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

[Gyrate]

@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.

Poor Magellan01? He has explained nothing except in broad handwaving generalities, because if he took responsibility for his words it would immediately become apparent that he hasn’t a leg to stand on.

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.

Well done. You’ve done an excellent job of dismantling your entire argument.

The various idiocies you’ve been espousing about Muslims are the equivalent in your example of treating all the black people on the plane as potential suspects. Because drug mules have traditionally been black, right? And drug dealers are usually black, right? And I can find videos of lots of black people on YouTube talking about taking drugs and shooting people (hell, I can find videos on MTV of that). So we should treat them all as potential criminals until we can individually eliminate them, right?

Except that you then go on to talk about numerous other factors which are taken into consideration in deciding who likely suspects are. They’re Jamaican. They’re young. They’re male. They had no family in Canada. Those are all extremely important factors that have nothing to do with the entire class of black people of which they are a subset. And this is where you and your intended analogy part company.

It has already been pointed out that, for example, the British security services use similar factors in screening potential terrorists. They look for young Asian males travelling to certain regions of Pakistan, for example, who may have spent time in madrassas. They don’t ask all Muslims to step aside for interrogation. They don’t expect every Muslim to be a secret terrorist. They don’t assume that all Muslims are the same. And they do that not because they’re politically-correct appeasers, but because they’re not idiots. Unlike you, who continue to argue that all but a “tiny minority” of Muslims are anti-semitic, homophobic, warlike, militant, authoritarian murderers bent on world domination.

Because you, Valteron, are a lying ignorant fuck who wouldn’t know the truth about Islam if Allah, Jesus and Elvis all appeared to you in person and and explained it to you. Because you don’t care. You want to hate, and you want to hate because you’re afraid.

Sad.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@magellan01

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.

Well, I have to say, I find myself confused. I was taking your point to be that we should be more wary of Muslims as an end in and of itself, even when we then go further with differentiation. That there are more helpful and more specific groups, but that “Muslim” alone is enough for us to say “Ah, this group is worthy of greater suspicion”, even if we then go on to refine that idea. Are you saying that, in fact, we shouldn’t be wary of Muslims?

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?

I agree it would need to be described as just that - i’d say the issue to be careful of is of emotive words. “Terrorism” would likely be less agreed to than the mentioning of a specific terroristic act, same with suicide bombing (though obviously that describes an act too). It’s like “conspiracy theorist”; you’ll find few people who will agree they are one, but quite a few more who hold views that might be considered conspiracy theorists.

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.

Radical in any way. Radicalness in and of itself seems pretty indicative of threats. The most a radical Yankee fan might do is get drunk and beat up an opposing fan, but i’d say that it is all strains of radicalness that are likely to cause problems. We’re looking to protect ourselves from all attacks, not just those arising from one area. I mean, we could immediately get every police officer in our respective countries to focus solely on stopping potential Islamic terrorism, and then society would break down within the week. It’s an extreme example, obviously, but stopping a threat from one source doesn’t mean we should neglect others. You want to take it on a proportional basis. And on that basis, “radical” strikes me as much more useful. Of course, I don’t have numbers, but you don’t seem to either.

[Valteron]

@Gyrate

It has already been pointed out that, for example, the British security services use similar factors in screening potential terrorists. They look for young Asian males travelling to certain regions of Pakistan, for example, who may have spent time in madrassas. They don’t ask all Muslims to step aside for interrogation. They don’t expect every Muslim to be a secret terrorist. They don’t assume that all Muslims are the same.

I have NOT defeated my own argument with my example of checking out young black Jamaican males who arrive in Canada to make sure they are not planning to immigrate illegally. I have reinforced the point. Customs officers, without any racism at all, automatically know that every flight from Jamaica could contain potential illegal immigrants, and that the group that bears watching is black persons on a flight from a poor country like Jamaica and specifically younder males. But females in their 40s have been known to immigrate illegally.

We are simply saying that we need to be careful with that group. And that we need to be careful with Chinese Canadians, especially older ones, who are returning from a visit to China because they may be bringing back folk medicines that contravene our drug laws or species protection laws.

What YOU and the other PCs seem to assume is that Magellan and I are demanding that anyone who is a Muslim be pulled out of line, cuffed, thrown to the ground, and stomped on just in case he is a terrorist.

What we are saying is “use your fucking head”. Sure, Christians had the Crusades, but that was almost 1000 years ago. Islamic fighters have attacked, are attacking and are training with arms all over the world as I write this text. And there is a great deal of sympathy and agreement with their aims in all Muslim communities. We even broke up a training camp for terrorists near Toronto, fer Chrissake!

Even if support for terrorism is a minority position in western Islamic communities, do you know how small those minorities are?

Did you know that the American Revolution, which as I understand suceeded after eight long years of war, was probably supported by only a minority of the people in the 13 colonies at the time?

Did you know that Hitler and the Nazis never got more than 38% of the vote in a free election and still came to power?

[Valteron]

@Miller

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

Miller, your made the above comment because of two quotes by Magellan, in one of which he says that he does not propose that we treat all Muslims as suspects, and in the other of which he says we should be wary of Muslims in general.

Sorry, but they are not the same.

Treating someone as a suspect would involve bringing in every single Muslim for questioning, ordering them not to leave town without notifying the police, looking up their backgrounds, etc. etc.

Being wary of Muslims in general is just a common-sense recognition of the fact that a Muslim belongs to a religion with an ethos of violence, conquest and condemnation of “infidels” or unbelievers. It is a religion in which hundreds of millions believe that it is all right to convert people by force, that anyone who renounces their religion should be put to death, and that anyone who “insults” Islam (including with a cartoon or book) should be killed. I could quote Surah and verse to prove until the cows come home regarding the call to violence and warfare in the Koran, but you can look it up yourself.

The fact that Christianity had the Crusades centuries ago, that they burned witches and heretics until a few centuries ago is neither here nor there. Violence found in the Old Testament is not relevant given that nobody except a few nutjobs in the western democracies give a damn about the OT.

To suggest that the Western mind holds the Old Testament in the same regard as any Muslim holds the Koran, with its page after page after page of violence and threats of hell-fire, is idiotic moral relativism at its worst. The violence of Islam throughout the world is happening NOW, not several centuries ago.

Some Muslims have told me that they indeed want to see the entire world convert to Islam “but I don’t have to kill anyone to do it”. Fine. I believe them.

I would guess, just on gut instinct, that the majority of Muslims in America have reinterpreted and toned down the message of Islam to make it less warlike and to allow themselves to exist in a secular democracy. But what about the others? How big a minority do they have to be before we can be concerned?

As I pointed out already, the American Revolution suceeded with only a minority of the American population backing it. The Nazis took power LEGALLY with only 38% of the popular vote. When Constantine the Great made Chrsitianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, (setting off persecution of pagans) Christians are estimated to have been only 10% of the population.

A significant, inspired and determined minority can do more than you might think.

[Shot_From_Guns]

@Valteron

I could quote Surah and verse to prove until the cows come home regarding the call to violence and warfare in the Koran, but you can look it up yourself.

No one disputes that these things are present in the Qur’an. They are also present IN THE BIBLE. You have *no cites *for your insane claims that all or even most Muslims believe in *literally *following *every single *instruction in their holy book any more than Christians–even Biblical-literalist Christians–believe in following *every single *instruction in theirs.

You disgusting fucking racist shitbag.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Valteron

As I pointed out already, the American Revolution suceeded with only a minority of the American population backing it. The Nazis took power LEGALLY with only 38% of the popular vote. When Constantine the Great made Chrsitianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, (setting off persecution of pagans) Christians are estimated to have been only 10% of the population.

A significant, inspired and determined minority can do more than you might think.

These examples make for further interesting question; why is it these minorities were able to do these things? What motivated their rise to power? Why didn’t they give up, in the face of opposition?

The American Revolution occurred because of mistreatment by an overarching power. The British government of the time weren’t prepared to treat the concerns of American citizens as being as worthy as those as other citizens. The result of this mistreatment was, as you say, that a minority was motivated enough to throw off that power.

With the Nazis, that mistreatment was part actual and part created fable. Many Germans felt that their treatment after the first World War was too harsh; and of course the existing anti-semitism where Jews were considered the cause of many problems with society was used and expanded on to provide a power base.

In both cases the ability for a minority to take control was greatly aided by a percieved mistreatment by a powerful group; government or nations or individuals. Significant, inspired, and determined minorities are created and sustained by persecution, real or imagined. By the perception that your group isn’t being given a fair shake, that you are being blamed for the crimes of others, or simply that you aren’t of the same worth as others. Perhaps the lesson of history is that it is a good idea to try and avoid such charges.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Shot_From_Guns

You disgusting fucking racist shitbag.

Believing that Islam is bad or that you can’t trust Muslims isn’t racism. It might be religious bigotry, but it’s not racism.

[jayjay]

@Captain_Amazing

Believing that Islam is bad or that you can’t trust Muslims isn’t racism. It might be religious bigotry, but it’s not racism.

Not in theory. But in practice, the only real way to “be more wary of Muslims” is by sight. Who’s going to be scrutinized more closely if such a thing becomes the norm? Arabs and central Asians. Not Indonesians. Not Malaysians. (Hell, I doubt 2 Americans in 10 even KNOWS that Indonesia and Malaysia are Muslim countries!) Arabs and central Asians. Doesn’t matter if they’re actually Muslim or not. That Pakistani Hindu? Watched. That Lebanese Druze? Watched. That Palestinian Christian? Watched. That Sefardi Israeli? Watched.

That IS racism.

[tomndebb]

Yeah, both of the guys who were assaulted, (one murdered), directly following the WTC/Pentagon attacks were Hindu, (or, one Hindu and one Sikh for those who reckon their denominations more closely). They “looked” Muslim to the rubes that just had to go kill someone to prove their solidarity with the actual attack victims.

[Captain_Amazing]

So, the implementation of keeping a closer eye on Muslims might be racist, but not the plan itself.

[tomndebb]

@Captain_Amazing

So, the implementation of keeping a closer eye on Muslims might be racist, but not the plan itself.

I’m sure that the victims of racial intolerance are gratified when they realize that the attacks on their persons or liberties are just a misunderstanding.

[Captain_Amazing]

@tomndebb

I’m sure that the victims of racial intolerance are gratified when they realize that the attacks on their persons or liberties are just a misunderstanding.

Probably not, which is why it is incumbent upon the non-racist religious bigot to be careful with their religious bigotry. Maybe Muslims could be made to wear distinctive clothing or be restricted to various neighborhoods? That’s historically worked well in distinguishing religious minorities who are physically indistinguishable from the general populace, and the person doing the attacking could be reassured he’s attacking a Muslim rather than a Hindu or Sikh.

[jayjay]

@Captain_Amazing

Probably not, which is why it is incumbent upon the non-racist religious bigot to be careful with their religious bigotry. Maybe Muslims could be made to wear distinctive clothing or be restricted to various neighborhoods? That’s historically worked well in distinguishing religious minorities who are physically indistinguishable from the general populace, and the person doing the attacking could be reassured he’s attacking a Muslim rather than a Hindu or Sikh.

They could be required to wear armbands with yellow crescents, for example…

[Captain_Amazing]

Or badges… But that’s just details that can be worked out.

[Valteron]

@Shot_From_Guns

You disgusting fucking racist shitbag.

Islam is a race? That is new to me.

[Lobohan]

@Valteron

Islam is a race? That is new to me.

Yeah, Valteron is a bigoted shitbag, not a racist shitbag.

Although, one bag of shit is pretty much as disgusting as another.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Lobohan

Yeah, Valteron is a bigoted shitbag, not a racist shitbag.

Although, one bag of shit is pretty much as disgusting as another.

I’ve pointed out that Valteron is a monomaniac. Magellan is a more well-rounded bigot.

[Valteron]

@Bridget_Burke

I’ve pointed out that Valteron is a monomaniac. Magellan is a more well-rounded bigot.

And your degree in psychiatry is from which university?

[Miller]

@Valteron

And your degree in psychiatry is from which university?

I believe it would be the same one where you received your doctorate in comparative theology.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Valteron

And your degree in psychiatry is from which university?

I’m using the more artistic, less clinical, definition of Monomania. Thus, Wikipedia works for me!

Emotional monomania is that in which the patient is obsessed with only one emotion or several related to it; intellectual monomania is that which is related to only one kind of delirious idea or ideas.

The works of Edgar Allen Poe are referenced. Also, from Lady Audley’s Secret:

What is one of the strangest diagnostics of madness–what is the first appalling sign of mental aberration? The mind becomes stationary; the brain stagnates; the even current of reflection is interrupted; the thinking power of the brain resolves itself into a monotone. As the waters of a tideless pool putrefy by reason of their stagnation, the mind becomes turbid and corrupt through lack of action; and the perpetual reflection upon one subject resolves itself into monomania.

Sounds about right.