home

Fort Dix Attack Suspects Arrested

Six men from the former Yugoslavia and the Middle East have been arrested for an alleged planned attack on military members at Fort Dix.

Authorities say there is no evidence connecting them to al-Qaida.

``If these people did something, then they deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law,'' said Sohail Mohammed, a lawyer who represented scores of detainees after the 2001 attacks. ``But when the government says `Islamic militants,' it sends a message to the public that Islam and militancy are synonymous.''

``Don't equate actions with religion,'' he said.

A point well taken.

Update: The suspects: Four of the suspects were born in the former Yugoslavia, one in Jordan and one in Turkey, said Michael Drewniak, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Newark, New Jersey.

< Infant Mortality Soars in Iraq | An Event for The Young and Incarcerated >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Question.... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by kdog on Tue May 08, 2007 at 07:16:47 PM EST
    why does the Times article say detained and not arrested?  If the feds have these guys on tape saying what they say the guys were saying...by all means arrest them, charge them, try them, lock them up.  What's this detained business?  Makes me nervous...

    the point is well taken, and (none / 0) (#1)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 08, 2007 at 03:55:29 PM EST
    maybe it should be made to this guy:

    One defendant, Eljvir Duka, was recorded as saying: ``In the end, when it comes to defending your religion, when someone is trying attacks your religion, your way of life, then you go jihad.''

    Yeah, well ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Sailor on Tue May 08, 2007 at 06:33:07 PM EST
    ... tell it to Tom Tancredo.

    BTW, 'jihad' does not mean 'wage war.'

    Like all the others on this site say, let's wait for the facts.

    The gov alleges and brags about many terrorism arrests. Successful prosecutions ... ehh, not so many (see Yee et al.)

    Parent

    Again, maybe you should inform them (none / 0) (#55)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 08, 2007 at 06:40:27 PM EST
    "The footage depicted young men shooting assault weapons at a firing range while calling for ``jihad'' and shouting ''Allah-o-Akbar'' -- ``God is Greatest'' -- "

      It is simply not credible to say that because MOST muslims are not out to wage holy war and do not view the concept of "jihad" to be a command to wage it that none of them do.

    Parent

    Did you see the footage? (none / 0) (#88)
    by Sailor on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:32:35 PM EST
    Did they say it in english?

    Let's wait for facts.

    Parent

    "Islamic militants" (none / 0) (#2)
    by roy on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:06:47 PM EST
    Does the phrase really imply they're synonymous?  Not by the grammar rules I know.

    Does "American military" imply that all Americans are in the military?  Does "Swiss cheese" imply that everything Swiss is cheesy?  Of course not.  Do I need to pick apart "Christofascist"?

    The phrase clearly -- and afaik accurately -- refers to a subset of Islam.

    The video showed 10 young men in their early 20s ``shooting assault weapons at a firing range ... while calling for jihad and shouting in Arabic 'Allah Akbar' (God is great),'' the complaint said. The 10 included six of those arrested, authorities said.

    Those who are upset about the muddling of Islam and militancy should take it up with those who use Islam to motivate militancy, not with those who accurately describe the bad apples.

    roy (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:16:50 PM EST
    Totally agree.

    And maybe someone can look at that video and see the connection beween such starter violence and the end results at Fort Dix.

    Parent

    trust ppj (none / 0) (#54)
    by Sailor on Tue May 08, 2007 at 06:38:24 PM EST
    to quote from world nut daily like it's a reputable source.

    Sheesh.

    No weapons, no plan and only the govt's word ... you'd think even ppj would get tired of being lied to by bushco by now.

    How about we wait for the actual facts.

    Parent

    Sailor (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 07:45:17 PM EST
    Uh, actually I provided something that had that thing called a VIDEO.

    You know, for people who can't read. VIDEO!

    What a concept!

    You can see what they are doing!

    Wow and gosh!!!!

    With this NEW and AMAZING invention IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO HAVE SOMEONE WRITE WHAT IS HAPPENING!

    Parent

    You provided propaganda (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Sailor on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:35:42 PM EST
    the video from the radical right site wing nut daily was not from this case.

    Let's wait for actual facts. It's the American Way.

    Parent

    sailor (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:02:59 AM EST
    Blogs do comment.

    My comment was that anyone should be able to see the connection between the actions shown on the video and the Ft Dix plotters.

    I believe you do, you just will not admit it, or else you are in a huge case of denial.

    Parent

    Jim would you consider these acts of disrespect (none / 0) (#99)
    by Freewill on Wed May 09, 2007 at 12:02:13 AM EST
    to our National Flag terrorists acts as well?

    Terrorist Act #1?

    If disrespecting the Flag and its symbolism is considered by some as an act of American Hating terrorist. Wouldn't this be considered a disrespect to our Troops?

    Notice the Flag on his shoulder. According to ushistory.org "To wear our country's flag properly, the field of stars is worn closest to your heart." and USFlag.org cites a response from the Department of Defense:

    "Thank you for your inquiry about the proper placement of the American flag on the uniform of the U.S. Armed Forces.

    Army Regulation 670-1, "Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia," updated most recently September 5, 2003, addresses explicitly the proper and lawful placement of the U.S. flag patch on the Army uniform.

    The regulation states that when authorized for application to the proper uniform the American flag patch is to be worn, right or left shoulder, so that "the star field faces forward, or to the flag's own right. When worn in this manner, the flag is facing to the observer's right, and gives the effect of the flag flying in the breeze as the wearer moves forward. The appropriate replica for the right shoulder sleeve is identified as the `reverse side flag'."

    We appreciate and share your concern for the respectful display of our American flag on the uniform of the U.S. Armed Forces."

    This is directly from the The Flag Code
    Title 4, United States Code, Chapter 1 found at the Legion.org website:

    § 10. Modification of rules and customs by President
    Any rule or custom pertaining to the display of the flag of the United States of America, set forth herein, may be altered, modified, or repealed, or additional rules with respect thereto may be prescribed, by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, whenever he deems it to be appropriate or desirable; and any such alteration or additional rule shall be set forth in a proclamation.

    I have yet been unable to find President Bush's Proclamation that U.S. Flags worn on Military Uniforms could be placed backwards.

    Here is a little history from the National Flag Foundation:
    Flag Patches on Army Uniforms

    Many sharp-eyed civilians have noted an apparent oddity on the uniform sleeves of American military men: backward flag patches. Why is Old Glory flipped around like that?

    Only the flag patches affixed to right shoulders of uniforms are reversed, so the blue field of stars faces forward. (Left shoulder patches aren't a problem, as the stars face forward without meddling.) The reversal was inspired by the age-old practice of carrying flags into battle. When fastened to a standard, the American flag's blue-and-white portion is always closest to the pole. A flag bearer rushing into the fray, then, would naturally lead with the stars. In fact, it would be virtually impossible to lead with the stripes-the flag would simply wilt and wrap around the pole, rather than waving triumphantly in the wind.

    For a service man or women to lead with shoulder-borne stripes, then, might smack of cowardice and retreat, as if the toter were backpedaling away from the conflict. The official Army guidelines on the donning of flag patches add that the forward-facing stars give "the effect of the flag flying in the breeze as the wearer moves forward." So perhaps it's best to think of every militry person as a latter-day flag bearer, leading the headlong charge into battle.

    And this is our Commander in Chief!

    I know what you're thinking, "It's a hoax picture of the President (Commander in Chief) using binoclures that have the covers still in place. If they photoshopped the lens caps they must have photoshopped the flag as well." Well, this Snopes.com article shows 2 pictures from the same series of photos and in both the shoulder patch Flags are going in the same direction.

    Flag Disrespect #3:

    Flag Disrespect #4:

    You can clearly see that all of the  Flag Disrespects noted above are covered by a strict set up guidelines on many of the links I have provided.

    Now, I didn't even get into American Flag underware out of respect to those reading my reply to your propaganda at work. None of the links povided in this comment are NSFW. All links are safe for viewing.

    Parent

    Freewill (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:04:14 AM EST
    You need to consider more productive things to do with your life.

    Parent
    Jim (none / 0) (#112)
    by Freewill on Wed May 09, 2007 at 06:54:34 PM EST
    And maybe someone can look at the pictures and see the connection beween such starter violence and the end results in Iraq and America.


    Parent
    Freewill (none / 0) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:08:24 PM EST
    That you can't is just further proof that you need help.


    Parent
    how would you refer to. . . (none / 0) (#5)
    by the rainnn on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:25:44 PM EST
    okay -- pop quiz! -- did you two,
    roy and jim, refer to the men caught,
    tried and convicted for the oklahoma
    city murrah building bombing as. . .

    "fundamentalist-bible-believing-
    Christian-militants
    . . ."

    . . .in 1996?  if so -- congrats!

    you were -- at least -- consistent.

    if not -- and we KNOW you
    didn't -- why not?

    here endeth the lesson.

    p e a c e

    -- the rainnn, out

    Parent

    "Domestic terrorist" still seems fine (none / 0) (#7)
    by roy on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:37:26 PM EST
    IIRC, neither of them really involved religion in their actions.  McVeigh "sort of lost touch with" the Catholic church before the attack.  Nichols converted to Christiantiy after the attack.

    Compare to the Dix suspects, for whom religion is thoroughly entangled with their militancy.

    I'll repeat that, because it's a critical distinction:  compare to the Dix suspects, for whom religion is thoroughly entangled with their militancy.

    So calling them "fundamentalist bible believing
    Christian militants" would actually be pretty inconsistent for me.

    Parent

    McVeigh (none / 0) (#8)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:41:30 PM EST
    McVeigh's attacks weren't motivated by his religious beliefs. It appears that these fellows' attacks would have been.

    C'mon people, the mark of intelligence is the ability to make reasonable distinctions.

    Parent

    i think you are mistaken, gabriel. . . (none / 0) (#17)
    by the rainnn on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:52:27 PM EST
    i have done quite a bit
    of reading on mcveigh, for
    those earlier discussions
    with la shawn barber, and
    his personal views of his
    religion, and destiny, did
    motivate him to act.

    go do your own research.

    Parent

    I'm through with you. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:56:53 PM EST
    I'm glad that you've learned about the Murrah Building bombing. At the time, after the first few weeks, it felt like the rest of the country just wanted to ignore us and forget about it.

    Y'see, I'm from Oklahoma. And I know a darn lot about the bombing, for reasons that I don't feel like sharing here.

    Get a clue. Stop trying to fit your nice little ideological fantasy into the Oklahoma City bombing.

    I've got no more to say about this.

    Parent

    i am sorry for your loss. (none / 0) (#28)
    by the rainnn on Tue May 08, 2007 at 05:21:12 PM EST
    gabriel --  i am
    sorry for your loss.

    i am sorry also for imputing
    jim's motives to you.  i still
    hold that the devout practice of
    islam does not serve any discussion
    of terror-plotting.  we will agree
    to disagree about mcveigh. he was a
    monster.  that is enough.

    p e a c e


    Parent

    And I know (none / 0) (#100)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 09, 2007 at 12:27:06 AM EST
    a lot more about the Oklahoma bombing and McVeigh than any of you, since I was one of his defense lawyers at trial.

    He was anti-federal government. Period. Religion had nothing to do with it.

    Move off McVeigh and onto the Fort Dix topic please.

    Parent

    there is a larger point -- and jeralyn hit it! (none / 0) (#6)
    by the rainnn on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:33:29 PM EST
    a long, long while ago, i had
    very-much this same discussion
    with another hard-right "christian"
    .

    she used the most-inflamatory
    version of this slur, again today;
    as did michelle malkin, when referring
    to this fort-dix-plot-incident. . .

    so, then -- as now -- i object to the
    neoligism, "islamofacsism" "because, as
    joseph joubert reminds us, "words,
    like eyeglasses, blur everything they
    do not make clear
    . . ."

    so, my disagreement with the term centers
    on "the blurring" effect the turn-of-phrase
    has on legitimate discussion and
    debate about the fighting of terrorism.

    it obscures the dialogue.

    the linking, in a single neoligism, of
    one of the world's great religions (and
    here, i do mean the devout practice of it,
    as described by the Koran, and yes,
    that is why the distinction of devout vs.
    "lip-service" is vitally important in my
    formulation of the problem) to fascism -- is
    simply a dishonest use of rhetoric. . .

    d i s h o n e s t.

    it is dishonest to slather a seven-inch-
    wide brush of tar across an entire religion,
    just as it is dishonest to slather racial
    epithets generally across an entire group.

    it serves no purpose in legitimate debate.

    it teaches nothing; it makes nothing "clear."

    it solely enflames prejudices and passions,
    making reasoned discourse immensely difficult.

    increase the

    p e a c e

    -- the rainnn

    ooops (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:47:13 PM EST
    zug... that is ... why AREN'T the Ft Dix 6...

    Immigration status (none / 0) (#12)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:47:37 PM EST
    Three were here illegally. One has been confirmed as a U.S. citizen by birth. No word on the other two, but there is a rumor that they are naturalized citizens.

    relevance? (none / 0) (#20)
    by the rainnn on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:55:39 PM EST
    criminals come in
    all colors, religions,
    ethnicities and countries-
    of-origin.  do you propose
    closing our borders to whole
    nations -- with which we already
    have immigration-and-asylum
    treaties?

    do tell.


    Parent

    this is intentionally obtuse, jim. (none / 0) (#14)
    by the rainnn on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:48:50 PM EST
    read what i wrote below.

    and stop trying to attribute
    positions that i do not espouse, to me.

    Eh? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:53:15 PM EST
    McVeigh wanted revenge for Ruby Ridge and Waco. He thought the bombing would start a nationwide movement against the government. Most important for the discussion here, his actions were motivated by his anti-government views.

    These folks, on the other hand, are motivated by their religious beliefs.

    See the difference?

    Actually, are they even "terrorists"? (none / 0) (#19)
    by roy on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:54:52 PM EST
    Taking the allegations at face value, they were planning to attack military, not civilian, targets.  That makes them evil b*stards, not terrorists.

    Which stereotype do you see advanced? (none / 0) (#25)
    by roy on Tue May 08, 2007 at 05:08:05 PM EST
    Of course it's wrong to stereotype Muslims as militants (or fascists, terrorists, whatever), but nobody here has advocated that.  I explicitly disavowed it, as does Jim if I read him right, and I think I did an OK job showing that the government's comments don't advocate it.

    There's something sort of like a stereotype in the notion that when a person (who I don't mind calling an "Islamic militant") tangles up his own militancy with his Muslimness, his religion should be considered along with his militancy.  Do you object to that?

    Incidentally, "racist" is among the insults JM discourages.

    roy (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 05:44:56 PM EST
    Worse, there is no such thing as a Moslem/Muslim/Islamic whatever race....


    Parent
    ppj gets one right (none / 0) (#57)
    by Sailor on Tue May 08, 2007 at 06:48:09 PM EST
    there is no such thing as a Moslem/Muslim/Islamic whatever race....
    Oddly enough, considering the source, that's true.

    There is a religion that has members of every race and nationality. They believe "But if ye obey [God] and His Apostle, he will not allow you to lose any of your actions: for [God] is Indulgent, Merciful."

    Sound familiar?

    Parent

    spelling of (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 05:18:39 PM EST
    "peaces" deliberate"

    Why it's dangerous to associate (none / 0) (#43)
    by Al on Tue May 08, 2007 at 05:59:33 PM EST
    a religion with a crime: Because law-abiding people of that religion may be persecuted. It's not about the accused plotters, it's about the Muslim shopkeepers in the area.

    But I rather think Roy and PPJ and all the rest of the Islam haters know this.

    True, but... (none / 0) (#52)
    by roy on Tue May 08, 2007 at 06:35:21 PM EST
    Do you want the government to hide crime information when they think we might misuse it?  That's pretty dangerous too.

    I don't hate Islam, btw, but I do hate intentional or forced ignorance.

    Parent

    You're responsible for your actions (none / 0) (#96)
    by Al on Tue May 08, 2007 at 11:16:08 PM EST
    Do you want the government to hide crime information when they think we might misuse it?

    No, I don't want you to misuse it.

    Parent
    Agreed, 100% (none / 0) (#97)
    by roy on Tue May 08, 2007 at 11:17:28 PM EST
    Religious "terrorists" (none / 0) (#45)
    by judyinnm on Tue May 08, 2007 at 06:02:14 PM EST
    Religious terrorists who just want to blow up abortion clinics always get a pass.  Why is that?  It's convenient that the latest threat from a true (Muslim) believer comes to light just as the president's poll ratings tank (again).

    judy (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 06:11:45 PM EST
    It is possible to understand that blowing up Abortion Clinics is not acceptable and condemn same  without using it as an excuse for what was attempted at Ft Dix.

    In fact, you can condemn both.

    Try it.

    That you try and connect the arrest of the plotters to politics demonstrates where your head is.


    Parent

    Al (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 06:07:19 PM EST
    Do you actually believe that the citizens of the area will riot and attack Moslems based on the identification of these guys as Muslims?

    (See what a nice guy I am!)

    That's just a strawman because the Left doesn't want another terrorist attack rung up on the scoreboard..

    ooopppps .. Make that "Gurrellia" attack.

    Jim (none / 0) (#63)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 08, 2007 at 07:38:56 PM EST
      I agree with you on that, but are you not doing pretty much tyhe same thing in adamantly refusing to accept the characterization of McVeigh as a "domestic terrorist." Are yo not just trying to keep that off the "terrorist scoreboard."

     Why can't we all just be straight and say that both people like this and McVeigh are terrorists and that the existence of neither lessens the evil of the other.

     

    Parent

    Decon (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 08:32:31 PM EST
    Are yo not just trying to keep that off the "terrorist scoreboard."

    That would be impossible.

    I'm just trying to show how dumb their position is.

    My bottom line is that you can condemn radical Moslem terrorist attacks/plots, etc., while condemning McVeigh.

    When they immediately bring him up it just shows they are looking for an excuse..

    Which is strange. Are they fearul that if Bush is not defeated they will somehow lose, and that they therefore must defend the terrorists actions??

    I confess. I don't know. I just see attacks against Israel from people that 6 years ago I would have assumed to be pro-Israel, etc and etc.

    Parent

    To the extent (none / 0) (#82)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 08, 2007 at 08:42:03 PM EST
    that we see many expressions of support for terrorists  (usually couched in terms of they really aren't terrorists and bushco is just fabricating their existence)  that can only be motivated by the "enemy of my enemy..." line of thinking and are appalling in any moral sense, I agree with you.

      My point is you mirror that when you attempt to deny the existence of white, native born American terrorists.

      The better argument is that the proportion of white native born terrorists to the entire population here  is much much smaller and that level of tolerance for them is much much less than is true of Islamic society as a whole.

      All terrorists are bad and none of them should be tolerated. There is little doubt that we have a better grasp of that than the Islamic world.

    Parent

    Decon (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:09:50 PM EST
    I accept your comment as good advice, pleading that, from time to time, the devil enters into my body and makes me do things that I know are wrong....

    ;-)

    Besides.... a subtle attack/point with these folks is wasted...


    Parent

    oh really? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 08, 2007 at 06:22:02 PM EST
      you better tell these guys they are anti-muslim bigots:

    American MOSLEM Foundation

    Yes (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Tue May 08, 2007 at 06:37:09 PM EST
    And throughout the site,  all references to persons who practice Islam are called Muslims. There is not one reference to a practitioner of Islam as Moslem.

    Wonder why?

    Parent

    Why? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 08, 2007 at 06:44:59 PM EST
      I don't know, (perhaps they believe moslem is the proper word for institutions and muslim for people and are strict grammarians)  but it would seem abundantly clear to anyone who was not a total moron that the reason isn't that people who form an organization called the American MOSLEM foundation consider the word "moslem" a slur.

    Parent
    Muslim vs Moslem (none / 0) (#68)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue May 08, 2007 at 08:00:13 PM EST
    From GMU's History News Network:

    As late as 1992 the two terms were used interchangeably in English.

    Now, almost everybody uses Muslim.

    According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, "Moslem and Muslim are basically two different spellings for the same word." But the seemingly arbitrary choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam. Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means "one who gives himself to God," and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means "one who is evil and unjust" when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z....

    Journalists switched to Muslim from Moslem in recent years under pressure from Islamic groups. But the use of the word Moslem has not entirely ceased. Established institutions which used the older form of the name have been reluctant to change....



    Parent
    I just have tio ask (none / 0) (#58)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 08, 2007 at 06:53:47 PM EST
      why are so many people here so rabid in preaching tolerance toward Muslims and simultaneously so intolerant of Christians?

      It would seem to me that to internally consistent one would need to be tolerant of both or neither.

    They have been arrested (none / 0) (#60)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 08, 2007 at 07:26:33 PM EST
      and following their arrests they have been detained pending a detention hearing (any wagers on how that will come out).

      One can be arrested and then released so the "detained" is merely meant to conote that they are presently in custody not that they were not arrested.

    Thanks Decon.... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Tue May 08, 2007 at 07:28:46 PM EST
    don't be surprised if. . . (none / 0) (#95)
    by the rainnn on Tue May 08, 2007 at 10:51:05 PM EST
    they are being detained,
    in order to label them
    enemy combatants, and deny
    them the benefit of u.s. law,
    and if alberto has his way, the
    protection of the geneva convention.

    having typed that, understand that
    i abhor their actions -- but the same
    rules must apply to all we arrest here.

    the constitution should apply, coast to
    cpast.  that is my view.  i know yours
    differs, and i won't discuss it here.

    Parent

    You say Muslim I say Moslem (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 07:31:15 PM EST
    Let's fall...no don't go there...

    Just out of curiousity and with the understanding that you probably can't provide any information, I went to Google and found this:

    Until recently the word was also spelled Moslem. Muslims do not recommend this spelling because it is often pronounced "mawzlem," which sounds somewhat similar to an Arabic word for "oppressor" (Za'lem in Arabic). A common mispronunciation of the word Muslim is "muz-lim". That is, the letter "s" is pronounced as a "z." Instead, the word should be pronounced as it is written, "mus-lim."

    Now, if that is correct, it appears that the concern of the "mystery people" is that if "moslem" is mispronounced it kinda sounds like "oppressor."

    Good grief, charlie brown...

    Hmmm. Well now. If a non-Muslim is speaking to another non-Moslem and if the word is mispronounced, are we to assume that the non-Muslim would know that the non-Moslem thinks he is an "oppressor?"

    "We are just so sensitive....."

    Which makes sense when you consider we are talking about a group that riots at the drop of a Koran. Or a cartoon.....

    Let me be plain. I do not mispronounce Moslem, so there is no reason for their concern.

    BTW  This is an interesting link. Apparently there is a lot of disagreement on the rules of translation...

    BTW - rainn, I see nothing in the foregoing that supports your claim that "moslem" is the same as the "N" word.

    Perhaps this lady will support your view.

    I am a former Moslem

    Nope, she didn't. Sorry old chum. Looks like you don't know what you are talking about.. as doesn't  edger, squeaky, et al..

    So the question is, shall I be PC and write Muslim for Moslem??

    Nope. Aint gonna do it. If there are Moslems who are that sensitive, there is no time like the present to say. Just get over it. Life is too short for such nonsense.

    And if we are ever in an actual conversation and I mispronounce a word, just tell me. I'll do my best to pronounce it right.

    jim, you always go too far (none / 0) (#77)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 08, 2007 at 08:20:13 PM EST
      Why politicize it, even in repsonse?

      There is always difficulty in phonetically representing foreign languages, especially ones that use different alphabets or idiographic symbols. Just as a matter of courtesy we should try to as closely approximate the "true" pronunciations of foreign words and if altering our spellings aids that, why not do it? The Chinese asked the West to adopt very different spellings back in the 70s (remember Mao tse-Tung?) and no one wailed it was oversensitive commies behind it. It just facilitates communication and lessens misunderstanding. Of course, it's still not a slur  to order the Peking Duck and its not a slur to use moslem, but if they prefer muslim because they think it lessens the frequecy of mispronunciation what is the harm?

      One side of my family is Jewish and even among them there is no agreement about how to spell "Chanukah" but all the variations are some people's idea of the closest phonetic representation of the original Hebrew in the English language emlpoying the Greek alphabet. If the Jews were to ever agree on how to spell it would you refuse to adopt their preference?

      It has nothing to do with being a slur. It's just courtesy.

    Parent

    Decon (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:29:33 PM EST
    Nope. See my response to Alien.

    It isn't courtesy.

    Parent

    Decon (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:31:05 PM EST
    Btw - What is the harm if it is mispronounced by some Christian who doesn't know the difference.

    Parent
    The harm (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:29:03 AM EST
      is the unecessary persistence of a barrier between peoples and cultures that even if not intended is real. The better we can communicate with our fellow men with whom we have no choice but to share this planet, the better the chance for positive progress.

      It's a major matter in the overall scheme of things but that just makes your intransigence that much less defensible. It appears you are looking to pick a fight even on the little things, and THAT will surely make progress on the big things less likely.

    Parent

    that should be (none / 0) (#110)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:34:24 AM EST
    "not a major matter in the 2nd Par. i have a problem with failing to type negatives in my posts sometimes.

    (Lets hear it for secretaries who can spot typos spell-check cannot. They really further communication.)

    Parent

    Decon (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:36:04 AM EST
    Again.

    Typically I would agree.

    But in this case I think part of the communication process is to tell everyone that we have had too many complaints about such things from the "Moslem" group as a whole about things that they shouldn't be complaining about.

    The refusal of taxi cab drivers in Minneapolis to pick up people with alcohol or dogs, based on their religion.

    Nonsense. They are licensed common carriers. If they don't want to follow the law they should find another job.

    The purchase of foot washers at a CC in Minneapolis because the Moslem students want to wash their feet before prayers with taxpayer money clearly violates church/state.

    The refusal of Moslem clearks to handle bacon during check out...

    The riots over the cartoons...

    The riots over the alleged "disrespect" of the Koran.

    The destruction of the statues in Afghanistan.

    All of these things show a pattern of demands and intolerance of others. It shows a group in whcih some members are determined to do what they want based on Shari law, not the secular laws of the US, or the country.

    It is time for us to say, "enough." That too is "communication."

    Parent

    Wrong (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:34:03 PM EST
    Why do you think arab speaking people who believe in Islam bring up the insult based on the phonetic transliteration of a word that sounds more like muslim than an moslem which transliterates as a slur.

    Who ya going to believe.

    Personally I prefer not to offend given the choice.

    Parent

    if you haven't read countless expressions of hostility, intolerance and even hate directed toward Christians here. It is not only extremely common but very few ever even criticize it. But EVERY perceived slight of Islam is denounced with intense vitriol.


    read THIS thread, decon. (none / 0) (#93)
    by the rainnn on Tue May 08, 2007 at 10:44:43 PM EST
    no one attacked
    christianity in
    this thread.

    full-stop.

    Parent

    rainnn - If the shoe fits (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 08:38:27 PM EST
    wear it.

    What these people are, are "Moslem radicals."

    Unless you want to opine that the "devout practice" means they should attack a US military base in the US and kill everyone possible.

    I don't.

    Do you???????

    And if you don't, why bring it up in a thread that is about the actions of these six radical Moslems???

    read the original, jim. (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by the rainnn on Tue May 08, 2007 at 10:48:16 PM EST
    jeralyn's post up top
    pretty much makes yours
    look silly -- if not, then
    it is off-topic.

    jeralyn was trying to
    point out that their
    association with a
    claim of being islamic
    does not animate their
    actions -- and should
    not tar devout muslims.

    i likely expect too much,
    thinking you are capable of
    such fine distinctions. . .

    Parent

    rainnn (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:13:00 AM EST
    For someone who immediately broke out the McVeigh strawman, you now want to talk about "topic?" That's funny.

    "Devout" anyone has nothing to do with criminal actions.

    devoted to religion or to religious duties or exercises
    2 : expressing devotion or piety a devout attitude
    3 : devoted to a pursuit, belief, or mode of behavior : SERIOUS, EARNEST a devout baseball fan born a devout coward --G. B. Shaw
    • de·vout·ly adverb
    • de·vout·ness noun

    What it does is describe the actions of someone.

    Thus a radical Moslem can be a devout practioner of his faith.

    Now you can argue, and I will agree,  that the radical Moslem's actions do not actually follow the true laws of Islam, but that is entirely different from "devout."

    Now. Where did I claim otherwise? I didn't. You either can't read, or just like to throw out false claims.

    Now, what was, and is, our disagreement.

    But when the government says `Islamic militants,' it sends a message to the public that Islam and militancy are synonymous.

    Now, from roy's comment:

    The video showed 10 young men in their early 20s ``shooting assault weapons at a firing range ... while calling for jihad and shouting in Arabic 'Allah Akbar' (God is great),'' the complaint said. The 10 included six of those arrested, authorities said
    .

    Yes, looks that way, doesn't it.

    Perhaps if they quit doing it....

    And there is the issue of jihad, and its meaning. Some claim that it means go after the unbeliever, some claim it means cleaning up your personal act.

    Somehow I don't think the people in question were talking about quitting smoking..

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    Why (none / 0) (#83)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:06:27 PM EST
    use a term you know is offensive when you could just as easily use another?

    Unless you want to be offensive?

    Really, I don't care one way or the other. But if you know something bothers other people, and the situation is already sensitive, why use such a term unless you want to go out of your way to inflame and be insulting to those of that religion who might be reading this site?

    It seems petty and stupid to me, honestly.

    Alien (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:28:13 PM EST
    You make an excellent point, and 99.9999% of the time I would do the same thing.

    However, in this case:

    I find the reasoning silly and the logic so remote that I can only say that I think it is an attempt to bend the "west" to do what they believe is right.

    Think again what they are saying... Because the word might be mispronounced...

    I would remind everyone that the tender sensibilities of the Moslem world brought us riots in rsponse to cartoons in which people were killed. Some by burning...we now have taxi drivers who won't accept the fact that they are common carriers and must accept everyone...grocery clerks who won't touch bacon... etc., etc.

    If the Moslem world wants to enter into the 21st century they would be well advised to stop such unreasonable actions.

    And the complaint re Moslem vs Muslim stems straight from that mindset.

    Parent

    People (none / 0) (#89)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:32:41 PM EST
    of traditional cultures who feel threatened by the overwhelming tide of Western culture I think are entitled to some consideration.

    It's not a big thing, but a generous gesture. Why not go with it, Jim?

    Parent

    Alein (1.00 / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:19:35 AM EST
    I am happy to give everyone consoderation.

    But what I see is a lot of complaining, etc., about what is seen as "insults" to the Islamic faith, and to Moslems. First we must not have political cartoons. Then we must not expect taxi drivers to follow the regulations. Clerks must not be expected to touch bacon.. Colleges must build foot washers with public money.....

    Where does it end? Frankly, it doesn't.

    And this one is really silly. What we have here is that if someone says "Moslem" they might mispronounce and, of course, the Muslim would be insulted, except even there we find existing Moslem organizations, as Deconstructionist has noted, that don't seem to have a problem.

    So no. It's Moslem for me, and I promise to not mispronounce it.

    Parent

    Manufacturing Terrorists (none / 0) (#98)
    by Aaron on Tue May 08, 2007 at 11:29:11 PM EST
    I imagine that the Bush administration is putting enormous pressure on the FBI and the other intelligence entities in the United States to come up with tangible terrorist threats, hence the creation of homegrown terrorists by the FBI themselves in such cases.

    Oh yeah, real scary ,a bunch of losers whose collective IQs must've equaled about 60, because these idiots weren't even smart enough to go buy their own VCR to make copies, instead these geniuses go to a video store, they probably didn't have enough money to buy a DVD recorder, yet they're going to attack Fort Dix and take out America.  They had plans to attack a major US military installation with AK-47s, which the FBI was going to provide them with.  Here's a few quotes to give you an idea how serious this threat really was.

    "No connection to any international terrorist organization"

    "Planning this on their own."

    "These were hardly hard-core terrorists."

    "Forming a platoon, to take out an army"

    That must be one hell of a platoon, but I think there's still a little undermanned with only six guys.

    "Travel to the Poconos for training"

    Yes the Poconos, a well-known terrorist training ground.

    One of these "terrorists" is a pizza delivery guy, the others are a convenience store worker, roofers, taxi drivers and clerks at ShopRite.

    "Three ethnic Albanians, in the country illegally, from Cherry Hill New Jersey"

    " Use to keep sheep and chickens in their backyards."

    "They were jokes"

    Of course the real terrorists have already smuggled multiple thermonuclear devices into major cities around the US, while the hamstrung FBI is playing pattycake with manufactured jihadists at the behest of the Bush administration.


    Aaron (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:21:49 AM EST
    while the hamstrung FBI is

    And who is doing the hamstringing???

    Parent

    thread cleaned (none / 0) (#101)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 09, 2007 at 12:42:20 AM EST
    How about discussing the Fort Dix case here?  Or the point of the thread, either to agree or not?  I've cleaned the threads of all the childish insults going back and forth.

    i am guilty, as charged. (none / 0) (#106)
    by the rainnn on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:39:42 AM EST
    sorry all for the insults,
    and sorry to have defouled
    your space, jeralyn. . ..

    i do like the tenor of what
    remains -- i'll likely have
    more in the new thread, above.

    i think the wonkette, and
    jeralyn, have it about 10% right.

    p e a c e

    typo -- off by a factor of 10x! (none / 0) (#107)
    by the rainnn on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:41:22 AM EST
    geeez!

    100% -- not 10% -- "one hundred percent" right.