Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Courting Stupidity
Islam isn't a race. There can be blond, blue-eyed Muslims, and I wouldn't be surprised if those who want us dead because the Koran says to convert or kill the infidels are looking to sign up a few good corn-fed Americans who blend in. So, don't be too sure you know what a radical Muslim looks like.

That said, expressing any suspicion of terrorist plotting may soon be grounds for a lawsuit. So, unless you have a lawyer on retainer, you may be tempted to avoid, say, reporting your observation that a group of 45 Muslim doctors was threatening to use car bombs and rocket grenades in terror attacks in the USA. Via Debbie Schlussel, John Steele writes for the Telegraph/UK of messages on an Islamist Internet site:

One message read: "We are 45 doctors and we are determined to undertake jihad and take the battle inside America.

"The first target which will be penetrated by nine brothers is the naval base which gives shelter to the ship Kennedy." This is thought to have been a reference to the USS John F Kennedy, which is often at Mayport Naval Base in Jacksonville, Florida.

The message discussed targets at the base, adding: "These are clubs for naked women which are opposite the First and Third units."

It also referred to using six Chevrolet GT vehicles and three fishing boats and blowing up petrol tanks with rocket propelled grenades.

Would you keep silent and thus unsued if you spotted these two Islamic lovelies standing around with binoculars, scouting out Dallas' Love Field airport? From a story by Jason Trahan in the Dallas Morning News:

"I'm a trained sniper and proud of it," Ms. Al-Homsi said in an interview Thursday after first refusing to comment on whether she has any terrorism ties. She then said no.

Police officials said they have no direct evidence the women have ties to terrorism.

"I am not a dangerous individual," said Ms. Al-Homsi, who said she is an accountant who has dual Syrian-U.S. citizenship.

On the afternoon of Feb. 25, Ms. Al-Homsi and a friend who could not be reached for comment, Aisha Abdul-Rahman Hamad, 50, of Irving, were spotted at Love Field wearing Muslim robes and camouflage pants and "acting suspiciously," the bulletin states. The surveillance video shows one of the women walking back and forth, apparently pacing off distances.

...On Dec. 20, 2005, Ms. Al-Homsi was arrested after a report that she waved a grenade at a motorist on Central Expressway near LBJ Freeway. Richardson police stopped her car and arrested her. The Garland bomb squad determined the grenade was a fake. She was released the next day, after officials charged her with making a bomb hoax. She was placed on probation.

Even reporting something as outrageous as this, you could be putting yourself in legal hot water thanks, says The Wall Street Journal, to some Democrats in Congress (although I could only find the name of one when I was writing this blog item, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee). Here are more details from the WSJ editorial, "Speak and Be Sued":

A rider of New York City's subways would have to have his nose stuck way deep in his morning newspaper to avoid seeing the anti-terrorism placards urging: "If you see something, say something." Now, if some Democrats in Washington have their way, the signs will need to be amended to read, "If you see something and say something, prepare to be sued."

That's the message the six "flying imams" tried to deliver in November when suspicious behavior got them thrown off a US Airways flight from Minneapolis -- and the passengers who blew the whistle on them threatened with lawsuits. And that's the message endorsed by Democrats in Congress who are pressuring a conference committee to remove language from the final homeland security bill that would confer civil immunity on citizens who "in good faith" report suspicious behavior to authorities.

This "John Doe provision" passed the House in March by a bipartisan vote that included every Republican and 105 Democrats. Opponents argue that it "could invite racial and religious profiling," as Senator Patrick Leahy said last week.

Well, boohoo. Sorry, but you don't hear about a lot of Mormons, Wiccans, or Jehovah's Witnesses plotting to kill those who don't follow their religious lead.

And, while we shouldn't be so quick to assume the danger is only from people who look like Middle Easterners, I don't know about you, but if I see two ladies in "Muslim robes and camouflage pants" "pacing off distances" outside LAX, excuse me if my first thought isn't that they're scouting out locations for an interfaith peace center.

The piece continues:

New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority said last week that the subway tipline had received 1,944 reports in 2006. We'll never know precisely how many terrorist acts may have been prevented because of those workaday whistleblowers. But as the Fort Dix plot -- uncovered by a retail clerk -- proves, vigilance works.

Rep. Peter King, the New York Republican who drafted the John Doe provision, asks how Democrats "can possibly say they're passing 'the ultimate comprehensive homeland security bill' while eliminating the provision that protects people who report terrorist activity." Good question.


Posted by aalkon at July 24, 2007 11:58 AM

Comments

While I can see the logic (after a night of heavy drinking when I think everyone is my friend) Bennie G. is out of his freaking mind. This will reduce the number of spurious reports which will probably be used to cut budgets. This will also increase the chance of some litigation fearing citizen reporting an actual threat. Thus allowing how only knows what act to actually occur.

I understand why Bennie G. (sounds like a rapper or a porn star) is doing this. This may make non terrorists muslims lives easier in the short term but if another attack occurs it's gone make it MUCH worse. If he gets this through then let all that innocent blood muslim and infidel such as mine be on his head.

Posted by: vlad at July 24, 2007 5:30 AM

Prisons are a recruiting ground for Al Qaeda:

http://jihadwatch.org/archives/000591.php

"U.S. officials said Al Qaida's recruitment has been facilitated by Muslim clergy with access to federal and state prisons. They said the organization has succeeded in winning new members despite tighter rules instituted by authorities since the Al Qaida suicide attacks in September 2001.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 24, 2007 5:42 AM

Now, if some Democrats in Washington have their way, the signs will need to be amended to read, "If you see something and say something, prepare to be sued."

Oh really? Someone wants to sue me for reporting suspicious activity? I'll counter-sue: Prove you weren't doing what I suspected you were! It'll just get reduced to he said-she said bs and get thrown out of court anyway.

Posted by: Flynne at July 24, 2007 6:02 AM

The west has the means to fight Islamic domination but it doesn't seem to have the will.

I believe all Democratic Senators either voted to kill the John Doe protections or abstained from voting, except the Senators from NY (Clinton and Shummer).

All GOP Senators voted for the protections except Brownback who didn't vote.

(Please correct me if I'm wrong)

Posted by: winston at July 24, 2007 8:15 AM

Another way to combat Islamist terrorism is to have the religion itself placed on trial. What is Islam? A faith, social and political movement? What are the teachings and how are they interpreted? Why would a religion of peace need to use al-Taqiyya? Place clerics under oath and grill them how you can take a body of religious principles and it creates modern Islamic terrorism? Why the harsh treatment of women? Why is the language of the Luminous in Arabic? Why do converts need to adopt Arabic names?

The best way is to put the faith through the court system. Pros and cons of Islam under testimony. Broadcast on TV. Place as much pressure as humanly possible and watch the public need for it to become more secular or else. Why does the FBI need to infiltrate Islamic groups and not Christian and Jewish ones?

Posted by: Joe at July 24, 2007 1:33 PM

> The best way is to put the
> faith through the court system.

I think it kind of begs the question. Cultures that Islam at the top of the scheme by definition are not going to be patient with mere legalities.

The sad truth is that Gandhi and MLK were working in realms where the predations of their oppressors were seen as reprehensible by the oppressor's peers. The moral leverage was already present.

I think you're right about the pressure, but if it could come from the courts, it already would. I wish showbusiness and fashion were better at sharing with oppressed women how fulfilling a life lived in modernity can be.

Posted by: Crid at July 25, 2007 6:05 PM

Leave a comment