Daniel Pipes has an interesting article in the NY Sun descibing "American Border Secrets":
What steps should Western border agencies take to defend their homelands from harm by Islamists?
In the case of non-citizens, the answer is simple: Don't let Islamists in. Exclude not just potential terrorists but also anyone who supports the totalitarian goals of radical Islam. Just as civilized countries did not welcome fascists in the early 1940s (or communists a decade later), they need not welcome Islamists today.
But what about one's own citizens who cross the border? They could be leaving to fight for the Taliban or returning from a course on terrorism techniques. Or perhaps they studied with enemies of the West who incited them to sabotage or sedition. Clearly, the authorities should take steps to find out more about their activities, especially given the dangerous jihadi culture already in place in many Western countries, including Canada.
This question arose in late December 2004, after a three-day Islamist conference, "Reviving the Islamic Spirit," took place in Toronto. The event, boasting a host of high-profile Islamist speakers such as Bilal Philips, Zaid Shakir, Siraj Wahhaj, and Hamza Yusuf, alarmed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), America's new border agency.
Spokeswoman Kristie Clemens explained that her agency had information on how events such as the one in Toronto "may be used by terrorist organizations to promote terrorist activities, which includes traveling and fund raising." Ms. Clemens later added that the CBP has "credible, ongoing information that these types of conferences have been used and are being used by terrorist organizations to not only transport fraudulent documents but to mask travel by terrorists." Terrorists imagine, she pointed out, that if they travel in a large group, "we're going to be less restrictive and try to expedite the processing."
Her explanation hints at why the CBP decided to detain nearly 40 Muslims, many of them American citizens, as they returned to the U.S. by car from the Toronto conference. The travelers report they spent long hours at the border near Buffalo, N.Y., and none too pleasantly. One woman said she was asked whether the wire in her underwire bra was a weapon. Another, seven months' pregnant, reported that border agents lifted her blouse to make sure she really was pregnant. A third traveler quotes himself asking a border guard, "If I refuse to give my fingerprints, what will you do?" to which he got a terse reply: "You can refuse, but you'll be here until you do."...
Five of them are suing -- with CAIR's help, of course.
Were the plaintiffs to prevail in this case, attending religious conferences would instantly become the favored method for terrorists and other Islamists to cross the American border without hindrance. Such a malign implication means this lawsuit needs to be tossed out by the courts.
PIPES ON THE PRAGMATIC* PROJECT to subvert, corrupt, and brainwash the islamic world*, euphemistically and dishonestly called a "war of ideas" or "battle for hearts and minds"etc:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17828
"In “Hearts, Minds, and Dollars: In an Unseen Front in the War on Terrorism, America is Spending Millions to Change the Very Face of Islam,” dated today, Kaplan explains that Washington recognizes it has a security interest not just within the Muslim world but within Islam. Therefore, it must engage in shaping the very religion of Islam. Washington has focused on the root causes of terrorism – not poverty or U.S. foreign policy, but a compelling political ideology..."
"A key document in reaching this conclusion was the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, issued by the White House in February 2003, which served as the basis for the bolder, more detailed, Muslim World Outreach, completed in mid-2004 and now the authoritative guide. (A government discussion of this topic, dating from August 2004, is available online.) The U.S. government, being a secular and predominantly non-Muslim institution, faces many limitations in what is at base a religious dispute, so it turns to Muslim organizations that share its goals, including governments, foundations, and nonprofit groups."
"The tactics for fighting radical Islam and promoting moderate Islam vary from one government department to another: it’s covert operations at the CIA, psyops at the Pentagon, and public diplomacy at the State Department. Whatever the name and approach, the common element is to encourage the benign evolution of Islam..."
----------------------------
This project requires access to key islamic institutions-- thats where the military comes in.
Freedom is not the objective, free-will and choice do not exist in the Pragmatic world-view.
Pragmatism:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/p1/pragmtsm.asp
------
http://www.sntp.net/behaviorism/skinner.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a33b0424856.htm
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm
http://members.mountain.net/theanalyticpapers/
-----------------------
ANYBODY WHO THINKS "EVOLUTION" HAS BEEN THE GUIDING FORCE OVER THE LAST 100+ YEARS IS WOEFULLY NAIVE, AND IS A PRODUCT OF THE DUMBED-DOWN BRAINWASHING OF OUR OWN SOCIETY.
WE ARE NOT FREE-- CHOICE ON OUR DESTINY IS A MANUFACTURED ILLUSION.
To the relief of many I will cease posting at this site shortly. I am opting out of the "system", and will not have access where I am going. The wilderness.
Should this even be an issue? Tariq Ramadan and Siraj Wahhaj were on the ticket as guest speakers at this so called "religious conference". That should say enough in itself.
And about the woman who had her blouse lifted: I can't see how anyone could be offended by this, especially when little old ladies in wheelchairs who are not Muslim are being frisked at the airports, because of the actions of Muslims.
Bomb belts are usually positioned around the mid section, aren't they? Any Judge or jury who rules in favor of these false victims has got be from another galaxy.
Kentim,
That’s been done before, opting out and returning to the wilderness. You remember, Walden pond, ol’ Henry D. I don’t think it will be pragmatically practical because you are addicted to JW. Lol good luck.
Let's keep it simple: No muslims; No mosques.
Deport them; Demolish them.
Oh, Havoc, sigh. That sounds sooooooo wonderful! If only.
Hehe, thanx Cross. Cold, hard no-BS reality awaits me with open arms.
Of course Big-Brother will not approve.
Rikki:
And yet we know who the focus of all sorts of venom is directed at by the UK intelligencia and media and it's not radical Islam.
Oh, Havoc, sigh. That sounds sooooooo wonderful! If only.
Posted by: feralee at April 27, 2005 10:28 AM
Yeah, it sure does. . .Sigh.
AND. If we took the oath given upon naturalization SERIOUSLY, that would go a long way towards a solution, since a believing, practicing Muslim can't, in good conscience, take the oath (unless he/she is practicing taqiyya, of course).
Throw the bums out!
There are two problems with Pipes's prescription.
First, no one can disagree that "anyone who supports the totalitarian goals of radical Islam" should be kept out. But do Infidels -- do even "moderate Muslims" who, if they are to be believed, are themselves always flabbergasted to learn that so-and-so, that "nice quiet boy" who never did any harm and never seemed even to be particularly "religious" (it is telling that Muslims themselves make this observation, showing that they know the problem arises from the ideology of Islam, or of taking that ideology to heart)-- have any way to distinguish those Muslims who do not support "the totalitarian goals of radical Islam" and those who do not? No, they have no such ability.
Second, even if the I.N.S. were to be filled with experts on on the ideology of Islam, on Muslim psychology, on taqiyya, armed with truth serums and the most up-to-date polymgraphs, this would tell us little. For there may be those who are "moderate Muslims" when they enter the country, and then are transformed, or even changed overnight, when something that may be political in origin, or may have only to do with their own experiences or their own setbacks (including, for example, failure to find a job, failure to find an American wife that would guarantee a resident visa, failure to be accorded the status that they think they deserve, and almost any other failure that the flesh and spirit may be heir to), causes them to seek solace in a more fervent faith.
And since we cannot tell when "Mike" Hawash will give up his $300,000 a year job as a successful Intel engineer and Little-League father and pillar of his community, to leave for Afghanistan to fight against his fellow Americans, and since we cannot tell when the visitor Rael al-Banna may travel America revelling in it all, and then when his planned marriage to an American girl falls through, and he is forced to leave the country, starts out on a path that ends up with him as a suicide bomber in Iraq. And since we cannot tell, in Germany, when that nice young quiet middle-class boy named Mohammed Atta, who has arrived to study urban planning, will turn to quite a different urban plan for the most famous city in the world, nor tell anything about hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands, even of millions of Muslims allowed into our midst, and who have repeatedly given cause for alarm and suspicion, then we must necessarily come to the conclusion that it is not Infidels who must bear the risk of guessing wrong as to which Muslims are "moderate" and which are supporters of "the totalitarian goals of radical Islam" (which are merely the goals as set out by traditional Islam, and not something new, nor particularly extreme) or guessing which of those "moderate" Muslims will always and everywhere remain "moderate" (and the definition of what constitutes a "moderate" Muslim also needs study).
And finally, if there are "moderate" Muslims it is they who are needed most to remain in the dar al-Islam, to transform, slowly or quickly, their own societies. They have to bear the burden of Islam, not we the Infidels. They have to learn to transform an ideology that menaces Infidels, if they can. It is not we, the Infidels, who should take any more risks beyond the terrible ones we have already taken.
We are already being forced to endure lives that, in every respect, are more unpleasant and expensive and dangerous because of a Muslim presence. It is true whether we remain at home, or whether we visit other parts of the Western world, only to discover, as Americans, that we are targets for the Muslims in France or England or Germany. This helps to limit our desire to travel or to have much to do with countries with which we should have an interest, and be allowed to travel in with ease. We can do without travel to the Muslim countries, for they have made their own societies so unpleasant that one can scarcely stand even to visit the pyramids, or the other pre-Islamic sites which are, in effect, the only thing worth seeing outside of Turkey, where a handful of mosques and Topkapi adds just a bit to the monuments of the pre-Ottoman periods, of Byzantium and classical antiquity.
If nothing is done, Europe will gradually become off-limits to American travellers. And more and more Europeans will themselves emigrate, or find their lives less and less tolerable. They need not put up with this. They need not be inhibited by some abstract principle that has no bearing on a situation where those holding to a primivite belief-system of aggression and Total Explanation have managed, almost by accident, to be allowed in. They can be escorted out by the same door through which they, largely unbidden, managed to enter.
So, these “peaceful, innocent, mis-understood” Muslims were just participating in their rights indulging in “freedom of religion”. Who knows what goes on behind closed doors of these “houses of worship - mosques”? How many people have entered into these dens of evil and come out jihadis? How many travel to the Middle East to further their “religious” knowledge? How many Muslims preach what upstanding citizens they are in English and just the opposite in Arabic? How many are using the freedoms of the USA to install their Cult Doctrine? Too many of these questions don’t have acceptable answers for me to trust them in any way. If they want to live by their Cult Doctrine, they have the freedom to go to the Middle East where it is the law of the land and leave the land of freedom free. If they whine and cry about the free country, send them all back immediately - no questions asked.