Does America Have a Muslim Problem?

[NosceHostem]

Originally Posted by nmap

I found your thoughts most interesting, NosceHostem. I would very much appreciate any views you had about the timing of more aggressive behavior on the part of Islam.

Thank you nmap and Saoirse. My thoughts on the timing of more aggressive action from Islam are as follows: Islamic terrorism in America is undoubtedly on the rise; of the 30 or so attempted attacks since 9/11, one-third occurred in 2009. We’ve seen further arrests in 2010 with an increase in home-grown domestically born plotters. In addition, I’m inclined to believe that the violent Islamists have established extensive networks throughout the West and could therefore conduct tactical strikes against us virtually at will. For instance, Hizballah and al Qaeda teamed up in the 90’s and have been using Latin America to great effect (particularly the Tri-border region and Venezuela) in order to procure cash, arms, and forged travel documents. Jihadis have been marrying into drug cartels as well. Moreover, “Other Than Mexicans” have been caught crossing our border in droves, along with their Qurans and prayer rugs found in the desert. The enemy is here. Again, Lt. Col Joseph Myers details the threat extensively at archive.org here and here.

So a reasonable conclusion is that these jihadis could be blowing up gas stations, shopping malls, trains, preschools, etc. Why haven’t they? My hunch is that rather than escalate the rage of America with smaller strikes and incur our subsequent wrath, they will wait patiently until they have the capacity for a system collapsing attack. They may already have this capability. Such an attack would use chemical, biological, and/or nuclear weapons to cripple us. Some experts are greatly concerned with the threat of an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) to do just that. The fact that Zawahiri called off an NYC subway attack with sarin gas in lieu of “something better” indicates that al Qaeda has adopted this strategy of pursuing a truly crippling attack. There are really only 3 arguments for a lack of a WMD attack by al Qaeda: disruption, deterrence, and patience. As I discuss below, I seriously doubt the efficacy of deterrence with this adversary. Ominously, Harvard University’s Graham Allison, author of Nuclear Terrorism, expects such an attack in the near future.

Furthermore, there have been reports that Usama bin Laden has enough highly enriched uranium for multiple nuclear weapons. Also, both he and Zawahiri claim that al Qaeda has nuclear weapons. Clearly, this revelation would not be surprising considering the cash the jihadists have (through the heroin trade and other illicit activities as well as Islamic “charity” [zagat] which is often simply financial support for jihad from individuals and oil rich regimes). In addition, by their very criminal/terrorist natures, jihadis have the connections within the underworld necessary to access the illegal arms market. Procuring HEU is really the only difficult step in making a Hiroshima-style bomb, a design that is simple, reliable, and readily available. Likely, they have the money, the connections, and the will to do so.

Regarding deterrence, the Mutually Assured Destruction which kept nuclear stability/stalemate throughout the Cold War is predicated on the international actors being rational. Arguably, our current foes are not. For example, former CIA head Jim Woolsey, former SecDef William Perry, Princeton University Islamic expert Bernard Lewis, and others believe that the rulers of Iran truly think we are at the end-time approaching the return of the 12th Mahdi. According to Shia eschatology, the Mahdi will return at a time of great suffering for the Muslim world in order to avenge them and vanquish the infidels. Apparently, Ahmadinejad believes it is his role to usher in the Mahdi. His spiritual adviser, Mesbah-Yazdi, is the leader of an Islamic end-time cult called the Hojjatieh. Not very comforting. And I’m not persuaded that the Sunni jihadis are any less suicidal.

So…as far as timing goes, I suspect Israel will soon attack the Iranian nuclear program (weeks/months?) and possibly the seats of regime power as well. This is an atrocious option but exponentially better than allowing the Iranian thugs to get nukes, at best sparking a nuclear arms race by the volatile Sunni nations. It would not surprise me in the least if WMDs were used against Israel and/or the U.S. in crippling fashion as “retaliation” for Israel attacking Iran. I sure hope I’m very wrong.

[nmap]

Thank you, NosceHostem. Lots of good material I was not aware of.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by NosceHostem

Regarding deterrence, the Mutually Assured Destruction which kept nuclear stability/stalemate throughout the Cold War is predicated on the international actors being rational.

IMO, this statement is overly broad. If mutually assured destruction was accepted as the norm, then why did both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. pursue increasingly sophisticated nuclear weapons technology throughout the Cold War but especially during the Reagan administration?

(MOO, America's pursuit of "escalation dominance" across the spectrum of warfare during the Reagan presidency was a clear rejection of "mutually assured destruction.")

[craigepo]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

(MOO, America's pursuit of "escalation dominance" across the spectrum of warfare during the Reagan presidency was a clear rejection of "mutually assured destruction.")

I understand your train of thought. But was Reagan's strategy a rejection of the M.A.D. principle, or an escalation thereof? Sort of a "standing up to the bully"?

For some time, the US and USSR went back and forth with newer, better M.A.D. weaponry. Then Reagan came along, and basically smothered Russia with technology and spending. Sort of showing U.S. might, not just in weaponry, but also evincing capitalism's economic superiority over communism.

[badshot]

NosceHostem,

I wish you luck on making an ODA. Your knowledge will serve your team and country well.

[NosceHostem]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

IMO, this statement is overly broad. If mutually assured destruction was accepted as the norm, then why did both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. pursue increasingly sophisticated nuclear weapons technology throughout the Cold War but especially during the Reagan administration?

(MOO, America's pursuit of "escalation dominance" across the spectrum of warfare during the Reagan presidency was a clear rejection of "mutually assured destruction.")

Reagan rejected not Mutually Assured Destruction but the policy of detente (essentially go along to get along) and chose to confront the USSR militarily/economically as well as morally. MAD, along with a little luck, kept the nukes from flying for almost half a century (although we came close a couple times). But we were still active rivals vigorously competing for ideological dominance on the world scene. By building up military capability, both offensive and defensive, the two great powers were striving to gain an advantage politically rather than to nullify MAD. Regardless of the Russian nuclear advances, the U.S. would always have a second-strike retaliatory capacity through its nuclear subs secretly swimming the seas undetected. Although Reagan's pursuit of the Star Wars missile defense program was technologically unfeasible at the time, it was used to great effect as a bargaining chip with the Soviets who thought it could negate MAD thereby gaining a strategic advantage for the U.S.

Leave it to a Hollywood actor to pull off the big bluff when the nuclear chips were down...Chuck Norris 2012!

[NosceHostem]

Originally Posted by badshot

NosceHostem,

I wish you luck on making an ODA. Your knowledge will serve your team and country well.

Thanks a ton badshot.

[akv]

NosceHostem-entire post

Interesting stuff especially the chilling "OTM" issue and timing thoughts, but why would we not continue selectively targeting this extremist violent Muslim minority with a minority where applicable, just as we targeted the Mafia without needlessly alienating every Italian American? IMHO, the Russian and German extremist minority analogy differs from the current American situation in that the totalitarian violent extremists mentioned were actually the governments in power running the countries as opposed to a radical minority itself with a minority in a secular republic. Now if demographics changed substantially over time, things change.

Either way, best of luck to you, and thank you for signing up to defend our country.

[Green Light]

Originally Posted by NosceHostem

Reagan rejected not Mutually Assured Destruction but the policy of detente (essentially go along to get along) and chose to confront the USSR militarily/economically as well as morally. MAD, along with a little luck, kept the nukes from flying for almost half a century (although we came close a couple times). But we were still active rivals vigorously competing for ideological dominance on the world scene. By building up military capability, both offensive and defensive, the two great powers were striving to gain an advantage politically rather than to nullify MAD. Regardless of the Russian nuclear advances, the U.S. would always have a second-strike retaliatory capacity through its nuclear subs secretly swimming the seas undetected. Although Reagan's pursuit of the Star Wars missile defense program was technologically unfeasible at the time, it was used to great effect as a bargaining chip with the Soviets who thought it could negate MAD thereby gaining a strategic advantage for the U.S.

Leave it to a Hollywood actor to pull off the big bluff when the nuclear chips were down...Chuck Norris 2012!

Reagans plan was quite simple but extremely effective:

1. Maintain the balance of nuclear power.
2. Build up alliances as a force multiplier against the Soviets.
3. Seek out and nullify insurgencies where the Soviets were using client states to destablilize areas (Cuba, Grenada, and Nicaragua).
4. Reassert the Monroe Doctrine against the Soviet Empire through it's proxies in (ascending order) El Salvador FMLN, Nicaraguan Sandinistas, and Cuba; nullify and defeat them.
5. Use the US economic might to manuever the USSR to the edge of its capabilities.
6. Use the ruse of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars - that never existed) to nudge it over the side into bankruptcy.

It worked.

[Richard]

Your knowledge will serve your team and country well.

badshot - you can say this with certainty because you've served for how long and on how many ODAs?

As far as the Muslim problem goes, I was watching CBN last night out of boredom from Glen Beck overload and listened to three self-proclaimed experts - two men and a woman, all sporting hairdo's meriting their own zip codes while seated in gold leaf covered chairs and holding what looked to be blow-dried rats thinly disquised as some sort of lapdogs - telling everyone watching of gawd's plans for dealing with the myriad asymetrical problems associated with the world's current religious schism because they'd read a book and visited the Galapagos, and would be willing to share the plans with anyone who called the telephone number on the bottom of the television screen and voluntarily donated $19.95 + P&H.

Since no three people outside of the DHS or Jihad Watch or New York City can agree on either the exactness of the problem or its solution, I'm thinking of ordering the deluxe 'Gawd's Answers' kit from them for just $24.95 + P&H - the one with the 99 shamwows embossed with Mel Gibson's signature in gold for cleansing yourself of all the spittle produced by the ecstasy you'll experience from reading their materials - so I can recognize all those who are to be shunned in case gawd ever decides to enact that plan of hisn in my lifetime.

Since watching that show, I've been wondering if some prophesized savior ever returned to Earth disguised as Jack Black in Nacho Libre attire and speaking Aramaic or AAVE, would they be shunned, too?

However - YMMV - and so it goes...

Richard

[dadof18x'er]

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine

That's what I'm talking about. American patriotism!

I agree with his heartfelt motive but I cannot/will not drink that beer.

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by dadof18x'er

I agree with his heartfelt motive but I cannot/will not drink that beer.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm... beer!

[Pete]

This thread - along with many others on this board has divided into two camps that will never see eye to eye.

The one camp sees a future problem with a growing Muslim population, it's non-assimilation into our culture and accommodation of it's ways - Sharia - into ours.

The other camp sees no problem - and if there is one it's caused by us. The Muslims are just like the Irish, French, Japanese, Chinese, Scandinavians, etc, etc, etc who came here before and became Americans.

But there is a big difference. All those other groups were ethnic groups - Muslims come as a religion. They are not defined by where they came from but from the religion they believe in.

When talking about hyphenated Americans like Irish-Americans or African-Americans or Japanese-Americans it is a "cultural identity"-American. Islam covers a great portion of the world and includes many different cultures but most refer to themselves as "Muslim" not "Culture"-Americans. This is where the heart of the problem lays.

So just how are things working out in Europe?

[dadof18x'er]

Originally Posted by Pete

This thread - along with many others on this board has divided into two camps that will never see eye to eye.

The one camp sees a future problem with a growing Muslim population, it's non-assimilation into our culture and accommodation of it's ways - Sharia - into ours.

The other camp sees no problem - and if there is one it's caused by us. The Muslims are just like the Irish, French, Japanese, Chinese, Scandinavians, etc, etc, etc who came here before and became Americans.

But there is a big difference. All those other groups were ethnic groups - Muslims come as a religion. They are not defined by where they came from but from the religion they believe in.

When talking about hyphenated Americans like Irish-Americans or African-Americans or Japanese-Americans it is a "cultural identity"-American. Islam covers a great portion of the world and includes many different cultures but most refer to themselves as "Muslim" not "Culture"-Americans. This is where the heart of the problem lays.

So just how are things working out in Europe?

Denmark seems to be having a bit of a challenge..http://www.zimbio.com/War+on+Terrori...estern+Freedom

[Richard]

This thread - along with many others on this board has divided into two camps that will never see eye to eye...The one camp sees a future problem...The other camp sees no problem...

Actually, I think it is more reasonably described as a case of those whose position is "It will!" and those whose position is "It will?"

A consensus among the various groups appears - IMO - to be one of "It certainly can...if we allow it."

All those other groups were ethnic groups - Muslims come as a religion. They are not defined by where they came from but from the religion they believe in.

I've gotten to know quite a few ME immigrants around here; they tend to describe themselves rather proudly as Americans of Iranian or Lebanese or Syrian or Pakistani or Kurdish or whatever national descent who, if they practice Islam as a religious faith (and not all of them do), describe themselves as Muslim only in reference to their faith, not their nationality. However, many of my non-ME neighbors tend to confuse the issue most often by refering to anyone who appears to be of ME ancestry as being "Muslim."

As my Dad used to say, someone can only drive you crazy if you allow them to have the keys to your car.

Richard's $.02