It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
J.D.If you want to call yourself a liberal, you absolutely must stand up for those people in the face of oppression that is explicitly based on religious justifications.
This has nothing to do with what side of the aisle you sit on. We tend to get caught up in this whole "oh, the liberals are pacifistic coddlers who believe nobody can do no wrong and they're just lost. Blah blah nanny state bleeding heart weaklings" and "Oh conservatives are just fear mongering shitheads who want to destroy everyone who isn't like them, give everyone a gun, read the religious book, pollute the atmosphere and watch all the Nascar while chewing tobacco"
What should be said is that If you want to call yourself someone who isn't a fucking idiot, you must stand up for those people in the face of oppression based on ANY justification.
That includes those who want to say that all muslims/christians/religious folks are/can be terrorists and want to kill you in the name of whatever book they read and whatever god they believe in.
DingoSeanThis has nothing to do with what side of the aisle you sit on. We tend to get caught up in this whole "oh, the liberals are pacifistic coddlers who believe nobody can do no wrong and they're just lost. Blah blah nanny state bleeding heart weaklings" and "Oh conservatives are just fear mongering shitheads who want to destroy everyone who isn't like them, give everyone a gun, read the religious book, pollute the atmosphere and watch all the Nascar while chewing tobacco"
It has everything to do with what side of the aisle you sit on, because political "wings" have platform points. If you're a liberal, you're pro-gay-rights, pro-women's rights, pro-gun control, pro-choice, want more government funding for education and health care, and so on. But the rationale for those platform points has to be founded in liberal principles that really go straight back through John Stuart Mill and subsequent enlightenment thinkers.
If the left starts adopting platform points that directly conflict with those values, the left stops being liberal, and instead is just instituting rules with no logical underpinning. Many of these rules have become fundamentally authoritarian - if you criticize the platform point, there is something morally wrong with you; you are either a covert racist, a covert homophobe, a sexist, a covery neo-con warhawk, or some other form of bigot who isn't worth listening to. It's highly McCarthyist and liberals need to take the reigns back from these people and re-institute a policy that absolutely no proposition is immune from criticism even if it seems intuitively obvious. This is the point of the video I sent you which I still hope you'll watch. Another:
CampeadorOh no, there it is! Racisssst!! Please no, anything but that!
I'm sorry that the truth is so often an inconvenience, it's probably just something those mean "racists" came up.
Islam, like rabies in a dog.
I don't understand, you actually don't see a problem with racism? I hope you actually realize the terrible effects that casual day to day racism has on minorities. And if you do I really don't understand how you don't care about how that effects people's lives. I'm guessing you're a cis gender white male so we'll let this slide because you don't really have a reason to know about racism. That is as long as you agree to educate yourself on the ways that being in a cultural, sexual or ethnic minority makes your life so much harder. Race is a myth, and profiling is harmful to the peace of mind of all minorities. I agree that religion can turn into a very bad destructive thing though, and that Islam has a higher probability of this than many other religions, but that in no way justifies treating muslims differently. Real mental illnesses are things like the acknowledgement of race as a real thing that can be used to distinguish people, religious extremism, and xenophobia, not liberalism. I'd like you to tell me how liberalism harms the well-being of the person suffering from this "illness" or harms others around them.
J.D.The left really needs to get its head out of its ass because the people most affected by this violent, right wing religious ideology are the minorities in muslim-majority countries - women, gays, and atheists. If you want to call yourself a liberal, you absolutely must stand up for those people in the face of oppression that is explicitly based on religious justifications.
I have been saying this for so long it spreads bad ideas, be prepared to be called a racist even though Islam isnt a race.
Campeadorwe must eliminate all forms of Sharia from the West, since pushing or practicing Sharia in any Western country should be considered treason. The Salafists are a good place to start.
No, you no where's a good place to start? By not allowing our own laws to be dictated by shitty religious doctrine. Setting an example. And most importantly, by not supporting other regimes that institute such garbage.
...we always talk about how bad Iran is for it's theocracy... well what the hell is Saudi Arabia? What the hell is Israel? What the hell is Qatar?
AKhoodratI don't understand, you actually don't see a problem with racism? I hope you actually realize the terrible effects that casual day to day racism has on minorities. And if you do I really don't understand how you don't care about how that effects people's lives. I'm guessing you're a cis gender white male so we'll let this slide because you don't really have a reason to know about racism. That is as long as you agree to educate yourself on the ways that being in a cultural, sexual or ethnic minority makes your life so much harder. Race is a myth, and profiling is harmful to the peace of mind of all minorities. I agree that religion can turn into a very bad destructive thing though, and that Islam has a higher probability of this than many other religions, but that in no way justifies treating muslims differently. Real mental illnesses are things like the acknowledgement of race as a real thing that can be used to distinguish people, religious extremism, and xenophobia, not liberalism. I'd like you to tell me how liberalism harms the well-being of the person suffering from this "illness" or harms others around them.
One cannot claim that Islam is a "race". Followers of the prophet are of every race. I would pose to you how much more difficult it is to be a minority in any country that establishes Islamic rules of governance.
I've said this before, it is wrong to discriminate against Muslims who reject Sharia, I find these Muslims to be honorable arbiters of the religion. However, the onus is on those Muslims (especially in the West) to come together and firmly reject all forms of Sharia, and most importantly to resist and fight those within their religion who support it. I understand that this is difficult, because mainstream Islamic schools of thought have unanimously claimed that their is no Islam without Sharia. That is why the resistance within the Islamic community to those who promote Sharia has been so tepid or non-existent. Show me those Muslims, and I will support them 100%. This does not mean the "moderate Muslim" apologists like Reza Aslan.
But, please, drop the cisgender white-male nonsense. It just smacks of that disgusting "check your privilege" political correctness that I cannot stand.
CampeadorAt minimum, we must eliminate all forms of Sharia from the West, since pushing or practicing Sharia in any Western country should be considered treason. The Salafists are a good place to start.
This demonstrates why this is an ideological issue. This is an awful suggestion. The expression of any idea, no matter how much one disagrees with it, should never be outlawed. So, no, if someone suggests that sharia should be the law of the land, they should not be punished. They should be told precisely why they are wrong, and why the system of laws that results from that would be bad for America (or whatever country it is we're talking about). Again, a fundamental principle of liberalism that should underpin any platform planks one wants to lay on the political left.
Ideas get fought with ideas. This is a rare concept in human history, the alternative to which has historically been killing or imprisoning people who disagree with you.
...There has not yet been a motive given for the attack that this thread is titled for. They happened to be Pakistani. One lived in Saudi Arabia. That does not mean this was some sort of jihadi motivated attack... Obviously in light of issues today regarding muslim extremists it's not farfetched to say that it was motivated by some radical islamist bullshit, and it should be investigated as such... but lets not get ahead of ourselves until we have more of an idea of what caused this.
It's not like they attacked a place of worship, it's not like they attacked a centre of politics or education.. It happened at a place that services people with developmental disabilities and their families... That doesn't seem like a very likely a target for muslim extremists...
...what we should be discussing is how easy it is for folks to obtain weapons in this country.
We are always worried about terrorism, yet you can be on the TSA No Fly list and still legally obtain a gun - even in gun-control heavy states like California where this happened.
There needs to be common sense gun controls implemented. We worry about the vetting of syrian refugees? How about the vetting of who can arm themselves to the fucking teeth...
CampeadorOne cannot claim that Islam is a "race". Followers of the prophet are of every race. I would pose to you how much more difficult it is to be a minority in any country that establishes Islamic rules of governance.
This meanwhile is clearly correct and speaks to the problem of why the term "islamophobia" needs to die a swift death, in favour of "anti-muslim bigotry". The former can apply to criticism of ideas in the Qur'an, which is to be encouraged, while the latter involves hatred of people, which is to be discouraged.
The conflation of islam with a race in itself has always struck me as racist - this is a religion with 1.6 billion adherents. Millions of muslims are white, black or Asian - are Indonesians supposed to be the same race as Syrians in these peoples' minds? Absurd.
...There has not yet been a motive given for the attack that this thread is titled for. They happened to be Pakistani. One lived in Saudi Arabia. That does not mean this was some sort of jihadi motivated attack..
One hundred percent true and this was addressed on the last page. Just because an attack was perpetrated by a Muslim does not mean that the attack was perpetrated BECAUSE of Islam. If a guy robs a 7/11 and shoots the clerk, and happens to be a Muslim, the odds are that he did it because he wanted the cash in the register, not because of something in the scriptures. There are certainly crazy muslims who are not religiously motivated.
The jump to assume that this was muslim-motivated (note, everything I've said here takes no position on that; I have no idea what the motives for this shooting were) reminds me of that Chapel Hill killing last year when 3 young muslims were killed by an atheist. This was paraded about by certain people as some sort of "see! Atheists are the same, they kill people too", as if the fact that this person happened to be an atheist was somehow the underlying reason why he killed people. Nope, sometimes people are just murderers, either because they're crazy or psychopathic or want to steal something or a thousand other reasons.
J.D.This demonstrates why this is an ideological issue. This is an awful suggestion. The expression of any idea, no matter how much one disagrees with it, should never be outlawed. So, no, if someone suggests that sharia should be the law of the land, they should not be punished. They should be told precisely why they are wrong, and why the system of laws that results from that would be bad for America (or whatever country it is we're talking about). Again, a fundamental principle of liberalism that should underpin any platform planks one wants to lay on the political left.
Ideas get fought with ideas. This is a rare concept in human history, the alternative to which has historically been killing or imprisoning people who disagree with you.
I would agree with you, but Islamic Sharia is a different beast.
Even the Founding Fathers realized this before the Barbary Wars,
"Disguising their feelings as best they could, they "took liberty to make some inquiries concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury.
The [Tripoli] ambassador replied: It was written in the Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and the duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise."
-The Atlantic Monthly, Volume 30, Page 413
And hence, you had the creation of the United States Navy.
CampeadorOne cannot claim that Islam is a "race". Followers of the prophet are of every race. I would pose to you how much more difficult it is to be a minority in any country that establishes Islamic rules of governance.
I was not claiming that Islam is a race. I'm sorry if it came across that way. You're previous posts seemed to downplay the actual harms of racism. When you say things "like those mean 'racists'" it very clearly sounds sarcastic to me and comes across as that you don't believe racism is a very harmful thing and that you believe it is just an "inconvenient truth". I was speaking of racism in general. However, for the same reasons why we should not racially profile, we should also not profile based on religion. And arguing that it is worse in other places is no excuse. We are the wealthiest, most advanced country on Earth, just because the middle east is a shit show full of atrocities doesn't mean that we have the right to profile muslims.
Another good example of the people who are really most at risk here and should be the primary concern.
But nothing in what you said contradicts my point. If someone were to suggest publicly that enslaving non-Muslims is a good idea because God commands it, the response wouldn't be to imprison that person but to point out that slavery is terrible and religious texts are bad justification for public policy, and the reasons why that's true.
J.D.This meanwhile is clearly correct and speaks to the problem of why the term "islamophobia" needs to die a swift death, in favour of "anti-muslim bigotry". The former can apply to criticism of ideas in the Qur'an, which is to be encouraged, while the latter involves hatred of people, which is to be discouraged.
The conflation of islam with a race in itself has always struck me as racist - this is a religion with 1.6 billion adherents. Millions of muslims are white, black or Asian - are Indonesians supposed to be the same race as Syrians in these peoples' minds? Absurd.
But what of the theory (by many on the left) that criticism of the Qu'ran is exactly what ISIS wants, in order to turn more Muslims into Jihadis?
And how is criticism of the Qu'ran not "anti-Muslim bigotry"? Many would argue that it is.
Because criticizing ideas is obviously different from attacking individuals. Calling criticism of the Qur'an bigoted is identical to calling criticism of the Republican party platform bigoted. There is no logical difference: both are sets of ideas written down somewhere.
As for the notion that we can't criticize islam for fear of driving muslims to the right, it's a fundamental tenet of liberalism that information and public discussion of ideas breeds mutual understanding and allows us to collectively get to the right place. If you operate from that premise, shutting down any discussion for fear of its consequences is nonsensical.
From a practical standpoint, if there really are tens of millions of Muslims for whom all it would take to push them over to the extremist camp would be criticism of their doctrines, that's an incredibly horrifying reality. I don't think it's the case, though. If, over the course of years, progressive secular ideas are introduced into the discourse, most people (not all, but most) will eventually begin to question their dogmas, not retreat into stricter interpretations of them.
AKhoodratjust because the middle east is a shit show full of atrocities doesn't mean that we have the right to profile muslims.
I kinda disagree with that to an extent.
Should we pull every muslim aside and check their papers like a police state? fuck no...
Should we be wary of refugees who are fleeing Syria? Definitely... And we should process anyone moving through an area in this day and age to make sure they aren't trying to cause harm... Thats why places like Ellis Island exist in the first place anyway.
But at the same time, we shouldn't turn them away simply because theyre muslim or because it would it would either cost us a little money to process them and such, or because we're trying to remain neutral or something... We did that before... and sent a lot of Jews back to Europe.. Probably to their deaths. Sending Syrians back to that hellscape would do nothing positive.
**This post was edited on Dec 3rd 2015 at 8:24:03pm
The basic notion of profiling muslims is absurd for the same reason that it's nonsensical to bring race into a discussion of Islam. What does a muslim look like for you to profile him? Generally you're looking at men, but besides that, there's not much to go on. The only profiling that you can reasonably engage in is anti-profiling; that is, figuring out who ISN'T a threat and focusing on everyone else.
EG, if you're an 84 year old Chinese lady, we're probably okay focusing our resources elsewhere rather than searching your luggage; the odds you're a threat are basically zero.
AKhoodratI was not claiming that Islam is a race. I'm sorry if it came across that way. You're previous posts seemed to downplay the actual harms of racism. When you say things "like those mean 'racists'" it very clearly sounds sarcastic to me and comes across as that you don't believe racism is a very harmful thing and that you believe it is just an "inconvenient truth". I was speaking of racism in general. However, for the same reasons why we should not racially profile, we should also not profile based on religion. And arguing that it is worse in other places is no excuse. We are the wealthiest, most advanced country on Earth, just because the middle east is a shit show full of atrocities doesn't mean that we have the right to profile muslims.
My previous comment was to mock the claim that connections to terrorism were "racist" by another member. The label of "racism" is used too often now, many times in instances that are not related to actual racism at all. It's not to say that racism does not exist.
While I agree that it is wrong to racially profile, however, I think you can profile certain individuals based on the outward choices that they make. For example, if I am in France, Spain, or the UK, and I see a woman in a Burka or Niqab walking down the street, I can be fairly certain that they are followers of Islamic Sharia (the woman often times by force).
The idea behind the burka and niqab, that women are inherently dirty and unclean and should be covered, is a disgusting idea, as is the idea that women are mens' property. I am more likely to be suspicious of someone who follows the Islamic religion that strictly, especially if they live in the West.
And to add to my assertion above, I would be primarily more skeptical of the husband who forces his wife to cover herself in that fashion. I'm sure we can agree on this.
The really sad thing about this whole tragedy is that Obama is using this whole shooting to push a narrative and agenda. The deadliest terror attack in US history was conducted with no guns at all.
I wish the media would just acknowledge the elephant in the room which is radical Islam not guns.
J.D.The basic notion of profiling muslims is absurd for the same reason that it's nonsensical to bring race into a discussion of Islam. What does a muslim look like for you to profile him? Generally you're looking at men, but besides that, there's not much to go on. The only profiling that you can reasonably engage in is anti-profiling; that is, figuring out who ISN'T a threat and focusing on everyone else.
EG, if you're an 84 year old Chinese lady, we're probably okay focusing our resources elsewhere rather than searching your luggage; the odds you're a threat are basically zero.
Profiling isn't just about appearance:
pro·fil·ing
noun
the recording and analysis of a person's psychological and behavioral characteristics, so as to assess or predict their capabilities in a certain sphere or to assist in identifying a particular subgroup of people
Mr. lawyer man should know a lot about words shouldn't you?
CampeadorAnd to add to my assertion above, I would be primarily more skeptical of the husband who forces his wife to cover herself in that fashion. I'm sure we can agree on this.
opiate overdoses in the us kill about 20,000 ppl a year. We could cut that number to approximately zero if we tossed the addicts into doctor supervised programs like they have all over europe (HAT, MMT etc...). Warnick, PSH, and ledger would still be alive, along with about 100,000 people every 5 years.
That being said, terrorism is a problem, but if terrorism was killing 20,000 americans a year and there was a harm reductive, cost saving solution to stop it, wouldnt it be in the countries best interest to use that solution, even if it sends a countercultural message?
pro·fil·ing
noun
the recording and analysis of a person's psychological and behavioral characteristics, so as to assess or predict their capabilities in a certain sphere or to assist in identifying a particular subgroup of people
Mr. lawyer man should know a lot about words shouldn't you?
And how would you propose to create a profile of a muslim? I cannot come up with any idea of how to recognize a muslim, as opposed to a non-muslim, except to include the vast majority of men on Earth in the profile.
Should we pull every muslim aside and check their papers like a police state? fuck no...
Should we be wary of refugees who are fleeing Syria? Definitely... And we should process anyone moving through an area in this day and age to make sure they aren't trying to cause harm... Thats why places like Ellis Island exist in the first place anyway.
But at the same time, we shouldn't turn them away simply because theyre muslim or because it would it would either cost us a little money to process them and such, or because we're trying to remain neutral or something... We did that before... and sent a lot of Jews back to Europe.. Probably to their deaths. Sending Syrians back to that hellscape would do nothing positive.
**This post was edited on Dec 3rd 2015 at 8:24:03pm
I agree with you and I think you agree with me. I am in full support of the the thorough vetting process for refugees that already exists. There are many people out the there that agree with the sentiments that Donald Trump is presenting such as the surveillance of mosques and a tracking system for all muslims in the United States.
This is the profiling that I am speaking of. These people might not be in this discussion right now but they are a large potion of the United States and they should concern everyone who values freedom
CampeadorAnd to add to my assertion above, I would be primarily more skeptical of the husband who forces his wife to cover herself in that fashion. I'm sure we can agree on this.
Many muslim women cover themselves for their own personal religious reasons, not for their husbands... There's a massive pushback from muslim women in France where wearing the full Hijab has become outlawed out of ignorance...
Wis_Skier_23The really sad thing about this whole tragedy is that Obama is using this whole shooting to push a narrative and agenda. The deadliest terror attack in US history was conducted with no guns at all.
I wish the media would just acknowledge the elephant in the room which is radical Islam not guns.
And 3 of those flights could have been prevented from their targets without guns... as evidenced by the one that was stopped without them.
...or were you talking about Pearl Harbor... because the A6M2 and A6M3 are armed with twin 20mm cannons on the nose as well as twin rifle calibre machine guns in the wings... As did the D3N and the B5N.
AKhoodratThere are many people out the there that agree with the sentiments that Donald Trump is presenting such as the surveillance of mosques and a tracking system for all muslims in the United States.
This is the profiling that I am speaking of. These people might not be in this discussion right now but they are a large potion of the United States and they should concern everyone who values freedom
And we need to tell them and show them that they are fucking wrong...
We aren't here to turn Mosques into concentration camps, nor should muslims be interned simply because some fucking dipshits they aren't affiliated with did some bullshit.
DingoSeanMany muslim women cover themselves for their own personal religious reasons, not for their husbands... There's a massive pushback from muslim women in France where wearing the full Hijab has become outlawed out of ignorance...
And you should clearly recognize that it is a push back from those who promote Sharia.
Don't spread misinformation, the hijab was never banned. They have banned the burka and the niqab, which conceal the face.
Please explain to me how it is "ignorance" to declare as a country that the following outfits have no place in a free society.
Niqab
Burka
Even on a practical level, these outfits are a threat to public safety.
Does the media in the States keep going on about how they were 'definitely planning something' because they had a bunch of ammo? So dumb. I've had several thousand rounds of ammunition before, doesn't mean I was planning anything nefarious. Currently have probably 2000 rounds. Does that mean I'm planning on being a criminal?
J.D.And how would you propose to create a profile of a muslim? I cannot come up with any idea of how to recognize a muslim, as opposed to a non-muslim, except to include the vast majority of men on Earth in the profile.
That's the thing about profiling, it's not accurate, It's based on the stereotypes of muslims we have in this country, and it's not actually effective at fighting terrorism and promoting freedom. I think you may be referring to a more practical definition of profiling whereas I am talking about the basic idea of mistrusting a person and acting on that mistrust by investigation or questioning the person based on the fact that they appear to be a muslim and they could possibly be extremist. And don't tell me that you aren't aware of all the stereotypes we could use to create a profile of a muslim. This link explains what I am talking about:
VinnieFDoes the media in the States keep going on about how they were 'definitely planning something' because they had a bunch of ammo? So dumb. I've had several thousand rounds of ammunition before, doesn't mean I was planning anything nefarious. Currently have probably 2000 rounds. Does that mean I'm planning on being a criminal?
It wouldn't perhaps be the pipebombs and and other explosive materials found in their home.. Definitely not the RC car loaded with explosives either.
VinnieFDoes the media in the States keep going on about how they were 'definitely planning something' because they had a bunch of ammo? So dumb. I've had several thousand rounds of ammunition before, doesn't mean I was planning anything nefarious. Currently have probably 2000 rounds. Does that mean I'm planning on being a criminal?
AKhoodratThat's the thing about profiling, it's not accurate, It's based on the stereotypes of muslims we have in this country, and it's not actually effective at fighting terrorism and promoting freedom. I think you may be referring to a more practical definition of profiling whereas I am talking about the basic idea of mistrusting a person and acting on that mistrust by investigation or questioning the person based on the fact that they appear to be a muslim and they could possibly be extremist. And don't tell me that you aren't aware of all the stereotypes we could use to create a profile of a muslim.
That's my point, if you wanted to profile a muslim, how would you do it? You said the following: " I am talking about the basic idea of mistrusting a person and acting on that mistrust by investigation or questioning the person based on the fact that they appear to be a muslim". Who "appears to be a muslim"?
I'm a 30 year old white guy; If I am walking through airport security, there is no way anyone could look at me and go, "I'm confident that guy's not a muslim". There are certainly lots of muslims and no doubt many jihadis who look a lot like me. If you're trying to profile muslims, you should be profiling me, and Dingosean, and probably you too - and I don't even know anything about you except to assume that you're a guy who is under 40 years of age.
Hence, the idea of trying to profile muslims is silly. You're going to have to put a ton of people in the "risky" category.
CampeadorAnd you should clearly recognize that it is a push back from those who promote Sharia.
Don't spread misinformation, the hijab was never banned. They have banned the burka and the niqab, which conceal the face.
Please explain to me how it is "ignorance" to declare as a country that the following outfits have no place in a free society.
Niqab
Burka
Even on a practical level, these outfits are a threat to public safety.
Meanwhile, high heels and all of the bullshit that comes out of Milan is somehow totally practical and okay and somehow free to have a place in a free society?
Should we not be able to wear full face motorcycle helmets because they conceal the face? Kids can't dress as ghosts on halloween anymore? Guess we better arrest Charlie Brown...
Look, he's even ready go go stone somebody! charlie brown = sharia
If you're threatened by somebody wearing what's basically a fucking bedsheet than you're a pathetic individual, man..
VinnieFDoes the media in the States keep going on about how they were 'definitely planning something' because they had a bunch of ammo? So dumb. I've had several thousand rounds of ammunition before, doesn't mean I was planning anything nefarious. Currently have probably 2000 rounds. Does that mean I'm planning on being a criminal?
I'd still trust somebody wearing a niqab over someone like you, not gonna lie haha.
Another good example of the people who are really most at risk here and should be the primary concern.
But nothing in what you said contradicts my point. If someone were to suggest publicly that enslaving non-Muslims is a good idea because God commands it, the response wouldn't be to imprison that person but to point out that slavery is terrible and religious texts are bad justification for public policy, and the reasons why that's true.
So how do you feel then about Italy's so far successful strategy? It seems to be following more of what I have said.
"Italy has also recently been proposed as a model for counterterrorist strategy, given its remarkable record for thwarting terrorist plots before they can come to fruition. A combination of unapologetic profiling, regular deportation of individuals considered a security threat, and immediate arrest of radical Islamists who preach anti-Western violence have apparently come together in a strikingly successful cocktail of counterterrorism."
"What follows is an expert interrogation. Many are soon sent home, classified as mere boasters if they turn meek. Those who are proud to be militant are held, and their records are minutely examined to find any criminal infraction for which they can be arrested, tried and imprisoned (unlike the French who treat militant petty thieves as petty thieves, not as militants). If any faults are found in the immigration paperwork, they are deported -- even if they have become Italian citizens -- a measure applied to several vehement imams (181 more imams are currently in prison). "
J.D.That's my point, if you wanted to profile a muslim, how would you do it? You said the following: " I am talking about the basic idea of mistrusting a person and acting on that mistrust by investigation or questioning the person based on the fact that they appear to be a muslim". Who "appears to be a muslim"?
I'm a 30 year old white guy; If I am walking through airport security, there is no way anyone could look at me and go, "I'm confident that guy's not a muslim". There are certainly lots of muslims and no doubt many jihadis who look a lot like me. If you're trying to profile muslims, you should be profiling me, and Dingosean, and probably you too - and I don't even know anything about you except to assume that you're a guy who is under 40 years of age.
Hence, the idea of trying to profile muslims is silly. You're going to have to put a ton of people in the "risky" category.
Only half of illegal immigrants are Mexican yet Mexicans are the ones who get profiled and investigated, and just like that, the profiling of muslims would involve the American stereotyped headscarf wearing woman and beard sporting middle eastern man. I think we have been agreeing on this issue more than either of us thought.
baethovenIt wouldn't perhaps be the pipebombs and and other explosive materials found in their home.. Definitely not the RC car loaded with explosives either.
CampeadorOr perhaps it was all the explosives they found?
They actually didn't even say that on CBC the couple times I heard them talking about it. They gotta get their shit together. Yea pipe bombs would do it.
DingoSeanMeanwhile, high heels and all of the bullshit that comes out of Milan is somehow totally practical and okay and somehow free to have a place in a free society?
Should we not be able to wear full face motorcycle helmets because they conceal the face? Kids can't dress as ghosts on halloween anymore? Guess we better arrest Charlie Brown...
If you're threatened by somebody wearing what's basically a fucking bedsheet than you're a pathetic individual, man..
Your arguments are increasingly base and nonsensical. You create false equivalences to cover for the fact that you are wrong.
CampeadorSo how do you feel then about Italy's so far successful strategy? It seems to be following more of what I have said.
"Italy has also recently been proposed as a model for counterterrorist strategy, given its remarkable record for thwarting terrorist plots before they can come to fruition. A combination of unapologetic profiling, regular deportation of individuals considered a security threat, and immediate arrest of radical Islamists who preach anti-Western violence have apparently come together in a strikingly successful cocktail of counterterrorism.
I have insufficient knowledge to determine whether in fact Italy's policies are what you say they are, or that they're as successful as you say they are. But I will assume that everything you just posted is accurate.
I am completely against this.
Arresting people for preaching anything is fundamentally bad policy, in my opinion; sunlight is the best disinfectant for bad views. What is banned from being said in public is said in private and grows there. Perfect example: holocaust denial was made illegal in many European countries and the result is a sort of underground facist right-wing version of 9/11 truthers. If those erroneous anti-semitic beliefs were allowed to be aired and shot down as the ridiculous idiocy they clearly are, this wouldn't be a problem.
Even just from a practical perspective, if you're sitting in a room with five people and one of them thinks it's a good idea to wage jihad against western civilians, don't you want to know about it? You probably won't if saying as much is made illegal.
There is always a cost/benefit analysis involved in any policy having to do with security. The USA could, if it wanted, make itself almost completely immune to terrorist attacks. All that would be required would be to implement a repressive police state. I am fundamentally opposed to that, and the way you describe Italy suggests that there's some measure of that going on there. It's become so overused as to be almost groan-worthy, but Ben Franklin's quote remains well put: "Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security." I still think that's the right principle on which to organize society, even if it means more attacks like the one in Paris, which it surely will.
DingoSeanI'd still trust somebody wearing a niqab over someone like you, not gonna lie haha.
Pussy.
When there's a good sale there's a good sale. You gotta stock up. Ammo is one thing that never loses value. Also when there's a zombie apocalypse I'll be the one you'll come begging to for protection when you run out of rocks to throw at them.
CampeadorYour arguments are increasingly base and nonsensical. You create false equivalences to cover for the fact that you are wrong.
Your'e the one who agrees with outright banning a garment because of it's cultural representation.
the Burkah/Niqab is no more of a threat to society than High heels..
You think High Heels are worn for practical reasons? You think they were invented by women? What about binding feet? That was impractical, unsafe, and outright fucked up... but I wouldn't have been for banning it just like I would never be for banning any body modification.
If you want to wear something that makes you look like that? be my guest. If you want to get a mike tyson tattoo on your face? go for it... It's not of my concern...
And as for what wearing a burkah represents? Well... like the binding of womens feet, that will go the way of the dodo in time... in fact, sooner than you think... but banning it isn't going to make someone not believe sharia law or anything like it should exist. If anything it will exacerbate their animosity.
AKhoodratOnly half of illegal immigrants are Mexican yet Mexicans are the ones who get profiled and investigated, and just like that, the profiling of muslims would involve the American stereotyped headscarf wearing woman and beard sporting middle eastern man. I think we have been agreeing on this issue more than either of us thought.
No, I'm perfectly clear on what I think about it, I think it's just taken a bit of doing for me to make my position clear to you. My whole point is that I'm fine with profiling, provided the profile is actually effective. So, if we happened to know for a fact that there was an organized cult out there that has an ideology of blowing up hospitals, but they only let in Asian men who are taller than 6'5", I'm in favour of profiling that group.
In the case of Islam, this makes no sense, because you just cannot narrow it down without excluding huge swaths of the "security risk" population. Sure, a beard sporting middle eastern man might be a jihadi. That guy should be given attention at TSA. Similarly, I might be a jihadi, for all the TSA knows, so I should be given attention at the TSA. Meanwhile, Dame Judi Dench is almost certainly not a jihadi, and so she can be given less attention at TSA. This is still profiling, it's just a really broad profile. If we want to profile in this way, I'm totally fine with it.
When there's a good sale there's a good sale. You gotta stock up. Ammo is one thing that never loses value. Also when there's a zombie apocalypse I'll be the one you'll come begging to for protection when you run out of rocks to throw at them.
No, being afraid of somebody who's simply wearing a full length veil is what I'd consider a pussy...
Fighting a someone with an eye window is about as difficult as shooting 2000 fish with your 2000 bullets.
