, if you are trying to pinpoint terrorists within the Muslim population, it wouldn't help to look for Muslims within the Muslim population.
You are the one missing Steve's point, which was that even if you don't know who to include, you know who to EXCLUDE. The problem with being politically correct is that you refuse to even consider that.
"ISLAMIC TERRORIST"
Something no MSM writer will write.
That seems to be Steve's point.
Also, it's an interesting HBD point that most of the story's examples are not Caucasians.
Mohammed Atta was also a Congressional Medal of Honor winner, I'm fairly certain. It was either him or Alvin York.
LOL'ed.
Gotta remember that one if we have a POTY contest come late December...
Agreed- that is some deeply-layered comedy gold.... that Dan in DC is a funny f@cker
Dan in DC
An Anonymous said ( replying to myself ):
Outside Israel, the American incursions of the last decades, and maybe British India ( which involved a tiny proportion of Britons relative to the occupied ) I can't think of any great Western invasions of the Middle East and adjacent areas from 1500 to 2000... Or interest.
I'm sure this is true: you can't think of any. Dig up a map from 1920, study it for a few minutes. Maybe some thoughts will enter your head.
At that time, there were precisely 4 independent entities in the muslim world. Turkey, Persia, the future Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. (I don't say "countries", because the latter two were not countries as we know the concept.)
Everything else was French, British or Russian.
K, here's a map of the Middle East 1906-20 ( in Italian ):
http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/192006TQ.gif
Russians, under any regime, have manically protected and expanded their borders, like berserk clockwork mice, to lift a phrase from Joyce Porter; still can't see any Tsarist army marching from Aleppo to The Sea...
After 1920, the British and French were given League of Nations Mandates in some areas, such as Palestine and Syria which they managed with customary half-hearted incompetence --- to compensate for the collapse of the Ottoman Empire's previous rule carried out with customary half-hearted incompetence. Egypt was held merely to keep the gates to India safe, and was semi-governed with customary...
They didn't do much for these places, and there wasn't even much to exploit; but I'm still not seeing massive christian armies wandering around Dar al-Islam either in 1500, 1700 or 1900.
You're absolutely correct. Unfortunately, it's a feature of our ethnicity over which we no control. And it IS okay with us. My advice to you is to gather up your family and your co-ethnic friends and get as far the hell away from white people as you possibly can. People of color such as yourself simply aren't safe in our countries. Better do it now, before we snap again.
How in Hades did that little wisecrack make it past Komment Kontrol?!?
Sheesh!
You forget that the biggest muslim state of all (Indonesia) was run by the Dutch.
Also scarcely acknowledged is that the population of Java, (the main Indonesian island), sky-rocketed from a few millions to tens of millions under supposedly 'harsh' Dutch rule.
Claverhouse: that is a really interesting map, but, man, confusing.
I don't know what we're disagreeing about. Western power submerged the muslim world in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and western armies played their part in this. Not huge armies, but huge armies weren't needed: most Ottoman territories were the proverbial rotten door - knock and it falls in.
I'm not saying this was a bad thing, it's the just wheels of history turning. A lot can be said for the colonial semi-colonial regimes, but I understand why this history pisses off a lot of muslims.
"Who would you want as your neighbor: Bill Richardson or Nihad Awad?"
More importantly, which do you prefer: The burka or the tanga?
This is the first time I have heard of this incident. It happened in 2002. So much for our state-run media. I used to live in Phoenix and flew out the airport there numerous times. The TAS people are all usually somewhat young and some form of colored minority. However, even the white folk today are as ignorant as the minorities. No one is taught real American history, only the multi-culti nonsense. I took a year to go to college full-time in Florida in the mid-90s. I was in my thirties and was a veteran. In a history class, I was the only student who could answer the professor's question as to who Audie Murphy was. Pathetic.
none of the above's comments are Exhibit A of the point that "political correctness makes you stupid".
We've heard the fallacious nonsense before.
"Hey, a lot of Muslims out there aren't terrorists!! Therefore, the terrorist population couldn't possibly be heavily Muslim!!
None of the above: take Statistics 101. And look into this thing called logic sometime, okay?
"And anything really expensive or intrusive can't be done to every Muslim male, lest you spend vast amounts of money or screw over vast numbers of innocents for no benefit."
Oh, hooey. Having kept them out, by not allowing them to board airplanes destined for U.S. in the first place, would have been laughably easy, and cheap, and no body-cavity searches or wiretaps required.
Now, you might say refusal to allow them to board would screw over vast numbers of innocents. I say no, it's not screwing them over, because those "vast numbers" have no inherent right to come here.
And even now, that they're here, keeping them off airplanes won't screw over "vast numbers" because there still aren't "vast numbers" (in relation to illegals from Mexico, say) here.
Post a Comment