Help! Evil Muslims are out to get meeeeeee! (For Valteron and Perciful)

[magellan01]

@Revenant_Threshold

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.

As I’ve said repeatedly, it’s simply a first step. If we stopped there and then said, “Okay, no we’re going to scrutinize every last individual”, that would not be helpful. So we need to apply subsequent filters. For instance, maleness, mosque affiliation, travel to certain countries, etc. You seek to make the pool you’re going to finally examine seriously as small as possible. But you have to start somewhere.

@Revenant_Threshold

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.

I do agree that there is a sliding scale. At the same time, avoiding “hinged-on” words undermines the effort. THAT is what differentiates that acts. “Driving a truckload of explosives into a schoolyard and intentionally killing a bunch of 5- to 10-year-old kids” needs to be described as just that. Which of those would you consider “hinged-on”, and what would you change it to? Or am I not understanding you?

@Revenant_Threshold

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.

I addressed this above. I agree that the pool is still too large to be useful, but it is simply the first step. This point seems to be lost repeatedly.

@Revenant_Threshold

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.

Radical in what way? Radical Yankee fans? Radical what? The strain of radicalness that can hurt us is radical Islam. SO, look at Muslims, then seek to find the radical ones. There might be a way to go at it from the other direction, but since we’re talking about protecting ourselves from the types of attacks I mentioned earlier, Islam is going to come into it. It is a defining characteristic of the threat.

[magellan01]

@Girl_From_Mars

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.

Again, you make my point for me. Damuri Ajashi’s claims were wrong. Thank you.

For the record, there is nothing I’ve stated that deprives anyone of freedom of religion. Nothing. As far as “innocent until proven guilty”, law enforcement looking at a person does NOT mean they’re are guilty of anything. In fact, you look at them in order to determine if you think they are guilty of something. If you do, and they are arrested, then they are granted the presumption of innocence. Nothing I’ve said changes that.

[magellan01]

@tomndebb

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.)

Hmmm. So, there really was no bigotry in the statements of mine that you went and quoted. INteresting. Glad you realize that. Now I’ll have to ask you to explain what specific things from my other statements here were, in fact, bigotry. You seem to be saying that we should not be wary of evil Muslims? That seems odd, even for an apologist like you. Because what I have been saying goes beyond that and still is not bigotry, i.e., that we should be wary of all Muslims in order that we can hope to identify the evil ones. And the eeeevul ones, too.

Got it now? I look forward to you apologizing for calling me a bigot. I’m sure it 'll be here any second…

@tomndebb

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.

Here is a snippet from Wikipedia, which agrees with the memory of other things I’ve read:

Under the authority of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, the United States government detained and interned over 11,000 Germans and German Americans at the start of World War II.

So, both Germans in America and* German-Americans* were interned. Or are you making some other point?

@tomndebb

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.

tomndebb Akbar!

[Girl_From_Mars]

@magellan01

Again, you make my point for me. Damuri Ajashi’s claims were wrong. Thank you.

For the record, there is nothing I’ve stated that deprives anyone of freedom of religion. Nothing. As far as “innocent until proven guilty”, law enforcement looking at a person does NOT mean they’re are guilty of anything. In fact, you look at them in order to determine if you think they are guilty of something. If you do, and they are arrested, then they are granted the presumption of innocence. Nothing I’ve said changes that.

Firstly, define ‘look at’. Does this mean follow, photograph, keep internet records of, intercept emails, tap phones, or something else? Would you deny Muslims certain jobs, or the right to live in certain areas? Without just cause (i.e. without a single suspicious act other than being Muslim) how would this not contravene civil liberty laws?

Additionally, I take it that you did not read my link about the monitoring of suspect Muslims in the UK. At the bottom you might have read:
*
Neither the police nor M15 have the resources or manpower to keep them all under surveillance. *

That is, the authorities can’t monitor all *suspected radical *Muslims right now - let alone all Muslims.

How much are you prepared to pay to have this ‘looking at’ done? How would you determine who to look at?

And what are you prepared to give up in terms of law enforcement dropping focus on local crimes, assault, robbery, drugs, traffic, etc (by the way all much more likely to affect you personally than the remote chance of a bomb) in order to ‘look at’ all Muslims?

And following your costly and futile nationwide ‘looking at’ of individuals that you can’t explain how you would identify without using race or a name that sounds foreign (which would mean you’d miss out on my previous example of Australian David Hicks, oops!) - how much more safe would you be than right now, when the authorities have decided to be more specific and already ‘look at’ individuals who have done something on the road to demonstrating radical tendancies - attendance at mosques with radical imams, contacts of already identified radicals, time spent in training grounds in Pakistan and other Islamic nations?

Frankly I’m glad it’s your taxes you’re proposing to spend on this witchhunt, and not mine.

[magellan01]

@The_Tooth

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.

Wanting to stay alive and not have a dirty bomb exploded in NY or Chicago or LA is cowardice, when explosive attacks 1) have happened, 2) were foiled by incompetence just about a month ago, and 3) the people who will be involved in this TELL US that this is what they are planning and trying to do? Unbelievable.

You know your position would make about a billion times more sense if 9/11 was an isolated, or even the last, incident. But it wasn’t. So, you’re cuckoo. Either that or too wrapped in in political correctness to think straight. Well, cuckoo either way, I guess.

[magellan01]

@Girl_From_Mars

Firstly, define ‘look at’. Does this mean follow, photograph, keep internet records of, intercept emails, tap phones, or something else? Would you deny Muslims certain jobs, or the right to live in certain areas? Without just cause (i.e. without a single suspicious act other than being Muslim) how would this not contravene civil liberty laws?

It means whatever level of scrutiny LE would think is merited as they identify someone. I’t changes from situation to situation. But—and please try to digest this—I have not suggested we treat every Muslim as a suspect. In fact, more than once I’ve said that the sheer numbers would prohibit that even if I thought it was a good idea. Which I don’t. I’ve argued for, simply, being wary of all Muslims. Why? Because we don’t know which ones are the radical Muslims who want to do us harm. So we look at the larger set and try to identify the subset. This really is not some new, strange thinking. It’s basic logic. I think you, and others, are knee-jerking because race is involved. If I asked you to determine which car owners in NYC had cxd players in their cars, wouldn’t it be perfectly logical to first narrow down the people by looking at “those who own cars in NYC”?

@Girl_From_Mars

Additionally, I take it that you did not read my link about the monitoring of suspect Muslims in the UK. At the bottom you might have read:
*
Neither the police nor M15 have the resources or manpower to keep them all under surveillance. *

That is, the authorities can’t monitor all *suspected radical *Muslims right now - let alone all Muslims.

Read it. And that is one reason I do not propose treating all Muslims as suspects. And haven’t done so.

[Girl_From_Mars]

@magellan01

I have not suggested we treat every Muslim as a suspect. In fact, more than once I’ve said that the sheer numbers would prohibit that even if I thought it was a good idea. Which I don’t. I’ve argued for, simply, being wary of all Muslims. Why? Because we don’t know which ones are the radical Muslims who want to do us harm. So we look at the larger set and try to identify the subset. This really is not some new, strange thinking.

You keep coming back to this, and I keep asking you to explain in concept how it would work, and you either can’t or refuse to. Given what others are saying, I am gathering that this is par for the course, so I’ll leave you to your threat. I mean thread.

[The_Tooth]

@magellan01

Wanting to stay alive and not have a dirty bomb exploded in NY or Chicago or LA is cowardice, when explosive attacks 1) have happened, 2) were foiled by incompetence just about a month ago, and 3) the people who will be involved in this TELL US that this is what they are planning and trying to do? Unbelievable.

You know your position would make about a billion times more sense if 9/11 was an isolated, or even the last, incident. But it wasn’t. So, you’re cuckoo. Either that or too wrapped in in political correctness to think straight. Well, cuckoo either way, I guess.

Think whatever you like of me, but your suspicion of all Muslims being grounds for policy is still nonsense. There are an awful lot of kids fondled by Catholic priests, but I don’t see you suggesting you start with (whatever that means) all Christians just in case. Nor should you.

And please don’t pretend I’m suggesting the US do nothing towards preventing further attacks or anything like that, because that’s bullshit. But I don’t think your fear is grounds for institutionalized religious persecution, or even official lookings-at.

[LurkMeister]

@magellan01

It means whatever level of scrutiny LE would think is merited as they identify someone. I’t changes from situation to situation. But—and please try to digest this—I have not suggested we treat every Muslim as a suspect. In fact, more than once I’ve said that the sheer numbers would prohibit that even if I thought it was a good idea. Which I don’t. I’ve argued for, simply, being wary of all Muslims. Why? Because we don’t know which ones are the radical Muslims who want to do us harm. So we look at the larger set and try to identify the subset. This really is not some new, strange thinking. It’s basic logic. I think you, and others, are knee-jerking because race is involved. If I asked you to determine which car owners in NYC had cxd players in their cars, wouldn’t it be perfectly logical to first narrow down the people by looking at “those who own cars in NYC”?

And how, pray tell, are we supposed to identify these Muslims of whom we’re supposed to be wary? Is there some master registry of Muslims of which I am unaware? It has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread that “Muslim”, being a religious affiliation, is not limited to any one ethnic group. Even “radical Muslims” are not necessarily limited to ones of Middle Eastern origin; there was a news story in my area some months ago concerning some members of a local mosque who were suspected of potential terrorist activity, and several of them were recent converts who wouldn’t have looked out of place in church.

Or are you saying that the only Muslims of whom we are supposed to be wary are those from the Middle East?

[magellan01]

@Girl_From_Mars

You keep coming back to this, and I keep asking you to explain in concept how it would work, and you either can’t or refuse to. Given what others are saying, I am gathering that this is par for the course, so I’ll leave you to your threat. I mean thread.

Do whatever you’d like. But I did explain upthread what I didn’t want to get into and why. Yet, you, and others, are intent on criticizing me for things I’ve not suggested.

::shrug::

Have a nice night.

[Valteron]

@ivan_astikov

This might cheer up Valteron and Perciful.

At this very moment, neo-nazi type white people are actively planning to harm Muslims because they just might be terrorists.

How would you like to be classed among that minority group?

What the fuck are you saying? What neo-nazi group? Which minority group do you mean, the neo-nazis or the Muslims? Please use grammar that explains what you are trying to say. Are you asking me if I would like to be classified among neo-nazis? Or what?

[Valteron]

@magellan01

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.

It would have been a bitch to lock up people with German names like Nimitz and Eisenhower.

[Valteron]

Poor Magellan01! He has explained his viewpoint from a hundred different angles but the politically correct on this board still cannot grasp the concept of profiling as a normal security procedure.

I remember working for the Customs Service in Canada and explaining why, for instance, five people from a flight arriving in Toronto from Jamaica were sent to immigration to make sure they were not trying to immigrate illegally. There were white and black people on the flight, but the five sent to immigration (which BTW is NOT a punishment, simply a further procedure) were all black. RACISM!!!:eek:

But let’s hold our politically correct horses a minute and look at the facts.

All of the white passengers were Canadian tourists returning from a winter vacation in Jamaica. They had Canadian passports, spoke like Canadians, had Canadian drivers’ licences. Are you going to waste the time of immigration checking out that they are not illegal immigrants?

Most of the black passengers were NOT sent to immigration checks either. Many were Canadian citizens with passpoprts who had gone south to visit relatives. Some were old Jamaican women in their 70s who were coming to visit their children who had legally immigrated to Canada.

But guess what? Jamaica is a country that produces illegal immigrants.

And experience has shown that a young Jamaican males frequently turned out to be illegal immigrants who were not “just visiting” Canada as they claimed. The five who were sent were all young Jamaican males who had given vague answers about how long they were planning to stay, perhaps had no return ticket, etc.

Now here is the point. What do I mean by “frequently”? Who the fuck knows? We never did a statistic on it. It was a question of common sense combined with experience.

Similarly, old Chinese people entering Canada were frequently asked about any medicines they may have bought in China. Why? Because experince shows that the older generation may be importing Chinese folk medicines that are banned from Canada because they are made from endangered species. Italian Canadians coming back from Italy were frequently asked about sausages and meats. Why? Because there are (or were) certain Italian sausages that you can’t bring into Canada because they violate certain food and health requirements.

Do any young Jamaicans ever get asked about sausages? I doubt it.

This is profiling and it is based not on racism but on common sense. Now, I am sure US Customs and Customs on every other country use similar methods. And in our age of political correctness, I doubt if any of them will admit it, except on an anonymous website like this.

Hell, there was a time when gay people were weeded out of security sensitive jobs. I believe it would be unfair and unnecessary to do so today. But guess what? I am a gay person, and yet I completely agree that a gay closet case should NOT have been allowed to handle state and military secrets in say, the 50s and 60s.

Now about Islam and Muslims? I don’t give a rat’s ass about moral relativist arguments, whether Timothy McVeigh was a Republican, or the fact that terrorism was until recently practised by Christians in northern Ireland. Nor do tiny exceptions like the liberal and peaceful Ismaili Muslims detract from my main point. Was Timothy McVeigh recruited by a Christian preacher in a Christan church? Did he have a scripture urging war against non-Christians read to him on a regular basis?

The fact is that Islam is a religion bent on world conquest that is well known to have bloody borders. Islam is by its own admission and by its own scripture warlike, militant, authoritarian and harsh. The Koran spews hatred towards “unbelievers” in verse after verse after verse. Militant Islam has attacked and murdered thousands of innocent people in Mumbai, London, Bali, New York, Madrid, Chechnya, Israel, Kashmir. New mosques among growing Muslim populations in the west are regularly financed by Saudi money and staffed with Imams who “reach out” to disaffected young Muslims to recruit them as fighters for Allah. The link between certain Muslim terrorists and certain radical Mosques has been amply demonstrated.

Jewish populations such as that in Sweden have felt the brunt of growing Islamic anti-semitism. Gays in Europe and America a feeling the vicious levels of homophobia preached in Mosques.

Cartoonists have had attempts made on their lives, South Park and others are self-censoring for fear of violence, and authors who criticize Islam must have protection to survive.

I don’t care that Chrsitianity has hymns like “Onward Chsritian Soldiers”. Very few people take that sort of thing seriously. Muslims, however, generally take every word of the Koran seriously, including the crystal-clear injunctions to fight the infidels and impose Islam.

Imam after imam has said that Muslims must be ready to kill, “just as the Prophet killed with his own blessed hands.” You can see them saying this on YouTube videos, read about it in newspapers and in the media.

But when someone like Magellan01 dares to suggest that such an ideology bears watching and suspicion, he is stoned to death by the idiots of political correctness.

[Lobohan]

@Valteron

<snip>

Hrm… how unusual. By sheer random chance, the only two people on the other side of the argument are prejudiced douchebags.

What are the odds?

[magellan01]

@Lobohan

Hrm… how unusual. By sheer random chance, the only two people on the other side of the argument are prejudiced douchebags.

What are the odds?

Hmm…how unusual. Someone posts a detailed argument and Lobohan attempts, not to refute the points made and offer counterpoints, or use logic to show where the person’s thinking is wrong, but wishes it all into the cornfield by calling the person a name.

What are the odds?

[Miller]

@magellan01

But—and please try to digest this—I have not suggested we treat every Muslim as a suspect.

…

I’ve argued for, simply, being wary of all Muslims.

That’s, ah, kinda the same thing, there.

[tomndebb]

@Valteron

The fact is that Islam is a religion bent on world conquest that is well known to have bloody borders. Islam is by its own admission and by its own scripture warlike, militant, authoritarian and harsh. The Koran spews hatred towards “unbelievers” in verse after verse after verse.
. . .
The link between certain Muslim terrorists and certain radical Mosques has been amply demonstrated.
. . .
But when someone like Magellan01 dares to suggest that such an ideology bears watching and suspicion, he is stoned to death by the idiots of political correctness.

No. Your lies about Islam do not justify magellan01’s bigotry any more than it justifies yours. (And yes, you are both displaying bigotry, that is: an obstinate and intolerant devotion to your own prejudices as demonstrated by your intolerance toward another group. magellan01 can go on forever covering his ass that he has not made any specific proposals (thus trying to hide what he is clearly saying), but the reality is that his claim that we need to be “wary” of a billion people is pretty much the same as the nonsense that we needed to be “wary” of “communists” (as opposed to actual Soviet agents) a few years ago.

It is simply not that difficult to display caution toward actual people with identifiable characteristics without throwing every person in the world who shares a single characteristic into the same suspect group. By insisting that we need to include everyone in the larger group in a suspect class, when we could more profitably target smaller groups, magellan01 reveals his intolerance toward the larger population. For you, of course, it is easier, because you actively hate all sorts of people–and you’re proud of it. Although, even you have to admit that it has been “certain Muslim terrorists” linked to “certain radical Mosques” and not every Muslim or mosque in the world.

[tomndebb]

ETA: There is a humorous aspect to this, of course. The extremists among the Muslims are behaving in a manner very much like your own, decrying any tolerance for non-Muslims on the grounds that such infidels are scary and not trustworthy. I am glad that you folks can find some common ground in this world.

[Kobal2]

@Valteron

Imam after imam has said that Muslims must be ready to kill, “just as the Prophet killed with his own blessed hands.” You can see them saying this on YouTube videos, read about it in newspapers and in the media.

They say it on YouTube, it must be God’s own truth

More to the point rebuttal though : you know what makes for really bad copy/ratings ? This interview :

JOURNALIST : Hi, and welcome to the Al-Umqar Ibn-Wazir Uq-Toqui Mosque, I’m with Imam Bob who will tell us all about his hatred of infidels and how he wants to KILL US ALL IN OUR SLEEP !
IMAM : Er…what ?
J : Well, you are Muslim aren’t you ?
I : Yes, yes I am.
J : And your religion is based on killing infidels and converting people by the sword, right ?
I : Not as such, no. Not that I know of, anyway. I mean, sure, there’s a lot of fire and brimstone in the Holiest of Holy Books, but that’s how it was in the old times, you know ?
J : So why do you hate all freedom loving Americans then ?
I : That’s just it. I don’t. Loved Die Hard 4 !
J : Huh. So… where do you hide your AK ? Is it under your robe ?
I : I… don’t have an AK. I’m a priest, young man. A man of peace.
J : Get out of here ! Wait… really ? No bombs either ?
I : Nope.
J : IED ?
I : 'fraid not.
J : Jury-rigged explosive underwear ?
I : Sorry.
J : Sharp stick ?
I : I’m all out.
J : Dammit. So, err, if you don’t want to butcher the infidels, what exactly do you do ?
I : Well, you know, I preach. The usual religious stuff : try to be nice, don’t eat pork, be patient, don’t screw around on your wives, get your filthy thieving hands off other people’s property, that sort of thing.
J : Oh. OK then. Well, that’s all the time we had, thanks for talking to us Imam Bob, and this was the news !

[Gyrate]

@magellan01

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?

Are you unaware that the person who first spotted and reported the vehicle was also a Muslim (and an immigrant one to boot)? Should we be wary of him?