a quick correction to a previous post
the RIRA, a dissident republican group, do not act on behalf of a religious group, nor claim to do so. This question dosen’t belong in the quiz, as it is not equivalent to the other questions.Nor are all its members Christian, Male or between the ages of 16 or 40.
While I understand the purpose of the post, lets not include ignorance to fight ignorance.
Insofar as Islam does not in fact dismiss all non-Muslims as infidels, ipso facto, then there is a single word for the above: ignorance.
What Collounsbury said. Musliosm do not** “disdainfully dismiss all non-Muslims as infidels.” In fact, Qu’ranic teaching demands that Christians and Jews be respected as people of faith who believe in God’s earlier revelations. Jews, in particular, were given greater freedom under medieval Islamic rule than they were under Christian rule. From this French site on comparative religion:
Basically the Muslim state agreed to protect the lives, property and religious freedom of their dhimmi subjects in return for absolute submission to Muslim rule, including respect for the Muslim faith; loyalty to the Muslim state, including staying out of contact with the enemy and informing the authorities of enemy activity; and other obligations, including quartering soldiers in their houses for a maximum of three days and payment of a special tax in return for exemption from military service.
Note to Spooje and Wring. Synecdoche, look it up. If you two can’t distinguish between literal and rhetorical figures, go post on Yahoo with your equals.
Maybe I can find someone there who wouldn’t be as rude when I ask a question.
Ahem, you posted:
If you want polite answers, first pose polite questions.
How is that a rude question?
They seemed pretty similar to me. I thought “I must be missing something”. So I asked, for my own education, as stated.
Upon re-reading, I can see where my question could be misconstrued as a sarcastic statement. For that, I apologize.
Meh, like the first quiz, this one is full of holes too. Thank for the info.
So this thread is an example of gobear bein’ polite. Good to know.
What about “Raghead”? Is “Sand Nigger” harsh enough? “Camel Jockey”? **
[/QUOTE]
WTF are you talking about? And BTW show me where any Christan Church teaches the hate that is forced in to the heads of thier kids.
Insofar as Islam does not in fact dismiss all non-Muslims as infidels, ipso facto, then there is a single word for the above: ignorance.
Another WTF are you talking about - Show me where I said ISLAM you jack jerk non reading ignorant MF
What about “Raghead”? Is “Sand Nigger” harsh enough? “Camel Jockey”? **
[/QUOTE]
WTF are you talking about? And BTW show me where any Christan Church teaches the hate that is forced in to the heads of thier kids.
Insofar as Islam does not in fact dismiss all non-Muslims as infidels, ipso facto, then there is a single word for the above: ignorance.
Another WTF are you talking about - Show me where I said ISLAM you jack jerk non reading ignorant MF
No, it’s me responding to attacks in kind.
care to show me where I attacked you dear?
So, is the assertion that the next terrorist attack is just as likely to come from a Christian extremist as a muslim extremist?
Or is it that muslim extremists are indistinguishable from the population as a whole? There’s nothing we could possibly do to narrow down the list of possible candidates for searches?
Or is it simply that it’s immoral to do so?
I’m just trying to follow the line of reasoning here.
the assertion is that we have no way of determining which group will make the ‘next terrorist attack’. that by specifying the ‘most likely to check’ as a “fundementalist Islamic males between certain ages”, that those advocating this as the target are not seeing various issues such as:
there is no physical trait that one can point to that identifies “fundementalist Islamic males between certain ages” . Dark(er) skin identifies significant numbers of persons who are not FIs.
That there’s no particular way to profile for religious affiliation, so the qualifyer “fundementalist Islamic” gives no particular information to make it easier to identify a potential person. and any potential is easily changed (such as name, hair color, eye color, facial hair).
That the most effective way for any determination for terrorist to be made is through behaviorial issues such as ‘one way ticket’ , ‘no luggage’, ‘paid in cash’ etc. vs. any ethnicity issue. and would include then the potential other terrorists, while most likely avoiding those who unfortunately physically resemble what some security guard may think of as being ‘FIM’.
That by repeating the phrase “Fundementalist Islamic Male between certain ages” (over and beyond being tedious to type over and over) will not only have little probative value (as explained above) but will enable those who shouldn’t be targeted be targeted for additional scrutiney, while allowing those other groups who would do us harm, to slip on by. In addition, it gives the terrorist incentive to develop additional tactics to use ‘other than FIMBCA’ s.
I don’t see anyone claiming that there’s no risk from the group “FIM”, but that to attempt to locate them by physically descriptive means will unneccessarily target those who are innocent, while also ignoring others who are potentially guilty.
In particular, the poster who tossed in the “sirhan sirhan” reference to apparently link Robert Kennedy’s assasination w/the current level of threats becomes idiotic - as I attemtpted to point out by detailing the last several attacks on presidents by those other than FIMs. (said post garnering the attention of gobear to lump me in with those seeming just as loony as ‘rabid right wingers’, which started that back and forth crap).
So, in short, to focus on the phrase “FIM” ignores potential other real risks, while spreading the net further than it should be only on one type of group to the exclusion of others who would do us harm.
does that help?
First, to Blown & Injected, who wanted an example of Christian Churches teaching hate-
Take a look at the struggle in Ireland, divided politically and violently along Protestant and Catholic lines. Go there and hear insults like “F-ing Prod” or “Damn Papist”
Take a look at the Southern Baptists. (Before I continue, let me state that I am NOT condemning all Southern Baptists, just certain parishes) Back when I was in high-school, a SB church school refused to play my school’s football team because we were a Catholic school. This is the reason they gave our headmaster, CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN. When our headmaster pointed out that they were bigoted idiots because they had been playing us for 20+ years, and our school’s name was one associated exclusively with the Catholic Church for 1700 years. When they apologized and tried to reschedule us, we declined (and continue to do so).
And the list goes on…
Second, to Wring: As stated elsewhere in this string, and from the public statements of those who profile- profiling “FIM’s” doesn’t stop with “FIM’s.” Factors in a “Terrorist Equation” would go something like " FIM+exposure to certain known terrrorists+one way ticket+expired visa+multiple aliases+links to the IRA+excessive debts+links to White supremacist groups+…" No one factor rules the equation, and a suspect may not have all of the factors, but any one factor increases likelyhood of suspicion. Believe me, the intelligence community is not ignoring everyone else because of the FIM’s in the immigration line, but if your group contains members who are being vocally, visibly, and violently anti-American, expect to have your group profiled.
It goes all the way back to the old Aesop’s Fables-You are known by the company you keep.
Part of the problem is that Islam, unlike many of the worlds major religions, does not have an overarching authority figure, like Catholism’s Pope (Go POPE!! YEAH!!). Instead, there are thousands of Imams preaching their version of the Koranic faith, some violent, but mostly not. As such, there isn’t anyone that all members of the faith can look to (besides Allah) to condemn a particular type of action, or to promote a more peaceful path. Thus, the virulently violent MINORITY of Muslims ruin it for the BILLIONS who live the peaceful life the prophet Mohammed preached.
Interesting adjectives coming from someone who appears to be sub-literate.
Insofar as it would appear to anyone of something approaching a grade school level of reading ability that you were agreeing with the prior post, accusing Muslims – whose religion is Islam you may wish to recall if you have enough free neurons, else jot the note down for later usage – of calling all non-Muslims infidels, then you were indeed making a comment on Islam.
Now there is a possibility you were simply too stupid to understand the actual comment you were replying to, I haven’t the data to make that judgement at present, in which case you had need only interject a comment that you in fact do not agree with the original comment that you appeared to agree with.
The other choice, of course, is that you are too dim to understand my response, not having mastered joined up reading for comprehension, and not having very much of a clue at all to what you are talking about or responding to.
Very hard to judge as of yet, as noted, but I am sure you will come back with yet another underwhelming and subliterate response such that we may better understand.
Collounsbury:
Busting my chops does not change the fast that the PLO and others are a bunch of Muslims that preach hate and the destruction of others not like them, but but I am sure you will come back with yet another underwhelming and subliterate response such that I may better understand.
Try again - maybe you can use some real bigger words as I’m sure you believe that makes you correct and superior in some way that WE could not understand.
In other words, your response was in fact exactely what I thought it was and you were in fact too stupid to understand the connection btw Islam and Muslim.
I might further add, for your edification as a sub-literate lobotomized baboon, that the PLO is a secular organization with a strong Christian component to its membership. Once again illustrating that babbling on like a sexually frustrated lobotomized chimpanzee in complete ignorance does nothing to help your image – such as it is.
Now piss the fuck off and go back to playing with your other lab mates.
Just how strong is the Christian component of the PLO? Obviously it’s not a majority or anywhere near half. Is it 1%? Is it 10%? As much as 25%?