OT (Politics): Clinton wasn't the only one to let bin Laden get away

[flere-imsaho]

CIA Commander: We Let bin Laden Slip Away

Aug. 15, 2005 issue - During the 2004 presidential campaign, George W. Bush and John Kerry battled about whether Osama bin Laden had escaped from Tora Bora in the final days of the war in Afghanistan. Bush, Kerry charged, "didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down and kill" the leader of Al Qaeda. The president called his opponent's allegation "the worst kind of Monday-morning quarterbacking." Bush asserted that U.S. commanders on the ground did not know if bin Laden was at the mountain hideaway along the Afghan border.

But in a forthcoming book, the CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora—intelligence operatives had tracked him—and could have been caught. "He was there," Berntsen tells NEWSWEEK. Asked to comment on Berntsen's remarks, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones passed on 2004 statements from former CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks. "We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001," Franks wrote in an Oct. 19 New York Times op-ed. "Bin Laden was never within our grasp." Berntsen says Franks is "a great American. But he was not on the ground out there. I was."

In his book—titled "Jawbreaker"—the decorated career CIA officer criticizes Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department for not providing enough support to the CIA and the Pentagon's own Special Forces teams in the final hours of Tora Bora, says Berntsen's lawyer, Roy Krieger. (Berntsen would not divulge the book's specifics, saying he's awaiting CIA clearance.) That backs up other recent accounts, including that of military author Sean Naylor, who calls Tora Bora a "strategic disaster" because the Pentagon refused to deploy a cordon of conventional forces to cut off escaping Qaeda and Taliban members. Maj. Todd Vician, a Defense Department spokesman, says the problem at Tora Bora "was not necessarily just the number of troops."

Berntsen's book gives, by contrast, a heroic portrayal of CIA activities at Tora Bora and in the war on terror. Ironically, he has sued the agency over what he calls unacceptable delays in approving his book—a standard process for ex-agency employees describing classified matters. "They're just holding the book," which is scheduled for October release, he says. "CIA officers, Special Forces and U.S. air power drove the Taliban out in 70 days. The CIA has taken roughly 80 days to clear my book." Jennifer Millerwise, a CIA spokeswoman, says Berntsen's "timeline is not accurate," adding that he submitted his book as an ex-employee only in mid-June. "We take seriously our goal of responding quickly."

When does the character assassination of Gary Berntsen start?

[Peregrine]

Yesterday. The guy is obviously Jack the Ripper.

[jeff061]

If Bin Laden's caught who will Bush use for his fear mongering?

[Warhammer]

There is a slight difference between this and what Clinton did.

First, everyone was blasting our intelligence regarding Iraq. Now, we are saying that we absolutely had Bin Laden holed up? This is an absolute fact? Granted, I do believe that we had him there, but things happen in war. You do not necessarily always get what you want.

Second, Clinton was being offered Bin Laden on a platter. Even though we had Bin Laden cornered, it does not mean that he could not escape.

Third, why does a character assassination have to start?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

Yesterday. The guy is obviously Jack the Ripper.

Yeah, his knees are too sharp too...

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

First, everyone was blasting our intelligence regarding Iraq. Now, we are saying that we absolutely had Bin Laden holed up? This is an absolute fact?

Agreed. There are lots of contradictions about the CIA right now. Outsiders' attitudes towards the CIA vary with their goals. If you hate the Iraq war, their intelligence was faulty. If you want to pin Bush for not having listened to them on Bin Laden, they are perfect. Which is it?

As discussed in the Karl Rove thread, there is a lot of animosity between the CIA and the Bush Administration, so how do we know the motives here are pure?

And as pointed out, just because you know where he is, doesn't mean you'll actually snag him. We were doing our level best to capture or kill everybody we could at that time. It would not surprise me if there were strategic screwups on the ground (they happen in EVERY war), but to say Bush let him go (something Clinton DID do) is just ridiculous.

[amdaily]

Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora—intelligence operatives had tracked him—and could have been caught. "He was there,"

Yep, just like we knew exactly where Saddam was when we bombarded his bunker during Shock and Awe.

[MrBigglesworth]

I think the big story is that Bin Laden has now been on the run for longer than WWII took to fight, and the leadership in this country has no urgency in finding him, and has admitted to being "not that concerned" about him.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I think the big story is that Bin Laden has now been on the run for longer than WWII took to fight, and the leadership in this country has no urgency in finding him, and has admitted to being "not that concerned" about him.

It has always been more difficult to take down one man that knows you are after him, than it is to strike indiscriminately at a large group. I would argue that there is no urgency in finding him. How do we know that? Also, who said they were "not that concerned" about him? What was the full quote?

[jeff061]

Several people in the administration have said it in various ways. Here is a quote from my first hit in a google search, made by Bush.

"We haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is," Bush said during the 2002 news conference. "I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run.

[Warhammer]

OK, given that context, I understand what the President is saying. Basically, we have Bin Laden on the run, and he is unable to currently coordinate attacks against the US. Therefore, there are other more important targets in the war on terror, at this time.

Now, I do take issue with the President's choice of words here, but given the full statement, I completely understand the message he is conveying. It still makes for lousy PR though.

[jeff061]

Meh, their wording for the last 5 years sucked. I actually liked the new struggle against extemism motto and it better summarized what is really going on, but Bush the crusader wants to stick with "War on Terror". Using the words Terror and Terrorism is a cliche now. I don't even know what is means anymore. If you are an enemy of the United States you are a terrorist I guess.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Several people in the administration have said it in various ways. Here is a quote from my first hit in a google search, made by Bush.

How do we know those are really Bush's words?

I keeeeed. It just seems that a lot of that is going on these days, not just here. How do we really know this, how do we really know that. Everyone hates each other so no one believes anyone and they all try to tear each other down becasue someone said something and if it is against their party then it must not be true. Then the name calling starts.

It's rather boring. Politcal radio should be getting close to some changes I think, they lead the way and I hope people are getting as tired of it as I am.

[Warhammer]

I agree with you Cringer, but a lot off it has to do with the press and what they are really reporting. Plus, everyone takes everything someone has said out of context.

My reaction to what Bigglesworth posted was initially bad because how can you say Bin Laden is not important, when he is the reason you started this anti-terrorist campaign. However, seeing the full context of what was said, I understand why it was said. I still don't agree with saying it that way, but I understand the message he was trying to convey.

That said, I say we get the whole lot of Repubs and Dems out of Congress and start over. We unfortunately live in a two party system, and there is almost no way for a fringe party to gain any ground and cause changes to the system.

[Glengoyne]

I think there is something to be said for what this Berntsen says. The operation at Tora-bora was certainly screwed up. I'm thinking that much of the screwed up portion of the problem was the participation of the Pakistani forces on their border. Those that got out, I'm thinking they were probably escorted across the Pakistani border by bribed or other wise loyal troops.

As for Bin Laden definatively being there....well I'm not certain how possitive we can really be. I don't think it is possible to know for certain, barring photos or the like possitively IDing him in the area before the raid.. A number of those holed up got away, and that was a problem. Who is to blame? I guess that depends on how the bad guys got away, and why that hole existed.

Personally I always figured that Bin Laden wasn't there, because he had gone the other direction, and was kicking back in Iran during the operation.

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I think the big story is that Bin Laden has now been on the run for longer than WWII took to fight, and the leadership in this country has no urgency in finding him, and has admitted to being "not that concerned" about him.

I agree. I think we could do much more. As for the particular story above, I've heard so many conflicting things about Tora Bora -- and I've read a lot about it -- that I don't know what is right and what is wrong, except to say that it is far easier to look back on events and pick them apart than to actually do the right thing when the event is happening and you don't have access to all the information you will have later. I do think an opportunity was probably missed there, but I think that is the nature of war, and that is was no one's fault.

I also think the Bush administration is guilty of doing nothing regarding Bin Laden until 9/11. I think the criticism of the Clinton administration's lack of action is proper, too. I also think our being in Iraq has nothing to do with whether or not we could take more action directlly against Bin Laden.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

If you hate the Iraq war, their intelligence was faulty. If you want to pin Bush for not having listened to them on Bin Laden, they are perfect. Which is it?

Actually, to the left the CIA's intelligence was correct both ways. To the right, it was wrong both ways.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Meh, their wording for the last 5 years sucked. I actually liked the new struggle against extemism motto and it better summarized what is really going on, but Bush the crusader wants to stick with "War on Terror". Using the words Terror and Terrorism is a cliche now. I don't even know what is means anymore. If you are an enemy of the United States you are a terrorist I guess.

I liked the GWOT-->GSAVE shift as well, but I think it was untenable for the administration. After all, if you are fighting violent extremism, why would you invade the mose secular country in the middle east?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

It has always been more difficult to take down one man that knows you are after him, than it is to strike indiscriminately at a large group.

I agree, it is a tough job to find one person in a city, let alone in an entire region. But that difficulty should mean that if you double your intensity, not slack off. I do not think that you can argue that the current leadership, GOP and Dems both, have taken their focus off of the hunt for bin Laden. And the recent London bombings should show that Al-Q is just as deadly as it ever was. That's not to say that no expense should be spared to track him down, because there are far greater problems out there than Al-Q. But I think that it should be a higher priority.

[Warhammer]

I'm not entirely sure how coordinated the London attacks were. Granted, they targeted an area, etc. But how hard is it to REALLY coordinate an attack. Set your watches, arrive early, plant bombs, and BOOM!

That is what is so scary about terrorism, all it takes is a handful of people with bombs and a lot of people can get hurt.

Al-Q HAD to take responsibility for the bombings to not lose face with their part of the world. The question is were they actually the ones who organized the bombings and at what level? If this came from the top down, it is concerning. If this was a small terror cell acting on their own, it is not as bad (you know what I mean!).

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The question is were they actually the ones who organized the bombings and at what level? If this came from the top down, it is concerning. If this was a small terror cell acting on their own, it is not as bad (you know what I mean!).

I think it would actually be a lot worse if it were a small terror cell acting on it's own. The administration's anti-terror efforts have been focused on taking down the command structure rather than taking on the root cause.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Actually, to the left the CIA's intelligence was correct both ways. To the right, it was wrong both ways.

Um, no. To the left, the CIA intelligence was wrong on the Iraq war, and right about this. To the right, they were right on the Iraq war, and wrong on this. Only way yours fits is if Wilson's intelligence is the only piece of CIA intelligence you consider about the Iraq war.

Me, I think the CIA is underfunded and has too big a job to do with the resources they've been given and the hand-tying they've got to effectively do the job they are asked to do.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Third, why does a character assassination have to start?

Because among the things this administration is really good at is sliming dissenters. Every time something like this comes out, everyone in the nation knows the guys faults in less than a week, as reported by information leaked to Fox or national news.

SI

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I think it would actually be a lot worse if it were a small terror cell acting on it's own. The administration's anti-terror efforts have been focused on taking down the command structure rather than taking on the root cause.

But you are never going to get rid of all the wackos out there. That is the problem. Even if we take care of all the root causes, what is to say that some nut is going to decide that since we are not all Muslim he is going to blow us up?

Taking down the command structure goes a long way towards curtailing terrorist attacks. A command structure sets priorities and targets. It also sets recruiting goals, and methods of increasing recruitment. Finally, it is also responsible for training these people to make bombs, use weapons, etc. In my eyes, taking down the command structure buys time to help attack the other parts of the problem.

We are not going to see the fruits of our labor in a year. Two years. Even ten years down the road is not enough time to see the effects of what we are doing now. But, if we see a stable Iraq democracy in 5 - 10 years, I think we are on our way to winning the war against terrorism.

Unfortunately, as I get older, I think we really need to convert the Muslims to Christianity of Judaism. Why? How often do you hear of any Christian terrorists? Jewish terrorists? Taoist terrorists? Hindi terrorists? What troubles me about Muslims is their intolerance of other religions.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Um, no. To the left, the CIA intelligence was wrong on the Iraq war, and right about this. To the right, they were right on the Iraq war, and wrong on this. Only way yours fits is if Wilson's intelligence is the only piece of CIA intelligence you consider about the Iraq war.

I think I know the left's view, and it is that the Bush adminstration massaged the intelligence and intimidated those in the intelligence community to bring them intelligence that would confirm what they wanted to hear.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I think I know the left's view, and it is that the Bush adminstration massaged the intelligence and intimidated those in the intelligence community to bring them intelligence that would confirm what they wanted to hear.

Then that is what the Clinton Administration did as well. Let's not forget, EVERYONE thought Iraq had WMDs before the war. It was a question of whether to go in militarily or not.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Then that is what the Clinton Administration did as well. Let's not forget, EVERYONE thought Iraq had WMDs before the war. It was a question of whether to go in militarily or not.

When you use "EVERYONE," do you really mean "EVERYONE?" There were plenty of people who didn't think Saddam had Nukes (I would even say an overwhelming majority of experts in the area). As for chemical and biological weapons, there were quite a few people (including UN inspectors) who believed Saddam didn't have any. And there people on this board who argued Saddam didn't have any WMD's before the war (to which the common reply was - but he could build them SOON).

[jeff061]

Unfortunately, as I get older, I think we really need to convert the Muslims to Christianity of Judaism. Why? How often do you hear of any Christian terrorists? Jewish terrorists? Taoist terrorists? Hindi terrorists? What troubles me about Muslims is their intolerance of other religions.

Ugh. These are examples, I am not using these to cite what most Christians are like, these are crazy extremists. Christians have their abortion bombing, the Oklamoma bombings, the klu klux klan. A Jewish soldier just opened fire on a group of arabs driving a bus. These are off the top of my head.

If there was a large presence of militaristic Muslims on US soil that the American powers were doing nothing about, I think we'd see a lot of nutty Christians sending bombs their way.

The very idea of converting someone's religion makes me ill, then again so does the idea of "organized religion" in general. That's not the answer. They are not violent because of their religion.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by John Galt

When you use "EVERYONE," do you really mean "EVERYONE?" There were plenty of people who didn't think Saddam had Nukes (I would even say an overwhelming majority of experts in the area). As for chemical and biological weapons, there were quite a few people (including UN inspectors) who believed Saddam didn't have any. And there people on this board who argued Saddam didn't have any WMD's before the war (to which the common reply was - but he could build them SOON).

OK, let's just say John Kerry, Bill and Hilary Clinton, Joe Lieberman (ok, so he's a moderate), Al Gore, etc. Plus, I am talking about what they said PRIOR to the war.

No where did I mention Nukes in my post. I would even agree that they didn't have nukes (hence why I said WMDs). There was PLENTY of reasons to not believe the UN Inspectors (the corruption at the UN for one, their inability to get into a location when THEY wanted to check a facility, etc.).

The point of my post was that the people who had access to the CIA Intel reports all believed that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. Sorry that I did not specify that in my previous post. On any web board, you are going to have people that represent all points of view.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Ugh. These are examples, I am not using these to cite what most Christians are like, these are crazy extremists. Christians have their abortion bombing, the Oklamoma bombings, the klu klux klan. A Jewish soldier just opened fire on a group of arabs driving a bus. These are off the top of my head.

If there was a large presence of militaristic Muslims on US soil that the American powers were doing nothing about, I think we'd see a lot of nutty Christians sending bombs their way.

The very idea of converting someone's religion makes me ill, then again so does the idea of "organized religion" in general. That's not the answer. They are not violent because of their religion.

No, they ARE violent because of their religion. Their religion has been corrupted by the extremist Imams who tell them that blowing up innocents is good.

Yes, are there extremist Christians? Yes. But how many have organized into a terror group to blow up buildings, and make that a central tenant of their faith?

Am I extremely religious? Yes. However, I do not believe in forcing my beliefs on most people. However, I do think that Islam is wrong. I can understand why Jews do not believe Christ is the Messiah. I do not believe in beating them over the head with a Bible until they say that they accept Christ as their savior. I believe in conversion by actions, not words. Living what you preach.

Now before someone goes off labelling me a Christian zealot, let me say this. There are plenty of Muslims that are not extremists. However, the Muslim community MUST let the world know that the extremists are not true Muslims. But, you don't see that happening too much.

Do you see Christians blowing up Taoists or Hindis because of what religion they are? Do you see the opposite? But everywhere where Islam comes up against another religion, there is strife on that religious border. The Philippines, Israel, and India (prior to the split with Pakistan and Bangladesh). What religion did the head of the religion tell his followers to spread the word by the sword? If you are a peaceful religion, this is not how you spread the word!

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Who is this Bin Laden that has everyone all hysterical?

[Cringer]

http://www.freemuslims.org/

On May 14, the Free Muslims and 80 other supporting organizations sent a message to radical Muslims and supporters of terrorism that we reject them and that we will defeat them.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20050714b.html

The nation's largest Islamic civil rights group plans to launch a public relations campaign on Thursday, to tell Americans that terrorism is incompatible with their religion.

http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/40795/view

Some 130 North American Muslim organizations and leaders have signed and endorsed the fatwa.

Similar anti-terrorism fatwas have been issued by other Muslim communities. After the bombings in London religious leaders from about 500 British mosques issued such an edict and presented it to local politicians.

According to Islam, only responsible, religious authorities which are recognized by a Muslim community may issue fatwas. Many Muslims say extremists such as Osama bin Laden have given these edicts a bad name in the West because they have used them without authorization and to call for acts such as murder.

---------------

Those are just a couple of example. Tons of muslims try to stand up against terrorists. Maybe it doesn't get as much news attention as it should. I always hear talk radio guys crying for muslims to speak out too. Like they can not find one who is willing to do it. I can find plenty so they must be ignoring them because it is easier to paint all muslims as evil and helps the so called War on Terrorism.

Warhammer, you damn Christian zealot.

You know I had to say it.

[jeff061]

Am I extremely religious? Yes

I never would of guessed that.

In any case, the whole idea of converting religion to fix violence is totally loony and speaks volumes about the type of people who are "extremely religious". Take a bunch of Christians, strip away all their money, luxuries, put them in a poor and weak country, and put a bunch of foreign pressure on the way they live and let's see how they react.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by jeff061

I never would of guessed that.

In any case, the whole idea of converting religion to fix violence is totally loony and speaks volumes about the type of people who are "extremely religious". Take a bunch of Christians, strip away all their money, luxuries, put them in a poor and weak country, and put a bunch of foreign pressure on the way they live and let's see how they react.

Do that and you see how they are in Mexico, Brazil, and Latin America. That is my point! There are other poor areas with lots of foreign pressure on them in other parts of the globe, and those religions do not go postal!

The idea of converting them is probably more palatable than killing them all!

Now if you are anti-religion nothing from my viewpoint is going to convince you one way or the other, because everything I say will be tainted. However, I think the problem is that the Islamic faith has a HUGE problem with their faithful. Their faithful are following Imams that are purposely distorting the religion for personal power and gain. Any heirarchy has this problem. It is exacerbated when it happens in religion because they are doing everything for God, in their warped mind (and yes this applies to Christians blowing up abortion clinics, etc.)

Re: Cringer

I saw that first one when it happend, but I did not see the other two. They Islamic heirarchy needs to embark on a PR campaign to really drive this home. They need to expel these radicals that are corrupting Islam from the faith. Maybe that would give pause to the people following these Imams.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Chrisitan zealot, I know.

[jeff061]

I don't think Mexico, Brazil and Latin America see anywhere near the same amount of outside influence. The middle east is in a more strategic geographical location and of course has all that oil, everyone's vying for a piece.

I'm not anti-religion if it's ones own choice, when you are screwing with others because of it I have a problem. All organized religions are the same in my eyes, the beliefs are different but the results are the same. Taking a more open minded stance towards religion would go a long way towards easing tension in a lot of places in the world, but I'm certainly not advocating that people take that route if they don't wish to. Do whatever you want, we can't be for freedom and liberty and then say what religion people should be.

It is exacerbated when it happens in religion because they are doing everything for God, in their warped mind (and yes this applies to Christians blowing up abortion clinics, etc.)

This applies to all organized religions, it's this thinking and the thought that people are against you BECAUSE of your religion, and when both sides have that same stance things escalate. In a general sense you could replace religious ideas with freedom/liberty idealogy, because a lot of numbskulls think that's why Muslims hate us. When both sides warp the situation to fit their own idea of the world is when things spiral out of control.

[Klinglerware]

But Latin America has always been a terrorism hot spot.

In any case, here are the top 10 groups responsible for the most terrorist attacks since Jan 1, 2004:

Group Incidents
Hamas 303
Communist Party of Nepal-Maoists (CPN-M) 136
Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn 134
Taliban 91
Ansar al-Sunnah Army 39
Basque Fatherland and Freedom 35
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia 31
United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) 30
Fronte di Liberazione Naziunale di a Corsica (FLNC) 28
al-Fatah 26

The point here is that not one religion or ethnicity has a monopoly on the use of terrorism as a strategy. Not all of those groups are Islamist, not all of those groups are Middle Eastern. As an aside, I'm surprised that the Corsican Liberation Front was still that active...

[flere-imsaho]

Post-and-run, but here's an editorial written by a friend-of-a-friend who's a muslim and a leader in the interfaith youth movement in the Chicago area:

Aftershock

Muslims in the West are struggling to understand the aftermath of terrorist attacks on London's transit system

Matters of loyalty: For country and the Koran

By Eboo Patel. Eboo Patel is the founder and executive director of the Interfaith Youth Core and an adjunct faculty member at Chicago Theological Seminary
Published July 31, 2005

I cannot stop staring at the map of central London, the one with the four explosion symbols on it. Edgware Road. Aldgate. Russell Square. Tavistock Square. It sounds like the itinerary of my regular trips to London when I was a graduate student at Oxford University a few years ago.

I would buy my newspaper at a corner shop near Tavistock Square and read it over a cup of Earl Grey tea at the cafe next door. My favorite kebab stands in London were at Edgware Road and Aldgate. When a particularly difficult case of writer's block prevented me from making progress on my thesis, I would take the tube to Russell Square, walk the few blocks to the British Museum and stand before the Elgin Marbles hoping for inspiration. After having a chapter approved by my thesis adviser, I would go to prayers in one of London's mosques to express my gratitude to God.

The calm those places provided was shattered by a group of young men who traced their heritage to the region of the world where I was born and who prayed in the same language I consider holy.

A city I love was bombed by people my community could have influenced.

Somehow, a force of hatred has penetrated a religion of peace and poisoned a part of its most precious resource, the next generation. The victims of this hatred are our neighbors, our societies and ourselves.

It is Muslim youth who are being called to their certain death by this hatred. It is our mosques that are being scrutinized, our sisters who are scared to wear head scarves and our homes that are raided by police. It is our hearts that beat faster and hope fervently that the perpetrators of the most recent sensational violence did not act in the name of Islam.

It is our religion being desecrated. The terrorists whisper our prayers when they murder. It is our Holy Koran, which says that to take a human life is like killing all humankind, being violated.

And it is our countries being terrorized: America, Britain, Spain, the Netherlands. We have built our mosques, started our businesses and raised our families here. We have made friends here, with Muslims of all backgrounds, with people of other faiths and people of no faith at all. We ride the trains, pay the taxes, cheer for the sports teams and grieve during the national tragedies.

The problem is not that Islam is a radical or violent religion. It, in fact, commands moderation and compassion. Our tradition states that Prophet Muhammad was sent as a mercy upon the world. The Koran specifically informs Muslims that we are to be a moderate community, "a people in the middle."

The problem is not that the moderate majority refuses to condemn violence. Muslim civic leaders spend a large part of their time denouncing terrorism.

The problem is that some second-generation Muslims in the West are experiencing an identity crisis that is addressed most clearly by the radical fringe. The immigrant generation of Muslims, whose identity was formed in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia a half-century ago, have dramatically different reference points than young Muslims growing up in 21st Century Western societies. They teach with good intentions, but the second generation soon discovers that it is impossible to be a 1950s-era Pakistani or Egyptian or Moroccan Muslim in 21st Century Chicago or London or Madrid.

Raised in traditional Muslim homes, occasionally participating in the permissive aspects of Western culture, these young Muslims come to believe that their two worlds, the two sides of themselves, are necessarily antagonistic. As they grow older and feel the need for a unified Muslim way of being, it is Muslim extremists who meet them at the crossroads of their identity crisis. They say, "Look how Muslims are being oppressed all over the world. You, who are living sinfully in the belly of the beast, have only one way to purify yourself: to become death and kill."

The logic is twisted. The conclusion is perverse. But for some young Muslims, this is the first time they are hearing Islam applied to the world they live in. And so they listen.

The single most important effort in the American Muslim community is youth work anchored in the American context. In Chicago, it is being led by organizations like the Inner City Muslim Action Network, the Nawawi Foundation, the Muslim Youth of Chicago and the growing number of Muslim schools, with the support of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago. Across the country, intellectuals like Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and institutions like the Islamic Society of North America are increasingly putting young people at the center of their attention.

These individuals and organizations are helping a generation of young American Muslims articulate what it means to be both authentically Muslim and proudly American. They emphasize that, as a tradition that seeks to be relevant for all time and every place, the expression of Islam must adapt even while the essence remains the same. They are teaching young Muslims that they were meant to live in pluralist societies, and providing them with an understanding of Islam that encourages cooperation with people from all backgrounds in the service of the common good.

They are emphasizing the message that just because Muslims are unfairly viewed as threats does not mean that we have to act like victims. We seek to be citizens: Participants in a pluralist society, contributing something of our story to the broader narrative called human civilization and appreciating what we learn through our interaction with others.

It is tempting to view these efforts as just youth programs, of secondary concern compared to the more serious issues of our era. That is a dangerously mistaken mind-set.

If we do not help our young people develop a Muslim identity relevant for their time and place, we forfeit them into the hands of people who will make human bombs of them.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

But Latin America has always been a terrorism hot spot.

In any case, here are the top 10 groups responsible for the most terrorist attacks since Jan 1, 2004:

Group Incidents
Hamas 303
Communist Party of Nepal-Maoists (CPN-M) 136
Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn 134
Taliban 91
Ansar al-Sunnah Army 39
Basque Fatherland and Freedom 35
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia 31
United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) 30
Fronte di Liberazione Naziunale di a Corsica (FLNC) 28
al-Fatah 26

The point here is that not one religion or ethnicity has a monopoly on the use of terrorism as a strategy. Not all of those groups are Islamist, not all of those groups are Middle Eastern. As an aside, I'm surprised that the Corsican Liberation Front was still that active...

The Symbionese Liberation Army has dropped off the radar? When did this happen?

[Buccaneer]

I thought this was old news (about Tora Bora)?

[Warhammer]

Flere - Tell your friend to shout this message from the rooftops. The Muslim leaders may be condeming these acts, but they are not doing it loudly enough. If they have a diseased limb cut it off, that is what they must do, if they cannot cure the disease!

[jeff061]

What's loudly enough though? Every muslim in the world could scream it, doesn't matter if the media does't think it makes for "good news".

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Do you see Christians blowing up Taoists or Hindis because of what religion they are?

I see Catholics blowing up Protestants in Northern Ireland. Most Basques are Catholics. Timothy McVeigh wasn't a muslim.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

But everywhere where Islam comes up against another religion, there is strife on that religious border.

Christianity is not without its warts during it's time of expansion. Off the top of my head, there was the Holy Roman Empire, the Spanish Inquisition, The Spanish slaughter of the Aztecs and other native tribes, the American slaughter of the Native Americans, Hitler's cleansing, the Ku Klux Klan, etc. All that doesn't make Christianity itself bad, just the people that were abusing it. Times have changed though, and Christianity is in power through most of the world. Because of this, they don't usually need to resort to the desperation tactics that lead to terrorism and ethnic cleansing. The Muslim people were extraordinarily advanced through much of history. The Ottoman Empire was vast, and renown for its tolerance of religions (compared to the Christians of the time, anyway). Things only really started to go downhill with the onset of colonialism. Control by a foreign power breeds extremism. Just ask the British crown what happened to her colonies in the New World. Some of the early things we did to gain independence bordered on terrorism.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The Ottoman Empire was vast, and renown for its tolerance of religions (compared to the Christians of the time, anyway).

I almost brought the Ottoman's up earlier. They would allow Christians to remain Christian when they conquered someplace, Greece for example. They would have to pay a decent sized tax, but they also were not forced to serve in the military like those who chose to switch to Islam. They didn't go around and slaughter Christians. (Well, when there was a rebellion near the end of the Ottoman Empire there was fighting. But that was a case of Greeks trying for independence as I understand it.)