NYPD Warns of Homegrown Terror Threat

The Council on American-Islamic Relations accused the NYPD analysts of distorting the innocent behavior of observant Muslims.

"Is Islamic attire or giving up bad habits ... now to be regarded as suspicious behavior?" asked the group's chairman, Parvez Ahmed.

Kareem Shora, legal adviser for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, called the findings faulty and inflammatory.

"The report is at odds with federal law enforcement findings, including those of the recently released National Intelligence Estimate, and uses unfortunate stereotyping of entire communities," Shora said in a statement. "The use of such language by the NYPD is un-American and goes against everything for which we stand."

There seems to be a significant difference of opinion between the NYPD & some of the Muslim groups....

Hmmm. As you can see, nothing about the extremist rhetoric.

Let's address the real issue here.

Some are going out of their way to make themselves prime profiling candidates.

They "look, act, talk and walk like everyone around them," the study adds. "In the early stages of their radicalization, these individuals rarely travel, are not participating in any kind of militant activity, yet they are slowly building the mind-set, intention and commitment to conduct jihad."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations accused the NYPD analysts of distorting the innocent behavior of observant Muslims.

"Is Islamic attire or giving up bad habits ... now to be regarded as suspicious behavior?" asked the group's chairman, Parvez Ahmed.

Anyone living in NYC will tell you the Homeland Security efforts have been a toatal joke as money goes to patting down CoEds with backpacks and posting security forces in a ring around the NYSE and beyond that, we can't defend against a rainstorm to keep our evacuation routes open or emergency systems running. This is ethnic fearmongering and sounds like the typical rhetoric about gang violence we hear applied to young, poor, males of every ethnicity in the city. Shame on the politicians who twist this to a National security issue.

Some are going out of their way to make themselves prime profiling candidates.

Some are going out of their way to profile peaceful people.
I'll repeat the quote that krishna used above

"The report is at odds with federal law enforcement findings, including those of the recently released National Intelligence Estimate, and uses unfortunate stereotyping of entire communities," Shora said in a statement. "The use of such language by the NYPD is un-American and goes against everything for which we stand."

I'd trust a federal study over an NYPD study, especially one so overly general as this one.

Instead of mosques, those places were more likely to be "cafes, cab driver hangouts, flop houses, prisons, student associations, non-governmental organizations, hookah bars, butcher shops and bookstores," the report says.

So any Muslim outside of a mosque is more of a suspect? Muslim's should be suspected if they frequent coffee shops, book stores, hookah bars (which have become incredibly popular among the college/young professional crowd in recent years) and student organizations?

It's time to face facts and accept that there are extremist elements, and some -- as in Britain -- use our society against us to their advantage. Denying it is sticking one's head in the sand.

I'm reminded of the flying imams and the deliberate stunt they pulled on that plane.

I'm curious as to why CAIR chose not to address these facts.

Yes, there are profiling abuses. Now let's agree on why profiling occurs.

Now let's agree on why profiling occurs.

It occurs because people, instead of addressing the underlying causes of certain types of violence, focus on superficial factors that may or may not be worth a damn in the end. Fundamentalism doesn't readily take root in America because American Muslims are generally happy with their lives and prospects here. To prevent homegrown terrorism we need to expand on that feeling by drawing Muslims further into American society, not by ostracizing them.

To prevent homegrown terrorism we need to expand on that feeling by drawing Muslims further into American society, not by ostracizing them.

I've been saying that for years. Sometimes, I wonder whether some miss the point. I abandoned naiveté and demands for perfection some years back.

Anyone living in NYC will tell you the Homeland Security efforts have been a toatal joke as money goes to patting down CoEds with backpacks and posting security forces in a ring around the NYSE

I believe I saw in the news that after a major terrorist attack somewhere (One of the one in Europe?) the NYC police would searhc backpacks and handbags of people entering the subway (not everyone-- the city would have come to a complete halt!-- they would just pick a few people every now and then at random).

Well, its not hard to imagine the outcome-- some people complained about their rights being violated.

So-- in order to get around this-- they came up with an ingenious solution-- anyone had the right to refuse to be searched.

Of course, this brought up another issue-- obviously, if someone was a terrorist, they could board the trains-- without being searched! (And, obviously, the people who would agree to be searched would be people who weren't carrying bombs....).

Well, they found a solution to that too-- you had a right to refuse being searched-- but then you weren't allowed on the train. Problem solved!
A-People had a right to refuse being searched
B-People not searched (who refused) weren't allowed on the train.

Sounds great right? A win-win scenario...

However, the "fly in the ointment" (or should I say the "fly in the Semtex"???) was this:

The police were not stationed at every subway stop. Therefore, if you refused to be searched, you could walk to the next station (in some cases a few blocks away) and board the train there.

What did all this accomplish?
A- Anyone who wanted to board the train with a bomb could do so-- sans being searched
B- Some people were subject to delays (plus the minor annoyance) of being searched--for no good reason!

Actually, the whole thing seemed absurd. I actually think the reason they did this was not to prevent an act of terrorism ...but actually, it was done merely to reassure the populace.

If a terrorist wanted to blow himself up-- once the news of the subway searches became public...all he would have to do is avoid the subway! Why not merely walk down a crowded street with a bomb...at rush hour?

Its been done before (in fact, it seems to happen at least every few days in Baghdad...)

These characters certainly must be maladjusted, impatient misanthropes.

Can't seem to cut it? Go out and kill in the name of the religion of peace.

Get help. Don't kill.

Your comment reminds me of a cute video clip I saw recently-- this was a "public service announcement" on Israeli TV: Make Love, Not Terror

we can't defend against a rainstorm to keep our evacuation routes open or emergency systems running.

I'm not sure I see your point-- obviously, the efficiency of the government could be improved. Not only what you just mentioned, but in many other cases-- the recent bridge collapse, coal mine disaster...and even bigger disastyers like what happened to New Orleans (especially unforgiveable in that everyone knew the levees wouldn't withstand a hurricane of a certain wind force).

But-- our counter-terrorism record isn't so great either. Apparently there were warning signs re:9/11... yet the terrorists were able to hijack not one but four (!) airplanes-- all on the same day!

And, while it could be argued that the warning signs re: 9/11 were vague and non-specific...people seem to forget that that was the second attack by Islamic extremists on the WTC... after the first one, the government still refused to take the threat seriously!

This is ethnic fearmongering

Is it ethnic fear-mongering...or is it due to the very real possibility of a terror attack? In this case it might have been a false alarm (although its also possible an attack was planned, and called off due to heightened security).

There have been several attacks on urban trains by Islamic extremists: the Madrid train attack, the attack on the London Underground, the attack on the trains in Israel, the attack on the Moscow subway...the Mumbai train attack.

Those are 5 train attacks that came to mind immediately-- I imagine I missed others. I wonder what the total number of deaths has been...in those 5 incidents alone?

(Mumbai: "More than 160 people have been killed and 460 injured by seven bombs on the train network in the Indian financial capital Mumbai (Bombay), police say. Correspondents spoke of scenes of pandemonium, with people jumping from trains and bodies flung onto tracks. . . An eyewitness at Mahim told the BBC some of those who had jumped from the train were run over by another train coming in the opposite direction.

Hospitals across Mumbai have been swamped with casualties.

A medical student at a hospital in Parel, which has received many of the wounded, told the BBC News website the "floors are filled with bloodstains".

"There were so many [injured people], I couldn't really count," Sunny Jain said. . . The blasts came hours after suspected Islamic extremists killed seven people in grenade attacks in the summer capital of Kashmir, Srinagar. "

The other acts of terrorism vs trains were not much more pleasant....

And, of course, these were just actions by Islamic extremists vs trains..there have been so many more on other targets.

Given this fact, and that fact that there have been at least two major terror attacks by jihadis against targets in New York City alone...I really don't see how you can believe that these warnings are "ethnic fear-mongering"...??? It seems to me that the danger is quite real...

I'd like to watch the video, but with dial-up . . .

I'm reminded, though, of photos that the Israeli embassy put up on its website showing the carnage in the aftermath of a bus bombing.

Fundamentalism doesn't readily take root in America because American Muslims are generally happy with their lives and prospects here.

Actually...fundamentalism doesn't take root in America...all that much at all!

While this is a generalization, the fact is that most American Muslims are amongst the most moderate of any country in the world (those living in Malaysi; many in Indonesia, although that's changing a bit;..and many Israeli & Lebanese Muslims tend, for the most part, to be fairly moderate..).

Even in the west, those living in countries such as England & France tend to be much more discontent woith their lives, & have many more fundamentalists in their ranks.

So any Muslim outside of a mosque is more of a suspect? Muslim's should be suspected if they frequent coffee shops, book stores, hookah bars (which have become incredibly popular among the college/young professional crowd in recent years) and student organizations?

I think he didn't express himself clearly. Apparently the point he was trying to make is this:
In Europe, much of the radicalism is caused by incitement by Imams..in mosques...financed primarily by the Saudis.

By contrast, in the U.S., the mosques tend (with some significant exceptions) to be more moderate...so more of the extremism in the U.S. is not due to the preaching in mosques, but rather individuals who have extremist views. (I'm not sure if he's correct).

The situation may be different in many places in Europe.

Incitement in mosques in the U.K. for example, is widespread (or at least it was..finally the govt is starting to act).

Britain's TV Channel 4 Dispatches program went undercover into several mosques and taped the sermons...this was aired on TV. What they recorded was pretty frightening (&..this is not "fear-mongering" by government sources-- these are actual films of the Imams...in their own words):

Article + links to video, + related links: Channel 4 - Undercover in British Mosques

backroads #1.5...It's time to face facts and accept that there are extremist elements, and some -- as in Britain -- use our society against us to their advantage. Denying it is sticking one's head in the sand.

Evil is a personality, not a Nationality or religion, it spans all economic and cultural boundaries and from the tales of the Odessey, through Shakespere and into more modern times with killers and maniacs, terrors and tragedies, one thing has remained constant.

The random acts, whether by kids on school grounds or snipers on an overpass, it happens and will never be eliminated entirely. Even prisons are unable to completely control violence or achieve perfect intelligence.

The other thing that stays the same is the collection of Wall Street desk jockeys who sell the idea of war as a patriotic necessity, a way to spread democracy all the while selling more arms to all sides.

To think that living among the decaying containers of decades of hidden waste dumps and neglected infrastructure doesn't pose a far greater and more immediate threat to the Nation than any CIA trained terrorists could is a far greater denial.

Evil is a personality, not a Nationality or religion, it spans all economic and cultural boundaries and from the tales of the Odessey, through Shakespere and into more modern times

So, I take it then, if the NYC police dept searches bags of people going into the subway-- in a truly random fashion-- without profiling-- you would be OK with that?

Evil is a personality, not a Nationality or religion, it spans all economic and cultural boundaries and from the tales of the Odessey, through Shakespere and into more modern times with killers and maniacs, terrors and tragedies,

True. But that's another subject. It might be interesting to discuss terrorism in the times of the Odyssey or Shakespeare.

However, I am more concerned with the dangers we face today-- and the way the government is (or is not) dealing with them.

The random acts, whether by kids on school grounds or snipers on an overpass, it happens and will never be eliminated entirely.

True. But the frequency can be cut-- drastically.

Israel, for example, which has had a high number of suicide attacks in the past, has almost eliminated them. (At one point, it seems like there was one almost every day-- more than one on some days).

I can't remember when the last one was-- anyone remember? I think it must have been a few months ago...?

And if a tiny country like Israel (with hostile people on their borders) can cause the number to plummet-- I would think other countries could also.

The other thing that stays the same is the collection of Wall Street desk jockeys who sell the idea of war as a patriotic necessity, a way to spread democracy all the while selling more arms to all sides.

Which has exactly what..to do with the NYC police dept's tactics in attempting to deter terrorism?

(Btw, I have some friends who are brokers...every one of them is opposed to the war in Iraq...most of them also dislike Bush. )

To think that living among the decaying containers of decades of hidden waste dumps and neglected infrastructure doesn't pose a far greater and more immediate threat to the Nation than any CIA trained terrorists could is a far greater denial.

The degree to which decaying infrastructure is a threat does not, in my opinion, have anything to do with the degree to which terrorism is (or is not) a threat.

Are you implying that if we did a better job of maintaining the infrastructure, Islamic militants would become friendly..and docile? :-)

AIDS is also a problem..as are automobile accidents...heart disease..the list goes on and on.

Fear and wise precautionary measures are two different things.

Let's say an attack does occur. Will fear prevail then? Will there be recriminations over why more wasn't done to avert the attack?

Has anybody seen any more terror attacks inside the U.S. since 9-11?

Well, there have been several-- but none of them "major" like 911.

I agree-- there is a difference between fear...and taking wise precautions. Of the people I know (family, friends, business associates)...no one seems to be all that afraid-- I think the media likes to play up the fear factor-- to create a story.

But, some people are aware of the real dangers.

Let's say an attack does occur. Will fear prevail then?

Prediction is always a risky business. But-- did fear prevail after 9/11? Yes...and no.

Will there be recriminations over why more wasn't done to avert the attack?

As I remember, there were many accusations after 9/11 that the Bush administration didn't do more to prevent it-- some people said the blame should be laid at the feet of the Clinton administration...

As to the first attack on the WTC, I don't remember if there were many accusations of blames... ???

A good rule of thumb is laying blame at the perpetrators' feet.