BF2S Forums Wow, someone tried to blow up a plane (Yes, a muslim)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/29/gitmo. … index.html

No big surprise here either, good thing they were released as a bowing down to PC pressure, might have cost 300 innocent lives, but as long as PC prevailed.

venom6 wrote:

I just wonder how was he able to get on the plane? They do have more level security on airports and dogs and all stuff.

He was able to get on the plane because of a half assed effort, choked with politcal correctness was the only thing keeping him OFF the plane.

I offer the fact that when a Muslim is kept off an airplane, or even screened it is front page news as profiling, and how their rights were violated.

No one wants to step up anymore and make the tough decisions for fear of the back lash if they are wrong.

lowing wrote:

venom6 wrote:

I just wonder how was he able to get on the plane? They do have more level security on airports and dogs and all stuff.

He was able to get on the plane because of a half assed effort, choked with politcal correctness was the only thing keeping him OFF the plane.

I offer the fact that when a Muslim is kept off an airplane, or even screened it is front page news as profiling, and how their rights were violated.

No one wants to step up anymore and make the tough decisions for fear of the back lash if they are wrong.

Profiling is counterproductive to effective screening. Every security-minded person knows this. Being "politically correct", or as some would define it, upholding American principles, has little to do with it. The fact is that profiling makes security less secure.

It's amusing how any objection to the unequal treatment of minorities in this regard is treated to a barrage of derisive statements by the very same people who complain about unequal treatment of minorities when the nature of the treatment suits their political agendas.

Last edited by mikkel (2009-12-30 06:10:18)

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

venom6 wrote:

I just wonder how was he able to get on the plane? They do have more level security on airports and dogs and all stuff.

He was able to get on the plane because of a half assed effort, choked with politcal correctness was the only thing keeping him OFF the plane.

I offer the fact that when a Muslim is kept off an airplane, or even screened it is front page news as profiling, and how their rights were violated.

No one wants to step up anymore and make the tough decisions for fear of the back lash if they are wrong.

Profiling is counterproductive to effective screening. Every security-minded person knows this. Being "politically correct", or as some would define it, upholding American principles, has little to do with it. The fact is that profiling makes security less secure.

It's amusing how any objection to the unequal treatment of minorities in this regard is treated to a barrage of derisive statements by the very same people who complain about unequal treatment of minorities when the nature of the treatment suits their political agendas.

profiling is counter productive? links please.

It is not unequal treatment, it is an effort to protect EVERYONE, and I am sorry, when if you haddn't noticed most terror attacks are Islamic now a days, get used to it.

Last edited by lowing (2009-12-30 06:51:17)

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Profiling is counterproductive to effective screening. Every security-minded person knows this. Being "politically correct", or as some would define it, upholding American principles, has little to do with it. The fact is that profiling makes security less secure.

It's amusing how any objection to the unequal treatment of minorities in this regard is treated to a barrage of derisive statements by the very same people who complain about unequal treatment of minorities when the nature of the treatment suits their political agendas.

profiling is counter productive? links please.

It is not unequal treatment, it is an effort to protect EVERYONE, and I am sorry, when if you haddn't noticed most terror attacks are Islamic now a days, get used to it.

It is not unequal treatment, it is an effort to protect EVERYONE.. based on the concept of treating people unequally. Come on, lowing.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2 … iling.html

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature … profiling/

If you want more, go find it yourself. Profiling diverts attention from the many to the few, leaving any of the many free to exploit the glaring gap in security. It's obtuse to think that terrorism can only take on certain faces.

might want to read your first link again, the commetns section already riped it a new ass, it is already being argued there I see no need to argue it here as well.

As for your second link I read the first sentence under the title and agree with it. We need to question behaior and not skin color.

As proof to my point on the issue of profileing and PC

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/01/01/fa … index.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/ … 2120.shtml

both incidents were muslims removed for strange behavior, and these airlines caught hell for it. This is why PC is so dangerous. If these planes had continued and something happened, these airlines would have caught hell for letting them on. It is a no win situation unless you remove PC and accept the times in which we live today.


Also this

“Other religions kill, too.”

The Muslim Game:

Bringing other religions down to the level of Islam is one of the most popular strategies of Muslim apologists when confronted with the spectacle of Islamic violence.  Remember Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber?  Why pick on Islam if other religions have the same problems?

The Truth:

Because they don’t. 

Regardless of what his birth certificate may or may not have said, Timothy McVeigh was not a religious man (in fact, he was an atheist).  At no time did he credit his deeds to religion, quote Bible verses, or claim that he killed for God. 

The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Muslims are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement.  They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Muslim terrorists do, and this is what makes it a very different matter. 

Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.

Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges.

Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem.  There have been six deadly attacks over a 36 year period in the U.S.  Eight people died.  This is an average of one death every 4.5 years.

By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001.  If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period.

In the last six years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined.  No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year.  Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it.  Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of believers struggles with ambivalence and a radical clergy that supports the terror.

Muslims may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse.

taken from “Other religions kill, too.”

The Muslim Game:

Bringing other religions down to the level of Islam is one of the most popular strategies of Muslim apologists when confronted with the spectacle of Islamic violence.  Remember Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber?  Why pick on Islam if other religions have the same problems?

The Truth:

Because they don’t. 

Regardless of what his birth certificate may or may not have said, Timothy McVeigh was not a religious man (in fact, he was an atheist).  At no time did he credit his deeds to religion, quote Bible verses, or claim that he killed for God. 

The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Muslims are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement.  They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Muslim terrorists do, and this is what makes it a very different matter. 

Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.

Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges.

Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem.  There have been six deadly attacks over a 36 year period in the U.S.  Eight people died.  This is an average of one death every 4.5 years.

By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001.  If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period.

In the last six years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined.  No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year.  Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it.  Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of believers struggles with ambivalence and a radical clergy that supports the terror.

Muslims may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse.

“Other religions kill, too.”

The Muslim Game:

Bringing other religions down to the level of Islam is one of the most popular strategies of Muslim apologists when confronted with the spectacle of Islamic violence.  Remember Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber?  Why pick on Islam if other religions have the same problems?

The Truth:

Because they don’t. 

Regardless of what his birth certificate may or may not have said, Timothy McVeigh was not a religious man (in fact, he was an atheist).  At no time did he credit his deeds to religion, quote Bible verses, or claim that he killed for God. 

The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Muslims are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement.  They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Muslim terrorists do, and this is what makes it a very different matter. 

Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.

Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges.

Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem.  There have been six deadly attacks over a 36 year period in the U.S.  Eight people died.  This is an average of one death every 4.5 years.

By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001.  If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period.

In the last six years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined.  No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year.  Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it.  Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of believers struggles with ambivalence and a radical clergy that supports the terror.

Muslims may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse.

“Other religions kill, too.”

The Muslim Game:

Bringing other religions down to the level of Islam is one of the most popular strategies of Muslim apologists when confronted with the spectacle of Islamic violence.  Remember Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber?  Why pick on Islam if other religions have the same problems?

The Truth:

Because they don’t. 

Regardless of what his birth certificate may or may not have said, Timothy McVeigh was not a religious man (in fact, he was an atheist).  At no time did he credit his deeds to religion, quote Bible verses, or claim that he killed for God. 

The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Muslims are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement.  They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Muslim terrorists do, and this is what makes it a very different matter. 

Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.

Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges.

Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem.  There have been six deadly attacks over a 36 year period in the U.S.  Eight people died.  This is an average of one death every 4.5 years.

By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001.  If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period.

In the last six years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined.  No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year.  Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it.  Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of believers struggles with ambivalence and a radical clergy that supports the terror.

Muslims may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse.

taken from    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages … s-Play.htm

Odds that any incident will be Islamic is pretty high

Last edited by lowing (2009-12-30 07:31:14)

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

profiling is counter productive? links please.

It is not unequal treatment, it is an effort to protect EVERYONE, and I am sorry, when if you haddn't noticed most terror attacks are Islamic now a days, get used to it.

It is not unequal treatment, it is an effort to protect EVERYONE.. based on the concept of treating people unequally. Come on, lowing.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2 … iling.html

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature … profiling/

If you want more, go find it yourself. Profiling diverts attention from the many to the few, leaving any of the many free to exploit the glaring gap in security. It's obtuse to think that terrorism can only take on certain faces.

might want to read your first link again, the commetns section already riped it a new ass, it is already being argued there I see no need to argue it here as well.

I did read my first link, and of course there are people disagreeing in the comments section, as there are people disagreeing to anything, anywhere. That's a very weak rebuttal, lowing. Even former TSA and DHS officials who are no longer required to follow the party line are coming out and saying that profiling has been known internally to be second rate for many years. This happened as late as just the other day in an interview on CNN.

lowing wrote:

As for your second link I read the first sentence under the title and agree with it. We need to question behaior and not skin color.

As proof to my point on the issue of profileing and PC

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/01/01/fa … index.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/ … 2120.shtml

both incidents were muslims removed for strange behavior, and these airlines caught hell for it. This is why PC is so dangerous. If these planes had continued and something happened, these airlines would have caught hell for letting them on. It is a no win situation unless you remove PC and accept the times in which we live today.

It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with the wholly unamerican act of throwing people off planes simply because they look and speak differently. Somewhat like the Nigerian man who was forcefully detained and questioned because he committed a crime as atrocious as flying while Nigerian with a stomach infection that required him to spend extra time in the bathroom. Or the two gentlemen of Middle Eastern descent who were kicked off simply for speaking an Arabic language. Both in the panicked frenzy following the recent attempted attack. Both a product of the culture of fear that this kind of racial and geographical profiling contributes to.

It has nothing to do with political correctness; it has to do with treating people like people. The way you go about this makes it sound like you were all for Japanese internment camps as well.

lowing wrote:

<snipped spam>

I don't understand what makes you think that I'll accept something like this partial diatribe as having any value at all. It simply echoes contented sentiments that are largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The objective isn't to prevent Islamic terrorism. The objective is to prevent terrorism of any kind.

Last edited by mikkel (2009-12-30 09:21:29)

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

It is not unequal treatment, it is an effort to protect EVERYONE.. based on the concept of treating people unequally. Come on, lowing.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2 … iling.html

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature … profiling/

If you want more, go find it yourself. Profiling diverts attention from the many to the few, leaving any of the many free to exploit the glaring gap in security. It's obtuse to think that terrorism can only take on certain faces.

might want to read your first link again, the commetns section already riped it a new ass, it is already being argued there I see no need to argue it here as well.

I did read my first link, and of course there are people disagreeing in the comments section, as there are people disagreeing to anything, anywhere. That's a very weak rebuttal, lowing. Even former TSA and DHS officials who are no longer required to follow the party line are coming out and saying that profiling has been known internally to be second rate for many years. This happened as late as just the other day in an interview on CNN.

lowing wrote:

As for your second link I read the first sentence under the title and agree with it. We need to question behaior and not skin color.

As proof to my point on the issue of profileing and PC

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/01/01/fa … index.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/ … 2120.shtml

both incidents were muslims removed for strange behavior, and these airlines caught hell for it. This is why PC is so dangerous. If these planes had continued and something happened, these airlines would have caught hell for letting them on. It is a no win situation unless you remove PC and accept the times in which we live today.

It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with the wholly unamerican act of throwing people off planes simply because they look and speak differently. Somewhat like the Nigerian man who was forcefully detained and questioned because he committed a crime as atrocious as flying while Nigerian with a stomach infection that required him to spend extra time in the bathroom. Or the two gentlemen of Middle Eastern descent who were kicked off simply for speaking an Arabic language. Both in the panicked frenzy following the recent attempted attack. Both a product of the culture of fear that this kind of racial and geographical profiling contributes to.

It has nothing to do with political correctness; it has to do with treating people like people. The way you go about this makes it sound like you were all for Japanese internment camps as well.

lowing wrote:

<snipped spam>

I don't understand what makes you think that I'll accept something like this partial diatribe as having any value at all. It simply echoes contented sentiments that are largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The objective isn't to prevent Islamic terrorism. The objective is to prevent terrorism of any kind.

your first link was not proof of your comment it merely another opinion that agreed with you. Nothing more.

You did not address the damned if you do damned if you don't spirit of this paragraph. People are too choked up with PC to act deliberately, effectively and forcefully. and yes, given the times that we were in, I can understand the internment of the Japanese. Only in hindsight, has it been proven to be wrong.

Unfortunately, ISLAMIC terrorism is the flavor of the era, as proven by the links provided.

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

might want to read your first link again, the commetns section already riped it a new ass, it is already being argued there I see no need to argue it here as well.

I did read my first link, and of course there are people disagreeing in the comments section, as there are people disagreeing to anything, anywhere. That's a very weak rebuttal, lowing. Even former TSA and DHS officials who are no longer required to follow the party line are coming out and saying that profiling has been known internally to be second rate for many years. This happened as late as just the other day in an interview on CNN.

lowing wrote:

As for your second link I read the first sentence under the title and agree with it. We need to question behaior and not skin color.

As proof to my point on the issue of profileing and PC

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/01/01/fa … index.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/ … 2120.shtml

both incidents were muslims removed for strange behavior, and these airlines caught hell for it. This is why PC is so dangerous. If these planes had continued and something happened, these airlines would have caught hell for letting them on. It is a no win situation unless you remove PC and accept the times in which we live today.

It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with the wholly unamerican act of throwing people off planes simply because they look and speak differently. Somewhat like the Nigerian man who was forcefully detained and questioned because he committed a crime as atrocious as flying while Nigerian with a stomach infection that required him to spend extra time in the bathroom. Or the two gentlemen of Middle Eastern descent who were kicked off simply for speaking an Arabic language. Both in the panicked frenzy following the recent attempted attack. Both a product of the culture of fear that this kind of racial and geographical profiling contributes to.

It has nothing to do with political correctness; it has to do with treating people like people. The way you go about this makes it sound like you were all for Japanese internment camps as well.

lowing wrote:

<snipped spam>

I don't understand what makes you think that I'll accept something like this partial diatribe as having any value at all. It simply echoes contented sentiments that are largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The objective isn't to prevent Islamic terrorism. The objective is to prevent terrorism of any kind.

your first link was not proof of your comment it merely another opinion that agreed with you. Nothing more.

My first link was the educated opinion of a very widely recognised and respected security researcher.

lowing wrote:

You did not address the damned if you do damned if you don't spirit of this paragraph. People are too choked up with PC to act deliberately, effectively and forcefully. and yes, given the times that we were in, I can understand the internment of the Japanese. Only in hindsight, has it been proven to be wrong.

Unfortunately, ISLAMIC terrorism is the flavor of the era, as proven by the links provided.

It was addressed. You simply do not seem to agree.

There were also loyalists to the empire in the United States during the second world war. As you said, history has proven that it is wrong to penalise the many for the actions of the few. Those tactics are commonly thought to be reserved for malevolent dictatorships and equally oppressive regimes.

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

might want to read your first link again, the commetns section already riped it a new ass, it is already being argued there I see no need to argue it here as well.

I did read my first link, and of course there are people disagreeing in the comments section, as there are people disagreeing to anything, anywhere. That's a very weak rebuttal, lowing. Even former TSA and DHS officials who are no longer required to follow the party line are coming out and saying that profiling has been known internally to be second rate for many years. This happened as late as just the other day in an interview on CNN.


It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with the wholly unamerican act of throwing people off planes simply because they look and speak differently. Somewhat like the Nigerian man who was forcefully detained and questioned because he committed a crime as atrocious as flying while Nigerian with a stomach infection that required him to spend extra time in the bathroom. Or the two gentlemen of Middle Eastern descent who were kicked off simply for speaking an Arabic language. Both in the panicked frenzy following the recent attempted attack. Both a product of the culture of fear that this kind of racial and geographical profiling contributes to.

It has nothing to do with political correctness; it has to do with treating people like people. The way you go about this makes it sound like you were all for Japanese internment camps as well.


I don't understand what makes you think that I'll accept something like this partial diatribe as having any value at all. It simply echoes contented sentiments that are largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The objective isn't to prevent Islamic terrorism. The objective is to prevent terrorism of any kind.

your first link was not proof of your comment it merely another opinion that agreed with you. Nothing more.

My first link was the educated opinion of a very widely recognised and respected security researcher.

lowing wrote:

You did not address the damned if you do damned if you don't spirit of this paragraph. People are too choked up with PC to act deliberately, effectively and forcefully. and yes, given the times that we were in, I can understand the internment of the Japanese. Only in hindsight, has it been proven to be wrong.

Unfortunately, ISLAMIC terrorism is the flavor of the era, as proven by the links provided.

It was addressed. You simply do not seem to agree.

There were also loyalists to the empire in the United States during the second world war. As you said, history has proven that it is wrong to penalise the many for the actions of the few. Those tactics are commonly thought to be reserved for malevolent dictatorships and equally oppressive regimes.

Ahhh yes, back to "the few". Here is the thing, if it were only "a few" we would not have the problems with Islam that we have. It is more than "a few" that carry out these attacks. It is the many who support them both in opinion, prayer, finance, shelter, arms, training. etc. So please cut the, it is only "a few" bullshit would you please? The KKK was only " a few" who has been reduced to nothing by public opinion and lack of support. It would seem that Islam could do the same thing, if it were truely only "a few".

Last edited by lowing (2009-12-30 18:54:47)

Lowing the US doesn't have a problem with Islam, it has a problem with terrorism. I think you need to make the distinction. A few hundred out of 1.4 Billion Muslims does not mean the US is at war with Islam.

Also, if you insist on screening every single Muslim or person of middle eastern appearance do you realise the time and manpower required? the delays in airports? the removal of rights to regular people and US citizens based simply on their beliefs? that is bullshit.

When you ask American's what they love about america etc etc, most say freedom. How is profiling, screening and searching US citizens or citizens or allied nations based on their religion free? How about we in Australia and Europe start screening American's because of their higher murder rates, more frequent massacres and home grown terrorist attacks. I'm sure you'd be disgusted if it was YOUR civil liberties and freedoms being impinged upon.

(Apologies if this has been discussed before, I have not read the entire thread)

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

your first link was not proof of your comment it merely another opinion that agreed with you. Nothing more.

My first link was the educated opinion of a very widely recognised and respected security researcher.


It was addressed. You simply do not seem to agree.

There were also loyalists to the empire in the United States during the second world war. As you said, history has proven that it is wrong to penalise the many for the actions of the few. Those tactics are commonly thought to be reserved for malevolent dictatorships and equally oppressive regimes.

Ahhh yes, back to "the few". Here is the thing, if it were only "a few" we would not have the problems with Islam that we have. It is more than "a few" that carry out these attacks. It is the many who support them both in opinion, prayer, finance, shelter, arms, training. etc. So please cut the, it is only "a few" bullshit would you please? The KKK was only " a few" who has been reduced to nothing by public opinion and lack of support. It would seem that Islam could do the same thing, if it were truely only "a few".

We do not have "the problems with Islam that we have". You need to stop projecting your paranoid delusions onto the real world, because things are different here. You can be pretty certain that if hundreds of millions of Muslims supported terrorist organisations with "opinion, prayer, finance, shelter, arms, training. etc", then you would see a lot more action than just one attempt at American soil every other year.

I know how rabid you get with your vivid imagination, so let's just stop here. I have no interest in entertaining you in this regard.

Yeah, I forgot to add, you're delusional" and you're paranoid" to the list of arguments made by liberals.

A Muslim does not need to do all the things listedm to support Islamic bullshit. Even if it is just opinion, it still is support. I offer the "American moderate Muslims" who you would list as moderate and non threatening, who supported the FT Hood terrorist attack as evidence.

lowing wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

Lowing the US doesn't have a problem with Islam, it has a problem with terrorism. I think you need to make the distinction. A few hundred out of 1.4 Billion Muslims does not mean the US is at war with Islam.

Also, if you insist on screening every single Muslim or person of middle eastern appearance do you realise the time and manpower required? the delays in airports? the removal of rights to regular people and US citizens based simply on their beliefs? that is bullshit.

When you ask American's what they love about america etc etc, most say freedom. How is profiling, screening and searching US citizens or citizens or allied nations based on their religion free? How about we in Australia and Europe start screening American's because of their higher murder rates, more frequent massacres and home grown terrorist attacks. I'm sure you'd be disgusted if it was YOUR civil liberties and freedoms being impinged upon.

(Apologies if this has been discussed before, I have not read the entire thread)

No it has a probelm with ISLAMIC terrorism. To deny this is nothing more than head in the sand non-sense.

It is not just terrorism, it is the encroachment of Islam. I mean if you claim 1.4 billion, they gotta be going somewhere right? and it has already been concluded that westersn society and Islamic culture do not mix.

As far as screenings go, I don't give a shit how long it takes. You act as if 1.4 billion Muslims are all flying at the same time, on the same plane.

Because Islam is not just a religion, we have been over this. It is a way of life and a belief that does not mesh wirh western freedoms and tolerances.

If people like me were blowing up planes, markets and buildings, I would expect to be profiled.

If you do not want to deal profiling during this time of war, take your ass back to the Islamic culture, ( you love so much) filled country and stay there. Islam and its backpeddling, intolerant, stone age bullshit is not wanted or needed or appreciated here.

So say for example, some people from a different country, a different culture, a different political view, but shared the same religion as you had attacked a country a half dozen times. You would expect to be profiled?

If Islam is so diametrically opposed to the West CULTURE. Then why is Islamic terrorism only a relatively recent development? Is it perhaps rather perceived injustices and the unbalance of power and wealth? Perhaps due to America's constant interference in the Middle East? If it truly was Islam that was against western culture, then why have they not being attacking for hundreds of years? Why could Christians and Muslims live side by side without killing each other (and still do)

Because no one killed anyone before the 20th century right?