IzzyR, are you there? Have you abandoned the debate?
If you don’t want to be called borderline dishonest don’t be borderline dishonest. I stand by my statement.
Well that’s how it seems to me. If you want to clarify why my summary is wrong feel free. But actually address the issue, please.
I’m not sure why this is so, but if it is, so be it. Frankly if I was in Iraq or Afghanistan (& an opponent of the US invasions) I might think some profiling would be warranted in the case of Christians.
I like the way you cleverly inserted the word “personally” in there. No legitimate reason for that - I don’t base my opinions on my personal experiences and would be foolish to do so. I doubt if you even do that.
But it just happens by odd coincidence that I do know one Muslim who views America as the enemy, as discussed here. But I stress again that my opinions in this thread are not based on my experience with this guy, and if you or any of your sidekicks attempt to suggest otherwise I shall have to denounce you ;). I bring this up purely as an ironic response to your (illegitimate) question.
How nice of you, Mr.B, to ‘modify’ a quote from **milroyj **. Have no real point of your own to make, do you?
You and Monty don’t seem to get it. The threat to America is not from some criminals who are purportedly Christian; The threat is from militant Islamic fundamentalists. We have three arrests (so far), at Gitmo alone. We had Sgt. Akbar in Kuwait. Not to mention the ‘foreign’ terrorists themselves.
It is obvious that there is a problem. Sticking your head in the sand and thinking PC thoughts will not make it go away, but doing so will help perpetuate the problem.
Izzy: Since I was not borderline dishonest, no matter how much you wish I were, then you are still tossing libelous statements here–your unfounded and silly opinions–as fact.
Brutus: I get it–you’re basing your suggested actions on bigotry. There are, after all, more than one threat to this country. Yes, there are some militant Muslims who threaten and there are also some militant Christians who threaten the country. Yet, it is only the Muslims whom you wish to be investigated based merely on the fact of their religion.
The obvious problem is that you don’t know what you’re saying.
Interesting. So the ABCNNBCBS is a better source than people one has known all his life?
You have admitted killing occurs in the name of Christ. I submit this ranges from abortion clinic bombings to the quasi-ritualistic drowning of five sons. I also offer that killing has occurred in the name of every belief system out there, from Anglicans to Zoroastrians.
Somehow, seemingly rational individuals have glued horns onto Muslims, simply by the actions of a disproportionate few. That’s called bigotry. People like Brutus believe that anyone who doesn’t paint Muslims with summary suspicion is hiding behind a straw man named “PC.”
Brutus, you and I have touched on this before, but let me ask you this: how would you feel if your beliefs about handguns gave the government the right to profile you? How would you feel if you were systematically investigated, followed and pulled over for committing no crime? That’s the profiling we’re referring to, currently colloquially called “Driving While Black.” Place it in OP perspective then, except in the Military refusing to consent to search or interrogation usually ends up with time in the brig. Now that’s a great way to building a unified military. :rolleyes:
In the last place I lived prior to moving to LA, there was a gun club that formed after September 11 called the Turbanaters. I was approached to join this group after my participation in a firearms course. I suspect this numskull has begun a new chapter in his hometown. This is the kind of ignorance we’re here to fight.
I will say this: if we are at this point only wondering about the possibility of dual loyalty, profiling by religion will certainly ensure it.
To veer into hijack territory (in no way motivated by my religion), as a CCW holder, I was ‘profiled’. I was subject to a greater level of scrutiny than a simple pistol owner, and even greater than an pistol-less peon. I first recieved a CCW under the old laws, and had to have letters of reference, and stand before a review board. I was ‘systematically investigated’. No biggie.
To extend the hijack (everyone stay calm!), if I were to join the US Army, as I am looking into doing, I would be subject to a greater level of scrutiny than would John Q. Citizen. I am a naturalized citizen, and have served in a foreign army. I need to provide a copy of my service record, yet more letters of reference, etc. Again, no biggie.
Like I have said again and again, I am not saying that Muslims should not be allowed to serve. I am saying that Muslims, especially in potentially sensitive positions, should get a somewhat more intensive screening, to at least make sure that they do not subscribe to radical Islamic ‘philosophy’.
At various stages throughout American history, various groups have recieved more scrutiny than others. Since Nazis and Communists are no longer a threat, it is time to turn that scrutiny to a group that is: militant Muslims. And the only way to differentiate between Joe Muslim and Joe ‘I blowing you up’ Muslim, is to investigate them.
And as an added bonus it’s also an easy way to make Joe Muslim into Joe ‘I blowing you up’ Muslim.
Nazism is not a religion. Communism is not a religion. Islam is a religion.
Placing scrutiny on one religion violates the US Constitution. Blackballing actors [sup](Elia Kazan, RIP)[/sup] does not. Investigating known members of the Nazi Party – or Mujahedin-e Khalq – does not.
One codicil to Stuffy’s recent remark: substitute for “Joe Muslim” the name “Joe Anybody.”
No, you’re the one who’s not getting it.
Yes, militant Islamic fundamentalists are waging war on us and have been for over 20 years. We have recently recognized the war and are fighting it back. That’s all well and good.
But. But “militant Islamic fundamentalists” does not equal “Muslims.” That’s a lie. It’s told by the terrorists themselves, a tiny number of total Muslims, to try to gain a legitimacy that they do not deserve. It’s been picked up on by a tiny number of Christians to try to hasten the apocalypse they fetishize about. But it’s not true, and you shouldn’t believe it.
In the present case and based on the (admittedly little) available evidence, it appears that the defendants were engaging in conduct that should have been picked up by the normal screening procedures – spending time in enemy countries, unauthorized and unexplained travel, etc, and that they were in some cases exempted from customary security checks. Just like I said way back on page one – most cases of spying involve people who violate the normal and customary rules of security clearances and lapses in existing procedures. So no additional Muslim-specific rule is necessary, just better tracking and enforcement of the existing rules. No one in this thread has posted a shred of evidence to the contrary. In fact, no one in this thread has posted a single example of what additional screening might be applied to Muslims – just “more.”
Brutus: Please provide citation of your assertion that you must provide a copyu of your service record in another country’s armed forces to enlist in ours.
In most cases, yes. Though obviously if I lived in a Muslim community all my life and had extensive personal knowledge of the community, and saw something in “ABCNNBCBS” about this particular community, I would rely on my own observations. Obviously. But in my case, as with most people, this is not the case. It is also not the case with regards to Blacks, Hispanics, Indians, and any number of other of ethnic groups. Which is not to say that I’ve had no exposure at all to these groups - quite to the contrary - only that such exposure has been limited enough so as not to allow a definite and complete picture to be drawn solely from personal experience. Personal experience can form part of the picture - to one degree or another - but it would be a huge mistake to take one’s own limited personal experience as the sum of all knowledge of a subject.
I’m a bit surprised that you would be advocating the position that you are, as personal experience is generally the basis for a lot of negative stereotyping and prejudice. Get mugged by a Black guy and all Blacks are thugs. Get ripped off by a Jew and all Jews are crooks. No, the proper approach is to recognize that your own experience is not necessarily typical of large groups of people, and you need to glean a more complete picture from the experiences of others. Of which the mass media is a crucial component.
To the contrary, some rational individuals have simply recognized that the actions of a disproportionate few are in fact disproportionate. Others have refused to recognize this.
Short of putting you in contact with the recruiter I am speaking to, I wouldn’t have the foggiest idea how to provide a cite for that.
If something is refuted on this board as you claim does that make it correct? You think you have the same rights as your civilian counterpart? If that’s what you think then you are mistaken.
I’ll give yopu one simple example. If you work for a company like Coke and you go to a “political” type of rally in their uniforn the most they can do is fire you. If you do the same thing in military uniform you can be fined and jailed. Your rights concerning speech, assembly and association are definately not the same as in civilian life.
Maybe you are the one that needs to learn.
Normally, I just laugh at people who don’t know what they’re talking about, CoI; however, in this case I’ll answer your silly posting above.
First: The refutations on this board contained these nifty things known as citations. Those citations linked to official information such as the Constition and the applicable laws, to inlude the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Second: I know damn well that I was just as protected by the rights guaranteed by the Constitution as anyone else was. That’s kind of the whole idea behind the thing.
Third: There’s this nifty thing known as a contract which the enlisted folks sign. Therein they agree knowingly to obey certain things. No rights were curtailed.
Now gett off your duff and do some research instead of pulling stuff out of your rear and calling it true.
What interests me is the statement by people saying that merely by investigating your average Muslim, they are all the more likely to turn Joe Muslim into Joe ‘I blowing you up’ Muslim.
If Muslims are that easily influenced, and that ready to turn into assassins and terrorists, perhaps they should be more heavily scrutinized and watched over, eh?
I think that you perhaps meant something very different than what you actually said. Just thought I’d mention that.
And also, Monty: “FYI: I retired as a PN1 on February 29, 2003.” That’s a mighty interesting calendar you’ve got.
You must laugh at youself alot then Monty.
I meant to type February 29, 2000.
No, CoI: Only at people such as you who post absolutely foolish & inane things and pretend they’re factual.
Sure, it was somewhat over the top, but with a layer of truth. What I meant to convey is that the easiest way to foster resentment is to continually single a person out for extra scrutiny based on something that can’t/won’t be changed, such as skin color, religion, orientation, etc. You don’t make someone a friend by treating them with suspicion.
Can I hire you every January (OK, February too) to date my checks? 
manhattan: I was seriously considering dating my rent check September 31!