Three days ago, a radical muslim cleric from Virginia was sentenced to life in prison for inciting violence and soliciting treason.

From Washington Post:



In a similar development, France announced that any cleric preaching violence and hatred during sermons will be expelled.

From BBC:



Question for debate:


The American approach locks them up for good, but at the same time turns them into martyrs in the eyes of some. French approach would limit their influence on the hearts and minds of young arabs within the country, but will not halt their activity outside of French borders.

Which approach do you think would be more successful in dealing with radical clerics, and why?

Edited to add: Poll added

Which approach do you think would be more successful in dealing with radical clerics?

The best approach is to get the FBI and other intelligence agencies to hook on to these radical clerics and see what bigger fish they can catch. Sort of like that Abbott and Costello routine...you catch a fish, throw it back to catch a bigger fish. Catch a bigger fish, throw it back to catch an even bigger fish. The best thing that we can do is to see where these cleric's support base comes from. Who do they associate with? Is there anyone in their congregation that shares their convictions so strongly? DO THEY HAVE TERRORIST TIES?

Obviously after all this information is discerned we can decide to lock them up or keep them in play hoping that they will be contacted by an extremist group looking for assistance.

You know you always read about these secret government agencies acting in unscrupulous ways to obtain an objective. Well, if any situation calls for it this is it. Maybe some of these clericsa need to die a "natural" death, no martyrdom, no continued spreading violence. Sadly, the Bush administration worships the rule of law too much to engage in this type of activity.

We have our own radical clerics in America that preach violence and hatred every day- they just happen to not be muslim- Jerry Falwell and Bob Jones come right to mind, not to mention Pat Roberts, Jimmy Swaggert etc- oops, let's not forget Ann Coltier-

should we expell them?

Unless they ACT or have members that ACT on thier violent sermons, we should only monitor them, and see if they have ties to terrorist groups.

Many Christian fundamentalist churches have ties to right wing paramilitary groups- so I am all for monitoring ALL religious groups that preach hatred and intolerance to others.

I will never forget a sermon by Jerry Falwell I heard when I was 15 years old, when he said "Gays wil just soon kill you as look at you, so we need to arm ourselves against them, be prepared to do battle against them, we need our freedom to bear arms against these sodomites, to protect our children from their sexual desires, you can shoot a gay if he comes to your house, no jury will convict you"-

Sounds like incitement to violence to me- and as a 15 year old, I believed gays were going to invade my house and rape me any minute (well, not really, I already had a healthy dose of skepticism for clerics)

For some reason, I can't get your link to the Washington Post story to work. Here's another link:

Link

This trial makes me nervous. Maybe I'm having trouble following this logic:



I would have to know more details about this case, but I'm having trouble finding the line between calling for the destruction of the United States, and soliciting treason. Maybe al-Timimi gave some specific instructions to his followers that are not reported in this article. If not, no matter how repulsive we might find his statements, life in prison seems out of line as a punishment for hate speech.

Of course, anyone who makes such statements should be watched very, very carefully, and arrested as soon as they take any kind of action. This seems to be how law enforcement has handled groups such as the KKK in the past.

This statement in the French case seems sadly ironic to me:



Isn't the inability to accept evil speech the sign of a weak regime?

I think lederuvdapac is on the right wavelength here. Keep a very close eye on the loudmouths who spew loathsome poison, so you can track down the real Bad Guys.

Obviously, I have to vote "other."

The two approaches you describe or differentiate do have two distinct means. The American approach seems to be more of a global approach on what is perceived as a global war on terrorism whereas the French approach seems to be more of a protection or concern of only the nation state. I personally find the French approach inadequate. I think if you have knowledge or access to a citizen or resident of yours who is plotting terrorist activities in Europe, or planning to have jihad tours to Afghanistan, Iraq or Israel you have a responsibility to obtain them and prevent them from doing so. I don't quite understand how France feels she is absolved form this responsibility by just placing the individual outside their borders.



Gee it seems quite obvious. The method that obtains them and recognizes that if they blow up or incite violence on French people, American people, Iraqi people or Israeli people they need to be stopped.

Well done CruisingRam! I was wondering if we would end up expanding the discussion to ALL religiously inspired hate speech. In the end, our main concern should be whether or not crimes are committed due to the speech of an individual.
Summary of hate crimes for 2003

A quick look tells you that there are a decent number of hate crimes committed each year and the hate is focused in a variety of directions.

Were any of those crimes inspired by the speech of others?

I began researching incidents of radical, right wing hate speech but, to be honest, the things I found were too inflammatory to post. I prefer to have people look it up on their own.

Back to my main concern: Does the speech of an individual LEAD to a crime being committed?

In the case of this cleric, perhaps the feds can prove that his requests were a direct order to harm Americans. I do not know exactly what he said. However, I believe that it is critical for our government to treat ANY other hate speech in similar fashion.
When a fundamentalist preacher suggests, "if a gay comes to your home you can shoot him.." then the same law should apply.

We are slipping into a hypocritcal state of mind in this country. Since 9/11 we seem to have changed our value system. Now actions that can be associated with Islamic fundamentalism are 1.) assumed to be terrorist in nature 2.) treated as a more severe situation.

Reality check: An islamic fundamentalist suggesting the murder of Americans and a Christian fundamentalist suggesting the murder of gays is the exact same thing morally, legally and technically in the eyes of the law. Somehow the law has forgotten this.


So, what would I suggest we do?

I voted "Other" because I think we need to run "Carl rove" style campaigns against these people.
In my dream world our government would track all Religious Zealots who give hate speech for sermons. We should do a few things with them:

First, investigate to determine if their speeech may be leading to any actions by their constituents.
Second, run a campaign to discredit them. Use every dirty trick in the book to make them look like a hypocrite or scheister to their flock. Find out if they are making money in their position and reveal it. Catch them with a prostitute. Dig up skeletons from their past, etc...

Finally, use the ensuing public humiliation of the cleric as an opportunity to begin educating their followers on hate speech and moral values. Find another, more moderate cleric to step in and preach tolerance etc..

I realize I am disconnected from reality on this, but I really believe that it is the best way to unmask hate speech and let people see it for what it is.

I voted for jail, although I wish that there was a "Jail" rather than life option. The thing is, the ten counts all added up to the life sentence (I suppose) rather than one incident of bad preaching and a life term for that. If you jail them, they can't keep preaching bad stuff! France had an all right idea, I mean, it keeps the offender OK and it keeps the country OK...except then the person that was expelled might get some people to attack France when they go to some other country and preach there. I don't think France is right about this .

Ignoring the abject bigotry and ignorance displayed by some in this thread and moving on to the actual question at hand....

The American approach locks them up for good, but at the same time turns them into martyrs in the eyes of some. French approach would limit their influence on the hearts and minds of young arabs within the country, but will not halt their activity outside of French borders.

Which approach do you think would be more successful in dealing with radical clerics, and why?



This question implies that there is a single "American approach" to dealing with radical Muslim clerics which is to "lock them up", and that's simply not true. Last week on Nightline, they did a story about some Pakistani Muslims in Lodi, California who had been jailed for activities related to terrorism. Apparently the father was an Imam in the local Mosque and his son (or sons) had traveled to Pakistan and allegedly attended terrorist training camps there. Pretty serious charges on the face of things. The father had also admitted traveling to Pakistan post 9/11 and admitted to encouraging the people there to resist American intervention in Afghanistan. Once again, pretty serious charges. The outcome of all of this was reported here in the Los Angeles Times (free registration required). From that article for those who don't care to register.....



Later on, same article......



This sounds a whole lot like the French solution to me.

I guess my answer to "other" would be to handle things on a case by case basis.

You are right, my question was formulated rather incorrectly. I slapped labels "American" and "French" for simplicity, but obviously we are dealing with them (the clerics) on a case by case basis. In case of Virginia cleric, I don't even know if it would be possible to deport him since he is a US citizen. Is there a precedent of revoking a citizenship (especially if he is a naturalized citizen) in cases like that?

Good question, EH, I was wondering about that myself this morning. I suppose it might be possible to revoke a naturalized citizenship, but I doubt a person born in the US could have that happen to them. I don't think there is a legal mechanism to deport a native-born American either. Plus, where would you send them?

In the case of a natural born US citizen- wouldn't treason be the charge in this case- and that being the way to deal with them? or some such other harsh felony charge?

Not that Soviet Union would be an example to follow, but some natural-born Soviet citizens were expelled to the West (most notably, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the 1970 Nobel prize-winning author).
I guess you can put them on any PIA plane (Pakistan Airlines) going out of the country...

Which approach do you think would be more successful in dealing with radical clerics, and why?

Other - it should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

For instance - some clerics will be need to be deported such as the Lodi cell referenced above. Some clerics have been convicted of crimes such as soliciting treason and firearms conspiracy which carries mandatory life at Club Fed. As mentioned earlier in this thread, there is also a mechanism for revoking one's citizenship and deportation that has been used by ICE agents.



This mechanism could probably also be used for jihadist clerics. Though not yet fully tested in federal courts, the US could also use enemy combatant status if clerics were found to fall under the executive detention order - even US citizens arrested on US soil, such in the case of Jose Padila. It is unclear at this time how SCOTUS will ultimately rule on Rumsfeld v Padilia, (the court ruled in favor of the government in 2004 over procedural issues - Padilia was found to have sought his writ in the wrong district court) though the issue will probably be raised in the upcoming SCOTUS confirmation process.

I would think you'd almost have to do something like this with a natural born citizen although treason is an extremely difficult charge to prosecute. Certainly there are other darn serious felonies that could be charged. I did come across a rather interesting tidbit about this though when I was looking up what was done in the case of John Walker Lindh. From Wikipedia we have the following:



This is kind of a variation of EH's Soviet example I think.

Interesting thought process, but I'd have to vehemently disagree. We don't have any radical clerics that intentionally incite violence in America. Please include actual quotes if you'd like to disprove me... maybe incite hate, but not violence.

Secondly, Ann Coulter is by no means a "cleric", as she's an author and republican pundit/commentator. She's not a religious leader at all... come on CR. (oh- and again, she does not incite violence)

If we wait for actions, it's far too late. That's what got us here in the first place. Consider the numerous times that we were attacked during the Clinton years, and nothing was done... hence 9/11. USS Cole, the World Trade Center bombing, the Embassy bombings, etc, etc, etc....
The best defense is by far a good offense...

If I were George Tenet, I'd have men or wires in every mosque, every muslim organization, every student group, etc. Anywhere Muslims met in America as a collective; we'd have an intelligence presence.

Does that infringe on their civil rights??? Not really... surely if they don't know we're there....

Well, here is the stupidest suggestion ever as to how we should deal with these guys, from Congressman Tom Tancredo. This should be running on Al-Jazeera in about 20 minutes. What an idiot.

I'll go along with you on the idiot part, Carlitos. Tancredo is an idiot, always has been, always will be. He's been trying to start a war with Mexico over immigration and now it appears he wants a holy war against Islam. You know, I wish my ancestors had stricter immigration policies back when his ancestors came to America.

And you just know these comments will be used as proof against America in the middle east.

I don't know who this fellow was, but he ought to have chosen his words with care. Its attitudes like this that are taken literally by those looking for excuses.

Well, does this pass the smell test for a strong whiff of a "radical cleric" intentionally inciting violence in America?

Those willing to fight will live, those willing to concede will live under satan’s “jewish” offspring, as they justly deserve, however the day will come where the lines of conflict will call for the righteous to rise up and utterly destroy the enemies of Yahweh, those willing to defend the evil of Zionism, or defend their master the “jew” will most certainly perish, and their genomes will be erased for the purpose of cleansing our race. May Yahweh have no mercy upon their souls, for after all, they obviously have sold their souls to satan’s spawn, death to the “jew”, death to the pollution that allows them to exist. May Yahweh bless the Holy Jihad….

DEATH to the jew! ----Pastor Jay Faber

http://www.aryan-nations.org/

Among some of the other "holy men" right here in the good ol' U.S.A.

Pastor James P. Wickstrom: 2003 Update: Pastor James Wickstrom is 61 years young raising his eight year old son Jeremiah in the Essexville, Michigan area. He continues to teach the Racial Identity message and is world renowned for his uncompromised 30 year stance in identifying the jew vermin, enemies of our Father YHVH .

http://www.jameswickstrom.com/interview_with_wickstrom.html (scroll to the bottom for a nice picture of the pastor).

Reverend Richard Butler: Butler then moved his congregation to Northern Idaho, where it became, in his words, a "Call to the Nation," or Aryan Nations. Its goal, as a subsequent newsletter stated, was to form "a national racial state. We shall have it at whatever price is necessary. Just as our forefathers purchased their freedom in blood, so must we….We will have to kill the bastards."

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/butler.asp?xpicked=2&item=2

Reverend Fred Phelps: A former liberal Democrat who somehow turned into America's most vicious homophobe Phelps runs various websites such as Godhatesfags.com and Godhatesamerica.com where this vile little tidbit can be found: Pope John Paul II, the Great Pedophile Pope, is in hell. No burning candles, no indulgences, and no prayers to Mary will change that. The new Pope Benedict, Pope of the Great Whore, will burn in hell with him shortly.

http://www.godhatesamerica.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps

Reverend Matt Hale: Now here's a real winner. Osama and Matt should hang out. Matthew F. Hale (born July 27, 1971) is the leader of the white supremacist group formerly known as the World Church of the Creator and now known as the Creativity Movement which was based in East Peoria, Illinois. In 1998, Hale made headlines when his application for an Illinois law license was denied for his belief in racial discrimination ("gross deficiency in moral character"). On April 6, 2005, Hale was sentenced to a 40-year prison term for soliciting an undercover FBI informant to kill federal judge Joan Lefkow. He is currently incarcerated in the Chicago Metropolitan Correctional Center.

Two days after Hale was denied a license to practice law, a World Church of the Creator member named Benjamin Smith went on a three-day shooting spree in which he randomly targeted members of racial and ethnic minority groups in Illinois and Indiana. Beginning July 2, Smith's rampage killed two people, including former Northwestern University basketball coach Ricky Byrdsong, and a 26-year-old Korean graduate student named Won-Joon Yoon who was shot as he was on his way to church. Smith wounded nine others before committing suicide on July 5. Mark Potok, director of intelligence for the Southern Poverty Law Center, believes that Smith may have acted in retaliation after Hale's application to practice law was rejected.

After Smith's shooting spree, Hale appeared on television and in newspapers saying, "We do urge hatred. If you love something, you must be willing to hate that which threatens it." He also referred to non-whites as "mud races." According to Hale, America should only be occupied by whites, but he never explained to the media how he was going to achieve these goals. During a television interview that summer, Hale stated that his church didn't condone violent or illegal activities. Meanwhile, Hale was distributing thousands of copies of the "White Man's Bible," a book which encouraged a war against Jews and "inferior, colored races". In public, Hale claimed to be against violence, but his church's bibles expressed the opposite sentiment: "You have no alibi, no other way out, white man! It's fight or die!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_F._Hale

And in the interests of spreading the hate equally here's another loser who has passed on to his eternal...errr...reward.

Khalid Abdul Muhammad: (January 12, 1948-February 17, 2001) was an extremely controversial spokesperson for the Nation of Islam (NOI). He was famous for his inflammatory remarks against whites and Jews. Unlike other prominent NOI members, Muhammad openly admitted he was anti-semitic and never turned down an opportunity to express his unpopular views, which his supporters saw as "telling the truth".

Here's two examples of that "truth." "The so-called Jew claims that there were six million in Nazi Germany. I am here today to tell you that there is absolutely no evidence, no proof. There is absolutely no evidence to substantiate, to prove that six million so-called Jews lost their lives in Nazi Germany..."

and...

"The white man is not only practicing racism and Zionism and with the prostitution ring, the so-called Jew man with the Jew woman all over the world to make a few dollars. He is also practicing sexism. He's a racist, he's a Zionist, a sexist, and imperialist. He's a no good bastard. He's not a devil, the white man is the Devil."

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/asus_12/3221_12a.asp

Ooops. Muhammad went by the title, "Doctor" instead of "reverend" or "pastor" or "minister" or any of the other terms these hate-mongers give themselves. My bad.



First off, aevans176, George Tenet isn't the CIA director anymore. Secondly there are somewhere between one and three million self-described Muslims in the United States. There aren't enough spies, snitches and surveillance equipment in the world to watch them all 24-7/365.

What you propose doesn't just infringe on the civil rights of Muslims; it tramples them underfoot. How do you think it's going to go unnoticed when Muslims notice the sudden surge of blue-eyed and blonde-haired "converts" to Islam? Or maybe they'll notice a lot of Chevy Econoline vans parked in front of their homes and businesses?

The United States and other democracies must work with moderate, mainstream Muslims to root out, thwart and marginalize radical extremists who misrepresent the Quran and the Islamic faith. Trying to strip every American Muslim of their civil liberties will not accomplish this and will only drive younger Muslims into the arms of the radicals. Just as it has done in Iraq and the bloody insurgency raging there.

Nighttimer:

The Islamists are not misrepresenting Islam, they are in fact the true spiritual heirs of Mohammed's Islam. And if you think that Islam means "peace," it does not, it means "surrender," and you're either going to surrender to the will of Allah voluntarily, or at the edge of that sword blade. Either that, or you live your life as a second, very second, class citizen known as a dhimmi.

I would ask you and others who believe as you do to go and visit some Islamist sites. One run by the ICNA [Islamic Circle of North America] condemns the bombings in London but then posts an article from a Mr. Yusuf al-Qarawadi on just how great you and I can expect to be treated under Islam. Of course, what our friends at the ICNA did not say was that Mr. al-Qaradawi has been banned from this country since 1999, and precisely because he incites terrorism. And here is the ICNA on democracy in the US, or at least how they'd like to see democracy in the US: http://www.messageonline.org/2002aprilmay/cover1.htm

Muslims don't otherwise use words like "moderate" and "progressive," since to them, one is either Muslim or one is not Muslim. So when we use those words in reference to Islam and/or Muslims, all we are doing is talking past them.

And as someone already said, more than a few Muslims put their religion first and nationality second. If you don't believe me and that poster, please explain CAIR. Council on American [nationality]-Islamic [religion] relations. And then there's this statement, from Omar Ahmad, co-founder of CAIR:

"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

As our friends over on the Gates of Vienna blogsite put it, we're in GIJ3W, or the Great Islamic Jihad, Third Wave.

And for more on taqiyya, please see:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/londonn...29634?version=1

Yep, the imam tells us one thing, but tells the faithful another.

And let me leave you with Mr. Spencer re how we get "radicals," i.e., they start off as Muslims ignorant of the Qur'an, Sunnah, Hadith, etc., then get educated, and then they're blowing us up:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5888


moif:

In addition to Mr. Spencer's remarks, there's Mr. Arafat's words about "start[ing] with the Saturday people, and move[ing] on to the Sunday people."

Lastly, kivrot hataavah is a variant of a place name in the Torah, meaning, burial place of the craving. It was the name given to the first stop after Sinai, and for some reason that defies rational explanation, even though the "ha" ["the"] goes with the taavah [craving], the standard erroneous English translation is, the graves of craving. Nice that those who craved and were struck with a plague were buried there, but the moral of the story is that each stop on the way represents something one must do in order to survive the great and terrible wilderness and enter into that good land flowing with milk and honey. The first thing is to bury the craving, and so the first stop on their journey was named, kivrot hataavah, the burial place of the craving. Hopefully, since you asked, my explanation won't violate the house rules [as it were].

Deal with the root causes.

Every preacher needs an audience; so take away the audience.

I think the old stand-by of "make the punishment fit the crime" works in this instance. There is not real answer to this question because "radical" comes in degrees, like nearly everything else.




I do not think life in prison is wholly acceptable. I'd say a stint in prison, no less than a year but not exceeding twenty, would be the most reliable course of action, depending on the offense.

Of course another alternative is to deport them to a Middle-east county, say Syria, to preach to their heart's content.

It's important to distinguish between Islamofascist clerics acting as part of the global jihad vs. civilization and mere hatemongers. The former we're at war with. The later are just offensive... unless, like Rev. Matt Hale, they engage in violance. His 40 year sentence is entirely appropriate.

In the case of jihadist clerics, I say no rules, only whatever works. Surveillance and/or infiltration may be the appropriate strategy in some cases (the FBI's excellent work against the Klan can serve as a model there), deportation in some and prosecution in others. And sometimes the best answer is covert action, including assassination.

The French are employing their typical approach; leave the problem for someone else to deal with. That's why they coddled Saddam Hussein and Islamic terrorists prior to 9/11. They were only too happy to reap the financial rewards from the "business" they did with those regimes and have their bile directed toward the Great Satan (USA) instead of toward France.

France's approach solves nothing. It just leaves us all with a big problem to solve.

If clerics incite violence, lock them up. If they actually "participate" in violence, send in the special forces and fill them full of holes.

We are at war. We didn't "deport" the Nazis. We bombed them to oblivion.

The leaders of the Islamic fascists movement are deadly serious about their aims which are a world controlled by their radical vision of Islam. Freedom itself is at stake since these people are diametrically opposed to it.

We can deal with this serious threat in a serious manner, or we can wish it on someone else (as the French have historically done).

And, while we are at it, we should support our true "friends" and punish those who are not with us in this global war. Here is one way.

Don't buy these products

lordhelmet, you propose the impossible. I'd be quite interested to hear your theory on how exactly we go about "bombing (Muslim clerics) to oblivion?" Muslim clerics are of no specific country and most times do not speak what is in the heart's and minds of the people calling the shots- the government. When last I looked a man or woman of a religious faith had not the power to speak for a nation (unless of course it is a special circumstance like Tibet).

So, what is your plan to weed out radicals from the Muslim religious hierarchy? You mention the Nazis, they were in power of an entire nation. Also, you say we bombed them to oblivion. That is false as well. Not all Germans were Nazis and not all Nazis were German. We bombed with the intention of taking out the superstructure of Nazi Germany, but innocents still died (in fact the first death of Allied bombing on Berlin killed the only elephant in the Berlin Zoo, the only casuality ) So if innocent people died because we tried to take out radicals from a different page in the history book, how should we go about doing the same today when they run no country?

Wouldn't bombing a church be an act of state sponsored terrorism and lead to war?

Is poisoning a cleric who is a radical not an assassination? Do assassinations not lead to death (as proved by Rwanda)?

What about simply whisking them away in the middle of the night? Would inquiries not be made?

Or how about putting them under house-arrest? Yes, we saw what the effects of putting an influential person under house arrest did in Palestine.


I love America, don't get me wrong. I'd never want another 9/11 to happen. But how can we fight an enemy with no country without a repeat of the ground war in Iraq?

You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't propose that. I pointed out that we bombed the nazis to oblivion, we didn't just cast them out for some other country to deal with them (like the French are currently doing to the Islamic fascists when they aren't sucking up to them).



They run a number of countries including Iran, Yemen, Sudan, and others. My point is that we have a clear choice. Confront this threat or pretend it doesn't exist. It's not going away. The war or the inevitable confrontation is not OUR choice, in spite of our western arrogance in believing that we can do unto others and have them do the same unto us.

My plan is to put the clerics into places like Gitmo and throw away the key. It's also to start a massive PR (i.e, propaganda) campaign using every media and communication tool in our arsenal to persuade young potential terrorists that there is a better way. If those people are lost and take up arms against us (and the west), we must do away with them.

That means kill them for those who don't quite understand my understated way of saying that.




Well, you answered your question yourself in a way. You want to fight a conventional war against a un-conventional enemy (you stated you didn't want another 9/11) but you aren't willing to do the dirty work that will be required.

No worry. Fortunately, the GOP has individuals (as does our volunteer armed forces) who understand who and what we are up against and who are up to the task.

Within Iraq, I would employ the "El Salvador" option that has been discussed in the past by the administration. There is no point of a feather-headed approach promoted by amateurs like John Kerry to "put another 100,000 troops into Iraq". That just creates more targets and loses sight of the fact that these people are fighting a guerilla war and aren't wearing uniforms, etc. Send in the underground troops to find them and take them out (again, read kill them).

War is a dirty business. It was in WWII, WWI, during the revolutionary war, and during our war of independence. There is no "nice' way to fight these people.

But they are intent on our destruction whether we want to admit it or not. They hide behind a "church" but what they preach is not a "religion". Therefore, bombing their hideouts isn't the same thing as dropping a laser guided bomb on St. Andrew's or the Congregation Mt. Sinai. How could attacking our enemy "lead to war"? The war is here an now and they declared it on us!

In this we agree. However, I wasn't in favor of using the bombs.




So, you throw away a country's religious leaders? That's all fine and dandy... until riots start in countries where we raped them of their religious icons. You can't just march into a city and round up radical clerics because, no matter how radical they are, their message finds ears. Removing the knife can sometimes harm the victim more than helping them.

Deal with the clerics in turn, but to round them up and expect American (Western) propaganda to fall on a willing audience? Not a feasible solution. Militias would begin swelling in Middle-eastern cities that we so happened to have arrested their cleric on charges of conspiring to commit terrorism.




That's all I wanted to know.




Isn't the Revolutionary War and our war for independence the same war?




You are mistaken. Islam can be perverted to say that to achieve salvation (and your virgins ) that you must kill Infidels. Within a certain respect, it is the teaching of a religion. Does it make it right? No. Is bombing their place of worship right? No.


Overall lordhelmet I think we generally agree... except on bombing and using propaganda.

Wrong. The Muslims community calls them moderate, but they are radical.

Consider two moderate Muslim leaders Abduahman Alamoudi who is President of the American Muslim Council, and Muzammil Saddiqi, spiritual leader of the Islamic society of Orange County. These two clerics were chosen by the U.S administration to represent moderate Islam to the American masses after 9-11. They appeared with Bush as Bush so carelessly stated that Islam was a religion of peace not hate. Both men joined the president three days after the terrorist attack in a televised memorial service at the National Cathedral in Washington D.C, where in fact Saddiqi was given the honor of offering the opening prayer.

BUT............ These so called moderates who were selected to calm us down over Islamic terrorism, were later shown on television days later (Fox News videotape) at a Washington D.C rally supporting terrorist organizations and openly denouncing the United States. This was on TAPE.



After these remarks SAddiqi said,



Seems to me they uttered the same words as the 9-11 terrorists did before crashing the airplanes into the buildings........Allahu akbar.

And they are leaders of their faith in the United States. There are radicals all over the United States. The ACLU is protecting them.

I think that maybe the name of the title of the Thread says more than some realize. "RADICAL" people require radical solutions and action.

If you truly want to stop the spread of hate you have to stop the messenger. Pretty simple. Releasing them back into the free world will just result in the preaching their hate from somewhere else. Jailing them may make them a hero to some, but it sure puts a damper on the followers.

I say create an island prison somewhere, drop them off, and let them fend for themselves. TIC

I don't think there is a "one-size-fits-all" response. There are a few quite different circumstances, a few I can think of are:

Case 1: If death or destruction has resulted from their encouragement, then I'd favor the gallows, preferably with a rope soaked in pig blood. All of the Lynn Stewart type "enablers" and financiers could be put to work in Gitmo or elsewhere. Instead of just letting them sit around and plot, let them work 10 hours a day growing sugar cane. Maybe if the actually had to work for a living they might gain a different perspective. If not, it will at least keep them occupied and help subsidize the operation.

Case 2: "Cleric" is not a U. S. citizen, but no acts attributable to him: Since one would presume the threshold is significantly less for expelling a non-citizen than for jailing them, "CYa later!" Some of the countries they would be sent back to are not very receptive either.

Case 3: U. S. Citizen professing violence from the pulpit: Strip them of their religious (and tax exempt!) status, and the protections that come with it. Then enforce existing hate crime laws.

Tolerance is only civilized and acceptable in society to the extent that it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. A great many of the hate-mongers of all sorts, as cited by others here, are routinely crossing the line. By allowing them to go on, we are condoning them.