Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (22321)	3/25/2003 9:10:24 AM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck	Respond to of 27720

An unexpected enemy Daniel Pipes National Post ADVERTISEMENT 'How did the enemy get into our camp?" That's what Bart Womack, a command sergeant-major of the elite 101st Airborne Division, asked himself as a grenade rolled past him after 1 a.m. on Sunday at an American camp in Kuwait. The attacker worked methodically, destroying an electricity generator, throwing grenades into Womack's tent and the two other command tents, then shooting soldiers as they fled their tents. One soldier died and 15 sustained injuries. The enemy in this case appears to be not what one might expect -- an Iraqi soldier or a Kuwaiti Islamist. The only suspect in custody is Hasan Karim Akbar, 31, a sergeant in the 101st Airborne Division. If Akbar were responsible for the rampage, what might be his motivation? First reports suggest that, as a devout African-American convert to Islam, he identifies with the Iraqi enemy against his fellow soldiers. The Los Angeles Times quotes him stating, after he was apprehended, "You guys are coming into our countries and you're going to rape our women and kill our children." NBC found that he "was opposed to the killing of Muslims and opposed to the war in Iraq." Reuters quotes one source saying that "He's a Muslim, and it seems he was just against the war," while another told the news agency that the violence was "politically motivated." There is evidence to suggest that Akbar expected to get in trouble even before he arrived in Kuwait. His former stepfather quotes him saying that Akbar "did not want to fight in this war, he didn't want to go over there." A neighbour explains why: "America shouldn't be going," Akbar told him; he judged it not "right" to attack Iraq. And his mother quotes him: "Mama, when I get over there I have the feeling they are going to arrest me just because of the name that I have carried." This incident raises two issues. First, the U.S. government's initial response indicates that, once again, it is ascribing violence by an American Muslim to purely personal causes. Here is its take on prior homicides: - "A prescription drug for or consistent with depression" to explain why El Sayyid A. Nosair in 1990 shot Rabbi Meir Kahane. - "Road rage" to explain why Rashid Baz in 1994 shot a Hassidic boy on the Brooklyn Bridge. - "Many, many enemies in his mind" to explain why Ali Hasan Abu Kamal in 1997 shot a tourist on the Empire State Building's observation deck. - "A work dispute" to explain why Hesham Mohamed Ali Hadayet in 2002 shot two people at the El Al counter of Los Angeles International Airport. And Akbar in 2003? U.S. Army spokespersons talk variously about an "attitude problem," a desire for "retribution" and "resentment." The chief chaplain at Akbar's home base, Fort Campbell, Kentucky, announces (completely without evidence) that the incident is "not an expression of faith." No one yet knows Akbar's motives, but ignoring that it fits into a sustained pattern of political violence by American Muslims amounts to wilful self-deception. When will officialdom acknowledge what is staring them in the face? Its avoidance of reality has real consequences, increasing the dangers Americans face. "This country's officials are in a state of denial and confusion that is almost as frightening as the terrorism they are supposed to be fighting," observes Dennis Prager, only slightly exaggerating. Second, the Akbar incident points to the suspect allegiance of some Muslims in U.S. government service. The case of Gamal Abdel-Hafiz has recently surfaced -- an FBI agent whose colleagues say he twice refused to record conversations with suspected financiers of militant Islamic terrorism ("A Muslim does not record another Muslim"). Other cases are under investigation. All of which reinforces what I wrote in January: "There is no escaping the unfortunate fact that Muslim government employees in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps need to be watched for connections to terrorism, as do Muslim chaplains in prisons and the Armed Forces. Muslim visitors and immigrants must undergo additional background checks. Mosques require a scrutiny beyond that applied to churches and temples." As Sergeant Womack noted, the enemy has already managed to "get into our camp." Do Americans have the will to stop him before he strikes again? Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Militant Islam Reaches America (W.W. Norton). © Copyright 2003 National Post

To: zonder who wrote (22321)	3/25/2003 9:11:48 AM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27720

You posted in an open forum. I replied in an open forum dits.

To: zonder who wrote (22321)	3/25/2003 9:36:40 AM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27720

zonder. You said...." Who asked you what you "abhor"? "...... Message 18749677 zonder. you said....." ....." People have to respect the religious beliefs of one another. That is all there is to it."..... Message 18749438 Who asked what you think? See above statement from you ^^ And you are wrong no one is obligated to respect anothers religious beliefs. SO that is not all there is to it, that is just your opinion...no more no less and you are free to post your opinions here as is everyone else. When did you vote yourself in as thread mommy here.