US charges 4 men in plot to blow up JFK airport (1 Viewer)

[iamsickofyear12]

There are many reasons why it is not acceptable to discriminate based on that factor.

1. What is a muslim? How can you distinguish a muslim from a non-muslim? Should all people who look arab, immediately be defined as muslim?

2. Are all muslims terrorist? There is about 1.5 billion muslims in the world. How many of these are terrorists or have been terrorists?

Again, do you understand what you're saying? Are all muslims accountable for the actions of a few? Are you certain that degrading and racially profiling on an apparent group which is really "hard to determine" can potentially be dangerous? Which country do you think has the greatest number of muslims? (There are European, Asian, Arab, Anglo, African and Latin muslims.) How do you distinguish between muslims and non-muslims?

The advantage would still exist though. Nobody would be inconvenienced more than others, and better security could be achieved.

Looking arab is a start. Something is better than nothing.
How many terrorists have not been muslim?

In some ways they are. If I was in a predominantely arab country and and all terrorists in recent times were caucasian I would expect people to be suspicious of me and I may not like it but I would accept it.

Limited Resources.

 

[sam04u]

Looking arab is a start.

There is something like 300,000,000 Asian looking muslims.
200,000,000 African looking muslims.
Millions upon millions of Hindu/Pakistani, European (Balkans, Chechneya, Russian) and just about every other race or colour. How do you distinguish?

Something is better than nothing.

Everything is better than something.

How many terrorists have not been muslim?

Do we have to get into the discussion of what terrorism is again? Lets just say many nations and people have been terrorists and weren't muslim.

In some ways they are. If I was in a predominantely arab country and and all terrorists in recent times were caucasian I would expect people to be suspicious of me and I may not like it but I would accept it.

Careful with the word terrorism. I do not fully agree, I only marginally agree in that it's easier to identify a "caucasian" than it is to identify a "muslim". Islam is a belief and religion, whereas the example you cited is a race. I still do not think it's particularly acceptable.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

There is something like 300,000,000 Asian looking muslims.
200,000,000 African looking muslims.
Millions upon millions of Hindu/Pakistani, European (Balkans, Chechneya, Russian) and just about every other race or colour. How do you distinguish?

Everything is better than something.

Do we have to get into the discussion of what terrorism is again? Lets just say many nations and people have been terrorists and weren't muslim.

Careful with the word terrorism. I do not fully agree, I only marginally agree in that it's easier to identify a "caucasian" than it is to identify a "muslim". Islam is a belief and religion, whereas the example you cited is a race. I still do not think it's particularly acceptable.

You don't. You pick the ones you can (the ones that are arab looking) and hope it helps.

I dispute your definition of terrorism.

ok fine... replace caucasian with christian... one can easily assume a christian would be caucasian.. same result

I'm not bothering with this anymore. Racial profiling is justified. I'm not going to bother explaining myself because you will refuse to believe me no matter what I say.

 

[Atilla89]

9/11 - Done by the CIA
Major terrorist groups - Funded by CIA
Taliban - Armed and trained by CIA

We are trying to deal with facts here - 9/11 done by Muslim extremists - major terrorist groups - IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Quida, funded by the CIA? Nope... As for the Taliban ever heard of my enemy's enemy is my friend? At that point in time Communism was the enemy in Afghanistan, so naturally if you are against Communism, who are you going to arm?

Have you looked at what has happened in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon in the last 6 years? They have commited mass terrorist attacks on those people and you are denying it through your moronic definition of terrorism.

Grow up. There are terrorist groups in Iraq (so many...), true, the US is not one of those. There are terrorists in Afghanistan (Taliban), once again the US is not one of those. There are terrorists in Lebanon (Hezbollah) once again it is not the U.S. These terrorist groups are predominatly Muslim.

Now, if what you're trying to say is "Terrorist attacks on the West" then you're right. It has been predominantly muslims who are retaliating the crimes of the west.

Terrorist attacks in general have been mostly done by Muslims in this modern era, 2000s onwards (prior to that it was the IRA). To say it is retaliation is stupid, that is what the terrorists want to believe - it should be clear to anyone with a brain that these people are in the wrong. Not the west.

 

[sam04u]

You don't. You pick the ones you can (the ones that are arab looking) and hope it helps.

Meh, I get what you're saying but it's just wrong.

I dispute your definition of terrorism.

Hmm... It's not my definition. It's the wiki, princeton, and other sources.

ok fine... replace caucasian with christian... one can easily assume a christian would be caucasian.. same result

Hmm... I don't think so.

I'm not bothering with this anymore. Racial profiling is justified. I'm not going to bother explaining myself because you will refuse to believe me no matter what I say.

Uhh.. the difference really is that you claim to not care to be singled out and humiliated. Theoretical situation. You're black, you enter a shop and you leave with a bunch of your friends. (You brought your schoolbags in) The cashier asks only to check YOUR bag. (Because of your dark skin.) is that Justified?

 

[BritneySpears]

There is something like 300,000,000 Asian looking muslims.
200,000,000 African looking muslims.
Millions upon millions of Hindu/Pakistani, European (Balkans, Chechneya, Russian) and just about every other race or colour. How do you distinguish?

there are no 300,000,000 asian looking muslims in USA nor Australia nor Europe. There are no 200,000,000 african looking muslims in USA nor Australia or Europe. Their numbers are limited in western countries and muslims are either Middle Eastern or South Asian, therefore racial profiling is much easier and justified. Especially when 99.99999% of terrorism are committed by muslims of middle eastern appearance.

 

[Serius]

Meh, I get what you're saying but it's just wrong.


Hmm... It's not my definition. It's the wiki, princeton, and other sources.


Hmm... I don't think so.


Uhh.. the difference really is that you claim to not care to be singled out and humiliated. Theoretical situation. You're black, you enter a shop and you leave with a bunch of your friends. (You brought your schoolbags in) The cashier asks only to check YOUR bag. (Because of your dark skin.) is that Justified?

One of my paki looking friends got pretty pissed off at the airport when he wasnt checked and some business looking white dude did. Profiling works, and he wanted to see everyone that looked like him, and every akbahr with a beard getting frisked before they get on the plane.

 

[Born2baplacebo]

9/11 - Muslims
All since terrorist attacks and attempted attacks - Muslims

In the last 6 year all terrorists have been muslims.

Tell me, in the past 6 years:
has every thief been black?
has every pedophile been a middle aged white man?
have all murders who only like money been jews?
have everyone who has stolen someones job been an indian?
has everyone who has eaten rice been an asian?

Even 1 would be nice.

Is it just me or are muslims been taken for granted just because of their religion?
You're only counting the past 6 years, that's a very small percentage of muslims being involved in terrorists attacks throughout history.

I take it sarcasm is a foriegn language to you. Especially when you say "have all murders who only like money been jews", that's a Shakespeare profiling.

Have you ever thought about the other majority of muslims that don't make the headlines in the evening news because they haven't done anything? Have you ever thought terrorists have given muslims a bad reputation because they make the 6 o'clock news headlines like "Muslim bombs Jakarta" or something like that?

 

[ObjectsInSpace]

all muslims... big surprise.

You do realise that you're a complete moron in saying that? You seem to be walking around with a pair of blinders on your eyes; the Provisonal IRA are Christian and they tried to blow up the British Parliament (and nearly succeeded, too). Aum Shinrikyo in Japan caused the Sarin attacks on the Tokyo Subway and they sure as hell aren't Muslim. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam that are waging war on Sri Lanka aren't Islamic. Nor are the Shining Path in Peru. The Lord's Resistance Army in Africa aren't Islamic. So stop being so fucking xenophobic and simply assuming all terrorists are Islamic.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

You're only counting the past 6 years, that's a very small percentage of muslims being involved in terrorists attacks throughout history.

It is clearly a pattern that is enough for racial profiling to be useful. Terrorists may only make up a small percentage of muslims, but a very high percentage of terrorists are muslim... it depends on how you look at it.

You do realise that you're a complete moron in saying that? You seem to be walking around with a pair of blinders on your eyes; the Provisonal IRA are Christian and they tried to blow up the British Parliament (and nearly succeeded, too). Aum Shinrikyo in Japan caused the Sarin attacks on the Tokyo Subway and they sure as hell aren't Muslim. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam that are waging war on Sri Lanka aren't Islamic. Nor are the Shining Path in Peru. The Lord's Resistance Army in Africa aren't Islamic. So stop being so fucking xenophobic and simply assuming all terrorists are Islamic.

You do realise this is 2007 and it is an attack on an American airport. I knew before I even read it that it was all muslims. I'm not saying the IRA never existed but since when did any of the groups you mentioned try to attack America? Not every group of people who has ever fought anyone is automatically a terrorist either... so try not to just list off groups involved in conflicts.

I'm specifically talking about terrorist attacks on America which would involve racial profiling at airports. All of those terrorists are muslim.

 

[Born2baplacebo]

+

What about the bombings Americans made in Vietnam? What about Nagasaki and Hiroshima? The Americans aren't muslim (to my extent of my knowledge) that gave the orders and carried out them.

Stop judging minority over majority.

And a piece of advice: just shut up.

 

[BritneySpears]

You do realise that you're a complete moron in saying that? You seem to be walking around with a pair of blinders on your eyes; the Provisonal IRA are Christian and they tried to blow up the British Parliament (and nearly succeeded, too). Aum Shinrikyo in Japan caused the Sarin attacks on the Tokyo Subway and they sure as hell aren't Muslim. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam that are waging war on Sri Lanka aren't Islamic. Nor are the Shining Path in Peru. The Lord's Resistance Army in Africa aren't Islamic. So stop being so fucking xenophobic and simply assuming all terrorists are Islamic.

Provisional IRA fought the British NOT every western countries, they did not threatened to bomb Sydney or New York. Sarin attacks in Tokyo was a one off incident in 3000 years of japanese history with no implications with other countries whatsoever. LTTE almost always targetted politcal and military of Sri Lanka. Lord resistance army specifically fought the Government of Uganda. Shining path fought for marxist-communism in peru. None of them waged indiscriminate attacks on civilians world wide and NONE of them attacked other countries. It is entirely different from Islamic terrorism which sole purpose is killing as many civilians as they can and destroy all countries that are not islamic.

This Plot to blow up JFK and last months arrest of muslims over Ft Dix Plot clearly shows we cannot trust muslims.

• Six men arrested as two attempted to buy guns Monday
• Men laughed as they watched videos of attacks on Americans, official says
•Those arrested are "Islamic radicals," U.S. attorney's office says
• Sources say men were planning to shoot soldiers at Army base


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The federal government has charged five alleged Islamic radicals with plotting to kill U.S. soldiers at Fort Dix in New Jersey.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

What about Nagasaki and Hiroshima? The Americans aren't muslim (to my extent of my knowledge) that gave the orders and carried out them.

And a piece of advice: just shut up.

Are you serious? You consider that terrorism?

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened during a war that Japan started. If the US had not done it their only other option would of been to invade Japan at the cost of maybe up to a million American soldiers... and before you say they bombed innocent people those innocent people were the ones that were going to be defending against any mainland invasion.

The atomic bomb actually saved lives on both sides. If the US had invaded Japan a lot more Japanese would of been killed in the battle than died because of those two bombs.

Maybe you should take your own advice and just shut up before you say something even more idiotic.

 

[sam04u]

Whoah, this thread is littered with retards.

Islamic terrorism which sole purpose is killing as many civilians as they can and destroy all countries that are not islamic.

You are a complete moron.

1. Terrorism by DEFINITION! is an attack on a civilian population.
2. Islamic terrorism's purpose is a "retaliation" for Western Policies on the Middle-East. (Including sanctions, trade embargoes and attacks.) Western support for the terrorist state of Israel. (Funding) and the recent wars and attacks. (Including the Israeli occupation of Palestine.)
3. The difference between U.S, British and Israeli terrorism and Islamic radicalist terrorism is the type of terrorism. Islamic terrorists commit Suicide-Bombings, while U.S, Brtain and Israel commit Genocide-Bombings.

The atomic bomb actually saved lives on both sides. If the US had invaded Japan a lot more Japanese would of been killed in the battle than died because of those two bombs.

Are you a moron? Do you not understand the difference between civilians and militants? A soldier is armed, or has the capability to fight off an opposing force. Whilst a civilian is unarmed. Women, Elderly, Children. Who do NOT have the capability to fight off an opposing force.

The difference between Hiroshima (A bomb dropped on a populated area) and an invasion, is that the amount of "Civilians" killed can be minimised.

I don't think there's any use continuing.

 

[BritneySpears]

Whoah, this thread is littered with retards.


You are a complete moron.

1. Terrorism by DEFINITION! is an attack on a civilian population.
2. Islamic terrorism's purpose is a "retaliation" for Western Policies on the Middle-East. (Including sanctions, trade embargoes and attacks.) Western support for the terrorist state of Israel. (Funding) and the recent wars and attacks. (Including the Israeli occupation of Palestine.)
3. The difference between U.S, British and Israeli terrorism and Islamic radicalist terrorism is the type of terrorism. Islamic terrorists commit Suicide-Bombings, while U.S, Brtain and Israel commit Genocide-Bombings.

You are the moron who is a supporter of terrorism by islamic terrorists. Just look at the post above you are the kind of people who encourage those terrorists arrested in USA, the one who blew themselves in Iraq and Israel and the ones who blew up planes, tubes and buses in Europe.

1. Islamic terrorists always attacks civilians on purpose, its aim is to kill as many civilian as possible, yes your definition screams MUSLIM TERRORISTS here!

2.Islam terrorists attacks India which is very PRO-Palestine, they also attacked Russia which is also very PRO-Palestine, They attacked Saudi-Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Algeria in fact almost all islamic countries which are PRO-Palestinians. Your excuse have no meaning to them whatsoever. And yes in majority cases they attacked civilians rather than the politcal or military infrastructure.

3. The number of killing by terrorist vrs US/UK/Israel did not even compare. Just look at Iraq, 99.99% of civilian death are caused by your much supported Muslim Terrorists, notably Al-Qaeda. A bomb just gone off in bahgdad killing 100 and who did it? Al Qaeda suicde bombers of course. I have not heard a single civilian killed by UK or US soldiers this year. All killings, all destructions are caused by muslim terrorists.

The difference between Hiroshima (A bomb dropped on a populated area) and an invasion, is that the amount of "Civilians" killed can be minimised.

I don't think there's any use continuing.

Japanese civilians, women, children and the elderly were prepared to fight to death if they were invaded. Hiroshima Bombing was a wise choice, a blessing in duisguise for japanese. It saved lives of innocent people who would have been killed by Allied invasion.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

1. Terrorism by DEFINITION! is an attack on a civilian population.
2. Islamic terrorism's purpose is a "retaliation" for Western Policies on the Middle-East. (Including sanctions, trade embargoes and attacks.) Western support for the terrorist state of Israel. (Funding) and the recent wars and attacks. (Including the Israeli occupation of Palestine.)
3. The difference between U.S, British and Israeli terrorism and Islamic radicalist terrorism is the type of terrorism. Islamic terrorists commit Suicide-Bombings, while U.S, Brtain and Israel commit Genocide-Bombings.

I'm not going to respond to that rubbish except to say that you complain about America dropping a bomb on unarmed civilians (women, the elderly, children etc) during an actual war... yet is completely acceptable for muslims to bomb those same people as retaliation for trade sanctions. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Are you a moron? Do you not understand the difference between civilians and militants? A soldier is armed, or has the capability to fight off an opposing force. Whilst a civilian is unarmed. Women, Elderly, Children. Who do NOT have the capability to fight off an opposing force.

The difference between Hiroshima (A bomb dropped on a populated area) and an invasion, is that the amount of "Civilians" killed can be minimised.

In WW2 Japanese civilians were being armed. They were the ones that were going to be fighting. More Japanese civilians weren't going to be killed as a by-product of the invasion, more were going to be killed because they were the ones that would of actually been fighting the invading soldiers. Civilian deaths would not have been minimised.

 

[201055]

I don't think its racial motivation as much when targetting Muslims, its just a statement of fact that US's foreign policy in Muslim countries has naturally placed themselves a terrorist target due to their actions.

Its interesting there's so much news coverage on a discovered plot in America, and yet similar, everyday events which happen in other countries such as Iraq and India are given no more than a courtesy glance.

Long live the Western news empire indeed.

 

[sam04u]

Just look at the post above you are the kind of people who encourage those terrorists

Great job. Putting words into my mouth.
Firstly, I strongly oppose all acts of terrorism and unless you can prove I've said anything which contradicts this claim, then you would be incorrect to make that statement again.

1. Islamic terrorists always attacks civilians on purpose

I pretty much made that argument redundant, since all terrorists aim is to attack civilians. A terrorist attack is an attack on civilians, which have been employed by the U.S, the Israelis and the British alike.

And yes in majority cases they attacked civilians rather than the politcal or military infrastructure.

Again, I've made that argument redundant. It's not a terrorist attack unless it specifically targets civilians.

There are different factions of Islamic terrorists who do attack other sects in order to gain power. Also, there are those caught in the middle of different sects who seek to retaliate on other sectarian comminities. If you look at the correlation between "Western Caused" instability, and "Sectarian Violence" you will see a strong link.

However, you seem to have missed the point of this thread. You made a statement which claimed that profiling of muslim people can be a detterent for terrorism. I claimed that by doing so it would only inconvenience people with an Arabic appearance. It would be more efficient if everybody was equally inconvenienced because "muslim terrorists" are not always arab. It is as ideal rather than a race, and even as a detterent "profiling/discriminating" against Arab people would not be a perfect method. (As I've explained, muslims are White, Asian, Hispanic, Black and Arab.)

Your third point is completely redundant. UK/US/Israel have performed terrorist attacks on the middle east.

Hiroshima Bombing was a wise choice, a blessing in duisguise for japanese.

No it wasn't. The use of a nuclear weapon to demonstrate its capabilities would have been beneficial to the Japanese people. But targetting a widely populated civilian area, was in no way beneficial to the Japanese.

yet is completely acceptable for muslims to bomb those same people as retaliation for trade sanctions.

Dont put words into my mouth. I did not ever say it was acceptable for terrorists to bomb civilians for any reason. I said the culmination of Western Policies/Oppresion on the Middle-East is a cause for terrorism.

Don't put words into my mouth, don't misquote me, and reference everything you're going to say if you're going to continue making weighty accussations which are groundless. Conjecture is not a 'valid' method of debating.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

No it wasn't. The use of a nuclear weapon to demonstrate its capabilities would have been beneficial to the Japanese people. But targetting a widely populated civilian area, was in no way beneficial to the Japanese.

Dont put words into my mouth. I did not ever say it was acceptable for terrorists to bomb civilians for any reason. I said the culmination of Western Policies/Oppresion on the Middle-East is a cause for terrorism.

Don't put words into my mouth, don't misquote me, and reference everything you're going to say if you're going to continue making weighty accussations which are groundless. Conjecture is not a 'valid' method of debating.

No... they needed to properly demonstrate it. They even had to bomb them twice before they agreed to surrender. If you think they could of just bombed a forest and Japan would of surrendered you obviously don't understand what was going on at the time. Go brush up on your history then come back and try to argue this because you clearly have no clue.

That is exactly what you said.

Reference everything I'm going to say? Maybe you can start by referencing some of your bullshit claims.

 

[sam04u]

That is exactly what you said.

Where did I say it? How does this effect the discussion on "racial profiling"

referencing some of your bullshit claims.

Which claim was bullshit.