Why, yes. Yes, I do. There’s the aforementioned hijackings of flights from Cuba. There’s also the aforementioned involvement of some Christian Europeans in the flight that was hijacked to Entebbe.
Oh, and just so you’re clear on what I’m trying to tell you, there has also been one hijacking of a plane by Muslims that had nothing to do with Islam. The hijacking had to do with getting some other folks, Europeans, out of prison.
What I’ve posted above is from what I remember of the news over the last 40 years. I’ve been spending my time in the last two days in class and also looking for some online references to substantiate this stuff on the off chance that you really are not so foolish as to not have listened to any of the news over the last 40 years yourself and will thus recognize it for what it is. So far, I’ve gotten an article from the Wikipedia. I certainly shall post, and I intend to to this by tomorrow evening (although my last class ends quite late). For the offline cites, I’ll quote what I can find and attribute them properly.
Now that you & I both have this out of our system, I really do have to ask you something: CAN YOU TELL THE FREAKING POINT I’M TYRING TO GET ACROSS TO YOU? It’s not that Christians have hijacked planes in the name of Christianity. It’s that Christians have hijacked planes in the past. So, before I really do waste my time in at least one area of research, let me know if you don’t think Catholics are Christians. Okay?
No need to get so excited - you are merely missing the point, and a simple one at that. This thread is about profiling. You profile for a characteristic that increases the risk factor, not for one that merely allows for it. If Muslims have committed crimes in the name of Islam, this suggests that the religion itself is a possible cause of these crimes, making it a risk factor. If Christians commit crimes unconnected with their religion, this suggests that the religion was not a factor in the crime, and does not suggest that the religion is itself a risk factor.
I don’t see the distinction. I must have slept through the broadcasts on the MSNBC where a hijacker said “we take these towers in the name of Allah.” Did the White House surreptitiously release a statement that survived the inferno or are we just supposing, in a very Orientalist[sup]†[/sup] way, that the bad guys skyjacked in the name of Islam?
As an aside, I suppose you think the Chechens are fighting a religious dispute?
Monty, you’re welcome. I’m sorry I didn’t leave it to you but my disgustometer was through the roof. IIRC the Marine who hijacked a plane was disturbed and according to a Navy Corpsman who once treated him, on his way to Rome “to see the Pope.”
I still think those two clerics were regular joe americans until they got into Guantanamo. I am also impressed by the speed in which some posters shouted “Execute Them” … while nothing much has been revealed of the accusations.
So it seems the divide between christians and muslims is to be widened ? Applauses to Osama… one more victory to him.
Criminy, Izzy. Look up in the sky…yeah, right there above Superman…see it? Yeah, THAT’S MY POINT! First off: there has been at least one hijack in which the Muslims who’ve committed those acts did not do so in the name of Islam–'twas done in the name of springing some other terrorists from the hoosegow. Second: Your take on the Islamic faith is down there below dumber than dirt.
Well one clarification: it is insignificant whether the crimes were committed specifically in the name of Islam - I misspoke in using that terminology - what counts is whether is it connected to the religion. So that, for example, if people of that religion are more predisposed to view others - American, specifically - as “the enemy” than are people of other religions, it becomes a risk factor.
Bottom line is that your positions seem to be that there is not a disproportionate number of Muslims committing terrorist acts out there (and against the US specifically) as compared to members of other religions, and that those Muslims who do so are not motivated by anything connected to their religion. This speaks for itself, and I am content to leave it here.
Dogface, why did you even bother to put this thread in GD? Admittedly, your OP asked a reasonable question, and some of the more intelligent people in the thread have actually addressed the issue in a thoughtful way.
But what have you brought to the debate since then? Nothing but ranting. To wit:
and
and
How long can it be before you blame the whole mess on the evil liberals who made your college life such misery?
I guess it really is true that you can’t teach an old dog(face) new tricks.
IzzyR I’m trying to determine precisely where your position is and the blurring line is giving me a headache. Let’s take yur statement immediately above:
What in the world does this mean? You are aware that Americans are in the great scheme of things the least likely to be effected by an act of terrorism. Also we again get into the murky waters of ‘religion’. Defining it just as Islam/Muslim or whatever renders it essentially too broad as to become totally useless, seeing as that is the second most common belief system in the world.
Blurry line, Stuffy? I’d go with “smudge” instead.
Izzy: There have been–in this thread, among other places–calls to have all the Muslims in the military investigated just because they’re Muslims and that’s because some Muslims have hijacked planes, not to mention committed other crimes. Now, when it’s pointed out that Christians have hijacked planes, not to mention other crimes, and thus the same thing should thefore (if one were to accept the inane “lets profile people on their religion” method) apply to all the Christians in the military. You see the fall-out of pointing out that…well, if you read and understand this thread, then you see the fallout.
And “connected to the religion” is utter BS. If that were truly what mattered, then everyone should be screaming quite loudly for an investigation of every single Christian in the military thanks to the abortion clinic bombers being motivated by their version of Christianity.
Now, if anyone’s interested, here are the very short particulars on the list provided by Mr. B above:
[ul][li]Raphael Minichiello: Catholic (bonus, US Marine)[/li]
[li]Arthur Barkley: Methodist[/li]
[li]Raymond Kuchenmeister: Lutheran[/li]
[li]Charlie Hill, Michael Finney, Ralph Goodwin: Protestant, Catholic, “American Anglican”/Agnostic[/li]
[li]Patrick Critton: Baptist[/li]
[li]William White Graham: Christian[/ul][/li]Those names in the list above without hyperlinks are those for which I could not find a reference yet. If Mr. B would be so kind as to provide his sources, I’d say we will have then pretty much nailed that citation request down.
Check this link for substantiation of my assertion that Muslim hijackers have been involved in hijackings done not in the name of Islam.
Remarkably similar (though I would change “most” to “a disproportionate percentage”). I am not a knee-jerk opponent of racial profiling in the case of blacks either. However, as I posted earlier, what I am primarily discussing here is the utility and validity of profiling. This does not mean that there are not other considerations that come into play. And the cost/benefit scale of doing the profiling is not necessarily the same in all cases, making comparisons to blacks difficult if not impossible.
For one thing, on the benefit side, the objective of profiling blacks (law enforcement) is not the same as that in profiling Muslims (here, preventing espionage). And on the cost side, the profiling of blacks has in many cases been carried out rather haphazardly, resulting in the harassment of many innocent black people (see Stuffy’s previous post on this subject). There’s a difference between subjecting Muslims in the military - who are going through screening anyway, as others have noted) to some extra profiling, and pulling random black guys off the highway.
Or maybe you could make an argument the other way. I’m not coming down in favor of one course of action - frankly I’m not a military man or a cop. All I’m saying is that the concerns are valid and need to be weighed against other concerns instead of being dismissed out of hand as some well-meaning people are doing.
Stuffy, I’m unclear as to the meaning of your most recent post. I don’t know if it is true that Americans are least likely to be affected by terrorism (I highly doubt it, in fact), but even if it were true I don’t see this as relevant.
Also, Islam may be very widely practiced worldwide, but it is not all that common in the US army, making it more practical than it would otherwise be. Beyond this, I’ve noted earlier in this thread that it is quite possible that the profile could be narrowed down significantly beyond simply “Islam”.
Monty,
Rephrasing an argument (and ignoring clarification) in order to make your rebuttal applicable. I’d say borderline dishonest.
Well as to Americans effected by terrorism here’s some figures:
Total Terrorist Deaths from Attacks by Region, 1995-2000
Asia suffered the most deaths as a result of terrorist attacks; a total of 9,713 perished there from 1995 to 2000. Africa follows with 5,762 deaths for the 6-year period. The Middle East comes next with 2,190, and Western Europe with1,212. North America had the least number of dead, with only seven during that period.
If we add in the 3000 from 9/11 we get something like a 5 to 1 ration, but then we’d have to add in Israel and other figures so it’s probably more on the order of 6 to one. Owing that 9/11 was something of an anomoly the true figure is probably closer to 12:1 if not more.
Current estimates are between 1.3 to 7 million practising muslims in te United States. I’m not sure if that figure includes NoI or the recent influx of Muslims from Croatia, Bosnia and the like. Thise figures would put us at something like 1 in 300 to 1 in 30, that’s a lot of people.
Don’t call me a liar, Izzy, and especially not in Great Debates. More importantly: don’t call me a liar when I was not even borderline dishonest. I was not & am not dishonest at all here. Your postings though are intentional misrepresentations and distortions of the point I’m making.
Have Methodist, Lutheran, or Baptist people hijacked planes? Yes.
Have Muslim people hijacked planes for non-religous reasons? Yes.
But, you still have no evidence that Christians have hijacked planes for religious reasons.
This whole arguement about hijacking planes is a bit of a hijack itself, anyway.
We are now up to three individual Muslims, both military and civilian, who are publically suspected of espionage, namely, carrying classified information to SYRIA and Egypt.
Don’t you think those folks deserve a closer look, at least? Profiling isn’t always a bad thing, you know.
…but with a little sleight of hand vis a vis “evidence that Christians have hijacked” you’ve ensured your summary dismissal in just about every Forum I can imagine. Thanks for the tip.
