How Do We Stop The Recruitment Of Terrorists?

[Port & Starboard]

The cat is out of the bag now.

We will never stop terrorism because it keeps morphing.

 

[Deuce]

You were the one saying that the Old Testament was incompatible, not me.

Using your standard, I said that.

You said Islam cannot coexist with the west. Why? Is it because of the words in the book?

 

[Deuce]

The cat is out of the bag now.

We will never stop terrorism because it keeps morphing.

That's because terrorism is a tactic, not a group or a nation or even a belief system. The cat was never in the bag.

 

[phattonez]

Using your standard, I said that.

You said Islam cannot coexist with the west. Why? Is it because of the words in the book?

It's because they don't want to live peacefully with us. They won't assimilate. A significant proportion of them want to kill us, and an even more significant proportion are sympathetic with that. A large proportion of them want an entirely different law system than the one that we have.

 

[Deuce]

It's because they don't want to live peacefully with us. They won't assimilate. A significant proportion of them want to kill us, and an even more significant proportion are sympathetic with that. A large proportion of them want an entirely different law system than the one that we have.

Are you talking about Islam or about Muslims?

 

[phattonez]

Are you talking about Islam or about Muslims?

Muslims. I'm talking about the adherents of Islam. There is no such thing as "moderate" Islam. All of it is radical and violent.

 

[KevinKohler]

OBL wasnt poor

And he never signed up to be a suicide bomber.

 

[matchlight]

Violation of the 4th Amendment.

Can you cite any decision in which the Supreme Court of the U.S. has ever even implied that it violates the Fourth Amendment for government agents to conduct surveillance of a church when they have probable cause to believe criminal activity is taking place there? I am sure the FBI and other federal agencies have been conducting surveillance of certain mosques for years now, and I hope they continue to do that just as aggressively as the Fourth Amendment allows. There is no more a constitutional right to use a mosque to abet or recruit jihadist murderers, raise funds for their plots, conceal them from police, furnish them bomb materials or RPG's, and so on, than there is to use First Presbyterian to distribute heroin, solicit murder, or make child pornography.

Before you accuse people of hating the Constitution because they do not want to see the fact a structure is a mosque used as a guise to frustrate the enforcement of federal laws against terrorism and sedition, you might want to familiarize yourself with those laws. Most can be found in Chapter 113B of Title 18 of the United States Code, which includes sections 2331 through 2339D. See in particular section 2339 and its subsections. See also Chapter 115, and in particular sections 2384, "Seditious conspiracy," and 2385, "Advocating overthrow of Government." Here is a link:

OLRC Home

The crime of seditious conspiracy is quite similar to treason, but it has the advantage of being much easier to prove. Federal prosecutors used the seditious conspiracy statute effectively against several Islamic jihadists who were involved in the 1993 plots against the World Trade Center and other important structures in greater New York. For his role in these terrorist plots, one of these curs, Omar Abdel "The Blind Sheikh" Rahman, was sentenced to the Supermax for the rest of his sorry life, which recently ended.

Keep up the surveillance of any suspicious mosques, and if anyone in any of them is violating federal terrorism laws, arrest him and prosecute him.

 

[matchlight]

Muslims. I'm talking about the adherents of Islam. There is no such thing as "moderate" Islam. All of it is radical and violent.

I think the weight of the evidence supports that conclusion. And it means that if the vast majority of people who call themselves Muslims are peace-loving, it is simply because they are not very devout. Anyone who doubts that only has to read through "Reliance of the Traveller," the massive 14th-century text which is the authoritative statement of shari'ah, the comprehensive set of rules for living that true Muslims are to follow. It has a clear supremacist and intolerant tone and calls for all sorts of violence and punishments. Jews, adulterers, apostates, Christians, homosexuals, fornicators, and many other sorts of persons do not fare well under shari'ah, and women are to be treated as second-class citizens at best.

 

[alanford]

we are victims of terrorism and we would like to prevent it, but not those who can do it: politicians and spies. they profit and they manufacture terrorism and war.
if you want to stop the war and terrorism, you must stop those who profit from that.
isis used facebook and twitter, the cia tools, to recruit muslims to fight against assad. if al qaeda used facebook, they would be arrested immadiately. al qaeda didn't fight against assad.

 

[Cigar]

This is the question I propose. So much focus is always on how we destroy the terrorists/organizations that already exist. So little focus is on how we prevent future recruitment.

Certainly 16 year old Wars in countries these Home Grown Terrorist have never even seen hasn't worked. :2razz:

 

[SMTA]

Muslims. I'm talking about the adherents of Islam. There is no such thing as "moderate" Islam. All of it is radical and violent.

What a profoundly stupid post of lies and ignorance.

 

[Geoist]

That's unfortunate, yes. But, ask yourself this: how many of our casualties are you willing to absorb?

If we continue on the path we are going we will continue to have to absorb casualties. I am not saying we outright stop tracking down terrorists. But these endless wars and setting up bases in every country creates blowback that innocent people end up paying for.

 

[Geoist]

Kick out the refugees, residents, etc. We're not going to be kicking out citizens,

And yet, it is often citizens who end up doing the killing. In fact, no refugee since the Refugee Act (1980) has committed a fatal terrorist attack. Why are we looking to set up a blowback scenario on something that isn't a problem?

but it's become totally clear that Islam cannot coexist with the West.

Here we go again conflating an entire faith with a small radical segment. Of course, radical terrorists cannot coexist with the West. 98% of Muslims here do just fine.

 

[phattonez]

I think the weight of the evidence supports that conclusion. And it means that if the vast majority of people who call themselves Muslims are peace-loving, it is simply because they are not very devout. Anyone who doubts that only has to read through "Reliance of the Traveller," the massive 14th-century text which is the authoritative statement of shari'ah, the comprehensive set of rules for living that true Muslims are to follow. It has a clear supremacist and intolerant tone and calls for all sorts of violence and punishments. Jews, adulterers, apostates, Christians, homosexuals, fornicators, and many other sorts of persons do not fare well under shari'ah, and women are to be treated as second-class citizens at best.

Exactly.

 

[phattonez]

What a profoundly stupid post of lies and ignorance.

Ask a Muslim whether they think someone who converts from Islam to Christianity should be put to death. I think you'll be surprised.

 

[phattonez]

And yet, it is often citizens who end up doing the killing. In fact, no refugee since the Refugee Act (1980) has committed a fatal terrorist attack. Why are we looking to set up a blowback scenario on something that isn't a problem?

It's often the children of these refugees, which tells us that immigration policies have long lasting effects.

Here we go again conflating an entire faith with a small radical segment. Of course, radical terrorists cannot coexist with the West. 98% of Muslims here do just fine.

What percentage of Muslims want Shariah? What percentage of Muslims sympathize with terrorists? What percentage of Muslims think that Muslims who convert to Christianity should be put to death?

 

[Geoist]

We called it a war on terror but it wasn't a war on anything. I'm talking about a serious war.

I'll let my veteran friend know his time in Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't serious. :roll:

I love the constitution. I think we need to find recruitment at the source.

And you don't think the people in our military and intelligence community are not already doing that?

You must also disapprove of the government investigating businesses, charities, professional practices, universities etc. etc.

I am perfectly fine with investigating any institution that is suspected of taking part in illegal activities. Following a certain faith is not a qualification for surveillance and a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

 

[Geoist]

Can you cite any decision in which the Supreme Court of the U.S. has ever even implied that it violates the Fourth Amendment for government agents to conduct surveillance of a church when they have probable cause to believe criminal activity is taking place there?

I never said we cannot conduct surveillance of a religious organization suspected of engaging in criminal activity. The poster said:

"We need to be mounting surveillance of mosques to determine which ones are fostering terrorism and shut them down."

Meaning, he wants to have surveillance on ALL mosques. THAT is the Constitutional violation.

 

[Geoist]

It's often the children of these refugees, which tells us that immigration policies have long lasting effects.



What percentage of Muslims want Shariah? What percentage of Muslims sympathize with terrorists? What percentage of Muslims think that Muslims who convert to Christianity should be put to death?

Could you present some statistics for your above claims/questions?

 

[fmw]

I'm perfectly fine with investigating any institution that is suspected of taking part in illegal activities. Following a certain faith is not a qualification for surveillance and a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

No it has nothing to do with first amendment. Muslims are allowed to practice their religion without government interference. Placing spies in the congregation to determine whether or not there is an islamist culture is smart. Check them out. Ignore those who do not practice terrorism and investigate thos that do. Or you can simply accept and enjoy continued terrorist attacks far into the future.

 

[fmw]

Could you present some statistics for your above claims/questions?

According to Jihadwatch.com 51% want sharia.

 

[apdst]

If we continue on the path we are going we will continue to have to absorb casualties. I am not saying we outright stop tracking down terrorists. But these endless wars and setting up bases in every country creates blowback that innocent people end up paying for.

If you mean the path where we barely retaliate, you're absolutely right.

 

[Geoist]

No it has nothing to do with first amendment. Muslims are allowed to practice their religion without government interference. Placing spies in the congregation to determine whether or not there is an islamist culture is smart. Check them out. Ignore those who do not practice terrorism and investigate thos that do. Or you can simply accept and enjoy continued terrorist attacks far into the future.

Anyone can go into a religious facility on their own time and "scope out" or whatever. However, using government resources to specifically target certain groups is obvious discrimination and a Constitutional violation.

 

[Geoist]

According to Jihadwatch.com 51% want sharia.

Yeah, okay, jihadwatch.com is a completely impartial source. :lamo