This article was linked at Michelle Malkin. The author, Tim Priest, a retired detective, gave this talk on November 12, 2003 to a Quadrant dinner in Sydney. His observations and conclusions won't be surprising or unfamiliar to Rantburg readers...
I believe that the rise of Middle Eastern organised crime in Sydney will have an impact on society unlike anything we have ever seen.
In the early 1980s, as a young detective I was attached to the Drug Squad at the old CIB. I remember executing a search warrant at Croydon, where we found nearly a pound of heroin. I know that now sounds very familiar; however, what set this heroin apart was that it was Beaker Valley Heroin, markedly different from any heroin I had seen. Number Four heroin from the golden triangle of South-East Asia is nearly always off-white, almost pure diamorphine. This heroin was almost brown.
But more remarkable were the occupants of the house. They were very recent arrivals from Lebanon, and from the moment we entered the premises, we wrestled and fought with the male occupants, were abused and spat at by the women and children, and our search took five times longer because of the impediments placed before us by the occupants, including the women hiding heroin in baby nappies and on themselves and refusing to be searched by policewomen because of religious beliefs. We had never encountered these problems before.
As was the case in those days, we arrested every adult and teenager who had hampered our search. When it came to court, they were represented by Legal Aid, of course, who claimed that these people were innocent of the minor charges of public disorder and hindering police, because they were recent arrivals from a country where people have an historical hatred towards police, and that they also had poor communications skills and that the police had not executed the warrant in a manner that was acceptable to the Muslim occupants.
The magistrate, well known to police as one who convicted fewer than one in ten offenders brought before him during his term at Burwood local court, threw the matter out, siding with the occupants and condemning the police. I remember thinking, thank heavens we donât run into many Lebanese drug dealers...
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/12/2005 12:20 Comments ||
Top||
#2
..who claimed that these people were innocent of the minor charges of public disorder and hindering police, because they were recent arrivals from a country where people have an historical hatred towards police, and that they also had poor communications skills and that the police had not executed the warrant in a manner that was acceptable to the Muslim occupants.
This is absolutely INSANE. And to think, this happened over twenty years ago.
In the meantime, below the surface, something's going on....
âItâs startling,â proclaims Spencer Ackerman in a New Republic cover story dated today, âhow few American Muslim extremists there actually are.â The article, âReligious Protection: Why American Muslims havenât turned to terrorism,â contrasts American Muslims with their European counterparts, whom he finds have turned to terrorism.
American Muslims are not terrorists? What is Ackerman thinking?
In an article and blog just this past week, I reported on fifteen American Muslim converts who have either engaged in terrorism or been convicted of trying to do so. In a follow-up piece, I listed another fifteen American converts to Islam suspected, arrested, or indicted of terrorism. Thatâs thirty converts. I have not counted the immigrant Muslims and their offspring implicated in terrorism, but here is some information that hints to their numbers: Rest at link.
Posted by: ed ||
12/12/2005 14:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Straw man alert - Ackerman didn't say "American Muslims are not terrorists." He said he was surprised how few there were in comparison to the number in Europe. That's a valid observation, the rate of recruiting success does seem quite different. I'm not a big TNR reader, I don't know if Ackerman had anything interesting or valid to say about it.
#3
The 200 terrorists in the US, including at least 30 converts, seems pretty substantial. In addition, AFAICR there were over 1000 muslims deported due to associations with terrorists or groups, but not enough evidence for criminal prosecution.
Posted by: ed ||
12/12/2005 14:56 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Ackerman also fails to count American muslims who willingly and vociferously defend terrorism, who contribute to charities in the expectation that some of the funds will go to terrorism, etc.
Those are hard to count but they easily run to the tens of thousands and probably hundreds of thousands.
Posted by: John Kerry ||
12/12/2005 21:38 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Active vs Passive - a canard. They are one and the same when the match is struck. mhw is right - they are in it all the way, whether it manifests itself as active (open jihadi) or passive (symp and support).
I have no use for Islam in any form. It serves no society but its own - which is clearly one of attack, subvert, dominate -- by any means available.
If they are quiescent in the US, it's because they recognize that we are an armed and dangerous populace to fuck with. Nothing more. They've chosen to take the subversion path, in the main, here, that's all.
When Prime Minister Paul Martin just couldn't bring himself to utter the word "Christmas" last Sunday while out buying a Christmas wreath, I chuckled and put it down to another example of political correctness run amok. But a wise friend of mine had a better phrase to describe it. He called it an example of "the inversion of tyranny."
More about that in a moment, but for those of you who missed it, Martin was purchasing a Christmas wreath for his family farm last week with the media in tow for the requisite photo-op. After he had made his choice, a reporter jokingly asked him, while the news cameras were rolling, whether it was "a Christmas wreath or a holiday wreath." Simple question. Martin's reaction? You know how a deer looks when it's caught in the headlights just before a truck hits it? That's what our 21st prime minister looked like. After a few moments of uncomfortable silence in which you could see Martin struggling to come up with a safe, inoffensive and politically correct answer, he finally blurted out: "It's a $240 wreath!" Ha, ha, ha.
How sad. Our prime minister, a grown man of 67, a Christian (Catholic) and a successful businessman before he entered politics, can't bring himself to utter the word "Christmas" in the context of buying his own family a Christmas wreath. To be sure, it's a fitting punishment for him, because no political party in Canada, with the possible exception of the NDP, worships more at the shrine of political correctness than the Liberals. But how is this an example of an "inversion of tyranny"?
As my good friend explains it, the goal of the practitioners of political correctness, with their constant psycho-babble about using the language of "inclusiveness" to make minorities feel welcome, has never really been about making minorities feel welcome or comfortable at all. Rather, it is aimed at making the majority feel uncomfortable. The pretext these folks use -- be they government human rights officers, self-appointed and perpetually aggrieved spokespeople for various "minority" groups, befuddled bureaucrats and cowed politicians -- is that all they are trying to do is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. But their real goal, far from promoting genuine understanding between the majority and the minority, is simply to exchange one form of tyranny for another -- to replace the tyranny of the majority with the tyranny of the minority. Hence, an inversion of tyrannies.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Ha Ha!!! Payback for the "Do you love Canada?" question aimed at Conservative Stephen Harper. Harper hesitated a bit before answering, "Canada is a great country..." The media was all over Harper for this.
Bravo whoever the reporter was!
Posted by: Rafael ||
12/12/2005 2:45 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Not much of Catholic in my book. We call those types "Cultural Catholics" - and they also tend to be Cafeteria Catholics as well. Hardly worthy of the label if they cannot bring themsleves to openly profess their faith.
Anyone not Catholci nor Christian may awnat to ignore the rest of this... its from a very conservative Catholic viewpoint.
Jesus own words: (From Matthew) "whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."
From Rev: "I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth."
I have more respect to an open, fair and resolute Atheist Libertarian who is willing to stick to his guns on his belief system without trashing others, and bear the price of doing so, than I do for those meay-mouthed PC politicians, those false faith fakers who try to wrap themselves in the mantle of the Church for political gain, while denying its core teachings. The former (Athiests, etc) challenge the Church which ultimately strengthens it, while the latter (fakers of all stripes, including some of the present clergy) weaken the Church from within by rotting the moral fibers and stong demands that belief requires.
People somehow forget how absolutist Christianity is at its core when they get into politics and make their Catholicism into a prop for press release theater. For them its more political playacting, not a cornerstone of their being, the core of their belief system, *cough* kerry-kennedy-schwartzenegger *cough*.
Most of them are getting VERY uncomfortable with the vast intellectual legacy of John Paul the Great, and his successor in spirit and intellect, Pope Benedict. Benedict has shown that he is a moral scholar to match any, and his latest homily was a home run as well, philosophically and liturgically speaking.
As a recent country western song says, its better to be hated for what you are than loved for what you're not. Christianity was never supposed to be a popularity contest, nor was it easy.
His instructions were to pick up our crosses and follow Him. Certainly not easy nor popular, but then again, the best things rarely are a matter of ease or going with the popular crowd.
We enter by the narrow gate, folks. There are no shortcuts, and only one Way Truth and Light on the path.
And not a one of us is perfect - the last one that was, we nailed him to a tree a couple thousand years ago...
#4
We call those types "Cultural Catholics" - and they also tend to be Cafeteria Catholics as well.
There's also Christmas & Easter Catholics, commonly abbreviated to C&E Catholics (of which I am one, unfortunately, though I am planning to change that...I know, I know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions
Posted by: Rafael ||
12/12/2005 2:52 Comments ||
Top||
The only thing I believe is that I form considered opinions on the basis of factual evidence. Not the 125th hand babblings of other "humans". (Is that pompous enough?)
Religiously I'm Agnostic, if I can't justify a belief in God's existence based on what other humans have said, why should I base a belief in God's non-existence on what other humans have said? Some things are just flat out unknowable and to pretend otherwise is to engage in arrogant self-delusion.
Now, does all this mean that I don't keep to the family traditions of Christmas? Hell NO, nobody ever said I was perfectly consistent. If nothing else Christmas is a tradition that supports and nourishes much of what is best in our culture. And whether Christ and the divinity is real or a legend, the history of Christmas and what it means as celebrated by humans is very real and worthy of respect.
So Merry Christmas to all (and screw your PC Happy Holidays) ;^)
#11
I too find the overt campaign to have a completely secular society distasteful. There are plenty of examples of this on a daily basis. But câmon folksâ¦.Martin, nor Wallmart for that matter, hasnât denied that their ornaments are for Christmas. Instead they are intentionally vague in their descriptions. Thereâs an old saying in sales that if you truly appreciate everybody, you go out of your way not to offend anybody. There is a difference between sound marketing and PC run amuck. IMO, this article is more telling about the people that canât tell the difference.
#12
Of course, the word "Holiday" comes from a combination of "Holy" and "day". Utilizing "holiday" does not actually result in de-religicizing the season, it simply refuses to name which particular holy day it is.
JC on a Crutch, what's the exchange rate with Canada? How much is that in real American money?
And don't they have any Wal-Marts up there?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/12/2005 17:42 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Unfortunately we do.
Posted by: Rafael ||
12/12/2005 19:05 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Why "unfortunately," Rafael?
Call them tacky if you want, Wal-Mart saves me (and scads of other people) a BUNDLE. I couldn't afford nearly as many clothes and other stuff if all I had for shopping were department stores.
(FYI, I mentioned Wal-Mart in my question because I just saw a large, well-made, fancy Victorian-style door wreath there for 40 bucks. Not my style, but very affordable if it were. Hell, even Michael's doesn't charge $240 for wreaths.)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/12/2005 22:18 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Seems like everything I buy at Wal-mart lasts for a very short time. I bought a pair of shoes...lasted for about 3 months. I spent slightly more in another place (not a high-end, snobby department store), and it's over a year now and going strong. So Wal-Mart tends not to save me money.
But to be fair, a friend of mine went to a Wal-Mart stateside, and reported that it is different than the Wal-Marts we have up here. You have more choices, and as far as the clothes go, better quality stuff. I'm not sure why that should be.
If your only alternative to department stores is Wal-Mart, then I can tell you that we have far more alternatives available up here. This place, for example. So there's a tradeoff...you get better quality, we get more alternative stores.
There's no picture of this $240 wreath. Maybe it's the Mother-of-all-Wreaths, fits on top of parliament building.
Posted by: Rafael ||
12/12/2005 23:16 Comments ||
Top||
#19
I'm not sure why that should be.
That is, I'm not sure why the difference exists. I thought all Wal-Marts were created equal. :-)
It's not hard to believe though. I've noticed American-made clothes are of higher quality. The cotton is much better. I've asked an expert on textiles, and he said there's a cotton type made in America that is the best in the world. You won't match the quality anywhere else. So maybe there's the reason.
Posted by: Rafael ||
12/12/2005 23:32 Comments ||
Top||
#20
I'm not sure I'd say that I would describe the US WalMart's clothes as "high quality", but for $9.95, who cares? I love WalMart. Open 24/7 - everything you need at a good price. I especially love it cause all the fussy puritan people tell me I shouldn't shop there - so it make me like shopping there more.
I have been working on how to convincingly argue against jihadist Islam's rise with the less informed people around me. Islamist terrorism represents such a virulent threat to our worldâs stability that I have resolved to devise a tool whereby moral relativism and multiculturalism can be put paid. The single most persuasive feature whereby Islamism can be isolated as the pathological meme it is manifests in showing the immense commonality shared by it and Nazism.
I invite all Rantburgers to participate in this assessment. There is a wealth of historical and political expertise residing here that can very ably assist in proving or disproving this idea, and Iâd really enjoy developing such a concept if it is of worth. What follows are a dozen of the principal similarities and shared beliefs that I find these two murderous ideologies have in common:
Foremost among them is the pursuit of genocide, no other single feature should overshadow the menace connoted by this filthy goal.
1) The way Islamists seek to recreate Hitlerâs âfinal solutionâ and routinely speak of âfinishing the jobâ begun by the Nazis as reflected in connections between Adolph Hitler, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin el-Husseini and his nephew, Yasser Arafat. This vile goal and its complement, Holocaust Denial, represent a central feature of these evil ideologies.
2) To this day, Hitlerâs âMein Kampfâ remains among one of the best-selling books in the Middle East.
3) Restoration of lost glory with respect to the Caliphate or the reconstruction of post-WWI Germanyâs Reich both represent similar goals whose attainment would mean death on a massive scale for the globeâs population.
4) Assigning blame to the Jews for lack of success is used as a misdirection and scapegoat with regard to the actual faults of poor leadership or failed military adventurism.
5) Cultural purity as a dominant theme of philosophical chauvinism to elevate existing ideology above any possible dissent or questioning as personified by German âÃŒbermenschâ or Islamic jihadist mentality.
6) The tacit approval shown by both moderate Muslims and WWII Germans for absolutism and the atrocities committed in its name despite any infrequent outward condemnation made by either of them.
7) The impossibility of negotiating with Nazis or Islamists due to their ideological mandates and pursuit of global dominance.
8) An absolute prohibition of apostasy under penalty of death.
9) The use of atrocities and crimes against humanity as legitimate tools of war.
10) Commingling religious tenets and fascist doctrine with the intent of disguising political ideology as theistic creed.
11) The imperative aspect of totally eliminating such a dire threat to world peace.
12) The totally unacceptable nature of appeasing or coexisting with such a dangerous mindset.
If those who are interested would please condense, clarify or correct any of the above points, Iâd be grateful. I seek to establish an undeniable construct whereby average people can both recognize the threat posed by Islamism and argue against it with their fellow citizen. Unfortunately, the collective memory of WWII is fading rapidly from global consciousness but remembrance of the Holocaust itself is just strong enough to remain in service of this cause.
If the tide of Islamist fascism is to be stemmed, we will need to develop tools like the one I am mentioning here. I make no claim of having invented this notion, but seek to solidify it such that ordinary people can gain a better understanding of the threat posed and share it more clearly with others around them.
#5
I picture an alternative history, after reading this. Sorry Zen, lol...
Hitler came a generation too soon - for his "cause", anyway. Imagine him coming of age in the late 50's with his hatreds still intact... not burning hatred for the Treaty of Versailles, but for Jooos and mongrels, such as melting-pot Americans. The Germans not pacifists, but still the same fiercely proud imperialists. The Muzzies beginning to rise on oil wealth, Wahhabists at the helm. Natural allies, Nazis and Islam. A very different world equation.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
When Prime Minister 
