Then why focus on what some Muslims in bangladesh are doing? You seem to be saying something about Islam generally rather making an argument for better security in the USA.
You’re not bashing terrorists, you are bashing islam based on what happened in that article taht you cite.
When you spout off stuff like that, everything else you write on the subject just looks like an extension of racism and bigotry.
For example, I can make an argument for racial differences in IQ but if I spent my entire life in the KKK, people just aren’t going to give a lot of credit to any scientific data I have that might show this racial disparity. They’ll just chalk it up to more of my racism.
I’m pretty sure I addressed the polling data. If you think fundamentlist Islamic views are the root cause of terrorism in the middle east, you have to explain Lebanon. The reply seems to be that Lebanon (and Lebanon alone has been subjected to geopolitical forces that makes them mroe prone to terrorism, everywhere else (where similar geopolitical forces exist), its all because they worship a bloodthirsty pedophile who told them to kill people in the Q’uran.
He’s just got general Archie Bunker type xenophobia.
He would never suggest that we find the assassin of an abortion doctor by starting with all churches and then winnowing our way down to smaller and smaller groups until we defined a small enough subset to be useful to an investigation but with Muslims, well the threat is so dire that we must, we simply must.
Perhaps nothing more onerous than an extra special pledge of allegiance, give them the opportunity to affirm their Americanness. Like Glenn Beck did to the Hon. Kieth Ellison when he asked him to prove that he was not un-American.
(The Hon. Mr. Ellison is a Muslim and a Congressman. From my district. Voted for him. Did I mention that?..)
I would have said radicals as a whole have a much higher concentration of radical muslims than muslims as a whole but that just a WAG.
It weakens your position because noone can put a frikking number on it. Muslims say the number is higher, people who want to marginalize them say thye number is lower. How do we idnentify all these muslims?
But you are wrong.
If you limit your inquiry to people who have visited certain countries and who have corresponded with certain groups, you capture pretty much everyone that isn’t a lone gunman (almost by definition).
Even if you know that the needle is in one particular haystack?
Could we apply the same method to reduce crimes committed with guns? Gun ownership is the common denominator, so we should start by having the government investigate all gun owners, find out who is a threat and who isn’t. Whatever filters they deem helpful.
This strikes me as looking for KGB spies at American Communist Party meetings. Which is really fucking stupid.
Fact is, if there were Al Qaeda terrorists infiltrated in America (which seems really doubtful to me, really), I’m guessing the first thing they’d do is wash a ham sandwich down with bourbon at the airport. Why would they not publicly distance themselves from anything that would let them be caught by your silly “common sense” tactics ?
You don’t know who all the radicals are. And no one is saying you then start looking at each X individually. You keep applying as many filters as you can: gender, age, travel, mosque affiliation, family relationships with known terrorists, etc. You keep looking at this as if my first filter is the only filter. It’s not. It’s one of many. And the more filters the better. What is so difficult about this?
Here’s another way to look at it. Let’s look at the Christian religions. Let’s say they there were a group of serial killers killing people and leaving passages from the bible scribbled on the walls. and there was some evidence at the scenes that the killers had some reverence for Christianity. One characteristic that you might assign to these killers would be that their Christian, right? Now in the U.S., that alone wouldn’t be very helpful, given the numbers. But it would be a start, and you look at other characteristics you can assign to the killers and further reduce the pool of potential suspects. But let’s say these killings happened in Japan, where Christians are a small minority. Starting with those who are Christian would be a good place to start, for a first filter.
Ah. Here’s the mistake you’re making. You’re assuming that we can identify all those individuals that belong in the little bag from the get go. We don’t. And in our efforts to determine who they are (in the U.S., where they are a small minority), we do know that radical Muslims belong to the larger set called “Muslims”. Why is it that you think that looking for radical Muslims in the larger pool of Muslims is illogical? You KNOW they are contained in the group.
I’m not following you here.
But he won’t be looking at modeling agencies that deal exclusively with male models, will he? What you’re advocating makes sense, but all your doing is choosing places where attractive WOMEN hang out. You need to filter for women or you’d be wasting your time, right? That’s the first cut. Next, you filter for other characteristics that might correlate with models: gym membership, yoga membership, shopping at Barney’s New York, Prada, etc.
Please, please, please, PLEASE try to digest this, as it it getting old: I have not and do not advocate applying one initial filter and then scrutinizing every individual. If you cannot grasp that by now, or for some other reason insist on attributing that belief to me, any future discussion is pointless.
You wanted me to weigh evidence in the hopes that it would sway me from my position. You provided a link that, you thought, made it clear that my assumptions were wrong. As it turned out, you were wrong about what the study showed. As I mentioned in an earlier post (and you ignored), the study showed you were completely wrong about the likelihood of a Muslim in the U.S. being a terrorist and my position was the correct one. so, now that you have this new evidence, will you rethink your position?
Someone once said, “There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.” They left out the fourth kind: “Magellan’s weaselings.” You are a damn liar. You have advocated just that very thing in this thread: Treat all Muslims with suspicion. In other words, the first (that’s what initial means, you moron) filter you want applied is: “Is this person Muslim?”
Recently I made a post referring to a thread as a place for melt-downs. You’re melting down and I, for one, am glad of it. I hope you kick that melt-down into overdrive and get banned soon. Your stupidity, your prejudice, and your total lack of honesty seem to qualify you for the baninator. It’s becomingly increasingly hard to distinguish your behavior from any other troll.
You’re a fucking clown. And, evidently, a scumbag. You want to assign beliefs to me that I do not have. That I’ve stated I do not have. You want me to have that belief so you can justify some hate toward me. Too bad, chum. and the part I like the best is that you try to come off in other threads as having some piousness, a follower of Christ. Ha. You embarrass Christ. And anyone who values honorable actions. So, rend yourself from your holy garment and don a hair shirt and pray for forgiveness. Pray that Christ is strong enough to override the stupidity and hate in you.
You’re dumb. You’re a dishonest debater. And as far as your piety, Jesus knows you’re a fake and a phony. He’s just wondering when and if you will realize it. Asshole.