That's quit the bipolar arugment you have there. First you suggest we need to deal (or eradicate if language is that important to you) with the radicals who are actually attacking people, then you go back to attacking their entire religion. Pick one. Dealing with the radicals requries that we have the majority of the non-radicals on our side, and ranting about how their religion is backwards and intolerant doesn't seem like a great approach.
That's quit the bipolar arugment you have there. First you suggest we need to deal (or eradicate if language is that important to you) with the radicals who are actually attacking people, then you go back to attacking their entire religion. Pick one. Dealing with the radicals requries that we have the majority of the non-radicals on our side, and ranting about how their religion is backwards and intolerant doesn't seem like a great approach.
No, it's not. What's "shouted down" by many (left and otherwise) is the sort of measures that apply to all Muslims...the sort that gives us more enemies instead of fewer. I have no problem with domestic and foreign intelligence and police agencies trying to identify the individuals and groups instigating violence. What I do have a problem with is things like making "Flying while Arab" a crime and harassing everyone who goes to the local mosque. There is a big difference.
I only suggest the entire religion because of the immense power the clerics have over th ereligion...While most may not be radicalized when the top is corrupted it infest the whole.....
It is not bipolar...it is just more complex then you likely can comprehend...LOL...
I am having fun guys, thanks!!!!
It is not bipolar...it is just more complex then you likely can comprehend...LOL...
I am having fun guys, thanks!!!!
Right...but either we can treat it as a leadership problem or as a problem for ALL Muslims. We can't do both, and the only way we can really deal with the problem is by getting the non-radicals on our side against the radicals. Do you disagree?
By the way, you are not too bad at this...misinformed, but still fun to debate
And here in lies the problem. When it comes to hijacking an airplane good policework is just going to say we have much more to fear from muslim men from the ages of 18-35 than grandmothers and children. To deny this means you are giving muslims a pass and it also means muslims are demanding a pass as they are not policing their own. Tos soay people that fit this profile dont deman a little attention as they pass though security is just foolish.
Nor is it a crime or bad policework to send intel people to invesitgate muslim churches to find out if anything bad is going on there. But you seem to think this is bad as well.
It seems you only want to police to clean up after something tragic has happened.
Show me where I am misinformed...I haven't seen anyone debate what I have said just the semantics.....What am I misinformed on??? Please quote me some links other then alphabet channels....I listen to them all and weed through the bullsh^t...
Duvie, your statement is bullsh*t.
Only an idiot would believe that "godlessness" brings moral decay. What holds society together is respect for LAW and ORDER, and the Due Process of law. The desire of the citizen for ordered liberty keeps everyone in line.
See my sig. America is a FREE country. If you want a country run by people with relgious beliefs, why don't you buy a plane ticket to Iran?
Only an idiot would believe that "godlessness" brings moral decay. What holds society together is respect for LAW and ORDER, and the Due Process of law. The desire of the citizen for ordered liberty keeps everyone in line.
See my sig. America is a FREE country. If you want a country run by people with relgious beliefs, why don't you buy a plane ticket to Iran?
The problem with Islam is the amount of oil money that has been transfered to dictatorships in the Middle East, who basically buy off the radical clerics by allowing them control of the educational systems of those countries, and by funding them. The implicit bargain is that the radical Muslims will NOT attack those dictatorships, but funnel their anger towards the West and Christianity.
So if you want to blame the souces of radical Islam, look to the wellspring - look to the royal families of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, etc. THEY are the ones bo?h funding and allowing radical Islam, and they are doing so with the help and inept complicity of Big Oil, who fund those royal families by buying their oil and supporting them politically in the US - which in turn lead to the citizens of America - the end consumers of most of that oil.
So if you want to understand the power of radical Islam...look in the mirror...you are funding it...at the same time you are decrying it. And as long as those royal families stay in power, they MUST continue to fund that deal (either aboveboard, or invisibly), so as to stop a rebellion in their own countries.
Future Shock
So if you want to blame the souces of radical Islam, look to the wellspring - look to the royal families of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, etc. THEY are the ones bo?h funding and allowing radical Islam, and they are doing so with the help and inept complicity of Big Oil, who fund those royal families by buying their oil and supporting them politically in the US - which in turn lead to the citizens of America - the end consumers of most of that oil.
So if you want to understand the power of radical Islam...look in the mirror...you are funding it...at the same time you are decrying it. And as long as those royal families stay in power, they MUST continue to fund that deal (either aboveboard, or invisibly), so as to stop a rebellion in their own countries.
Future Shock
Originally posted by: The Linuxator
mOeeOm , this guy looks like another adherent of free speech
Well we certainly know that mOeeOm doesn't support free speech.
You haven't even made a solid argument. I have no idea what your point is. Is it that we need to try and work together with moderate Muslims to deal with the radicals? Is it that we need to ignore moderate Muslims and just kill their radical leaders? Is it that their religion is doomed by the radical leaders and we are at war with the entire religion? I really can't tell what you are trying to argue here...maybe you can help. I'm saying your misinformed because I'm not convinced you even understand where the problem stems from.
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
Who is giving a pass to anyone? Funda-headcases are lame regardless of religion.
The christers need to get their hands out of the honey as angry bees tend to sting anyone nearby while guarding their homes.
You couldn't be more wrong. Good policework is going to say that (at least lately) airplane hijackers in the US are much more likely to be Muslim men. For the sake of argument, we'll ignore the fact that we have a very small sample size unless we go back farther or consider other countries, which would invalidate what I just said. In any case, the fact that hijackers are more likely to be Muslim men doesn't mean that Muslim men are more likely to be hijackers. Well, it does, but only by an almost immesurable amount. So few people, Muslim men or otherwise, are hijackers that having an airline security policy based around targetting Muslim men is stupid. The downsides of a system like this almost certianly outweight the potential benefits.
Right now the main accomplishment of airline security is annoying the crap out of anyone who flies. There seems to be some question of whether or not the extra security would even prevent another 9/11. I've heard convincing arguments that the ONLY two changes to airline security that would have prevented 9/11 are the reinforced flight deck doors and the fact that passengers now understand the potential threat. But still, even a little bit of security from extra screening is worth the hassle, right? Maybe, but if you start making it MORE of a hassle for Arabs or Muslims to fly, it will generate bad feelings for each Muslim or Arab male that is treated like a criminal. The vast, VAST majority of these people will be innocent, yet by treating them differently because of their race and religion, we are alienating the very people we need on our side. And this will be many people every day, we will drive a larger wedge between Muslims and the rest of us many many times for each potential terrorist we might stop.
The other downside of this sort of thing is that it promotes stupid security. Anyone who looks at 9/11 and concludes the primary thing we need to do is focus on Muslims or Arabs is an idiot. Not because the hijackers weren't Arab Muslims, but because that's a pretty useless criteria for catching terrorists. It's not specific enough, and there are almost certainly better ways to pick a terrorist out of a crowd. Airport security is the last hurdle for a potential hijacker before he's home free. I would be willing to bet that they act different, or nervous, or try to act TOO confident, or something that makes them stand out if you know what to look for. But our airport security people will be too busy giving Omar the engineering student a hard time, or trying to decide if #3 in line looks Arab or not, to look for people who are acting "funny".
As for investigating mosques...it depends on why we are there. Are we just shaking the trees and seeing what falls out? Or are we following good police and intelligence procedures as part of a logical investigation? Again, the problem is the same. So few Muslims are terrorists that we waste time and resources, not to mention goodwill from the Muslim community, with any measure that broadly targets all Muslims. We are MUCH better off being smart about it and actually targetting people we think might be terrorists or have links to terrorists.
:thumbsup:
I'm not sure where your sudden flash of brilliance came from but I think we agree 100% for the first time ever.
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: The Linuxator
mOeeOm , this guy looks like another adherent of free speech
Well we certainly know that mOeeOm doesn't support free speech.
Yeah he does. To him free speech is strapping a bomb on your chest and blowing yourself up in a group of school children.
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
I disagree that the West or the rest of the non-muslim world should try to police the muslims. I think that should be demanded of the muslims for I believe they are doing a piss poor job of dealing with elements in their own society. But I don't think the West or any other nation/culture should try to dissect muslims and try to pry out the bad ones. Only the muslim community really knows which ones are the bad apples. I believe that they know this and still don't act. The terrorists are NOT individuals within the muslim community. They are the effect of a gradient fundamentalism that runs through the community. The London bombers and 9/11 terrorists are classic examples of this. There are few stand-out individuals in muslim communities who can be called terrorists. The vast majority of terrorists are chucked up at various points along the gradient. That is why it will take muslims to stop Islamic fundamentalism. Their religion will have to draw a hard line as to where Islam ends and terrorism begins - not for the satisfaction of non-muslims, but for their own adherents to understand what is unacceptable. One example of this would be to stop the debate on whether Palestinian suicide bombers are justified in their anger. It would barely take months for countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to bring prosperity and opportunities to Palestinians and yet...they would rather egg on the Palestinians by debating whether their anger is justified.
The greatest weapon against Islamic fundamentalism is Islam itself. And the rest of the world is being denied the benefits of that partly because of inaction from the muslim community and partly because of their delusional defenders.
The greatest weapon against Islamic fundamentalism is Islam itself. And the rest of the world is being denied the benefits of that partly because of inaction from the muslim community and partly because of their delusional defenders.
Kadarin
Lifer
- Nov 23, 2001
- 44,296
- 16
- 81
You see these as bad things, and I do not necessarily agree:
Homosexuality: One is either sexually attracted to members of the same gender, or one is not.
Drug legalization: For some drugs, this is not a bad thing. Marijuana is less harmful to society than alcohol or nicotine.
Assisted suicide: I believe that everyone should have the right to die with dignity in a manner of their own choosing.
Abortion: I am not just pro choice, but also pro abortion. I do not believe that an embryo or fetus is fully a "human being".
Once again, you appear to be waiting until something happens for the police to do anything.
I will agree that the new airport security features are for the most part a pain and useless at the same time. With that being said, it still foolish not to give muslim men from the age of 18-35 a little extra screening.
Also there is no need to even generate ill will with muslim population to find their church that house the radicals. A little investigative work would easily yeild which ones need to be watched and which ones that do not need it. However I think you would be surpriced by the number of muslim churches in the US that are funded by the saudis.
It still appears you want to give muslims a free pass. If they are unwilling or unable to police their own radicals, it is will our job to do it for them.
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: The Linuxator
mOeeOm , this guy looks like another adherent of free speech
Well we certainly know that mOeeOm doesn't support free speech.
Yeah he does. To him free speech is strapping a bomb on your chest and blowing yourself up in a group of school children.
I dont ever remember saying that................making more statements without proof?
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: The Linuxator
mOeeOm , this guy looks like another adherent of free speech
Well we certainly know that mOeeOm doesn't support free speech.
Yeah he does. To him free speech is strapping a bomb on your chest and blowing yourself up in a group of school children.
That wouldn't really surprise me.
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: The Linuxator
mOeeOm , this guy looks like another adherent of free speech
Well we certainly know that mOeeOm doesn't support free speech.
Yeah he does. To him free speech is strapping a bomb on your chest and blowing yourself up in a group of school children.
That wouldn't really surprise me.
Prepare to be surprised...its not what I believe free speech is.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 389
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter