Can American Leadership be Restored?

[Bob]

I don?t believe that the war?s origins are taboo to examine. I believe it is wrong to be so completely intellectually dishonest when discussing it, and I believe that skewing the facts for political gain is wrong. I don?t believe there is a ton of benefit in playing Monday morning quarterback, but I do believe we need to examine what went wrong and remember it in the future, but when hindsight is your sole argument, you never really had an argument to begin with.

The author has buried his head in the sand when it comes to militant Islam, saying that it doesn?t exist and that they just want us to leave them alone. The World Trade Center, Ft. Dix and now JFK argue the counter. If I ever have a child that feels like he?s being bullied, I won?t tell him to go kick said bully?s dog when he?s looking out the window.

As for Noonan?s article, it?s hard to argue with her even when you don?t agree with her, but I do agree with much of what she wrote in this case.

Here's a good article in response to the Ambassador.

Targeting Kennedy

By The (National Review) Editors

This time it was John F. Kennedy International Airport. Nothing new about big-city airports ? seven years ago, Los Angeles International Airport was targeted. Nothing new about New York City, either. The World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, and finally destroyed in the 9/11 attacks. The United Nations complex, the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the FBI?s Lower Manhattan headquarters, the Brooklyn Bridge, Grand Central Terminal ? they?ve all been on the hit list. Big Western cities, in fact, are the hit list. New York, L.A., Chicago, Washington, London, Paris, Madrid . . . on it goes.

And, of course, there is nothing new about the culprit. The story is always the same: radical Islamic terror. The storyline is the same, too. But an element of Western opinion always wants to obscure it, turning a blind eye to the ideology of hate that motivates these would-be murderers. The root-causes crowd has little interest in that root cause. No, it must be poverty (even when the terrorists turn out to be comfortable, well-educated, and fully employed); or the Palestinian issue (even though organizations like al Qaeda have barely mentioned the Israeli?Palestinian dispute, and some terror targets, like Bali, had no rational connection to it); or, it goes without saying, George W. Bush and ?his? war in Iraq (no matter how many attacks occurred before his presidency).

A growing chorus, weary of the war at home and abroad, some of its voices resistant even to the reality that we are at war, is quick to reject the use of both military force and heightened domestic surveillance. The War on Terror is, they maintain, a war only of ideas.

The enemy?s ideas are frightful: for example, its notion that mass murder is a legitimate means of pressing a socio-political agenda. This is not an aberrational belief espoused by a fringe of jihadist operatives. It is mainstream in Islamic countries and disturbingly common among growing Muslim populations in the United States and Europe.

This time, the hateful ideology infected a cell composed mostly of Guyanese militants, including Russell Defreitas (also known as ?Mohammed?), a naturalized American secretly at war with his adopted country, and Abdul Kadir, a former member of Guyana?s parliament who was reportedly en route to a religious conference in Iran at the time of his arrest. It also included another Guyana native said to have ties to the murderous Jamaat al Muslimeen (the Muslim Group), a Sunni terror organization based in Trinidad and Tobago, and a Trinidadian allegedly tied to still other terrorists overseas.

Their inspiration was al Qaeda. Their aspiration was an atrocity more gruesome than 9/11 ? a strike aimed not just at airplanes and passenger terminals, but at fuel pipelines that run through dense residential neighborhoods and feed JFK?s thousand planes a day transporting 45 million travelers a year. Their goal was not simply to knock out an airport, but to decimate much of Queens, and with it the U.S. economy.

Overly ambitious? Probably. Defreitas knew the terrain, having retired after years of working cargo at JFK. But his knowledge, and the painstaking surveillance of the target he allegedly did, were unlikely to overcome the technological obstacles to his plan. Further, the cell seems to have lacked financing (although they were actively pursuing it), and they had not yet acquired explosives when the investigation was cut short ? apparently by Guyanese authorities understandably concerned that Kadir would evade their coverage if not arrested.

But even if the grand design was beyond the cell?s competence, an attempt could well have killed hundreds of people. As with the recent thwarting of a jihadist plot on Fort Dix, this intended atrocity appears to have been prevented by the cooperation of federal and local law enforcement, who managed to infiltrate the conspiracy with an informant ? proving, yet again, that if we are to stop terror attacks rather than react to them, there is no substitute for human intelligence.

The deepest lesson here, though, is that we are at war with an enemy that hates us, that will stop at nothing ? even death ? to harm us, and that we must understand in order to defeat. That is the first step in the real battle of ideas.

William F. Buckley, keeper of the very white light of truth.

 

[6thGen]

Seeing that my WSJ always seems to come a day late, I finally read the Noonan article posted. The original topic was over immigration, which she just jumped the shark on. Her position is 180 degrees from her employers, which is fine, but it should be noted. It's been an interesting circus with the editors from the WSJ and National Review calling each other out and challenging each other on the mertis of the bill. For the record, I'm on the side of the WSJ.

 

[Mango]

I don?t believe that the war?s origins are taboo to examine. I believe it is wrong to be so completely intellectually dishonest when discussing it, and I believe that skewing the facts for political gain is wrong. I don?t believe there is a ton of benefit in playing Monday morning quarterback, but I do believe we need to examine what went wrong and remember it in the future, but when hindsight is your sole argument, you never really had an argument to begin with.

The author has buried his head in the sand when it comes to militant Islam, saying that it doesn?t exist and that they just want us to leave them alone. The World Trade Center, Ft. Dix and now JFK argue the counter. If I ever have a child that feels like he?s being bullied, I won?t tell him to go kick said bully?s dog when he?s looking out the window.

Here's a good article in response to the Ambassador.

Targeting Kennedy

I don't believe the author buried his head in the sand regarding militant islam. Basically what he saying is that we have made up a word to describe it. What is islamofascism really? For the sake of honest debate here's a link examining this so called new ideology. My interpretation of it is the religious separation of ideas of how/who rules their government.

By invading Iraq we are trying to impose our interpretation of democracy, thus the author stating they just want us to go home.

As far as examining root causes,

"We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation." - Osama bin Laden - to CNN in March 1997

The US and other countries will always be plaqued with different religious sects attempting to inflict harm, but perhaps if we had paid more attention to statements and threats like Bin Laden and taken different political stances we would be in the pickle we are in now.
But for the author of your article to say that mainstream Muslim wants to exact mass murder globally is over the top.

So what, we caught a few wannabe's at JFK with a drug addict working for the FBI.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Can anyone give me the status on the War on Drugs in the USA?

 

[Uncle Timmy]

Can anyone give me the status on the War on Drugs in the USA?

The War on Drugs (or Crime) apparently just doesn't have the same appeal to the political right as does an international crusade.

Could that be because we know how to effectively combat violent crime (see the successful law enforcement actions and their results of the 1990s) - and there is more political benefit in an un-ending war on terrorism?

From today's headlines: Violent Crime on the Rise

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/US/story?id=3238904&page=1

"Federal law enforcement officials say their resources to fight crime are limited because of the 9/11 attacks. Since then, they say, there has been about a 50-50 split in spending on crime and anti-terror measures."

 

[Mango]

Can anyone give me the status on the War on Drugs in the USA?

There's a War on Drugs?
:leaving:

 

[Smiling JOe]

The War on Drugs (or Crime) apparently just doesn't have the same appeal to the political right as does an international crusade.

Could that be because we know how to effectively combat violent crime (see the successful law enforcement actions and their results of the 1990s) - and there is more political benefit in an un-ending war on terrorism?

The War on Drugs has not ended, and it has not done anything to change the behaviour of people who sell or use drugs. I think declaring a War on Terror has about as much chance for success at ending terror as the War on Drugs has for ending illegal drug usage. Both have no goal or end in sight, and both have heavy carrying costs. Both create much money for gov't and give the gov't more authority, and take away from citizens' rights, all for the illusion of security.

 

[6thGen]

I don't believe the author buried his head in the sand regarding militant islam. Basically what he saying is that we have made up a word to describe it. What is islamofascism really? For the sake of honest debate here's a link examining this so called new ideology. My interpretation of it is the religious separation of ideas of how/who rules their government.

By invading Iraq we are trying to impose our interpretation of democracy, thus the author stating they just want us to go home.

As far as examining root causes,

"We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation." - Osama bin Laden - to CNN in March 1997

The US and other countries will always be plaqued with different religious sects attempting to inflict harm, but perhaps if we had paid more attention to statements and threats like Bin Laden and taken different political stances we would be in the pickle we are in now.
But for the author of your article to say that mainstream Muslim wants to exact mass murder globally is over the top.

So what, we caught a few wannabe's at JFK with a drug addict working for the FBI.

First, the editors did not state that mainstream Muslims want to exact mass murder. They said the idea was mainstream in Islamic countries (for more on that see the article below). I find it disgraceful that you downplay our authorities stopping an attack before it happened. Even if the culprits were ?wannabe?s?, they could have inflicted significant civilian damage even if they bungled the overall plot.

For islamofacism, I don?t care what you call it, the speaker in Timmy?s thread is the one that brought up the term. Militant Islam, Islam that is strict to sharia, is the problem. You can call it Al for all I care.



?The World?s Gravest Terrorist Threat?
It isn?t Islamophobia that?s keeping Muslim nations down.

By Fred Gedrich


Foreign ministers from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) recently held a meeting in Islamabad, Pakistan, where they declared, ?Islamophobia is the world?s gravest terrorist threat.? The term connotes an irrational fear or prejudice toward Muslims and the Islamic religion.

While a legitimate concern for many Muslims, Islamophobia pales in comparison to the long-standing problems within OIC member countries. Thirty-eight years after the organization?s founding, a large number of Muslims suffer still from oppression, poverty, illiteracy, genocide, and locally bred terrorism. The principals most responsible for perpetuating these conditions are an assortment of authoritarian rulers and Islamic extremists.

The OIC is currently comprised of 56 nations plus the Palestinian Authority. One of its main missions is to ?ensure the progress and well-being? of the world?s estimated 1.4 billion Muslims (about 85 percent Sunni and 15 percent Shiite) mostly residing in Middle Eastern, North African, Central Asian, and Southeast Asian countries.

Freedom House, a nonprofit group dedicated to monitoring global freedom and cofounded by Eleanor Roosevelt, reports that only five of 57 OIC members (Benin, Indonesia, Mali, Senegal, and Suriname) provide their citizens the full panoply of political rights and civil liberties to qualify as truly free countries. And only four members provide the necessary legal environment, political influences, and economic conditions to guarantee that news provided by national media outlets has been fully accessed, objectively reported, and accurately disseminated.

OIC residents lag far behind much of the world in terms of sustainable income, despite enormous wealth in several countries like Bahrain, Brunei, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. The per capita gross domestic product for residents of OIC countries is $4,100, compared to $11,600 for residents of non-Muslim countries. In nations like Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen, most residents live on $2 a day or less.


About 35 percent of the OIC?s residents, age 15 and above, cannot read or write. Conversely, the illiteracy rate for similarly-aged residents of non-Muslim countries is only 13 percent. In two of the group?s largest countries, Bangladesh and Pakistan, more than half of the combined population is illiterate. And one-third of men and half of all women in the 21 Arab states and Palestine are illiterate as well.

Genocide has been raging in Sudan?s Darfur region for several years, with 200,000 killed and 2.5 million displaced. Other OIC nations will not intervene. Its leaders seem to prefer honoring a provision in the organization?s charter requiring each member to ?not interfere in the internal affairs of member states? above protecting innocent life.

Two-thirds of the world?s 42 foreign terrorist organizations, according to the U.S. State Department, have gestated and operate from areas governed by OIC members. While the primary aim of most of them is to destroy Israel and greatly diminish U.S. regional and global influence, the vast majority of their victims have been innocent Muslims. Radical Islamists use a dangerous mix of politics and religion to target for recruitment the abused, misinformed, impoverished, under-educated, and others to become participants in various jihad movements.

Islamic terrorists affiliated with the likes of al Qaeda (Sunni) and Hezbollah (Shiite) disguise themselves as civilians, hide in civilian populations, use civilians as shields, indiscriminately slaughter civilians, and torture and kill captives. Their actions clearly violate the laws and customs of war specified in Geneva conventions and soil the Islamic religion. If left unchecked, these non-state actors threaten the very foundation of the nation-state system. Respectable Muslims are appalled at their conduct. The OIC shouldn?t brand non-Muslims as Islamophobes for simply expressing their outrage and concern at, and for taking reasonable action against, this barbarity. Its specious claim of a worldwide Islamophobic scare is only an attempt to mask its greater failing to help its Muslim citizens.

After 38 years of failure, it?s doubtful that the current OIC majority will deliver all Muslims a better future as stated in its charter. Authoritarian rulers are unwilling to loosen their grip on power. Radical Islamic extremists, whose activists and sympathizers represent up to 20 percent of the Muslim population by some accounts, offer a trip back to the seventhth century under sharia law as a cure to current maladies ? which law, among other things, treats women unequally and represents a major human-rights violation.

Freedom-seeking Muslims must take control of their governments and ensure much-needed changes to political, economic, and educational institutions occur. And if they do, free countries should be willing to help. When freedom flourishes, war abates and people prosper.

Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation, is showing the way forward. This former Dutch colony recently transformed into a true democracy. Hopefully, others will soon follow. Such a development can?t come soon enough for most residents of OIC countries.

? Fred Gedrich is a foreign policy and national security analyst. He formerly served in the U.S. Departments of State and Defense and has traveled extensively throughout the Muslim World.

 

[Mango]

First, the editors did not state that mainstream Muslims want to exact mass murder. They said the idea was mainstream in Islamic countries (for more on that see the article below). I find it disgraceful that you downplay our authorities stopping an attack before it happened. Even if the culprits were “wannabe’s”, they could have inflicted significant civilian damage even if they bungled the overall plot.

For islamofacism, I don’t care what you call it, the speaker in Timmy’s thread is the one that brought up the term. Militant Islam, Islam that is strict to sharia, is the problem. You can call it Al for all I care. .

6th Gen, IMO the JFK plot was overly dramatized by the media to capitulate on our fears and to market the airport security program.
Anyone with any engineering knowledge knew this, and here the experts state such
"Experts Cast Doubt on Credbility of JFK PLot"


It is the plots by well organized and funded terrorists that worry me and the fact that the 9/11 terrorists were not watched by the FBI.
The plots that you don't hear about that may have been foiled that scare me.

You would not be so naive to believe that if a terrorist was caught making biological weapons in his home that the government and the media would be publicizing that do you?

 

[6thGen]

6th Gen, IMO the JFK plot was overly dramatized by the media to capitulate on our fears and to market the airport security program.
Anyone with any engineering knowledge knew this, and here the experts state such
"Experts Cast Doubt on Credbility of JFK PLot"


It is the plots by well organized and funded terrorists that worry me and the fact that the 9/11 terrorists were not watched by the FBI.
The plots that you don't hear about that may have been foiled that scare me.

You would not be so naive to believe that if a terrorist was caught making biological weapons in his home that the government and the media would be publicizing that do you?

Fair enough - but here's proof that you don't have to be competent to inflict damage. I'd assume the JFK folks were more competent than mentally retarded children, who killed five in one example sited.

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=71257

As for the question on publicizing biological weapons, given the fact that a bust would pass through so many hands, I'd guess we would hear about it. You would not be so naive to believe that if a fair number of people were involved in foiling such a plot that the government and media would not be publicizing is, would you? But I get your point.