I think the saying is supposed to be " I'm the bomb " like your cool .. but leave it to the french to @!$%# up the meaning in translation !

The women is fine. This is a case of a giant misunderstanding between everyone involved. Women is muslin and names her child according to their customs. The shirt is an ordinary type that people wear, the phrase itself is colloquial slang for "I'm awesome", french version of "I'm the bomb". It's only when you put those two together with an intentionally uninformed set of people that you get a controversy.

About the only thing you can say she did wrong was not taking a moment to think about the reaction of combining those two above elements. To be frank most mothers don't do this, heck most people don't think longer that far ahead anyway. They should just drop the charges, she's already learned to be a bit more careful in the future.

She's a Muslim, her son, born on Sept. 11 was named Jihad, and she says she had no bad intent. Really? Really?

She sounds like Bart Simpson: "It wasn't me; I didn't do it; no one saw me do it." <he did it>

Who cares what some kid's tee-shirt says? Why are you people so damned sensitive? Arrggghhh.... grow a pair

Just send them on a trip to Saudi Arabia with "Bible" and "I am a Christian" T-shirt!

You can NEVER fix stupid! In this PC culture (really ppl, we ALL have to be SO careful anymore), naming your son 'JIHAD" is so stupid one would think her IQ doesn't even measure up to her inseam!!

Bob D., I bet even MY pair are more brassy than YOURS, YOU "PC" Elitest! If MY daughter, named Columbine (yes, lest you make the almost required TOKEN protest, I know it's a FLOWER), was sent to school on that black shadowed anniversary, wearing a T shirt saying "My AK's BETTER than YOUR AK" or "my Bomb's better than YOUR BOMB", I daresay I'd have most American parents at least OFFENDED, if not downright PISSED OFF!! Not EVEN to mention that if I'd sent ANY daughter to a shool in Iraq without a Burka, wearing a T-shirt that said "the Qu'uaran is just a book", She'd be STONED before she even got home, without apppeal!! Get a CLUE!!!!

I think that their government is over reaching and over reactive.I also think her idea of a joke is not funny especially to those who lost a family members on Sept.11 in the U.S.She is as clueless as her brother.

"Bagour, a single mother, said she dressed her son — who really is named Jihad and who she said really was born on Sept. 11 — "without thinking about it" last September."

These people should be all kicked out of non Muslims without thinking too much about it!

cleaning lady,

You are the only one on this board who has a lick of sense.

Good for you.

NC-- You mean she's one of the few here who agrees with you!

redhead,

Yep, and you are one of the fools that cares about this "story".

France doesn't have our First Amendment so technically they may not be over-reaching, I guess. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, but they can make their own laws. It's reassuring that they remember the victims of terrorist attacks in other countries and they probably lost some of their own on 9/11 as well.

Obviously, the mother and brother not only have no sense of humor, they're also liars. No way they couldn't know what that t-shirt would mean and they think terrorism is funny, apparently. Actually, I don't see much difference between this case and the way we treat celebrities in this country when they say something even mildly anti-PC and are made to apologize profusely in public and then blacklisted/shunned. So if you think the French are over-reaching and think anti-PC is okay, then it should be okay over here also.

In France 3yr olds go to kindergarten? Are we that far behind them in education?

She's muslim... kid born on Sept 11... and she named him Jihad...

Guess I don't see where she didn't notice anything wrong... looks like she was making a statement at the expense of her child. That's criminal... anyone who thinks this is funny is either an idoit or a muslim... nothing funny about 3,000 people being murderd for nothing...

As you can see by my name on avatar/post, if I am in an airport, I do not want anyone to say "Hi Jack" and when I fly, the name on my ticket is my given name. just by saying hello to me could get the greeter to meet TSA! LOL

Ummm...... Hello, Jack.

Mornin' jack, stonepipe....

Hi jack!......................."EVERYBODY DOWN!!!" LOL...

If you ask me, the teacher should have just called the kids mother and told her to bring another shirt because the one he's wearing is not good.

They must not have too much excitement over there to make a big deal of a "T" shirt. Must have been the story of the week for France...

The next big story of the week is probably;

"This just in", Mary's Pepfimies's Grandmother grew a 2 lb tomato right in her very own kitchen!

GMCD. Good to see you up and attem'!

GM CD and again SP

Actually had that happen to me in LAX a few years ago.

"I did not know", "I did not mean it", and so on are good excuses these followers of Islamic cult come up with.

Gentleman, who made the video on Mohammed, did not intend to hurt Muslims.

Still there were riots inlcuding the worst one in Benghazi.

Do these followers of Islamic cult permit these explanations when it comes to non-Muslims?

Trollharder

Take your statement from 1.18, remove the word "my" at the beginning, and you've got a bestseller. Hell, I'd buy one.

Damn,leroy is NOT who I had in the pool... :(

Seems to me the very fact that the shirt is marketed in little kids' sizes points away from any terrorist meaning. Shoot, my son (23) and his friends have referred to things being "da bomb" for years. Jihad does not have inherently violent meanings, it basically means individual religious struggle. . . no different than, say, the personal struggle very devout Christians may undergo (read Thomas Merton, or St. John of the Cross, St. Anselm, Kierkegaard. . . sheesh). As for little kids who can't read, they might not recognize the graphic as terroristic--that looks like how bombs are depicted in kid's cartoons (or used to be, haven't watched a kid's cartoon in a lotta years!). BUT it is France, the laws are different, and they are more attentive to their kids than are Americans from what I hear. (here, we may watch what they wear to kindergarten, and then buy them a kiddie AR, right?)

Be careful, don't show a picture of the turd or you might end up with a big fatwah on your a**.

"The T-shirts are also widely available for sale online. They're even sold by American Apparel."

Their Mohammed's madness is on sale everywhere!

Does this turd make my arse look Fatwah?

France, like many countries in Europe, is finally getting concerned about terrorism by the many Muslim immigrants in their midst. Don't forget what happened in Madrid, or the London bombings, or the assassination of Theo Van Gogh. Europe has been liberal and patient with what happened, but they're now concerned about the name-calling and threats and violence that is becoming a common feature among young Muslims, even those born in Europe.

I don't think it's stupid for the French authorities to act as they did. Many Muslim young people think that Europe is too soft and that someday they will be a majority there, and impose their own kind of laws. So, yes, Europeans are getting sensitive, maybe even jumpy, about such things as a kid wearing a T-shirt with Jihad on the back and "I'm a bomb" on the front. I blame the mother, not the child. What did she think she was saying by naming her child Jihad, who was allegedly born on 9/11? (Was he, really, and did she think the events of that day so memorable and humorous that she could make a joke of it?) I think she was just sneering at Westerners when she did that.

We have to agree with you.

Then Boucha Bagour, 34 should be sent on a trip to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or one of the ME Muslim nations with low level skirt.

It should not matter much!

Ron D; I think it was that he chewed his bolognas in the shape of a gun.. And that is just MORE "PC ELITEST" nonsense!

Political correctness & mental midgets often go together .... Next we'll need a government agency to approve what comedians say .... This is "CHICKEN@!$%#!" ... MORONIC .... IGNORANT ...

Le monde est rempli avec les idiots conservateurs qui soucient de rien.

Pas vrai. Le monde est clairement rempli d'idiots de toutes nationalities, ilks et tendances politiques.

Pardonnez mon francois, c'est un peu fragile

D'accord

Err ...i am sorry ..i want to retract my post.

If she is muslim and her son that was born on 9/11 is named Jihad then this story takes a whole different hue.

GM StonePipe

See Comment #1.24

Back at ya! Best to you.

Jihad doesn't have a single meaning. Look it up.

I know many Muslims. Ali, Muhammed are the most common names. I never met one with the name of Jihad.

Of course that makes you the expert.

There are two commonly accepted meanings of jihad: an inner spiritual struggle and an outer physical struggle.^[1] The "greater jihad" is the inner struggle by a believer to fulfill his religious duties.^[1][5] This non-violent meaning is stressed by both Muslim^[6] and non-Muslim^[7] authors.

The "lesser jihad" is the physical struggle against the enemies of Islam.^[1] This physical struggle can take a violent form or a non-violent form. The proponents of the violent form translate jihad as "holy war",^[8][9] although some Islamic studies scholars disagree.^[10] The Dictionary of Islam^[1] and British-American orientalist Bernard Lewis both argue jihad has a military meaning in the large majority of cases.^[11] Some scholars maintain non-violent ways to struggle against the enemies of Islam. An example of this is written debate, often characterized as "jihad of the pen".^[12]

According to the BBC, a third meaning of jihad is the struggle to build a good society.^[5] In a commentary of the hadith Sahih Muslim, entitled al-Minhaj, the medieval Islamic scholar Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi stated that "one of the collective duties of the community as a whole (fard kifaya) is to lodge a valid protest, to solve problems of religion, to have knowledge of Divine Law, to command what is right and forbid wrong conduct".^[13]

culheath - while I do understand what you have said here, in this day and age, you say "jihad" to someone and they think of only one thing, and pretty much every person in the world does. You can do the same thing with the "N" word (see, I won't even write it here, though I really should), as in most every dictionary you'll also see a meaning of it as - a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised - but do you ever use it as that?

To top it off by the kids birthday being 9/11 and then wearing that shirt, c'mon man, don't you get to a point where you actually stop giving some instances the benefit of the doubt, cause there's just no way?

It was ignorant of the lady to do this to her kid. It is also ignorant that she and her brother may have to pay for it.

Nope, the more right wing (most fear driven) Republicans in congress blocked it.

Why should we give up Gitmo?

Because it is destroying the soul of this country. It represents everything I grew up believing this country was against. It is cowardice and terrorism incarnate.

...this war on terror is not a great crusade against good and evil. Of course I won't be holding my breath for those revelations to come by.

I know you're really into moral or immoral equivalence but honestly I think you've lost your bearings if you can't choose between al-Qaida and Non-al-Qaida and find a meaningful difference moral or ethical distinction worth fighting for or against.

Let us start kicking them and we would still be qualified for "idiot"!

How panicked we were over NOTHING?? Nothing? Think again, mon vieux.. Autre foix, s'il vous plait!

Well thought about it, still think it was nothing and I’m still thinking that in a couple of decades time when this kid is in his 20s, his age group will be looking back to all the rhetoric of the last decade and say we was all panicked over nothing.

Yeah, who cares that Islamic radicals have murdered tens of thousands of people around the world, most of the them innocent civilians, over the last decade. Just a big panic over nothing.

At a hearing Wednesday near Avignon, Bagour, a single mother, said she dressed her son — who really is named Jihad and who she said really was born on Sept. 11 — "without thinking about it" last September. She was charged after teachers and the principal complained to authorities.

She probably named him "Jihad" after she found out about the 9-11 attacks.

"I thought it might make people laugh," she said, according to Le Parisien.

Oh yes, 9-11 is a very funny topic, you know. She just wanted to bring some joy and light into the world. Bridge for Sale!

I'm not saying that I support a trial over this but let's not pretend that it was all a harmless little misunderstanding. She meant to provoke and offend and now she will get a little slap on the wrist from the French over it. Maybe they're starting to wake up after all. The British on the other hand are still largely dozing. You are in for a rude awakening some day. One would think that 7-7-2005 would've done the trick, but sadly it seems that wasn't enough for some.

Adam44

Oh please, when has this ever been about the “other” people around the world? This whole panic and fear has been about what potential attacks could happen to us not to the rest of the world.

Oh as for the 7/7 attack, why would that bother the UK? After all, you are talking about a country that went carrying on as if nothing had happened on 8/7. London, didn’t close the subway down for three days, they just carried on like normal. Of course the UK has a lot longer history in dealing with terrorist bombings, be it the Germans in WW2, the IRA (who were supported and funded by private Americans) from the 60s to the early 90s and all points in between. So in all the 7/7 bombings were nothing for us to really get excited about and I doubt we will be making such a big deal about the 10^th anniversary of such strikes either. Although you may be right about one thing Adam, in that one nation here does need a wakeup call, although I’d say that is America and that they need to wake up to the ideas that terrorism is something you will never get rid of in the world and that this war on terror is not a great crusade against good and evil. Of course I won’t be holding my breath for those revelations to come by.

Oh please, when has this ever been about the "other" people around the world? This whole panic and fear has been about what potential attacks could happen to us not to the rest of the world.

This is ALWAYS been about all the people in the world who are being murdered by Islamic Nazis (oh, i know you don't like that terminology but since they act the part it seems a good enough fit to me).

I thought you lived in England? Why are you saying "us" as if we are in the same country?

Oh as for the 7/7 attack, why would that bother the UK?

If you can't understand why 7/7 would "bother" anyone in Britain then I really can't help you with much else. Just because England has been attacked before (as everyone in the world has been attacked before) doesn't negate the evil (yes, Los, EVIL) that was perpetrated on that day (and countless others) by Islamic Nazis.

I know, I know; al-Qaida is no better or worse than anyone else. They're just defending Islam, right? They just want the polluting Kuffars out of the "pure" birthplace of Islam -- the Arabian Peninsula. If they weren't provoked like that (having infidels in their midst) then they wouldn't lash out the way they do, right? If the west would just stop insulting and attacking Islam then al-Qaida would not be attacking us. After all, they're not killing just for the fun of it, are they? Of course not. They have legitimate grievances that need to be addressed and negotiated. In short, they are no different than anyone else. They are no better or worse than anyone else.
Right?

I do live in the UK, when I said “us” I meant The West in general not just the United States, after all these terrorists are attacking western led, human rights and globalisation, not just the United States. Furthermore, this has never been about people murdered elsewhere by “islamo-nazis” if it was why is the US allies with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan? After all those two countries murder more of their own citizens and finance and support those who murder others in the name of Islam then any others. The war on terror (and especially the paranoia and fear-mongering that have gone with it) have always been about protecting western nations from terrorists no one else. Hell even US support in Yemen and elsewhere is justified in that by helping those people it leads to the defence of the US.

As for the 7/7 bombing I can say from a lifetime of living in the UK it’s that these attacks do not, nor did not bother the UK people. Evidence can be seen to initial reactions to the attacks, as in people were going to London’s Westend (which was located very close to one of the bombsites) to see plays and have fun on the very same night of the attacks, the London Underground never closed (they just closed the lines that were bombed) and life carried on as normal. In all the people of the UK are used to terrorist attacks and have learned that if you deny them the dramatic impact they seek then you deny them of their effect. Or in other words we are confident enough in our social system and our democracy that we are not going to let a few terrorists and extremists goad us into overreacting and making the matter worse. Of course that is not to say people didn’t care or were not outraged, but I never heard of any Sikhs or Muslims being beaten up in London for the 7/7 bombings, unlike New York and 9/11.

Oh and I know your second paragraph here is meant to be sarcastic, but it also demonstrates something else I was talking about and what many military historians (both inside and outside of the US) have said. Being that Americans have to view every war as a contest between ultimate good (as represented by the US) and ultimate bad (as represented by their opponents) with the ultimate effect being they A, use excessive force, B try to get it over and done with as soon as possible and C try to ultimately annihilate their opponents (it’s no coincidence that Americans in all their wars have called for unconditional surrender more than anybody else)all of which is not required, and is even counter-productive for the counter-insurgencies that so represent this War on Terror.

Finally, if you want to talk about evil, I would advise joining a church. Especially since those who redefined torture so they could practice it, (waterboarding) who started the trend of violating national sovereignty (Iraq and Afghan invasions) for their own benefit and those who have detained plenty without legal representation, despite sighing declarations to the contrary (Gitmo) are hardly the paragons of morality in the first place, sure they maybe better than those they oppose, but since Good and Evil are absolutes, That hardly matters in the realm of good and evil.

I do live in the UK, when I said "us" I meant The West in general not just the United States, after all these terrorists are attacking western led, human rights and globalisation, not just the United States

The west in general, yes, but not just the west. Buddhists, Jains, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Animists, you name it. Anyone who is not of "pure" Sunni pedigree and belief is a target. Islam gives some tolerance for "People of the Book," meaning Jews and Christians priimarily (so long as they know their subordinate status and embrace it), but considers the rest of humanity and their beliefs of little or no value. Not much different from the "untermensch" of Nazi doctrine in WWII, and we know how untermensch were treated.

Furthermore, this has never been about people murdered elsewhere by "islamo-nazis" if it was why is the US allies with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan?

Stupidity? That's a very real possible explanation.

The war on terror (and especially the paranoia and fear-mongering that have gone with it) have always been about protecting western nations from terrorists no one else. Hell even US support in Yemen and elsewhere is justified in that by helping those people it leads to the defence of the US.

What difference does it make if the end result (as in Yemen and Africa) is to help protect everyone?

As for the 7/7 bombing I can say from a lifetime of living in the UK it's that these attacks do not, nor did not bother the UK people.

Well that's good then because you will surely have more of it in the future.

In all the people of the UK are used to terrorist attacks and have learned that if you deny them the dramatic impact they seek then you deny them of their effect. Or in other words we are confident enough in our social system and our democracy that we are not going to let a few terrorists and extremists goad us into overreacting and making the matter worse

You'll find out soon enough there are not just "a few" of them. There are in fact millions of them. Still a minority of all Muslims worldwide, yes, but a substantial and hate-filled minority that will stop at nothing to make Islam Supreme Above All Others. Und Morgan Die Ganze Welt! Liberal Muslims don't like them but there are too few of them to count for much. The vast majority of moderate Muslims are much like the "Good Germans" of WWII who were only too willing to go along for the ride to supremacy so long as it seemed to be working out for Germany. Then, after the fall, they had no idea what the Nazis were up to. Uh, yeah, right.

Of course that is not to say people didn't care or were not outraged, but I never heard of any Sikhs or Muslims being beaten up in London for the 7/7 bombings, unlike New York and 9/11.

There was one case of a Sikh convenience store worker being shot in -- i think -- California, after 9-11. Some drunk dumbfvck who didn't know a Muslim from a Sikh from a Martian. I never saw any reports of Sikhs or Muslims being beaten up in New York in retaliation over 9-11. Source it.

Oh and I know your second paragraph here is meant to be sarcastic, but it also demonstrates something else I was talking about and what many military historians (both inside and outside of the US) have said. Being that Americans have to view every war as a contest between ultimate good (as represented by the US) and ultimate bad (as represented by their opponents) with the ultimate effect being they A, use excessive force, B try to get it over and done with as soon as possible and C try to ultimately annihilate their opponents (it's no coincidence that Americans in all their wars have called for unconditional surrender more than anybody else)all of which is not required, and is even counter-productive for the counter-insurgencies that so represent this War on Terror.

My comments demonstrate nothing of the sort. My comments illustrate, through sarcasm, your sad inability or unwillingness to identify, condemn, and defeat nasty characters promoting a cancerous ideology that seeks Supremacy over all others in the world. Modern day Nazis, that's what they are. The ideology differs a bit but the basic behavior and goals are exactly the same.

Also, before you get yourself in a big self-rightous puff of indignation about the U.S. and how we seek to crush our enemies in war, it was your very own Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris in WWII who led the charge to turn Dresden into a fire-pit of hell, killing countless thousands of innocent civilians in the process. Was THAT really necessary? No. i guess that just reflects his innate British inclination to obliterate "the enemy" in war.

Finally, if you want to talk about evil, I would advise joining a church.

No thanks. Although the word "evil" does connote religious based morality, I decided that it is not too strong a word for the sort that targets and murders innocent civilians and strives for Supremacy over All. After all, "wrong" doesn't quite do the trick, does it? Al-Qaida types are not "wrong," or mistaken. No, they know exactly what they are up to. "Evil" is the right word.

Especially since those who redefined torture so they could practice it, (waterboarding) who started the trend of violating national sovereignty (Iraq and Afghan invasions) for their own benefit...

Oh Los, don't forget Libya, remember? You are all for violating someone else's national sovereignty when it's in Britain's interest, as you so amply displayed a few weeks back.

... and those who have detained plenty without legal representation, despite sighing declarations to the contrary (Gitmo)

It's called war. Legality is for police actions.

...are hardly the paragons of morality in the first place, sure they maybe better than those they oppose

One doesn't have to be a spotless "paragon of virtue" to oppose evil. It's enough to be substantially better than the evil-doers.

...but since Good and Evil are absolutes, That hardly matters in the realm of good and evil.

Just because one actor is evil doesn't mean that the other actor has to be spotlessly pure. You make the logical mistake of assuming that because al-Qaida is being called "evil" by me, that the forces opposing that evil must necessarily be considered or held up to an immaculate standard of perfection that is just as "good" as al-Qaida is "evil." It's just not so.

The so-called "War on Terror" (which, by the way, I thought you came to approve of as a construct so that it would not appear that Islam was a target?) is all about: Good Enough vs. Evil. You are the one presuming that I place myself, America, and all those who oppose radical Islam into a Paragon of Goodness, Purity & Perfection type of absolute antitheses, simply because I used the word "Evil." Again, a logical non-sequitur on your part.

One doesn't have to join a church to recognize and fight against evil.

Adam44

Ok Adam, well you posted a lot of stuff and I’ll really have to reply to that, a lot later as I have two very big essays due in soon. Ironically they are slightly linked to the war on terror as one is about the effects of McCarthyism on American society and the other is the effect of the Global War on Terror on Human Rights. Anyway, since time is short, I just want to write something for you to consider (by all means feel free to tear it apart and say how wrong I am, but please do consider it) . As since you enjoying using the Nazi analogy, I would like to point out that World War Two, never destroyed Nazism, indeed outside Germany the highest concentration of Nazis is in the United States. Furthermore, I would also say that all World War Two, did do was destroy the German economy, and result in the occupation and division of Germany that lasted for about 45 years. But it was not the force that neutered Nazism into the fringe ideology that it is today. What did that was the De-Nazification process of the post war world. Now this process (as I’m sure you know) in its simplest forms involved telling the German people that it was a small group of maniacs that led them astray, that in effect corrupted German Nationalism (which was very intertwined with Nazism) into an abomination and that ultimately there was nothing wrong with German Nationalism as a whole and that they were not accountable for the actions of these extremists. Yet, in our current scenario of the war on terror, we have people such as yourself, who are taking the opposite approach, in essence saying that it is Islam that is at fault and that the only way one can be a “good Muslim” is by waging war against “infidels” (yeah I know you didn’t say that word for word, but its close enough.) Certainly, you have said you believe Muslims to be a victim of their own ideology and so on. Now it would seem to me that if the rest of the world took this approach with post-war Germany, then in essence we would have said it was German nationalism that was at fault and that the only way a German could have been a good German is by embracing Nazism (indeed, this was Hitler’s line.) Thus, if we consider our two approaches here, mine being that Islam is not at fault and it is a few others (in terms of overall percentage of Muslims) that are the problem, vs yours, being it is Islam itself that is at fault. Which one has the greater potential for mass violence? One which tries to limit its violence to select people (aka terrorists) whilst trying to gain the support or at least non-committal of the majority of people who share a religious affiliation with said extremists, or the one which lumps them all together and so far has only been able to suggest “blanket solutions” like a re-work of the Cold War containment strategy (aka stop Muslim immigration) or ethnic cleansing (aka deporting all Muslims out of the west) to the most extreme “nuke em all” suggestions?

PS I know that you personally have never advocated nuking them all, but many who hold Islam accountable do, also I know you suggest a system of voluntary repatriation of Muslims, but frankly that solution seems so naive to me (I mean what Muslim born or living in the west would want to go live in a country that cannot provide them with the lifestyle, in terms of consumer goods, that they are accustom to?) which is why I just put deporting them all.

Well, as you might have anticipated, I don't agree with a lot of what you argue about Nazis and what happened to Nazism. That's okay. We can have some back and forth about it perhaps.

What is surprisingly disappointing though is the following:

...also I know you suggest a system of voluntary repatriation of Muslims...

Los, this really makes me wonder if our exchanges have much value or purpose at all. I have never advocated "a system of voluntary repatriation of Muslims." Never! I never even discussed anything that could be misconstrued as voluntary repatriation. Where the hell did you get that from?! Do you just lump all of us 'anti-Islamics' in together and attribute views that any one of us holds to the aggregate?

You did ask once how I would deal with the problem of Islam and/or radical Islam in the west. I wrestled with that for awhile (letting you know that I was working on it) and then finally did give you my best answer at that time. I might have saved it, I'll check later, but it centered almost entirely on passing strict sedition laws that would punish speech and acts that advocated or supported violent, supremacist, and/or other seditious designs against the existing values and structures of the countries in danger. The more danger, the more severely these laws would be drawn and enforced. Such a path would also protect against different versions of violent, supremacist groups, including the WWII leftover types that you say are so plentiful in this country too. Such laws would target and neutralize radical, seditious ideologies and the agents who seek to destructively employ them against society.

Liberal and moderate Muslims would not need to fear these defensive steps. In fact, truely liberal and moderate Muslims should welcome such a paradigm because the radicals infecting their religion would be prevented from gaining traction and causing tensions and conflicts for Muslims and Non-muslims alike.

Anyway, you get the idea. That's pretty much what I described before too. NOTHING about "voluntary repatriation" or anything like it. Someone might have argued for something like that but it wasn't me. Please be more careful to not attribute views to people that they never argued and don't hold. It undermines trust and dialogue. Thanks.

Adam44

Hey Adam, sorry for the late reply, but I have been busy with course work and all. Also I apologise if my last post was putting words into your mouth, but it was a long time ago we were discussing solutions (I think it was about a year ago) and as I do recall, there was a third party who was advocating voluntary repatriation and you wasn’t really disagreeing with them. Furthermore, I do remember that you was going to get back to me with what you thought was a better solution, as you was still working on it. But I don’t remember you ever getting back to me as what you have posted is new to me.

Anyway, as for your solution I think it’s interesting (indeed I believe the UK government has implemented something similar, as they arrested Abu Hamza for promoting terrorism and racial hatred.) However I’d be very interested to see how that would be reconciled with the 1^st amendment as I’m guessing that many in America would fear that legislation regarding sedition would be used against those who criticise the US government.

I would say that I bought that up because I think that our discussions get so heated that we sometimes forget (well I do) that we both want the same thing here, to win this war on terror. Now I grant you we both have very (that’s putting it mildly lol) different views on what the root cause is, which obviously effects which solutions we advocate. As such I would say that everything I know about terrorism, counter-insurgency warfare and conflict in general indicates to me that trying to boil this all down to one root cause (as opposed to a multitude of factors) is the wrong way to go about it. Furthermore, I’d say that trying to boil it down to one issue (aka Islam) not only leaves you with less solutions but also advocates more extreme solutions, which are very counter-productive.

Hello Los, I have been checking back periodically for your reply. Sorry if I got a little unfriendly over your attribution about something I never advocated. As you know, these topics are not fun for me and I don't consider them lightly in any way.

Hey Adam, sorry for the late reply, but I have been busy with course work and all. Also I apologise if my last post was putting words into your mouth, but it was a long time ago we were discussing solutions (I think it was about a year ago) and as I do recall, there was a third party who was advocating voluntary repatriation and you wasn't really disagreeing with them. Furthermore, I do remember that you was going to get back to me with what you thought was a better solution, as you was still working on it. But I don't remember you ever getting back to me as what you have posted is new to me.

The only three-way conversation that I recall was with Coptic Christian. Undoubtedly he has his own ideas about what should be done. I don't recall any conversation where he advocated voluntary repatriation. In fact the only time I ever remember talk like that was with Mitt Romney when running for President advocating something of the like for dealing with illegal Mexican immigration. IF CC and you were discussing this, I wasn't involved, so I can't be responsible for "not really disagreeing with him" when it didn't even involve me. Whomever you were having that conversation with, it wasn't me.

As for my potential approach to the problem of some Muslims putting Islam above western host countries, and trying to undermine the same, I did indeed wrestle with that. I also did indeed post my thoughts about it as part of our exchange. Looking in my documents file, I saved that long post. I will post it again here, now, separately from this one. I saved it in April of last year, so not quite a year ago now. We'll both be long dead before we get to the bottom of all this ;-)

Foreword: Los, the following will probably strike you as unduly alarmist and draconian (against free speech e.g., plus talk of the death penalty et al). It was just after France was under assault by (turned out to be) that radical militant Muhammad Merah who was murdering (Jewish) school children and others. Remember that? And how so many people were assuming that it was a Neo-Nazi at work? Well, in all fairness, it could have been a Neo-Nazi. The reason no one knew for sure is that it made perfect sense either way; radical Muslim or Neo-Nazi, because they think and behave in the same way and target the same people (not just Jews, no). Only the ideology differs, not the mindset. Both ideologies glorify violence and are Supremacist to the core. Anyway, the fact that a murdering radical Muslim had just finished his bloody rampage in France probably ignited an extra degree of alarm for me. Passions are always going to be higher after terrorist threats, attacks, and broken bodies are scattered about on the ground. There haven't been any major attacks in the last few months so that makes the issue seem less urgent. But it will flare again, possibly dramatically so if terrorists can get their hands on a "dirty" bomb and manage to set it off in some large western city. The steps I outline below can be tightened or loosened as events warrant. You are right to say that England already has laws against terroristic threats. France has similar laws. Freedom of Speech is indeed sacrosanct here in the States but that could also change if a dirty bomb explodes in San Francisco or Washington D.C. What good is complete freedom of speech when your country is at war, under constant threats and attacks, and the enemy is using such total freedom to openly rally like-minded Nazis to spout propaganda, undermine national health & security, and run interference for those who would create mayhem? More restrictive wartime measures are almost always taken by nations to help shore up security and ensure that the enemy can't undermine from within through manipulation and/or subterfuge.
I'm well-aware that you consider the threat of Islamic radicalism to be vastly overblown. And that we only play into their hands by overreacting. In short that it's a big to-do about very little.
I don't, however, think that you would be so complacent if that proverbial dirty bomb went off in London, killing hundreds and poisoning thousands more. I'm not sure what it would take to grab you by the shoulders and shake you into a more alarmed state of self-defense. 9-11 did that for most Americans, including me. 7-7-05 did not do that for you. We'll have to see if something even more perfidious is on the way or not. Personally I have no interest in sitting around waiting to see what comes next. If the enemy was capable of 9-11 then they are capable of just about anything, and would undoubtedly love to top that if they can. That is what they are working toward and I know that there are literally Millions of radical Muslims worldwide. Still a minority of all Muslims, yes, but millions of Nazis, Islamic or otherwise, can do one heckuva lot of damage [WWII taught us all that if nothing else]. With nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons proliferating all around the world today, the capacity for mass murder of civilians is made more available and more imaginable. With that said, below the line is my re-post from last year where I discuss what *might* be necessary to defend the west against the cancer of radical Islam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I start on this, admittedly this is the hard part. It is MUCH easier to identify and complain about the problem(s) than it is to come up with reasonable, rational, workable, effective, and just solutions.
This is also a job that should not have to be left up to me or other internet critics of the problem(s). Our well-paid government "leaders" should be hard at work on these problems and exploring solutions. Instead, way too many of them are just trying to wiggle out of dealing with them at all, for many reasons from the benign (e.g. laziness) to the condemnable (lack of courage). So a lot of them just try to ignore it all which of course masks the problems temporarily while things just get worse and worse under the surface until they erupt in conflict someday, as happened in France before their giant arson riots which went on for weeks a few years ago. Now France (through Sarkozy) if finally facing up to their problem. Muhammad Merah has made it impossible for them to otherwise. There are thousands of Muhammad Merahs and Muhammad Merah wannabes in Europe today. Many fewer in America still, thankfully, but our days are coming if we do not act in time. Fortunately our actions can still be quite moderate and incremental, whereas Europe (France, Englad, Sweden, Denmark, and Spain, in particular, do not have much time left to head off major conflict.
Even in America, leaders who do try to lead by identify the problem and exploring solutions are condemned as "haters," "Islamophobes," and worse, by those who do not want the problems fixed, or deny that there is any problem to begin with. CAIR and many leftists fall into this camp where Muslims are always victims. Anyone like Rep. Peter King of NY who identifies problems is branded a hater and bigot. It's no wonder that so few politicians are willing to stick their necks out on these issues. Even the smallest steps (for example, monitoring mosques for extremist literature or preaching) are hysterically condemned as "Fascism," racism and bigotry.
Anyway, so very little is offered in the way of solutions which is one reason why there is such fragmentation over what to do. Without public leadership there is no consensus on what direction to take.
My ideas are emerging and incomplete. It's really a thankless task to even discuss solutions because I have very little chance to make my ideas heard or influence what actually happens.
Having said all that, I made a post earlier in this string which touches on what I think needs to be done. I'll use that as a base and build on it here.
What's needed most urgently is legislation that enforces strict and swift sanctions against committing violence and sedition, plotting violence and sedition, or preaching violence and sedition. Committing violence is aleady against the law of course, but I would strengthen the existing penalties and include seditious activity in with it. Both would receive the death penalty upon conviction. I know that the death penalty is considered cruel and anachronistic in Europe but compared to what is going to happen there if things continue the way they're going vis-a-vis militant Islam, this is a measured and moderate step in the right direction. The goal is to stamp out the violent militants and their propagandists. If that succeeds, and it's enough, the problem could be solved with just this first step and all the decent people could get back to just living their lives in peace and harmony. That's the idea.
Not sure how well that would play in Europe but most Americans are still in favor of a death penalty for the most serious crimes. I can't think of a more deserving recipient of the death penalty than a jihadist who blows people up, shoots them, or plots to do the same. Sedition as advocating the usurpation of American law for some other authority, in this case Sharia or Islamic law, should be outlawed. It doesn't have to be specifically targeted against Islamic law, but that's where the major theat comes from today.
For those convicted of committing violence, I would streamline the process of justice. Right now we have an absurd system where death penalty cases drag on for decades and cost millions of dollars with nearly unlimited appeals and such. I would put an end to that. The process would be fast but fair. For those convicted of preaching violence or sedition, there would be also be the prospect of the death penalty if an incorrigible repeat offender, Otherwise stiff prison terms in separate prisons (to prevent spreading propaganda), and/or swift deportation if not a U.S. citizen.
The citizenship process itself too would be revamped and made aware to identify and reject potentially seditious, incompatible, and/or hostile immigrants for citizenship. Again, not specifically targeting Muslims per-se even though that would be why the changes would be made. The citizen process would also be lengthened and more closely scrutinized if there were ANY signs of radicalization, hostility, or unwillingness to adopt to our laws and values. Don't like it? Don't come here then, it's that simple. Americans are fed up with some immigrants who come here with hostile intent (be it crime, idealogy, religion) or to just sponge off everyone else via the welfare state. Fortunately most legal immigrants are not like that but the bad eggs spoil it for everyone else.
Worst of all are those who come with hostile intent AND sponge off the welfare system for years on end. That seems to happen pretty often in Europe these days and it is why the storm clouds are gathering most ominously there. Muslim immigrants, in particular, attach themselves to welfare benefits and launch into having large numbers of children at the same time. The more children they have, the more cash and other benefits they get. It's ourageous enough on that standard alone, but then add hostile separatism into the mix and you have a ticking time bomb in place that is bound to explode sooner or later. Sooner in Europe, later in the U.S.
Anyway, I'm done for today. This is NOT what I prefer to do with my time. I wish that there was no problem with Islam or Muslims or anyone else, that we could all live in peace and harmony. Unfortunately such wishful thinking does not make the problems go away.
All for now.

Adam44

After reading the above post I remember reading it before, was it only in April last year? Time flies huh? Anyway I want to highlight something’s you mentioned on your foreword. First is the idea of a dirty bomb, now I have recently been reading a book by Rod Thornton that was published in 2007 in which he discusses the threat of terrorists gaining control of WMDs like “dirty bombs” and his conclusion is that; it’s not worth their time, he points to the Sarin Gas attack by a religious sect on the Tokyo Underground in 1995 which killed 13 people and was the only successful attack of 11 (10 before failed to hurt anyone and were not noticed by the press) yet cost the group involved, Aum Shinrikyo billions of dollars of investment to do. He also concludes that the technology and materials for producing WMD right now is still so expensive and advanced (as in you need people with PhDs and a large degree of infrastructure) that any group who did try to obtain such weapons would leave a paper trail that would be detectable by western intelligence agencies. Now I grant this is just one voice but he is not alone in his thinking. Indeed, this fear of terrorists acquiring a WMD is very much akin to the Cold War fear of being suddenly and unexpectedly nuked by the Russians which was so prevalent in the 1950s (ever seen those duck and cover cartoons?) so in all I personally don’t think the UK or the US or any other western nation has that much to fear from a terrorist WMD attack, well no more than we have to fear the Chinese or Israelis (for Europe Israel’s nukes do constitute a bigger threat then China’s) nuking us.

I’d also like to address the point where you said that “I'm not sure what it would take to grab you by the shoulders and shake you into a more alarmed state of self-defense. 9-11 did that for most Americans, including me. 7-7-05 did not do that for you” which to me does more to highlight the cultural difference between the peoples of the US and UK than anything else. Put frankly, I’m from a nation that is used to fighting low intensity wars, (indeed the vast majority of was fought by the UK post WW2 have been low intensity wars) a nation that is somewhat accustom to terror bombing (the Blitz and the IRA being the most obvious examples) and a nation that is very used (indeed has a preference due to being a maritime nation) to fighting long, drawn out wars. In all these three factors (plus others I haven’t mentioned) mean that British people on the whole don’t do the alarmed thing, we are concerned and we will react in time, but not in the same way the people of the US do. Indeed, a comparison between 9/11 and 7/7 highlights this.

9-11 was a much more elaborate, deadly, spectacular, and horrific attack.

As for terrorists not bothering with WMD, intelligence intercepts of al-Qaida under "house arrest" in Iran a few years proved that they were very much trying to acquire nuclear material and devices. I don't expect that to stop anytime soon. Sooner or later they will succeed and the result will be much more devastating than the relatively minor sarin plot in Tokyo a few years back.

Adam44

Ok so that minor Sarin gas attack was only minor because it failed. Indeed, had it succeeded and killed as many people as the perpetrators wanted then we would be calling it a horrific and spectacular attack. Likewise, had the 9/11 hijackers been overwhelmed by the passengers and stopped before they crashed their planes then we would be regarding it as a relatively minor attack. The overall fact is that groups like Al-Qaeda are not looking to build their own nuclear weapons, because the costs alone would prevent them from doing so, what they are looking for is the ability to buy said weapons from other states who do have them, which leads to the question why would they sell? After all the only two states currently that are even considered a risk of doing such are North Korea and Pakistan, both of which I doubt want to be obliterated by the western counter-strike that would ensue. Now, I know some would say Pakistan being Muslim would do it for Jihad but if that’s the case why haven’t they already? If they truly put that before everything else then why haven’t they used their arsenal? It makes little sense. Thus, again I liken the fear of a terrorist WMD attack, very much to the fear of a surprise Soviet nuclear attack on the USA that was prevalent during the early 1950s.

Furthermore, whilst I agree 9/11 was elaborate and devastating. Indeed, I believe it is regarded as the most devastating terrorist attack in modern history. Yet, that doesn’t alter the simple fact that there is a cultural difference between Americans and British people and that cultural attitude affects the way our respective nations react to events. Now, I have no doubt that had 9/11 taken place in the UK there would have been mass outrage, yet I doubt we would have reacted in the same way the US did, not only because we physically couldn’t, but also because there is a cultural difference. With that difference being highlighted very well by the way our respective nations reacted to those attacks that took place on our respective nations.

They're not looking to buy from States, they're looking to buy material or a "suitcase" bomb type device from deteriorated situations such as the break-up of the Soviet Union. Black Market in other words. There is a lot of shady underworld wheeling and dealing in arms of all types. Nuclear material would just be the high-end of that market and the longer it is around the less exotic, less expensive, and more attainable it will become.

As I wrote before (maybe you missed the recent article on NBC) the communication intercepts already showed that senior al-Qaida figures holed up in Iran after being expelled from Afghanistan had already made some efforts to get their hands on such material, unsuccessfully thus far, thankfully.

If we know anything about Islamic radicals though it is that they are in it for the long haul. They don't give up. They will carry out other spectacular mass-murders or they will be killed trying.

Lately (thanks to drones and other efforts) we have killed a lot of high-level AQ operatives, so presently they are in disarray. But as you know, AQ today is more of a franchise type organization that it a command central type org the way it was in Afghanistan before they were scattered. They might not go by the name al-Qaida but it's the same old Islamic Nazis that just pop up in other places, like Mali for example (thanks to the western overthrow of Gadhafi).

This will continue for years to come, probably decades to come, maybe more. At some point they will get their load of highly radioactive material and a way to disperse it in most heinous fashion, probably sooner than anyone thinks. We'll see if it's any big deal when it happens.

I also wouldn't discount a rogue nation (or elements within) like North Korea, Pakistan, or Iran if they are attacked by Israel, retaliating against "The Great Satan" by finding a way to "donate" nuke material (no, not a fully formed bomb per-se) to terrorist organizations.

As to my last point, the assumption you make is that people running States such as North Korea, Pakistan, or Iran, would never allow any material to escape their inventories because if they did so, a paper trail would exist that would trace back to them and the U.S. and/or other western countries would respond by obliterating them, a risk that they would never take.

One, all it would take are elements (extremist insiders) within those countries (such as the Revolutionary Guard, the ISI, and the like) to exploit systems without the top leadership even knowing about it, let alone approving it. Pakistan, in particular, is known for the careless oversight of its WMD.

Two, other leadership is not necessarily rational in the way that you assume. North Korea, in particular, has not shown and does not show today, a lot of concern over the possibility of triggering conflict that could lead to their own destruction. Crazy like a fox? Perhaps, or maybe just plain ole' crazy.

Three, religious zealots such as in Iran are not "rational" in the same way that most western country leadership is rational. They are not going to cringe in fear over the possibility of being killed in retaliation for donating highly radioactive material to terrorist networks; to Hezbollah, AQ (despite sect tension), or others. They are on a more exalted mission and being killed in the service of that mission is considered an honor and quick passage to the paradise that awaits '... those who kill and are killed for Allah.' (I'll look up the Sura if you want). Religious fanatics are not governed by rationality. The present leadership of Iran might or might not be entirely irrational, but the Ayatollah Khomeini who is still venerated by Tens of Millions of Shiite Muslims in Iran and around the world, was most certainly a fanatical Muslim who I guarantee you had no rational concern about being killed for whatever he said or did.

Adam44

Ok so I cannot sleep, I'm tired but can’t sleep so I’ll reply to your post.

First up I guess I’ll talk about WMD, now in basic forms there are four types of WMD, being chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear. So starting with chemical, chemical weapons are believed to be the cheapest and easiest WMDs to make, for example the acquisition of dangerous chemicals from the private sector is very easy(indeed, gardeners can get pesticides that contain some truly dangerous toxins in them very easily in the US) and there is a wide choice to choose from ranging from Chlorine (as first used in WW1) to Sarin. Now one problem (like most WMDs) comes with weaponizing such chemicals as in that involves significant financial and technical investment (beyond the scope of most current terrorist organisations) and much like the Tokyo attacks are not guaranteed to work very well. Another problem comes with the type of weapon chosen and its natural limitations (so do you use a gas or not? Do you make it a “heavy” gas so it lingers in an area or a “light” gas so it effects a bigger area and so forth) and finally as WW1 showed, gas weapons are pretty easy to counter for western countries. As such the question would be “why would terrorists spend all that cash, time and effort on making chemical weapons when they could make a lot more conventional bombs, kill a lot more people and attract a lot more media attention with a huge amount of attacks?”.

Next we have biological weapons which are harder to acquire (as again you need a lot of infrastructure and expertise) and also since most bio-weapons come from naturally occurring things (such as viruses and bacteria) with the most dangerous biological weapon in the world today being weaponized Small Pox which is known to be in labs in only two countries in the world, being the USA and Russia. So again considering the difficulties of acquiring such weapons; the problems of employing them and the very effective counter-measures that can be enacted against then, along with the high chance of failure the question to be asked again would be. “Why would terrorists spend all that cash, time and effort on making biological weapons when they could make a lot more conventional bombs, kill a lot more people and attract a lot more media attention with a huge amount of attacks?”

So moving on to radiological weapons, (aka the poor man’s nukes) there is again a problem of turning radioactive material into a weapon, its cost and its employment. For example the only recorded successful use of a radiological weapon in history, was the by the KGB in London, in which they killed a KGB defector by injecting him with a radiological material. Now since I doubt terrorists would want to try injecting as many people as they could, I doubt they’ll want to follow that example, also please consider that turning such material into a bomb, would also be very difficult to employ. As such a bomb would have to be big, would have to be airborne and would have to be used in good weather conditions (so it not raining for example) to gain its maximum effect. So again the question that follows on from that is “Why would terrorists spend all that cash, time and effort on making radiological weapons when they could make a lot more conventional bombs, kill a lot more people and attract a lot more media attention with a huge amount of attacks?”

Finally we have nukes. Now nukes are pretty much the reserve of states, only nation states have the infrastructure in place to make a nuke thus terrorists will seek to buy one, furthermore since there are ways to trace (even an exploded nuke) origins, would have to wonder what state would ever sell a nuke to a terrorist group, knowing full well that the west would find out where it came from and reply with nukes of their own.

Now this leads me onto the next point, being that you claim that many nation states are not ruled by rational actors. Well that’s just not true, these people are rational, they are just using a different rational, then the west. For example North Korea has to rattle its nuclear sabre from time to time, in order to intimidate the west, indeed this policy is best summed up by a former member of Israel’s parliament when they said “for Israel to survive it must be like a rabid dog so that others will leave it alone) in essence North Korea says “we don’t care about dying and we will nuke you, in order to make the west react to it” it’s pretty much the same policy Stalin took with Truman in the late 40s, in that by saying he didn’t care if he got wiped out, he effectively neutered the United States vast military power in the diplomacy arena against him. Likewise this fear that Pakistan’s or Iran’s leaders would use nukes because they’d be willing to die for their religious cause is just crazy, after all if that’s the case why haven’t they done the world a favour and became suicide bombers? I’d say it’s because they love power and being in charge more then they love “Jihad” and as such knowing full well that using such a weapon would result in their own obliteration is a powerful deterrent. Indeed, this deterrent mind-set is arguably why they want/wanted nukes in the first place. For as one Indian general once said after desert Storm “you don’t take on the United States unless you have nukes.”

Furthermore, you mentioned the black market, and you’re right that could be a source, but whilst the black market runs on supply and demand it also runs on risk and reward, now for a black market arms dealer to acquiring a WMD is going to be very difficult (a high investment and a high risk) also it will make them infamous (as every nation state with nukes would know if one went missing) which again increases the risk, added to that is the problem of finding terrorist groups with enough cash to actually make the risk worthwhile and the incentive for a black market arms dealer to go through all that just isn’t there, especially since they can have less risk and make a more constant stream of cash by just selling RPGS, machine guns and conventional explosives.

So I agree with you Adam that this war is going to be a long one, and I know full well that terrorist will keep looking for WMDs, but I honestly think that the sheer work needed to make them themselves leaves the only option open for them is acquiring one on the black market, which ultimately means exposing themselves and their dealers to international intelligence agencies and is very detrimental to an underground groups (like a terrorist cell) lifespan.

PS I know I have over-simplified some of the arguments about WMDs but needless to same I’m not a biologist, chemist or physicist. Also I doubt you’ll be convinced by this post but I honestly think this fear of a terrorist WMD attack is no more credible then the fear of China nuking us and I do see parallels of it when the USSR got the bomb in 1949 (before America thought it would) and the language and rhetoric used then.

Likewise this fear that Pakistan's or Iran's leaders would use nukes because they'd be willing to die for their religious cause is just crazy

Religion is intrinsically irrational. Those most fanatical about it are the most irrational of all. Their "thinking" is not based on the same kind of calculations that you and I trade back and forth. It is based on fairy tale literalism and, as I said before, when the holy book says that you will go to Paradise for killing and being killed on Allah's behalf, that is how they think.

, after all if that's the case why haven't they done the world a favour and became suicide bombers?

Because that is very basic jihad for which there is no shortage of foot soldiers to carry out. Those at the top, like OBL want to maximize their contributions by providing organization, coordination, leadership, money, etc. which are not common skills or assets among jihadists.

I'd say it's because they love power and being in charge more then they love "Jihad" and as such knowing full well that using such a weapon would result in their own obliteration is a powerful deterrent.

Los, you're just projecting your own mental calculations onto people who do not think like you do.

There was a Jordanian doctor a few years back who was in charge of an internet forum for jihadists around the world. He was basically a one-man show, very talented, and made a substantial contribution to the cause. Very highly regarded among fellow "higher-functioning" jihadists. Not the type to blow himself up on a bus.

Well, the Jordanian secret police eventually tracked him down and secretly arrested him. They had him continue hosting the web site. He was repentent about his false jihad and was ready to change sides. After consulting with their American counterparts at CIA, they decided that he could be of high value in tracking down Osama bin Laden. A plan was hatched. They would send him to Pakistan where he would use his prestige to contact the Taliban and al-Qaida leadership there. He would then try to glean information about OBL's whereabouts.

After a few weeks in the wild he contacted his Jordanian and American handlers that he had come upon some valuable information that they needed to know about. A meeting was arranged at the CIA HQ base in Afghanistan. He was driven to this meeting and so trusted by the Jordanians and Americans that he was not even frisked when entering the base. The CIA Chief in Afghanistan came out to greet him as he was driven up. He exited the vehicle, walked toward the gathered Americans, and set off his powerful explosive vest. The CIA Chief was killed along with a few more.

They made the same mistake that you make. They assumed that jihadists think the way they do. They reasoned that the doctor had become remorseful and decided to switch to the good guys. He was, after all, highly educated, urbane, reasonable-seeming, and remorseful that he had made bad choices in the past. And now he was atoning for it all.

They bought it. They paid with their lives. Jihadist are more than willing to kill and be killed for Allah. In fact, they welcome it, they seek it out, it is a great honor; this is what Islam teaches. The Jordanian doctor *seemed" reasonable and rational on the surface. So much so that he won the trust of some very smart people who bet and lost their lives on his character and believability.

Adam44

“Los, you're just projecting your own mental calculations onto people who do not think like you do.” Umm are not you doing the same thing? You assert that their belief in Jihad is so strong that they wouldn’t care about the consequences of selling or giving a nuclear weapon to terrorists who’d use it. If that’s the case why hasn’t Pakistan (which is ruled by these same fundamentalists) nuked India or sold/given away their nukes yet? Likewise, why hasn’t Iran launched an all-out war in their part of the world yet? (As opposed to just sponsoring terrorists groups with weapons) after all, if these people are so committed to jihad and don't care about their own (or their peoples) lives then why haven't they acted already?

"Los, you're just projecting your own mental calculations onto people who do not think like you do." Umm are not you doing the same thing?

No, I'm saying that they think differently than you and I do. They think in terms of religion. Religion is irrational. Some religious people are more or less irrational than others. The more literally they take Islam (in this case) the more irrational and dangerous they are.

You assert that their belief in Jihad is so strong that they wouldn't care about the consequences of selling or giving a nuclear weapon to terrorists who'd use it. If that's the case why hasn't Pakistan (which is ruled by these same fundamentalists) nuked India or sold/given away their nukes yet?

We're kind of talking about two different things. You are talking about leaders of countries while I am now talking more about leaders of militant movements, but okay I will now discuss leaders of countries in answering your question(s).

Pakistan has not yet been ruled by people who are driven mostly by religious zeal, it's been ruled by people more in the conventional military mindset who are not irrational. Even so, they've come pretty close to all-out war with India in the past 50 years, conflct which could well overflow into nuclear exchange. The more religiously driven Pakistan becomes, the more likely that they would use their nuclear weapons.

As to "Why haven't they sold/given away their nukes yet," number one they aren't religious zealots yet in the way Iran is so close to becoming (again, as under Ayatollah Khomeini), and two; If they ever do choose to support terrorism by "donating" some material, it could easily be done in a discreet fashion that might not even be detectable. If it was detected, they could always just deny it; it's not like western countries have nuclear monitors in Pakistan or N. Korea to oversee their stockpiles. Iran, otoh, if they get nuclear weapons, I think you would see them trying to pass on some 'byproduct' from that for terrorists like Hezbollah to use if/when the time is right, or elsewhere in the world to maximize the impact. You think that the Revolutionary/Religious Guard and Mullahs there woud make rational calculations, I don't. A lot of western experts think like you do; others think like I do. Time will tell.

Likewise, why hasn't Iran launched an all-out war in their part of the world yet? (As opposed to just sponsoring terrorists groups with weapons) after all, if these people are so committed to jihad and don't care about their own (or their peoples) lives then why haven't they acted already?

Not strong enough yet, that's all. Why do you think they are trying to get nukes? They want to destroy Israel and the capacity to destroy other enemies too. Can't do that without nukes.

Do you really think that the leadership in Iran cares so much about their own people that they would not engage in risky conflict? Do you remember the war with Iraq where they sent human waves of Iranian men and boys(!) across minefields to attack the enemy? How many millions of Iranians died in that war? Do you suppose that precious human life was a consideration?

Finally and most importantly, we've already seen when a religious zealot was in charge of Iran. The Ayatollah Khomeini was then, and still is, the most revered Supreme Leader of all time in Iran. Need I remind you what the Supreme Islamic Leader said about war and Islam? Okay, here it is again:

"Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. . . . But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur'anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim."

Fortunately he did not have nuclear weapons or other WMD at his disposal. After reading the above quotation, do you suppose that he would be inhibited by the rational calculations of restraint that you say are in place for everyone in the world? Not likely. Was it just bluster and bravado designed to scare the U.S. and other adversaries? Not likely. You see, Los, the Ayatollah Khomeini knows a LOT more about Islam than you or I do. He was an expert; that's why he had that title, Ayatollah. He committed his life, his every breath, to Islam. That side of Islam definitely exists that he described. For millions of Muslims it is the paramount side of Islam. The most fanatical (literal) Muslims take inspiration and guidance from it. Islam really is chock-full of exhortations to make war on disbelievers and the like, usually couched in terms of self-defense, but when everyone is out to get you as so many Muslims seem to believe (thanks to Muhammad's foundational paranoia that's baked into the cake) then that bit of nuance, the "self-defense" doesn't count for much with the fanatics.

You find it hard to believe that any leader(s) of a country in this modern world would take Islam so seriously and literally that they would not be guided by rational calculations of the cost and casualties of war. But we've already seen at least one, in Iran, who exhibited exactly that uninhibited commitment to martial Islam and Holy War that you are so skeptical about. Are today's leaders in Iran really so very different from Khomeini? Why are they so driven to attain nuclear weapons? What are all the threats about 'Wiping Israel off the map" about? And so on. Iran is where you are most likely to see irrational religious zealots happily employ WMD if/once they get their hands on them.

Adam44

Well your post for me has just risen more questions than answers. As in the quote from the Ayatollah, I’d be interested in who was he talking to, when did he say it and if it was a public speech what were the circumstances of that speech? As all of those factors play a role in understanding what he’s getting on about. Also you mentioned that the Iranians sent many to die in human wave attacks in their war with Iraq. Yet the UK and the US did the very same thing in WW1, likewise the USSR marched people across minefields in WW2. So I have to wonder, was those actions taken due to fanatical, fundamentalism, or because they were involved in static trench warfare (the human wave attacks) and had more manpower, then technology available to them? (the marching people through minefields) you also asked why do I think Iran wants nukes? Well for me the most logical and rational answer would be, to make them immune to US and Israeli military intervention. After all, both nations have proven reluctant to use military force against nuclear armed opponents and both nations currently rely upon the hard power of their militaries to coerce other nations into submitting to their foreign policy (or as one American Aircraft carrier captain once said on the History channel “if our government doesn’t like your policy, you may find us sailing off your cost line”) so that’s my view. Likewise I think that it is in Iran’s interests to keep providing conventional weapons to Islamic militants like Hezbollah and Hamas, as from what I can tell supporting them is more of an inter-Arab political issue then any serious desire to wipe out Israel. Or to put it one way, much like America called itself the arsenal of democracy, Iran would call itself the arsenal or Islam.

Either way though, I’m just not convinced that for these leaders who have a lot to lose (more than your average suicide bomber) that they’d be willing to do so just because of effectively ideology. I have no doubt they are ruthless and don’t care about others, but I think they do like being in power and having the ability (in their own states) to do anything they want so much that they would want to give all that up in the name of said ideology. Especially when it makes sense for them just to continue funding terrorist groups and religious organisations (like Saudi Arabia does) that would theoretically achieve the conquest of Islam.

Finally the concern that they may quietly give nuclear material away is valid but doesn’t mean there would be no consequence. As most experts claim that there are ways to trace the origins of nuclear material (I don’t know the exact science behind it) so even if one did go off (which I find unlikely) the victim nation would be able to find out who made it and where it came from, and then, well they’d respond in kind and on a massive scale too. Indeed, in that scenario my only concern would be Israel as their Samson policy would result in them not just nuking the people who made the nuke that effected them, but also every European capital and even the US (the idea of the Samson option being that if Israel is going down they’ll take the rest of the world with them) and yet the irony there is they are the United States best friends.

Where are you getting this "Samson policy" from? Seems far-fetched.

The Samson policy (or Samson Option as it's known) is the name given by both Israeli ministers and foreign experts on the doctrianl use of Israels nuclear weapons. Now the most basic and avaiable source of information on it I have found has been on Wikipedia (I know its not the best) but there have been allusions to it by Israeli politicians throughout the years as well as actions taken on behalf of Israel that do support the idea. For example why would Israel need Submarines and inter-continetal missles that can deliever nuclear missles to the US and Europe if it wasn't going to employ them against such targets? Ineed, in this regard I believe the EU delieverd a report a few years ago (i'm not sure) in which it states, that it believes (aka has inteligence to indicate) that the vast majority of Israel's nuclear weapons are currently targeted as Europe.

At the end of the day I know it seems far fetched, but to me it's just a new take on M.A.D. After all, if M.A.D was the US and the USSR telling each other "if we go down, we're taking you with us" then the Samson Option would be Israel telling more powerfull states "its in your best interests to protect us, because if we go down, we are taking you with us"

This happened in France!

You're laughing at your own humor, I guess, but most of us don't have the faintest idea of what you're saying, except that you somehow saw an opening to spout wingnut philosophy.

Ron D.-571483

You're laughing at your own humor, I guess, but most of us don't have the faintest idea of what you're saying, except that you somehow saw an opening to spout wingnut philosophy.

Whoosh....

No REALLY? Because I thought that most of you guys in the comments are from the good ole US of A!?? Well, It is apparent your grasp on english is faint if you could not tell or even IMPLY who I was talkin about.

But lucky for you, Je parle un petit de francias aussi.

There is a fine line between excercizing a right of free speech and stupidity. If I get a ticket for speeding and clearly wasn't, I believe I have every right as a human being to call the cop a jerk or a-hoe. I have enough intelligence though to know better. Punish these folks for being utterly ignorant, not for their right to say what they wish.

Blutowski 4.0

I wasn't aware that France followed the American Constitution.

They don't... they follow their own...ever read it? Probably not.

Mike; WE learned a lot of our freedoms des Francais? You must look again at your history book, bud, because they got them from US!!! And NOT the kindergartner, the Mother and her Brother in law!

Exactly, Kenny. Right or wrong, legal or not, it's in bad taste. There is no way you could name a child born on 9/11 "Jihad" and not realize the implications. There's certainly no "joke" here.

Maybe it was just the start of his journey to the 70 virgins.

Tracy, and may we all hope they are MALE!!!

Or even better, male homosexual rapists! Note to god this might work! Appropriate reward for those ignorant low grade moron suicide bombers. Attack women and helpless children while hiding from the military you know you cant beat, and you get these seventy two, er professionals! Maybe something we could reward them with at gitmo! Sort of an early reward system.

She did get stoned ..and that is how she became a single MUSLIM mother...

maggieadela

A Muslim single mother? I thought they got stoned for that.

Yes, I thought it was strange how that was worded also. When a Muslim woman is a widow they usually say so and tell how she was widowed.

I also agree that the shirt was not a joke and this child's name is a guarantee of his future misery in any society other than a Muslim one. She knew she was provoking a "statement" and it's sad but not surprising she used her small son to do it; the fanatics have no compunction about using children as real bombs, so using one as a cartoon one isn't that much of a stretch.

In fact, since she is a "single mother" which is strictly prohibited by her religion, living with a brother who should, according to his religion, kill her to preserve the honor of his family, I wonder if the child is really hers.

Don't get so smug yourself, Dr. BS. We seriously don't need your "explanation" of reality.

Thank you! I guess I must now Pray Hard? :)) And do the initials BS stand for Brain Super or Brain Sensible in your comments? Thanks for such flattering initials Mr Pray Hard...or Pay Hard! :))

As a BSN myself, I can personally tell you EXACTLY what those initials mean!

Mr Ozark, I don't want to be accused of being politically correct...but isn't your blanket statement that "Muslims hate Christians...Muslims hate Americans" an unfair generalization? Are you being serious or joking like some comedians?

There are Muslims who are Americans...including some Black Muslims. One Muslim American is a proud member of the US House of Representatives. I went to school and college with kids who were from bi-religious parents: Muslim father and a Christian mother, Christian father and a Hindu mother, Methodist father and a Sikh mother, Atheist father and a Jain mother...so don't make blanket statements.

If you want to talk about Saudi Islam versus Egyptian Islam then do so...but blanket statements don't help. In fact many Americans don't know the difference between Sufism, Shiaism and Sunnism.

Ozark Dr. MS is a Muslim who just loves to divert attention away from how much hatred Muslims have shown toward every non Muslim group in the world. His tactic of trying to educate Americans on the intricacies of the different sect within Islam is a blatant attempt to divert attention away from just how violent and mean spirited Islamic teachings are and the evidence of this is the butchery that goes on between the different sects within Islam just gives even more reason to not be pulled into their deceptions. This is the twenty first century and the majority of Christians would never condone these behaviors. Dr. Ms should go back to his own country and try to educate his Muslim brothers on the intricacies but he won't because he knows they would slit his throat if he dared to try to instruct a different sect.

Yeah, I noticed that she was a single mom. Maybe her imam was the papa, so she got a dispensation. Who knows!

Good point. Think she'd laugh if some Christian kid wore a T-shirt that showed Mohammed with a bomb in his turban?

I don't think so...