How Do We Identify the Terrorists?

american-jihad.jpg  Privacy and Civil Liberties organizations such as the ACLU are alarmed that the FBI terrorist watch list has swollen in excess of one-half million (that’s 500,000).  They are alarmed that it is “out of control.”  Based on the numbers alone they believe it is now ineffective because it is so large and many innocent people could be detained. Oooooh so sorry!  I’m an accountant, so let’s run the numbers.

The defenders of Islam as being a Peaceful Religion claim that the terrorists and their supporters are not representative of Islam and probably are a number south of 5% of their population.  Okay (not that I buy it) but since there are 1,000,000,000 (that’s one Billion) Muslims in the world, they have as much as admitted that there could be 50,000,000 terrorists and supporters.  Therefore based on numbers I would think that a “watch list” of a mere 500,000 would be woefully inadequate……….hmmm.  Story Here

11 Responses to “How Do We Identify the Terrorists?”

  1. 1 bd June 14, 2007 at 4:48 pm

    The vast liberal hordes always lose against logic. :]

    Yeah, it is fun to extrapolate their own numbers……steve

  2. 2 MDBL June 14, 2007 at 7:37 pm

    500,000 makes sense to me…
    Hope we can keep propper track (an ambitious task for sure)

    MDBL, …….. That’s why we have Larry Ellison, Bill Gates, Echelon, Silkworth & Sire and Vortex….steve 🙂

  3. 3 MDBL June 14, 2007 at 7:39 pm

    They probably mean the muslim population in that region though huh?
    Is it 1,000,000,000?.

    MDBL: Maybe more by now (I’d disregard the CAIR estimates. They are world class con artists and have an agenda in their number I’m sure. ……..steve

    Estimates of the total number of Muslims in the world vary greatly:

    0.700 billion or more, Barnes & Noble Encyclopedia 1993
    0.817 billion, The Universal Almanac (1996)
    0.951 billion, The Cambridge Factfinder (1993)
    1.100 billion, The World Almanac (1997)
    1.200 billion, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic relations) (1999)

  4. 4 E the Wise June 14, 2007 at 8:06 pm

    Too many terrorist on the list,<a href=”” rel=”nofollow”> too many crosses on hills.</a> The American Snivel Liberties Union has no shame.

    ETW………….Isn’t it amazaing how predicitibly we can predict which side of a moral issue that the ACLU will come down on? ….steve

  5. 5 Ham June 15, 2007 at 9:13 am

    You original question; how do we identify terrorists, is answered very easily. Unfortunately, “people not like us” deem this as racial profiling.

    When folks understand that it is not the people of the religion that is the problem, but the religion itself, we might get somewhere.

    Can you imagine FDR saying that Nazi terrorists were the problem, not the Nazi party? And that we should be culturally sensitive to their Aryan needs?

    Ham, We are trying to walk through a “politically correct” field but we better figure out that it is a mine field…..steve

  6. 6 Jim June 15, 2007 at 12:09 pm

    I am certainly no ACLU guy, but I have a problem with government watch lists and government secrecy. So called small government advocates (Republicans) who like to talk about government inefficiencies suddenly become large government advocates when it comes to military, security, defense, etc. Bureaucracy is bureaucracy. When people in Congress end up on these lists and everyone with the name Osama (as common a name as David in the West), it’s a problem. It’s all about making you feel safer and as long as you feel safer, sure, surrender the liberties of all those brown skin people. Casting a wider net gives some people the warm fuzzies while others are harassed for no reason. Let’s not give your average Joe Osama who is a secularist Muslim a reason to listen to radicals who want to recruit him. If our government harasses innocent people, we play into the radicals hands. Jim……… Another note here. Don’t you realize that if a “secularist Muslim” gets hasseled at the Airport because he has the same name of a terrorists (and doesn’t understand that) and then listens to radicals is already lost even before he gets to the Mosque. This amplifies my point that many, many more of the Muslims are the enemy than we expect, because they just haven’t been pulled over yet by a cop with a turn signal out which will radicalize some of these sore head doesn’t change that…..steve

    On another note, Christians often wonder how it will come to the point where Christians are rounded up and persecuted. We know it’s coming at some point if the Bible is true. In the mean time we are building a police state to round up people of a certain religious persuasion. Hmmm…Seems like we are building the scaffolding on which Christians will be hung. I just hope I am not around to see it. I fear for our offspring.

    Jim, does this mean you are sort of in agreement with the Clinton Administration when they didn’t pay closer attention to Mohammed Atta and others? At what point does some of this theory give way to a strong dose of reality. I don’t believe that Republicans or Conservatives that talk about smaller government are referring to the organizations and systems that protect us. It is useful to throw that in but it could be an argument for disbanding the Defense department since it is one of the largest expenditures in the budget.

    I don’t care if they have brown or blue skin, if they have declared war on us I think it is worth watching as many of them that have some common factor with know terrorists (even if it is just the last name bin Laden). I presume that you understand that we don’t actually follow around 500,000 people with some guy in a trench coat and newspaper. This isn’t really harassment, it is inconvenience and if you inconvenience fewer people that have something in common with known terrorists and inconvenience other less you have actually reduced government intrusion.

    It has nothing about “feeling” safer, it has everything to being safer. I am sure that the Clinton administration FELT they were conducting themselves safely, but we weren’t safer. Why do you automatically consider a double or triple check at the Customs office of the airport harassment? I get at least a single check every time I go and it is only harassment in the sense I have to be there an hour early to line up to take my shoes off. (small price to pay for security).

    Your arguments can be extended to nixing all airport security, etc. because you use broad innuendo without making distinctions. I know it is fashionable for some guys like yourself to complain about anything we do for national security, but we are in WWIII right now and as I said before you just haven’t figured it out yet. We don’t have to have strong border security at airports to give the Jihadist the desire to recruit join up and die as a bomber, all the incentive they need is in the Koran and their pulpits as a matter of their own religion. That religion, by the way, requires them to convert Jim West, Subject Him (there go your liberties) or kill him and maybe more important than that to do the same to Jim West’s kids.

    Although many Christians feel the events of the book of Revelation have already been fulfilled (not including me) I can see a scenario where the probability of those rounding up Christians are more likely these same Islamic Fundamentalists. They won’t need to tip their hat to the “scaffolds you say we are building” to do it. ………..steve

  7. 7 Jim June 15, 2007 at 3:00 pm

    That’s right, if I disagree with a Bush policy, that must place me in the Clinton camp. The left-right paradigm is false. Get rid of some of the Defense budget, wow that would be awesome. Hell 40% of the Defense budget is secret even to Congress. No, I don’t trust them. Remember the concept of accountability in government our nation was founded on?

    This has everything to do with feeling safer. Fear is the number one motivator for politicians to get a public behind whatever cause they want to promote. The left uses it to promote a green agenda, the right to promote a police state agenda.
    How can you juxtapose limits on fluids on planes and shoe inspections with wide open borders? I know you are with me on the need to secure borders. We are being trained to live under a police state while illegals get a free ride. Explain this to me. No single Bush supporter has ever been able to explain this to me. It is a cognitive dissonance you should not grow comfortable with.
    Give it your best shot and then I’ll tell you what I think it is.

    Jim…..My Clinton comment was not a Left/Right paradigm. It is simply saying (forget Bush) that ignoring foreign threats is a deadly game. What you advocate in the name of liberty can have consequences. In Clintons case I don’t believe he was defending our Liberty (while he had his guard down) but because of the typical Democrat priorities and not being concerned with National Security. In one respect Bush is doing the same thing with the Southern Border. I don’t believe that the Black Budget is 40% of the defense budget, but would you notify our potential enemies of our exact allocation of resources? There are members of Congress that given certain information would provide it to our enemies as sure as the Palestinian members of the Israeli Parliament would do the same. The current Congress won’t be happy until the Defense Budget is spent in a large part in support of an expanded definition of social policy.

    Do I take it correctly from your expression concerning fear that all fear in the political arena is political manipulation for those interested in a police state? Do you not fear the IslamoFacist? Is this all some type of World Government cabal? What if you are mistaken? I am I obliged to accept your assurance. You have taken a lot of time to express what you don’t like (which I appreciate) but I am asking you now to give me your specific vision as to how we combat the terrorist right her right now if at all. Please don’t tell me that it wouldn’t be necessary if Eisenhower hadn’t supported the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh in face of his unconstitutional dissolution of the Iranian Parliament to avoid impeachment (after being appointed by the Shaw) and that kind of stuff. If you are responsible for the security of the country, what do you do. I’m looking for efficacy here.

    We are in agreement if you support putting the Illegals under a police state. I don’t believe you are correct to say that we are living under a police state. I don’t offer any apology for Bush because he hasn’t enforced the border whether he feels he can arrest all the illegals or not. The thing that confuses me is that you see the threat on the border to the South but not, as far as I can tell, a threat from the Islamists. On balance I fear the Islamists more than the Mexicans.

    Do you believe that we can live securely without some of the measures you continue to call a police state? I am waiting for you to explain how. I want your platform here. Maybe you’ll be my candidate for Sec. of Defense if you can sell that. Also, while you are at it, clarify for me how Paul is going to fight terrorism. Does he not believe we are at war or does he believe that when we pull out of the middle east bygones will be bygones, or does he believe that since it is our fault we don’t deserve to win. Also, are you prepared to sacrifice Israel for it all? Don’t be misguided, Pauls foreign policy would accomplish just that. ……….steve

  8. 8 Ham June 15, 2007 at 4:23 pm

    U.S. a police state? Yeah, right. Venezuela is a police state, Iran is a police state, China too.

    Here’s the definition, that Jim seems to forget: a country repressively controlled by its government: a country in which the government uses police, especially secret police, to exercise strict or repressive control over the population.

    Where’s our secret police?

    Ham, I agree. It is hard to conduct a strong foreign policy and build a strong national defense with the charges of “police state” flying around. I propose that we have right now enough power in the US Military to impose a Police State if they want to. Cutting out additionl mechanisms in the name of liberty is not going to diminish that, just diminish our ability to fight the terrorists. …….steve

  9. 9 the Grit June 15, 2007 at 4:47 pm

    Hi Jim,

    No part of Government activity is withheld from a member of Congress. They do have to sign a rather scary non-disclosure agreement to find out details in a specific area. Most, knowing that they have absolutely no ability to keep secrets, refuse to sign. Their choice.
    the Grit

    Hi Grit,

    “Most, knowing that they have absolutely no ability to keep secrets, refuse to sign.”

    But reserve the option for the right amount of money in some cases from our enemies……. steve

  10. 10 Barbara (Xerraire) June 15, 2007 at 6:12 pm

    I think things in the name of terrorism might go overboard in the wrong hands, but the numbers you put up make sense that indeed we might not actually have enough working on the issue.

  11. 11 Jim June 17, 2007 at 8:59 pm

    A reasonable foreign policy is one of non-interventionism. Let’s start with the financial burden to maintain our interventionist policies. First of all, we simply can’t afford to intervene everywhere we want to. Inflation rates are increasing because of our spending and will continue to increase if we try to expand to more wars. Inflation is essentially a hidden tax on the people for government spending. Your children and grandchildren will one day feel the pinch of a collapsing dollar due to excessive government spending. Ron Paul has stated that the government should live within its means. Just because the Fed can print money out of thin air doesn’t mean it should or that it is good. Living within your means involves discipline and it is a godly principle. Ever hear Dave Ramsey or Larry Burkett? They would tell a young couple concerned about burglars and who are in debt to the point they can only afford the interest payments, to not worry about installing a $15,000 home security system. They would say that their priorities are out of whack. Why is it alright for government to live way outside of its means? It’s this foreign policy along with many other government policies of a welfare/warfare state that have ballooned our debt burden to the point that the United States’ knees are beginning to buckle. China and Japan hold huge amounts of our t-bills and if they decide to dump them and switch over to Euro, watch out. Some have speculated that Saddam was going to switch over to Euro and Iran wants to do the same. Right now the dollar is world’s dominate currency for oil trade, but if some of these large oil exporters were to switch to the Euro it could have a dramatic impact on our economy. So instead of pulling back and conserving our spending I order to protect the dollar, we go off on cooked up adventures that further weaken the dollar. My question back to you, how do you fight terrorism and not dirve up our debt or are you on board with driving up debt?

    You might say I haven’t addressed the Islamo-fascist threat. That is because I believe it is overstated. I admit it exists, I’m not saying it doesn’t exist. I think for whatever reason, patriotic furor, fear, media influence, you have not accurately weighed the financial influence of our military. Perhaps you have, but I’ve found that most war supporters have not. What I am saying is that there is an enormous financial interest for military adventurism. It is a huge business. How can you deny that? Do you honestly believe the majority of the military operates out of altruistic motives? Watch the documentary Why We Fight ( ) for a good understanding of the military-industrial complex. If history has taught us anything it is that power corrupts and secrecy is a breeding ground for evil. That is why our government was set up the way it is. That is why there are Sarbanes-Oxley controls being implemented at all corporations. Why is it that there is an exception for the military to have similar accountability? “National security” has been used too many times to protect the evil desires of mens hearts.

    Let me give some examples of why we should not trust the military/intelligence agencies and why they need more accountability.
    1. USS Liberty – The sinking of one of our ships off the coast of Gaza by Israel during the six day war. Watch Dead in the Water by BBC (2002) –
    2. A whole bunch of evidence that we knew of the Japanese intent and presence outside of Pearl Harbor before the day of infamy. Perhaps not conclusive, but enough there to really make one wonder. Read Day of Deceit.
    3. Some others include Operation Gladio, Operation Northwoods, Operation Mongoose and Project MKULTRA just to name a few.

    Back to the border issue that I wanted your theory on, but didn’t see. Let me lay out for you my theory. Bush is back at hammering immigration reform for a few reasons. I think the number one reason is to help usher in a North American Union. Import a large foreign population and don’t have them integrate, what better way to cause a tension in the US. A tension they create, they will solve with uniting North America. Bush signing the Security and Prosperity Partnership ( is treasonous. Couple that with his immigration reform plans and you have the destruction of the US. Just think if our so called Christian leader actually spent just a quarter of this effort on any pro-life issue? Another reason to flood the US with more illegals is to increase military recruitment. The population of illegals in the military is significant and increasing.

Leave a Reply to MDBL Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

June 2007

Blog Stats

  • 7,404 hits

%d bloggers like this: