Will terrorists try to disrupt election?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2004
Will terrorists try to disrupt election?
51
Wed, 08-11-2004 - 2:51am
There have been rumours that Al-Qaeda or some other group of Muslim terrorists will attempt to disrupt U.S. elections by doing a terrorist act in the U.S. right before the election.

It would be easy enough for them to do if they really wanted to, there are several million Muslims living in the U.S., the terrorists could easily hide in U.S. Muslim communities, much as they did before 9/11. And we have very poorly controlled borders and coasts, terrorists could sneak into the U.S. as well.

Do you believe that Muslim terrorists will, for whatever absurd reason, attempt to disrupt our U.S. elections?
Avatar for isabella710
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-22-2003
Mon, 08-16-2004 - 6:32pm
<<>>

I think we can all agree on that.

<<>>

I agree with that too.


Photobucket



iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2004
Mon, 08-16-2004 - 7:47pm
85% of African-Americans, and two-thirds of Hispanic Americans vote Democrat.

If the modern Democrats were racist they wouldn't get ten percent of either group.

I repeat once again, what happened during previous eras when the Democrats needed the "Dixiecrat votes" was a very different era than today.

I also never said, as someone insinuated, that all southern Republicans were formerly racist "Dixiecrats". I know there is great diversity in both the Democrat and Republican Parties in the south and elsewhere.

But I believe the "religious right", who I really don't care for, and former racist Dixiecrats have too much influence in the southern Republican party, at the expense of more moderate Republicans.

That's why that even though I often vote for Republicans here in New York, if I lived in the south I would probably vote Democrat.

I am just stating how I feel about it. It's my opinion and I have a right to vote as I please.

If you disagree, fine, vote how you please.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2003
Mon, 08-16-2004 - 8:12pm
Democrats are still racist, now they are for affirmative action which is merely another form of racism. Those who like this sort of stuff do not understand history... we should be working for a government which does not care what race someone is.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 08-17-2004 - 1:17am
<<"I believe we should end Muslim immigration ">>.....How?

Djie

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2004
Tue, 08-17-2004 - 9:10am
How do you think?

The same way we ended German , Italian, and Japanese immigration during W.W.II. The same way other industrial nations have been reducing Muslim immigration in the past few years.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2004
Tue, 08-17-2004 - 9:14am
So you are going to have mostly White police departments patrolling cities like Detroit or L.A. that are mostly Black and Hispanic?

Yeah that will work.

Like it or not, America has become much more racially diverse.

In many cities, the "minorities" outnumber the "majority". Obviously all racial groups in a society this diverse need representation, otherwise the country won't function.

Affirmative action can work for Whites too in areas of the country where they are becoming the minority.


Edited 8/17/2004 9:20 am ET ET by bridgettao
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 08-17-2004 - 10:26am
German, Italian and

Djie

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Tue, 08-17-2004 - 1:40pm
How has Bush made life difficult for Terrorist? More soldiers have dies in summer of 2004 than in Summer of 2003. Lot more injured seriously, the numbers of injured are never shown by the media. The situation keeps getting worse and worse. We need a change in CiC.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 2:14am
Why do South America countries have so few Muslims living there?

They don't allow immigration from mostly Muslim countries.

In the case of European immigrants, they screen them carefully. And they discriminate against people they find undesirable.

True, you can't always tell who a Muslim is, Muslims are not a race or an ethnic group, they are a religion. But you can often tell who they are by their first or last names.

It would be impossible to stop all Muslim immigrants, but a number of countries recently, including some countries in West Europe and Australia and New Zealand, have decided to reduce Muslim immigration.

Since 9/11 in New York and the more recent bombings in Madrid, many countries are reconsidering admitting any significant number of Muslims into their countries.

The reason for this discrimnation against allowing Muslims to immigrate to various countries is of course due to widespread Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism in a number of countries worldwide. That is the main reason there has been a shift in many people's perception of Muslims.


Edited 8/18/2004 3:25 am ET ET by bridgettao

Avatar for schifferle
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 9:39am
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-16-racial-profiling_x.htm

Racial profiling: A matter of survival

By Michelle Malkin

When our national security is on the line, "racial profiling" — or more precisely, threat profiling based on race, religion or nationality — is justified. Targeted intelligence-gathering at mosques and in local Muslim communities, for example, makes perfect sense when we are at war with Islamic extremists.

Yet, last week, the FBI came under fire for questioning Muslims in Seattle about possible terrorist ties. Members of a local mosque complained to Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., who called for a congressional investigation of the FBI's innocuous tactics. The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington accused the agency of "ethnic profiling."

But where else are federal agents supposed to turn for help in uncovering terrorist plots by Islamic fanatics: Buddhist temples? Knights of Columbus meetings? Amish neighborhoods?

Some might argue that profiling is so offensive to fundamental American values that it ought to be prohibited, even if the prohibition jeopardizes our safety. Yet many of the ethnic activists and civil-liberties groups who object most strenuously to the use of racial, ethnic, religious and nationality classifications during war support the use of similar classifications to ensure "diversity" or "parity" in peacetime.

The civil-rights hypocrites have never met a "compelling government interest" for using racial, ethnicity or nationality classifications they didn't like, except when that compelling interest happens to be the nation's very survival.

Missed opportunities

Consider what happened in summer 2001, when Phoenix FBI agent Kenneth Williams urged his superiors to investigate militant Muslim men whom he suspected of training in U.S. flight schools as part of al-Qaeda missions.

Williams' recommendation was rejected, FBI Director Robert Mueller later said, partly because of concerns that the plan could be viewed as discriminatory racial profiling.

Mueller acknowledged that if Williams' Phoenix profiling memo had been shared with the agency's Minneapolis office, which had unsuccessfully sought a special intelligence warrant to search suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop computer, the warrant might have been granted.

If the FBI had taken Williams' advice, the feeling of some Arabs and Muslims might have been hurt. But the Twin Towers might still be standing and 3,000 innocent people might be alive today.

Absolutists who oppose national-security profiling often invoke the World War II experience of Japanese-Americans. When asked whether the 12 Muslim chaplains serving in the armed forces should be vetted more carefully than military rabbis or priests, Sarah Eltantawi of the Muslim Public Affairs Council raised the specter of Japanese internment.

The analogy is ridiculous. The more extensive screening of 12 military officers is a far cry from the evacuation of 112,000 individuals on the West Coast. The targeted profiling of Muslims serving in sensitive positions is not a constitutional crisis.

Some argue that the dismissal of charges against Army Capt. James Yee, a former Muslim chaplain who ministered to enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and was initially suspected of espionage, undermines the case for profiling of any kind. Not at all. As the Defense Department has acknowledged, the military's 12 Muslim chaplains were trained by a radical Wahhabi school and were certified by a Muslim group founded by Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was charged in September 2003 with accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars from Libya, a U.S.-designated sponsor of terrorism. These associations cannot be ignored.

Unfortunately, the Pentagon caved in to Eltantawi and her fellow travelers. Rather than focus exclusively on the 12 Muslim chaplains, it pressed forward with a review of all 2,800 military chaplains.

The refusal to be discriminating was, as Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., acknowledged, the "height of politically correct stupidity."

Smoke-and-mirrors arguments

In the wake of 9/11, opponents of profiling have shifted away from arguing against it because it is "racist" and now claim that it endangers security because it is a drain on resources and damages relations with ethnic and religious minorities, thereby hampering intelligence-gathering. These assertions are cleverly fine-tuned to appeal to post-9/11 sensibilities, but they are unfounded and disingenuous. The fact that al-Qaeda is using some non-Arab recruits does not render profiling moot. As long as we have open borders, Osama bin Laden will continue to send Middle East terrorists here by land, sea and air. Profiling is just one discretionary investigative tool among many.

Post-9/11, the belief that racial, religious and nationality profiling is never justified has become a dangerous bugaboo. It is unfortunate that loyal Muslims or Arabs might be burdened because of terrorists who share their race, nationality or religion. But any inconvenience is preferable to suffering a second mass terrorist attack on American soil.

Michelle Malkin is the author of In Defense of Internment: The Case for "Racial Profiling" in World War II and the War on Terror.