The Age of Fear

Cynicism, uncertainty, and fear are the insignia of the culture which they (liberals) are still dominating by default. And the only thing that has not rusted in their ideological equipment, but has grown savagely brighter and clearer through the years, is their lust for power—for an autocratic, statist, totalitarian government power.

_ The New Fascism: “Rule by Consensus,” _

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 209.

In full accordance with Ayn Rand’s prediction we are living now in the Age of Fear. This is best expressed by the popular catch phrase that became the motto of our times: “better safe than sorry”. For the rational person this formula simply means that one should take precautions in order to avoid clear and present dangers. However in the modern society of unreason this expression became an equivalent of faceless, unsubstantial fear. Such a fear could be alleviated only by omniscient omnipotential and omnipresent entity which previously was known as god and now as all-protective semi-totalitarian government. From the days of Hobbes and Machiavelli the power lust autocrats knew only too well that the best way to keep the populace at bay is to install the baseless fear in their minds. After this simple transplant procedure the government can do whatever it pleases with the people in order to protect them from GM products, passive smoking, cell phone radiation, global warming and the conquest of the West by the Sharia Law. 177 pages of the report “Sharia’s threat to America” are devoted to this single goal- to scare people half-dead, to make them to believe that they may find themselves under heavy boot of Sharia law faster than one can say shahada, that tomorrow all the people in the West will wake up in the “brave new world “ ruled by Islam. And why should we believe it? Because Omar Ahmad, founder of CAIR had stated in 1998 that:

“If you choose to live here [in America]… you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam. Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Quran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”

_ While a fictional interpretation of Islam is used to filter the reality of the Muslim world and its undercurrents, the West and America in particular will be compromised and ultimately overthrown…” _

Observe that he never mentioned by what means less than 1% of American Muslim population can overthrow the mightiest State in the world. A rational person would regard such a statement as silly wishful thinking, another story taken from the “Thousand and one night” book. However, reason became very scarce commodity in the West.

Chapter 8 of the report states:

"The growth of Muslim populations in the West augurs the inexorable spread of shariah into Western societies — less by violence than by dint of natural procreation, unchecked immigration, and the incessant demands of an aggressive minority that refuses to assimilate. Logic should tell us, then, that the growth of shariah in the West threatens Western-style liberty: threatens freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and upends religious and sexual equality. [p.130]

“In fact, by manipulating perceptions at the national strategic level about the nature of shariah, the enemy can actually exercise profound influence over the nature and adequacy of the defense mounted. That is most especially true of actions needed to contend with the Muslim Brotherhood’s stealth jihad – even though we know its avowed purpose is aimed at “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands.” {p.133}"

In other words-be scared, be very scared! Fear paralyzes mind. Nobody asks or answers the question how the tiny minority of Muslims could ever overtake Western democracy? How they “exercise profound influence over the nature and adequacy of the defense mounted.”? By what means? The similarity of this report with the “Protocols of Zion’s Elders” is overwhelming. Their common denominator is a paranoid fear of conspiracy. And, as in the case of “Jewish conspiracy” the populace demand actions. They demand to ban and to banish, to restrict and to deport, to close Muslim institutions and in general to treat all Muslims as like as they forfeited all their rights. The statist government would be only too happy to show compliance.

The words of Thomas Jefferson “

…that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry, that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right…”

mean nothing to them.

If global warming doesn’t provide sufficient excuse to eliminate the last remnants of Western liberties, then Sharia “ threat” definitely does. Sharia indeed may overtake the West, but only by default, that is-if the West driven by irrational fear will forfeit its freedom.

1 Like

Nobody asks or answers the question how the tiny minority of Muslims could ever overtake Western democracy?

How about this answer: “by not remaining a tiny minority.”

How about this answer: “by not remaining a tiny minority.”

Not a problem for the USA, surely? Wherever else Islam could gain power - essentially I think Leonid is saying

they had it coming - through appeasement, relaxing of national Law and irrational fear.

(It is ongoing at this moment in Nigeria, where a Muslim gang in the north have given Christians 3 days to get out.)

I’m more interested in the metaphysical question of the perception of a threat being greater than the actuality.

To fear evil, is to accept its reality, I think. Ongoing fear becomes a state of anxiety, which freezes reason - causing

non-action or over-reaction. A Timid New World is the reality, now.

That American individualist, (despite his other faults) and novelist, Norman Mailer wrote in 1959 :

"… and so I still feel rage at the cowardice of our time which has ground down

all of us into the mediocre compromizes of what had once been our light-filled passion

to stand erect and be original.

…Little lies, but they pipe us toward insanity, as they starve our sense of the real."

"We have grown up in a world…without the courage to pay the hard price of full consciousness, and

so losing pleasure in pips and squeaks of anxiety."

Not a problem for the USA, surely? Wherever else Islam could gain power - essentially I think Leonid is saying

they had it coming - through appeasement, relaxing of national Law and irrational fear.

And these three things cannot occur in the USA, and have not already been happening?

What is happening in Nigeria happens everywhere on the Islamic periphery. There is nothing special about the U.S. that will keep the more radical Muslims peaceable. All that is required to make a radical Muslim is to read the Koran with a certain literalism. Literalism is the habit of mind encouraged by studying engineering, medicine, science or law where large volumes of non-fiction are closely studied. Note the success in radicalizing and recruiting Muslim university students to become terrorists. Modern psychology accepts that the subconscious is literal in makings its associations and this principle is the basis for subliminal communications. Ayn Rand even encouraged literalism in her essay “Philosophic Detection”.

Now observe the method I used to analyze those catch phrases. You must attach clear, specific meanings to words, i.e., be able to identify their referents in reality. This is a precondition, without which neither critical judgment nor thinking of any kind is possible. All philosophical con games count on your using words as vague approximations. You must not take a catch phrase—or any abstract statement—as if it were approximate. Take it literally. Don’t translate it, don’t glamorize it, don’t make the mistake of thinking, as many people do: “Oh, nobody could possibly mean this!” and then proceed to endow it with some whitewashed meaning of your own. Take it straight, for what it does say and mean.

Instead of dismissing the catch phrase, accept it—for a few brief moments.

Tell yourself, in effect: “If I were to accept it as true, what would follow?” This is the best way of unmasking any philosophical fraud. The old saying of plain con men holds true for intellectual ones: “You can’t cheat an honest man.” Intellectual honesty consists in taking ideas seriously. To take ideas seriously means that you intend to live by, to practice, any idea you accept as true. Philosophy provides man with a comprehensive view of life. In order to evaluate it properly, ask yourself what a given theory, if accepted, would do to a human life, starting with your own.

Radical Muslims have done this, and rather than recoiling they embraced the madness. To anyone who claims not to be scared I can only say: you should be. The monster imagined by Steven Mallory in The Fountainhead is real.* The monster can be fought and defeated but pretending it does not exist is not the way to do so.

* refresher on the Mallory monster:

“Probably. But not quite. I’m not afraid any more. But I know that the terror exists. I know the kind of terror it is. You can’t conceive of that kind. Listen, what’s the most horrible experience you can imagine? To me—it’s being left, unarmed, in a sealed cell with a drooling beast of prey or a maniac who’s had some disease that’s eaten his brain out. You’d have nothing then but your voice—your voice and your thought. You’d scream to that creature why it should not touch you, you’d have the most eloquent words, the unanswerable words, you’d become the vessel of the absolute truth. And you’d see living eyes watching you and you’d know that the thing can’t hear you, that it can’t be reached, not reached, not in any way, yet it’s breathing and moving there before you with a purpose of its own. That’s horror. Well, that’s what’s hanging over the world, prowling somewhere through mankind, that same thing, something closed, mindless, utterly wanton, but something with an aim and a cunning of its own. I don’t think I’m a coward, but I’m afraid of it. And that’s all I know—only that it exists. I don’t know its purpose, I don’t know its nature.”

LA Times:In Alaska, becoming the militants next door

He started studying Islam online.

“I was struck by how similar the beliefs in Islam were to Christianity, and at the same time, I guess also the differences made sense to me; it was a straighter path,” he said.

An irrefutable fact.

Grames,

Your thoughts on literalism are thought-provoking, as is the passage I hadn’t seen by Ayn Rand.

(It fits a general observation of mine.)

“…pretending [the monster] does not exist” is far from my intention.

Whether the very real monster of collectivism, or the potential/real one of ‘Islamification.’

Look at the facts: in a country much smaller than the state of Michigan, with population of 7-8 million,

1.4 million are Muslim. Why do most people not even know this about Israel? because those Israeli Muslims

are completely assimilated, since the late '40’s.

The nation is right in the thick of several enemies, but these people enjoy the rights and freedom denied

elsewhere; they are happy to be Israeli. (Confirmed personally, by two brothers I know well, and I’m sure also by Leonid.)

In 60 years, barely an ‘incident’. Yes, as everywhere, a little social and racial prejudice.

How possibly, in the freest nation (still) can 0.8 % of the population, the vast majority of whom are proud Americans,

overturn the Constitution? How long for such numbers to grow to some ‘critical mass’? In that time, those citizens will certainly choose to act against their own ‘bad apples’, purely in their self-interest. Just as long as they treated equally and evenly by the Law, without being isolated and alienated.

We all have to get used to the notion that every nation has its disaffected - or maybe the completely

insane - citizens. However, the tail doesn’t wag the dog…unless we allow it to.

That’s my point about fear. Fear is a remarkable emotion for survival. Only thing, it demands instant action,

to run or fight. When - as often- neither is sensible or rational (at that moment), we are frustrated, emotionally.

Then over time, this becomes a state of defocused anxiety leading to subjectivity.

The only options here are either frozen action, or huge over-reaction.

Being aware of, and calmly planning for, all eventualities, without taking immediate action - is a long way from pretending the monster doesn’t exist.

1 Like

This is a post which I found on another site:

“On December 31st, 2011 President Barack Obama signed into law The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012. So long as Islam remains a hostile force, Section 1031 grants him the unprecedented right over United States citizens to detain them without charge indefinitely. This means he has the infinite and legally unchallengeable power to secretly grab anyone, anywhere, anytime, and brutally imprison them for life without reason.”-and this is my response:

“Islam currently doesn’t represent any substantial threat to the West. Military, economically, philosophically Islamic world is no match to us. However, aspiring dictators, who use Islamic threat as an excuse to obtain the position of unlimited power, do. They, not Islam, undermine the very foundations of the Western civilization as we know it.”

An irrational fear in the medical terms called paranoia. However, this side of asylum the metaphysical root of such a fear is a chronic insecurity, low self-esteem, that is-a sense that man essentially is not equipped to live on this Earth. Such a sense created by two thousand years of mystical indoctrination and altruist morality, lack of life affirming values and a slavish habit to rely on some higher authority ( God, Society, Government, Party, Nation, etc…). To such a person any conman can sell any bogus scare-from the Global warming to the Global Sharia rule, not to mention the end of the World in 2012. And con men with the power of state at their disposal always knew that fear is the best way to subdue the populace.

As for Nigeria-Muslims in this country constitute about 50% of population (compare with 0.8% in USA and 3% in Europe).. USA with it 312,890,000, in order to reach the ratio of Nigeria will need to have 156445000 Muslims. Even if we accept the ridiculous number given by The American Muslim Council ( militant Islamic body) which is 6 million, to reach the level of Nigeria America has to increase the number of its Muslims 25 times, or 2500%. The average world growth of Muslim population is 2.2 %.( In America and Europe is much less-about 1.3%). In other words it will take about 2000 years for America to reach Nigeria level. If America will allow the Immigration of 100000 Muslims a year ( completely unthinkable situation given the anti-Muslim political climate) then together with the natural growth America will be dominated by Muslim in 500 years. In other words be scare, be very scare!

By maybe not. First of all not all Muslims are militant and dreaming about Global Sharia. Most of them immigrate to America exactly in order to escape Sharia rule. Second, even in Nigeria Muslim violence is sporadic and perpetuated by small minority of militant Muslims Boko Haram. It is interesting to mention that Nigerian Governer Dr. MB Aliyu and the current Sultan of Sokoto, publicly denounced the group as anti-Islamic.

So the monster does exist , in the size and the shape of a cockroach which will run for its life with the first ray of light. No doubt, we need to exterminate cockroaches. But to fear them?

Hi, Tony

You said "Look at the facts: in a country much smaller than the state of Michigan, with population of 7-8 million,

1.4 million are Muslim. Why do most people not even know this about Israel? because those Israeli Muslims

are completely assimilated, since the late '40’s."

I just want to support your claim by few links

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHPSdBztS98

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl9xPNLhPlg

This is a post which I found on another site:

“On December 31st, 2011 President Barack Obama signed into law The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012. So long as Islam remains a hostile force, Section 1031 grants him the unprecedented right over United States citizens to detain them without charge indefinitely. This means he has the infinite and legally unchallengeable power to secretly grab anyone, anywhere, anytime, and brutally imprison them for life without reason.”-and this is my response:

Here is my response.

Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:

The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Article 1 Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Indefinite detention is entirely constitutional if the Congress authorizes it for those participating or conspiring in the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. A U.S. citizen participating or conspiring in the violent overthrow of the U.S. government within the U.S. is a rebel. A foreign citizen participating or conspiring in the violent overthrow of the U.S. government from within the U.S. is an invader. There is precisely nothing newly unconstitutional in the NDAA of 2012.

Wikipedia has an article on the NDAA of 2012, which links to an official pdf version of the text of the act. The link is http://www.gpo.gov/f…12hr1540enr.pdf The sections of interest are 1021 and 1022 found on page 265 of 565. Section 1021 explicitly spells out who is a ‘covered person’

( B) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section

is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided

the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,

or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported

al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged

in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,

including any person who has committed a belligerent act or

has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy

forces.

The black helicopters are not going to come for anyone in the middle of the night to ‘disappear’ them into a FEMA concentration camp. Even Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Oklahoma City Federal building in a paradigmatic act of “domestic terrorism”, would not be subject to the provisions of this act. This entire line of attack against the NDAA of 2012 is a Ron Paul/Alex Jones/Prison Planet conspiracy theory bullshit.

“Islam currently doesn’t represent any substantial threat to the West. Military, economically, philosophically Islamic world is no match to us. However, aspiring dictators, who use Islamic threat as an excuse to obtain the position of unlimited power, do. They, not Islam, undermine the very foundations of the Western civilization as we know it.”

The Islamic world is well equipped with crusading moralists. The West’s version of a crusading moralist is Lady Gaga. If this goes on, I would not bet on the West.

An irrational fear in the medical terms called paranoia. However, this side of asylum the metaphysical root of such a fear is a chronic insecurity, low self-esteem, that is-a sense that man essentially is not equipped to live on this Earth. Such a sense created by two thousand years of mystical indoctrination and altruist morality, lack of life affirming values and a slavish habit to rely on some higher authority ( God, Society, Government, Party, Nation, etc…). To such a person any conman can sell any bogus scare-from the Global warming to the Global Sharia rule, not to mention the end of the World in 2012. And con men with the power of state in their disposition always knew that fear is the best way to subdue the populace.

Oh, so that’s the explanation for the existence of Ron Paul and Alex Jones, and the paranoia about the U.S. government coming to kidnap people off the streets! Thanks for that.

As for Nigeria-Muslims in this country constitute about 50% of population (compare with 0.8% in USA and 3% in Europe).. USA with it 312,890,000, in order to reach the ratio of Nigeria will need to have 156445000 Muslims. Even if we accept the ridiculous number given by The American Muslim Council ( militant Islamic body) which is 6 million, to reach the level of Nigeria America has to increase the number of its Muslims 25 times, or 2500%. The average world growth of Muslim population is 2.2 %.( In America and Europe is much less-about 1.3%). In other words it will take about 2000 years for America to reach Nigeria level. If America will allow the Immigration of 100000 Muslims a year ( completely unthinkable situation given the anti-Muslim political climate) then together with the natural growth America will be dominated by Muslim in 500 years. In other words be scare, be very scare!

This does not take into account conversions. Also, just like other immigrant populations in the past they will form into enclaves and concentrations. So long as the immigrant communities are fortified by a continual stream of new immigrants and two way travel and communication with the countries of origin they will resist assimilation/apostasy. It will be of little comfort that Muslims are only 1% of the general population of an entire country when they are 51% of your neighborhood or nearest city.

By maybe not. First of all not all Muslims are militant and dreaming about Global Sharia. Most of them immigrate to America exactly in order to escape Sharia rule. Second, even in Nigeria Muslim violence is sporadic and perpetuated by small minority of militant Muslims Boko Haram. It is interesting to mention that Nigerian Governer Dr. MB Aliyu and the current Sultan of Sokoto, publicly denounced the group as anti-Islamic.

[http://sundaytrust.com.ng/?option=com_content&amp;amp;view=article&amp;amp;id=7002:boko-haram-not-representing-islam-gov-aliyu&amp;amp;catid=41:latest-news&amp;amp;It[</sup>](http://sundaytrust.com.ng/?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=7002:boko-haram-not-representing-islam-gov-aliyu&amp;catid=41:latest-news&amp;It)

“Islam is known to be a religion of peace and does not condone violence and crime in any form," Nigerian Governer Dr. MB Aliyu said in that linked article. Anyone describing Islam as a “religion of peace” is simply lying.

An explanation of the variation between the peaceable and violent Muslims exists in the three stages of jihad.

Text In short, Muslims can be very agreeable when they are utterly outnumbered, become unruly when a sizable minority with some political power, and are insufferable supremacists when they are a majority.

1 Like

Leon,

I liked the video clips. Small cameos of individuals thinking and acting for themselves - in

such countries that allow them that right, naturally.

Here is a portrayal of fear, or rather its opposite. It is too easy to forget that the figures

we casually toss around - millions here, millions there - often conceal reality, or do little to explain it..

Such large numbers drive us toward fear, encourage and feed it.

Forget for now what our governments are doing, must do, etc. We - sometimes even as Objectivists - tend to

grant them, and the masses of people, an authority they should never possess: by collectivist premises.

More than anyone else, we know better than that. Regarding the world as individualists, and seeing other individuals, one’s fear has no chance to gain purchase, I think.

Anyway, that’s the fearlessness I saw and heard in the young faces.

Here is my response.

Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:

The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Grames, thanks for your, as usual, cool headed legal explanation in “Captain dummy talk.” It laid to rest some of my fears regarding the NDAA, but not my primary one which I wondered if you could address.

I’m concerned that since “terror” is a pretty ambiguous enemy, the war on terror could become similar to the war on drugs or poverty, but maybe worse, as precedents are broadened and expanded to include more and more people considered “hostile” or “belligerent” to the government. In the same way that the patriot act has been a great boon for chasing down drug dealers and tax evaders. but not terrorists, i think it possible that this act could be used in the same way. Do you have reason to believe, as opposed to hope, that this will, or has to be used solely for its alleged purpose?

… Do you have reason to believe, as opposed to hope, that this will, or has to be used solely for its alleged purpose?

The Covered Persons paragraphs limit the scope of the law so long as words still have meaning.

"Indefinite detention is entirely constitutional if the Congress authorizes it for those participating or conspiring in the violent overthrow of the U.S. government"

Grames, Thank you for this elaboration . There is the only one question remains: who is the covered person-a suspect or a convicted terrorist? If he’s a suspect and his alleged activities haven’t been proved above the reasonable doubt in the court of law, then he could turn out to be a completely innocent person. His indefinite detention would be a violation of presumption of innocence and his civil rights. If he’s a convicted terrorist-then his punishment should be in accordance to the decision of the judge. He could be executed, but there is no such a punishment as indefinite incarceration which is elsewhere considered to be a cruel and unusual punishment. . In both cases we are dealing with the perversion of justice. A detention of suspect is a measure which allows to conduct investigation. No investigation is conducted indefinitely. If Constitution makes a provision for detention of the enemy soldiers-like Taliban fighters, then they are not suspects or convicts but POW. However if Constitution allows indefinite detention of a suspect, that is-an innocent until proved guilty, if legality is substituted by suspicion, then black helicopters can come for everybody.

My point is not that Obama’s decree is unconstitutional , but Constitution itself is flawed. At least from the Objectivist point of view, the use of retaliatory force should be under the strict restriction of objective ( that which pertains to reality) law.

"The Islamic world is well equipped with crusading moralists. The West’s version of a crusading moralist is Lady Gaga. If this goes on, I would not bet on the West."-me too. If the pillar of the West’s morality is lady Gaga, the West will fall without any intervention of islamists.

“It will be of little comfort that Muslims are only 1% of the general population of an entire country when they are 51% of your neighborhood or nearest city.”-agreed, very uncomfortable situation, What one should do?-Probably to move to the neighborhood with 1 or better 0%. From the other hand 49% could try and create good relationships with the 51%, since , if I understood you properly, this 51% are not Taliban’s fighters but Americans who happened to be Muslims.

“Anyone describing Islam as a “religion of peace” is simply lying.”

With you one cannot win. If Muslims are terrorists they should be rightly exterminated. If they claim peace and co-existence, they practice takia (deception). if they do nothing they are suspected in commitment of belligerent act or support of such an act ( whatever it means), and could be indefinitely incarcerated without proof and trial on the whim of any super-patriotic government official.

"Indefinite detention is entirely constitutional if the Congress authorizes it for those participating or conspiring in the violent overthrow of the U.S. government"

Grames, Thank you for this elaboration . There is the only one question remains: who is the covered person-a suspect or a convicted terrorist?

Neither. Prisoner of War is the term describing their status. POWs can theoretically be kept until the war ends, but many of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay have already been released after a military tribunal reviewed their status.

“It will be of little comfort that Muslims are only 1% of the general population of an entire country when they are 51% of your neighborhood or nearest city.”-agreed, very uncomfortable situation, What one should do?-Probably to move to the neighborhood with 1 or better 0%. From the other hand 49% could try and create good relationships with the 51%, since , if I understood you properly, this 51% are not Taliban’s fighters but Americans who happened to be Muslims.

It remains to be seen empirically what kind of Muslim an American Muslim would become if he were part of a majority. No where else in the world do 51% and greater Muslim populations live in peace and toleration with non-Muslims because the Koran tells them to assert their supremacy. People freak out when they learn of Christian Dominionism, but the Dominionist element in the Koran could not be more explicit, repetitive and consistent than it is whereas the Christian version is entirely speculative theology based on one word from Genesis.

if they [Muslims] do nothing they are suspected in commitment of belligerent act or support of such an act ( whatever it means), and could be indefinitely incarcerated without proof and trial on the whim of any super-patriotic government official.

I don’t understand where this third sentence comes from. Anyone, even a Muslim, has to actually do something besides merely be a Muslim in order to be a covered person under the act.

People freak out when they learn of Christian Dominionism, but the Dominionist element in the Koran could not be more explicit, repetitive and consistent than it is whereas the Christian version is entirely speculative theology based on one word from Genesis.

I think you partially misconstrue this article. As I read it, the _name_ given to Christian Dominionism is based on one word of the Bible, not that the CD’s entire theology springs from that word. The whole Old Testament is full of armies doing the will of god, a bunch of laws handed down by god that are to be binding on his people, and a lot of ranting about the consequences of abandoning god and his law. All of that is grist for the mill of the CDs who will say “look at the terrible things god has in store for you if you ignore his demands”

Nevertheless, I agree that the radical Muslims are even more obnoxious. We happen to live in a country where there are far fewer of them and they exist within a minority (recruiting ground, sympathizers, others who ultimately find themselves unable to argue with them) that is comparatively even smaller. But even so the radical Muslims work tirelessly and mostly nonviolently (for now!) to alter our culture; goal number one is to make it at the very least a breach of decorum to mock or even complain about radical Muslims or radical Islam; that’s one of the planks of Sharia: in a country under Sharia law no one is allowed to criticize Islam.

In spite of their minority status, they are succeeding in large part.

“Anyone describing Islam as a “religion of peace” is simply lying.”

With you one cannot win. If Muslims are terrorists they should be rightly exterminated. If they claim peace and co-existence, they practice takia (deception). if they do nothing they are suspected in commitment of belligerent act or support of such an act ( whatever it means), and could be indefinitely incarcerated without proof and trial on the whim of any super-patriotic government official.

Isn’t this a total misrepresentation of his position? No one here has suggested that the government should detain any muslim who does nothing.

I insist still that fear is the underlying premise - and topic - not government intervention.

There is, to me, a continuum from the rational to the irrational here: from realistic extrapolation, based on identifiable facts and principles, to the other extreme of fear-based conjecture.

It is irrational to live permanently in a state of fear or anxiety- especially so, when none of us is prescient.

Like AGW, cool appraisal of the facts, followed by practical, non-self-sacrificial methods to deal (or not deal)

with the phenomenon, is the objective way to deal with the false dichotomy of “alarmism” and “denialism”.

All I’m saying is, it is irrational to project into a future we cannot know.

(And when our governments become fearful, we will see the worst of intervention and injustice. The ‘cure’ will

be more lethal than the ‘disease’.)

Grammes “Neither. Prisoner of War is the term describing their status”

Status of POW is defined by the third Geneva convention. "Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples…It dictates what information a prisoner must give and interrogation methods that the detaining power may use “No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion”

http://en.wikipedia…neva_Convention

For example the information that POW must provide includes only his name, rank and regiment, nothing else. This is of course wouldn’t be sufficient information expected from the captured terrorist. Bot POW as POW cannot be interrogated. Moreover, POW as POW cannot be tried in the court of justice, unless he committed war crimes. However in such a case he is not a POW but a suspect. So a captured terrorist cannot be a POW and suspect the same time and the same respect.

"I don’t understand where this third sentence comes from. Anyone, even a Muslim, has to actually do something besides merely be a Muslim in order to be a covered person under the act. "

This is because a definition of covered person is vague and ambiguous. What exactly constitutes a belligerent act or direct support of such hostilities ? Belligerent means Inclined or eager to fight; hostile or aggressive or refers to a tendency to hostile behavior or engaged in warfare. (American Heritage Dictionary)

According to this definition any Muslim who shows the middle finger or just shouts obscenities toward American troops or demonstrates against say a war in Iraq or proclaims that he’s for Sharia domination of the world ( direct support) is a covered person. Him and anybody who support him , for example on the ground of the First amendment could be incarcerated for ever. The obvious reason for this presidential decree is not the actual fight against terrorism but instillation of the fear into anybody who dares to object the government. Such a subjective vague law together with a profiling is a trade mark of totalitarian regime.

Isn’t this a total misrepresentation of his position? No one here has suggested that the government should detain any muslim who does nothing.

No. The law provides for detention of any belligerent Muslim, even if he doesn’t initiate the use of force.

whYNOT “I insist still that fear is the underlying premise - and topic - not government intervention.”

I second that. Government just uses the chronic insecurity of the populace in order to rule.

Grammes “Neither. Prisoner of War is the term describing their status”

Status of POW is defined by the third Geneva convention. "Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples…It dictates what information a prisoner must give and interrogation methods that the detaining power may use “No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion”

http://en.wikipedia…neva_Convention

For example the information that POW must provide includes only his name, rank and regiment, nothing else. This is of course wouldn’t be sufficient information expected from the captured terrorist. Bot POW as POW cannot be interrogated. Moreover, POW as POW cannot be tried in the court of justice, unless he committed war crimes. However in such a case he is not a POW but a suspect. So a captured terrorist cannot be a POW and suspect the same time and the same respect.

A POW as POW need not be interrogated or tried in any fashion whatever in order to be interned for the duration of hostilities. If tried, a regularly constituted court can validly pass a sentence even on a POW, who would be in a legal position just like regular criminals in the U.S. protected by the 5th Amendment prohibitions on requiring self incriminating testimony.

In Hamdan v Rumsfeld the Supreme Court of the U.S. only applied Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention to the detainees it held in Guantanamo. In Boumediene v. Bush the Supreme Court extended habeus corpus protections to the Guantanamo detainees based on reasoning having nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions.

The NDAA of 2010 contained the Military Commisions Act of 2009 (begins on numbered page 2575 or 387 of 656), and established a legal system for “unprivileged enemy belligerents”.

‘‘(6) PRIVILEGED BELLIGERENT.—The term ‘privileged belligerent’

means an individual belonging to one of the eight categories

enumerated in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention

Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

‘‘(7) UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENT.—The term

‘unprivileged enemy belligerent’ means an individual (other

than a privileged belligerent) who—

‘‘(A) has engaged in hostilities against the United

States or its coalition partners;

‘‘( B) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities

against the United States or its coalition partners;

or

‘‘( C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of the alleged

offense under this chapter.

"I don’t understand where this third sentence comes from. Anyone, even a Muslim, has to actually do something besides merely be a Muslim in order to be a covered person under the act. "

This is because a definition of covered person is vague and ambiguous. What exactly constitutes a belligerent act or direct support of such hostilities ? Belligerent means Inclined or eager to fight; hostile or aggressive or refers to a tendency to hostile behavior or engaged in warfare. (American Heritage Dictionary)

According to this definition any Muslim who shows the middle finger or just shouts obscenities toward American troops or demonstrates against say a war in Iraq or proclaims that he’s for Sharia domination of the world ( direct support) is a covered person. Him and anybody who support him , for example on the ground of the First amendment could be incarcerated for ever. The obvious reason for this presidential decree is not the actual fight against terrorism but instillation of the fear into anybody who dares to object the government. Such a subjective vague law together with a profiling is a trade mark of totalitarian regime.

Sorry, no. You picked the wrong definition and have made a context error. ‘Belligerent’ and ‘belligerent act’ are specific terms of art (jargon) in diplomacy and the laws of war. You already referenced Wikipedia to read up on the Geneva Convention, you should have stayed with Wikipedia to avoid this error. http://en.wikipedia…iki/Belligerent makes the distinction between the colloquial use which means aggressive and its formal use which means combatant, which means there is the objective standard of the use of physical force employed to discriminate between combatants and non-combatants (belligerents and non-belligerents). The Third Geneva Convention employs the word and concept ‘belligerent’ in precisely this sense.