June 29, 2016

"If we were to start profiling people of 'Middle-Eastern' or 'brown' appearance, jihadists will simply recruit white Muslims from the Caucasus, like the Tsarnaev brothers..."

"... who struck at the Boston Marathon. In fact, al Qaeda has been trying to use our very prejudices against us for many years, which is why Osama Bin Laden recruited a 'white army of terror' from the huge number of converts that joined his cause. If it is only men we profile, jihadists will train women, such as the Chechens did with their Black Widows, or this latest Tashfeen Malik in San Bernardino. Astoundingly, male jihadists have even cross-dressed in burkas to avoid capture. If it is any adult of fighting age that we screen for, jihadists have turned to grandmother suicide bombers and even animals laden with explosives."

Wrote Maajid Nawaz, whose Wikipedia page I'm reading after seeing him on TV talking about Brexit.

98 comments:

damikesc said...

So...ban Muslims?

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

I assume that the thing about the decapitated hydra growing more heads was some kind of a metaphor (a metaphor that may be relevant to this very day) but that's about as far as I can go with it.

Curious George said...

Kill them all, let Allah sort it out.

The Cracker Unknown said...

" So...ban Muslims?"

Bing-O!

Tank said...

Sometimes the simple answers are the best. Don't allow Muslims into your first world country. They add no value, and have their obvious "issues," from the way they treat women and gays, to the love of killing us. Simple. Just don't let them in.

There are 50 or so Islamic or majority Muslim countries. If they don't like where they are, let them go live in one of the other Muslim countries. Why is it they want to live in the countries that evil whites created anyway? Why o why?

david7134 said...

It is amazing that in WWII we were able to identify and follow German and Italian individuals and stop there terrorist activities, and that was before computers. So, how difficult is it to identify Muslims and watch them with our sophisticated technology? I believe this is even supported in the Constitution more so than erasing the concept of the 4th amendment for the population as a whole. It certainly does not violate religious freedom, especially as Islam is more of a cult. Or we can use the example of interning the Japanese. That was so horrible, but it did eliminate terrorism from that element and the Japanese in Hawaii did assist downed Japanese pilots during the Pearl Harbor raid.

Terry said...

Nawaz seems to be implying that there is some connection between Islam and terrorism.

Jupiter said...

He concludes; "There is no prototype. By telling terrorists what we are looking for, they will know what to avoid. We will make their job easier."

To which I reply, "Whaddya mean 'We'? You got a Koran in your pocket?"

Achilles said...

He is right. We should just deal with anyone who believes in female genital mutilation and killing apostates regardless of their skin color 500 pounds at a time.

damikesc said...

Sometimes the simple answers are the best. Don't allow Muslims into your first world country. They add no value, and have their obvious "issues," from the way they treat women and gays, to the love of killing us. Simple. Just don't let them in.

I know it's verboten these days --- but why is it wrong to simply ask "What do you bring to the table?" Why are we the only country not allowed to ask that?

Are all Muslims bad? Nope. Not all wild animals and fruits from other places will necessarily wreak havoc on our ecosystem --- yet we still have controls because some do and, if they do, fixing the problem is a nightmare.

Jupiter said...

If I am not mistaken, the same exact logic explains why 'we' were unable to win the Second World War. The Japanese and Germans all put on burkhas, and recruited Chechens to do their fighting.

MadisonMan said...

I initially conclude that Nawaz is a bureaucrat. We can't do x because y might negate it, so why even try?.

And then I check his wiki page, and see that I'm right!

Mike Sylwester said...

Profile all brown people and also all Chechens.

Hari said...

Locking your door at night doesn't reduce crime, because criminals "simply" find doors that are unlocked.

lgv said...

He's partially correct. This is why we must still have random selections for further screening, as stupid as it seems at times. The fallacy of his position is that the profiling is only by appearance and color of skin. If this were indeed the only factor in profiling, then it would be a miserable failure. Profiling is far more than that. The whole point is to not make it obvious and of a single factor, or it would be easy to circumvent. What are the names? Where have they traveled?

Restricting immigration until we have a better process is neither racist or unreasonable.

A poll should be taken, "Do you believe in open borders?" I would guess the majority would say no. They just don't realize that that is what we have as our de facto policy.



Ann Althouse said...

At least he he ends with "and even animals laden with explosives" rather than "and robots and drones" because then we are so screwed.

Jupiter said...

"According to one of its co-founders, Maajid Nawaz, "We wish to raise awareness around Islamism";[1] he also said, "I want to demonstrate how the Islamist ideology is incompatible with Islam. Secondly … develop a Western Islam that is at home in Britain and in Europe … reverse radicalisation by taking on their arguments and countering them."[2]

Ah. So, the plan is, once we all convert to 'Western Islam', the Muslim extremists will stop trying to kill us.

Since we are "developing Islams" here, how about we develop one where the Muslims all kill themselves, instead of everyone else? Develop an Islam that is at home where it belongs - in the lower reaches of Hell.

Johnny Sokko said...

Yeah but there is a much larger pool of middle eastern/brown looking males and females upon which to employ as terrorists. A policy of prohibiting them (however constutionally dubious) would probably dramatically reduce that problem.

Gusty Winds said...

animals laden with explosives.

And then we could have nude PETA women showering on street corners in protest of animal cruelty and terrorism.

TreeJoe said...

So let me get this straight: ISIS/Al Qaeda/Terrorists have an unlimited supply of people who speak fluent english, are caucasian, and are ready to die for their cause and thus it won't actually make it harder for them?

Wow, then I guess our war against them has been a miserable failure.

His argument is so abjectly wrong, on so many levels. Your enemy will ALWAYS work around your security measures, but you put your security measures in place to make it progressively harder for your enemy to attack you - thereby limiting the number and severity of attacks.

Terry said...

I think that if we announced we were forming a special corp of witches to cast spells that would shrivel the penises of male terrorist sympathizers that would work. Worth a try, anyhow.

William said...

I read most of the Wiki bio. If it's true that only a small fraction of Muslims actually become terrorists, it is also true that an even smaller fraction of Muslims have a bio anything like that of Nawaz. He seems sui generis. I don't think there's much chance of him leading a mass movement of British Muslims.........I can't tell on sight the difference between an Ethiopian and a Somalian immigrant. I do know this, however. If an Ethiopian immigrants wigs out, he will kill his wife and children. If a Somalian immigrant goes crazy, he will shoot up the local airport. Isn't this an argument for favoring Ethiopian over Somalian immigrants?

Quaestor said...

Israel uses "profiling" quite successfully. Whether they look for "brown" or "Middle Eastern" types is both unknown to me and irrelevant.

No matter what strategy or weapon we employ against those "holy warriors" Maajid Nawaz or someone like him will pop off to an agent of our supine media to explain how futile it all is. This is called propaganda.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Muslims will attack us with something, might as well let them have nukes.

-Ben Rhodes

mtrobertslaw said...

Re: david7134's question

The mafia was much stronger during WW II than it is today.

David Begley said...

How about this? Twenty year immigration freeze.

Gabriel said...

Worthwhile remembering that Islam is not a race.

Whether they look for "brown" or "Middle Eastern" types is both unknown to me and irrelevant.

Israel contains large percentages of both; "white" Israel is a smear used by leftists.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Speaking of robots and drones, there's a retail hobby shop nearby that sells drones and remote control racing cars and stuff like that. I see fully grown men go in and out of it. Never a kid.

There's a sign in the window: Ask us about financing!

And I'm, like, your kid better be dying of some horrible disease, and his or her dying wish had better be an expensive toy, or else you are totally fucked up in the head if you borrow money for a fucking toy.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Unless you're a terrorist, of course, in which case, go for it!

The Drill SGT said...

lgv said...
He's partially correct. This is why we must still have random selections for further screening, as stupid as it seems at times. The fallacy of his position is that the profiling is only by appearance and color of skin. If this were indeed the only factor in profiling, then it would be a miserable failure. Profiling is far more than that. The whole point is to not make it obvious and of a single factor, or it would be easy to circumvent. What are the names? Where have they traveled?


Profiling is the evil PC name for allocating scarce resource (e.g. screening minutes or FBI agent hours). Any profiling scheme increases the resources against likely persons and de-allocates, but does not zero out resources against 80 y/o Irish women in Nun outfits.

On the other side of the ball, profiling forces ISIS and AQ out of their sweet spot. Instead of recruiting 20 something male Arab Muslims, they need to recruit Westerners, women, and old men, the better to slip through. The problem is that recruiting these new Demos is harder, e.g. more expensive and opens up AQ and ISIS to counter intelligence efforts from our side.

This all is to our advantage. Some number of those Muslim convert Swedish blondes will decide not to become suicide bombers after all and instead become double agents...

Brando said...

"Israel uses "profiling" quite successfully. Whether they look for "brown" or "Middle Eastern" types is both unknown to me and irrelevant."

It's a little different for them as their enemies tend to be all Arab. I'm not aware of a significant number of non-Arab PLO militants setting off suicide bombs in Israel.

"I know it's verboten these days --- but why is it wrong to simply ask "What do you bring to the table?" Why are we the only country not allowed to ask that?"

Of course we should ask that (and to some extent we do--which is why it's easier to get in if you have a job lined up, though it should be more weighted towards skills and net worth than it is). The issue is our vetting process to screen out potential terrorists (as well as catching those among the native born).

At least where I live the typical Muslim is likely to be a store owner, engineer or doctor. I'd rather have more of those in this country than some of our native born troublemakers who decide to loot and destroy every time they perceive some injustice. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful about who gets in, but any blanket ban on Muslims (even if such a thing were feasible) would be a net loss for this country, unless you think those BLM activists and OWSers are ready to fill slots in our medical schools.

Sebastian said...

"you put your security measures in place to make it progressively harder for your enemy to attack you" Right. We could at least try. Not saying we haven't done anything, just implying they're baby steps.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Trump never learned the first rule of profiling: you do not talk about profiling.

West Texas Intermediate Crude said...

The more they try to look like us, the easier it will be for us to infiltrate them. We can spread discord, make them mistrust each other, destroy them from within.
The more they try to look like us, the easier it will be for us to infiltrate them. We can spread discord, make them mistrust each other, destroy them from within.
"That 'Caucasian' over there that you recruited, I think he's CIA. Can you prove me wrong?"

CWJ said...

MadisonMan & lgv pretty much covered what I was iching to say.

This is why my commenting is way down from earlier years. I've found that if I let a thread cook awhile, at least some other person will make my point, and often better than I might do.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

So unless a method is perfect and can't be countered the method shouldn't be used?
What do you want to bet the author supports all sorts of "gun control" measures that not only won't work but also are easily circumvented?

Look, no one says "profiling for X" is perfect. It's a ridiculous strawman that for some reason people keep giving credence to. But if you want to distill it down and look at what features or characteristics the terrorists in question all DID have...it'd be their faith/particular brand of militant faith coupled with inspiration of a particular sort, right? So why wouldn't "profile for devout believers in X" work, even under this guy's framework? Oh, it's ugly, no doubt, to say "give people who profess Muslim beliefs much more scrutiny"...but it'd work. No security measure is 100% effective at preventing attacks, but if you can cause your enemy problems/raise their cost of doing business in a cost-effective way (for you) it's still beneficial and an efficient use of resources. There are fewer people in the "white army of terror" than there are in the total population of possible terrorists, so just forcing OBL to use those people raises his costs. There are fewer women from whom to recruit, so forcing the terrorists to use women makes their task more difficult.

Of course the targets will try to hide/try to mask whatever characteristics for which you profile. That does not at all say that "profiling is a waste of time" nor "profiling doesn't work," which is the argument that's being made here (implicitly, for sure, just from the excerpt). It's a logical error, and it's disheartening how often it's made.

Darrell said...

How about injecting them with a remote controlled explosive device in their brain as sort of a probation strategy. I can't see anyone objecting to THAT.

Quaestor said...

"I want to demonstrate how the Islamist ideology is incompatible with Islam."

Do you mean something like Sufism, Maajid, the sect that claimed Amjad Sabri as a member, the guy murdered by a Muslim in Karachi for blasphemy?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

The argument for a pause on immigration from these areas is:

The actual # of people who want to do us harm as a % of the people coming in is quite small, but it's very difficult (or impossible) for us to determine exactly which ones they are. As a result the bad guys can effectively "swim" in an ocean of good guys...they are able to blend in so we don't find out they're really sharks until it's too late. By shrinking the overall pool we reduce the problem--it's easier to take a good look at each individual if you're only letting a few in and it's simultaneously harder for the bad guys to blend in.

The cost of that approach is the foregone opportunity for the "good guys" to come to America. That's a real cost and it should be considered...BUT the cost of not taking that approach is risk/possible harm to current Americans. The cost of the temp. ban is borne by the potential immigrants (not Americans) while the cost of not having a temp. ban is borne by current Americans. A policy that puts American interests first...that puts American interests before the interests of non-Americans...well, anyway, I don't think it's racists/xenophobic/whatever for the official policy of my nation to give preference to the citizens of my nation, but I understand the Left (and people like the current President of my nation) disagrees.

Jupiter said...

Johnny Sokko said...
"A policy of prohibiting them (however constutionally dubious) would probably dramatically reduce that problem."

Where does the Constitution say anything about who can enter the country?

Yancey Ward said...

The logical conclusion of his argument is that screenings shouldn't be random, but comprehensive- pat down and check everyone. If one isn't going to do that, then profiling must be done.

Michael K said...

"profiling forces ISIS and AQ out of their sweet spot. Instead of recruiting 20 something male Arab Muslims, they need to recruit Westerners, women, and old men, the better to slip through. The problem is that recruiting these new Demos is harder, e.g. more expensive and opens up AQ and ISIS to counter intelligence efforts from our side. "

Yes and that should be the guiding principal.

"Where does the Constitution say anything about who can enter the country?"

Under Article I, Section I, Legislative Powers.

MisterBuddwing said...

So...ban Muslims?

What a wonderful idea. I wonder what a predominantly Muslim country like Turkey is supposed to do.

Darrell said...

I wonder what a predominantly Muslim country like Turkey is supposed to do.

They can start following modern Western security procedures in airports and cooperate with International databases/agencies. Same with Athens.

Real American said...

We can probably rule out little Jewish grannies and Japanese women but my experience is that's who keeps getting randomly selected at airports for additional screening.

Anglelyne said...

damikesc: I know it's verboten these days --- but why is it wrong to simply ask "What do you bring to the table?" Why are we the only country not allowed to ask that?

We're far from the only country.

Real American said...

But everyone needs to remove their shoes because one jihadist that one time had a shoe bomb that didn't work. Let's face it. Our government is incapable of protecting us because it is filled with people who are fucking stupid.

Real American said...

If it could save just one life, it is worth it to try!

exhelodrvr1 said...

Brando,
" That doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful about who gets in, but any blanket ban on Muslims (even if such a thing were feasible) would be a net loss for this country, unless you think those BLM activists and OWSers are ready to fill slots in our medical schools"

Maybe the "moderate Muslims" (who, btw, don't exist according to Erdogan) could assist with providing the specific items to profile for.

Rick said...

MisterBuddwing said...
What a wonderful idea. I wonder what a predominantly Muslim country like Turkey is supposed to do.


We can't address our problems because they won't work for other countries? Turkey can do whatever it decides is appropriate, just like us.

Brando said...

"Maybe the "moderate Muslims" (who, btw, don't exist according to Erdogan) could assist with providing the specific items to profile for."

You think the FBI and DHS don't use Muslims to help with this?

Brando said...

"But everyone needs to remove their shoes because one jihadist that one time had a shoe bomb that didn't work. Let's face it. Our government is incapable of protecting us because it is filled with people who are fucking stupid. "

It'd be nice to see at least one presidential candidate promise to get rid of that stupid rule. Frankly, seeing dumb stuff like that makes me feel less secure, as it suggests our resources are focused on exactly the wrong things.

Char Char Binks said...

The Tsarnaev's aren't white. Scientists specifically came up with the term "Caucasoid" (not specifically Caucasian from the Caucasus) because it broadly encompasses peoples from Iceland to India, of various hues. Russians call Caucasians "black" because of their relative swarthiness. Here's a good analogy: A square is a rhombus, but we can't necessarily say that a rhombus is a square.

Lefties and Muzzies LOVE LOVE LOVE to call the Tsarnaev's white so they can add more whites to the list of terrorists and smear all whites by implication.

MisterBuddwing said...

The Tsarnaev's aren't white.

Well, they could have fooled me. More importantly - they could have fooled everybody else.

mikee said...

So blocking immigrants of known religion, or regional origin, or some ethnicity, might work?

Or perhaps make an attack on the US so deadly in their homelands, from Saudi Arabia through Indonesia, that their own relatives would kill them for dishonoring their families by considering jihad? What? Too bloody? Just brainstorming here, like the jihadi quoted in the link.

Brando said...

"Well, they could have fooled me. More importantly - they could have fooled everybody else."

Me too. Any visual profiling that would have picked them up would pick up most Italian, Greek, and Jewish Americans, and the Jonas Brothers.

JAORE said...

" The fallacy of his position is that the profiling is only by appearance and color of skin. If this were indeed the only factor in profiling, then it would be a miserable failure. Profiling is far more than that."

Spot on lgv

Of course the left has made profiling an ugly (purely) racist concept because.... well because they focus on skin color first, second and third.

LEO's profile all the time, e.g. for intercepting drug shipments. That can include factors such as highway routes, times of day, type/age/condition of cars, state indicated by plate, etc.

The very best of these guys let a LOT of vehicles flow by then pull one over and .... bingo. Pretty remarkable batting averages.

Brando said...

"So blocking immigrants of known religion, or regional origin, or some ethnicity, might work?"

How about applying a thorough vetting process for anyone coming in? After all, it's not as though a terrorist couldn't simply route here via a "non-suspect" country like England or Canada. And I'm sure any terrorist would leave "Muslim" off his entry papers if he knows we're profiling for that. Sure, more resources and scrutiny are necessary for say someone coming from Cairo, but relying too much on that just leaves a blind spot.

And if we're really going to decimate these terror groups, we need a better intelligence network that can infiltrate these groups and capture or assassinate their operatives quickly and efficiently. Random drone strikes can work sometimes, but there's nothing quite like knowing the people in your group can't be trusted not to take a hatchet to your skull when you're not looking to break apart a terror cell.

damikesc said...

And if we're really going to decimate these terror groups, we need a better intelligence network that can infiltrate these groups and capture or assassinate their operatives quickly and efficiently. Random drone strikes can work sometimes, but there's nothing quite like knowing the people in your group can't be trusted not to take a hatchet to your skull when you're not looking to break apart a terror cell.

Notice all of the bitching about Gitmo?

That's why we cannot do that.

I'm impressed at how much Obama hasn't given the tiniest sliver of a shit about intel. He just kills the terrorists and doesn't ever try to learn a damned thing.

It'd be nice to see at least one presidential candidate promise to get rid of that stupid rule. Frankly, seeing dumb stuff like that makes me feel less secure, as it suggests our resources are focused on exactly the wrong things.

I wish they'd call it what it is: Security Theater.

It won't make you safer. It only LOOKS like it will make you safer.

We're far from the only country.

I'd buy that...but Progressive mecca Canada does that and nobody seems to care. Now, the leadership in Europe wants to kill Europe, so they're different. But why are we held to a different standard than Canada in terms of immigration?

Char Char Binks said...

@mikee and Brando

That's why we have words like "Caucasoid", "European", and "Mediterranean"... and "white".

Michael K said...

"You think the FBI and DHS don't use Muslims to help with this?"

Yes, CAIR has been a big help in purging the files of any reference to "Muslim" or "Terrorist."

Anybody who thinks our government is competent, try to enroll in "Global Entry" the system for clearing people for accelerated passage through airports for international travel. I decided to sign up since it is only $15 more than TSA Precheck.

I signed up and began to register. At one point you have to enter your birthdate, the dates on your passport and the passport number.

The instructions include a little format outline like "yyyymmdd" but the web site also says, "Enter dates exactly as listed on passport."

The passport says "10 Jun 2016," for example. The web site will not accept either format. I tried "20160610" and "10 Jun 2016" and both were rejected. I finally gave up.

I wonder if the Obamacare programmers worked on the site.

Balfegor said...

The assertion, I suppose, is that it is equally easy for them to recruit agents of any colouration, so that if agents of one phenotype are disfavoured than they can be completely and effectively replaced by agents of a different phenotype. To support that assumption, though, one must have assumed that more than a trivial percentage of each population is susceptible to recruitment for terror. And there is a cost to the process of locating those candidates -- if you make overtures to the wrong person, he might report you to the authorities for trying to recruit him to the terrorist cause.

Thus, if, after all, only 0.01% of each population is willing to commit horrific atrocities, and 90% of each population would report you for attempted recruitment, you might find yourself chasing (out of about 2 million Chechens or 7 million Bosnians) a mere 200 Chechen candidates, or 700 Bosnian candidates -- and this assumes that old people, women, and children are just as useful as young males, who in fact seem to make up the vast majority of terrorists (though of course there are exceptions). So really, you might be fishing for about 60 Chechens, and about 200 Bosnians. Meanwhile, as a terrorist recruiter, if you are targeting Arabs, you have a potential recruit pool in the tens of thousands.

Now, I've probably vastly underestimated Muslim susceptibility to terrorist recruitment. I wouldn't be surprised if the actual numbers are an order of magnitude higher, and more for Chechens, who seem to produce far more than their fair share of depraved mass murderers -- seriously, there aren't that many Chechens in the world so they are massively overrepresented among terrorists.

But I don't think Muslims are so commonly disposed not merely to support, but actually to engage in terrorism, that existing terrorist organisations could painlessly and without significant effort switch out their agents for ethnically White agents. After all, if they could do that so easily, they probably would, for more or less the same reasons that if we wanted to spy on China, we would probably try to recruit agents who look Chinese.

Which is all a way of saying that Mr. Nawaz's argument has a sort of superficial plausibility to it, but I think it breaks down when you think about it seriously.

Anglelyne said...

Brando: At least where I live the typical Muslim is likely to be a store owner, engineer or doctor.

In my neck of the woods we have cream of the crop Muslims. Skilled professionals, some brilliant guys, nice people. OK, some of them think criticizing Islam or Muslims should be illegal, but...hey, don't those OWS slobbos suck?

I'd rather have more of those in this country than some of our native born troublemakers who decide to loot and destroy every time they perceive some injustice.

Importing lots of Muslims is obviously a great way to thin out the ranks of the touchy "perceived injustice" types in the country.

You know, you could find 300 million non-Americans in the world who are "better", by any metric (brains, good character, skills, whatever) than most of the 300+ million already here. Hell, China and India alone could probably provide the needed numbers of "quality" citizens. Plus, they'd all be immigrants, and we all know that someone who immigrates to a new country is ipso facto superior to anybody who's living where he was born. So it would undoubtedly be a net gain to the nation if we cleared out all the deadwood and replaced the current group of employees...er, citizens of America, Inc. with better staff. And it will still be America, because Proposition Nation.

A country isn't a corporation.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful about who gets in, but any blanket ban on Muslims (even if such a thing were feasible) would be a net loss for this country...

No, it wouldn't be. (The idea that the country would go to hell without immigrants from this or that group, or without any particular talented individual immigrant, is nonsense.) Any gain from talented individuals has to be weighed against the consequences of allowing sizable Muslim immigration into a Western country. There's plenty of empirical evidence on how that works out. (And no, America doesn't have magical assimilating powers that will save it from the troubles that all other Western countries have when they have a large Muslim population.)

Brando said...

"Notice all of the bitching about Gitmo?

That's why we cannot do that."

Who said anything about publicizing it? I think it'd be great if the president sent flowers to the family of the deceased terrorist, postmarked a day before their elimination. Sort of a "sorry this random hatcheting is about to take place which I know nothing about."

"It won't make you safer. It only LOOKS like it will make you safer."

Yeah--except I feel it has the opposite effect. I'm thinking "with all this attention on shoes, is anyone really checking the baggage loading area?"

Fernandinande said...

In fact, al Qaeda has been trying to use our very prejudices against us

Not really.

"Prejudice" mean an unreasonable pre-judgment, and there's nothing unreasonable or "pre" about the reality. "Postjudice", perhaps.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Brando said...Me too. Any visual profiling that would have picked them up would pick up most Italian, Greek, and Jewish Americans, and the Jonas Brothers.

If we visually saw him going to his mosque, though, and that mosque has ties to lots of radicals("Terror suspects, fugitives and radical speakers have passed through the Cambridge mosque that the Tsarnaev brothers are known to have visited.") maybe that's worth adding to the ol' profile, right?

No, you're right, nothing to see here, religion of peace...Republican Hate Kills.

What utter bullshit.

Brando said...

Angelyne--we have a different outlook on immigration in general, and Muslim immigration in particular. If you don't see the difference between the assimilation of American Muslims vs. European Muslims, or the value that many immigrant groups bring to this country in general, we're simply not going to see eye to eye.

Brando said...

"If we visually saw him going to his mosque, though, and that mosque has ties to lots of radicals("Terror suspects, fugitives and radical speakers have passed through the Cambridge mosque that the Tsarnaev brothers are known to have visited.") maybe that's worth adding to the ol' profile, right?"

You know full well I was referring to visual profiling of race, not activity. Let's not be flip here.

Of COURSE we should be paying attention to someone attending mosques with known radical ties. Is anyone suggesting otherwise? Or are you having too much fun tearing down that straw man?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Brando said.... If you don't see the difference between the assimilation of American Muslims vs. European Muslims, or the value that many immigrant groups bring to this country in general, we're simply not going to see eye to eye.

If you don't see the difference between historical assimilation in America & the lack of assimilation the Left has successfully pushed on all sorts of immigrant groups nor the difference between the reality of a group that's a small % of the total population assimilating vs. a group that's a much larger & more concentrated % of the total pop. nor the fact that it has historically been quite natural to prefer the interests of existing citizens over the interests of potential immigrants...yeah, eye to eye might be a problem.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

On a related note I find it difficult to see eye to eye with women who wear niquabs/other head coverings that veil the eyes (you run into such women quite a lot in Perimeter Mall outside Atlanta near where I work)...but it's all just a part of the melting pot, yeah buddy.

exhelodrvr1 said...

"At least where I live the typical Muslim is likely to be a store owner, engineer or doctor"

That's considerably prejudiced of you. There is no such thing as "typical" Muslims.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Brando said...Of COURSE we should be paying attention to someone attending mosques with known radical ties. Is anyone suggesting otherwise? Or are you having too much fun tearing down that straw man?

But that's profiling! Paying attention to people who go to mosques, or even just certain mosques, is 100% profiling, man. It's not profiling by race/the way someone looks, but it's definitely profiling. If you're fine with profiling but arguing about the specific things that should be included in a profile, fine...but that's a different argument than one that says "profiling is wrong and useless anyway" which is what the excerpt that started this post pretty much says.

Also, on a related note, it has been credibly alleged that the Obama admin. pushed to reduce and/or stop surveillance of mosques in the U.S....since doing so was unfair to innocent Muslim attendees and is, you know, profiling. This isn't some academic hypothetical.

Char Char Binks said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...
"... I find it difficult to see eye to eye with women who wear niquabs/other head coverings that veil the eyes..."

I usually try to unveil them with my eyes.

exhelodrvr1 said...

"You think the FBI and DHS don't use Muslims to help with this?"

If the percentage of Muslims opposed to terrorism was as large as the left claims it is, and the percentage of Muslims who participate/are willing to participate (including providing logistical support) in terrorism as small as the left claims, then this wouldn't be the problem it is.

Luke Lea said...

Quote from Wikipedia: This led Nawaz to leave Hizb-ut-Tahrir in 2007, renounce his Islamist past and call for a "Secular Islam".

Isn't the problem that we need a non-secular Islam. That is, one that makes no claims on the political make up of this world. With Christianity it was render unto Caesar, while the Jews gave up on any such claims once they went into exile -- though it is a different story among orthodox Jews in Israel today. This last point points up something often overlooked, namely, that Muhammad seems to have modeled himself on the figure of Moses (the earliest Muslims apparently prayed towards Jerusalem, not Mecca), the difference being that with Islam the whole world is the promised land, and we are the Canaanites.

Fernandinande said...

Anglelyne said...
(And no, America doesn't have magical assimilating powers that will save it from the troubles that all other Western countries have when they have a large Muslim population.)


FWIW:
“There is more radical Islamization in Europe than in the United States”
Pinker: "Partially, that’s why I believe there is so much less radical Islamization in the United States – it’s easier to become an American than it is to become a Spaniard, a Frenchman or a German."

I think it's two other reasons: the sources (countries) of the invaders and their population density in the invaded countries.

Brando said...

"But that's profiling! Paying attention to people who go to mosques, or even just certain mosques, is 100% profiling, man. It's not profiling by race/the way someone looks, but it's definitely profiling. If you're fine with profiling but arguing about the specific things that should be included in a profile, fine...but that's a different argument than one that says "profiling is wrong and useless anyway" which is what the excerpt that started this post pretty much says."

I'm not against profiling. My point is was simply that those Chechens would easily pass for "white" (to the extent that we define "white" to include people from the Caucusus and Mediterranean regions) and we should not let our profiling create blind spots. But profiling in general is an efficient way to focus our law enforcement and intelligence resources, which is why we should be embedding agents in Middle Eastern countries more than we do in say Argentina.

"That's considerably prejudiced of you. There is no such thing as "typical" Muslims."

There are "typical" members of every group.

"If you don't see the difference between historical assimilation in America & the lack of assimilation the Left has successfully pushed..."

Much as I detest the lack of assimilation the Left has pushed, you give them far too much credit. But as I said, we're viewing immigrants differently, and aren't likely to bridge that gap here.

Balfegor said...

Re: Brando:

Of COURSE we should be paying attention to someone attending mosques with known radical ties. Is anyone suggesting otherwise? Or are you having too much fun tearing down that straw man?

It's less of a straw man than your tone would suggest. Sure one could quibble that the allegation in these cases is that the surveillance undertaken was excessively broad, and went beyond just previously known radical mosques or organisations. But yes, people are trying to shut down surveillance of mosques in a way that would prevent surveillance of people attending mosques with radical ties. "Radical ties" aren't "evidence of wrongdoing," after all, either on the part of the mosque or on the part of the people who worship at the mosque.

n.n said...

Principles are first-order predictors of behavior. Even pro-choice or liberal extremists have their limits, typically corresponding to generational boundaries.

The Drill SGT:

This all is to our advantage. Some number of those Muslim convert Swedish blondes will decide not to become suicide bombers after all and instead become double agents...

The advantages and disadvantages of [class] diversity.

Anglelyne said...

Brando: Angelyne--we have a different outlook on immigration in general, and Muslim immigration in particular.

Indeed.

If you don't see the difference between the assimilation of American Muslims vs. European Muslims,...

Yes, differences exist, as differences exist among different groups of Muslim immigrants within the U.S. What those differences portend for assimilation over the long term or with high volumes of immigration is an open question.

I trust your knowledge about these real differences in assimilation is based on facts, and not just the usual vague gesturing toward "proposition nation vs. ethnostate", "we get a better class of Muslims", personal anecdote, or Emma Lazarus poems.

...or the value that many immigrant groups bring to this country in general, we're simply not going to see eye to eye.

It doesn't follow from anything I said that I think "immigrant groups have not brought anything of value to this county". Compare:

"America would still be America and a great nation if Group X or Individual Y had never emigrated here after its founding."

"Immigrant groups haven't contributed anything to America."

That you can't understand the obvious difference between those two statements is a pretty good indication that you're stuck in knee-jerk "immigration sentimentalist" mode.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Balefagor said..But yes, people are trying to shut down surveillance of mosques in a way that would prevent surveillance of people attending mosques with radical ties. "Radical ties" aren't "evidence of wrongdoing," after all, either on the part of the mosque or on the part of the people who worship at the mosque.

Ding ding ding! Thanks for the links.

Michael K said...

the typical Muslim is likely to be a store owner, engineer or doctor.

I'm a little surprised that you don't understand how so many terrorists are well educated, middle or upper class types.

George Habash, the founder of PFLP, a PLO precursor, was a doctor. So is Zawahiri, the current head of al Qeada.

British Muslim doctors have threatened US terrorist attacks, after one of them tried to bomb the Glasgow airport.

A group of 45 Muslim doctors threatened to use car bombs and rocket grenades in terrorist attacks in the United States during discussions on an extremist internet chat site.

Many terrorists are engineers, including Mohammed Atta on 9/11.

I think there is more incentive for these educated people to harbor resentment for the backward state of Muslim nations and society.

They seem never to make the connection with Islam itself.

Mark Caplan said...

White Muslims. Brown Muslims. Grandmother Muslims. Burqa'd Muslims. Middle-Eastern Muslims. Caucasus Muslims. Child Muslims. Female Muslims. College-educated Muslims. Peasant Muslims. Cross-dressed Muslims. Sadly, there is no common denominator to help us win the War on Terror.

Dr Weevil said...

It should be easy enough to tell which immigrants are Muslims. Just offer every arrival a platter of tasty food and drink. On one side: a tiny ham sandwich, a bacon canape, and a piece of grilled pork sausage. On the other side: a little cup of white wine, another of red wine, and a slightly larger cup of beer. All carefully labeled of course, to avoid misunderstanding. Anyone who refuses all six gets a really severe interrogation. Mormons and Baptists will all pick from the pork side, Jews from the alcohol side (we'll make sure the wine is kosher), and everyone else who's not a Muslim will gladly pick one or more from each. Problem solved - if the problem is detecting Muslims, not whether to ban them or not, which is whole 'nother thing.

jr565 said...

so what he's saying is that Islam is not a race? THen you can't be racist when you oppose radical islam. so, anyone calling people racist need to get their terminology right.

buck smith said...

This idea is crazy I know. What if we started profiling people who had an affinity for ideas like killing gays cause Allah commands it, and killing infidels cause allah commands it, and trading slaves cause allah permits it.

narciso said...

technically it's ethnosectarian but that's a mouthful,

J. Farmer said...

The problem with profiling by ideology is that unless a person has a long paper trail of stated opinions, it's hard to know exactly what someone believes. Ban on nationalities is more practical, but my preferred policy is simpler still: stop all immigration. But that raises another problem. Are we also planning to stop issuing travel visas? You don't have to come to the country with plans to emigrate in order to carry out an atrocit.

Hyphenated American said...

Chechens look middle eastern. It's not difficult to profile them.
The guy is lying. Reality is right-wing.

Paul said...

Nawaz is an idiot.

Michael K said...

"Are we also planning to stop issuing travel visas? You don't have to come to the country with plans to emigrate in order to carry out an atrocit."

We could start tracking travel visas which we do a rotten job of now. The kid who tried to assassinate Trump was a visa jumper. So was Mohammed Atta and the father of Mateen

Michael said...

So, if I understand his statement they, the Jihadists, are not currently recruiting whites but are waiting to do so if we profile darker Jihadists.

Oso Negro said...

On the other hand, if we burn Mecca, Medina, and Qom, ban the religion, and kill or convert its remaining adherents we may have a chance.

Jupiter said...


Blogger Brando said...

"And if we're really going to decimate these terror groups, we need a better intelligence network that can infiltrate these groups and capture or assassinate their operatives quickly and efficiently."

Have you seen the picture of that HellSow who killed all those people in -- where was it? The massacres carried out by these people who have nothing in common are starting to blend in my mind -- oh yeah! It was Berdoo, as the bikers say. She didn't need to be infiltrated, she needed to be exfiltrated. Preferably with extreme prejudice.

Jupiter said...

Brando, if there was a country ruled by the Mafia, and they had an airport, and at their airport, there was a long, long, long line of people, every one of them saying, "Hi, I belong to the Mafia, and I love the Mafia, and I believe that anyone who doesn't love the Mafia is an offense to God and deserves to die, and I believe that any nation which does not submit to rule by the Mafia is an offense to God, and ..."

how do you think we should go about deciding which ones we should import to our country and support with our tax dollars while they try to figure out how best to contribute to our country? Can you offer a rule of thumb? Maybe we should just ask some of them, right? I'm sure they'd be happy to help.

narciso said...

if we didn't have islamist networks like the tabligh, hamas fronts like hamas, all running interference, we might have a sporting chance,

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-fbi-letter-law-enforcement-20160629-story.html

mockturtle said...

Every mosque in the US should be infiltrated and monitored.

Clyde said...

We are already at enough risk from Muslims who live in the U.S. and are American citizens who cannot be booted out; we shouldn't be bringing more of them here, since their cultural beliefs and customs are antithetical to ours. Both of the recent terrorists in San Bernardino and Orlando were born in the U.S., although they were really aliens living in our midst. The problem is not just Muslims coming from foreign countries to commit jihad, but their progeny getting radicalized and committing jihad. Trump is on the right track with the idea of a temporary ban on immigration from Muslim countries, but doesn't go far enough. It shouldn't be temporary, it should be permanent. There are plenty of Islamic countries for them to choose from. They don't belong here.