Good point. But Bush has, in general, been decent on Arab race-baiting. If it had been up to his neocon buddies, we'd have resettlement camps by now!

The objection to Keith Ellison is that he has ties to CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. This organization portrays itself as a civil rights organization and can be reliably counted on to show up with a quotable bon mot or two whenever there is a terrorist incident involving Muslims (i.e. whenever there is a terrorist incident) warning against anti-Islamic backlash. What it generally cannot be counted on to do is denounce terrorism in unequivocal terms. The statements tend to be a tad mealy-mouthed and they tend to shift blame away from the perpetrators of the terror and towards the foreign policy of the US, as if to make terrorism more "understandable". They are also conspicuously silent when the terrorism is against Israel.

Then of course there's the fact that the founders and leaders of CAIR are HAMAS supporters and are on record as supporting the idea of turning the US into an Islamic state.

Now if Keith Ellison has a record of outreach to Jews and Christians and is endorsed by Jewish groups, that's great. I'll take him at face value and assume he's not an anti-Semite (despite his past association with the Nation of Islam). But personally, I'd rather see him distance himself from the likes of CAIR.

I'm not doubting your claims about CAIR, but a "fact" that inflamatory needs a reference...please.

Please reference your claims that "CAIR are HAMAS supporters and on the recored as supporting the idea of turning the US into an Islamic state."

Mr. Rosenberg, you have a very unfortunate typo in the 4th paragraph of your article:

On the contrary, he is a lifelong community activist with ties crossing ethnic and racial lies.

I'm guessing the last word should be "lines"?

Yikes! Thanks.

First of all, the Chechens are Muslim and in fact their movement has embraced radical Islam.

Second, regardless of whether other people perpetrate terrorism (the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, for one, are no slouches in that department), isn't it obvious that the vast majority of terrorism is perpetrated by Muslims?

Barack is a Christian. He speaks about his Christianity often. That, sadly, won't inoculate him against attacks I fear.

Perhaps it's useful to bring to mind that President Bush also spoke respectfully of John Kerry's Vietnam service over the course of the 2004 campaign, while his surrogates introduced swift-boating to the political lexicon and GOP delegates ran around wearing purple heart bandaids at the Republican National Convention.

Isn't it obvious that the vast majority of terrorism is perpetrated by Muslims?

Maybe so.  But the vast majority of Muslims do not perpetrate terrorist acts.  So it seems entirely legitimate to worry about anti-Muslim backlash.

Brad you shouldn't be downrated for speaking the truth. But in such sensitive areas IMHO you may be downrated for HOW you speak the truth.

Ellison has a political record in the Minnesota House of Representatives. He has the full support of the Minneapolis Delegation which is solidly DFL, and which has a number of Jewish members. If there were any sort of problem, I am sure they would have raised it. They are, afterall, his collegues.

The 5th, my district, is about 72% DFL, depending on turn-out, and we love to vote up here -- we hit 80% turnout in 2004. The seat has been held by Martin Olav Sabo since 1978, and before that by Don Frazer who was first elected in 1962. Redistricting according to Baker vs. Carr, eliminating the rural preference over the cities and suburbs resulted in this progressive district, as opposed to a gerrymandered Republican District. The decision to endorse Ellison had much to do with putting a member of an underrepresented minority group into the US House -- in this instance the first Muslim in US History. We can take this step precisely because we have the political organization and numbers to do it -- it is not an accident.

I am not at all interested in the symbolic value of rejecting this or that organization and trying to censor what they have to say. I would expect Arab-Americans to participate in CAIR, and every now and then I read their website, just to see from their own spokespersons what they have to say. But since Ellison is not an Arab-American, I don't think he will be doing all that much representing of their positions directly. In fact, since he is also an African American Defense Attorney (before he was elected to the State Leg). I would expect him to represent many of the ideas of the Defense Bar. I suspect that some of the Arab Muslims in DC will be troubled by the fact his wife is a practicing Christian -- and his children are being raised in both Islam and the culture of the Black Church. I also know that when one of George Bush's Texas friends moved to Minnesota and won a suburban seat in the Legislature, and then started spouting anti-Semetic stuff on the floor of the Chamber, Ellison was part of the pack which went after that idiot.

Ellison is in the mode of Paul Wellstone -- which is how I first met him on the 1990 Wellstone Campaign. He made a huge contribution to that campaign, getting the vote out in N. Minneapolis, and cutting off a ploy at the pass when Boschwitz tried to link Wellstone's campaign with a neighborhood Gang. Ellison has the total backing of the Wellstone survivors -- and that organization remains alive and healthy and looking forward to defeating Norm Coleman in 2008.

isn't it obvious that the vast majority of terrorism is perpetrated by Muslims?

Gee, Brad, since you're the pot spouting off about the kettle being black, why don't you tell us which modern Middle Eastern state's origins were based on a terrorist act? (HINT: the King David Hotel)

And, for bonus points, why don't you tell us about Irgun?

And finally, if the definition of terrorism is this:

The systematic use, or threatened use, of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious or ideological change. Acts of terrorism are not intended to merely victimize or eliminate those who are killed, injured or taken hostage but rather to intimidate and influence the societies to which they belong.

Then, the biggest terrorist act of the year was the Kadima party's illegal invasion of Lebanon.

Oh, but that's different, I guess, because they're *your* terrorists, 'freedom fighters.'

American Muslims have, for the most part, proven themselves to be very worthy and active members of society.

I don't doubt that there are extremist elements here and there, but those exist everywhere.

Hell, I live in Los Angeles and am FAR more concerned with fundamental Scientologists than I am radical Muslims.

And that is an honest fact.

Just as some Christians and some Jews foment hatred or act upon it, so do some Muslims. On the one hand, if you were to lock me in a room with Dr. Zawahiri, only one of us will walk out. On the other hand, I will continue to help in the immigration process for a member of a Sierra Leonean clan I consider extended family, and who are a mixture of Christians and Muslims.

Generalization and stereotyping gets only so far, it occurred to me when I was having the best glazed ham I've ever eaten, the special recipe of one of the Muslim members of the family.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

There is a valid distinction between the tactic of terror and the terrorist. I don't know what your source is for an accepted meaning, but certainly Lenin and Mao discussed terrorism in their works.

Lenin's statement was "the purpose of terror is to terrorize." Later writers have clarified that. It was Carlos Marighella, IIRC, that went focused on urban terror is to demonstrate that the central government is powerless to stop it, and, ideally, the central government will overreact and create recruites. In contrast, Che Guevara theorized that the initial effort should be in the countryside, with terror used to deter the local authorities, and punish collaborators.

Mao treated it from another standpoint, as in the first stage of a protracted war that would escalate to unit raiding and eventually conventional warfare.

The concept of mutual assured destruction is, at its heart, literally a balance of terror. There are grounds for treating Sir Arthur Harris' "dehousing" strategy against German residential areas, even when asked by the Chief of Air Staff to switch to petroleum targets, as terrorism. Due to the distribution of small industry in Japan, Curtis LeMay could make a case that the incendiary bombing of Japan had military objectives. The nuclear attacks certainly included, in the multiple rationales for the attack, sending a message to the Cabinet and the Throne -- we knew public opinion was irrelevant.

So far, I have talked about organized terrorism, where the people committing terror are affiliated with an ideological or religious group. What is the place of an essentially solo terrorist, such as Timothy McVeigh, Baruch Goldstein, or Eric Rudolph?
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

isn't it obvious that the vast majority of terrorism is perpetrated by Muslims?

Brad there are a number of logical fallacies to the conclusion you draw:

First just because many terrorists are Muslim (correlation) what is the evidence that being Muslim is what causes them to be terrorists (causation).

Second, with a huge percent of the world's population being Muslim statistically the odd of a terrorist being Muslim are higher.

Third, if terrorist are hijacking their faith to justify their political or basically criminal actions then Islam is just a useful facade. All fighters adopt or create a rallying, emotional cause.

Lastly in order to grapple with the threats the victims are creating a unity of the bad actors. We are contributing to  creating an international movment.

So Brad, is it fair to say that you're not particularly disturbed to see a whole ethnic minority being depicted as unAmerican?

Thanks for the link. It's a bit hard to put my faith in Wiki, but I did link to the Capital Research Center source that is sited there. www.capitalresearch.org/news/news.asp?ID= It is full of compelling information condemning CAIR and my eyes were opened. But considering the source, it tastes a bit salty. The CRC is a conservative Think Tank bent on eliminating the world of liberals. It received much of it's start up money from the man that put the con in conservativism, Richard Scaife --- you can read about him on Wiki too.

Yeah, sure....

Neither side showed much restraint against civilians. Israel, indeed, may have hurt its case by excessive censorship of military information that clearly would have been obvious to Hezbollah.

As you mention, the Israelis have US Firefinder radar that will detect rockets in flight and give their launcher coordinates to counterbattery artillery. US doctrine, in such a situation where the rocket launchers are in populated areas, would typically fire salvos of 155mm howitzers, using airbursts of three or six M107 blast/fragmentation unitary shells. While there's no guarantee that this won't penetrate buildings, the particular weapon and fuzing is intended to be optimized for open-area coverage. Again following US doctrine, the M449 cluster munition for the 155mm M109 howitzers would not be used, because there is too high a dud rate of its 60 (per shell) cluster bomblets. M107 is not a cluster munition and leaves no sensitive but unexploded ordnance on the target.

Israel urgently placed resupply orders with the US for the M26 rocket for the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System, each rocket carrying 644 cluster munitions. This rocket is two generations obsolete for the US, in large part due to the cluster munition dud problem. Even one M26 rocket covers more area, and leaves more hazardous ordnance, than a battery salvo from 155mm howitzers -- which are much more accurate. Typically, 6-12 M26 rockets would be fired, but the system does allow single fire. Israel had agreed not to use MLRS against populated areas. I have yet to hear a response to the questions about the MLRS, or about the Israeli use of fighter-bombers against suspected rocket sites. Unless an F-16 is in just the right place, it may take several minutes to get into a bomb drop position; M109 and M270 can fire in around 30 seconds.

Hezbollah, indeed, launched missiles into general civilian areas. They are guerillas using terror techniques. Given that they have no possibility of engaging Israeli systems at long range, from their standpoint, what are their military objectives? I will point out that Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris directed RAF Bomber Command against WWII German residential areas, because his main weapons systems were too inaccurate to hit much more precisely than a city or portion of a city. While his term was "dehousing", it was intended to kill civilian workers and demoralize the survivors.

Israel announced that it would attack the Lebanese electrical grid, as a threat to Lebanon to rein in Hezbollah. When the US attacked the Iraqi electrical grid in 1991 and Balkan systems later on, a large number of the weapons used were carbon filament spools intended to temporarily disrupt power to the air defense network. Hezbollah had no air defense network, so I cannot regard the campaign against the electrical grid as anything but collective punishment against a civilian populations. There are plausible arguments, either way, if that would have been a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

When Israel launched its ground offensive, it seemed to have trouble with tactics used in Chechniya since approximately 1999. Did someone fail to update the IDF tactical doctrine? Was it, perhaps, contracted to a Halliburton subsidiary?

Both Hezbollah and Israel, in my technical opinion, intentionally caused large numbers of civilian casualties. If you care to praise Abrahamic deities, please do so; I'm a neopagan.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"The residents here love to treat this neighborhood as a model of multiculturalism and tolerance, but that image is fraudulent.... The Jews have no place in this multiculturalism," [Aycan] Demirel [founder of KIGA (Kreuzberger Initiative gegen Antisemitismus), whose local activists - of German, Turkish and Arab origin - work with schools and youth centers to fight anti-Semitism, primarily in Muslim communities] said. "If you wear a kippa or a Magen David, there's a big chance you'll be cursed at and even assaulted. Anti-Semitism is rearing its head in Germany, only now the anti-Semites are young Muslims."  [...]"I actually think this phenomenon should be examined within a more defined context, of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and not seen as ingrained anti-Semitism," said Tzafrir Cohen, an Israeli journalist and founder of the Berlin Jewish Film Festival, who has lived in Kreuzberg for 20 years. "To say that there is a racist atmosphere in Kreuzberg is an outright lie. It's true you see graffiti here along the lines of 'Fight Zionist Fascism' and similar slogans, mostly among Palestinians who live here. But I never heard of a Jew being attacked for being a Jew, and if such incidents occur, they come from the radical right."

HB, There is still questons in the minds of some as to Timothy McVeigh being a soloist.

I noticed that no one has brought up the concept of terrorism for cash. In 2003, the FBI was asking companies if they had anthrax on hand in September 2001 and whether they would profit from an anthrax attack.

That suggested to me that the FBI was thinking all the line that someone murdered five people and scared the hell out of Americans in the fall of 2001 to profit from massive federal spending on bio-defense.

First, I really don't care if "some people" wonder if McVeigh was a soloist. If that's important to you, just remove him from the list of examples. I would note that it is characteristic of real guerilla groups to try to present themselves as being as strong as possible. IRA units of various factions, for example, describe their city units as "brigades". Brigades, in the real military world, are 3000-5000 man units. IRA brigades were often well under 100. So, if no group claimed responsibility, I have no reason to believe McVeigh was other than solo.

I have not brought up the "concept of terrorism for cash" because no recognized practitioner has ever thought of it as a sole goal, as opposed to funding the movement. Even then, a bank robbery, as described by Carlos Marighella in the Minimanual for the Urban Guerilla, may also be used as armed propaganda for the organization. I remember an entire class, in one of my unconventional warfare classes, dealing with the nuances of a "revolutionary" bank robbery, or, in the country, an "expropriation in the name of the people."

As you are describing it, "terrorism for cash" is the simple felony of extortion. If everything is termed terror, than the word becomes meaningless.

I will continue to use it in the sense best defined by Mao, as the first stage of a protracted war. Since Mao focused more on the peasantry and countryside, I will take observations from Lenin and Marighella about the role of terror in the urban environment.

Note that I am not bringing up "questions in the minds of some." I am dealing with specific, verifiable sources.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*