The Ethics of Profiling
But why is our government so hesitant to trust us? Haven’t we proven our tolerance and magnanimity already? After 9/11, was there any sustained retaliatory violence against Muslims? Is there much concrete anti-Muslim backlash today? Did we put Muslims in concentration camps, as Bruce Willis does in The Siege — or as FDR did to Japanese-Americans during World War II? I see Muslims every day. I’ve never seen anyone bother or heckle them. By any historical standard, our national reaction to Islamic terrorism has been tame and prudent.
Americans aren’t asking for a green light to discriminate against Muslims. We simply want security officials to stop asking Grandma to take her clothes off at the airport. The government is willfully violating the privacy and liberties of hundreds of millions of law-abiding citizens, all out of fear of appearing to undercut our own notions of tolerance and diversity — notions our adversaries exploit. Such exploitation makes profiling all the more necessary and morally urgent. Al-Qaeda has been known to use men of varying nationalities — the most recent example, a baby-faced Nigerian — in order to “throw off” our collective suspicions. By profiling suspected terrorists in an intelligent manner, we are simply keeping pace with al-Qaeda’s deadly trickery.
Profiling does not promote bigotry or ignorance either. To the contrary, profiling helps fight ignorance — in that it necessitates greater knowledge about the enemy. Profiling requires Americans to become more learned about Islamic terrorism, which is a good thing, an ethical thing. How many Americans, for instance, could tell the difference between a Sunni jihadist and a Shiite jihadist, or between Arabic and Farsi?
Such knowledge is important, particularly for the civilian who must determine whether or not to act in order to prevent an attack. It’s important for citizens to be able to distinguish between a Hezbollah operative and an al-Qaeda operative, to be able to differentiate between an Abu Sayyaf operative and a Jemmah Islamiyah operative. Americans ought to know what would-be suicide bombers look like on the day of martyrdom (they’re usually clean-shaven and wear Western clothing).
When the government encourages a culture that scorns such profiling, we end up with ignoramuses confusing Sikhism with Salafism, accusing Indian Punjabis of being terrorists because they’re brown, wear turbans, and have beards — and consequently making a mess of it all. In other words, only educated profiling can end racist profiling. It should be encouraged of citizens and institutionalized, in some manner, by the government.
When one considers how antithetical to the Koran is to the Constitution and that it promotes violence and bloodshed, wouldn’t it be prudent to stop their immigration right now?
I know Hussein isn’t going to do that. I suspect that with Hussein in charge that the only criterion for immigrating is being Muslim.
We are repeatedly told how most Muslims are moderate peace loving people and it is only a small minority that are the radical violent extremists. The problem is that the silence from the so called moderates is deafening. How are we to differentiate between silent condemnation and tacit approval? Since this can not be done the only alternative is to approach the situation as if all Muslims are radical terrorists. It is a far better idea to inconvenience some moderates than to allow innocent people to die.
I’d be happy if at the very least they dropped their political correctness and at the minimum went after the folks who were waving the huge neon lit flags that said ” I’M A MUSLIM AND AM GOING TO KILL ” The Fort Hood shooter comes to mind
Two observations.
The first is that ISLAM is an enemy ideology, hostile & aggressive. ISLAM is at war with us, like it or not. Just like we had to fight Nazism & later Communism, we must fight Islam. Islam (the ideology) should not be welcome anywhere in the West. We need to redefine our ideas about freedom of religion. Pretending that Islam is just another religious tradition is a denial of reality.
The second observation is just plain common sense. I would hate to get killed or have any of my family, friends, or community killed or injured because of idiot ideas of political correctness. BS rhetoric is no consolation to the victims of terrorism.
Your thoughts are nice, but I’m afraid that we’re never going to do what you suggest. My favorite is when the airport security people stop a celebrity, randomly or because they do something that sets bells off, and they persist in searching the person *after* they’re recognized, because that’s procedure. I repeat what I’ve been saying for a while now: airport security isn’t designed to catch terrorists; it’s designed to inconvenience the traveling public randomly and “fairly”. When they’re looking for an Arab who might be a terrorist, and they stop a Swedish supermodel, while waving the guy in the burnoose through without more than a cursory search, our friends on the left smile, because that proves how even-handed our country is. It also proves how stupid we are, but they don’t see it that way.
Terrorists and bigots usually have names like Nicholas Guariglia. Let’s recognize that and act on it.
There is little sense in seriously considering a quadriplegic as a viable suspect in a burglary. Two-year-old children do not hold up liquor stores, old 80 pound ladies don’t normally mug 200 pound karate experts in a back alley, and black people are not likely to murder others of their same race on behalf of Ku Klux Klan ideology. Human beings must prioritize. We have no choice since there are inherently limited resources and time available. We simply must determine the likelihood of particular people committing specific violations against our codes of conduct.
I am mostly of German background. It would have made sense for the authorities during the late 1930s to minimally consider me as a possible ardent supporter of Adolph Hitler—instead of a Jewish-American citizen. It’s all about focusing on the probabilities. A modern day Lutheran or a Reform Jew will probably not be ordered by their religious authorities to perform a suicide bombing of a nursery school. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Muslims.
The “Duh!” of the year!
We simply MUST profile ALL muslims. Make ‘em come to the airport 5 hrs. early & hire some retired El Al people to do the interviews. Right now, a bunch of monkeys could provide more security that the TSA clowns.
Case in point-they took my son’s toy rubber sword away a coupla yrs. ago, but let my wife go with a pocket knife in her carry on…go figure!
We need safe travel. Not more scanners, strip searches, or body cavity searches. 100% of terrorists that try to hijack flights are muslims. Deal with it O! It is called reality!
With all due respect sir, these people in charge of the government believe the crap they are spewing .Let’s continue to search granny coming from Ireland and let Mohammed Aqkbar from Somalia have a pass. PC used to be a joke now it will kill us.
The “ignoramuses” are the bureau-rats — 100% Liberals.
The Civil Service ought to be the ones unprotected, not the public.
Get rid of the Civil Service union rules, halve their salaries and fire 90% of them, THEN you’ll see how fast public safety rises and public debt falls.
Eminently sensible suggestions in this column. However, they are entirely anathema to the powers that be. The current administration is highly unlikely to try anything even remotely resembling ‘profiling’, because to characterize the enemy as following the tenets of Islam violates political correctness and every principle held dear by those left of the political center. In addition, such a factually-correct statement, i.e. “most terrorists are Muslim” in our PC-addled culture will be accused as ‘Islamophobia’, which has been stylized as an affliction when it is anything but.
Islamophobia is precisely what is needed, right now, in order to defend our civilization, and prevent more so-called ‘isolated extremists’ from attempting to commit or actually commit mass murder.
Expecting Team Obama to see the light on this life or death issue (or much of anything else, come to think of it) is about the same as expecting an alcoholic to sober up in a bar on his own–i.e. it’s theoretically feasible, but a virtual impossibility.
I’m with you in this.
PCness must be stopped before more Americans are killed by Islamic Terrorists.
My solution is to make everyone eat a pack of pork rinds before they board any airplane. It seems like a cheap and simple solution.
When will you people face reality? Is it not obvious that the triumph of Islam is inevitable?
Every day, more Muslims enter this country. Every day Muslim babies are born while you kill your children in unholy abortion mills.
Every day more mosques are built while your churches are converted into mosques, fall into disrepair, or are used as public latrines.
You must cease oppressing Muslims. You must cease insulting Allah (swt) and His Prophet (saw). You must cease warring against Allah (swt) and fighting the spread of Islam.
You must discard your man-made laws and systems of government and implement Allah’s (swt) Law (Sharia).
Time grows short. Renounce your false religions now. Embrace Islam and live in peace in submission to the will of Almighty Allah (swt).
Your grandchildren will be Muslim.
Allahu akbar!
Want to end the stricture against racial profiling? The American public should demand that on each flight originating in Europe or continuing from the ME, have on board: three members of the Cong. Black Caucus, three liberal members of Congress, three memebers of the ACLU, two from the ADL, two staffers from each the WaPo and NYT and one each from the HuffPo and Kos, CAP and Media Matters.
Then for each innocent American who is murdered, we hold the ACLU and the liberal members of Congress and the MSM personally responsible for any damages that the families can recoup for negligence.
The left is allowed to play out their fantasies because we-the American public-never hold them personally responsible for their actions. They are like petulant children.
What, what a great idea — that will open the door for all sorts of long-needed profiling:
1) Republican Presidents — both Bushes and Reagan are responsible for massive amounts of deaths and destruction in other countries, supposedly as a side effect of putting US interests ahead of anything else, but it’s been actually mostly due to incompetent and corrupt foreign policy, and the use of eye-rollingly idiotic think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute. Factor in the long term consequences of their “greed is good” wink-wink, nudge-nudge attitude towards big business and the financial industry and the answer is clear: no more Republican Presidents.
2) Conservative media — the rise of conservative/right wing media has made being well informed more difficult than ever before, despite all the easy access to massive amounts of online information. The right wing mediasphere is characterized by a complete disregard of journalistic standards in order to relentlessly promote political agendas: no real research; no real attempts to verify; rumors and anecdotes, however unlikely, are freely and quickly passed along; opinions are equated with facts; science is all politicized with scientists being the bad guys; Google search results are littered with faux news and science “coverage;” Wikipedia articles are constantly attacked by right wing puppet editors; political opponents and rival media are chronically and often viciously mocked and smeared; the already weakened mainstream corporate media is more and more bullied into giving coverage to imaginary controversies manufactured by right wing politicians & media; and the general public has been increasingly polarized by not being able to sort out facts from fiction, making on-point, meaningful discussions and debates difficult if not impossible. The conservative & right wing media have proven to be a mockery of a Free Press so the answer here is again very clear — no more conservative & right wing media.
If we are going to start to profile people, why not deal with the real troublemakers, eh?
“In other words, only educated profiling can end racist profiling. It should be encouraged of citizens and institutionalized, in some manner, by the government.”
I guess it has not occurred to anybody at W.N.U.[*] that one might possibly have profilin’ conducted by neo-educated racists.
As to the individual specimen, it is difficult not to suspect that it is worried about _jihád_ careerism not turnin’ out quite as well as expected. [**]
But Father Zeus knows best.
Healthy days.
___
[*] Wombschool Normal University, http://tinyurl.com/3al44t _et passim_
[**] ‘Tis striking to find a card-carryin’ neocomrade recommendin’ that the evil Fedguv ‘institutionalize’ anythin’ whatever.
Planet Dilbert and Castle Podhóretz should maybe try to get their _shtyk_ together a little more rigorously?
But why is our government so hesitant to trust us?
…because the government is where the racists are. they tend to be liberal/socialist/useful idiots of marxism or actually marxists.
those who call for equity and afirmative action are the ones in control now. THEY ARE THE RACISTS.
Uh, uh, uh! We apparently have a P.C. suicide pact to honor and logic is not allowed. Seriously, what you say only makes sense. So we won’t do any of it, right? Bend over Granny. Right this way, Mohammed. Have a nice flight!
What you said!!!!!
Additionally, we as average American citizens profile everyday in the course of normal living. We profile in selecting our grocery store (price, location, service, etc.), our gas station (price, location), our clothing store (styles, price, quality, etc.). I personally consider ‘profiling’ nothing more than “observing and choosing” based on a number of factors concerning the subject.
Stretching it to mean ‘racism’ is simply a straw man to appease the far left radicals/progressives.
When will you people face reality? Is it not obvious that the triumph of Islam is inevitable?
Every day, more Muslims enter this country. Every day Muslim babies are born while you kill your children in unholy abortion mills.
Every day more mosques are built while your churches are converted into mosques, fall into disrepair, or are used as public latrines.
You must cease oppressing Muslims. You must cease insulting Allah (swt) and His Prophet (saw). You must cease warring against Allah (swt) and fighting the spread of Islam.
You must discard your man-made laws and systems of government and implement Allah’s (swt) Law (Sharia).
Time grows short. Renounce your false religions. Embrace Islam now and live in peace in submission to the will of Almighty Allah (swt).
Your grandchildren will be Muslim.
Allahu akbar!
Indeed, the incentives imposed are perverse — remember the Flying Imams, who were, in my view, engaged in deliberately provocative behavior:
“The case of the flying imams who were removed in November 2006 from a USAirways flight in Minneapolis for questioning by law enforcement authorities concluded in the Minnesota federal district court before Judge Ann Montgomery. The parties arrived at a settlement of the case on October 20 in a court-supervised conference. The amounts paid by the defendants remain confidential.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/148tyfxg.asp
When I first read about the Finland story in CNN, the copy somberly announced that in Finland there are more than 2 millions fire arms at a population of around five millions – that appeared to be the true theme of the piece.
Then the piece casually mentioned that the murderer, one Ibrahim xxxxx had been living in the country for long, etc., etc.
It’s true, Ibrahim is not someone of Mid-Eastern or other stock commonly associated with Islam. Yet, while he is/was an Albanian, that is a Caucasian, his personal ideological makeup is that of a Muslim – most than half of Alanians are Muslim and have been hystorically Muslim, Turkish soldiers -
Don’t sterotype – yeah -
Yet don’t tell the police not use composites -
“Terrorists are usually Muslim. Let’s recognize that and act on it.”
Sure. And, in the US, criminals are usually christian. See the problem yet?
Look up the logical fallacy of “abduction”.
(I’m seriously hoping someone tries to deny that claim about crime and christianity … go on, you know you want to)
Re #13/Never for Obama:
[...] My solution is to make everyone eat a pack of pork rinds before they board any airplane. It seems like a cheap and simple solution. [...]
Tell you, you’re spot on – mandatory spraying with bacon juice would do it better than who knows what cultural sensitivity training -
Regards
At the core of the opposition to “profiling” is a suspicion of bigotry. When it comes to protecting citizens from terrorists, however, that presumption is bogus.
How many little old ladies have recently (ever?) attempted to blow up airliners? How many extremists — in the name of Christianity or Judaism — have in the last century lopped off the heads of “infidels?”
No, it’s not a form of prejudice to direct the greatest attention toward those most likely (by virtue of their gender, age, ethnicity, religion, or national origin, etc.) to commit heinous acts. Rather, it is a reflection of prudence.
Besides, the sensitivities behind the reluctance to offend do extend to ALL demographics. Mara Liasson (of NPR) and Kirsten Powers (political “strategist”)– both liberal Democrats — do not hesitate to insult white males. See: http://bereapundit.com/essays-politics/bigotry-is-bigotry/
And, come to think of it, the sloshed drunks pulled over in the ubiquitous “Sir, have you been drinking this evening” PSA ads are all of similar race and gender. It seems that the makers of those “public service announcements” believe that blacks, Asians, Latinos — and women of every kind — all drink responsibly. In their minds, it is only white males who threaten the rest of society with irresponsible imbibing.
Where’s the outrage over that? Oh, that’s right: the “PC police” selectively enforce sensitivity rules.
When protecting civil liberties override security demands, applying logic & reason to format solutions or improvements is highly unlikely.
#6 Hootchie Koochie say: “Terrorists and bigots usually have names like Nicholas Guariglia.”
You say the silliest things, Mr. Koochie. They don’t have names like that at all. You know exactly what kind of names they have, now don’t you? DON’T YOU? Anyway this piece doesn’t say anything about profiling people solely because of their names. One might almost get a notion you are just not a serious person.
Rational profiling is mandatory—but of limited value because of Griggs vs. Duke Power and other affirmative action “remedies” mandated by law. The TSA is legally forced to hire inferior minority applicants. As a practical matter, they are not really tested. Only their credentials, which may be more fraudulent than a three-dollar bill, are relevant.
Let’s say 99% of Islamics are peaceful and 1% are deadly terrorists: profiling works. Why take a chance? Forgiving a 1% will make you 100% dead!
Profiling? Oh, NOOOO!
You CAN’T do THAT!
aholes usually have names like #6 kochevnik , let’s recognize that and act on it.
The average American will have no problems with profiling now that the administration has proven itself unable to do so.
http://tinyurl.com/yaro38h
Let’s try that again. Since the mocking quality of my last post must have been deeply offensive to Moe’s followers.( maybe Curly and Larry’s also); I’ll try again.
Dear Mr. American Muslim sir, we live in a rollicking, boisterous democratic society where your dictates of what we MUST do will only gain you scorn and ridicule. Now sir would you please get in line to be wanded.
Effective airport screening will have one major effect; it will cause our Muslim enemies to choose a different method of attack. This is a human enemy who will react and change strategy and tactics as we adjust. Some day, when we succeed at airport security, we’ll have to learn somethibg like shopping mall security. As soon as we’ve mastered mall security, we’ll face some other threat. The attacker has the advantage here. As long as the TSA strategy is focused on the last attack, our enemies will continue to evolve new tactics.
Steve
Send the Liberals down road,and do what is needed for our safety.
Hey BC, I’m going to go ahead and assume that you consider “neo nazis” right wing. Am I correct?
BC
You have dreamed of a very simple way to solve all our problems. 1. No more elections. 2. No more constitution and rule of law. You are too late-the other communist already thought of that.
All these suspects share several common characteristics: 1) they were relatively wealthy; 2) they were highly educated; and 3) they were all Muslim. Stating this aloud does not make one a racist. It proves one to be an empiricist.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. You’ve chosen the handful of cases that prove your point, and rejected those that actually negate it. That’s the opposite of empiricism. Indeed, that’s the exact same kind of blind and stupid fear, driven by a bigoted need to scapegoat, that’s done nothing to keep us safer, but done everything possible to erode our American way of life. The following were of varying economic means, some were even poor. Others were ex convicts, a characteristic completely at odds with other profiles of terrorists.
1. Najibullah Zazi. Zazi, a 24-year-old Afghani, was arrested after purchasing large quantities of chemicals used to make a TATP bomb, the same type of weapon used in the 2005 bombing of the London Underground and the 2001 “shoe bomb” plot. Zazi had traveled to Pakistan, where he received instruction in bomb making and attended an al-Qaeda training camp. Zazi allegedly planned to detonate TATP bombs on the New York City subway.
2. Hosam Maher Husein Smadi. Smadi, a 19-year-old Jordanian, was apprehended last week in an attempt to plant a bomb in a Dallas skyscraper. He was arrested and charged after agents posing as terror cell members gave Smadi a fake bomb, which he later attempted to detonate.
3. Michael Finton. Finton, an American citizen, was arrested on September 23 by undercover FBI agents after attempting to detonate a car bomb filled with what he believed to be close to one ton of explosives outside of the Paul Findley Federal Building and Courthouse in downtown Springfield, Illinois. Evidence presented against Finton has shown that he expressed a desire to become a jihadist fighter and was aware that his planned attack would cause civilian injuries. He has been arrested on charges of attempted murder of federal employees and attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/wm2634.cfm
Indeed, the Bronx synagogue case, another case that would have completely failed if based on the profiline you offer here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/nyregion/21arrests.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=aspirational&st=cse
The Fort Dix Six, more men of low economic status. JFK airport, baggage attendants, and indeed, one was illiterate. The Lodi case, where the perpetrators were agricultural workers. Finally, in the most famous foiled attack and one that mirrors exactly the current case where the perpetrator is said to be the perfect argument for profiling, Richard Reid. Richard Reid was the son of a Jamaican car thief and had been in prison himself. Indeed, any person out to actually prove that their opinion has some merit, would immediately eschew the idea of profiling based on Islam and income, because of the overwhelming amount of evidence that income plays almost no discernible factor. What you are left with is Islam. And unfortunatley, with nearly thirty percent of the globe being muslim, you’ll have a hard time profiling them unless you target them specifically. Our country is based on not doing that, on not making others of similar background pay for the crimes of others, who share no other connection but religion or ethnicity. What our country is based on is personal liberty. People died for that liberty, proving that liberty itself is more important than security at the cost of freedom. Your a liar and a hack.
Usually? Like 99.44 % pure muslim is what terrorists are.
The prime directive of Islam:
Bukhari (8:387) – Allah’s Apostle Muhammed said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’”
Can this mandate for global subjugation of everyone and everthing anywhere that is not Islamic be any more crystal clear?
Fight what people?
Fight them where?
Fight them for how long?
The answers are obvious.
~ The Infidel Alliance
14…boooooooooooooooooooooo
15…ditto
Deuteronomy 14:8 …the Christian Bible…they don’t pay attention or heed.
I think Muslims and Jews hold true to the pork thing…soooo Have them eat a bag of pork rinds..yeah..good idea..Pork Airlines
…oh wait, Muslims are liars and destroyers of good..so it wouldn’t matter to them..Seriously, what other religion in modern history kills to spread their “religion”… totally disgusting
Carol, if you were literate, you would find the answer to your question by reading the old testament. One of the funniest things in the world to me is a Christian complaining about what’s in the Koran, as if they’ve never read the hundreds of commands to stone women, ostracize prostitutes and gays, slaughter women and children and subjugate just about anyone for any reason.
Blovis @ #39, I agree with you overall. You could make an argument that several profiles of Muslims exist, 1. rich, affluent, educated 2. poor, ethnically muslim, non educated 3. poor, criminal, converted, etcetera. But one would really be arguing is that there is no profile. Indeed, its a pretty ridiculous conversation in any case, since the bulk of terrorist violence in the world is not actually related to Islam at all, but motivated by the drug trade and most of it in Latin America. That’s an obvious fact that doesn’t interest most of the people who read this tripe, simply because they’re favorite judas goat right now is Islam, not “wetbacks”.
You’re correct in noting how absolutely useless Guariglia’s analysis is. I would get a better conversation from my neighbor, a hairdresser. I’m not actually making that up; Guariglia would be embarrassed to bring this game anywhere else but a forum like this. He would be laughed out of a room with even conservative experts on terrorism.
Just one problem with this proposal – how to implement it. Islam is a religion practiced by people of all races and languages, just like Christianity and Judaism and Secular Humanism and Atheism. If some hirabi is carrying a bomb, do you think they will advertise their religious affiliation? How do you propose to make this effective when any practical terrorist will make every effort to look and act like you?
6. kochevnik.
“Let’s recognize that and act on it.”
Get your spurs, whip, and saddle kochevnik and ride Pee Wee moho – Anon – Shawn Ondeen Whatever’s Alice Nolin Twilight Zone Dummy over the cliff at the next politically correct Modern Liberal cattle drive at the local airport.
“…act on it.”
“Let’s” is ‘let us’. This is not about us. It is about Them. Them and Us, Left and Right.
Porkov beat me to the punch. How do you identify a Muslim? As you admitted in your article, there are converts and there are people who don’t “look muslim.”
Most doctor killers are white male Christians.
“Let’s” is ‘let us’. This is not about us. It is about Them. Them and Us, Left and Right.
Of course its about us, you fool. Who else would it be about? Who else is considering legislation and security protocols? Stupid.
“Profiling” as practiced by Israeli security is a complex art/science and it doesn’t take into consideration people’s religious affiliation ONLY.
We must learn from Israel’s experience.
Of course, NOT profiling at all means that we are going to be attacked MANY more times.
And those who are against any and every profiling are the usual suspects: all kinds of America haters, subversives, friends of terrorists.
The large majority of the present administration belongs to this last group, so we know already what we are going to see.
“As you admitted in your article, there are converts and there are people who don’t “look muslim.”
Intelligent profiling takes that in consideration. That is why the professionals do not focus exclusively on race and ethnicity. It is only one factor of many. There is little doubt that we will eventually be confronted by a blue eyed and blond haired Muslim terrorist. It’s just a question of time.
Matthew responds to, “Terrorists are usually Muslim. Let’s recognize that and act on it.”
with “Sure. And, in the US, criminals are usually christian. See the problem yet?”
This is what we’d call in logic a false analogy. Christians make up over 90% of the US population, so given a random distribution of criminality, most criminals would turn out to be christians.The proper approach would be to look for those deviations from random distribution. Consider the following:
Jews make up some 0.2% of the world’s population, near 0% of the world’s terrorists, but earn over 20% of the Nobel Prizes. Muslims make up some 20% of the world’s population, carry out over 95% of the terrorist attacks (Tamil Tigers and South American drug lords most of the rest), but earn only 1% of the Nobel Prizes (and Arafat was one!). But we’re all just the same, right?
Oh, and the suggestions of #13 and #25 for pork rinds and bacon juice before flying is absurd. A determined jihadist will “take one for Allah”, while offending vegetarians (including peaceful Hindus and Buddhists) as well as traditional Jews for no purpose.
Everybody profiles every day. There’s not a single liberal in the world who would allow himself to be walking alone in Harlem at 1:00 a.m. I really don’t know what their diseased brains tell themselves about why they avoid black areas at night (or any time), but something productive must be happening somewhere within their neural networks, because they aren’t dead yet. Which they would be if they really believed one-tenth of the crap which they so righteously insist that we believe.
#54 Shrewsbury
Amazing. You can speak the truth and you can say what everybody knows but nobody would admit in a zillion years.
You must be from another planet.
25. That’s disgusting. Far easier to simply post bomb sniffing DOGS at the security posts. Don’t want to get sniffed by a dog? Then you have to submit to a strip search or else you don’t get on the plane.
“There’s not a single liberal in the world who would allow himself to be walking alone in Harlem at 1:00 a.m.”
That would definitely included Jesse Jackson. The infamous man of God once candidly admitted that he was frightened of seeing black guys walking down a dark street. All liberals agree that it is not smart to walk alone in Harlem at 1:00 AM—but they might lie about it.
39. Blovis.
“You don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Does Pee Wee moho – Blovis – Shawn Ondeen Whatever’s Alice Nolin Twilight Zone Dummy know Van Jones too?
“You don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Maybe Van Jones has a solution. Think so?
“You don’t know what you’re talking about.”
“…driven by a bigoted need to scapegoat…” Toothless Appalachian Hillbillies, anyone? Where did that go?
And could you supply some informative links to the “real” threat, muggers with guns? Remember, only Blovis style “Courage and Intelligence” will solve all Man-Caused Disaster disasters.
Nurse Nancy. Wannabe Jihad. Bolvis. Alice. Whatever. “Your a liar and a hack”, funhouse mirror.
43…
i said, “modern history”. I am not a Christian, I do not believe in their book or writings. I dont’ care what they do to each other, I DO care what they do to me and mine. غبي
We have a religion here started a couple of hundred years ago by a man looking into his hat in the woods. He was a “seerer”, a drunk, a shyster, yet he claimed angels spoke to him, showed him some tablets hidden in the ground…that no one knows anything about…or has seen…yet he started a religion that is now world wide..They wrote their own form of a “bible”. It’s a world wide religion!!.. Here if you do not belong to that church, you don’t get included in things, and sometimes people actually refuse to speak to you..although they don’t condone stoning ..
We need to follow what we know is right and look beyond the box into right and wrong. What Muslims are up to is wrong, period.
maybe I’ll start a new religion because while making salsa today, an onion will speak to me… It’s all riduclous , غبي!! Just love yourself and respect the people around you.
Religion is the greatest profiler…Muslims are proving that daily.
The question for 2010 is should democrats be in charge of national security. Here is my post concerning the issue:
http://truthandcommonsense.com/2010/01/03/the-question-of-the-new-year-can-partisan-democrats-be-allowed-to-handle-national-security/
The question is a good one. Can people who are almost psychotically attached to their worldview even though it has been proven a failure and a danger be allowed to protect us? Obama’s new playbook has been read by the terrorists and they get it. As Krauhthammer said it is madness;
“This is all quite mad even in Obama’s terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant.
The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator — no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the very act of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just from execution by drone but even from interrogation.”
Even the most dirty, backwater, illiterate terrorist gets it. If they are on foreign soil they may catch a Hellfire in the noggin. If they are here attacking U.S. citizens on our own soil, all they face is arrest and a free lawyer. In addition, in prison they will be considered heroes by the radicalized prisoners, thus giving them what many leftie opinion and excuse makers say they crave- acceptance and attention.
So what is the downside for them coming here and killing us in our churches, malls and at work? Nothing. And therein lies the danger. Like I said in my blog, Obama and his family won’t suffer, Pelosi won’t suffer, heads of corporations that support Obama won’t suffer. They all have personal security, private jets and I doubt you’ll see any of them at a mall or church. It will be some poor drone minding his or her own business that will catch it in the teeth. 2010 is going to be a very interesting year for all of us. We need to buckle up.
Wake up people Islam is and has always been spread by the sword. One of it’s tenants is convert or die. If you want to negotiate a compromise with someone who wants you dead where is the middle ground, paralyzed from the neck up?
That people would actually argue against profiling is astonishing–the attempt to do so can only be based upon 1) the silly claim that profiling can never be 100% effective; or, 2) the ACLU on steroids claim that profiling violates someone’s civil rights. The larger principle here involves something that has been completely lost in this country–leaving the decisions to those who will be most accountable for and/or suffer the consequences the most from them. If we were to ask serious, thoughtful, trained security professionals (without the interference of lawyers and politicians) we would get a sophisticated, constantly checked and up-dated profiling system. And for the idiots arguing about white Christian men being most likely to kill doctors, etc., well, fine–what are the consequences? If those doctors who are themselves most likely to be victims of violence would like to make measures to protect themselves, they should have the right to hire a security team that assesses threats as they see fit–if they want to keep white Christian men at a certain distance from their clinic, or question and search them before letting them in, or keep watch around their property, etc., fine. And if police protection is involved, they to should have a well constructed profile of possible perps. Indeed, you might want to watch where that seemingly very clever argument leads you.
Guess my tirade was a little too hot for PJM. I don’t see why- it’s 100% true. Now for a calmer reply to 14/21- Jesus is Lord, Allah is a demon, deal with it.
There is little doubt that we will eventually be confronted by a blue eyed and blond haired Muslim terrorist. It’s just a question of time.
David Thompson, I think you’re on the right trail, but please pick up a newspaper from time to time.
Daniel Patrick Boyd, once a defensive lineman at T.C. Williams High School, is an unlikely symbol of the homegrown terrorist threat. The son of a Marine, Boyd spent his early years in the Washington suburbs living a typical American childhood. Recently, he blended with his family into a picturesque suburb of Raleigh, N.C., where he gardened and was friendly with his neighbors.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/28/AR2009072803193.html
The question for 2010 is should democrats be in charge of national security. Here is my post concerning the issue:…The question is a good one. Can people who are almost psychotically attached to their worldview even though it has been proven a failure and a danger be allowed to protect us?
Sorry, dude. You’d get more cogent analysis by reading Superman.
The larger principle here involves something that has been completely lost in this country–leaving the decisions to those who will be most accountable for and/or suffer the consequences the most from them. If we were to ask serious, thoughtful, trained security professionals (without the interference of lawyers and politicians) we would get a sophisticated, constantly checked and up-dated profiling system.
That’s probably the most hysterically and offensively anti-American thing I’ve ever read. That’s exactly what our country isn’t based on. Read the constitution, or stop taking hallucinogens.
Christians make up over 90% of the US population, so given a random distribution of criminality, most criminals would turn out to be christians.The proper approach would be to look for those deviations from random distribution. Consider the following:
Indeed. The vast majority of terror is undertaken by people of Christian descent in Colombia, Mexico, Guatemala and El Salvador. The drug trade is the biggest terror threat in the world, and perhaps in history, and its perpetrators are overwhelmingly Christian. Nothing threatens the stability of the Western Hemisphere more than narcotics industry terror.
#24 Matthew – ‘abduction’ is not a logical fallacy but a legitimate method of reasoning, along with deduction and induction. (see Aristotle’s examination in epagoge, or synthetic intuitive insight; and Peirce’s long examination of abductive thinking).
At any rate, it is a red herring fallacy to attempt to deny the reality of Islamic fascism. It exists, as expressed within Al Qaeda and other anti-Western and anti-reformist Islamic groups. Islamic terrorism is a reality and to claim that its existence is trivial or akin to accidents (a strike by lightning); or car deaths, is illogical.
Furthermore, it is not caused by poverty, for we have too many examples that wealthy young men are active fundamentalists. Nor is it caused by the US or the West. The cause is strictly internal to the Muslim states who are living in a political ideology that is pre-industrial, or tribal, and that denies social, economic and political power to the majority of its citizens and gives that power only to a small Elite. It denies the necessity for a middle class..and the necessity for that class to hold economic and political power.
That’s tribalism; a two-class system with no middle class where an elite controls the power and the citizens are submissive. Retaining that format requires a malevolent police authority, a rigid theology that rejects reason, freedom, individualism…and a diversion where anger is misdirected to the West rather than to that Elite. This dysfunctional setup is the cause of Islamic fascism.
How to deal with it? Bush was right: enable democracy, which is the basic political format for the devt of a middle class. That’s what Iraq was about. And notice how Obama has utterly misunderstood this – and ignored the Iranian demonstrators who wanted power. Obama supports the old tribalism!
Furthermore, I claim that Obama’s rejection of the reality of Islamic terrorism has actually incited them to attack the US. It’s all about power – and Obama’s arrogance in denying their power has provoked Al Qaeda to attack the US again, to prove that they exist.
Obama and the socialists in the WH ought to acknowledge that Islamic terrorism exists, and is not made up of ‘isolate extremists’ but is an active ideology, and take concrete steps to do his constitutional duty to protect America. That includes intelligent profiling of any and all who might be an Islamic terrorist.
Making government officials fly commercial and go through the same lines, might force some reality into the situation.
But the bottom line remains: We inconvnience and risk danger to hundreds of millions to avid inconviencing a few thousand. Many muslims like the “flying inmamns” game the system and sue when a pilot decides some should not fly. Airlines are fined–fined!- if too many arabs or muslims are ordered into secondary search.
I don’t doubt that there are mostly fine muslim people, and we ought to do our best to avoid making them seem like second class citizens. But at some point–senseless danger to us all is that point–reality ought to intrude on the discussion. It works in the UK. And Israel.
Hey Bubby, Your demographics about who kills more innocents, narco-terrorists or the Hitlers in headscarves is dubious because many of those killed by narco-terrorists are other narco-terrorists not the usual innocent victims of Islam. Even if its true the Cali cartel is more blood thirsty ,they’re not the same threat to us here in the USA as the Islamists are. So back to the drawing board,Einstein. You’re argument doesn’t work.
rofiling is only wrong if it comes from prejudice. Ie: if we “pre-judge” what someone might do based on our emotional feelings about some irrelevant characteristic. This is not at all what we are talking about here. There is a series of characteristics that create a “profile” of people who blow up or hijack aircraft. Some are situational (buys ticket with cash – no luggage etc) but the most clear component of the “profile” of a potential terrorist (aircraft or otherwise) is that they are young adult male Muslims. Almost all modern terrorists fit this “profile”. Virtually no modern terrorist falls outside this “profile”. I wish this were not true – but it is simply, factually and obviously true. Terrorists almost always fall within a specific and narrow profile. It is ridiculous to the point of suicidal to not focus on that profile when looking for potential terrorists. Equally scrutinizing young male Muslims and 80 year old Norwegian grandmothers (or others who’s “profile” has absolutely never committed an act of terrorism) is a complete waste of resources, taxes the capabilities of our screening system and makes us far less safe. Simple and effective “profiling” could have prevented every recent act of terrorism.
I had not noticed #14 and #21
I have a kind of feeling that you would not agree that God is Love.
You should perhaps think about it.
And the 90 billions other muslims (most recent muslim count of the muslims)should think about that too.
The point is…if you disagree with that you are an atheist because you deny God’s absolute perfection.
Nice problem, isn’t it ?
Once jihadists manage to bring down a few airplanes, the talking points will switch from “isolated extremists” to dialogue and engagement with those who are humiliated by Israel.
Stopping this crazy PC baloney is going to take nothing less than a societal Manhattan project. Of course with Obamao and his radical leftists in charge, nothing is going to happen except more um, man-created disasters.
14/21…WHAT A HOOT!!! Obviously you ment to be funny ‘:)
live in peace my @$$. Muslim’s don’t seem to know what peace and love of their fellow man is, they certainly have no love of themselves/family.
God is Lord, Allah is a demon, deal with it!!.. right on!!
(sorry had to change that a little bit 64)
.. I think Muslims have made the word “Allah” into a demon. Allah means literally “the one God”. Many of us now look upon the word as dirty.
Obama administration might be welcoming the resurgence of terrorist attacks. The government will use the fear to pass legislation enabling it to attack it’s perceived enemies, the American people. Under the cover of fighting terrorism Obama will try to muzzle dissenting voices (see TSA agents harass blogger), we have already seen the list ex-soldiers, christens, antiabortion activists, compiled by Obambi’s homeland security.
Obama and the demorats have become the National Socialist Party, that is the NAZI party for those ignorant of history. They have repeatedly demonstrated that they are more interested in gaining power than protecting the country. I say it’s time to start trying them for treason.
I love how this column is merely a torrent of frothing, unfocused hate. A true reflection of the rape, torture, and bigotry sympathizing Republican party!
Any idiot could see that Yemen is a hornet nest of lawless tribal warfare. But in true form the pajamas crew display their complete ineptitude. They always miss the target.
Repubs well represent the hillbilly contingent as the US slides into third world nation status.
Following on GDT I should point out that even if profiling causes the selection of “blond haired, blue eyed” Muslims or Muslim sympathizers these people are both statistically and numerically rare, and this fact forces Muslim Jihadists to reach out to people outside the tribe, clan or nationality to people of suspect intentions and levels of commitment, exposing the plotters to the possibility of informers and double-agents.
Trying to divert or trivialize the reality of Islamic terrorism by suggesting that the drug wars in South/Central America are related to Christianity is sheer nonsense.
These drug traders are engaged in drugs as an economic activity; they are not doing it because of their religion. However, Islamic fascism is supported, openly and publicly by radical Islam, using both the Qu’ran and the Hadiths as textual support for killing ‘infidels’, i.e., people who do not submit to Islam and Sharia Law.
There is nothing in the Christian religion exhorting these drug runners to sell their drugs or fight with others over the power to sell drugs.
#53 Raymond – good points; thanks.
Since the “good” muslims always remain curiously silent while the “bad” muslims wreak havoc in the civilized world, perhaps there should be a line at the airports for “muslims only”….where they could be subject to strip searches, cavity searches, endless questions and needing at least twenty forms of identification…and then they can go through TSA’s version of security….which anyone can get through without trying.
Then, maybe once they are tied up with the stupidity and frustration of trying to board an aircraft, they will start to point out the “real terrorists” to avoid being singled out and “profiled into the dirt”. Once the muslim community realizes that we dont give a rat’s a$$ about being PC or “tolerant” of mindless killers trying to murder anyone who is western, they may decide that it isnt worth being treated like the terrorists they are protecting by remaining mute, and start to point out those “bad” muslims so they can travel without the bullshiite we are suffering now.
Muslims are the reason for all of this….I dont care who says what…but MUSLIMS are the cause of 99% of airport stupidity…even if Napalitano says everything is “working perfectly”. I dont need to die because someone who needs to unbuckle their belt to see where they are going is supposedly “trying real hard”. She doesnt have the slightest clue what she is doing, and the terrorists know it. They are fighting a war….she and her ilk are looking for “man caused disasters”. She is one. A big one.
Blovis want to preserve American individual liberty …
… for foreign terrorists.
I think all the profiling will be worth it if we can save just one life. Think of the difference profiling could make to the lives of your children or significant other. Don’t liberals want to save any lives?
Why do liberals hate people and other living things?
I don’t doubt that there are mostly fine muslim people, and we ought to do our best to avoid making them seem like second class citizens. But at some point–senseless danger to us all is that point–reality ought to intrude on the discussion. It works in the UK. And Israel.
That’s self evidently hilarious given the outrageously ignorant basis for nearly all of the responses here and the original article. Reality has already intruded into the discussion–the reality that, with hundreds of millions of flights over the past 10 years there has only been one successful act of terrorism. But it will never intrude into your lives. The economy has been falling apart for nearly thirty years, the largest job losses and least job creation in history over the last four years [a bipartisan creation]…but oh, mommy, please protect me from the communists, I mean the gays, I mean the terrorists.
You pathetic, simpering little milksops.
No muslims in your country = no jihad in your country. End of story. Nothing could be simpler. But you quivering pansies would rather say or do anything than come to terms with a plain reality that would require you actually to do something if you dared to confront it. So you just carry on with your holier-than-thou bibble-babble. Oh, yes, we don’t like jihad, but no, no, no, we dasn’t even think of placing a God-damned tracking device on little Mohammed. Even “anti-muslim” icons like Steyn and Spencer turn to quivering bowls of lime Jello at the mere mention of the phrase “immigration restriction.”
If this is the best the West can do, then maybe it doesn’t even deserve to survive. Your frantic pusillanimity and desperate reality-avoidance is utterly sickening. Better a million innocents die than that anyone should accuse you of being a “racist”. Unfortunately, if you’re white, you’ll be accused of being a racist anyway. Because that’s what “racist” means, you fools.
Almost all modern terrorists fit this “profile”. Virtually no modern terrorist falls outside this “profile”.
You’re insanely ignorant. Someone else mentioned above that Drug-Based terrorism is the most pressing concern in the Western Hemisphere, and it is, with thousands of acts of terror and kidnapping every year. Nothing in the Islamic world can compare with the sheer number of violent acts perpetrated by drug cartels to terrorize governments, citizenry and competitors. Mexican authorities recently collaborated with the Arizona district attorney to shut down a us gun distributor that had knowingly sold 6,000 or so weapons to intermediaries, which wound up connected to thousands of terror related activities in Mexico. You people never know what you’re talking about, and PJM makes sure that you never will.
“Opponents of profiling cite the slippery-slope possibilities. We could slide into discriminatory behavior, they forewarn.” You mean, like identifying the Muslims who want to kill us before they get to kill us. That kind of discriminatory behavior? I’m all for it.
“We must guard against anti-Muslim sentiment, they insist.” You mean being “anti-Muslim” because Muslims culturally and religiously seem to demand that we deal with them as a group, refusing to allow variables among themselves (like speaking out against terrorism)…so, they refuse to BE individualistic in their attitudes, behaviors and relationships toward western civilization, and yet (having demanded of us that we only see them as a group) still we are not allowed to deal with them as a group either? Because, since they insist on “being a group”, well, shoot–then we are forced to either accept the whole group or be opposed to the whole group. They’re the ones setting the grond rules here. If we have to deal with the whole group and are not allowed to profile to find the terrorists within the group, well then, sign me up for the anti-Muslim sentiment tour.
Isn’t it fascinating how statits, libs, leftists and Islamists all contrive to create ground rules where 1) someone else decides about the value of my life; 2) I’m not allowed to protest when they make it known my life has little or no value; 3) if I insist on protecting myself and protesting, I’m the racist and the bad person and 4)all of these groups do these things in the name of wisdom! compassion! peace! religion!
I’m not drinkin’ the koolaid. You got to me too late.
A terrorist’s life is saved every time a terrorist is profiled and prevented from completing his suicide bombing. How can any liberal be opposed to that? Come on, liberals, you know you love those guys; terrorists hate Chimpy McBushHitler almost as much as you do!
Liberals, only you can prevent the deaths of terrorists. Won’t you please help?
Hey Bubby, Your demographics about who kills more innocents, narco-terrorists or the Hitlers in headscarves is dubious because many of those killed by narco-terrorists are other narco-terrorists not the usual innocent victims of Islam. Even if its true the Cali cartel is more blood thirsty ,they’re not the same threat to us here in the USA as the Islamists are. So back to the drawing board,Einstein. You’re argument doesn’t work.
I like how baseless your response was. Certainly at home, here at PJM. Even more stupid–law enforcement officials are very often the target of the terror. If you don’t believe that a virtual insurgency going on at our border won’t affect us, then this site is exactly where you belong.
President Felipe Calderon, who sent out thousands of troops and federal police to battle drug cartels when he took power in December 2006, said on Monday the escalation in violence was reason to press on.
“It’s a serious fight, it’s a war, and it means assuming the consequences,” he told a news conference following talks with visiting German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
“There is no way the Mexican government will give up this fight. Our pledge and decision is to carry on until we rescue Mexico fully from a situation of abuse and crime,” he said.
Drug violence killed more than 2,500 people in Mexico last year. Grisly slayings in 2008 include the beheading this month of a man whose head was dumped on top of a car in the northern city of Monterrey.
Half a dozen high-ranking police officers have been killed this month alone.
Violence has spilled over from the rough city of Tijuana into once-quiet Rosarito and its outlying areas as gangs fight over smuggling routes into California.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1954747020080519?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true
There is considerable dispute about how much the “flow of American guns” contributes to the carnage, but there is no doubt that the phrase “extraordinary violence” is dead on the mark. On Aug. 11, just one day after the Guadalajara summit, Mexican police in Sinaloa arrested a cartel “hit man” and four other suspects and announced that they had thwarted yet another attempt to assassinate Mr. Calderon. Since then, violence in Mexico has spiked.
For the past three months, our Fox News “War Stories” team has been investigating the connection between drugs, money and narco-terror. What we saw and documented — from the Andean basin in South America, through Mexico, across the U.S. border and deep into the American heartland — is a chilling story that has been widely ignored by the so-called mainstream media.
Since January 2007, a staggering 11,000 people have died in drug-related violence in Mexico. That’s more than double the number of Americans killed in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. Savage gunfights among heavily armed drug cartels have spiraled out of control and threaten to spill across the U.S.-Mexico border. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, narco-terrorists connected to Mexican drug cartels already have infiltrated 230 American cities.
U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced Thursday the indictment of 43 Mexican drug cartel members, but with most of the indicted still at large, it remains to be seen whether, as he contended, the announcement is more than “symbolic.”
Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, immediately south of El Paso, Texas, is arguably the most dangerous municipality in the Americas. The mayor, Jose Reyes Ferriz, told me that in the past 12 months, more than 1,600 of his residents have been murdered as his city has become the epicenter of a vicious turf war among rival drug cartels vying for a larger slice of the lucrative drug delivery business. When he called for help, Mr. Calderon sent in the only force he could trust: the Mexican army. Retired military officers now run the city police force, and joint military/police units patrol the streets. Even this hasn’t stopped the bloodbath. Last month, more than 240 people perished in this murderous metropolis.
Fueling the violence next door: illegal narcotics. Nearly all the world’s cocaine originates with coca plants grown in South America — and 90 percent of the “coke” that ends up on our streets travels to the U.S. through Mexico. Eighty percent of the methamphetamine consumed by Americans is produced there. Our southern neighbor is also the main foreign supplier of marijuana. According to Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina-Mora, “at least $10 billion in bulk cash” related to drug trafficking “crosses the U.S.-Mexican border each year” — meaning that narco-dollars are nearly on par with money from tourism, which produces about $13 billion annually for Mexico.
must be something I said…..
Profiling is not as easy as it sounds. Selectively searching Nigerians, UCL students, or even individuals who appear to have spent considerable time in Yemen might be of neglible benefit.
However, it might be useful to take a second look at any passenger with a zabiba, which can easily be seen on Abdulmuttallab’s forehead, just below the hairline.
#59: Bravo Carol, you have it right. When a religion starts to forcefully spread its brand on others, it is wrong and it deserves and requires profiling. I haven’t the slightest interest in changing or interfering with Islam or the religion you mentioned (although I wish they would stop ringing my door bell).
And although not as immediately dangerous as physical terrorism, political coercion to adopt a religion should not be tolerated either. The left/liberal dogma of today is as much a religion as the one you described – and we are all being forced to adopt it and to suffer diminishment of our freedoms and living standards as a result.
Just say you’re profiling big, bulging crotches. That way it’ll be a compliment rather than an insult to the people who are detained and searched!
/sarc
The fear of profiling is based in race. However, it has long since morphed into something used by lawyers in the legal system to punish the police and free criminals. I spent years in law enforcement and I followed this simple rule; Judge people not by their color but by their attitude, behavior and performance. A person can have a great attitude and be a total screw up, or show bad behavior but not do anything truly harmful (a fraternity cut up for example), or you could have a man who can do great things but his attitude is so bad he is poison to those around him. (Terrell Owens comes to mind.)
When I taught class I tried to explain what good cops think about when they deal with criminal activity. It goes like this. If seventy percent of all violent crime is committed by three percent of the population and that population can be identified as club-footed, blue haired midgets then it is THEIR actions that make you aware of their presence. If you are going down a city street at two a.m. and you see a group of club-footed, blue haired midgets standing on a street corner or in an alley, you would be derelict in your duty not to investigate. It doesn’t mean you hate all midgets, or all blue haired people, or all club-footed people, but the combination SHOULD make your cop radar go off.
That is correct profiling. Use their attitude, behavior and performance guide your reaction. It served me well for a long time.
People usually get it after that.
#35 said: “Effective airport screening will have one major effect; it will cause our Muslim enemies to choose a different method of attack.”
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Abdulmutallab may have been stupid, but not all of our enemies are. Eventually, al-Qaeda is going to go for higher percentage targets, such as the largest malls in the U.S. There is no entrance security in malls, and simultaneous attacks in malls would have a very high terror factor.
It’s time to put political correctness aside .
RE #67/Blovis:
[...] Christians make up over 90% of the US population, so given a random distribution of criminality, most criminals would turn out to be christians. The proper approach would be to look for those deviations from random distribution. [...]
Blo – stop ratiocinating. It’s a solid fact that there are no Swiss, Icelanders or Slovenians amongst international terros, and when there will be, they will be Swiss, Icelanders or Slovenians exactly like Ibrahim is/was a Kalevala Finn (and since here, Finns are the kindest, most paceful & positive lot I ever met – Gus Hall aside).
This discussion reminds me Spike Lee, this great mind, who serenely argued that because there are more whites than blacks in the US jails (and this is true) this situation shows tha whites have stronger criminal predispositions than blacks (false) -
All what’s missing in the terms of this discussion are some ideas generated by Kochevnik and late Hysterical (dba Alice Nolin) –
The following readings will help you guys: Francois Rabelais “Gargantua Amongst Learned Men”, Jonathan Swift “Laputa”, Eugene Ionescu “Chanteuse Chauve” -
We need solutions to Islam here is a start 5 articles
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/05/counterjihad-vienna-2008.html
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006854.html
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/10/recommendations-for-west.html
http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/060813_disconnect.htm
http://townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2006/07/14/connecting_the_dots_on_islam
74. It’s okay. The Great I AM would not like being addressed as Allah any more than He would like being addressed as “Baal” (lit. lord/master, but also the name of several Canaanite and Lebanese deities, and thus denounced as a proper title for the Lord because the names were too fundamentally associated with these idols whose religion revolved around ritual sex and child sacrifice).
Raymond in DC:
“This is what we’d call in logic a false analogy”
Yes, and no. It depends on how you plan to use the claim that “most terrorists are muslim”. The fraction of muslims who engage in terrorism is tiny (particularly in the west). The fraction of christians who engage in crime in the US is much greater. I’m not concluding anything about christians from this (that’s your racket), I’m just showing the usefulness of blind profiling.
“Christians make up over 90% of the US population”
Poppycock. These days it’s between 70-80% if you take even the very weak “identifies as christian” category (which basically means “I believed in santa clause when I was a kid”). The moment you start talking about prison populations, christians (justifiably) get quite shy about that category and insist that researchers only consider established church-goers who pray regularly. But that category only covers 50-60% of the population at large (shocking, I know).
There aren’t good statistics on religious affiliation in prisons. There are obvious problems with trusting interviewees to respond honestly, and it’s not a subject exactly overflowing with support for studies. But you can get some figures from here
http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html
And this is a pro-christian site, so don’t be hassling me about the numbers. That page shows anything from 50 to > 70% of the US prison population claiming to be christian. Use that last table from 1997, group the “christian” numbers (e.g. “pentacostalism” isn’t lumped with protestant, for some reason) and you get over 80% of the prison population believing in jesus (and/or santa clause). That’s out of proportion to the population at large – so if I wanted to be profiling perps (using your logic) I’d have to start by asking some questions about the new testament. Just asking whether they believe in god (including muslims/jews/bahais) gets the figures in the high 80′s – which is quite compelling.
But yes, I agree that the data is probably bogus. And I agree that it’s a stupid way to go about it – but that’s kind of my point. I’d prefer to just look at the evidence and prevent the crime directly, rather than guess blindly.
“so given a random distribution of criminality, most criminals would turn out to be christians”
Take a random population of mass or ideologically-motivated killings in the united states and most of the perps would turn out to be something other than muslim. But specifically explosive attacks against planes? Sure – muslims get the prize for that, historically (that will change sooner or later, though).
Meanwhile, organized crime kills way more people.
“Jews make up some 0.2% of the world’s population, near 0% of the world’s terrorists, but earn over 20% of the Nobel Prizes”
And lots of really cute hollywood actresses are jewish too (I could make a list). So what? I was talking about crime and terrorism. But the jewish representation in US prisons (according to that site above) is about average, and I’d be asking the lebanese how they feel about jews and terrorism – they might have a different perspective.
“Muslims make up some 20% of the world’s population, carry out over 95% of the terrorist attacks (Tamil Tigers and South American drug lords most of the rest)”
Hmm – no. At least until very recently, tamils (hindus) were way ahead of muslims. But that doesn’t count anymore, because the tigers seem to be on boats now, headed for europe, canada and australia. Take iraq out of the picture and I suspect the south americans are ahead too. But we can agree that muslims are way over-represented right now in violent political attacks on american citizens in US territory/airspace – but only when averaged over multiple years (individual years vary). That hasn’t always been the case, and somebody else will take the lead sooner or later.
“but earn only 1% of the Nobel Prizes (and Arafat was one!). But we’re all just the same, right?”
Interesting bit of over-reach there. I didn’t say anything about everyone being “just the same”. I was talking about responding to acts of crime and terror – why do you want to make it about racial superiority? If you want a bunch of REALLY peaceful people, you can’t go past the sikhs – which didn’t stop a couple from being murdered for “looking like arabs” after 9/11.
Racial profiling is daft because it’s lazy and inherently uninformed (see previous comment about sikhs). It takes (scarce) resources from other tasks – like scanning luggage for criminal activities and vetting passengers for threats in general. That WILL (not might) shift the threat somewhere else, because physical security will become crap.
The people who will make the profiling decisions are not police. They’re approximately the least-paid people in the universe, with no formal training or experience in “profiling” or even any real independent authority. They’re already overworked and they’ll have no framework to base their decisions on – i.e. it’ll just be their on-the-spot opinion, which history shows isn’t very useful. In an ideal world, we’d have qualified psychologists and anthropologists interviewing passengers individually before boarding – but that would make the cost of air travel prohibitive. Even just considering the number of muslims who travel by air, the number of people intending to cause harm is minuscule. Excluding them on the basis of that is stupid – and likely to be seen (correctly) as a racist attack on a minority for imaginary security (but real political) gains. By far the best defense against domestic terrorism is people not wanting to do it – and that’s not exactly consistent with your plan.
How about we prevent people from taking explosives and blades onto planes, keep cockpit doors reinforced, place a burly bloke or two on international flights and have strict protocols (similar to the police “active shooter” protocol) for responding to in-flight threats? Getting countries to talk to each other would be a great idea too. I know this sounds like “general, common-sense security”, and hey – it is!
Trying to equate islamic and narco terrorism is an absurd concept. Your narco deaths are related to the control and acquisition of business distribution territory, in the same way the st.valentines day massacre was about controlling alcohol distribution in the days of prohibition. the legalization of alcohol in the form of the repeal of prohibition.
Legalization in a similar fashion for narcotics and cocaine would end the narco wars and reduce violent crime in inner cities America. The cartels are all about making money the same can’t be said of islamo killers they just want to kill America.
While I agree that Islamic terrorism poses a threat, it just doesn’t seem to warrant the terrified pant wetting on display here. Your chances of being killed by a terrorist are so tiny that it seems absurd you all are turning to jelly with fear. You are more likely to be killed by your own handgun than a terrorist. By all means, yes, lets tear up the constitution and eliminate all civil liberties, its worth it if we can save even one life.
As B Franklin famously said “those who aren’t willing to give up their liberties in exchange for security don’t deserve to live.” (or something like that, I can’t find the original quote.)
The key here is intent. If profiling save lives, then it is immoral to not do it. If the purpose is to select certain groups and violate their civil rights, then profiling is a crime. Please note also that American Law applies to American citizens or those visiting this country legally.
One size does not fit all.
84. Moho:
GDT:Almost all modern terrorists fit this “profile”. Virtually no modern terrorist falls outside this “profile”.
Moho: You’re insanely ignorant. Someone else mentioned above that Drug-Based terrorism is the most pressing concern in the Western Hemisphere, and it is, with thousands of acts of terror and kidnapping every year.
GDT: I am sorry Moho you seemed to miss the point – perhaps intentionally. You just committed the most common trick in the liberal non-logical argumentative tool box. You completely change the subject, then take someone elses comments – completely out of context and then place them in your argument (that has nothing at all to do with the original topic).
The original article in most part – and my comment in its entirety – is about airline bombing and hijacking. We are talking about screening techniques at airports. If you know of a successful or attempted aircraft hijacking or bombing (in or headed to the US) over the last 20 years perpetrated by a non-Muslim, I would like to hear about it.
I thought not.
Islam is a problem . It is not peaceful. Why does our president apologize for us when these monsters cut off heads and blow up innocents? Why would anyone remain a muslim when it appears so inherently evil? I do not understand why they do not change their names and become Christians. We need to stop making it harder on ourselves and start making it harder on them. Maybe they will rat out the scum and clean up their so called religion. Right now we are losing . They have forced us to cower and waste all sorts of money. We need to develope our own energy sources such as coal , nat gas and oil and abandon the middle east to their murderous ways. Our president should get mad. The notion of them attacking innocents on Christmas day should make our blood boil. Where is our outrage toward these messengers of the religion of peace.
I miss the trolls. At least they make the most outlandish remarks.
Ned Best:
“You are more likely to be killed by your own handgun than a terrorist”
Over time, you’re actually more likely to be hit by lightning. Obviously that doesn’t apply specifically to the year of 2001, but it has applied to every year before or since.
“…and eliminate all civil liberties, its worth it if we can save even one life”
Nuh-uh. I just want to eliminate YOUR civil liberties, and it’s worth it if the life potentially saved is my own
GDT:
“If you know of a successful or attempted aircraft hijacking or bombing (in or headed to the US) over the last 20 years perpetrated by a non-Muslim, I would like to hear about it”
You obviously meant to write “or cubans”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cuba-United_States_aircraft_hijackings#1990s
There was one american hijacker – google “auburn calloway”. An ethiopian kid hijacked a german plane on the way to ethiopa in 1994 and redirected it to JFK. It seems possible that he was muslim (while ethiopa is predominantly chrisian), but it’s not super-evident from the reporting (he was also nuts, and wanted asylum in the US).
**Your chances of being killed by a terrorist are so tiny that it seems absurd you all are turning to jelly with fear **
I am sure the walking ghosts on the Detroit flight would take issue with that statement now.
“Nuh-uh. I just want to eliminate YOUR civil liberties, and it’s worth it if the life potentially saved is my own”
I’m not sure you understand what civil liberties are. You can’t eliminate them for everyone else and keep them for yourself.
I never knew lightning was such a danger. Why hasn’t the government spent billions to save us from the threat of lightning? We should be randomly screened to ensure we aren’t carrying anything that might increase our conductivity.
“**Your chances of being killed by a terrorist are so tiny that it seems absurd you all are turning to jelly with fear **
I am sure the walking ghosts on the Detroit flight would take issue with that statement now.”
Why are they walking ghosts?
They may or may not take issue, I’ve no idea (I haven’t heard them expressing the kind of pantwetting fear on display here by people who have never been near a terrorist), but it doesn’t change how ridiculously low the odds are of dying in such a way are. You are over a thousand times more likely to die in a car accident, why don’t we go ape-crazy with fear over car travel?
Why does no-one talk of retribution?
The nations of non-muslims are well equipped to deliver this in spades, at any time. An islamist act of terrorism could easily trigger, in response. the wholesale destruction of muslim religious sites, cities and industrial centres, yet they persist. Why? Because we are afraid of inflicting retribution. The result is our civilization is being ratchetted towards an ever more restrictive police state with each succeeded atrocity, even if it is unsuccessful.
There is a continual threat against civilized society by a medieval one, using a warped version of their religion as a pretext, and recruiting brainwashed zombies to carry it out.
Why do we put up with it? Do we think we can contain it? Not without further intrusion into our civil liberties, we can’t. Will it simply give up and go away? Pull the other one. We are ludicrously soft on these murderous characters and our current methods are nowhere effective enough.
RE #84/Moho:
heheheh – Trolls unmasked again, stupidity betrays them:
[...] Someone else mentioned above that Drug-Based terrorism is the most pressing concern in the Western Hemisphere, [...]
Someone else… who could be that one? … who could be that one? … My god, guess who? it’s Blovis @#67 -
Yet the same argument, in exactly the same terms was made a few days ago by… dba Alice Nolin, on a PJM thread dealing with a resembling situation -
Obotrolls, besides that you always fail in argumentation, you also slip in the very gook you yourselves secrete -
Hehehehe – Alice Nolin-Mojo-Blovis: “The Return Of The Holographic Dolt – The Real Story!” (cameo by Kochevnick himself!)
Losers -
GDT: I am sorry Moho you seemed to miss the point – perhaps intentionally. You just committed the most common trick in the liberal non-logical argumentative tool box. You completely change the subject, then take someone else’s comments – completely out of context and then place them in your argument (that has nothing at all to do with the original topic).
The original article in most part – and my comment in its entirety – is about airline bombing and hijacking. We are talking about screening techniques at airports. If you know of a successful or attempted aircraft hijacking or bombing (in or headed to the US) over the last 20 years perpetrated by a non-Muslim, I would like to hear about it.
I thought not.
I never cease to be amused by this odd protest that props up continuously at PJM. Its as if you people learned logic from watching TJ Hooker or something. No fair, the subject is MUSLIMS ARE NUMBER ONE TERRORIST, its not DRUG CARTELS ARE NUMBER ONE TERRORIST. The entire basis of the article above is incorrect, and demonstrably so. Acts of terror propagated by drug cartels are far and away the greatest source of terror in the US and abroad. Radical Islam doesn’t really hold a candle at all. The drug war, and its associated terrorism is destabilizing Mexico, our use of drugs is funding that terror, our weapons are arming the cartels. Its not changing the subject to point out FALLACIES! I’m still laughing about this.
Like most right wing websites, this one is about creating fantasies that are pleasantly removed from reality so that its adherents can ignore the complexity of the real problems that face us. In the last ten years, our economy has fallen apart and we’ve gotten mired in two wars and we’re opening up a third front. In that time there has been one successful act of terrorism on an airplane that could never have been duplicated. Its still impossible to get almost anything of use for a terrorist on a plane except the most difficult to assemble explosives, by suicide bombers who obviously lack the brain power to pull it off. Indeed, the fact that malls, theatres, forests, almost anywhere where Americans congregate have not had successful acts of terrorism perpetrated there–though its obviously probably the easiest thing in the world TO DO BECAUSE WE HAVE NO SECURITY MECHANISMS THERE–shows that terror in the US really does not exist on any copious level. The threat has been bulked up to get you idiots to check your brains at the door when it comes to making political decisions. And its obvious you weren’t using them anyway.
Last year, an Arizona gun dealer who has been implicated in knowingly selling weapons to the drug cartels of Mexico walked away from an attempt to shut down his terror arming business. Mexico linked those guns to over 6,000 deaths, but thanks to our absurd canonization of the second amendment it is completely legal to arm terrorists. And its not just other drug dealers obviously, that are being killed with our weapons and to supply our people with drugs that our ridiculous laws have made surrealistically valuable. This is bystanders and relatives–people who have no relation to the drug industry except the misfortune of being related by blood or walking down the street. And police and politicians, those MOST ACTIVE IN FIGHTING terrorism. This terror has spilt over to our side of the border now. One day the country is going to fall down around your ears, and when it does you’re going to be awfully surprised at what was going on while you were feeding your bigoted fantasies.
An islamist act of terrorism could easily trigger, in response. the wholesale destruction of muslim religious sites, cities and industrial centres, yet they persist. Why? Because we are afraid of inflicting retribution.
The reason why is that our country is founded on ideals that are far more precious than security. Piss your pants in the privacy of your own home, and jerk off to the image of destroyed mosques in the toilet all you like. What you’re advocating is anti-American, not to mention a war crime.
“What you’re advocating is anti-American, not to mention a war crime.”
Exactly, and whats more it completely ignores what the US actually is doing. Someone further up the thread was declaring that Islamic terrorism was caused because they hate freedom of religion. The only ones that seem to hate freedom of religion are Republicans, they only like freedom for their religion, not anyone else’s, or lack thereof. When you hear actual terrorists say why they become radicalized, it is never because they don’t like that Americans are free to practice whatever religion they want, it is because they see their countries occupied by US troops, they see their countrymen tortured in American custody, they see bombs dropped on wedding parties, they see American Mercenaries kill unarmed civilians in unprovoked attacks who are never punished, they see the US give unquestioning support to Israel as it bomb Beirut to rubble.
Another poster commented that Islam is a violent religion and Christianity is peaceful, I guess if you remain willfully blind to all the bombing and killing done by your country, this seems true.
114@Ned Best
Bravo! Welcome here to the Eagle’s nest, a retirement community for rape/torture lovers, Archie Bunker’s relatives, lip-service lib-haters, chickenhawks, senile soothsayers and reformed reasoners.
Re #122 Mojo -
Holographic as he Mojo, I still have a certitude regarding him – he is a myriapode.
And I say this because he has so many feet to stick in his mouth that he’s beaten the octopodes or other critters -
Funny? Mysterious?
Ladies and gentlemen, here’s dba Mojo inserting foot after foot in his mouth for your entertainment -
1. All immigration from terrorist-sponsoring countries should be stopped to Western nations. No exceptions. Period.
2. Any Moslem found guilty of terrorism or aiding terrorists, be they citizens of their host country or not, should be stripped of citizenship and deported. The same goes for their family members.
3. Moslems should not be allowed to fly on the same flights as non-Moslems. If they want to blow themselves up, let them take their own with them.
We need to stop kidding ourselves that Islam is firstly a religion, and secondly, is compatible to Western civilization. Islam is a radical and violent death cult that should be shunned and barred from the Western world.
113. Moho.
A classic Pee Wee moho – Anon – Shawn Ondeen Whatever Twilight Zone Dummy rage induced by the free exchange of ideas. Somehow the Moho frame of reference has drifted back, somewhat like that poor Hockey Mask Man in the Halloween movies.
“The reason why is that our country is founded on ideals that are far more precious than security.”
Why not give truth and honesty a shot, Moho, Whatever, you are today? You might feel better, and breaking out of the dishonest funhouse mirror world would expose you to some chance at happiness. But then, the cesspool you have created for yourself is a comfortable place for a Modern Dishonest Liberal, and lashing out in a constant rage at others does provide a certain amount of levity on the PJM pages.
“Piss your pants in the privacy of your own home…”
Is this something Modern Dishonest Liberals do in their spare time? And why not in front of everybody? Don’t you move your clothing out of the way before you #1? What about #2, is it the same for you? Maybe it’s just a confused way for Moho to channel all that racist hillbilly rage into productive action.
“…and jerk off to the image of destroyed mosques in the toilet all you like.”
Thanks for permission. Not today. “…all you like”? Right.
Pee Wee Moho, the author of Onan the Wannabe Jihadist, speaks! And the toilet seat lifts and reveals “destroyed mosques in the toilet”. Man, you should stick to those classic films like Catalina Five-O: Tiger Shark, Nurse Nancy and Turn up the Heat. Getting busted for Pee Wee Moho – Onan action in a movie theater is nothing like having the Imam find “destroyed mosques in the toilet”.
Get a grip. And not on that “jerk off” Inconvenient Truth that you have in hand so often. Come to think of it, how did that “jerk off” survive the prototype test of the exploding underwear that Alice Nolined you while you were away at Wannabe Jihad school? Made it all up, again? Nothing new.
“What you’re advocating is anti-American, not to mention a war crime.”
An “anti-American” “war crime”. Just like that. Just like Jihad? No crime has been committed, but a crime has been committed. Is Moho really John Kerry too?
Van Jones will recognize you as Moho. Alice feels neglected. Lou Foolspin can’t change his underwear. The muggers don’t care, but you’ll set them straight with your “Courage and Intelligence”. And how about some good old military jargon? Lay it all out. Don’t hold back, you do “Piss your pants” for a reason.
Good luck with the new Moho.
Is 114. Ned Best Moho too? Oh man…
Mr. Lucky. I’m sure you’re saying something ridiculously easy to shrug off and/or unintentionally hilarious and self-pwning, but I’ve never been able to get past the first line of your absurdly illiterate posts. Don’t stop on my account however, I’m sure reading the posts back to yourself must provide some measure of joy that your tiny pee-pee can’t deliver.
1. All immigration from terrorist-sponsoring countries should be stopped to Western nations. No exceptions. Period.
Ha, I would love to see your definition of “terrorist-sponsoring” countries. I think Britain has the lock on hosting would-be terrorists. Or did you only mean non-Anglo countries?
2. Any Moslem found guilty of terrorism or aiding terrorists, be they citizens of their host country or not, should be stripped of citizenship and deported. The same goes for their family members.
It really is a good idea that you’re not anywhere near a position of authority. Yes, instead of jailing them after we convict them, we should send them to some other country where we have no idea what the authorities there will do or how long they will be kept. Brilliant reasoning. I think Sara Palin may need a running mate.
3. Moslems should not be allowed to fly on the same flights as non-Moslems. If they want to blow themselves up, let them take their own with them.
To say that you don’t know what you’re talking about would be an insult to ignorant fools everywhere.
“You are over a thousand times more likely to die in a car accident, why don’t we go ape-crazy with fear over car travel?”
Most Americans have been in a car everyday of their lives. They realize that even when something goes wrong, they have a very good chance of surviving it, even when it occasionally involves a fairly serious injury. OTOH, when something goes terribly wrong in flight, the odds are there will either be very few survivors, or none at all.
Most folks have never needed to spend their lives dwelling on the odds of surviving everyday life, and they don’t want to begin now.
The bottom line is that no one wants to put up with this and there appears to be no benefit in doing so.
When you engage with moho or matthew (or alice, DS or others) you enter into their domain. They are just paid posters with all the talking points, false stats and some authentic too and quotes at their disposal. Notice that moho is a regular on islamic and terror discussions?? His handlers gave him this territory. Matthew the same.
They have all been schooled in the Orwellian double-speak and upside down logic used to disorient and distract from the topic and obfuscation (“I think Britain has the lock on hosting would-be terrorists. Or did you only mean non-Anglo countries?” for instance by moho) or this gem by matthrew (“The fraction of muslims who engage in terrorism is tiny (particularly in the west). The fraction of christians who engage in crime in the US is much greater.”) when confronted with direct inquiry or fact that they cannot refute or debate.
And they are good.
But still you are lowering yourself and the discussion to their level. Deign not.
Remember you are not debating them alone but the whole Dem Underground, CAP or MM 527s.
Elliotpatriciaburke@windstream.net:
“Most Americans have been in a car everyday of their lives. They realize that even when something goes wrong, they have a very good chance of surviving it … when something goes terribly wrong in flight, the odds are there will either be very few survivors, or none at all.”
Even when you take all of that into account, you’re STILL more likely to die in a car accident than in a plane crash (which includes terrorist attacks – although they’re only a fraction of the total). What you’re saying is that people find that counter intuitive – yep, that’s true. But it’s still a fact.
“Most folks have never needed to spend their lives dwelling on the odds of surviving everyday life, and they don’t want to begin now”
Actually, I think it would be good for people to do more of that. When you actually get a grasp on thinks like the background mortality rate, terrorism really loses its fear factor.
The US background death rate is (according to the CIA fact book). 8.38 per 1000 per annum. Using the 2010 population estimate just grabbed it off wiki – they get it from the census bureau), that comes to 2583487 people dying in the US this year. Yes, that’s about 2.6 million. That’s 7080 per day, or about 250 an hour – or about 5 per second.
Almost all of those deaths are just disease, old age and accidents. Like it or not, it IS going to get you.
Here’s another way to look at this, going forward. Assume that the average lifespan is 80 years. That means averbody alive today in the US will be dead 80 years from now (on average – there’ll be exceptions either way). That means 308 million people need to die over the next 80 years. That’s an average of 3853650 deaths per year, or 10557 per day. Every single one of those deaths is a “real” death – somebody’s mother, baby, husband etc. They have no less impact on their family and friends than a death in a terrorist attack. They aren’t just “numbers” – they’re reality.
The US has a homicide rate of about 5.4 per 100,000. Using that 2010 population estimate, that means that about 16600 people are going to be murdered this year in the US. The national suicide rate is about twice is high. I don’t have figures on your road accident toll to hand, but I suspect that’ll be higher still.
Every day, governments make spending and policy decisions using estimates of people being killed or saved. I guarantee that there are policies that would be a much better use of money than spending tens of billions a year on the sort of airport security people are demanding. Road improvements, for example, would probably save more lives for less money. Real lives – lives every bit as important as the ones flying in planes on any given day.
Most folks have never needed to spend their lives dwelling on the odds of surviving everyday life, and they don’t want to begin now.
I’ve never thought twice about flying, and I’m not going to start now. The fact two idiots have tried the same stunt twice and failed, means that there are no alternatives left to them, and that they most likely will never get this one off the ground. You are far more likely to die in a plane that was serviced in a third world country by people who can’t read the manual than you are in a air terror disaster.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113942431
magine you’re a pilot, and you’re flying a Boeing 737 filled with more than 100 passengers. Suddenly, the gauges show that Engine No. 2 is in trouble, so you shut it off and start flying the plane on the other engine alone.
That’s a troubling enough scenario. But what if it’s worse than that: What if it turns out that a mechanic mixed up the wires in the cockpit, not long before you took off — so your gauges are reversed and you actually turned off the one good engine?
That scenario could have happened a few weeks ago on a US Airways flight, if an observant employee at the airline hadn’t made a discovery: Mechanics who had just repaired the plane at the Aeroman repair company in El Salvador had, in fact, crossed the wires on two engine indicators in the cockpit. NPR obtained internal US Airways documents that describe the incident, and a senior company executive confirmed it.
Blotto:
They have all been schooled in the Orwellian double-speak and upside down logic used to disorient and distract from the topic and obfuscation.
LOL, and no where did you actually refute any of my points or show the flaw in logic. I suppose when your head is up your A##, sound logic must indeed look upside down. Teabagging explained at last.
I say you are 1000 times more likely to be killed in a car accident than in a terrorist attack and you say, “Most Americans have been in a car everyday of their lives. They realize that even when something goes wrong, they have a very good chance of surviving it” I had no idea you have a better of walking away from being killed in a car than in a plane. That’s why I come here, to be informed.
Really what I wanted to respond to is this:
“The bottom line is that no one wants to put up with this and there appears to be no benefit in doing so.” You seem to think that some action could be taken that would absolutely eliminate all chance of a terrorist attack, but the entire GDP of the US could be spent trying to prevent terrorism and yet still the threat would exist. Even if somehow you could make it absolutely impossible for another attack on a plane, there are any number of far easier targets (malls, trains, infrastructure, etc.) and so the threat would still exist. The question is, when do measures taken to prevent terrorism cost more (in cash, or liberties) than they are worth.
It seems to me that the greatest defenses the US has against terrorism is its civil liberties, eliminate them and you make yourself less safe, not more.
#114 — When you hear actual terrorists say why they become radicalized, it is never because…[snip]
They’re going to ramble about troops (or pick any similar variant example of claimed US imperialism) because this is what the mullahs implanted. The mullahs are revisiting charges from the Vietnam era because charges like this are easy to make. Terrorists are fundies, and fundies don’t become fundies with a flash of light in islamic countries any moreso than christian fundies wake up knowing the earth is only a few thousand years old.
No. Fundies are indoctrinated over time, and like western bible thumping counterparts they’re eating a message that they *want* and *need* to eat. Mullahs are the ones threatened by western lifestyles, not these imbecilic fundie lackeys they manipulate.
Although you seem to be a step or two ahead of most of the mouth breathing semi-literates that infest this joint, it doesn’t mean much. Don’t get cocky.
#120 moho — 2. Any Moslem found guilty of terrorism or aiding terrorists, be they citizens of their host country or not, should be stripped of citizenship and deported. The same goes for their family members.
It really is a good idea that you’re not anywhere near a position of authority. Yes, instead of jailing them after we convict them, we should send them to some other country where we have no idea what the authorities there will do or how long they will be kept.
We should hang them, not jail them. Terrorism is an act of war, and this (hanging) is what happens (traditionally) to war criminals.
“Sure. And, in the US, criminals are usually christian. See the problem yet?
Look up the logical fallacy of “abduction”.
(I’m seriously hoping someone tries to deny that claim about crime and christianity … go on, you know you want to)”
Don’t have to. You already did.
Read further into your cite: http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html. You’ll find this: “Virtually any article in an academic, peer-reviewed sociology journal that addresses religious behavior and criminal behavior finds that religious behaviors such as church attendance, prayer, home observances, etc., are either negatively correlated to criminal and/or anti-social behavior (drug use, school drop-outs, etc.), or have no correlation. In other words, according to social scientists, religious behavior [not stated religious preference] is associated with lower rates of criminal behavior.”
And this: “A disproportionately high number of prisoners were not in any way practicing religionists prior to incarceration. That is, they exhibited none of the standard sociological measures of religiosity, such as regular prayer, scripture study, and attendance at worship services.”
There’s more, but that would fall under behavioral profiling.
“Don’t have to. You already did.”
You’re right, I did:
“The moment you start talking about prison populations, christians (justifiably) get quite shy about that category and insist that researchers only consider established church-goers who pray regularly”
And yet, those numbers … hmmmm.
Keep in mind the context we’re talking about – this thread is about profiling people on the basis of muslim identification (or, dare I say it, “appearance”). That’s not quite the same as a detailed questionnaire about frequency of prayer, participation in voluntary activities and regular mosque attendance. If we actually get to the point of interviewing people, then we’ve got the resources to implement some pretty serious physical security anyway, which would be more effective anyway.
Just being serious for a minute, I actually don’t doubt that serious participation in church activities probably correlates with lower levels of delinquency. If nothing else, it means that kids have a community with responsible leadership who genuinely have their best interests at heart. That’s GOT to be a good thing.
To continue the seriousness, there’s no doubt that muslims are massively over-represented right now in acts of and attempts at pre-meditated violence with acts designed to harm multiple people with whom they have no particular relationship. That’s a serious problem. It hasn’t always been the case (and I suspect it will cease to be again in the future). Keep in mind, though, that these attacks are staggeringly rare when compared with criminal violence in general. They make headlines – precisely because they ARE rare. But the 50-odd people intentionally murdered every day in the US don’t make national headlines. Both problems are serious.
I have a problem with the way some want to demonize muslims living locally to retaliate for a threat that’s predominantly coming from elsewhere. It’s only because they’re so darn small and well behaved that you can get away with it. Just try banning all black people from flying, or all hispanics, and see what happens. Run that sort of arbitrary constraint past the teabaggers and they’d call it “tyranny”.
How about from now on we have two classes of travel:
a) Profiling planes
b) Non-profiling planes
And those who are so opposed to profiling can take their chances.
How about from now on we have two classes of travel:
a) Profiling planes
b) Non-profiling planes
And those who are so opposed to profiling can take their chances.
Ha, ha. Given that there have been zero actual succesfull terrorist acts in the last eight years on planes, I’ll take the non-profiling plane. And, of course, given that some very non-traditional muslim terrorists have cropped up in the last few years–those without muslim names–I’d say your profiling should include everyone, like Israel. Have fun getting to the airport five hours early. I’ll be on the other side of the country by the time you’re buckling your safety belt, sucker.
#123,
Matthew, ut-oh, sounds like something from HyPochOndRiacs R Us. No, don’t believe that is healthy advice at all.
Anyway, what gives you the idea that all this talk is based on fear alone ? I think a lot is based on anger about what many see as the studied appearance of nonchalance over extra/unnecessary/unnatural deaths.
For instance, if law enforcement had asked the public to read statistics in the D.C. sniper case instead of going after the shooters with everything they had, heads would have rolled. Even if one of Malvo’s victims had only a few months to live prior to being shot, they still wouldn’t have wanted to be shot by him at random.The public didn’t sigh and say, oh well, woulda died eventually anyway.
The folks shot by Malvo had their rights taken away from them and there is very little discussion concerning that fact.
When did it become a human right to go wherever one wants to go, whenever one one wants to go ? When did it become a human right to fly ? Can you tell me what benefit it is to the US, or any nation for that matter,to allow just anyone into the country ?
Eliot @ 133
Your comparison to the Malvo case is a red herring. In the Malvo case it was known that there was a specific individual who was committing acts of violence. In cases of Islamic terrorism, when there is some one committing, or intending to commit act of violence, nobody opposes taking action. But what is being proposed here is a blanket that encompasses everyone of a specific race and religion. Returning to the Malvo case, it would be like if we decided that every black person in a car should be pulled over and searched because they might have a sniper in the trunk.
And what would be the practical implications of a policy that subjects every Muslim to profiling and strip searches before they can fly. First off you have to identify people as Muslim which isn’t that easy. You could single out every swarthy looking man, (better get the women too as there have been a few female suicide bombers) the problem is that you have now rounded up every Mediterranean and Latin American as well, but the underpants bomber was black so you’ve missed him. So now you add every black person to the list and you’ve got them, right? Except for all the Asian Muslims from Indonesia and China etc. So now you add in all the Asians and you are safe right? Except for all the white muslims from places like Chechnya and the former Yugoslavia, as well as converts in western countries. So now we have profiled everyone and although there are 5 hour lineups at airports we are perfectly safe right? Except now there are so many people waiting to get into security that a bomber doesn’t need to even get on a plane to wreak havoc, they just have to set off a bomb in the lineup for security and will cause more death and destruction than they ever could in the sky.
Also, I have never heard anyone argue that absolutely everyone should be allowed into the country as a matter of course. That is a strawman you’ve erected, it is not a position anyone advocates. Please stop ascribing to your opponents positions they do not hold.
#126,
Ned, cute, but that isn’t what I was attempting to say. People don’t go around with statistics crammed into their brains. They aren’t considering the odds with every move they make.Most everyone has had some accident or other. Most accidents don’t result in death. More driving is done than flying to begin with.
As for the second point you made, no, I don’t believe we will stop every terrorist attack at all but why make ourselves instrumental in aiding the attempts ?
An US citizen’s civil liberties are not anyone else’s civil liberties before their setting down on US soil. The most cost effective would be to suspend, for now, unnecessary travel to the US-especially travel of citizens from hot spots around the world. This would not include official visits, of course.
132. Moho:
What a tool you are. It’s the non-profiling line where everyone is suspect that will be held up you jack@$$.
#134,
Ned, Malvo is not a red herring. The example goes to showing attitude held by most everyone (those not torturing the logic) about the risks we take going about our daily business. Most people expect law enforcement to act and, yes, prevent the free movement of such individuals.Such deaths cannot be rationalized away by stating the mortal man or woman would have died anyway-sometime down the road.
No one lying in an emergency room dying from a gunshot wound is thinking to themselves, oh golly gee, it could have been lightening or cancer that got me in the end.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are absolutely correct in saying that profiling based on personal appearance is useless. I am saying that it shouldn’t even get to the point of having to rely on something so uncertain. Just suspend travel for all those who can’t show verifiable official or legitimate reasons for entering the US.
Isn’t it correct that no one should be using all this jet fuel anyway ? Sorry, MommyMagoo-all those carbon emmisions, no ?
#136 commuter — What a tool you are. It’s the non-profiling line where everyone is suspect that will be held up you jack@$$.
No, he’s correct. Profiling would apply to all and takes a lot of time and energy. The non-profiling line would be as as it is now. He’s assuming that the TSA would apply profiling equally to Nordic grandmothers and 25 year old males named Mohammed.
On the other hand, he’s really quite wrong. A great deal of profiling could take place easily just by electronically examining ticket info and accessing a database. e.g. male 18-40, name of Mohammed, traveling alone, one way ticket, pays cash. This ought to raise a flag; a midwestern small town family with skis traveling to Denver ought to not raise a flag. And Nordic grandmothers? WWII vets? Please.
I’m pretty sure that a triage technique applied at the data level and then using humans to filter the flags (if needed) would be both unobtrusive and fast.
And yeah, when Nordic grandmothers surnamed Svenstrom make headlines blowing up aircraft, the profiling would necessarily need to change, but until such time, equal profling applied to all is pointless.
“Just suspend travel for all those who can’t show verifiable official or legitimate reasons for entering the US.”
Like what, tourism? If you barred everyone who didn’t have a business reason to visit the US the economy would crumble.
“No one lying in an emergency room dying from a gunshot wound is thinking to themselves, oh golly gee, it could have been lightening or cancer that got me in the end.”
You’re right, but then I don’t remember claiming they do.
“People don’t go around with statistics crammed into their brains. They aren’t considering the odds with every move they make.”
Right again, but those who pay the costs of such accidents do. Insurance companies, businesses and governments routinely calculate the likelihood of various types of disasters as part of how they operate. When 40,000 die in the US annually from curable conditions simply because they lack health insurance, why is it that they don’t deserve action to save their lives, but the handful that die from terrorist attacks deserve every possible (and apparently impossible) action be taken?
The question is about how far you are willing to go to prevent a death. No doubt the righteous will claim that there is no price not worth paying if a life can be saved, but in reality that is untrue. There are fatal genetic diseases that affect less than 1 in 100 million people. If we threw every dollar we had at it maybe we could save that one in 100 million from dying, but we don’t, because there is a cold calculation that determines that such resources are better spent elsewhere. That does not change in the least how tragic it is for that person who is dying.
I agree with your jet fuel concerns though.
“Matthew, ut-oh, sounds like something from HyPochOndRiacs R Us. No, don’t believe that is healthy advice at all”
I’m sorry if you think reality is unhealthy.
“For instance, if law enforcement had asked the public to read statistics in the D.C. sniper case instead of going after the shooters with everything they had, heads would have rolled”
Heads rolled anyway. But if they’d started pulling over every fan seen driving in the street and taking their driver away for questioning, whatever their reason for being there, there would have been some public annoyance at the pointless and apparent ill-informedness of the response. That’s what we’re talking about with profiling.
“Even if one of Malvo’s victims had only a few months to live prior to being shot, they still wouldn’t have wanted to be shot by him at random. The public didn’t sigh and say, oh well, woulda died eventually anyway”
Yet the same over-the-top response to the fear of terrorism isn’t shown for the other, massively more numerous causes of death in the US. Take the money spent on security theater and fix some roads – it’d save more lives in the long run.
“When did it become a human right to go wherever one wants to go, whenever one one wants to go ?”
It isn’t. It’s also not a human right to sit at the front of a bus, or eat in a whites-only restaurant.
“Can you tell me what benefit it is to the US, or any nation for that matter,to allow just anyone into the country ?”
Strawman. Nobody is suggesting anything of the sort. There are places that the US simply will not accept incoming planes from, period. Most of the world’s population would find it very difficult to get on a plane and fly to, say, australia. There are already constraints in operation.
What a tool you are. It’s the non-profiling line where everyone is suspect that will be held up you jack@$$.
Still laughing about this. The commenter in question told me that I could ride the non-profiled plane, and he would go on the profiled plane. I’m happy to oblige, considering that the security system already engaged stops all but the least likely attempts, and makes them rare [2 in 8 years]. Those are better odds than one has in general in flying I’d say. Given the violence we have seen from unconventional quarters in the last few years–two septuagenarian suicide killers in one year–and given your hysterical cowardice, you should be up in arms that the TSA isn’t stopping every single person and interrogating them.
e.g. male 18-40, name of Mohammed, traveling alone, one way ticket, pays cash. This ought to raise a flag; a midwestern small town family with skis traveling to Denver ought to not raise a flag. And Nordic grandmothers? WWII vets? Please.
you’ve got to be kidding. That would be the lamest profiling experiment ever. Do you think that they can’t afford a two way ticket? This year, two senior citizens walked into disparate facilities intent on exterminating as many people as possible. Profiling is stupid. Given the fact that more “average” non descript Americans have engaged in suicide killing sprees than any amount of muslims, such a profiling system would at best be an illusion designed to placate ignorant bigots. Its quite clear that the current system works as well as anyone can imagine it would, given that there have been hundreds of millions of flights since 2001, and no successful terror acts.
141. Moho:
“Still laughing about this…”
And still an asinine tool. You said that you’d be hours ahead joining the non-profile line. And you ended with “I’ll be on the other side of the country by the time you’re buckling your safety belt, sucker.” It’s an idiotic and ignorant statement and completely in sync with your usual vapidity.
moho #142 — This year, two senior citizens walked into disparate facilities intent on exterminating as many people as possible.
You have mastered the non sequitor. The only attempts to take down planes in recent memory was by single muslim males, and in most cases paying cash for one way tickets. We were talking about aircraft. Obviously paying cash for a one way ticket isn’t the end all of profiling, but that ought to have raised a flag. I suspect you already know this.
Apparently you imagine yourself as a master of the witty riposte yet are proving yourself as unworthy of actual discussion as the resident bible beaters. I’ll say this much: at least a self respecting baptist minister knows when he’s full of it.
Re: human rights.
“It isn’t. It’s also not a human right to sit at the front of a bus, or eat in a whites-only restaurant.”
However, it is a civil right for an American citizen to sit at the front of the bus if there is a seat available there, and a “whites-only” restaurant is against US law.
Sorry, but not allowing every Tom, Dick, and Harry into the US is not comparable to denying an US citizens their civil rights.
RE #142/Moho:
[...] Given the fact that more “average” non descript Americans have engaged in suicide killing sprees than any amount of muslims [...]
Loud-mouthed fool you are Jomo, but I give you credit for persistence.
The percentage of “average non-descript” Americans engaging in murderous sprees vis-a-vis the whole number of Americans is enormously smaller than the percentage spic & span rag-heads doing the same vis-a-vis the equally spiffy Muslim population of the world.
The term “assasin” doesn’t point to a Swiss or an Icelander, Jomo, but to a Muslim (Arab) dazed by hashish out on the street quoting in a frenzy Descartes – ooops, sorry, poor Cartesius, quoting… hehehehe… Jomo’s 87 virgins waiting for him by some mounds of steaming pilaf…
What a fool you are, Jomo – yet I detect some inner life in you, turmoil… qustions unanswered… yearning for respect… understanding for your being… errr… diverse… hey, a human, after all…
Alas, one can gage a person’s foolishness by that person’s investment in absurd enterprises – and your rants, Jomo, kind of painted you in a corner -
Still, keep doing it, Jomo – while the 87 virgins deal is a bit shaky in my eyes, who knows, a bowl of steaming pilaf may be indeed yours after a day of posting idiocies here -
Ciao -
And still an asinine tool. You said that you’d be hours ahead joining the non-profile line. And you ended with “I’ll be on the other side of the country by the time you’re buckling your safety belt, sucker.” It’s an idiotic and ignorant statement and completely in sync with your usual vapidity.
Well, you’ve repeated yourself, but you haven’t supported your statement. A real profile line, like the ones in Israel, where nearly everyone is subject to the process of profiling would double the time you spend in the airport, not reduce it. Is this where you’re getting caught up? Do you think being an Islamic terrorist is the only kind of danger? And do you think that its somehow self evident? Israelis have to worry just as much about crazed American anti-semites as they do Islamic terrorists, that’s why they profile everyone, you knonb. I’m actually sighing aloud here. As I noted, air travel is about as safe from terrorism as is physically possible, there’s no evidence that adding yet another layer of security—one aimed at foiling unfeasible plots relying on incompetent terrorists using historically unsuccessful tools—will do anything to make anyone safer. As I noted, I responded to the commenter’s silly comment that those of us who feel that airport security is as safe as is humanly possible while retaining some level of self-respect and dignity for our country, should be in a non-profile line and suffer the dangers of such. As I’ve noted, and as history and statistics bear out, I’ll take that action given the insurmountable odds in my favor.
The only attempts to take down planes in recent memory was by single muslim males, and in most cases paying cash for one way tickets.
In most cases? There have been two attempted airplane terror acts in eight years. Go ahead and start profiling people for one way tickets, its self evident that would fail to be a useful profiling mechanism in about ten seconds. What useless bs, in any case. Israel has extensive profiling measures, which they probably don’t need. But they had the highest incidences of terrorist acts until Iraq nudged them out of the running, because of simply how easy it is to mount a terror act. It only requires the resolve and any of the thousands of venues in any city in which people congregate. About 99.9% of people travelling to America do so to make more money, that’s a truth made more evident by the nearly non-existant level of terrorism in our country. Home grown suicide rampage killers are a bigger threat; those events occur on a weekly basis throughout the US. But feel free to vote for the first and biggest idiot who promises to put us in debt and curtail our liberties to keep you safe from an event that is as likely to occur as being struck by lightning 5,000 times.
“Terrorists are usually Muslim. Let’s recognize that and act on it.”
Oh, goodness. Now you’ve gone and done it. I sure hope you aren’t planning to take any commercial flights international or otherwise any time soon.
147. Moho:
And still with the idiotic and ignorant statements.
“Well, you’ve repeated yourself, but you haven’t supported your statement.”
And you have? For all your protestations to the contrary, your ‘points’ are never more than your distorted worldview come to life and never supported. You don’t even try to support with anecdotal evidence. I rather suspect that would be pointless, since I don’t think you’ve much real world experience.
As in this case. You don’t even know what the process of profiling for higher risk entails or grasp the concept that treating everyone as a high risk slows down everyone. I doubt you’ve ever flown. Certainly not internationally.
“A real profile line, like the ones in Israel, where nearly everyone is subject to the process of profiling would double the time you spend in the airport, not reduce it.”
No. I’ve been to Israel many times for business. You haven’t a clue. It isn’t like non-profiling in US airports where the holdup is at the counter area. The profilers work the check in lines as they move and they are good. It’s only when a flag is raised that they begin to question anyone in depth – still without pulling them from the line. That doesn’t happen until indicators hit a benchmark. The process for everyone else remains fast and efficient and certainly no slower than what we had here in the states before XMAS. And they do not hold a flight for anyone. You require more in depth checking because of flags being raised in the profiling process, you take a later flight with their apologies if warranted.
In your case, you may be right when you say non-profiling would make flying easier. I suspect that if you’d find profiling a real pain. The Israeli profiling process is just as much a screen for state of mind as it is appearance and background. Many of the questions they ask are to get a feel for state of mind as background and the people asking them appear to be very good and extremely well-trained.
Didn’t know that, did you, tool? You would if you had a clue about it, or even passing experience with it. As soon as you opened your yap to answer the first question, they’d have you out of line. Everyone else would be across the ocean and home in bed before they got done with you.
“Israelis have to worry just as much about crazed American anti-semites as they do Islamic terrorists”
What are you, 12 years old? That is just plain stupid and flies in the face of 30 years of Israeli history.
Re #149/Meryl:
[...] “Terrorists are usually Muslim. [...] I sure hope you aren’t planning to take any commercial flights international or otherwise any time soon. [...]
Meryl, since it is well known that Reykyavik is a much more dangerous, terrorrism-wise place than Islamabad, it would be a good idea for you to move in Islamabad -
Take Jomo with you – a great mind like you should travel with the corresponding companion –
Yuk -
RE: Hysterical’s (dba Moho) ramblings:
The wise man can gage a person’s foolishness by that person’s investment in absurd enterprises – Moho, your frenzied and completely unproductive logorrhea show you a majestic case of idiocy -
Most of the terrorists in the USA seem to be christian, mostly catholic. Sorry to burst your wingnut bubbbles, kids.
Listening to CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper disclaim against “profiling” gives one pause, verging on depression.
Hooper plays off the lame political correctness infusing America, which absurd PC also explains how a Major Hasan could demonstrably strut his stuff inside General Casey’s Army ranks for years, and STILL not be pulled aside for special review.
Scrooed by our own stupidity
The wise man can gage a person’s foolishness by that person’s investment in absurd enterprises – Moho, your frenzied and completely unproductive logorrhea show you a majestic case of idiocy -
While accusations of ad hominem are rife here, I think this pretty much gets to the heart of what ad hominem is and when its used. The poster here has no way to refute my arguments, resorting ONLY to insult. That’s what most of you do. And that’s why you lose, pansies.
Just ask the Israelis pretty please come and train our airport personnel and be done with it.
That should take care of all the dithering and hand-wringing.
Next step, all other mass transportation-then on to sports stadiums.
#153 — Most of the terrorists in the USA seem to be christian, mostly catholic. Sorry to burst your wingnut bubbbles, kids.
Non sequitor. They aren’t targeting aircraft.
I’d guess that most of the wingnuts in the US are either bible beating morons or former bible beaters who swapped that deep belief for something just as wierd (astrology, etc.) But… so? We don’t have US christian (or former) wingnuts hiding PETN on their persons and attempting to take down aircraft.
The business of profiling AT AIRPORTS is to identify that which appears to be part of the current threat list. Whilst christians and others in the US may go on gun sprees in shopping malls and abortion clinics, thus far they aren’t much of a threat at airports. I’d be a little more worried if/when Jet Blue offers abortions on board.
Perhaps the discussion of profiling is a bit confusing for you and your buddy moho, because both of you seem to conflate gun mayhem and airport threats. Stick to the matter at hand and this may become somewhat less of a mindbender for you.
They are trying to KILL US……….Is that not offending to you? So if profiling them, in order to stop them from doing so is offending to them………..then TUFF SHIITE
LET’s Roll
PALIN/THOMPSON 2012
oh and “Keep Your Powder Dry”
Re #155/Moho:
[...] Moho, your frenzied and completely unproductive logorrhea show you a majestic case of idiocy – [...]
[...] I think this pretty much gets to the heart of what ad hominem is and when its used. The poster here has no way to refute my arguments, resorting ONLY to insult. That’s what most of you do. And that’s why you lose, pansies. [...]
1/ as arguments go: Hysterical, I showed that it’s a solid fact that there are no Swiss, Icelanders or Slovenians amongst international terros, and when there will be, they will be Swiss, Icelanders or Slovenians exactly like Ibrahim is/was a Kalevala Finn (and since here, Finns are the kindest, most paceful & positive lot I ever met – Gus Hall aside).
Therefore, profiling is legitimate.
2/ as insults go: Hysterical, it’s you who is invariably calling people names. Invariably – and I see nothing productive in this, since you are still there, foamy-mouthed yelling, the purposes of your rants being completely incomprehensible for any normasl being.
3/ as pansies go; Hysterical, since last time when I saw you, you were at the airport pleasantly flirting some generous gentlemen from Tunisia, I can see why “pansy” was the world that first came up to your mind when attempting to disparage someone.
Hysterical, I am not a believer in the self-esteem theory, but boy! you sure have a big problem with y/ self – your idiotic attempt at argumentation and your overall verbal (probably not only verbal) incontinence betray this nicely -
Hysterical, I can’t enter in this discussion the idea of your possible redemption – you’re an irreversible natural pest, not unlike lice -
RE #153/kochevnik:
[...] Most of the terrorists in the USA seem to be christian, mostly catholic. [....]
Kochy, Hysterical (dba Mojo), Meryl – wow! today we indeed have a full cascade of idiocy flowing through this site -
157@G.L. Alston
>Non sequitor. They aren’t targeting aircraft.
That’s an incredibly stupid dodge attempt. As usual when painted in a corner you try to change the definitions. No, you are either profiling Muslims for a reason or for your bigotry. Where is this alleged overwhelming evidence to merit profiling over a balanced, rational approach?
Re #161/kochevnik:
[...] No, you are either profiling Muslims for a reason or for your bigotry. Where is this alleged overwhelming evidence to merit profiling over a balanced, rational approach? [...]
Stupidity, thy name be Kochevnick from now on!
1) Kochy, mental giant: “No, you are either profiling Muslims for a reason” -
Kochy, aren’t Muslims the very abundant providers of reasons for being profiled?
2) “or for your bigotry” -
Haven’t we had enough videos with masked Muslims posing squat around a bound and gagged prisoner, knives at his throat?
Then haven’t we always had the second part of those videos illustrating the fulfiment of the “Inch Allah!” promise?
3) “profiling over a balanced, rational approach?”
Mental giant, aren’t all the successful terrorist attacks ALWAYS the outcome of a “balanced, rational approach?”
Isn’t the Gorelick memo the factor that enabled 9/11?
4) How could we have a balanced, rational approach when we are dealing with low-lifes like you and Jomo?
Yes, trolling IS A FORM OF TERRORISM, since its chief aim is to discourage and disable those who have views you don’t agree with -
A rewarding ending for Guraglia’s article:
“London breeding Islamic terrorists/Robert Leiken, Special to CNN/ January 6, 2010″
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
* Would-be Christmas Day suicide bomber was radicalized in London -
* London is haven for foreign jihadi preachers, organizers, agitators -
* British security said AbdulMutallab communicated with extremists in London -
* British turn blind eye; “once-glorious culture of tolerance lost its bearings” -
(CNN) — In assessing blame for the Christmas Day terror scare, we point fingers at Yemen, at the Amsterdam airport, even at corruption in African airports. But no one mentions where the would-be suicide bomber was radicalized: London, the capital of the ally we take for granted.
Last weekend, British security agency MI5 revealed that Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab had “multiple communications” with Islamic extremists in London, that the Nigerian reached out from London to a worldwide network of jihadi contacts and that he was “on the periphery of a past incident.”
Why was this 3-year-old information apparently not shared with U.S. authorities until more than a week after the near-fatal flight?
Probably the reason is that UK security agencies are overwhelmed by the dimensions of the terrorist threat in Britain. Two years ago, MI5′s director revealed that there were 4,000 people known to be “involved in terrorist-related activity in the UK” in more than 200 terrorist networks. A year later, authorities said the threat was growing “increasingly complex” and the numbers “even higher.”
Since the mid-90s, London has been a haven for foreign jihadi preachers, organizers, agitators and propagandists, many of them recipients of generous welfare benefits.
“Londonistan” attracted second-generation British Muslims who spurned the folk Islam and customs of their immigrant parents but were repelled by a British culture they regarded as decadent and racist.
London has become a fertile field in the jihadi playground, along with Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia. [...]
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/04/leiken.abdulmutallab.london/
———————
We made it, so far – but I think that we’ll assist at a few interesting things in the, not so distant future -
162@misanthropicus
So where do I get whatever you’re smoking? I thought California had the corner on the market, but this site opened my eyes! Are you importing medical grade Khat? How do you deal with the Yemen farmers who want you impaled on a stick?
162@misanthropicus
So how’s that Khat working out for you?
Islam is at war with us, and Jihad is a Muslim’s most fundamental duty. Therefore, every Muslim is a combatant, and thus vaporizing a Muslim city, even dropping a thermonuclear weapon on Mecca during the Hajj with the expressed intent of killing as many Muslims as possible with a single nuke is not and cannot be a war crime. Why? Because they are all combatants, in one form or another.
RE #164/kochevnik RE 162/ misanthropicus
[...] this site opened my eyes! Are you importing medical grade Khat? [...]
Kochy, do you try to offend me? My – I have to consider this -
Still, I’d rather regard this as a PJM public service – you are so dwarfingly informed (is the PJM piece about Khat still on? hehehehe) – hey, you sure can impress your friends with this -
Hehehehe – what a gang these Obamatons are! Oh, lord, from what bin they are recruited?