not just her hubby too i think i sniff a gentile screed...... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Your analogy should more properly be framed "all Catholic priests", for we have not seen any non-priest Catholics charged with pedophilia in any way other than what other sub-populations of pedophiles at large are charged with. The whole issue is about priests being celibate, and being a specially protected class -- with, furthermore, special access to little boys which other pedophiles, Catholic or not, don't have (and therefore have to devise ways to finagle getting such access). The term "all Catholic priests" is perfectly sufficient to function as an analogy in this regard, at least in its superficial logical structure. That said, I'd support instituting certain policies based on a blanket generalization of "all Catholic priests" being potential pedophiles, if there were a sufficient quantity and quality of occurrence (numbers relative to overall group; dispersion; incidences of priests previously deemed to be innocent turning out to be pedophiles; etc.). I don't think the quantity and quality of occurrence is sufficient; though I do favor some degree of intrusion by law enforcement handled in a casuistic manner. You are moving the goal-posts here and defining, or re-defining "terrorism" to include, by logical extension, all modern warfare. No credible mainstream analyst would conflate terrorism and warfare -- unless, of course, that warfare included things the West does not do, such as what Islamic Sudan has been doing for decades -- mass rape, slavery, massacres of innocents.
Now please apply this to Muslims or anyone with an Arabic name. After all, if we were going to look at the number of terrorist attacks and apply it to the +1 billion Muslims around the world, the numbers do not add up that Muslims should be automatically under suspicion based solely on their religious beliefs. Oh dear! Aren't you precious.. Are you claiming that American soldiers (as one example) do not engage in rape, torture or massacre innocents in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Does that mean, Mr Hesperado, that I should apply that standard to yourself, since you are an American? Should Americans be held under a higher level of suspicion over the actions of the few who do commit such crimes? Should the bastardisation of your acronym of 'TMOEWATHA' (as opposed to your TMOEWATHI) apply to you as an American? After all, the main source of violence from American soldiers against innocent civilians comes from Americans. If one looks at American society, with its embrace of guns and the levels of gun violence in America, does that mean you are the source of the violence against civilians by American soldiers because you are an American? Terrorism is a form of warfare because the end results of terrorism is war. Your country has proven that quite well enough.
At least according to my Egyptian friend...there's a different way of thinking there...there to die for a cause proves that cause's righteousness. Here, we get enough casualties, we stop. In the Middle East and South Asia...Hmm... Yeah, because naturally, someone who is planning a terrorist attack is going to conveniently identify themselves as a Muslim in act or dress. Furthermore they will make sure to act and look different and memorable so people will freaking notice them! Because, like, bad people don't look like everybody else, right???? I mean, right??? Jeebus! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Mr Hesperado, actually goes a bit beyond that. I had simplified it for him, but in essence, his stance is that because she had a Muslim sounding name, she deserves extra scrutiny: Najlah...!!!??? I wouldn't necessarily search her kid, but I certainly would give her extra scrutiny with a name like that -- evidently the Muslim wife of a brainless American husband (who may well have in the meantime converted to Islam, if he hadn't before marrying her). Note that the only suspicious thing about this woman is simply her name, because it sounds Muslim. And then note the rest of his comment. She must be the wife of some brainless American husband [because it seems one has to be brainless to marry a Muslim woman?] who may or may not have converted [further justification of further investigation?]... Delve a bit further into this story, in other words, look beyond the Muslim sounding name and the female terrorist (because well, her name is Muslim sounding) and her supposedly brainless American husband and father of the child banned from flying, appear to be anything but what Mr Hesperado believes solely based on her name (that she and her husband are possible terrorists): Michael “Mikey” Hicks, whose father is a US Navy veteran and mother a photojournalist who has flown with the US vice-president, has been the target of extra security measures at airports since he was 2. Because the secret service often allow terrorists on planes with the Vice President...? Yes? No?.. According to Mr Hesperado, she deserves extra scrutiny solely because he thinks her name sounds Muslim. In fact the reality is vastly different as she was born in Jamaica. Well done Mr Hesperado. You have provided me with one of the biggest laughs I have had in the last couple of days.. That is pure win!
Born in Jamaica? I guess that automatically rules her out of any suspicion, then, since we know that Muslims born in Jamaica (like Germaine Lindsay, one of the London suicide bombers on 7/7) cannot possibly be dangerous. P.S.: I can't post links here yet, so I couldn't link Germaine Lindsay (cough, cough http :// news .bbc .co .uk/ 2/ hi/ 4678837 .stm) -- though data like that and mountains more of it is easy to find (except, apparently, for those who spend all their time ignoring it).
That's what makes Islam such an insidious ideology. Can you imagine such fanaticism in a people that control nuclear weapons?
First of all, to the extent that one accepts the premise that we need to profile Muslims (whether "radical" or not), there are many ways to determine if someone is, or might be, a Muslim -- even if the Muslim in question is trying to hide it (as in fact the Al Qaeda Manual instructs its jihadist agents to do). This doesn't mean a profiling protocol would give equal weight and time to all the ways; but on the other hand, one shouldn't rule out any method just because it's imperfect (since all methodologies have imperfections of one sort or another). Secondly, so far most of the terror attacks -- both successful and unsuccessful -- have involved Muslims who have not seemed concerned to camouflage their Muslim identity. The most flagrant example, of course, was Major Hasan who mass-murdered people at Fort Hood, Texas. On the very morning of his attack, he was in full Islamic regalia, sporting his beard, and passing out Korans; and of course, long before his attack he gave his infamous Power Point presentation outlining why Muslim-Americans must consider America their enemy and should not obey its laws and must wage jihad against Americans (and in addition he had repeated these treasonous views several times in different conversations over a long period of time such that fellow officers became concerned -- but were afraid to report him to their superiors out of fear of being branded as "bigots" and "Islamophobes"). The only example I can think of where Muslim terrorists seemed to have gone out of their way to conceal their Muslim identity was the 911 attack. There may have been a couple of others as well; but so far, Muslim jihadists seem not to be assiduously trying to conceal their Muslim identity. That said, of course, the possibility of such camouflage operations should also be factored in, and ways to uncover them pursued.
Where exactly are you getting your "information"--or is it your contention that all these purportedly non-Islamic terrorist acts were committed by Muslims-in-disguise? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! here, halfway down the page
it should be noted that not all causes can raise conventional armies. nor should we omit to consider the context of "terrorism"
Ah, I'm curious. Is it not "terrorism" if they wear western clothing and frequent bars, like the perpetrators of 9/11? What if they dress like American soldiers? How do you categorise that? It's not like a white person has ever committed an act of terrorism in the United States. Except for this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. Not forgetting this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. And also this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. As well as these ones. And these ones. And these ones. And these ones. And of course, these guys h/t wasp jerky
oh please who the hell are those johnny come latelys? my ancestors, my people, me; have been fighting terrorism since 1492
The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism? LOL What are you smoking, S.A.M.? Neither was the Columbine High School massacre terrorism, because there was no political motive. Few of the examples you mentioned were connected to an international movement as Islamic militants are.
Of course it was! It was eco-terrorism! I'm pretty sure if a ship was attacked by insurgents/rebels in the US harbour it would be classified as an act of terrorism Why? because they are doing it at home? Americans do it all over the world as well. And they've got 50 other nations doing it with them. Can't get more international than that. In the last 100 years how many global wars has the western world indulged in for profit and to terrorise the underprivileged?
That's not terrorism, you just want to call it that in order to illustrate your false moral equivalency.
Sure its terrorism. Actually its worse than terrorism. Its oppression, because the people they are killing are already disenfranchised, poor and underprivileged. Maybe this is how they entertain themselves, by killing and terrorising people who cannot defend themselves. I notice they never bother to liberate those who have weapons of mass destruction and can fight back. Only those who live in mud huts.
You might want to double-check the events of 1991. There are also one or two industrial powers that "They" have engaged in total war - since we're talking in time-scales of "never."
Sorry for saving the world from Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and liberating much of Afghanistan from the Taliban, who murdered an estimated 400,000 Muslims.
Thats US taxpayer money we're discussing dweeb. You paid for those weapons and supplied them. Ooops I did it again [Saddam] and again [Osama] and again [mujahideen] and again [tribal warlords and armed militia] and again [Pakistan] and again [Bahrain] and again [Gaza] and again...
