Juan Cole-PhD
University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole is consider one of academia's leading apologists for Islamic extremism. This is the guy who last October spoke at Cal State Long Beach and blasted British Prime Minister David Cameron for alerting the British public that some 400 Brits were fighting on behalf of ISIS, "a minuscule" number according to Cole. Since then that number has climbed, and we can only imagine what hundreds of ISIS fighters can accomplish if they return to Britain from the killing fields of Iraq and Syria.
Now Cole posts on his website, "Informed Comment" a study by some progressive outfit called the New America Foundation. This bunch has just concluded a study that tells us that (American/non-Muslim) homegrown terrorists have killed 48 people in the US since 9-11 compared to only 26 victims killed by Muslim terrorists (again, in the US).
http://www.juancole.com/2015/06/homegrown-extremists-radicals.html
Nice try.
To the careless reader, you might buy into this silly argument. Of course, as liberals like to point out America is just another county in that vast global village. Since 9-11 there have been over 25,000 Islamic terrorist attacks world-wide, many of which have claimed American lives overseas.
But more to the point, here is a statistic that wipes the above argument out. This past Friday, in Kuwait, France, and Tunisia, Islamic terrorist attacks claimed 66 lives. That was in just one day, Mr Cole.
So you can come up with as many sensational murders in the US as you want, carried out by deranged gunmen with no real spiritual conviction driving them other than their own personal, sick demons. Throw in the Virginia Tech massacre if you want. The inescapable fact remains that somewhere in the world, in one day, Islamic killers will surpass whatever total you wish to come up with.
Oh, Gary is a convert to the "global village." Next thing, he'll be singing the praises of the United Nations, and buying Hillary's book.
ReplyDeleteNow, seriously, although I have yet to see any reason to hold any respect for Cole, those statistics are rather useful as far as security in North America goes. Law enforcement needs to professionally track evidence of terror preparations, wherever it leads, and not put on the blinders of profiling. The problem with profiles is, if the terrorist is outside the profile, you tend to miss him.
It is, of course, quite possible to profile without having blinders on. Maybe profiling is best used as an adjunct??
ReplyDeleteThat is exactly how it should be used, elwood. One tool among many, and to be applied with a view to the entire context. E.g., it is possible that more of a given crime is at present being committed by people with Muslim connections, but that doesn't mean you strip search every Muslim who passes through the checkpoint. It is possible that two black men have been couriering drugs to local distribution networks in rural Iowa, but that is not sufficient basis to pull over and arrest every pair of black men with California plates driving through Iowa on the interstate. You might give them a bit more discreet surveillance until you say where they are heading.
ReplyDeleteYeah Siarlys, but when PC runs amok, then you have requirements that for every so many black CA drug suspects running to Iowa or from a bank robbery, you have to stop some number of white dudes to "even things up". That is absolutely INSANE!!!
ReplyDeleteHappy medium, I say.
If you think there are not "white" drug dealers making those runs... you don't know much. If the majority of the people the police arrest are in fact guilty, and the rest are quickly sent on their way with a sincere apology, everything will quiet down.
ReplyDeleteDrug traffickers cut across all ethnic lines.
ReplyDeleteSiarlys--you missed the point, of course there are "white" dope runners, Gary has it right, and I may just know a little more than you seem to think I do. A great deal of it is based on behaviors, while race/ethnicity may or may not play a part, or only a secondary/tertiary one.
ReplyDeleteI was trying to point out the complete idiocy of, for another example, doing only a cursory exam of young Muslim males at an airport, who may in fact be acting a little strangely, while referring a blue-haired 80-year old grandma in a wheelchair for secondary, merely to meet some statistical model of diversity. Like it or not, this kind of stuff does happen.
And I don't know about the percentage of arrestees who are guilty, but a very strong majority (probably 95% or even more) of those actually charged are guilty of something.
Statistical models of diversity are questionable at best -- I've been critiquing "disparate impact" as a reliable measure of racism for some time. On the other hand, I have a friend who is Coptic who found that he was ALWAYS pulled into the line for extra scrutiny because he looks kinda Arab, on international flights to AND from the USA.
ReplyDeleteActually elwood, about 40 percent of those charged in state court are acquitted, while federal prosecutors have a 95 percent conviction rate, and the reasons for that involve power leverage more than they involve much better judgment as to which persons to charge. State prosecutors aren't that bad, and federal prosecutors aren't that good. A 95 percent conviction rate has the same credibility as an incumbent president getting re-elected with 95 percent of the vote.
If a whole lot of Arabic-looking people are subjected to extra scrutiny just because they look Arab, then we have a problem, just as if anyone black is pulled over because they look guilty, we have a problem. One reason it IS a problem, is it provides a veneer of sympathy for people who happen to be black who are pulled over for good reason, and then starting blaring "He just pulled me over because I'm black." Police have cried "Wolf" a few times too many, to hold the instant trust of the community, even the community that is victimized by the relevant crimes.