Politically correct dhimmitude at work again? Did the FBI agents tracking Abdulhakim Muhammad fear being accused of "Islamophobia" if they did anything about this jihadist?
Abdulhakim Muhammad Update: "Suspect's dad: FBI 'dropped the ball' on warning signs," by David Goins for Fox16.com, November 24 (thanks to James):
The father of the man charged with shooting two soldiers in Little Rock is speaking out. He says his son, Abdulhakim Muhammad, was manipulated by Islamic extremists overseas and the FBI knew it but didn't step in before it was too late.Melvin Bledsoe of Memphis looks at what his son is accused of doing at the Army Recruiter Station in Little Rock last June the same way he looks at foiled terror plots in Dallas, and the Fort Hood shootings earlier this month. He sees them all as acts of terrorism that could have been prevented....
early six months after police say his son, Abdulhakim Muhammad, 24, gunned down two soldiers, Bledsoe wants answers from the federal government. "I don't understand why the federal government has not taken this case which it is," Bledsoe says. "This involves a United States soldier."
Bledsoe says the FBI tracked his son for two years after he traveled to Yemen and knew of his growing extremist views but didn't do anything to stop it. As an example, he cites his son's purchase of an assault rifle shortly before the shooting.
"I think they could have asked some questions [like,] 'What are you doing with this weapon? What are you going to do with this weapon?'" When asked how he thought his son would have responded to such a question Bledsoe responded, "I think something would have changed a lot."...
Although he thinks the FBI should investigate the case because it's an act of terrorism, he doesn't think Muhammad is a terrorist. "No, I do not consider him a terrorist," he says. "But I think what took place certainly gives the meanings of an act of terrorism.
"Thirteen other people lost their lives in Texas because somebody else dropped the ball, it's as simple as that," Bledsoe says referring to the mass shootings of soldiers at Ft. Hood, Texas earlier this month. "It was my son today and it could be your son tomorrow."
Bledsoe says he says he holds his son ultimately responsible for his own actions but wants U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to open an investigation to look at what warning signs, if any, were missed by federal authorities....
Political correctness be damned...start prosecuting....
What if there were no political correctness? In some of these cases (for example, the women learning to do jihad in York, South Carolina), attempts to grapple with the danger can become attempts to overturn the 2nd amendment.
The beginning of wisdom is to avoid giving SPECIAL civil-rights protection (as offered to other religious groups) to Muslims. They are protected quite sufficiently by the First Amendement, as are members of the Ku Klux Klan.
But even if Islam were seen, in law, as a social order or political system, we are left with a problem inherent in democracy. How can you legally stop illegal activities before they occur?
@StillBreathing
But even if Islam were seen, in law, as a social order or political system, we are left with a problem inherent in democracy. How can you legally stop illegal activities before they occur?
As things currently stand you are correct. And I don't think this fathers demands are correct either. His statements are a little like the tail wagging the dog. It also shifts responsibility from him (the father and the son).
What is needed is to identify Islam as a political/religious/cultural entity bent on the over through of our constitution and is opposed to every freedom and right that the people are guaranteed by this constitution. It should be outlawed on all three levels. It has been done to other groups, the KKK and John Birch Society to name two. The political will is far from this point at this time but is slowly changing. The politicians will be the last to get the message.
>
You seem to mean, not that Islam should be outLAWed, but that islam should be an object of scorn. You know, most everyone who writes against "political Islam" feels required to say that they have no objection to Islam itself, let alone an objection to Muslims.
I suppose a blog's comment section is not the place to develop a legal theory or an approach to marginalizing political expression that reflects opinions specific to Islam. But should a theory is needed.
It looks as though there is a good chance that both these shootings at the Arkansas recruiting station and at Ft. Hood could likely have been foiled, if it were not for the fears of law enforcement and the military that they be be accused of "Islamophobia" or "racism".
This is literally suicidal—just these two cases resulted in *sixteen* dead and more injured.
One approach would be to outlaw any and all calls for Sharia in any form now or in the future. In other words any mosque or imam or Muslim who says that they would like to see sharia one day, even one thousand years from now, can be deported or the mosque closed down. If they are U.S. citizens then some sort of restrictions would be placed, and incentives offered for them to move to an Islamic country. Since 90% of Islam is the guide and goal of imposing Sharia worldwide, eliminating that political part makes it a pretty thin potion, but to the extent that some want to call themselves Muslim but just sort or "play" Islam without all the nasty bits, then they could do that, so we could say that "Islam" is not outlawed vis a vis the first amendment. Ultimately however it would be better to just outlaw it altogether. As long as it is allowed then those who truly believe will be able to hide within the community and do their damage. Only those who renounce Islam can be a citizen of the West. It should be built into the citizenship oaths. The longer the West waits to do this the more impossible it will be to do. But given that the very survival of the West is at stake ultimately something will have to be done. The Constitution will need to be amended to exclude Islam from the first amendment protections. If America waits long enough then Muslims will just vote against such a measure meaning that there will be no peaceful way to resolve the problem and a civil war will be needed, and most likely the State will fight on the side of the Muslims. An ugly scenario indeed.
I am with you "ThinkThrice".
If we wait too long then it will simply be too late to outlaw the political Islam.
Abdulhakim Muhammad is not guilty of terrorism.
He is guilty of "jihad against America".
That is the law that must be enforced. Let's not call them terrorists. We are at war on our own soil. It is Islamic jihad. So why are our politicians and FBI treading so lightly? It truly makes one wonder doesn't it?
Do they not read the same materiel that we read? Watch the same news? Listen to the same radio interviews?
What world are they from?
They are all misunderstanders of Islam. But how do we awaken them from their deep slumber?
Are they going to continue to believe that these attacks are merely the actions of some isolated "numb-brained radicals"?
Arkansas , Tennessee . Mississipi are the jewels of the crown in the south. In these states the job of the FBI is limited to gather information, to follow people.That is it. No arrest
until someone is dead ..
Arkansas , Tennessee . Mississipi are the jewels of the crown in the south. In these states the job of the FBI is limited to gather information, to follow people.That is it. No arrest
until someone is dead ..
"He says his son, Abdulhakim Muhammad, was manipulated by Islamic extremists overseas and the FBI knew it but didn't step in before it was too late."
Lets see here. We should Open a investigation against the FBI because of what Muhammad's father claims? Way to shift the blame their Abdul's father. I say screw your hunch.You'll be laughed out of a lawyers office. Lawyers can't get a conviction on hearsay. Government policy these days is to not profile muslims. Good luck, Mr. Bledsoe!!!
Hey, day.
Might help if your son wasn't a bloody Muslim.
The father is mistaken. In a free country people cannot be arrested merely because they are unstable. If that were the case there would be no Democrats or RINOs roaming the land. Hey, wait a minute ...
Seems the father here doesn't want to take any real responsibility himself, irrespective of FBI approaches to dealing with his son. Typical in this day and age to shift the burden to someone else.
Strange that the FBI continuously fails to catch these guys in time, but has more than ample manpower to devote to rooting out 'dual loyalty Jews' and FBI agents that would sell secrets to other FBI agents posing as Mossad.
Quite a shame.