The Republican and Democratic presidential candidates collided sharply Tuesday in the wake of the deadly terrorist attacks in Brussels, with GOP hopeful Ted Cruz calling on law enforcement to “patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods” and his Democratic rivals sternly rebuking him.
The uproar highlighted the deepening rift between Republicans and Democrats on an issue that was poised to gain a fresh foothold in the campaign: the treatment of Muslim Americans amid concerns about terrorism.
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton tweeted that Cruz’s proposal was “beneath us,” while Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont said that singling out a religious group would be “unconstitutional” and “wrong.”
Cruz faced only muted criticism from his own party, with Donald Trump — who has called for a ban on the entry of Muslims into the United States — voicing support for the senator’s plan.
So much for freedom of religion. Now the wannabe boys want send out law enforcement officers to patrol Muslim neighborhoods seeking radicalized Muslims. Now that sounds like a rather draconian, unConstitutional plan.
What’s even scarier is that Donald Trump is agreeing with Ted Cruz.
Do we even have “Muslim neighborhoods” in this country? Am I too insulated here in Northern Virginia?
What sets this country apart from European countries is how well American Muslims are assimilated into American society. I guess that will all come to a screeching halt if Cruz or Trump become president and send their “blue shirts” out to curb those Muslims.
What is wrong with these 2 GOP candidates?
There who would trade Liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both.
Benjamin Franklin
Those without good security risk losing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness….permanently.
Wolve
You don’t get good security by taking away other people’s Constitutional rights. You make those people mean and you make them hate you.
I hear a great line on a morning show. In Europe, people are muslims first, then they identify with their country. In the United States, they are Americans first, then Muslim.
I would say that Dearborn, Michigan, is pretty darn close to being a large “Muslim neighborhood.” Also I suspect some of the Somali immigrant areas in Minnesota which have produced a number of terrorist suspects in the last several years.. Also Hamtramck, the Michigan city surrounded by Detroit and now with a Muslim majority on the city council. There must certainly be others.
My own community is about half Latino but there has been a real influx of Muslim immigrants and refugees of late. Understandable. The Adams Center is only a couple of miles from us and, from what I have heard, is the largest Muslim mosque/community center in Northern Virginia. Mrs. Wolve keeps mentioning to me that, when she goes out to shop for groceries and other necessities, she feels like she is in a foreign country……again.
I have a feeling that certain US neighborhoods of interest are already being “patrolled” —if you get my drift.
I expect they are. Drift taken.
I would suggest that one way to improve security is to ensure that our guards at the airports are swift enough to get suspicious when a couple of Middle Eastern dudes (or anyone else, for that matter) enter the premises with black gloves only on one hand. Ya think, maybe?
One of the most uneasy times I have spent in an airport was a year or so after 9-11. I was riding the moon-buggy out to my flight. I was on it with a woman in full Muslim dress, pushing a baby stroller with no baby in it, just packages.
What do you do? If you see something, say something. Do whom? I think maybe that woman should have had an escort. I would have thought it was irregular if it had been anyone, pushing a baby stroller full of packages.
Hard to imagine a more idiotic, dangerous comment than Cruz’s. A major problem in Europe is the degree to which Muslim immigrants have been allowed (or encouraged) to ghetto-ize themselves and the degree to which they are made to feel (and permit themselves to feel) unwelcome, as opposed to being actively and encouragingly assimilated. The US does much better at promoting an ethic of Americans who happen to be Muslims (or Hindus or Episcopalians or whatever), but demagogues like Trump and Cruz, looking for cheap yob votes set back this process and play into a dangerous ethic that risks alienation and segregation.
In NoVA…Falls Church. Several prominent jihadis hail from this city.
The problem I see with the proposal to “patrol and secure” is while a sleeper cell or lone wolf may hide among the larger Muslim community, they are unlikely to commit acts of terror in these communities. Uniformed, visible patrols will only make those potential informers less-inclined to do so, and will inflame those who may be on-the-fence. One only has to look to the British experience in N. Ireland to see how this would go. Yes, the stated purpose was to keep the Orangemen and Provo’s from killing each other, but the visible presence actually drove people into the Provo units.
Then there is the concept that doing what Cruz suggested and Trump heartily approved of is just down-right UnAmerican.
I think its important that those who would do us harm remain outliers rather than heroes.
If you have proof of this outrageous accusation, you best run, not walk, your big fat rear end to the nearest FBI field office with names and your proof in hand! Hurry! No time to spare!
addressing the low information voter, I presume.
And Jeb says it is Trump who is going to ruin the Republican party…..
It’s a little late to give the FBI the names of Muhammed Aatique, Hammad Abdur-Raheem, Ibrahim Ahmed Al-Hamdi, Seifullah Chapman, Khwaja Hasan, Masoud Khan, Yong Kwon, Randall Todd Royer, Ali al-Tamimi and Donald Surratt. All from Northern Virginia. Many from Falls Church, which was home to Anwar al-Awlaki’s mosque. (Dar Al-Hijrah)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_jihad_network
@Starry flights
Starry,
You must revel in being the source of so many ocular migraines. Do you have a memory problem, or are you just that uninformed? Do some damn research or at least stay up on current events, before you pop-off about about people’s rear-ends.
Just to get you started, some suggested research topics are:
“Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center” : A Falls Church Mosque, which according the US Dept of Treasury “”is a mosque operating as a front for Hamas operatives in U.S.,” “is associated with Islamic extremists,” “has been under numerous investigations for financing and proving aid and comfort to bad orgs and members,” has “been linked to numerous individuals linked to terrorism financing,” and “has also been associated with encouraging fraudulent marriages.”
“Mohammad Sidique Khan”: MI5 has established links between this participant in a London bombing that killed 52 civilians, and the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center.
Anwar al-Awaki: AQ member killed in an Obama-ordered drone strike. Was a former Imam at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque. Also had FBI verified connections to a whole host of other terrorists, such as the Ft. Hood shooter, and the Underwear bomber, not to mention several of the 9/11 Hijackers….who also attended this mosque.
Ahmed Omar Abu Ali: Another convicted terrorist who called this mosque “home”, arrested in Saudi Arabia as part of an AQ cell there. He had the distinction of being a former valedictorian of Falls Church HS…and was associated with these characters AKA the “Virginia Jihadi Network
Muhammed Aatique, Hammad Abdur-Raheem, Ibrahim Ahmed Al-Hamdi, Seifullah Chapman, Khwaja Hasan, Masoud Khan, Yong Kwon, Randall Todd Royer and Donald Surratt, were found guilty of various terrorism-related offences.
Guess where these gentlemen gravitated to? Falls Church VA and the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center.
One is an anomaly. Two bears watching. Three or more instances, you have a trend.
Those events too place 15 years ago. You made it sound like an ongoing problem!
Expert: Targeting Muslims with police surveillance would be counterproductive
Cruz’s suggestion that American law enforcement specifically “patrol and secure” Muslim communities is both immoral and counterproductive. That’s according to A. Trevor Thrall, a Cato Institute scholar who is also a professor of policy, government, and international affairs at George Mason University.
Ted Cruz at the January 28th Fox News debate in Des Moines Scott Olson/Getty
Stepped-up surveillance of some Muslim communities after 9/11 provoked a backlash. Cruz’s proposal would likely lead to a similar reaction, according to Thrall.
“Having the FBI coming to their neighborhoods and mosques created an awful amount of resentment toward the US government,” Thrall said. “If you’re looking for a way to radicalize someone, patrolling their neighborhoods and keeping a close watch on what they’re doing is a good way to do it.”
Then there’s the idea that patrolling Muslim neighborhoods would serve as an effective deterrent — an idea that Thrall dismissed.
“It belies a misunderstanding that there’s a way to know who the radicals are in a sleeper cell beforehand,” he said. “This is not only going to help radicalize people, it’s also useless.”
Cruz’s plan is “light-years” worse than NYPD’s Muslim surveillance
After 9/11, the New York Police Department indiscriminately monitored thousands of Muslims who were under no suspicion of terror activity.
But Cruz’s proposal appears to be of a different magnitude, said Ibrahim Hooper, the national communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
“This goes light-years beyond that. Cruz is talking about police ‘securing’ — what does that mean? Does that mean checkpoints on every corner? Does that mean papers on every street?” Hooper said. “To me, this sounds like an armed occupation of Muslim neighborhoods.”
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/22/11285626/ted-cruz-muslim-communities-target
Who said anything about taking away constitutional rights?
“America first” Muslims are not the objective. It’s the other ones, who are likely among us already. We’ve certainly had enough cases of young Muslims hustling off to fight for ISIS or at least trying to before they got caught. Not to mention the perps caught by FBI informants because they were planning or wanted to plan attacks on American soil. And then there are the circa 150,000 poorly vetted “war refugees” here so far and the tens of thousands more that POTUS wants to bring in, even as ISIS can be seen to use the migrant flow as an operational pathway into Europe. Not to mention possible sleeper cells waiting to imitate Paris or Istanbul and now Brussels.
Painting with too broad a “love they neighbor” brush in this terrorist business could get your ass splattered all over a subway car…or an airport floor.
Ted Cruz, to answer your question.
We have also had some non-Muslims hustling off to fight for ISIS.
@Starryflights
Starry,
“Expert: Targeting Muslims with police surveillance would be counterproductive”
Look WAY up at the top of this thread. I am NOT advocating for patrolling neighborhoods where Muslims congregate. The negatives far outweigh the false sense of security actions such as these would garner.
“Those events too place 15 years ago. You made it sound like an ongoing problem!”
Terror on US soil is an on-going problem. Has been since the 90’s in this particular area. To argue otherwise, is foolish. It because of muddle-headed thinking like yours that we remain in danger. First you say no problem exists. Next you say “well, that was a long time ago”. Have the attacks stopped? No. The attackers just changed tactics as we adjusted our defense. Radicalized “lone wolves” have replaced the coordinated terror plots, here.
But if you think for one second these groups aren’t looking for that next opportunity to pull off something big, you are an even more foolish and muddleheaded than I credit you for. Even DHS and the FBI have told us the cells are here, and they are in places like Falls Church, Dearborn. They are waiting, planning, recruiting. The sponsors and groups change, along with the ethnicity of the participants…but the ideology remains.
Now, let’s see here. There was a time not all that long ago when a certain neighborhood was becoming a target for “conquest” by two major Latino gangs, each of which wanted to make the streets of that little corner of the world their own enforceable “territory.” You know the picture: suspicious groups patrolling at night in cars or on foot; the old tattoo, bandana, colors, and hand sign gimmicks; the houses where one didn’t want to hang around too long; the attempted recruitment of neighborhood guys and gals; the competing graffiti warnings; threats to “green light” law enforcement; even a gang battle in the street with baseball bats and other weapons.
So, how did law enforcement handle that — apart from the formation of local and regional anti-gang squads in cooperation with the FBI and DHS? Well, first there was an increase in vehicular patrols, especially at night. Then came the tandem and random foot patrols. Finally, the community policing officers whose task it was to meet and greet the residents, to gain the confidence of those residents, to react fast when residents needed help, to be the go-to authority on who was who in the neighborhood and to work with Neighborhood Watch to give themselves additional eyes and ears.
Did the combination work? In that case, I would have to say yes. Eventually, the gangbangers (as well as other criminal types) not yet locked up on legitimate charges decided to leave and avoid the LEO hassles. In short, the bad guys left and the good guys stayed. And the good guys breathed a sigh of relief for themselves and their kids, no matter their color or country of origin.
Although there are signs here and there that some of the troublemakers are sifting back in, by and large the neighborhood in question had an extended period of relative peace and quiet…to the point where an ethnically diverse Neighborhood Watch had almost nothing to report.
Now, I suggest that this is the kind of thing that Cruz may be considering for communities in possible question. Would it work with regard to the current problem? They know as well as we do that the bad guys, like bad guys anywhere, are using their communities for cover until it is time for action. Are they willing to accept the presence of and maybe even cooperation with the security people who work for all of us? Or are we to believe that the Muslim communities are so untouchable that they would reject even a police patrol presence such as that? If the latter, how can anyone talk about immigrant assimilation?
I would think that the target with gangs would be gang crime rather than the fact that they were Latino.
If we did the Cruz plan, we would be targeting a community because they were Muslim.
Big difference.
No, not a big difference. We target specific areas because they are the most likely places for a particular gangbanger or terrorist element to hide. If, as some seem to aver, local Muslims are Americans first and Muslims second, I see no logic to a refusal by them to cooperate to the max to ferret out the negative elements which are causing very real security concerns for us and, ostensibly, for them and for the nation as a whole — as in “all of us together in the same boat.” To abstain from participation, in my view, simply heightens a wide sense of community culpability, deserved or not.
On the other hand, the rest of us, fearing to hurt the feelings of Muslims, could just sit back and do nothing more than we are doing now as the problem of deadly external attacks by ISIS ramps up, even when they are under increasing battlefield pressure on caliphate “home ground.” Then we can just hope or pray that, when any attacks come, it will be the loved ones of someone else who get pushed into the body bags. And we can always do our specialty: candles and hashtags and a multi-colored Empire State Building.
So you are agreeing with Ted Cruz?
I see a huge difference in policing known law-breakers like gang members and sending in patrols to try to ferret out someone breaking the law.
You want Muslims to continue feeling like Americans. You don’t want an us vs them situation.
If this is the best our national future holds, then sauve qui peut.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3506491/Emory-president-Students-scared-Trump-2016-chalk-signs.html
The best way for our resident Muslims to feel like Americans is to cooperate fully with the rest of us in the fight against a common threat. ISIS does not care who is on the subway or at the airport in Brussels or in a sidewalk cafe or at a concert in Paris or on the beach in Tunisia or in the old market in Istanbul or at an office party in San Berdoo. They are ready to kill anybody. So, every one of those “anybodies” is morally obliged to participate willingly in the defense against ISIS, religio-cultural connections or not. In my opinion, the title of “American” comes with a lot of obligations and duties.
Many of those resident Muslims are citizen muslims. I think most of them do cooperate.
I feel like you are assuming that they do not report suspicious things. I think we just need to make a clear distinction between ISIS and Muslims when we speak of them and to them.
That’s the whole idea. Resident Muslims, citizen or not, should recognize their “American” responsibility to report anything which might be ISIS or Al-Qaeda or other suspect activity to authorities, even if it means just using an anonymous tip line. Even when we have a dedicated intelligence gathering apparatus using recruited assets or directed undercover operatives, it is a big help to have a general community which does not hesitate to serve as voluntary eyes and ears. Although officers have to sort out a lot of chaff, it gives a great boost to your numerical odds of landing on worthwhile targets. More eyes and ears, the better the chances. I’ve worked under both circumstances. An alert, willing, and a dedicated community is a blessing. Without that, the job can be much harder.
I don’t disagree with what you just said. That’s a whole lot different than sending patrols into Muslim communities.
Now, do I think it is wrong to send intelligence into mosques and churches? Nope. Its a public place. I say churches because there are also militants in Christian churches. I thought I would include them in the sweep.
I have lived in and around Falls Church for nearly four decades, folks. I have Muslim neighbors. If Cruz’s patrols showed up in my neighborhood I’d be every bit as outraged as my Muslim friends would be about it.
Here’s the thing: Cruz is almost universally acknowledged to be a bright fellow. So when he says really stupid, anti-American, counter-productive, constitutionally disrespectful, ISIS-recruiting supportive stuff like this, he knows he’s spouting utter crap. He does it anyway because he thinks there are votes in it. Sadly, there probably are.
PS – I very much doubt that there are many “Muslim neighborhoods” in the United States. My experience in the Falls Church area is that there is a house here, a house there with Muslim neighbors, with Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, scattered in randomly. How the devil does Cruz (or Trump for that matter, given that they are equally barmy on this subject) propose to “patrol” this?
As you said, it gets him votes. The people he appeals to probably don’t know there aren’t “muslim neighborhoods.”
Scout — No 4 above says you are guessing wrong– as usual.
I’d send enhanced patrols into Falls Church just to keep an eye on Scout.
Scout would take names and kick ass if they did that.
@MoonHowler
Nah, I don’t think Scout has what it takes to kick ass and take names.
BTW, Dearborn, Michigan, is the 8th largest city in Michigan (ca 100,000), and the population is pushing toward 50% Muslim. I’d call that a “neighborhood.” Hamtramck, not too far away, is circa 22,000 squeezed into not much more than a couple of square miles inside the limits of Detroit City. Pushing 50% Muslim and, I think, the first Muslim-controlled city council in the country. And St. Cloud, Minnesota, has had a bit of a problem between the locals and the concentration of Somali Muslim refugees and migrants there. Again, I would say “neighborhoods”…….as well as places where terrorists will logically hide and where max cooperation with counter terrorism services is needed for the safety and security of all. I project that more of those “neighborhoods” will appear as Muslims continue to come here, either as refugees or migrants.
So if there is a heavy Muslim population, then here are terrorists there? Is that what you are saying, Wolve?
By all means, send in the SWAT teams. Are there some statistics to back up what you are saying?
Wolve: I think I am most likely right about Falls Church, which was the subject of previous comments. If you have differing information, please let me know and I’ll look out my window or take a look-see on my way to church tomorrow. I suppose Dearborn and some other places have even greater numbers, proportionally, of Muslim citizens, but Cruz’s nonsense would have even more damaging impacts on the national interest in those areas, I’m sure.
If you want to try to harness up the police powers of the State to “keep an eye” on me, have at it. You won’t succeed, but the mere effort would ratify my sense that respect for constitutional liberties is a very thin and readily discarded commodity on the right of the modern political spectrum.
@Scout
No, Scout, the previous conversation was not about you and your home in Falls Church. It was about the issue of counter terrorism operations in Muslim neighborhoods in this country.
Whatever one may think about the Cruz comment and undefined “patrols,” I posit that is imperative that serious domestic security efforts be conducted regardless of whether the honest people in those neighborhoods like it or not. To do otherwise is to risk giving terrorists a free hand to hide and to operate.
It should be obvious to anyone that we are already operating clandestinely in such neighborhoods; but it would be much better if the “honest people” as a group stopped being so adverse to a security presence and joined in a widespread effort to share the tasks which can keep us all from harm. I am getting tired of the gripes about the sanctity of neighborhoods. ISIS is killing anybody who happens to be in their chosen target zones regardless of religion. Maybe the gripers ought to think on that and get with the same protective program as the rest of us. Enough with the excuses.
As for “patrols” in Fall Church, Some people do believe that law school grads are often serious threats to the liberty of the rest of us Americans. Not to mention our wallets.
I don’t think terrorists operate out in the open, like street corner drug sales. Just what are these cops suppose to see as they patrol the neighborhoods?
Even if you cannot read German, you should be able to decipher this headline on the Bild newspaper in Berlin:
“Wir sind im krieg!”
Apparently the European security services now believe that they are facing a Europe-wide ISIS attack apparatus. Probably a combination of sleeper cells and those who came in via the recent waves of refugees and migrants.
Europe has not been very inclusive to its immigrant communities. They have been isolated and work is difficult to find.
Hell, my American cousin with a law degree had a hard time getting work in France because of the work regulations.
I don’t think anyone, including Cruz, has specifically defined “patrols.” I suggest taking the term as just a handy thing grabbed onto by those who have no hands-on experience with these kinds of operations and are talking in the heat of politics and Brussels. I would posit that our own security forces have already been studying ways to enhance their domestic coverage, especially in view of the ramping up of ISIS external terrorist operations, including those despicable suicide bombings. And I suspect those security forces are not dismissing the possibility of the ISIS bastards trying their hand here, especially with our southern border leaking like a sieve.
The FBI has a new counter terrorism program called “Shared Responsibility Committee.” It is a part of the government’s Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program and is designed to give students and teachers and others a way to report the presence or suspected presence of terrorist recruiters in the schools especially. Simple: you see it; you report it to discreetly to the authorities…..and, I would guess, even anonymously if desired.
Well, now we have the so-called American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) asking the FBI to dump the program because it turns their people into “informants.” Apparently they find the whole idea insulting. Heck, we don’t need no program. If they want to inform, they will do so on their own.
Yeah, riiiiiiiight. If that was the case, the FBI wouldn’t need to propose a new program, would it? That’s not unlike saying that Neighborhood Watch should just wait until somebody calls instead of recruiting new and dedicated members to keep an active, informed watch.
As I suggested before, to be called an “American” requires something besides just taking up space within our borders..
Falls Church was directly mentioned a few times in the thread, Wolve (#40). So, yes, it was about my home and my neighborhood, to that extent at least. I therefore thought it might be useful (as it almost always is) to inject a little reality in the discussion. Yes, Muslims live in Falls Church and attend religious services at mosques, including the one named in the thread. On the other hand, “Muslim neighborhoods” a la Cruz’s electioneering gambit, really don’t exist. Like many other places in America, people of various religions live in our neighborhoods, and I suspect that is more the norm than the exception throughout the country.
I share your concerns about law school grads, but I think that is another topic. There are far too many of them. However, I don’t think we need security patrols to do that. The market is in the process of shaking that out.
If your point is that we live in an age where strong internal security capabilities are necessary, I doubt that anyone disagrees. That’s a commonplace, not an insight.
Muslims live in my neighborhood also. I see the women walking their children to school.
Good grief, I just pointed out three Muslim neighborhoods. Be ye blind, mon?
Piffle. Commonplace for many of us. Tell that to the ADC…and CAIR.
What I am saying is that terrorists will hide there until it is time for action. If you have a known or potential terrorist problem, it is one of the first places you look, albeit not the only place. You are hardly likely to spend much time investigating the situation in the Swedish-American Assisted Living Facility or the Polish Falcons Lodge.
But if our preference is to have our counter-terrorism forces avoid any bad feelings among the larger population from which the terrorists will most likely emanate, we can just sit back and watch the periodic carnage on the internet or TV and light a candle or two, bravely singing Kumbaya until the next attack comes.
I think if I were a terrorist, I’d hide in a “Baptist Neighborhood” (I doubt that there are such things any more than there are “Muslim Neighborhoods.”
I take it Wolve’s definition of a “neighborhood” (is this Cruz’s also?) is any city that has a high percentage of Muslim residents, a la Dearborn.
I have no way of knowing, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn some of our most effective anti-terror human assets now in the field, both here and abroad, have come from such neighborhoods.
Scout, I would say that 50% of 100,000 makes for a pretty good “neighborhood” in terms of terrorists avoiding the spotlight. Please get your ego under control and stick to what you know from experience,.
“I have no way of knowing…” Now, there at last is some truth from Scout. But I can agree that these elements do exist. The problem is that there are never nearly enough of them with regard to the targets and the places for those targets to hide. Which is why the FBI is currently running nearly 1000 cases nationwide trying to get a firmer handle on the threat. You can joke about things like Scout does or you can apply common sense and realize that the threat is there and real.
What the FBI runs behind the scenes is far different than sending patrol cars en mass into neighborhoods where lots of Muslims live.
We’re talking about a proposal from someone trying to pass himself off as a serious candidate for President of the United States proposing that we “patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods”, Wolve. If you think there aren’t enough dedicated Muslim Americans joining those already in the fight against terrorism, you aren’t likely to produce more by treating their neighborhoods as security hotspots.
It was a foolish, ignorant, harmful statement absolutely contrary to the interests of the United States and her citizens. It was worthy of an ISIS recruiter. That anyone, this side of an angry old drunk in a bar, let alone someone who has powerful ambitions to be Commander in Chief, would say such a thing is disqualifying for further public trust.
@Scout
So we are all the way back now to a statement made in the heat of political battle by a candidate who, like all the rest of them, does not know enough about the actual CT genre at the present time to avoid using hot button words like “patrol.” In that, Cruz is no less ignorant than candidate Obama was eight years ago and most of the candidates and ex-candidates are now, including Hillary with an embarrassingly poor sense of security even with four years on Mahogany Row.
Time to get off the political bias kick and focus on the real issue, which is that ISIS and a revived Al-Qaeda are back in the business of external attacks with mass casualties. And time to stop thinking that distance will save us from the fate of Paris or Brussels. The FBI is not working all those cases here just for the practice. High time we confronted the Islamic community in this country head on about full engagement against an enemy willing to kill anyone who gets in the way. I personally am damned tired of this bitching from some of our own resident Muslim “leaders” about any counter terrorism effort in their own communities. Some of them even bitch about the FBI clandestine effort — as if we ought just to leave them all alone whatever the threat may be.
Now, I understand from long and direct experience that there is a strong element of fear in such communities that cooperation could bring directed vengeance from the other side. Yes, it could. But for us to let this fear, plus the whiners about being somehow insulted or dissed, cause us to leave the most likely hiding places for terrorists undisturbed is to invite disaster. I would even call it suicidal. And then the tendency seems to be to to lay much of the blame for such disasters on the very agents whom we operationally handcuffed.
I am getting mighty disgusted with these inconsequential side arguments about who said what and how somebody else will take what was said. To Hell with that. It’s a distraction from the real job at hand. And that job requires American Muslims of genuine good will to pull their full share of the security load without groaning about their religious sensibilities.
And now I am going back to look for proof that the jihadis in Yemen actually did crucify on Easter Sunday that Catholic priest captured after an attack on an elderly invalid home which no longer has its contingent of Christian nuns because most of them were murdered at their posts.
I hadn’t heard that that story about the priest was in doubt, Wolve. Is there some thought in your mind that the story is untrue? I find it all too believable, but maybe I’m the one who was too credulous on this one.
Back to the point of the thread: My premise is that the Muslim Community in this country is in “full engagement against an enemy willing to kill anyone who gets in the way.” I don’t believe the prevailing sentiment among American Muslims is one of aiding and abetting international or domestic terrorism. To the contrary, my sense of it is that the Muslim-American “community” is absolutely in the front line of our counter-terrorism efforts and that it is in the interests of national security to maintain that situation and build on it, something that requires the cultivation of goodwill and acceptance. When I see prominent office seekers acting as if Muslims in the United States are a suspicious class, I see them eroding our protections and safety, not improving on them, and feeding the damnably sophisticated and capable propaganda machine of our enemies.
Cruz is not nearly as stupid as he makes out to be. He is a very smart guy, by accounts from people around him. When he says stuff like that, he’s doing it on purpose to harvests low information primary votes. He does so at our expense.