Based on a biased minister’s sample size of…three? I have no idea if “Homeland Security” is inherently racist, but it might be interesting for you to actually read up on what DHS is, if you did you would realize it is an enormous bureaucratic umbrella department that encompasses many Federal agencies that were once under other umbrellas. I tend to think it is a bureaucratic dragon of such immense size one would be foolish to characterize it as anything on a holistic level since so many of its underlying agencies are so very different from one another.
If I were Muslim I think I’d be madder at the folks who perpetrate violence in the name of Islam than at people trying to protect the public. If I were a security guard and saw a group with Muslim-sounding names travelling together I’d be extra cautious as well.
Profiling will stop when the heads of Islamic countries stop threatening to anihilate westerners and people in the street stop dancing in glee when westerners are targeted.
No, Homeland Security is expected to attempt to keep terrorists out of the country…and muslims make up about 99% of the world’s terrorists because the koran tells them to kill those that don’t convert!
It’s not a matter of singling anybody out, it’s a matter of listening to what they say in their religion…which lets you know what they are planning because they openly discuss killing those that refuse to convert to islam.
Lovely religion, isn’t it???
Stopping a “group with Muslim-sounding names travelling together” would appear to be a clear sign of incompetence on the part of the security people. Every time a group has been stopped, they have been innocent of any ill intent and no “group . . . travelling together” has ever launched an attack.
Piffle. Islamists (currently) make up the majority of terrorists in the world because following the end of the Cold War, the nations that have the most unresolved conflicts over land and power happen to have large Muslim populations among those perceived to be oppressed. (For example, when the same people were raising hell in the Philipines 30 years ago, they were “communists,” but with the fall of the U.S.S.R., now they have gone back to being “Muslims”–as they were prior to the Cold War.)
A more or less valid point (if not exactly accurate) regarding the Wahabbist sect, but a gross over-generalization regarding Islam.
In fact, it is a lovely religion, although one that does not particularly appeal to me.
No cite either, but I’ve taken at least a dozen international flights in the last two years and have never been singled out for extra attention. If anyone told you that all passengers were treated like this, well, that person misled you.
Aside from the four 9/11 flights of course.
Aside from no one.
None of the nineteen hijackers on September 11 travelled as part of a group. That is why stopping groups is so stupid: the terrorists are already smart enough to avoid that action, so stopping groups merely penalizes people for being “the wrong sort” and makes them less likely to want to cooperate with the authorities.
We must disagree in what traveling as a group means. On 9/11 groups of 3 or 4 terrorists boarded pre-arranged flights. They did not (as far as I know) go up to the ticket agent and say “Hey, me and Omar here are flying together”, but they were clearly part of “a group”. I travel on business with groups of colleagues all the time and we check in and board separately as well.
In the case the OP is discussing, the black men with Muslim-sounding names were not associated with the Minister in any case. But still, if security sees a number of Muslim-looking men on a flight they not only have a right, they have an obligation, to think “what’s up?”.
Then there was no way for the ticket people to identify them (or your traveling companions) as a “group.” They had seapate seats. They boarded individually without speaking to each other. Whatever excuse you might come up with for stopping anyone with a “Muslim sounding” name, (like Anne Mary Murphy), pulling aside identifiable groups is dumb.
FWIW, I get stopped by these folks every single time I come to the US. Last summer I had 6 flights around the US and was “randomly selected” on every one of them plus when I arrived. Not a big deal. They swipe their swabs, have me boot my PC, run me through the metal detector and I’m on my way. Sometimes I get the “air-booth” as well.
As an OBTW, I’m extremely light complexioned, not a Muslim, and my name is very common in Western countries. OTOH, my passport is absolutely FULL of Arabic stamps from just about every country around here.
If Mr. Minister was detained for 40 minutes I would bet it was because he assumed he was exempt and started giving the inspectors a bad time when he discovered he wasn’t. Things can take a while when you do that.
Regards
Testy
I don’t think that’s true, actually.
Nor that.
What’s the point of searching people if nobody’s allowed to search the people most likely to be part of a hijacking plot? I’m all for going back to the good ole’ days when nobody really looked at anyone’s baggage, but if we’re going to make a big visible security increase gesture, we might as well make it a little effective.
So are the screeners supposed to do a deep background check to make sure that the people they’re profiling aren’t political leaders? Count me unimpressed by minister whats-his-face’s crying.
Actually, it is. [
](~~ |~~ Is Islam Violent? What The Koran says. (This is the Printer-Friendly version) ~~)
Regards,
Shodan
See, this is the problem with those “OMG LOOK AT THE EVIL CITES!” type pages. No context! (and actually I think I recognise the first one, so maybe it’s a popular site?
So yes, you should kill them… if you haven’t formed an alliance with you, or who aren’t fighting you or themselves. So self-defence, in fact. Rather an important omission for the next line along.
As for your second cite, that appears to be rather a short line for apparently two verses. Not that I wish to question the translation, or anything. Anyway, here’s the appropriate parts in the version i’ve found;
Again, it would seem, you don’t get to kill people with whom you have agreements. Or if they want protection and aren’t fighting. Or are true to you and don’t fight you. So, again, self-defence, and even then it would seem this is only talking about a specific time; you get to defend yourself against people who try and stop you “on the day of the greater pilgramage”.
Now I have no doubt that there are verses in the Koran which say “Yes, go, kill those bastards over there!”. But these are not those verses. You’re a religious guy, right? I’m sure you know the problems of people quoting things out of context. Try again. Here, this is the Koran i’m using, go wild.
I pretty much get stopped on every flight as well (hispanic male with wierd Greek name) and I’m not even a Muslim. Hell, maybe they stop agnostics too…we are pretty dangerous.
It’s a pain in the ass, especially for me…but I think it’s a reasonable price to pay for our airliners not betting blown apart or flowing into buildings.
-XT
Actually, it is not–unless you wish to assert that Judaism is a religion that insists on genocide and ethnic cleansing or that Christianity is a religion that demands that everyone hate their spouse and children and parents and siblings.
If one reads for comprehension in context instead of cherry-picking the lines that let one deliberately misunderstand what has been written, one finds no claims in the Qur’an that people who are not Muslim are to be forced to convert under pain of death or that Muslims are to murder unbelievers.
[Deuteronomy 7
1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:](Dt 7: 1 - 2 KJV - When the LORD thy God shall bring thee - Bible Gateway)
[Numbers 31
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.](Num 31:17 - 18 KJV - Now therefore kill every male among the - Bible Gateway)
All we do by assuming that brown people with Muslim-sounding names are the likely terrorists is to ensure that, when the next bunch of real terrorists show up, they will be white with western-sounding names.
So OK - it wasn’t a bunch of Canadian potato farmers that attacked the US on 9/11, sure. But this “profiling” approach is counterproductive.
And yeah, I do think that affording some respect to the government officials of one’s allies is probably a decent idea. Even Muslims like, er, “Minister whats-his-face”.
So this is your defense - the Jews do it too?
That’s pretty silly. But if you can cite an instance from the last twenty years or so when a significant proportion of the Jews of the world attempted genocide on Hittites or Jerubites based on this verse as the Islamo-fascists have been attempting terrorism based on the Koran, I will be glad to address this tu quoque seriously.
Not quite - what the passage is saying is that you should “announce a painful punishment to those who disbelieve” except during the period during which they cooperate with you. Then, once the agreement is up, and they refuse to convert, you can kill them.
IOW, what is being discussed is an exception to the default, which is to kill those who refuse to convert or submit. As mentioned.
Regards,
Shodan
Then the next bunch of terrorists will say they are Ministers from England and have Muslim sounding names so that we are afraid to search them in case we look “racist”.