Engagement: A key to anti-terror success

[HeldUp]

I'm thinking of having this published.

Engagement: A key to anti-terror success

By HeldUp
July 29, 2005

There appears to be a big yet simple difference for the reasons of the British Government’s success in catching the London terror suspects over America's lack of success in catching homegrown terror suspects: engagement of the local Muslim communities.

After 9/11, U.S. authorities went on a mass arrest spree of mostly south Asian immigrants from Pakistan and Afghanistan, the “obvious” targets. While there were more than 5,000 individuals cast in this large net, nearly all were for minor immigration violations -- technicalities – many held for months in solitude, denied contact with relatives or legal representation. These were people who lived here for years, paying taxes, worked hard to make a living and educate their children with, oh-by-the-way, zero ties to terrorism. Of the few held on actual terror charges, most of those accusations have been dropped due to lack of evidence.

The American Muslim community was quick to denounce the devastating attacks on our country and many organizations, like the Muslim Public Affairs Council (http://www.mpac.org), offered their help in any way. But instead of engaging the American Muslim community for their assistance, government agencies spied, bullied and intimidated many while stating publicly that retribution against the Muslim community would not be tolerated. A mixed message at best.

Apparently, the British authorities have learned from our mistakes, actively engaging the local Muslim community in a determined, focused effort to find the criminals. This has resulted in the arrests of a cadre* of individuals directly responsible for terror activities, and a better relationship between British law enforcement, local Muslims and the public at-large.

While terrorism is still very much on our minds and still a very real threat both here and abroad, it’s encouraging to see a very public government engagement of reaching out to a community for help in stopping the scourge of hatred and destruction by a few misguided individuals.

It’s a shame – almost a sham – that the recent “fatwa” issued by the Fiqh Council of North America, is only one of the many efforts American Muslim have given to see recognition by the media for doing something for our country.

*A tightly knit group of zealots who are active in advancing the interests of a revolutionary party. See Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cadre)

[HeldUp]

Here's my submission. Look for in a newspaper near you.

Engagement: A Key to Anti-Terror Success

The clear difference of the British Government’s success in catching the London subway bombing terror suspects over America's lack of success in catching homegrown terror suspects is its open and active engagement of its own local Muslim communities.

Immediately following 9/11, U.S. authorities, led by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, went on a mass roundup of mostly south Asian immigrants from Pakistan and Afghanistan, the “obvious” targets in the war on terrorism. While the government has officially reported more than 6,400 individuals arrested or detained in this large net, nearly all were for minor immigration violations -- technicalities -- holding many for months in solitude and denied contact with relatives or legal representation.

Records also show the FBI conducted “interviews” on more than 27,000 individuals related to 9/11. In addition, the INS instigated a program which registered, interviewed, fingerprinted and photographed 144,000 green card holders from so-called “Muslim” countries. These were people who lived here for years, paid taxes, worked hard to make a living and educate their children with, oh-by-the-way, zero ties to terrorism. Undeniably, a few had criminal records, yet of those held on actual terror charges, most of those accusations have been dropped due to lack of evidence.

The American Muslim community, numbering close to six million, quickly and loudly condemned the devastating attacks on our country. Many organizations, like the Muslim Public Affairs Council, offered their help in any way, from their grassroots anti-terrorism campaigns to youth outreach efforts. After all, Islamic teachings abhor violence. But instead of engaging the American Muslim community for their assistance in the war on terrorism, government agencies tragically spied upon, bullied and intimidated thousands while stating publicly that retribution against the Muslim community would not be tolerated. A mixed message at best.

Apparently, the British authorities have learned from our government’s mistakes, actively engaging the local Muslim community in a determined, focused effort to find the criminals. This has resulted in the arrests of a cadre of individuals directly responsible for terror activities and, as a consequence, created a more trusting relationship between British law enforcement, local Muslims and the general public at-large.

While terrorism is still a very real threat both here and abroad, it’s encouraging to see a very public government engagement of reaching out to a community for help in stopping the scourge of hatred and destruction by a few misguided yet zealous individuals.

It’s a shame -- almost a sham -- that the recent “fatwa” issued by the Fiqh Council of North America, appears to be the only one of the multiple statements made by American Muslims against terrorism over the years that has been recognized by the media, finally acknowledging our contribution to this cause for our country. Such sensational media events do little to solve anything in reality and are as newsworthy as high-speed car chases and water-skiing squirrels.

As fellow patriots, American Muslims have done much to be part of the solution. However, to win the war on terrorism, government agencies should openly and actively engage local Muslims in this fight.


[ # # # ]

[dukestreetking]

If 3,000 Brits died in one day and planes were flown into the Queens castle I think you would have seen a different response from the British government.

[Incident]

Here's my submission. Look for in a newspaper near you.

Engagement: A Key to Anti-Terror Success

The clear difference of the British Government’s success in catching the London subway bombing terror suspects over America's lack of success in catching homegrown terror suspects is its open and active engagement of its own local Muslim communities.

............................

[ # # # ]

I will save further criticism of this diatribe for the future. For now I just point out several reasons as to why your first assertion is severely flawed.

•You are comparing Apples with Fiona Apple. Unlike the 7/7 London bombers the attacks of 9/11 were not done by homegrown islamic* terrorists.
•The US has not been attacked by Homegrown Islamic* terroists.
•How do you know that efforts to catch homegrown islamic*
terrorists have been unsuccessful? Since there have been no attacks in the US by American Muslims it would seem likely that US enforcement efforts have been fairly successful.

This is not even a criticism of the content of your article it is merely a criticism of its logical structure. Even if your "proofs" ,which you detail in the body of your article, are valid they would not, could not, confirm your original flawed assertion.


*Added for Paulie's clarifacation.

[Paulie]

•The US has not been attacked by Homegrown terroists.

Really???!!! So where did we import Timothy McVeigh from??

Paulie

[Incident]

Really???!!! So where did we import Timothy McVeigh from??

Paulie



That was over 10 years ago and we have had no further terrorist attacks by "white supremicists" since.
We caught him!!! (This refers to the actual point of Held Up's article)
He was not a Muslim and engagement with Muslim Groups would not help or hurt capturing further "white supremicist" suspects (again, this refers to the actual point of Held UP's article)
But for you I will edit my comments and add the word "Islamic" so you will better understand the context.

[Paulie]

That was over 10 years ago and we have had no further terrorist attacks by "white supremicists" since.
We caught him!!! (This refers to the actual point of Held Up's article)
He was not a Muslim and engagement with Muslim Groups would not help or hurt capturing further "white supremicist" suspects (again, this refers to the actual point of Held UP's article)
But for you I will edit my comments and add the word "Islamic" so you will better understand the context.

I perfectly understood the context, pal. I was just pointing out a factual misstatement on your part...something you enjoy doing to everyone else's threads. So lose the attitude, will ya?

Paulie

[Incident]

^Sorry, I assumed you had a point. Thanks for the Clarifacation

[HeldUp]

...engagement with Muslim Groups would not help or hurt capturing further "white supremicist" suspects (again, this refers to the actual point of Held UP's article)
That's like saying having Muslim basketball players* wouldn't help win an NBA championship. You're conveniently dropping the "American" part of American Muslims. We're part of this country (both in its successes and failures) whether you want to see it or not. We're patriots, too. Get used to it. :kiss:

*Hakeem Olajuwan, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Jamal Wilkes, etc...

[PalestinianPride]

Great article you've written. I wholeheartedly agree. I admire your wit and intellect mind. You are a great writer.

[TIES2]

A response in three parts as I do not think it will fit in one post....

First, let me congratulate you on this effort. Overall, well written, I particularly like your reference to high-speed car chases and water-skiing squirrels (lends a certain stylistic cadence…). But enough flattery, as enjoyable as it was to read, I now have to do what I do best…shoot it full of holes…


Engagement: A Key to Anti-Terror Success

The clear difference of the British Government’s success in catching the London subway bombing terror suspects over America's lack of success in catching homegrown terror suspects is its open and active engagement of its own local Muslim communities.

If I have my timeline correct, engagement occurred after July 7, not before. The British government initiated the engagement, not the British Muslim Community. As I have stated previously, I think it was a brilliant strategy by Mr. Blair. He tossed the ball to alleged “teammates” who for all practical purposes showed no previous desire to handle the ball. Under the current circumstances, however, they had no choice but to catch it.

The failure of the Muslim Community to make the first move is puzzling. It should not have been incumbent on the British Government or the American Government to reach out to the Muslim community. The Muslim community leaders should have, from the outset, been tripping over one another to make the first move.

I also disagree to your comment about America’s lack of success in catching homegrown terror suspects. Among those apprehended: the masterminds behind the ’94 World Trade Center attacks, the Buffalo 7, and, more recently, a father and son from Lodi, CA, just to name a few. I suggest you take time to read the August 1, L.A Times article titled, Fear Over U.S. Born Extremists is Brewing.


[I]Immediately following 9/11, U.S. authorities, led by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, went on a mass roundup of mostly south Asian immigrants from Pakistan and Afghanistan, the “obvious” targets in the war on terrorism. While the government has officially reported more than 6,400 individuals arrested or detained in this large net, nearly all were for minor immigration violations -- technicalities -- holding many for months in solitude and denied contact with relatives or legal representation.

Records also show the FBI conducted “interviews” on more than 27,000 individuals related to 9/11. In addition, the INS instigated a program which registered, interviewed, fingerprinted and photographed 144,000 green card holders from so-called “Muslim” countries. These were people who lived here for years, paid taxes, worked hard to make a living and educate their children with, oh-by-the-way, zero ties to terrorism. Undeniably, a few had criminal records, yet of those held on actual terror charges, most of those accusations have been dropped due to lack of evidence.

While unfortunate, I suppose a bright side is that almost 200,000 individuals living in the US of Muslim origin or from predominantly Muslim countries have been cleared of any connection to terrorism or dealt with in accordance to their transgressions, whether for mere technicalities or not, as you put it. I don’t think it was out of line for the FBI and U.S. Authorities to question individuals following 9/11. As you mention, most charges have been dropped. Those held probably could not explain their actions and/or activities to the satisfaction of US officials or refused to do so. And, in reality, in many other countries under similar circumstances these same individuals might still be behind bars (or worse, never heard or seen from again!)

The American Muslim community, numbering close to six million, quickly and loudly condemned the devastating attacks on our country. Many organizations, like the Muslim Public Affairs Council, offered their help in any way, from their grassroots anti-terrorism campaigns to youth outreach efforts. After all, Islamic teachings abhor violence. But instead of engaging the American Muslim community for their assistance in the war on terrorism, government agencies tragically spied upon, bullied and intimidated thousands while stating publicly that retribution against the Muslim community would not be tolerated. A mixed message at best.

Again, I think the burden of engagement lies on the shoulders of the Muslim community, not on the shoulders of the Government.

[TIES2]

Apparently, the British authorities have learned from our government’s mistakes, actively engaging the local Muslim community in a determined, focused effort to find the criminals. This has resulted in the arrests of a cadre of individuals directly responsible for terror activities and, as a consequence, created a more trusting relationship between British law enforcement, local Muslims and the general public at-large.

I have read a great many articles on the British arrests of those involved in the planning and execution of the July 7 and 21 attacks and no where do I recall reading that the arrests were the result of direct involvement by the British Muslim community. You need to cite your sources on this assertion.

I do recall reading, however, that the first big break in the July 7 bombing came as the result of a call received from the mother of one of the perpetrators. From that point, British law enforcement engaged the Muslim community. Again, it was not the British Muslim community engaging British authorities.

While terrorism is still a very real threat both here and abroad, it’s encouraging to see a very public government engagement of reaching out to a community for help in stopping the scourge of hatred and destruction by a few misguided yet zealous individuals.

It’s a shame -- almost a sham -- that the recent “fatwa” issued by the Fiqh Council of North America, appears to be the only one of the multiple statements made by American Muslims against terrorism over the years that has been recognized by the media, finally acknowledging our contribution to this cause for our country. Such sensational media events do little to solve anything in reality and are as newsworthy as high-speed car chases and water-skiing squirrels.

The Fatwa, in the words of Siddiqui, head of the CAIR organization, was a result, in part, of Mr. Blair’s engagement of the British Muslim Community. In many circles, the Fatwa is considered mere window dressing.

My own perception of the fatwa is that it amounts to little more than words. It may sound good, but……

Take for example paragraph three of the written release of the press conference….

“The Qur’an, Islam’s revealed text, states: “Whoever kills a person [unjustly]…it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.” (Qur’an, 5:32).

Sounds good. But then I noticed the ellipsis, which usually means something has been left out (or, in some instances, taken out of context). So I looked up the passage and here is what I found:

Whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land. (Qur’an 5:32)

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned, this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.” (Qur’an 5:33)

The two passages taken together as a whole leave me with an entirely different feeling than the portion of the passage quoted in the fatwa, and it’s not a feeling I would describe as “warm and fuzzy.”

Then there’s this constant nagging feeling regarding use of the word “civilians.” Why “civilians?” Why not people? Or individuals? Or humanity?

The following is a quote from an interview that appeared on Al-Jazeera TV on July 8 by Dr. Hani Al-Siba’I, director of the Al-Magreze Center for Historical Studies in England.

“The term “civilians” does not exist in Islamic religious law….There is no such term as ‘civilians’ in the modern western sense. People are either Dar Al-Harb or not.”

In an earlier interview this same individual gave on AMB TV (Feb 2005) he is quoted as saying:

“Islamic history has no term for ‘civilian’ in the western sense. This is a western term. In our Islamic rules of war, one can be a ‘combatant,’ non-combatant,’ or ‘protected by an agreement.’ A person can be a combatant even if he does not carry a weapon. In other words, a person who came to cook and wash for the American soldiers in order to free them to fight…such a person is a combatant.”

Maybe I have a basis for questioning the use of the term ‘civilians?’

[TIES2]

Then there’s Siddiqui…

Most of what I read from him appears moderate, yet there’s this too…


In an account by Kenneth Timmerman…

During an anti-Isreali rally outside the White House on Oct. 28, 2000, Siddiqui openly threatened the United States with violence if it continued its support of Israel…America has to learn…if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come…”

In a news article in the Kansas City Star (Jan, 28, 1995) Siddiqui is quoted as saying:
“Those who die on the part of justice are alive, and their place is with the Lord, and they receive the highest position, because this is the highest honor.” The quote was allegedly made in reference to suicide bombers.

In an article (or perhaps paper) titled: The Spirit of Tolerance in Islam, Siddiqui states: “People are tolerant of things they do not care about. Bu this is not the case in Islam. Tolerance according to Islam does not mean that we believe all religions are the same, It does not mean that we do not believe in the superiority of Islam over other faiths and ideologies.”

“The Qur’an says, “There is no Compulsion in religion.” (al;-Baqarah 2:256).

The complete verse goes like this:

“There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore; whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan [Satan] and believes in Allah, he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle; which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.” (Qur’an 2:256)

“Allah is the Guardian of those who believe. He brings them out of the darkness into the light and {as to} those who disbelieve, their guardians are Shaitans who take them out of the light into the darkness; they are inmates of the fire, in it they shall abide.” (Qur’an 2:257).

Perhaps I do not have this right, but it sounds to me that in Islam, there are two kinds of people: believers and non-believers. Those who believe in Allah and the teachings of Islam are by default, the believers. Those who believe in other Gods by default are the bad guys and belong to Satan?

Back to Siddiqui’s article:

“Allah does not forbid you that you show kindness and deal justly with those who did not fight you in your religion and did not drive you out of your homes…” (al-Mumtahinah 60:8)

Here’s what the next verse in the Qur’an says:

“Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of your religion and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.” (Qur’an 60:9).

Siddiqui then talks about why, if Allah does not make religion compulsive, he punished the people of Prophet Nuh. His answer…
“They were punished because they had become oppressors. They committed aggression against the righteous, and stopped others to come to the way of Allah…. A great scholar, Ibn Taymiyah said, “The states may live long in spite of their people’s unbelief (kufr) but they cannot live long when their people become oppressors.”

And I could go on and on. But it becomes easier perhaps for you to see why someone on the outside looking in is skeptical…

I’m not making these things up. Nor am I relying on Western media or writers. These are quotes and references from leaders of the Muslim community, in America and elsewhere. Whether they represent prevailing attitudes, I do not know. I do know, however, that some, particularly Siddiqui, is positioned as being a moderate and mainstream; yet some of his quotes make it difficult for me, and perhaps others, to determine which side of the divide he is really on. Is the line separating the peaceful from the terrorist (oh, excuse me, we are calling them ‘extremists’ now!) that thin?

But all this brings me to the real point of my reply, namely this tendency among the Muslim and non-Muslim communities alike, here in the US and around most of the Western world, to refer to these ‘extremists’ as a few misguided individuals.

The notion of a ‘few’ is a gross understatement. At best, it marginalizes and trivializes the problem; at worst, it has everyone running off to look for solutions in all the wrong places.

I know in another post someone cited a number that put the ‘extremist’ (don’t you just love buzzwords?) element at roughly 10 to 15%. Given the worldwide Muslim population, even half that number (percent-wise) translates into a number, that while clearly not a majority or anything approximating a majority, certainly outnumbers what most people define as a ‘few.’

Add that number to research results (Pew Research) stating that negative feelings towards the US among Arab states is hovering in the 20-30% range (that’s 70 – 80% of the populace with a general disdain for Americans) and the definition of the problem as a ‘few’ seems even more grossly misstated.

I know from your perspective it must appear that I am attacking you and your religion. Neither is true. I am simply attacking the notion of the problem couched in terms of a “few.”

Furthermore, if American Muslims, British Muslims and other Muslims of western democracies want to benefit from the fruit of those democracies then they too must share in the pain of safeguarding those democracies.


As fellow patriots, American Muslims have done much to be part of the solution. However, to win the war on terrorism, government agencies should openly and actively engage local Muslims in this fight.

touche!

[Incident]

That's like saying having Muslim basketball players* wouldn't help win an NBA championship. You're conveniently dropping the "American" part of American Muslims. We're part of this country (both in its successes and failures) whether you want to see it or not. We're patriots, too. Get used to it. :kiss:

*Hakeem Olajuwan, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Jamal Wilkes, etc...

This is the quote of mine you choose to respond to? And take it out of context at that. All I was saying is that Engagement (using your word) of Muslims (whether American or Not) would not do a thing for combating terrorism by "White Supremicists' Like Timothy Macviegh. This wasn't even in response to your article it was in response to Paulie; pointing out the irrelevency of his comment within the context of your article.

BTW -- In my comments on your article I did use the term "American Muslims". Perhaps you would care to respond to my comments on your article.

Furthermore, where did I say or imply that American Muslims are not part of this Country? Where did I say that Muslim's are not Patriots? The fact is I didn't.

[HeldUp]

•You are comparing Apples with Fiona Apple. Unlike the 7/7 London bombers the attacks of 9/11 were not done by homegrown islamic* terrorists.
•The US has not been attacked by Homegrown Islamic* terroists.
•How do you know that efforts to catch homegrown islamic*
terrorists have been unsuccessful? Since there have been no attacks in the US by American Muslims it would seem likely that US enforcement efforts have been fairly successful.

This is not even a criticism of the content of your article it is merely a criticism of its logical structure. Even if your "proofs" ,which you detail in the body of your article, are valid they would not, could not, confirm your original flawed assertion.
Whether flawed assetions or poorly written, this is my point: "to win the war on terrorism, government agencies should openly and actively engage local Muslims in this fight."

I don't think that's too much to ask. As a member of a community that has been burning its candle on both ends in fighting extremism within and without, I think our government has gone about the fight all wrong. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but to see my point of view.

[Incident]

Whether flawed assetions or poorly written, this is my point: "to win the war on terrorism, government agencies should openly and actively engage local Muslims in this fight."

I don't think that's too much to ask. As a member of a community that has been burning its candle on both ends in fighting extremism within and without, I think our government has gone about the fight all wrong. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but to see my point of view.

OK, then why do you think that compared to Britain and Europe that Muslim's in this country have been able to assimilate more easily into our society and culture?

I do have some thoughts on this but in many ways they are the opposite of the conclusions you drew in your article.

[HeldUp]

OK, then why do you think that compared to Britain and Europe that Muslim's in this country have been able to assimilate more easily into our society and culture?
To borrow from yesterday's L.A. Times, European Muslims are more ghettoized, clustered by country of origin and rejected by or rejecting of the mainstream society. As numerous analyses of Britain's accused bombers have noted, such outsider status makes angry young people more susceptible to the simplistic message of the worst hard-line fundamentalists.

That makes it all the more worthwhile to support Muslims trying to head off the still small rumblings of youthful alienation in the United States.

[pinky]

No, no, no, we're supposed to let things fester until it's a crisis, so Junior or some other neocon can ride in on a white horse and save us!

:rolleyes:

[Incident]

...That makes it all the more worthwhile to support Muslims trying to head off the still small rumblings of youthful alienation in the United States.


Perhaps you should talk and write to your Democratic Party Leaders. The President through his "Faith Based Initiative" has been attempting to direct funds to Islamic Charities (also Jewish and Christian) to provide local relief. Who is better equiped to direct aid to those Muslim's in need it better than the Leaders of Muslim relief organizations. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats have been fairly successful in stopping this program. The Liberals in this Country will do all the can to prevent the government from directly or even indirectly engaging a religous groups, as they feel it violates Seperation of Church and State.

I don't believe that you have a school choice program (vouchers) in California. Here in Milwaukee there are several successful Islamic Schools in which tuition, for the most part is paid for by the state, to families that can not afford to pay. This is almost an entirely Republican program and is opposed by nearly all Democrats. Because they are beholden to the Public Teachers Unions. If this program were rolled out on a National Level I believe it would benefit potentially "angry" Muslim youths as they would see the government paying for their tuition to a Islamic School. Of course the Dems would and do vehemently oppose this.

So instead of criticising the President it seems, to me, that the Dems are the ones preventing further Engagement with troubled Muslim Youths.