It just takes one*. That’s why he’s so afraid.
*OK, fine, it takes two to do both of these things. But you get the point.
I’m glad you posted this, as it gives me an opportunity to point out one gross mischaracterization. You actually have it flipped around. The idea I’ve been putting forth is NOT akin to how we treated the Japanese. It is much more like (though identical) how we treated the Germans. Their being German was used as the first sieve. We then looked more closely at the individuals in the pool and culled out large swaths who we thought were not a threat. I’m sure there were subsequent siftings that moved sub-groups into the “not a threat category”, and then, finally, scrutiny was applied on an individual basis. THAT methodology is what I’m suggesting. The first part of it, specifically.
I’m sure the FBI is watching mosques they deem to be potential threats, or helpful in identifying those who are threats. And how do you think they determined which mosques to watch? Do you think they might have started with a broader list, of say, places where radical Muslims might worship, i.e., MOSQUES?!
Of course they did. They started with a list of mosques and then crossed those off the list that they deemed were less of a threat.
No, it doesn’t. There is an established threat from radical Islam. If you want to prevent the next attack, why would you want to look at 300 million people rather than 2.5 million? That makes zero sense. You’re intentionally making your job over 100 times harder.
His non-Republicanism aside, as I pointed out before, one incident does not a pattern make.
This guy is aware that 9/11 is not an isolated, or last, incident. For instance, are you unaware of the failed attempt in Times Square?
Here’s a simple hypothetical I’d like you to answer: if something inconvenienced you personally 1%, yet made everyone in your society 1% safer, would you be willing to subject yourself to that 1% inconvenience?
I’d appreciate a direct answer to that. From you and others, if they are so inclined.
What, specifically, have I proposed that is either illegal or unconstitutional?
Please not the word, “specifically”.
:smack: The border is more porous than I feared.
Hey, ivan, if you look up fast enough, you might see a joke* whooshing past over your head.
*And a reference to an old thread with another disgusting racist like our neighbor magellan01, who, if we’re lucky, will follow the unlamented Silverstreak Wonder into the oblivion of bannination.
Zing.
They drop their Koran Bibles all over the place, too.
Oh, we’re at war with the Sovereign Nation of Muslims, are we? Please do let me know when you can find it on a map and tell me who’s in charge.
That’s not the right question. The correct question is this:
How many 30 y/o, British, female, MUSLIM astrophysicists have flown planes etc?
And not only are you furrin, yer some kind of a scientist–skeery folk, them–AND not Christian to boot! (and for all I know, he’s got a thing about women in their place–it’s hard to discern crazy from Crazy).
What, specifically, have you proposed? Until you answer this oft asked question, we can’t give you a specific response.
Given that monitoring people is not part of your plan (as above) you might be unhappy to hear that authorities have already found ways to monitor radical Muslims and those they come into contact with, rather than tar all Muslims with the ‘could be radical’ brush.
[…the security services make a crucial distinction between those who are suspected of active links to the Bin Laden network and those who preach jihad in mosques and other forums but go no further than that.
The British security service has tended to concentrate its monitoring on those young Muslims known to have gone abroad to fundamentalist training camps.](BBC News | UK | Monitoring radical Muslims in the UK)
But that isn’t what you’ve done - for one thing, those some Muslims aren’t the only threat. It only makes sense to cut down to that number if there is some overall greater proportional threat, which I don’t think you’ve proved. The point though is that some ten fingered people are also a threat; but that information doesn’t really do us a massive amount of good. It’s not helpful information. Now, there are less American Muslims than ten fingered people in the U.S., but how do we know that that smaller number still contains some use, in proportion to the threat? You may be able to look at a smaller number, but that’s still millions.
But the intent of many acts we’d consider terrorism isn’t simply the deaths of civilians - it’s to send a message. To cause terror, in fact - you’re not causing terror in the people you kill, because they’re dead. You’re causing terror for everyone else. The intent of Shock and Awe in that instance was very much to cause terror - the phrase is a pretty good synonym, really - not just for the military and political leadership, but civilian population too. Now, certainly, there is a difference between killing civilians incidentally and killing them purposefully - and between killing incidentally and taking effort to avoid killing incidentally as much as possible. But, likewise, I would imagine a considerably higher acceptance of such acts by the general public. It’s a sliding scale. I really do think that, presented with a similar question phrased such to avoid hinged-on words, you’d get a pretty similar result. I think it’s like the old Milgram experiment; one group of people did something horrific, but it’s ok, because it was unique to those people. Except that when you actually study people, it’s a pretty widespread phenomenon.
But what percentage of American Muslims have shown themselves to be a threat? I mean, if Muslims make up 1% of all Americans, but those who have shown themselves to be a threat make up a decimal of a percentage of American Muslims, then it doesn’t really make any more sense to put extra scrutiny on Muslims, no more than it would do to put extra scrutiny on ten fingered people. That one is a *smaller *number does not guarantee that it is a *small enough *number.
Beyond that, why is it the “Muslim” part of “Muslim radicals” that is the more useful bit? It seems to me like the radical bit might be the more helpful point.
You are so cute when you are displaying your bigotry.
I am not defining what elanorigby or you wanted to say . I am simply responding to your error, pointing out that regardless of any spin and twist you want to place on it, the U.S. did not do the “same thing” to separate groups. The phrase “German-Americans” refers to U.S. citizens just as “Japanese-Americans” refers to U.S. citizens. The “same thing” was not done to both groups.
If evil Muslims are not out to get you, you’re not trying hard enough.
:eek: Are you friggin’ kidding me? Damuri Ajashi made a claim that what I was proposing was illegal and unconstitutional. Knowing that to not be the case, I asked him to point out, specifically, what I had proposed that was illegal and unconstitutional.
And now you come in and say that one can’t come up with anything because I…(wait for it)…haven’t proposed any such things. In fact, I haven’t proposed anything for which legality or constitutionality can even be weighed!
I guess I should thank you, because you’ve made my point to Damuri Ajashi and have shown his statement to be false. So, thanks.
And now we get to play this little game with you. Here is what you were referring to.
Please point to the instances of bigotry.
Anything yet?
How about now?
That’s okay. I’ll wait
And we’re back to Square 1: define “same thing”. You can define it in a way that you are correct. And I can define it in a way that I am correct. But in your rush to the defense of PC stupidity concerning Muslims, you simply must define it in a way that I was wrong.
I can’t tell you how shocked I am.
I wouldn’t be so quick to congratulate yourself. You are HINTING at things which look like they may be unconstitutional (not being American I’m not intimately familiar with its intricacies, but freedom of religion, and innocent before proven guilty seem to things you wish to challenge). But until you are SPECIFIC about what you are proposing it would be difficult to give you a complete breakdown of how it is unconstitutional/legal.
Every post you have made regarding your need to be “wary” of the eeeevul mooslims, (carefully without, of course, actually explaining how we could do that.)
There is no way that you can defend your claim honestly. U.S. citizens of German descent were not treated the “same way” as U.S. citizens of Japanese descent. They simply were not, regardless how you try to twist and spin your definitions. The phrases employed were “German-Americans” and “Japanese-Americans” and those terms mean citizens. Had the terms employed been “Germans in America” and “Japanese in America,” you could gotten away with it, but those were not the words used and you are simply wrong.
I do not expect you to be shocked; you have pushed hatred and distortion on this board for years and I do not ever expect you to be shocked when posters providing the facts to contradict your odd beliefs rebut your false claims.
I’m pretty sure it wasn’t the last as well, but it’s probably what made you scared of Muslims. Regardless, your cowardice is still no one’s problem but yours. I understand that you’re afraid, I just don’t see why anyone else should be the least bit inconvenienced by it.