More Muslim Marvelousnous

[Shot_From_Guns]

@villa

I dispute this. That would mean Starving Artist has gotten smarter over the years. Any review of his posting history would indicate how false that is.

No, I didn’t say they’re correlated–just a matched set. For the moment, anyway.

[villa]

Fair enough. Because he ain’t getting any younger, but that sack of rocks is getting dumber by the minute.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@magellan01

Tell me this: how does it make sense that you would look for characteristics that correlate with radical Muslim extremism, but consciously and stubbornly avoid looking at Muslim-ness? Please answer that for me.

I don’t think anyone is consciously and studdornly avoiding looking at Muslims.

There are TWO issues at play.

The first is that profiling Muslims generally is bigotry and you seem to think that this is the only reason why these starry eyed liberals are shying away from associating all muslims with terrorism while you, the realist, recognizes that all muslim radicals are necessarily muslim and therefore we should start by looking at the muslims.

This brings me to the second point. As small a muslim population as we have, its STILL too large to use as a screen. As much as the population of muslim radicals are all contained within the population of muslims, it is not as easy to identify muslims as you might think.

Screening the muslim population is about as easy as screening the natural blonde population. You are going to get a lot of false positives, false negatives and the number of people you would have to screen would be so large that despite their relative rarity, you would have to quintuple the size of the FBI to create files on all those people. Better to use a finer screen to begin with.

So right off the bat you’re missing some potential Islamic terrorists. Conversely, if you use Muslimness as the first filter, you have a much greater likelihood that your first filter includes all who might seek to do us harm in the name if Islam. So I would use my filter first, “Muslim” then the others. Why, because the more primary the filter the greater assurance you want to have that all the suspects are included in your subset. And, obviously, the more filters the better.

Do you now see the problem with this approach?

Nope. As I said above, it assures that your first filtering captures all possible Islamic terrorists. As I also mentioned above, even what we both view as probably a very good filter—travel to the Middle East—would miss those who haven’t traveled there.

You are proposing creating an FBI dossier on millions of people. Why not just start with filters like “went to Afghanistan” “is chummy with terrorists” because if these filters won’t pick up your terrorist then how far would you have to dig into a person’s background before you could identify a terrorist that didn’t have any of these red flags? Now multiply that by however many million muslims in that live in or are visiting this country.

BTW what do you make of all the muslim countries having revolutions in Northern Africa? Are you scared yet?

[Monty]

And the meltdown continues!

[Capitaine_Zombie]

@Monty

And the meltdown continues!

Hahaha Monty, real nice, it’s exactly that.

[magellan01]

@Capitaine_Zombie

[QUOTE=Monty]
And the meltdown continues!

Hahaha Monty, real nice, it’s exactly that.
[/QUOTE]

Imagine that, not one, but two posters who don’t know what the word “meltdown” means, but feel qualified to use it. Ah, the pitfalls of ignorance that the stupid wallow in. Tsk, tsk, tsk…