Newt Gingrich is 100% correct on this.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Turbin just shows up to toss his hand grenades that land sounding like the empty beer can I just tossed out, and then runs away when asked for something to support his bullshat.

 

He should just go away forever this time, he adds nothing to this bored.

[Uh-huh 0]

Turbin just shows up to toss his hand grenades that land sounding like the empty beer can I just tossed out, and then runs away when asked for something to support his bullshat.

 

He should just go away forever this time, he adds nothing to this bored.

 

:ROTFLMAO:

 

Takes one to know one, eh little lemming?

[Cruzer 1,992]

no, just someone who took the time to read the facts instead of relying on crapass MSM and a paranoid federal government and air traffic system.

damn al jazeera, always getting the best scoops.

[VikesFan 1]

- Two guys asked for seatbelt extenders who clearly didn't need them. This is one of the things known for terrorists to do.

 

- They purposely seated themselves in different seats than assigned to them, in a known terrorist pattern.

 

 

Wow, this is the first time I've heard of terrorists using seat belt extenders. I didn't know seating yourselves in different seats were known terrorist tactics too. And what exactly are seat belt extenders going to be used for? If that is the terrorist's weapon, he won't make it down two rows before he's jumped on and beaten to death.

 

Look, if these guys were being jerks, fine throw them off, but as always I find myself a bit skeptical about this, and I often think these type of stories serve a better purpose to excuse the government from terrorizing us then from protecting us from terrorists.

 

Let's see. How many people on this flight spoke arabic? How many people in this forum speak arabic? I'm guessing those numbers are pretty low, like say one or two, if any at all. Since we have no passenger list, I'm not sure you can really say for sure, but count me skeptical, as very few people in this country speak that langauge. Not to mention, those few people would then have to tell everyone else that this is what they are doing or the passengers would be none the wiser... I'm going to take a guess that this little rumor had more to do with some speculation among some passengers which quickly turned to fact as the game of telephone played on.

 

What else, I'm pretty sure that any arab on a plane is going to be looked at suspiciously now a days, and it won't matter what they do, it will be interpreted as such...

 

Here's another tip. I always ask for an exit seat whenever available... You know why? Because they typicially have more leg room. Once you are in the air, having an exit seat presents no real strategic value, as any plane trouble will likely leave everyone on board dead.

 

As I asked earlier? What good would a seat belt extender do?

 

Oh yes, they were sitting apart, yet talking to who in Arabic? Each other? Were they shouting across the plane? Talking to themselves?

 

Now maybe they were inciting fear, if so, they deserved to be kicked off, and possible even fined or jailed depending on the offense. But let's be serious, there's plenty of things that don't quite add up. Because of that, you can count me skeptical.

[SUXBNME 1,343]

it must suck being you

I'm not Torrid. hth

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Wow, this is the first time I've heard of terrorists using seat belt extenders.

 

Yep, and the first time we heard of terrorists using box cutters was on 9/11.

 

I damn sure wish we woulda kicked those assjacks butts off the planes that day, but we didn't .

[VikesFan 1]

Yep, and the first time we heard of terrorists using box cutters was on 9/11.

 

I damn sure wish we woulda kicked those assjacks butts off the planes that day, but we didn't .

 

 

You have a point, but then again, the quotes being thrown around here was that this was a known terrorist activity... Not really well known, is it? That was my point.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You have a point, but then again, the quotes being thrown around here was that this was a known terrorist activity... Not really well known, is it? That was my point.

 

 

Um, Terrorist activities only become "well known" after innocents are slaughtered.

 

That was my point.

 

HTH

[Strike 3,999]

You have a point, but then again, the quotes being thrown around here was that this was a known terrorist activity... Not really well known, is it? That was my point.

 

I don't think anyone has said it was a known terrorist activity. However, there is no doubt in my mind given the evidence that they were trying to make it seem as if it might have been.

[MDC 5,902]

If by that you mean do I think people should be prosecuted when they break the law then yeah you're right. I do think that. I realize the system isn't perfect but it doesn't mean I think we should abandon it.

 

I never said that we should abandon the legal system. I just don't trust judges to successfully determine the motives behind "suspicious activity."

[Strike 3,999]

I never said that we should abandon the legal system. I just don't trust judges to successfully determine the motives behind "suspicious activity."

 

You don't think they do that already, every day?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I never said that we should abandon the legal system. I just don't trust judges to successfully determine the motives behind "suspicious activity."

 

Fock their motives. A bunch of ragheads hop on a plane and start acting the fool they get bounced. Focking common sense.

[akaoni 0]

Fock their motives. A bunch of ragheads hop on a plane and start acting the fool they get bounced. Focking common sense.

 

 

This tells you all you need to know...

[VikesFan 1]

 

- Two guys asked for seatbelt extenders who clearly didn't need them. This is one of the things known for terrorists to do.

- They purposely seated themselves in different seats than assigned to them, in a known terrorist pattern.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone has said it was a known terrorist activity. However, there is no doubt in my mind given the evidence that they were trying to make it seem as if it might have been.

 

 

Umm... You did.

[VikesFan 1]

Look, I've already commented on this a bit, but it's the "the ragheads must be terrorists" ideology that has me concerned. History has been down this road before, repeatedly. In the 1930s/40s Germany, it was the Jews. In the US, we built interment camps for US citizens of Japanese descent. History has always had people groups persecuted for the actions of a few. Unfortuantely, it often repeates itself.

 

The problem here is that often times, this serves more to scare the masses into compliance then to do anything of substance. When you hunt for witches, you will always find them. Just as you will find a terrorist under every rock and bush if you look hard enough. My concern with this article is precisely that. This case is weak. It wouldn't stand up to a judge/jury in US courts now, and even as it's reported, I question just how concerned people were. Unfortunately, these stories pop up from time to time, and it does wonders to encourage the rank and file to go get the terrorists... Nothing in their actions screams terrorism, and most of what they requested and supposedly did is stuff that wouldn't be known by the people on the plane, unless there is now some policy that states that flight attendants announce on PA whomever wants a seat belt extender, seat changes, and that all arabic is translated over the PA. I suspect any discomfort by passengers on this plane were simply because there happened to be some arabs on the plane. This, might I add, would have happened regardless of what their actions were. I'm not saying they weren't being stupid, they may well have been, but I question this fiercely simply because the fear that the passengers had could have easily been more to rumors circulating throughout the plane then to any real attempt to make people uncomfortable. It's foolish.

 

Might I also add that this is the fear the government wants in us... They want us so afraid of the boogey man, that we cower in fear and do not defend ourselves, so they can do it for us. Might I also add, that it's expected that we do not question them or provide checks to their power and let them take away whatever freedom they see fit. They want us leaving no stone unturned in finding signs of terrorism. They want us paranoid. They want this because it gives them what they want: POWER. And when we are letting them toss "terrorists" in interment camps with no trial or formal arrest, they will quitely continue committing their own crimes, and the poor sap who gets too close will just get labled the next terrorist or traitor.

 

No raghead with a seatbelt extender is going to be able to hijack a plane. The best he could do is blugeon someone repeatedly, at which point about 10 other passengers would kill him. Stop the insanity.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

No raghead with a box cutter is gonna hijack an airplane either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ooops. My bad.

[MDC 5,902]

You don't think they do that already, every day?

 

Yeah they do that every day, but I think "suspicious activity" by an Arab in today's political climate is a lot foggier and more open to interpretation than whether a murder was premeditated.

 

Fock their motives. A bunch of ragheads hop on a plane and start acting the fool they get bounced. Focking common sense.

 

Bounced from the flight, sure. I just said that. Thrown into jail for acting suspicious? I'm not OK with that.

[davebg 0]

It wouldn't stand up to a judge/jury in US courts now

Itsatipthattheywerenotchargedwithacrime.

[MDC 5,902]

Itsatipthattheywerenotchargedwithacrime.

 

I'm actually kind of amazed they haven't been shipped to a foreign prison for several years of interrogation.

[davebg 0]

I'm actually kind of amazed they haven't been shipped to a foreign prison for several years of interrogation.

How'd you know what I asked for this Christmas? Santa, is that you?

[Cousin Cucumber 0]

If you listen to what Newt says and ignore the BS image the dems and media have hung around his neck, he makes sense an many issues. I would vote for him for President over Gulian,i and especially over McInsane.

 

While I would never vote for Newt for anything I do agree that he often makes sense, and he is right on the money on this one.

[itsbigmoni 1]

I read the whole police report and no where did i see that they sat where they weren't suppose to. They requested first class, but a lot of people do that. And the reason they were saying allah allah allah is because they're suppose to pray 5 times a day. I know a lot of people on here have said angry things that included killing saddaam. Like, it would be fockin fun killing sadaam. ###### that bastard, killing sadaam was great. Also, no where did it say any of the passengers knew arabic. Are you honestly saying that when people are talking rapidly and are mad that you can decipher any word in their speech? And add to that, none of them quoted the imams as saying anythign threatning to the U.S. I'm scared shitless going on a plane because i wear a turban. What am i suppose to do, get up and say please to not be alarmed, i was born and raised in Fresno, CA and i am not muslim? I'm almost certain someone would complain and it only takes one written complaint to get you kicked off.

 

What did they do that should be considered acting a fool? Praying in the terminal? Have any of you seen imams, they were a lot of clothing so maybe they needed the extenders. Nowhere in the report did it say that they put em under their seat. So lets see, non-arabic(because if they did speak arabic i'm sure they would've mentioned this in the report) said they heard some imams saying allah allah allah and "killing sadaam." Sadaam Husein is not the only sadaam either. And you're trusting non-arabic, english speaking passengers(there is no similarity between arabic and english, unlike spanish and a few other languages) when he says they said killing.

 

I'm not sure how it is now, but everytime i've been on a plane, we've never gotten a requested seat. My bro is 6'5 so he requested the front row and was denied. We've been seperated, although i'll admit it wasn't to the extent that these fools were.

 

After reading the report, please tell me what they did was acting a fool. Praying does not count. I have a problem with reading too fast so maybe i missed something.

[steamypoop 0]

I read the whole police report and no where did i see that they sat where they weren't suppose to. They requested first class, but a lot of people do that. And the reason they were saying allah allah allah is because they're suppose to pray 5 times a day. I know a lot of people on here have said angry things that included killing saddaam. Like, it would be fockin fun killing sadaam. ###### that bastard, killing sadaam was great. Also, no where did it say any of the passengers knew arabic. Are you honestly saying that when people are talking rapidly and are mad that you can decipher any word in their speech? And add to that, none of them quoted the imams as saying anythign threatning to the U.S. I'm scared shitless going on a plane because i wear a turban. What am i suppose to do, get up and say please to not be alarmed, i was born and raised in Fresno, CA and i am not muslim? I'm almost certain someone would complain and it only takes one written complaint to get you kicked off.

 

What did they do that should be considered acting a fool? Praying in the terminal? Have any of you seen imams, they were a lot of clothing so maybe they needed the extenders. Nowhere in the report did it say that they put em under their seat. So lets see, non-arabic(because if they did speak arabic i'm sure they would've mentioned this in the report) said they heard some imams saying allah allah allah and "killing sadaam." Sadaam Husein is not the only sadaam either. And you're trusting non-arabic, english speaking passengers(there is no similarity between arabic and english, unlike spanish and a few other languages) when he says they said killing.

 

Obviously according to Recliner Pilot these guys deserve jail time for being suspicious.

[Concrete Charlie 0]

The point is, Muslims of Arab heritage have been using planes as weapons for decades now, to one degree or another, with the 9/11 attacks being the most spectacular. They always claim religious justification.

 

Finally, the West has woken up, to a degree, so far.

 

If you are Arab, or appear to be Arab, and you do anything that arouses further suspicion beyond what you already look like, around planes or not, you are gonna get kicked off, arrested, watched, and held in suspicion, at the minimum.

 

If you are Arab, and you are sad, or mad, or disallusioned, about this policy, feel free to blame yourselves for not squashing the widespread, rampant, mass homicidal, global terror apparatus when it was in its infancy. Indeed, most of you are not standing up to it now. Many of you are openly denying it, perhaps secretly enjoying it. The terror movement that was born, bred, and nutured, right in your own back yard while you were too busy, or didn't care, or reveled in it, despite repeated spilling of innocent, "Infidel" blood around the world. This cancer continues to find refuge, and support, in your Arab countries, in your Islam culture.

 

Its out of the bag now, and we have to assume the worst, or we know we will have to pay the price yet again.

 

Like Hilter's machine of the late 1930's, everyone saying "oh don't worry, they'll stop". They have no intention of stopping.

[MDC 5,902]

The point is, Muslims of Arab heritage have been using planes as weapons for decades now, to one degree or another, with the 9/11 attacks being the most spectacular. They always claim religious justification.

 

Finally, the West has woken up, to a degree, so far.

 

If you are Arab, or appear to be Arab, and you do anything that arouses further suspicion beyond what you already look like, around planes or not, you are gonna get kicked off, arrested, watched, and held in suspicion, at the minimum.

 

If you are Arab, and you are sad, or mad, or disallusioned, about this policy, feel free to blame yourselves for not squashing the widespread, rampant, mass homicidal, global terror apparatus when it was in its infancy. Indeed, most of you are not standing up to it now. Many of you are openly denying it, perhaps secretly enjoying it. The terror movement that was born, bred, and nutured, right in your own back yard while you were too busy, or didn't care, or reveled in it, despite repeated spilling of innocent, "Infidel" blood around the world. This cancer continues to find refuge, and support, in your Arab countries, in your Islam culture.

 

Its out of the bag now, and we have to assume the worst, or we know we will have to pay the price yet again.

 

Like Hilter's machine of the late 1930's, everyone saying "oh don't worry, they'll stop". They have no intention of stopping.

 

I love how you guys just throw out ridiculous blanket statements without ever backing them up. Can you seriously find one single person who says "Oh, don't worry, they'll stop" about Islamic terrorism? Is there anyone even remotely credible who's said this before? Since "everyone" is saying it, it shouldn't be hard to post a few links.

 

I think suspicious Arabs and really, suspicious passengers of any ethnic background, should be tossed off flights and interrogated but I don't think we should throw folks in jail for appearing to be suspicious - that's just stupid. It amazes me that so-called conservatives want to vest the government with the power to imprison people for being suspicious. Some of you guys would have loved Soviet Russia.

[pingpong 0]

I think suspicious Arabs and really, suspicious passengers of any ethnic background, should be tossed off flights and interrogated but I don't think we should throw folks in jail for appearing to be suspicious - that's just stupid. It amazes me that so-called conservatives want to vest the government with the power to imprison people for being suspicious. Some of you guys would have loved Soviet Russia.

What were the facts of this case? Did they lock the Arabs up in jail for days, or did they bring them to a proper interrogation area and detain them until they could be sure they were no indeed trying to blow up the plane?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

What were the facts of this case? Did they lock the Arabs up in jail for days, or did they bring them to a proper interrogation area and detain them until they could be sure they were no indeed trying to blow up the plane?

How dare you bring up facts

[davebg 0]

What were the facts of this case? Did they lock the Arabs up in jail for days, or did they bring them to a proper interrogation area and detain them until they could be sure they were no indeed trying to blow up the plane?

Not only were they not arrested (I don't believe that they should have been), but according to police, they were not cuffed while being escorted off the plane and to questioning (some of the Imams claim that they were cuffed, but the authorities deny that.)

[Strike 3,999]

I love how you guys just throw out ridiculous blanket statements without ever backing them up. Can you seriously find one single person who says "Oh, don't worry, they'll stop" about Islamic terrorism? Is there anyone even remotely credible who's said this before? Since "everyone" is saying it, it shouldn't be hard to post a few links.

 

I think suspicious Arabs and really, suspicious passengers of any ethnic background, should be tossed off flights and interrogated but I don't think we should throw folks in jail for appearing to be suspicious - that's just stupid. It amazes me that so-called conservatives want to vest the government with the power to imprison people for being suspicious. Some of you guys would have loved Soviet Russia.

 

Not just ANY "people"

[VikesFan 1]

I read the whole police report and no where did i see that they sat where they weren't suppose to. They requested first class, but a lot of people do that. And the reason they were saying allah allah allah is because they're suppose to pray 5 times a day. I know a lot of people on here have said angry things that included killing saddaam. Like, it would be fockin fun killing sadaam. ###### that bastard, killing sadaam was great. Also, no where did it say any of the passengers knew arabic. Are you honestly saying that when people are talking rapidly and are mad that you can decipher any word in their speech? And add to that, none of them quoted the imams as saying anythign threatning to the U.S. I'm scared shitless going on a plane because i wear a turban. What am i suppose to do, get up and say please to not be alarmed, i was born and raised in Fresno, CA and i am not muslim? I'm almost certain someone would complain and it only takes one written complaint to get you kicked off.

 

What did they do that should be considered acting a fool? Praying in the terminal? Have any of you seen imams, they were a lot of clothing so maybe they needed the extenders. Nowhere in the report did it say that they put em under their seat. So lets see, non-arabic(because if they did speak arabic i'm sure they would've mentioned this in the report) said they heard some imams saying allah allah allah and "killing sadaam." Sadaam Husein is not the only sadaam either. And you're trusting non-arabic, english speaking passengers(there is no similarity between arabic and english, unlike spanish and a few other languages) when he says they said killing.

 

I'm not sure how it is now, but everytime i've been on a plane, we've never gotten a requested seat. My bro is 6'5 so he requested the front row and was denied. We've been seperated, although i'll admit it wasn't to the extent that these fools were.

 

After reading the report, please tell me what they did was acting a fool. Praying does not count. I have a problem with reading too fast so maybe i missed something.

 

I'm with you, what I've read about this is pretty questinoable. Maybe they were being idiots (I wasn't there), but from what I've read, this report reaks of passengers getting scared because someone had a turbin on. Pretty dumb. I guess Muslims shouldn't be allowed to fly.

 

Oh, they were talking about highly Binladen Those non-arab speaking passengers were able to pick this up.

 

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

[MDC 5,902]

Not only were they not arrested (I don't believe that they should have been), but according to police, they were not cuffed while being escorted off the plane and to questioning (some of the Imams claim that they were cuffed, but the authorities deny that.)

 

Yep. And Gingrich thinks these guys should see jail time for being suspicious, and a lot of people in this thread seem to like that idea.

[pingpong 0]

Yep. And Gingrich thinks these guys should see jail time for being suspicious, and a lot of people in this thread seem to like that idea.

Nice job of backpeddaling from your stance that they got jail time for being suspicious, to now it is Newt's idea. Whassamatta? Facts getting in the way of your ideal situation?

[MDC 5,902]

Nice job of backpeddaling from your stance that they got jail time for being suspicious, to now it is Newt's idea. Whassamatta? Facts getting in the way of your ideal situation?

 

Read every post in this thread. I never said these guys actually got jailtime.

 

HTH

[Strike 3,999]

Read every post in this thread. I never said these guys actually got jailtime.

 

HTH

 

LOL neither did Newt.

[MDC 5,902]

LOL neither did Newt.

 

I know. Based on this incomplete report he said they should be prosecuted. I said that I'm totally OK with suspicious people being bumped from flights, detained and questioned - I am not comfortable with making "being suspicious on a flight" a criminal offense punishable by jailtime. Then a bunch of people jumped down my throat for not sufficiently hating Arabs or something, I don't really know.

[davebg 0]

Yep. And Gingrich thinks these guys should see jail time for being suspicious, and a lot of people in this thread seem to like that idea.

I think you are assuming facts (or in this case, opinions) not in evidence.

 

Did Newt say that he thought they s/b prosecuted for "being suspicious" or b/c he felt that they acted suspiciously on purpose to start trouble? If he said the former, I do not support that. However, if it could somehow be proven that these Imams acted suspiciously w/the intent of creating an incident, then yes, I believe that they should be prosecuted for that.

[itsbigmoni 1]

I think you are assuming facts (or in this case, opinions) not in evidence.

 

Did Newt say that he thought they s/b prosecuted for "being suspicious" or b/c he felt that they acted suspiciously on purpose to start trouble? If he said the former, I do not support that. However, if it could somehow be proven that these Imams acted suspiciously w/the intent of creating an incident, then yes, I believe that they should be prosecuted for that.

 

What did they do to act suspicious?!?! Praying? THat does not count because muslims are suppose to pray 5 times a day and they prayed at the terminal, not on the plane. Someone mentioned the seatbelt extenders, but no where in the police report does it say they put em under their seat. Imams wear a lot of clothing so even if they weight 200lbs, with all the shawls and stuff they wear, maybe they needed them. Asking for first class seats? Who hasn't done that. What did they do that made them suspicous?

[MDC 5,902]

I think you are assuming facts (or in this case, opinions) not in evidence.

 

Did Newt say that he thought they s/b prosecuted for "being suspicious" or b/c he felt that they acted suspiciously on purpose to start trouble? If he said the former, I do not support that. However, if it could somehow be proven that these Imams acted suspiciously w/the intent of creating an incident, then yes, I believe that they should be prosecuted for that.

 

I don't know. The point that I was originally trying to make is that it would be near impossible to determine whether people were suspicious, or were deliberately trying to terrorize passengers by acting suspicious. If they were trying to cause a disturbance then sure, prosecute them, but I think the threshold for "suspicious activity" should be a little higher than Arab guys praying, sitting apart or asking for seat belt extenders. I can easily imagine that the people who reported this suspicious activity were overreacting a little. I don't blame them for reporting it, but I think it's a little knee-jerk to start conclusively calling this a dry run for a terrorist attack or a deliberate attempt to fock with other passengers.

[davebg 0]

What did they do to act suspicious?!?! Praying? THat does not count because muslims are suppose to pray 5 times a day and they prayed at the terminal, not on the plane. Someone mentioned the seatbelt extenders, but no where in the police report does it say they put em under their seat. Imams wear a lot of clothing so even if they weight 200lbs, with all the shawls and stuff they wear, maybe they needed them. Asking for first class seats? Who hasn't done that. What did they do that made them suspicous?

Yeah, I read all 24 pages of the police report too.

 

Suspicious activity:

*3 of the 6 had one way tix

*3 of the 6 had no checked baggage

*Numerous passengers requested seat belt extensions, even though the stewardess claims she did not think they needed them

*They were overheard mentioning Saddam and cursing US invovlement

*Suspicious seating arrangement

 

Again, THEY WERE NEVER CUFFED, NOR WERE THEY EVER ARRESTED. They were questioned, not charged w/a crime and brought before a judge. Suspicious activity does not mean guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is reserved for criminal trials.

 

Do you even know the difference between suspicion and probable cause?

 

I'm driving down the road and get pulled over. Then the cop asks to search my car. I say no. At this point, the police officer does not have probable cause to search my vehicle. However, my denying him the opportunity to search my car is deemed suspicious. He calls the K-9 unit to sniff around the vehicle. If the K-9 unit does react to something it smells, then the officer has probable cause to search my vehicle.

[What is the deal? 1]

Newt is 100% right on this as well:

 

Securing America and its Allies by Defeating America's Enemies

Challenge Number One

Gingrich Communications

Newt Gingrich

“It is the eternal struggle between two principles,

right and wrong, throughout the world.”

President Abraham Lincoln

Debate at Alton, Illinois, October 15, 1858

 

Imagine the morning after an attack even more devastating than 9/11. It could happen. The threats are real and could literally destroy our country.

 

There are weapons of mass destruction, weapons of mass murder, and weapons of mass disruption—nuclear is first, biological and chemical is second, electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is third. All are real, and we are lulled into complacency by the fact that none is currently being used. But if any of them were used, the effect could be catastrophic.

 

Despite spending billions of dollars on our national security, we are still unprepared. Our intelligence capabilities are—at most—one-third the size we need. Consider that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has hundreds of thousands of hours of terrorist intercepts that have not been heard, much less analyzed, because there are not enough translators. Our intelligence community has been studying North Korea for nearly fifty years, yet we know almost nothing about the country.

 

America’s lack of preparation, however, should not discourage us or even surprise us. Americans have had to rethink and reorganize for every major national security challenge in our history. We must recognize that we have three objectives to achieve.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Opponents

 

First, we have two immediate opponents, the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam and the rogue dictatorships that empower the radical Islamists.

 

The Irreconcilable Wing of Islam believes in a strikingly different world then the one we believe. It is an uncivilized and barbaric world. This wing of Islam, and its adherents and recruits, are irreconcilable because they cannot peacefully coexist with the civilized world. Their views on the role of women, on the application of medieval religious law (the Sha’ria) and religious intolerance (prosecuting Christians) make them irreconcilable with civilization in the modern age.

 

This ideological wing of Islam is irreconcilable because it does not accept freedom of conscience.

 

It does not accept freedom of speech.

 

It does not accept that women are equal in dignity and equal under the law, but instead accords them an inferior status in the life of society.

 

It does not accept the existence of the United States, with the adherents of the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam constantly fomenting a cheering chorus calling the United States the “Great Satan” and calling for its destruction. Their constantly declared goal is to either destroy or dominate the United States.

 

It does not accept Israel as a legal state.

 

It does not accept the inherent dignity of every human life. Instead, it supports the taking of innocent lives -- in the name of its ideology -- of anyone or any group that disagrees with its world view.

 

Because this war is at its core an ideological war, it is most accurate to think of and identify this war against the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam as the “Long War”.

 

It is stunningly hard to win a war of ideology where the enemy is religiously motivated to kill us.

 

To put this into perspective, if the people of the United States were to suddenly decide that a particular concept was inherently wrong in our educational system, it could easily take 20 to 30 years to change that concept, rewrite all the text books, and retrain all the educators. That example is one completely within our culture. If one includes intercultural communication difficulties, the problem grows exponentially harder. If we use every tool at the disposal of the American people in support of a coherent theory of victory, the Long War might only last 50 – 70 years. Yet, it will probably last much longer.

 

The sobering reality is that terrorist leaders are determined to kill Americans and destroy our government and culture.

 

Consider the religious fatwa titled “A Treatise on the Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction Against Infidels” that Osama bin Laden secured from Shaykh Nasir bin Hamd al-Fahd, a young and prominent Saudi cleric justifying the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against Americans, in May 2003:

 

Anyone who considers America’s aggressions against Muslims and their lands during the past decades will conclude that striking her is permissible on the basis of the rule of treating one as one has been treated. No other argument need be mentioned. Some brothers have totaled the number of Muslims killed directly or indirectly by their weapons and come up with a figure of nearly ten million....If a bomb that killed ten million of them and burned as much of their land as they have burned Muslim land was dropped on them, it would be permissible, with no need to mention any other argument. We might need other arguments if we wanted to annihilate more than this number of them.

 

Other al Qaeda leaders are equally explicit about killing many Americans. This statement is from Ayman Al-Zawahir: “We have not reached parity with them. We have the right to kill four million Americans—two million of them children—and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so as to afflict them with the fatal maladies that have afflicted the Muslims because of the [Americans’] chemical and biological weapons.”

 

In the 9/11 Commission Report, the commissioners concluded: “Bin Laden and Islamist terrorists mean exactly what they say: To them America is the font of all evil, the “head of the snake, and it must be converted or destroyed.”

 

Americans cannot negotiate with al Qaeda. We have no common ground with terrorists. Al Qaeda and its affiliates can only be destroyed. We are in a war of survival—and we could lose that war. Our vulnerability is neither exaggerated nor a paranoid fantasy.

 

If these terrorists acquired nuclear weapons, they would use them against our cities. If they acquired biological weapons, they could kill millions. And if the terrorists had chemical weapons, they could kill thousands.

 

There are conventional threats too. Terrorists could launch a campaign of bombings and sniper attacks in the United States. The next time you watch a bombing in Israel, an attack in Russia, or violence in Iraq, know that it could happen here.

 

Thomas H. Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission, said shortly after releasing the report: “Time is not on our side.” Every day, terrorists try to acquire weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder. Iran and North Korea continue to develop their nuclear and other weapons programs. There is constant danger of a coup by radical Islamists in nuclear-armed Pakistan.

 

And the greatest danger for us in meeting this threat is the weakness of our intelligence services. We do not have any significant intelligence on the enemy’s plans, networks, and troop strength.

 

Second, we must contain powers that could threaten us, including China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan—all of which have weapons of mass destruction.

 

The greatest threat of rogue dictatorships, like Iran or North Korea, is that they will sell weapons of mass destruction. While North Korea—with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons—is a big threat to South Korea and Japan, it is a very distant threat to the United States. But an Iran or a North Korea willing to sell nuclear and biological weapons to terrorists is very dangerous to America.

 

Before we toppled Saddam Hussein, Iraq presented a similar threat. We had every reason to believe Saddam Hussein would give or sell weapons of mass murder to a variety of terrorist groups. As has been well documented, Saddam Hussein was closely tied to terrorists and had an interest in aiding them to attack the United States.

 

Another danger is that Pakistan might suffer an Islamist military coup and that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons could be given to—or taken by—terrorists. The new Pakistani dictatorship could even announce that a weapon had been “stolen” and argue that it ­wasn’t to blame if a bomb went off in the United States, Israel, India, or Europe.

 

But the most dangerous country of all is Iran. Iran is the world’s most aggressive terrorist sponsor.

 

Not since the failure of the League of Nations in the 1930s to confront the aggression of the dictatorships in Japan, Italy, and Germany have we seen such a willful challenge to the security of the world by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

 

There are lessons to be learned from the 1930s and those lessons apply directly to the current government of Iran.

 

Indeed, the new Iranian President does not even require us to read a book like Mein Kampf to understand how serious he is. He enthusiastically makes speeches proclaiming to the world his commitment to the genocidal annihilation of another country.

 

The combination of two elements – the virulence of the ideology of Iran’s current regime and advanced military capabilities it is working energetically to acquire – when added to Iran’s inherent endowment – its strategic location, natural resources, population, and proximity to the vital resources of other nations in the region and the seaways through which these sources reach the rest of the world – poses a threat of such scope and magnitude which leave the United States with no choice but to take the Iranian threat with the utmost seriousness. We must prepare and take actions of the same intensity and seriousness as the threat.

 

Allies

 

Third, we must create a broad alliance of countries willing to defend peace and freedom.

 

Because we are involved in a civil war within Islam, we must work to turn the Islamic world against the Irreconcilables. Just as the Cold War was fought in part as a propaganda war pitting the appeal of democracy against communism, so too we need the Peace Corps and other government agencies to sponsor pro-Western secular schools and charities throughout the Islamic world. Most important, we need big broadcast networks that communicate to the Islamic world Western ideas about the rule of law, private property, and freedom. We need to broadcast our civic culture so that the Arab world gets a different view of the West than what it gets from Al Jazeera and Michael Moore.

 

Simultaneously leading the world, defeating the Irreconcilable Islamists, forcing rogue dictatorships into acceptable behavior (or replacing them), building up our intelligence and military capabilities to cope with China and Russia and other threats, making the necessary transformations in our foreign policy bureaucracy, and securing our homeland will be an enormous undertaking.

 

President Bush told us the truth: It will be a hard campaign, a long war, and we will suffer setbacks on occasion. “This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion....Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.”

 

Transformational wars always take time, and always mean overcoming setbacks: It took George Washington from 1776 to 1783 to win the Revolutionary War. It took Abraham Lincoln four years (1861 to 1864) to finally hit on a winning strategy to win the Civil War in 1865. And the Cold War lasted more than forty years until the Soviet Empire collapsed.

 

We have risen to the challenge before and we can do so again. As Ronald Reagan won the Cold War, so too can we win this war.

 

http://newtgingrich.org/