Do Muslims Need To Self-Police? Are Muslim-Americans Really Our "First Line Of Defense?"

[Josh]

I'd like to formally apologize for causing this shooting.

Why? Did you give him medication that led to a psychotic break?

[Josh]

For whatever reason, I've been thinking about this topic for a while now.  And the more I think about it, the more ridiculous I find the idea that if only moderate American (or whatever country you'd like to add) Muslims would denounce terrorists, or really talk really badly against terrorism in general, we would be closer to a solution.  The Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS/Daesh...these guys are fucking sick.  They are crazy.  Can there really be a connection between the reasonable, law-abiding, family-loving Muslim folks I work and socialize with...who I call my friends, and these monsters?

No.

Just because the crazy assholes claim there is a connection does not make it so.  We empower them by granting that relationship.

[DaveO]

For whatever reason, I've been thinking about this topic for a while now.  And the more I think about it, the more ridiculous I find the idea that if only moderate American (or whatever country you'd like to add) Muslims would denounce terrorists, or really talk really badly against terrorism in general, we would be closer to a solution.  The Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS/Daesh...these guys are fucking sick.  They are crazy.  Can there really be a connection between the reasonable, law-abiding, family-loving Muslim folks I work and socialize with...who I call my friends, and these monsters?

No.

Just because the crazy assholes claim there is a connection does not make it so.  We empower them by granting that relationship.

A somewhat different perspective:   I strongly suspect that even if every American Muslim (and Muslims in many other nations (as described in the above example) were to denounce extremists representing different Islamic groups as described above it would have ZERO effect on the killing murderers.  The killer groups don't care what others say.  They have the guns, the weapons, the idealogies and they ,frankly glorify mass murder of innocents around the world.

Being denounced by people who cannot stop them has had no effect to date.  Frankly the various Sunni terrorists kill other Muslims and declare them as unfit; and the Shiite murdering terrorists do the same.  I'm not describing either sect as completely murderous.  Far from it.  It is the extremists in their midst.

Now as far as the situation in the States; I view it as "delicate".  I reject the hate language and calls for bans, and targeting of mosques.  Those calls are coming from an extremist position in the US.  They completely reject that which is great about a society that has been a haven for all the displaced peoples of the world and has likewise, as imperfectly as it has occurred granted opportunities in a pluralist society.

But, to put it bluntly in this day and age "Presbyterians" did not create 9/11, were not the killers in California, nor did they attack unarmed soldiers on duty in the US.  These were the attacks of Islamic extremists....people who had blended into American society.  Other potential extremist murderers have been caught and potential mass murders have been prevented.

So some form of targeted surveillance is requisite.  It is clearly a delicate endeavor, trying to both protect innocent citizens while not overwhelmingly restrict freedoms.  Its tough.

I give credit to the people who are engaged in trying to protect innocents.  Its a very tough job.

[DonRocks]

A somewhat different perspective:   I strongly suspect that even if every American Muslim (and Muslims in many other nations (as described in the above example) were to denounce extremists representing different Islamic groups as described above it would have ZERO effect on the killing murderers.  The killer groups don't care what others say.  They have the guns, the weapons, the idealogies and they ,frankly glorify mass murder of innocents around the world.

Being denounced by people who cannot stop them has had no effect to date.  Frankly the various Sunni terrorists kill other Muslims and declare them as unfit; and the Shiite murdering terrorists do the same.  I'm not describing either sect as completely murderous.  Far from it.  It is the extremists in their midst.

Now as far as the situation in the States; I view it as "delicate".  I reject the hate language and calls for bans, and targeting of mosques.  Those calls are coming from an extremist position in the US.  They completely reject that which is great about a society that has been a haven for all the displaced peoples of the world and has likewise, as imperfectly as it has occurred granted opportunities in a pluralist society.

Dave, you're rejecting American extremism (hate language, targeting of mosques, etc.), when you have nothing to do with the extremism, and absolutely no power to stop it.

And you say that Muslims doing the same thing with Muslim extremism (or, extremism "in the name of Islam") will have zero effect.

So, aren't you sort-of doing what you say people shouldn't have to do?

This topic has swung wildly. Getting back to the original article: If I were to take the same attitude as the author, I would say, "I am *not* going to apologize for, or speak out against, Americans showing extremist behavior, because that has absolutely nothing to do with me or my beliefs, so I'm washing my hands of it and living a guilt-free life. If these nut-job Americans want to go around blowing up mosques, it's not my responsibility, so don't look to me for help."

I could say the same thing about all mass killings with guns. I don't own a gun - it's not my problem or my responsibility.

See, I think that's complacency, and does nothing in terms of problem solving.

Just last night, I rewatched The Twilight Zone episode, "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street," <--- SPOILER ALERT and this thread was in the back of my mind. For Hulu members, it's right here.

[DaveO]

Dave, you're rejecting American extremism (hate language, targeting of mosques, etc.), when you have nothing to do with the extremism, and absolutely no power to stop it.

And you say that Muslims doing the same thing with Muslim extremism (or, extremism "in the name of Islam") will have zero effect.

So, aren't you sort-of doing what you say people shouldn't have to do?

This topic has swung wildly. Getting back to the original article: If I were to take the same attitude as the author, I would say, "I am *not* going to apologize for, or speak out against, Americans showing extremist behavior, because that has absolutely nothing to do with me or my beliefs, so I'm washing my hands of it and living a guilt-free life. If these nut-job Americans want to go around blowing up mosques, it's not my responsibility, so don't look to me for help."

I could say the same thing about all mass killings with guns. I don't own a gun - it's not my problem or my responsibility.

See, I think that's complacency, and does nothing in terms of problem solving.

Just last night, I rewatched The Twilight Zone episode, "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street," <--- SPOILER ALERT and this thread was in the back of my mind. For Hulu members, it's right here.

Underlying my comments was a certain perspective.  I don't care to tell American Muslims what to do.  That is an extremely tough situation for them.  They'll have to deal with it, and I am not in a position of authority nor do I choose to be overly "political" at this time and place and in this forum.  My main perspective was to respond to the perspective written just before me.

And I'm not Islamic.   Regardless of what American non Muslims tell them to do....they are going to face tough choices.  I suspect that some are and have been "policing themselves for some period...at least since 2001.  I suspect that is why some efforts to kill Americans have been foiled.  I also suspect that enhanced security efforts, listening to phone calls, etc have contributed to foiling some efforts.

And I'm Jewish.  Terrorist Islamics have targeted Jews around the world, way beyond Israel.  In France more recently, in Argentina in remote South America that has little to do with the middle east, and here in the States.  I'm very sensitive to that issue.

I also vividly recall sitting at dinner with my ex and another couple, the guy an immigrant to the US from Lebanon.  A Maronite who fought in the Lebanon Civil War as a kid.  When the waiter approached us and said a few words, my friend responded in Arabic and these two guys started speaking and smiling.  The waiter was from a neighboring Beirut neighborhood, an Islamic neighborhood.   My friend at one point said he and the waiter could have been shooting at one another "defending their turf".  He told us native Americans that in front of the waiter, who acknowledged that.  Both guys would have been teenagers while fighting in that war.

Later the waiter brought out a group of staff from the kitchen, all immigrants from Beirut.  They all greeted my friend.  I don't know if the rest of the staff were Christian or Moslem.

It was 1991.  Desert Storm started that evening.  The waiter came out and told us about it, and then gave us some reports from a TV in the kitchen.  Both guys were very happy to be in the US, away from the violence and killing.  They appreciated being in a peaceful country.

Their reactions personify the beauty of the US.  We should work hard to maintain that status and we should work hard to find and screw every potential killer terrorist....of all types.

But I don't have to make comments that are potentially inflammatory.     (I've done plenty of that--Ha ha).  I choose not to do it here.

[DonRocks]

For whatever reason, I've been thinking about this topic for a while now.  And the more I think about it, the more ridiculous I find the idea that if only moderate American (or whatever country you'd like to add) Muslims would denounce terrorists, or really talk really badly against terrorism in general, we would be closer to a solution.  The Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS/Daesh...these guys are fucking sick.  They are crazy.  Can there really be a connection between the reasonable, law-abiding, family-loving Muslim folks I work and socialize with...who I call my friends, and these monsters?

No.

Just because the crazy assholes claim there is a connection does not make it so.  We empower them by granting that relationship.

All these "self-policing" theories might be reassuring to read, because they give people hope that there's an easy solution.

Reassuring to read, until you see things such as this:

"Hate Crimes against Muslims Rise in US" by Betsy Woodruff on thedailybeast.com

[Josh]

When in doubt, I turn to comedy.

Clickhole to the rescue!

[DaveO]

A somewhat different perspective:   I strongly suspect that even if every American Muslim (and Muslims in many other nations (as described in the above example) were to denounce extremists representing different Islamic groups as described above it would have ZERO effect on the killing murderers.  The killer groups don't care what others say.  They have the guns, the weapons, the idealogies and they ,frankly glorify mass murder of innocents around the world.

Being denounced by people who cannot stop them has had no effect to date.  Frankly the various Sunni terrorists kill other Muslims and declare them as unfit; and the Shiite murdering terrorists do the same.  I'm not describing either sect as completely murderous.  Far from it.  It is the extremists in their midst.

Now as far as the situation in the States; I view it as "delicate".  I reject the hate language and calls for bans, and targeting of mosques.  Those calls are coming from an extremist position in the US.  They completely reject that which is great about a society that has been a haven for all the displaced peoples of the world and has likewise, as imperfectly as it has occurred granted opportunities in a pluralist society.

But, to put it bluntly in this day and age "Presbyterians" did not create 9/11, were not the killers in California, nor did they attack unarmed soldiers on duty in the US.  These were the attacks of Islamic extremists....people who had blended into American society.  Other potential extremist murderers have been caught and potential mass murders have been prevented.

So some form of targeted surveillance is requisite.  It is clearly a delicate endeavor, trying to both protect innocent citizens while not overwhelmingly restrict freedoms.  Its tough.

I give credit to the people who are engaged in trying to protect innocents.  Its a very tough job.

In light of the terrorist attack in Belgium I have to recant and change my perspective.  Five months after the terrorist attack in Paris there have been consistent efforts to get to the root of the attacks and find others involved.  Five months later those efforts brought fruit and Belgium authorities found, captured, and wounded one of the perpetrators of the attack.  They also arrested other(s) who might have helped this person hide or plan other and subsequent attacks.

Immediately thereafter there were the twin terrorist attacks in Belgium.  34 have died (account at this moment from the news).  At least dozens were injured.  The timing of the attacks in Belgium can only be attributed to similarly disposed people (probably sympathizers of the terrorists, not beating around the bush--probably Islamic--probably young--probably living in the same area of Belgium/ a part or just outside of Brussels.

Free democracies with strong protections on privacy and individual rights ALSO must protect their citizenry.  In fact they have to protect the citizenry above all else.  Otherwise the overall society, the nation, the rule of law, the protections of rights become null and void.

So I would bear down harder.   I'm not an official, I'm not in the government, I'm not part of security or police forces or an expert on these issues in any way.  But I would bear down harder.  That is very open ended.

Clearly in the above case there wasn't sufficient "self policing".  In fact it appears that members of the Islamic population in that community helped to hide the member of the Paris terrorist attacks.  What occurred inside that community?   I couldn't say.  There could have been folks inclined to tell authorities about those that were hiding the member of the Paris attack, but were fearful for their own selves and never mentioned anything to the authorities.  One can't say.

Here is the only thing I can personally equate this to.  As a kid, my dad and his partner were partners in a small business in Newark, NJ.  There was strong mafia influence, domination, and a sense of fear about these folks.  I'm 99% sure the partners paid protection money to the mafia  (a different story).  We lived in suburbs of Newark/NY City)  In fact it was known in our neighborhood there was a pretty high level mafia guy living there.

Nobody spoke.  Of course we were all fearful about consequences.  We all knew (most of the neighbors).  We didn't or scarcely said anything.   Clearly we "were not self policing".  On the other hand there wasn't this kind of reaction--mass killing.  Specifics are different.

Anyway I would certainly be for "tightening up".  I can't define what that involves.  It could involve the retraction of individual liberties.  Not sure how that would play out.  But clearly a "free society" with protections on individual liberties can't survive with wanton killings.  Of that I'm sure.

[Josh]

Another awful attack...this time on a mosque in Nigeria.

"2 Female Suicide Bombers Attack Mosque Near Maidugrui, Nigeria, Killing over 20" by Dionne Searcey on nytimes.com

[Josh]

If you can get past the jaw-droppingly ignorant first sentence, this is actually a pretty interesting and informative article.  A lot to digest.

Inside the FBI's Secret Muslim Network by Michael Hirsh on politico.com

[DaveO]

Another awful attack...this time on a mosque in Nigeria.

"2 Female Suicide Bombers Attack Mosque Near Maidugrui, Nigeria, Killing over 20" by Dionne Searcey on nytimes.com

If you can get past the jaw-droppingly ignorant first sentence, this is actually a pretty interesting and informative article.  A lot to digest.

Inside the FBI's Secret Muslim Network by Michael Hirsh on politico.com

Of interest the attack in Nigeria occurred over a week before you reported it here.  The size and scope of Boko Harem violence against people in Nigeria and nearby nations is remarkably under reported here in the states.  We simply have no feel for the level and scope of violence in many parts of Africa by Boko Harem and other like groups.  Violence here, Europe and other parts of the world very visible and subject to media coverage...violence in Africa remarkably under reported.  Its sad.

The Politico article is informative, detailed and interesting.  Thanks for the citation.

I'm not convinced by the title of this thread.  I sort of had to go back to my youth to get a perspective.  When and where I grew up there was a definite dangerous element in the old Italian American mafia still in existence.  It was nothing like the dangers associated with the levels of terrorist killings now.  But it was there.  Its not like it was ever present...but it was definitely there as I recall.  The significant influence was to simply never "rat" on the mafia.  If something happened and it wasn't TOO bad...don't report it.  The mafia may not have been stronger than the authorities...but the authorities couldn't keep the mafia from enacting revenge.  That simple.

(side comment) (When I watched the first episodes of the Soprano's I loved it, but I had a terrible instinctual reaction.  I imagined myself in adulthood running into a friend from childhood, also in adulthood, but now an adult member of that gang.  I said hi, he said hi, and then he blew a hole in my head.  An emotional gut wrenching immediate reaction to a time and place that I recalled from youth.  Not comforting but deeply powerful in my memories and subconscious.

Anyway the politico article reflects on the differences that might exist in that community in Brussels and elsewhere in Europe and current conditions in the US (hopefully)   I just think that if there is a violent anti-societal group which has enough power vis a vis the government people are going to be far less apt to self police themselves as the title of the existing thread suggests.

[Josh]

Of interest the attack in Nigeria occurred over a week before you reported it here.  The size and scope of Boko Harem violence against people in Nigeria and nearby nations is remarkably under reported here in the states.  We simply have no feel for the level and scope of violence in many parts of Africa by Boko Harem and other like groups.  Violence here, Europe and other parts of the world very visible and subject to media coverage...violence in Africa remarkably under reported.  Its sad.

Absolutely.  I was alerted to the article by a friend and didn't notice the date until after posting it...immediately felt bad that I didn't know about it sooner.  There were also the beach attack in Ivory Coast, and the suicide attacks in Turkey.  Perhaps a topic for a whole different thread, but it is astounding the different levels of coverage events get depending on where they happen.

[Al Dente]

Absolutely.  I was alerted to the article by a friend and didn't notice the date until after posting it...immediately felt bad that I didn't know about it sooner.  There were also the beach attack in Ivory Coast, and the suicide attacks in Turkey.  Perhaps a topic for a whole different thread, but it is astounding the different levels of coverage events get depending on where they happen.

Perhaps some of the Islamaphobia we see today would lessen if the phobics knew how much ISIS attacks other Muslims.

[DonRocks]

Of interest the attack in Nigeria occurred over a week before you reported it here.  The size and scope of Boko Harem violence against people in Nigeria and nearby nations is remarkably under reported here in the states.  We simply have no feel for the level and scope of violence in many parts of Africa by Boko Harem and other like groups.  Violence here, Europe and other parts of the world very visible and subject to media coverage...violence in Africa remarkably under reported.  Its sad.

This is a *great* example of why I started this thread - I counted on Al Jazeera America (and will now count on Al Jazeera England) for some of my Boko Harem (which damnably reminds me of Procol Harum) coverage.

I'm not convinced by the title of this thread.

I'm not sure what you mean by this sentence, but we've definitely had some "thread drift" here, and I may need to redo the title at some point. Note the first post, which was taken in tandem with politicians (Hillary Clinton would be an example) saying that Muslim-Americans need to be our first-line of defense - now, it's just kind of a general "post about the 'Attaque du Jour'" thread, not unlike what the 2nd Amendment thread has morphed into.

It's kind of a Catch-22 for me because I've had members get hacked off when I "atomize" threads, but when I don't, they absolutely tend to drift. Anyway, I can always change titles - that's *easy*. Splitting threads requires more thoughtful work, but that's fairly easy also.

[DonRocks]

Perhaps some of the Islamaphobia we see today would lessen if the phobics knew how much ISIS attacks other Muslims. 

"ISIS Claims Suicide Bombing on Stadium in Iraq that Killed 29" by Qassim Abdul-Zahra on abenews.go.com

[DonRocks]

"ISIS Claims Suicide Bombing on Stadium in Iraq that Killed 29" by Qassim Abdul-Zahra on abenews.go.com

"Pakistan Bombing: Taliban's Easter Bombing Targets, Kills Scores of Christians" by Sophia Salfi on cnn.com

The attack took place near a children's park, so most people killed were women and children. So far, at least 69 dead, 341 injured.

[DonRocks]

The attack in Nice has hit close to home, and people in France are *livid*.

I'm sorry to bring this up, but it's best to get it out in the open - it isn't like people aren't thinking about this all over the world:

Everyone thinks about "soft targets" such as shopping malls, sporting events, etc. What's to prevent someone with a drone from setting off an explosive device in Mecca during Ramadan? People are not going to sit by and watch this crap much longer - you can preach peace all you want, and you can say - in theory - that people don't need to self-police, but in reality, vigilante groups are going to begin forming (and don't they already haven't begun forming in France), and things could get orders of magnitude uglier than they already are when these random acts of terror start working both ways. Instead of "dozens," the papers will be reporting about "hundreds" or even "thousands." How can it *not* start working both ways if things continue? I'm sorry, but I see this as the potential beginning of World War III - NATO, or the UN, had better get moving - *somebody* had better get moving, or this is going to devolve into unsupervised warfare.

I'm a pacifist, and the *last* person you need to worry about; I wish I could say the same about others.