ACLU ends our "picking on" Muslims
 

You can't make this stuff up.

Link

and your comments are?

I was kind of waiting for the comments of others.

However, since I have a trip via air planned, I don't appreciate the ACLU and others endangering my family and me.

Did you have something you wanted to say?

Ugh.

{sorts through varied knee-jerk responses, discards, attempts to express rational response}

Okay. While I grant that it is more likely for a terrorist to be a young Saudi male rather than a grandmother from Missouri, the image that sticks with me is from about a week after 9/11. My whole family was flying somewhere, out of a small regional airport with somewhat lax security. Don't get me wrong, there was still a guy with an M-16, but they didn't do stripsearches or anything. We waited patiently when the rush to board came, and it turned out to be just as well. A man with "Middle Eastern" skin entered the plane. Half a dozen people ran off looking over their shoulders.

It is indeed difficult to balance national security with personal freedom, but I'd submit that the way things are these days if you shoot for what you want you'll fall short, but if you overshoot, you might get your intended result, like starting a haggling price higher than you actually expect to get. That might be the technique of the ACLU in this case.

there is a policy against posting content without comment, mods please lock the thread

As people have said but to put an official spin on it, please post some comment of your own when you start a thread.

Thanks,

lebell

Even I would concede that on one hand this is a sticky situation. Although at the same time I don't buy into all of this racial sensitivity as in regards to national security. As pointed out, this "war on terra", is one against "Islamofacists". Until we got some jerk off red neck like Mcveigh blowing up planes too, I think a solid game plan would be to screen those most likely to try and execute a terrorist attack, being Arab/Muslims. I would rather offend one or two people, and have a couple hundred safe and at ease; then not searching those most likely to try something because the ACLU finds it discriminating, and have a plane blown up over the Atlantic.

Yeah but isn't the terrorist just as likely to be a clean cut white boy from Oklahoma? If you want to profile the muslim men then I think we should profile other groups in relation to the number of people such groups have killed.

Let's see,

19 muslim men killed 3000, or about 157 each,
3 white boys killed 168 or about 56 each.

The muslims are off to an early lead; muslim men should get about 3 times as much scrutiny as white boys. Any other numbers we want to add to this equation?

So far all 21 people to attempt fucking planes have been Arab/Muslim.

That's just because they thought of it first. Do you really want to ignore every other terror group and hope they don't get the idea?

When the threat is plausible and material comprable to that of what Al Qaeda has done in the past, and what you can safely assume what they are trying to accomplish in the future, then yes we should look at Billy Bob from Kansas the same as Muhammed Sheik Bin-Il Laden Bin Arafat, until then no.

Unless you are in favor of screening everyone before they enter the plane.

Funny, I should think it is would-be bombers or terrorists that would endanger you and your family. But I guess that's just me...

Do we have plausible and material threats that Al Qaeda is planning to do this again? Or, since we know the white boys like renting Ryder trucks and buying fertilizer, perhaps we should strip search every midwestern farmer who needs a delivery van?

My gawd. Look at this thread. This is a perfect example of the kind of thing that chased me away from other boards and into the patient, tolerable, intelligent arms of TFP.

Why does this thread exist? Do you people really want to deabte the reliability of ethnic profiling to weed out terrorists, or are you just throwing that out there as bait?

Geez, this thread should be locked. The idea of such a ridiculous arguement just seems so out of place here, and yet everyone's jumping into the fray to have their say, regardless of how pathetic they sound.

What next? Proportion of black males vis a vis white males in federal prisons and how that MUST make them, as a race, more prone to crime. This was a thread on another board that I participated in that degenerated into racial mudslinging, white supremist reactionary diatribe, and even personal attackes and threats.

Come on, we can do better here than just try to stir the pot with crap like this, can't we? And the fact that it was posted without comments, as was already mentioned, makes this look all the more like trolling.

Let's get some better topics going about THINGS THAT MATTER, not about an individual's considerable fear about something intangible based on nothing at all.

Peace,

Pierre

i agree with the last two posts.
i had considered posting something about this as well, but they said basically what i would in a nicer way than i think i would have managed. an absurd, repellent spectacle, this thread.

This thread surely is divisive and and I guess for a lack of a better word shocking. But perhaps there is something to it. Regardless of all of that maybe there is something to this. As pointed out in the article linked, not all muslims are terrorists, but as it appears in the world today most terrorists are muslim. Maybe that is a different topic altogether, but I think there is legitimacy to this discussion.

Maybe if someone had acted "ignorantly" in the first place and raised flags of racial profiling on Arab muslims "learning" to fly planes, minus landing said planes, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

I'll start supporting racial profiling as soon as we start using it to capture white collar criminals.

I wonder what type of race associations we can make to target embezzling, bank fraud, securities fraud, etc. Billions billions of dollars are stolen.

40 - 60 year old white males would be my best guess.

Strange how we never see people arguing for racial profiling of this group of criminals.

Why would "arab muslims" skipping the landing portion of flight training raise any more red flags than people of other races and religions doing the same? Was this ever a cause for alarm before 9/11? Is there evidence that non-arab non-muslim flight students skipped the landing and were investigated for it? Would ethnic profiling have prevented the Oklahoma City bombing or the Atlanta Olympics bombing? It's not satisfactory to me to prevent one type of terrorist by becoming more vulnerable to another type of terrorist.

I think it's because when you factor in all the entertainment value that is provided to the american public through newspaper/magazine/TV 'news' shows by these types of criminals, the economy actually makes money. Those media take a lot of commercials to run.

Plus, those people have grandkids. You meany.

Well, now you're just talking crazy. You aren't unpatriotic, are you?




/just doing my best to help close a ridiculous thread...

I think there was probably more media coverage of 9/11 than Martha Stewart (though not by much I grant you). So does that mean those terrorists actually helped our economy?

I think if all the, presumably, white folks were subjected to racial profiling on a daily basis, they'd quickly change their tune on this matter.

It would seem prudent to focus on groups of people that are related racially to those with the propensity for violence.

In otherwords, my 88 year old grandmother is statistically less likely to be a terrorist than a 22 year old male from a middle eastern country.

To ignore this is to ignore reality.

That said, the foundation of any liberal society is that every person has equality under the law. To ignore this is to ignore the progress of our society since feudal times. If we were to go back on this, we would be returning to the days of dictators who can do whatever they want to do because the court system is biased. It's better to be unbiased and let a few mistakes happen than to be biased and see people abuse the system (halliburton; enron to name a few)

It would seem to be anything but prudent to me to imply to all of the nonarab races out there that they are not percieved as credible terrorist threats. Focusing solely on one race completely ignores the reality that all races are capable of terrorist acts.

Do you know of any non-Arab non-Muslim credible terrorist threats facing America? Historically I can name three lone wolves, being the unibomber, Mcveigh, and Atlanta dude.

Last time I checked Billy Joe Ray didn't declare Jihad, nor does he have the support of several Theocratic regimes and tens of Millions of worshippers world wide who preach death to America.

That's not the point. The point is that by needing to focus on a certain group, we are essentially admitting that our security measures are flawed. Either we are doing everything we can to prevent another terrorist attack or we aren't. If we need to focus on one group, that means we are being less secure with everyone else, which to me, is at least a little shortsighted.

Well as stated before several times, this current war on terror isn't with some fat red necked bastards, It's with Arab/Muslims. So why would we focus else where? It seems self defeating. Red necked terrorists have an upper hand because guess what??? We live in a country with a bunch of honky ass peckerwoods! Our current problem as it relates isn't with disgruntled federal government hating crackers, it's with American hating Arab/Muslims.

I say we make it fair. Strip search everyone and go through every bag that goes onboard the plane.

No, it would be foolish to say that others are not capable of terrorism, as it would be foolish to use no security measures when dealing with them.

But we both know the reality of the current situation and I'm sure you would not deny it: if you put two people side by side and one was an old white guy from Wisconson and another was a young guy from Syria, the young guy from Syria is statiscally more likely to be the terrorist than the guy from Wisconson.

This isn't racism, it's reality and it can be used to our advantage if we were willing to do so.

Your point is completely irrelevant unless you're trying to imply that the u.s. currently only has an interest in stopping terrorists from the middle east. If that is what you're trying to imply, you are wrong. If you have an interest in stopping terrorists, you will treat all air travelers as potential terrorists with equal zeal.

Well, statistically, most of us should live in china. I always suspected that most of you were filthy commies. ;) Statistically, all americans have a greater chance of dying from smoking related illnesses than terrorism.

So we are in agreement, smokers are terrorists.

I see no reason to limit racial profiling to violent crimes. If your contention is that it is essentially beneficial, it should be applied to all crimes. So I'll support your desire to use it for terrorists if you support mine to use it for bank fraud, et. al.

White males between the ages of 40 - 60 can be stopped and identified and have SEC and/or IRS investigations performed to determine if they have stolen large sums of money. They are statistically more likely to have commited those types of crimes.

I'm sure we'd catch more criminals this way.

What are we talking about here? National Security or White-Collar Crime? I agree with both you guys as far as how to deal with each type of situation, but I would say that the subject of National Security is what concerns more Americans these days, as voiced in the presidential election.

I think the situation speaks for itself. If one reads the news and is up on current events, one knows what the situation is and who is doing what. Yet I don't see how it helps the situation for us ordinary citizens to get worked up about it by singling out a certain ethnicity/religion. Leave matters of national security to the professionals.

every racist measure i know of has been legitimated with reference to fear...this one is no different.

what i find absurd here is that the entire thread is framed by an article from the manhattan institute, which seems to argue that americans should embrace racism on natinal security grounds. it also argues that such incoherence that exists is the fault of the threat posed by the aclu, which is presumably a fifth column in the feverdream world of that think tank. the article is not a coherent analysis of anything.

There are terrorists from every counrty. Singling out any one group is ludacris. There are filipino members of the al queda, for example. If you're going to single out Muslims (that's a religion, not a race), you might as well single out gentiles. Shoot while we're at it we might as well single out albinos. Maybe we should single out ninjas? I'll bet we can single out kids. Remember that teen from San Francisco that we found in the middle east that had joined the al queda? Give me a break.

Bottom line? I back the ACLU on this.

It is, however, racial discrimination. That is, given two people identical except for race, they are treated differently - race becomes a method for making distinctions between the two people.

Now, you can argue, if you want, that racial discrimination is necessary, or helpful, but call it what it is.

As others have posted, though, think of the logical extension of this policy to other arenas. Investigating black suspects more strenuously than white suspects, because statistically they are more likely to have committed a crime, is the one that stands out most in my mind. Once we start deciding that certain people are racially more likely to have a certain characteristic or act in a certain way, we revert to society 100 years ago.

Now, limiting the number of people of one race who can be searched is not the right approach to take - if someone is suspicious, they should be searched regardless of how many other people of that group have been searched. But limiting or even concentrating on one group of people ignores the fact that other groups are equally able or likely to commit terrorist acts.

Remember that, looking at the history of terrorism in the US, a terrorist is more likely going to be a white, Christian extremist than any other group. Or if you're focused on Islamic extremism, realize that focusing on one particular racial group leaves a huge hole in our defenses that can be exploited by a determined group. Truly random screenings can't be exploited in the same way.

Bingle

Abu Sayyaf in the Phillipines is an Islamic fundamentalist group, and so is Al-Qaeda, and so was the kid from Frisco. I don't believe that any one group is in fact entirely singled out, just as no group is entirely omitted. I'm sure there is Intelligence at the highest levels montoring any and all threats to National Security. As for Fear, I don't see anything inherently wrong with Fear; it's whats kept human beings alive since the days of the cavemen. A rational apprehension of a proven danger is an entirely logical emotion. It would be a neurosis only if the anxiety was based in fantasy.

an enemy that is everywhere and nowhere: one that can strike at any moment but is invisible; one that is all powerful and powerless, totally organized and without organization, definable yet ephemeral--"islamic fundamentalists" that you cannot quite define, cannot quite locate, but are quite sure will be the death of you, but you have no idea when or how or why.....what could be more a neurotic fantasy than that?

Yeah.

I did not compile this, nor can I vouch for accuracy in its details. That said,

History Test


1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
a. Olga Korbut
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzeneger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

2. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

3. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

4. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American Passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

9. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill' s women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

10. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

11. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In medical school, they teach you that if you're at the Kentucky Derby, and you hear hoofbeats, it MIGHT be zebras, but it would be wiser to bet that it's horses.

Are you sure it isn't Andre 3000, or 50 Cent? :lol:

Seriously, we're all well aware that terrorists aren't limited to one country. Richard Reid is British.


I'm having trouble following your line of reasoning for singling out these other groups. I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know why that would be equally appropriate.

Especially after reading the following:

“They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly in Allah’s way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper … Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikûn (Jews) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.” (Sura IV.89)

“Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.” (Sura IX. 5-6)

"Fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem" (Koran 9:5)

"Murder them and treat them harshly" (Koran 9:123)

No, it's not just you. There is no shortage of people who blame George Bush for troop deaths in Iraq, although he hasn't been observed setting any roadside bombs.

Hooray! Quotes from a religious text, taken out of context, as evidence that the religion itself is violent. I love you. The Old Testament is, of course, completely empty of this sort of thing. :rolleyes:

Flipping to a random page in Deuteronomy...

"Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree." (Deuteronomy 12:2)

So you are saying the Jews are crazy, right?

Cause in all seriousness, if you are trying to quote the old testament as a means of pegging Christianity, you are just really ignorant in how the texts relate and what their place is between Judaism and Christianity. Christianity is based of the new testament, Jesus is the new covenant, in most senses the old testament minus the 10 commandments & Abraham (as the first covenant) really doesn't have any bearing on Christianity.

That explains why so many Jews and Christians encourage their children to be suicide bombers.

I'll let you clarify this statement before I classify it a racist.

It's interesting how you avoid the reality of the situation. Each and every time there is an act of terrorism somewhere in the world, a certain group always seems to show up and claim responsibility. Over. And over. And over again. How many times does this particular group have to kill people before you'll hold them accountable?

Or, are you saying phantoms flew those planes into the WTCs? Are you saying that the democratically elected Afghan Government replaced a coven of Witches in black robes? Are you referring to the killing of Theo Van Gogh as the work of Jack the Ripper? Was an elementary school of teachers and children recently massacred by a band of marauding cave trolls? Was it Lex Luthor who planted 10 train bombs in Spain and killed almost 200 people? Was it Masai warriors from Kenya who blew up Paddy's Bar in Bali, killing over 200 people, mostly young Australians? Do you blame the IRA for blowing up a Hilton Hotel Resort in Egypt killing over 40 vacationing civilians? Please...open your eyes.

You know, when white males start to hijack planes, murder school children, blow up pizza parlors, blow up busses, blow up nightclubs, and behead civilians in an organized terrorism effort, I'll be the first to volunteer to be searched before I get on an aircraft, and I would damn well hope they search the white guy sitting next to me too.

Powerclown - which group are you talking about?

The group of 1.2 billion Muslims? Or the group of 300 million Arabs?

Which one of those groups was responsible for 9/11?

That would be: Neither.
I'm not going to insult your intelligence by providing you with the answer, because, based on your question, I believe you already know it.

But we are talking about profiling one of those two groups.

We're not talking about profiling terrorists, because we can't actually identify them by appearence. So the suggestion is that it is an acceptable negative to profile the 1.2 bilion Muslims or the over 300 million Arabs in order to identify the .00001 percent of those groups who are criminals.

I still do not see why we think there is going to be a positive result in implementing such a tactic when we won't even discuss the profiling of the 20 - 40 million white males aged 40 - 60 in this country who are more likely to steal billions and billions of dollars from innocent, naive people.

Why is it not an acceptable negative to profile that group? Less people are negatively impacted and more results are likely (simply due to the higher degree of white collar crime vs. terrorist attacks).

Let's start with Ustwo.

I think everyone should be searched regardless. It would make everyone safe and grind the economy to a halt. Something has to give.

As for 'groups of people that are related racially to those with the propensity for violence,'... didn't know some groups of people were more naturally disposed to violence then others.

o boy o boy another promise from from ustwo!

hijack planes
http://www.who2.com/dbcooper.html

murder school children
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...russia.school/

blow up pizza parlours etc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1201738.stm

behead civilians in an organized terrorism effort
http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/french/french.html
http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/french/robes.jpg

You might consider investing in some velcro ustwo because...wait a second you wouldn't voluntarily submit to a search before you get on a plane? If that's the case then no, you shouldn't be allowed to fly. This seems the source of the complaints here: white people feeling that they're unfairly being inconvenienced by anti-terrorism efforts.

The problem I have with this kind of "profiling" is that I cannot see how it would work. If we are looking for religious identity, there is no definite clue to say what religion someone is. They can shave their beard, change their name or put a yarmulke on. The profiling could be modified to target certain countries, but we have seen that terrorism is not a phenomenon limited to any country. I see no effective profiling policy that could be implemented.

I agree with the sentiment of MrSelfDestruct:
By beefing up the screenings for everyone, everyone is safer. This would definitely raise the costs of Airport security, but it could be no more than the amount that 9/11 has cost.

Well, if we're going to get in a religious debate, then I'd say that picking a choosing what you want from a religious text is fine, but then you can't assume the Muslims are embracing the violence. Second, yes, I guess I am asking why we don't hate Judaism and assume all Jews are going to try and kill us, and third, the DAY all the hateful and hypocritical Christians stop quoting Leviticus as a reason God hates fags I will buy your complete and total bullshit about the separation of the testaments. My point, sir, is that people are evil. Religions can not be so.

Tarl Calbot: See the last two sentences.

Once again, you win an argument that no one made.

Some of us would prefer that everyone be sujected to adequate security procedures before boarding a plane, as opposed to giving Muslims a free pass if more than three of them are on the same flight.

But didn't you request that this thread be locked? What happened?

I think you missed the part when ustwo said "in an organized terrorist effort" none of these events are even closely related, execpt the part with the beslan terrorists, that seems to be ustwo's point...something about islamic terrorists.

Anyway, I don't have a big problem being searched getting on an aircraft, but it makes more sense, since time is not unlimited when you are trying to catch a plane and the resources needed to search individuals is scarce, that they spend most of the time and money on searching those that pose the greatest threat. It just seems to make sense to me.

these screening procedures are not about providing a greater degree of security.
they are about ratcheting up the sense of being under seige
they are about providing the illusion of safety
they are about the appearance of action
they are about materially drawing a line that seperates muslims from other people
they are about generating a level of social approval for the drawing of this line that seperates muslims from other people.
they are about creating a self-confirming situation with reference to this group which is now inside and outside the community, everywhere and nowhere
they are the quintessence of bushworld.
they are about grounding racism in a version of "common sense"

it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that the premises of an argument about possible security measures is transformed fundamentally when that argument passes into law.
the effects of the law are seperate from arguments that might have prompted the law.
i might in principle understand that, at a certain low-wattage level, some kind of institutional response might be a good idea to allay anxiety but certainly not to prevent another attack in any meaningful way.
but i would and do oppose the translation of this argument into law.

bushworld requires an enemy. most parallel versions os this kind of regime have also required an enemy. the symbolic function of that enemy is not what the laws promulgated "intended" if you follow the text of the laws, that is. the social function of these laws lay elsewhere. it did not matter, then or now, that the definitions that underpinned the laws were incoherent. it did not matter that that incoherence was central to their social function.

what did matter was that lots of people were willing to not only submit to the legal situation without question, but that they internalized teh social effects, collapsed them into the law itself, refused to think about either.

This isn't even the policy that you just quoted, nor is this policy to be found in any official DOT guideline. It seems to exist solely as a fabrication of right-wing "news" outlets. It is based on the testimony of one Michael Smerconish, an attorney and radio talk show host from Philadelphia who heard it from Southwest airlines executive Herb Kelleher who supposedly heard this in a discussion with Norm Mineta. So the allegations are hearsay. Hearsay is legal jargon refering to "Statements by A witness who did not see or hear the incident in question but heard about it from someone else. Hearsay is usually not admissible as evidence in court."

Why hasn't Herb Kelleher made these allegations himself? Is he afraid he might perjure himself in doing so?

I support adequate security measures myself but...
I did, but I didn't follow the proper protocol with my request so it was denied. Further requests were censored.

Well, next time a flight departing a US airport is hijacked and slamms into a building you can go on about how it doesn't work. But you wouldn't want that to happen, would you?

have you actually been through airport security checks?
do you think they would really prevent anything?
such arrangements might work if there was prior warning--which would doubtless also result in marshall law in the us--which i assume you would be fine with.
but no small group is going to work like that.
these arrangements will not prevent anything more than those which were in place before 9/11...they are theater.

This same group of fringe fundamentalists has been using terrorism as a social weapon way, way before Bush was President. The problem has nothing to do with Bush. Take a look at sob's History Lesson, above, for clarification. It's about dealing with reality, not fabricating phantoms. It's perfectly logical to screen for certain nationalities in light of actual history. Is it a pleasant situation? Not particularly. Is it politically correct? Maybe not. Is it an attempt to deal with the matter head-on? I believe so.

Hey that's a great way to make fun of my spelling! :hmm:
Just to clarify; "ludicrous". There, I looked it up.

There was never any proof that the terrorists on the planes that struck on 9/11 (obviously one of the main reasons for this) were middle eastern.

I appreciate that you are up to date on the Koran. As a matter of fact, I respect all people who have a good knowledge of all religions. HOWEVER, I do not know what these quotes have to do with racial profiling.

"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. *Such evil must be purged from Israel."* (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods.* In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully.* If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.* Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it.* Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.* That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt.* Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction.* Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.* He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors.* "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.""* (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

"If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him.* Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you.* You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.* And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst."* (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

"Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden.* When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death." *(Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

"Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants."* (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

Bottom line? You can quote scripture until you're blue in the face. How many christians do you know that follow what I quoted above? Do you think every town that doesn't have a christian is attacked by the christians?

I see the parties I listed (Gentiles, albinos, ninjas, and children) as being just as foolish to discriminate against as the Muslims. They are equally appropriate because they are all absurd. I hope that clears it up for you.

stevo22, are you actually telling us that you don't consider the Irish Republican Army or the Reign of Terror to be organized terrorist efforts? Please explain your reasoning because those allegations are beyond my understanding.

I will admit there is no evidence that DB Cooper operated at the behest of any terrorist organization. It's unacceptable to me though to design a security system that isn't vigilant of possible "lone wolf" threats.

Re: Beslan--It's unfair to ustwo to infer that he wasn't looking for examples of terrorism from that (muslim) type of white person.

powerclown:
sob's list had nothing to do with history.
it was more a david duke-style list focussed on abritrary features that functioned solely to reinforce a racist disposition: no context, no real information, no explanation, no interpretation: just factoids strung together to "demonstrate" non-argument. that is not history. that is what we in the trade refer to as bullshit.

if you want to deal with matters straight on, and not create phantoms, you might start by yourself looking at that list and wondering, for a minute, if anything really connects the various incidents he adduces: each had a sperate situation behind/around it, from the israeli/palestinan conflict to the rise of early variants of "fundamentalism" in egypt to the war on afghanistan (there are others)--you might wonder how, if you strip the racist veneer away for a minute, you could really connect these incidents. of course, racism works this way too often: simplification, the creation of false linakges, the motoring of otherwise absurd arguments...
but you would have to be an idiot to imagine that the explanatory feature in any of it was the fact that the folk who carried it out were muslim men between 17 and 40.

if you want to look at things straight on and not be caught in the play of fantasies, maybe start by not lumping all muslims together.
you might start by trying to maybe even think about the causes for various "terrorist" acts...
you might wonder how these causes could be eliminated, and how it is that the process of eliminating causes, which seems a rational response, squares with the erecting of the whole bushworld-specific pseudo-security apparatus.
you might wonder what exactly a terrorist is.

as for the quintessence of bushworld remark:
i think your attempt to project dynamics particular to this period in the us onto other situations is simply wrongheaded. the manipulation of fear and the erecting of pseudo-reponses is fundamental to how the bush administration has acted since 9/11/2001....it was one of the central elements in the last campaign...it is basic to the entire bush/rove m.o. i do not see who you can argue against that. nor do i see what function you imagine blaming the phantom "enemy" for it serves. maybe you could explain?

Well, when willravel crosses over from the paranoia board to tell us about 9/11, thats it, I'm out.

Very well, then.
For some reason, you refuse to acknowledge reality. How can there be a rational discussion with one who won't acknowledge reality?

Perhaps you would prefer to discuss the mating rituals of Green Dragons, then?

There is nothing in Roachboy's posts here that indicates he won't "acknowledge reality." Instead I see you trying to engage his rather insightful perception of the situation with racist pablum.

um...if you read the rest of the reasons i listed to refer to it as other than history, maybe a real conversation could ensue.
the critique is substantive, but you will not engage with it. show me where the explanation is that does not resort to the most idiotic of criteria. show me where the context in sob's post is. the detail. there isnt any. it is not history--it is a list of factoids adduced to provide the illusion of explanation. it is racist drivel. what does that mean for you, if you find it compelling?
your choice.

it makes little sense to end an evasion of an argument with a patronizing comment--- but again, your choice. if i remember correctly, you do not seem to see any problems with the israeli occupation of the west bank either. so maybe there is nothing to talk about on this kind of matter. i dont know.

Aren't remarks like this ban-worthy? I never took a shot at you. I strongly suggest you check the history of my posts so that you will understand that I post on Politics much more than I post on Paranoia. ALSO, I still stand by my open minded posts on Paranoia. You may choose to ignore my posts if you want, but let's not try to act like we're superior.

I'll take your inability to answer as a consession of defeat. There are no members here who deserve kneejerk dismissal based on their user name alone. The discussion will enriched by your absence.

That's not too helpful Locobot.
So, you too, are of the school that says there is no problem with terrorism in the islamic fundamentalist community? The Arab World is in no need of reform, humans of middle eastern descent had nothing to do with 9/11, and this is all Bush's fault. Wonderful.

What is the point in continuing if the central issues continues to be ignored?

I would be glad to if it weren't overwhelmingly muslim extremists engaging in the terrorism we see in the world today. It isn't the Irish, it isn't the Spanish, it isn't the Japanese, it isn't the Swedish, it isn't the Samoans, it isn't the Indians, it isn't the Mexicans, it isn't the South Africans, it isn't the Cubans. It is MUSLIM fundamentalists mostly from the Middle East. :crazy:Referring to actual occurences in the past as 'not history', 'illusion', 'factoids' and 'racist drivel' is a fundamental denial of reality. It is an argument in a vacuum, leading only to further confusion and illogic.

These are all your fabrications. I agree with none of the above statements. It's amazing to me that you're willing to accuse someone of denying reality and simutaneously deny the reality of what has and has not posted in the same thread in the same post! Bravo! You've succeeded in an exercise of absurdity.

I think this all speaks for itself.
I look forward to this thread regaining a semblance of rationality before I proceed any further.

I believe it is racial discrimination but at the same time it is being done to protect others. i am a muslim male (of african-american)...I do not get scrutinized by the TSA unless they view my plane ticket and see my name. It is bothersome but at the same time i know they are doing their job and that they've been told to look more towards Arabs than 'white boys' (as it was so politely put in the thread above).

If we are going to make a list about events where people of a specific race/religion killed mass amounts of people then we should continue on with that list.

History Test {continued...}


For more than 400 years which group kidnapped, bought & sold Africans in the "new world?
a. "white boys"
b. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

During the mid '90s what group of people shot up their school in Colorado?
a. "white boys"
b. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

During the mid '90s, what group of people blew up a federal building in Oklahoma city?
a. "white boys"
b. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

What person was responsible for mailing explosive packages at random to unknowing US citizens?
a. Unabomber (who is a white male)
b. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

During the colonial period what group of people were responsible for the manipulation,slaughter, and removal of Native Americans from their land?
a. White Settlers
b. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

*some call them freedom fighters or fore fathers and others call them terrorist...*

Just showing you that not every evil act of terrorism is from those of Arab decent or from Islamic faith... every race/culture is not perfect and everyone should be screened and viewed the same when boarding flights/trains/buses or whatever.

Hell, i have to go through a metal detector at the movie theater by my house in new york. As a muslim I am upset to see innocent muslims being killed overseas "by accident" and I am also upset to see these extremists take their own spin on our religion and use it to cause harm to others. In the end, nobody wins and the cycle of violence continues until either non-extremist muslims step up and try to pull the extremist's coattails and tell them that killing men,women,children is not how you spread the message of islam.

I still have a hard time believing that all the events of 9/11 were done and orchestrated by those few terrorist. I believe they were involved to a certain extent but there has to be some underlying proof as to what hit the pentagon....there was not plane wreckage outside of the building. the whole was too small for a jet liner of the size they say went into the building. FBI agents were seen removing security tapes from neighboring businesses that had cameras that were angled towards the scene of the crime.

As for the Arab World in need of reform. I think the US should leave those Arab countries alone. They do not like our country and they constantly let us and the rest of the world know their despise for us. Why? Oh maybe because America is aiding in Israel's (the arab world's most hated country) fight against Palestine.

There is reform necessary in certian areas of the middle east, I suppose. It's really sad that they think they have to resort to terrorism in order to try to protect themselves and their ideals (it's anyones guess whether they need to or not, and that's another conversation). I wish we could all sit at a big table with everyone over some Budwisers and just work the whole thing out. That's not the way it works though. I think that Locobot, like any one else, has a problem with any terrorists, not just Muslim ones. I had a problem with the Muir Building being demolished by domestic terrorists just as much as I had a problem with Muslim fundamentalists attacking us. The problem is that I don't see a huge difference between the two groups. Let's compare:

Muslim fundementalists: Faith or political based belief system that allows massive attacks on innocent civilians that they believe are their enemies.
Oklahoma City bombers: Faith or political based belief system that allows massive attacks on innocent civilians that they believe are their enemies.

Muslim fundamentalists: Used public and american transpostation (American Airlines, TWA, etc.) to inflict their destruction.
Oklahoma City bombers:Used public and american transpostation (rented truck) to inflict their destruction.

Muslim fundamentalists: There are more of them.
Oklahoma City bombers: There are more of them.

Muslim fundamentalists: Part of a larger community that is being blamed for the mistakes of the few.
Oklahoma City bombers: Part of a larger community that is not being blamed for the mistakes of the few.

I hope that was helpful.

Edit: I just read the posts by nova. Nova: I totally agree with you 110%. But. Be careful going off about the 9/11 stuff. As we just saw, some people (like stevo, for example) get very angry about the possibilities surrounding the 9/11 attacks. People have a hard time accepting the mear possibility that we weren't told the whole truth. The reality is that we may never find out with absolute certianty what happened. Just giving you fair warning.

^^^ i do agree with you that reform is necessary in parts of the middle east. i am greatly concerned about Afghanistan and how parts of their economy relies on harvesting/selling Opium. I am not highly educated in biology/chemistry but what other properties besides being a recreational drug does Opium have? if there is not any other known use for it besides to get high then those Muslims who are working in that business should not be doing things like that.

Indeed. This is obvious when you look at what "actions" have been taken:

- No nail clippers.
- Buy extra duct tape

A pen is sharper and mightier than nail clippers. Pens are not only acceptable, but regularly provided on international flights. It only takes the threat of a pen to the jugular to hijack a plane.

I read about this tactic and others in my farmers alamanac.... which I took out of the library along with a copy of Catcher In The Rye.

:lol: Good post!

I got a good laugh out of this too.

if you're going to post verses of the Quran, post the ENTIRE verse

the translation is varies slightly, depending on the translator, but cleary this part "Then when the Sacred Months have passed," is not even part of the original verse...


They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Auliyâ' (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allâh (to Muhammad S.A.W). But if they turn back (from Islâm), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliyâ' (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them. (An-Nisa 4:89)

the FULL text of both verses:

5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islâmic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikûn (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and give Zakât, then leave their way free. Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

6. And if anyone of the Mushrikûn (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allâh (the Qur'ân), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.

O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2).....

and here is V.2:2....."This is the Book (the Qur'ân), whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who are Al-Muttaqûn [the pious and righteous persons who fear Allâh much (abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which He has forbidden) and love Allâh much (perform all kinds of good deeds which He has ordained)].


to read verses from the Quran visit http://www.thenoblequran.com

I agree with Lebell here: I've been following this thread trying to find a place to add something constructive.

Everyone male interesting points and such, but we are fast deteriorating in to a mudslinging contest.

Maybe we should "reset" and start over with arguments supported by facts, and theories etc to parse here in a civil debate.

I will attempt here:

*************************************************************

Oddly, I find a bit of logic and (sort of agree) with the contention by Lebell and others that statistically, if more Muslims/Arabs commit an act of terrorism, then extra scrutiny should be given to them.
Thus, since statistically blacks commit more crimes then they should also be scrutinized as well as white collar criminals so on and so forth. But somehow, something just doesn't feel right with this type of logic. I can't really pinpoint it. IT seems too simple. If statistically many American athletes are using steroids, should all American athletes be banned from competetion, or more accurately, tested more strenuously?

On the other hand, it doesn't seem to make sense to "pat down" grandma given the limited resources (time & money) we are willing as a society to devote to "security".

So then it maybe becomes a matter of prioritization and resource management.

Because we as a people or whatever do not think of white collar crime as being important or a priority, therefore we are not willing to spend the necessary resources to fight it. Nor do we really care about the steroids issue (otherwise we would of done something about it already, like boycott baseball etc.).

But, national security (terrorism) for whatever reason, media or government induced, right or wrong, IS a priority.

Therefore, we are more prone to scrutinize the elements involved in this issue. But because we are still too cheap to pay more in taxes to or devote more spending (we want more security but don't want to pay for it) to security, corners must be cut, and priorities made.

Thus, instead of screening everyone, we check those deemed statisticlally more likely to commit terrorism. But, statistics can be flawed or manipulated too. People's tolerance fluctuate with perception. People are willing to stand in line for 3+ hours without complaint because they "feel safer". Would they tolerate 5 hours, ten hours plus $100 tacked onto plane ticket for "security" costs? What would it cost to be "fair and equal" in nondiscriminatory measures?

Same with terrorism. Statistcally less likely than say tax evasion or famine or drug-related deaths.

What would happen if we had to take off our clothes instead of just shoes? (an extreme example I know, but just trying to illustrate).

From a historical perspective, terrorism has been around for years, millenia even. We only started to really care about it after 9/11 to any significant measure. Compare and contrast Israel and the US in security policy. Their airlines (El AL) are deemed the safest due to the meticulous measure they take but would seem rather extreme or invasive by our standards. We are lax by comparison, but Israelis are more tolerant and accepting of those measures.

In terms of actual security, I think it is more dangerous to drive than to fly still so maybe we are too worked up over "nothing"? If the next attack occurs by car or bus, do we stop and search all car and busses at every stop light?

More people die each year of smoking related causes. My neighbor smokes. Terrorist? He's causing a bunch of us to die slowly.... or is he? But nevertheless, more dangerous, lethal and likely statistiaclly to cause harm than terrorism.

Remember the phenomenon of "scares"? When Colombine happened, we were hysterical over school shootings and the like. But gradually it settled down and statistically, less likely to happen.

Everyone demanded more school security, metal detectors. People blamed parents, parents blamed teachers, everyone blamed guns. The ACLU fanatics claimed infringement of civil rights because of searches and stuff. But gradually it all settled down. We don't hear about it much anymore beause "terrorism" is much more exciting and sexy and headline grabbing.

Maybe we're all "victims" or suckers of "fear-mongering"? I don't think terrorism is to be dismissed or taken lightly, but rather maybe we should think it out more thoroughly and act rationally as opposed to re-act hastily with no planning or endgame in sight.

What do you guys think?

jorgelito: Thank you for a good effort to get this back on track. I admit to being sucked in just like everyone else. The central issue is still tolerance vs. statistics.
Good points were made in mentioning the basis of this perception of airborn danger based almost solely on 9/11, only one attack. Out of the hundreds of thousands of flights in America, only 3 have been used as weapons. And, yes, statistically you are infanitaly more likely to die from smoking than terrorism in America. I predict that this will blow over eventually.

You should remember we've been assured of peace more times than we've been threatened by the al-queda though, which bares remembering. Before going off on a rant, let me just say that you need to hear what Osama Bin Laden really has to say before you go ape nuts on him. He is an intelligent, thoughtful man (obviously misguided in a serious way), but in knowing what his goal is - removal of the US from the Middle East - you may begin to understand him. I suggest getting a full transcript of one of his messages, instead of getting the cut and pasted bs that CNBC feeds us.

Ask youself this: What do I think the ultimate goal of society is? Am I doing everything I can to help to progress modern society towards this?

In my case, I see peace and tolerance. I see mass empathy. I see a world where sadness has been reduced to almost nothing; to the amount that is trivial. I see everyone working towards the goal of bettering all people. Selfishness is extinct. Learning and thinking and enjoying life. I see a world void of lies. Complete truth in every thought and word. I see religions and countries at peace with each other, understanding each other and accepting each other as they are.

Will humans be allowed on this world?

Excellent, thoughtful post jorgelito. Well done.

My point in all this simple:
1) acknowledge that a problem exists,
2) work as humanely as possible to solve - not ignore or talk around - the problem.

I fully agree with both of those.

I also agree that our present system has far too many holes in it for my liking and is in need of change. This is one reason I support training and arming all pilots that desire it.

[QUOTE]The ACLU fanatics [/QUOTE}

who are these people? do they exist in the real world? i know they walk about in right ideology, much like the muslim=terrorist couple does.

the problem with the thread from the outset is that it was and remains framed by a basically conservative understanding of the questions at hand, and so it (the thread) works mostly as a symptom of just how difficult it is to switch ways of thinking once that framework is in place.

i remain completely unconvinced by this type of argument: i think that it does, in fact, substitue racism for thought, the appearance of coherent response for coherent response. it contributes to positions like powerclowns, which simply refuses to think about islam in differentiated terms while at the same time wrapping itself in the discourse of "realism"--and the sad reality is that racism in this case can be spun as "realism"....

i have not seen--ever--from anyone on the right a single attempt to situate "islamic fundmentalism" socially or historically. i have not seen a single person from the right even start to consider the sorry usage that, say the algerian government put to the f.i.s.---no consideration whatsoever of the question of how the present administration is instrumentalizing the notion of "islamic fundamentalism" for its own political ends--nothing, not once. i draw from this the conclusion that the ideology renders folk incapable of thinking in differentiated terms about this, and that there is something functional for them about that incapacity.

I respect Islam as one of the world's Great Religions. I respect the BILLIONS of peaceful adherents of Islam. My neighbors are Muslim, our children play together, we've had dinner at each other's houses, we have discussed the issues. They are hard-working and extremely friendly people. I pass no personal judgements on the Q'uran. I disagree strongly with your appraisal of the situation as one of 'racism replacing thought'. It's just too simple of a deduction, in my opinion, and ignores the facts. I don't see the point of denying the problems facing the Arab World.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just today in the NYTimes, an article discussing some of the difficulties facing Arab Reform:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Holding Up Arab Reform
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: December 16, 2004
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates

For years now it's been clear that the Middle East peace process has left the realm of diplomacy and started to become an industry, with its own G.N.P. of conferences and seminars. But there is a new industry rapidly overtaking it in the Middle East, and that is the "reform industry." Every month there seems to be a new conference on reform in the Arab world. Indeed, I have been attending one here in Dubai, an amazing city-state on the Persian Gulf that is becoming the Singapore of the Arab East.

What the reform process and the peace process have in common is that neither advances when we Americans tell the parties in English that they have to change. Progress happens only when the people here tell themselves in Arabic that they must change. So I took heart from the blunt manner in which Dubai's crown prince, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, opened his conference by saying, in a speech broadcast by Arab satellite TV, "I say to my fellow Arabs [in power]: If you do not change, you will be changed."

I didn't hear talk like that five years ago. Nor did I hear an Egyptian friend remarking to me that she had absolutely no problem with Hosni Mubarak's son, Gamal, one day succeeding his father. Gamal is a good man. She just had one condition, that Gamal Mubarak succeed his father the same way George W. Bush succeeded his father: in a free election.

Meanwhile, last Sunday, about 1,000 Egyptians gathered in downtown Cairo, many wearing over their mouths yellow stickers with the Arabic word for "enough" written on them, to protest plans by President Mubarak to run for a fifth term.

Yes, there is definitely something stirring out here, but it has miles to go before meaningful changes occur. It is something America should be quietly encouraging, so it is inexplicable to me that the Bush administration is holding up publication of the next U.N. Arab Human Development Report. Let me fill you in:

In 2002, the U.N. Development Program sponsored a group of courageous Arab economists, social scientists and other scholars to do four reports on human development in the Arab world. The first one, in 2002, caused a real stir in this region - showing, among other things, that the Arabs were falling so far behind that Spain's G.D.P. was greater than that of the entire Arab League combined.

That first report, published in Arabic and English, was downloaded off the Internet one million times. It was a truly incisive diagnosis of the deficits of freedom, education and women's empowerment retarding the Arab world.

In 2003, the same group produced a second Arab Human Development Report, about the Arab knowledge deficit - even tackling the supersensitive issue of how Islam and its current spiritual leaders may be holding back modern education. This was stuff no U.S. diplomat could ever raise, but the Arab authors of these reports could and did.

So I eagerly awaited the third Arab Human Development Report, due in October. It was going to be pure TNT, because it was going to tackle the issue of governance and misgovernance in the Arab world, and the legal, institutional and religious impediments to political reform. These are the guts of the issue out here. I waited. And I waited. But nothing.

Then I started to hear disturbing things - that the Bush team saw a draft of the Arab governance report and objected to the prologue, because it was brutally critical of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Israeli occupation. This prologue constitutes some 10 percent of the report. While heartfelt, it's there to give political cover to the Arab authors for their clear-eyed critique of Arab governance, which is the other 90 percent of the report.

But the Bush team is apparently insisting that language critical of America and Israel be changed - as if language 10 times worse can't be heard on Arab satellite TV every day. And until it's changed, the Bush folks are apparently ready to see the report delayed or killed altogether. And they have an ally. The government of Egypt, which is criticized in the report, also doesn't want it out - along with some other Arab regimes.

So there you have it: a group of serious Arab intellectuals - who are neither sellouts nor bomb throwers - has produced a powerful analysis, in Arabic, of the lagging state of governance in the Arab world. It is just the sort of independent report that could fuel the emerging debate on Arab reform. But Bush officials, along with Arab autocrats, are holding it up until it is modified to their liking - even if that means it won't appear at all.

It makes you weep.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd like to think we have a good future. If no one is optimistic, nothing will ever get better (not to say I'm better than anyone).

Nice bit of comic relief for an intense but engaging debate! My own response to Willravel was going to be, "Isn't that a song already?" (thinking of John Lennon's Imagine) *chuckle*

Thanks for everyone's responses, many good points here.

To try and answer your question Mr. Roachboy, in as much as it is possible, the questions and direction you're going in is quite advanced.

In fact, I would encourage, if you desire it, to look even further back to the emergence of the "modern states period", "decline and fall of the Ottoman Empire" and "creation of the modern Middle East" for more solid theories and arguments relating to our current situation. From a historical perspective, both Western and Near Eastern, many critical events led to the evolution of the current crisis including:

1. Rise of nationalism and creation of the nation-state
2. Western imperialism/colonialism and quest for preeminence in Europe,
leading to spillover in other regions (Africa, Asia, Middle East)
3. Importance of OIL as a resource
4. Partitioning of Iraq, post-Ottoman period*note- this is critical
5. Creation of Israel
6. Autocratic (monarchy) regimes in the Middle East (weak)- creates
underdeveloped societies, never evolvong or advancing.
7. Environment of Fear - Each state fears the other - become dependent
upon US or UK for protection - This is an oversimplified reason why there
is NO SINGULAR PAN-ARAB STATE. Ever wonder about that?
8. Key element: Cold War politics and the geo-political game out of
bi-polarity.


In my opinion, Islam, while a big deal, is less of a reason for the current phenomenon than say nationalism or good ol' fashioned power politics.

Now the above is only an attempt to outline history, events that have contributed to the current situation. I am in no way excusing or endoring terrorism mind you (thank you very much), but rather trying to scratch beneath the surface. (we all know what happens when you pick at a scab!)

Oh yeah,

I didn't mean to come off as "hating" the ACLU when I called them fanatics. They are what they are and that's it. I think thay can get fanatical, just like I think FOX NEws Channel can get fanatical etc..etc.

They seem to have worked well for the Israelis.

How many more US hijackings have taken place since the stepped-up security was implemented?

Looking at it from the opposite direction, I would be very comfortable boarding an airplane whose other occupants were Japanese, notwithstanding their behavior in WWII.

I also believe a lot of this discussion references "race" when they actually mean "culture."

Israel is a success story now?
:confused:

So those religions that have embraced human sacrifice are not evil?

Your last sentence is quite a generalization. I'll leave it to others to discredit it, if the interest is there.

And THAT is what is referred to in the legal trade as "pounding on the table."

Would you be so kind as to mention what trade you were referring to?

No, I think he might be referring to just airline security, but I see your point otherwise.

Israli, or EL AL Airlines' security is generally considered the best of the best.