NationStates Jolt Archive

Nuclear Monitoring of Muslims Done Without Search Warrants
(http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/nest/051222nest.htm)

Yes, because every single Muslim in the world man, woman and child all share a communal Borg-like hivemind with Osama Bin Ladin.

:rolleyes:

This is just further proof that if a specific ethnic group kicks America in the crotch, every single member of that ethnicity will collectively suffer for the sins of a few. Japanese Internment anyone?

I'm pretty sure someone will come along sooner or later and say it is for the good of America and if the muslims are montired, its because they're all terrorist. [/sarcasm]

I want to have a borg-like hivemind... it'd be soooo sweet.

I'm pretty sure someone will come along sooner or later and say it is for the good of America and if the muslims are montired, its because they're all terrorist. [/sarcasm]

Dude, all muslims really are terrorists and the US Government needs to deal with them accordingly..

[Pennterra's thought process]

Al Qaeda: Extreme terrorist group seeking to create Arab Muslim empire.

Ku Klux Klan: Extreme terrorist group seeking to create white Christian empire.

Conclusion: Al Qaeda = KKK with different ethnicities and religions

If the possible presence of Al Qaeda operatives in the US necessitates survaillance of all Arab Muslims in the US, then the definite presence of KKK operatives in the US definitely necessitates of all white Christians in the US.

If the definite presence of KKK operatives in the US does not warrant survaillance of all white Christians in the US, then the possible presence of Al Qaeda operatives in the US does not necessitate the survaillance of all Arab Muslims in the US.

Because very, very few of the millions of white Christians in the US support the KKK, survaillance of all white Christians is unwarranted.

Correlation: Very, very few of the millions of Arab Muslims in the US support Al Qaeda.

Therefore, survaillance of all Arab Muslims in the US is unwarranted.

[/Penterra's thought process]

[Pennterra's thought process]

Al Qaeda: Extreme terrorist group seeking to create Arab Muslim empire.

Ku Klux Klan: Extreme terrorist group seeking to create white Christian empire.

Conclusion: Al Qaeda = KKK with different ethnicities and religions

If the possible presence of Al Qaeda operatives in the US necessitates survaillance of all Arab Muslims in the US, then the definite presence of KKK operatives in the US definitely necessitates of all white Christians in the US.

If the definite presence of KKK operatives in the US does not warrant survaillance of all white Christians in the US, then the possible presence of Al Qaeda operatives in the US does not necessitate the survaillance of all Arab Muslims in the US.

Because very, very few of the millions of white Christians in the US support the KKK, survaillance of all white Christians is unwarranted.

Correlation: Very, very few of the millions of Arab Muslims in the US support Al Qaeda.

Therefore, survaillance of all Arab Muslims in the US is unwarranted.

[/Penterra's thought process]


HAH! Logic will only get you flamed you whiney tree hugging communist liberal baby killer.

HAH! Logic will only get you flamed you whiney tree hugging communist liberal baby killer.

I resent that! I do not whine! Mom, the mean kids are making fun of me again! :D

HAH! Logic will only get you flamed you whiney tree hugging communist liberal baby killer.

Dude, there muslims. It doesn't matter wether they support it or not, they don't deserve any protections by the US Government or our constitution.

Dude, there muslims. It doesn't matter wether they support it or not, they don't deserve any protections by the US Government or our constitution.

No need to tell me... I support complete eradication of these pests with towels on their evil heads.

not really - this was a bad joke to counter another hopefully bad joke

Let's be PC about the Surveillance and monitor ANYONE with a religious affiliation or belief.

The Democrats will positively SHIT themselves in excitement when they hear the idea.

Any takers on Equality?

Dude, there muslims. It doesn't matter wether they support it or not, they don't deserve any protections by the US Government or our constitution.

Really ? Where in the constitution does it say "this is only valid for [insert group here]" ?

Fact: Lately all of the major organized terrorist attacks upon america have been by muslim extremists.

Fact: In order to get a hold of a dirty bomb/nuclear bomb as a terrorist some organization is a must. A lone wacko or a couple of wackos are in no position to buy and transport the materials.

Fact: Given that the Klanners all live in the US, it's highly probable that they won't fuck with their own real estate.

Fact: Radiation screening is harmless.

From these facts we can surmise that it is just fucking common sense to screen the people who most fit the profile of having a nuke/dirty bomb.

From these facts we can surmise that it is just fucking common sense to screen the people who most fit the profile of having a nuke/dirty bomb.

White caucasian males with a high rank in the US military ?

Fact: Lately all of the major organized terrorist attacks upon america have been by muslim extremists.

The only two major terrorist attacks upon America in history have been Oklahoma City and 9-11. You're going on a pointless hyperbole.

Fact: In order to get a hold of a dirty bomb/nuclear bomb as a terrorist some organization is a must. A lone wacko or a couple of wackos are in no position to buy and transport the materials.

Another opinion trying to be passed off as fact. There are numerous ways to obtain radioactive materials and not all of them involve a black market. Some of them are quite legal in fact.

Fact: Given that the Klanners all live in the US, it's highly probable that they won't fuck with their own real estate.

Oklahoma City literally blew away the myth that domestic American terrorists aren't "willing to damage their own real estate."

Fact: Radiation screening is harmless.

Radiation screening applied solely to one specific ethnic group is revenge racism.

From these facts we can surmise that it is just fucking common sense to screen the people who most fit the profile of having a nuke/dirty bomb.

From these so-called and unsubstantiated "facts" it's clear that you support revenge racism simply because it doesn't inconvenience you one bit.

Isn't this the 2nd thread on this?

Oklahoma City literally blew away the myth that domestic American terrorists aren't "willing to damage their own real estate."

Um, no. They damaged a building, not the land itself. Biiig difference. Nukes/dirty bombs, especially the type most likely to be used by a terrorist, would do long-lasting damage to the land itself, leaving it uninhabitable.

The only two major terrorist attacks upon America in history have been Oklahoma City and 9-11. You're going on a pointless hyperbole.Embassy bombings can be counted as US soil. including US bases and miliary property like ships. (Yemen) also, the WTC was bombed and attacked years before. 9/11 was the third that I Can remember off hand.

Another opinion trying to be passed off as fact. There are numerous ways to obtain radioactive materials and not all of them involve a black market. Some of them are quite legal in fact.agreed, but the point is, that home-grown terrorist, like the Radicals of the KKK (and I consider terrorists 'Radical' Muslims) won't use Dirty Nukes on US soil. however, Radical groups based on other countries, won't have those qualms.

Oklahoma City literally blew away the myth that domestic American terrorists aren't "willing to damage their own real estate."big difference between a chemical bomb, (Oklahoma City) and a 'Dirty Nuke' if you need to see the difference, check out Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Radiation screening applied solely to one specific ethnic group is revenge racism.agreed. after all, these aren't idiots, anything they do will be at the homes of Sympathisers.

From these so-called and unsubstantiated "facts" it's clear that you support revenge racism simply because it doesn't inconvenience you one bit.so you don't mind higher taxes or program cutbacks to screen every known and unknown group that 'might' have a bomb. great to know.

Um, no. They damaged a building, not the land itself. Biiig difference. Nukes/dirty bombs, especially the type most likely to be used by a terrorist, would do long-lasting damage to the land itself, leaving it uninhabitable.
And this would bother them why? For some reason this does not weigh in as important as all the human life it would be taking

If they are crazy enough to detonate such a bomb I doubt that they will worry about the land too much

agreed, but the point is, that home-grown terrorist, like the Radicals of the KKK (and I consider terrorists 'Radical' Muslims) won't use Dirty Nukes on US soil. however, Radical groups based on other countries, won't have those qualms.


Wishful thinking....

Wishful thinking....
yep. I admit to that. but only the craziest of 'Fringe Radicals' would nuke their own home while they're living it it.

yep. I admit to that. but only the craziest of 'Fringe Radicals' would nuke their own home while they're living it it.

Self-sacrifice is not a purely Islamic construct.

If you were going to detonate a 'briefcase bomb', you are probably already accepting that you are dead, anyway. Taking that into account, it is unlikely you are going to be TOO upset about the risk of polluting your immediate environment.

yep. I admit to that. but only the craziest of 'Fringe Radicals' would nuke their own home while they're living it it.
What is the range of a dirty bomb? and how "big" is the us. In the end they would be not nuking "their own home" they would not have to worry about the direct effects of the bomb

You assume (from what I gather and sorry if I am wrong) that the phisical danger presented by such a bomb would be enough to turn people away

Well if they set the bomb off in new york but they LIVE in texas ...


Not only that but the analogy origionaly presented refferences the monitoring of NATIONAL muslems

This is "their" home as much as it is any KKK members
So what warents the monitoring of them more then it does caucasians

Self-sacrifice is not a purely Islamic construct.

If you were going to detonate a 'briefcase bomb', you are probably already accepting that you are dead, anyway. Taking that into account, it is unlikely you are going to be TOO upset about the risk of polluting your immediate environment.true, but most Suicide bombers have a purpose. Making the area uninhabitable for everyone, including their own people, isn't one of them... yet.

Self-sacrifice is not a purely Islamic construct.

If you were going to detonate a 'briefcase bomb', you are probably already accepting that you are dead, anyway. Taking that into account, it is unlikely you are going to be TOO upset about the risk of polluting your immediate environment.
True that

What is the range of a dirty bomb? and how "big" is the us. In the end they would be not nuking "their own home" they would not have to worry about the direct effects of the bomb

You assume (from what I gather and sorry if I am wrong) that the phisical danger presented by such a bomb would be enough to turn people away

Well if they set the bomb off in new york but they LIVE in texas ...


Not only that but the analogy origionaly presented refferences the monitoring of NATIONAL muslems

This is "their" home as much as it is any KKK members
So what warents the monitoring of them more then it does caucasiansIf you read back, I did state that monitoring only one group is foolish.

but it's also logistically impossible to monitor all groups.

but there has to be a starting point. just as long as it moves on to others, I see no problem with it.

true, but most Suicide bombers have a purpose. Making the area uninhabitable for everyone, including their own people, isn't one of them... yet.
Again what is your deffinition of "local" the inhabitability of newyork is not going to be as relevent to someone from texas or alabama

You asume them detonating the bomb makes THEIR home un-inhabitable
Not so

If you read back, I did state that monitoring only one group is foolish.

but it's also logistically impossible to monitor all groups.

It is also unreasonable to assume that one particular group is, as a 'race', any more dangerous than any other. Some might argue, it is even immoral.

Indeed, looking at the history of recent terrorism, the group we SHOULD be focussing on... for sheer longevity of terrorist activity... is the Irish.

Do you think that we should set up monitoring devices on Irish venues?

Again what is your deffinition of "local" the inhabitability of newyork is not going to be as relevent to someone from texas or alabama

You asume them detonating the bomb makes THEIR home un-inhabitable
Not so
My definition of Local is on a Nation level.

after all, sure a group in Alabama, or even Hawaii can set off a bomb in New York. The results: the locals would turn on them faster than the Government.

Now Iraqi cell sets off a nuke in Texas, the locals in Iraq would probabaly hail them as heroes and flock to join other radical groups.

true, but most Suicide bombers have a purpose. Making the area uninhabitable for everyone, including their own people, isn't one of them... yet.

As UpwardThrust pointed out... your logic only works if you assume that a suicide bomber in Washington, LIVES in Washington.

If someone wishes to place a dirty bomb near the White House, they would probably LIVE somewhere like Wyoming.... where they had a lot of space all to themselves to prepare.

My definition of Local is on a Nation level.

after all, sure a group in Alabama, or even Hawaii can set off a bomb in New York. The results: the locals would turn on them faster than the Government.

Now Iraqi cell sets off a nuke in Texas, the locals in Iraq would probabaly hail them as heroes and flock to join other radical groups.

Because, of course, Iraqi's have been such a problem in the motherland...

Perhaps you aren't thinking about the North/South divide? There are certainly Bible-Belt areas that still insist the 'South is gonna to Rise Again'. If you lived in the right part of the South, and your target was some 'Yankee' stronghold, you could probably get exactly the kind of following you suspect of Iraqi's, from 'good, honest' US citizens.

It is also unreasonable to assume that one particular group is, as a 'race', any more dangerous than any other. Some might argue, it is even immoral.

Indeed, looking at the history of recent terrorism, the group we SHOULD be focussing on... for sheer longevity of terrorist activity... is the Irish.

Do you think that we should set up monitoring devices on Irish venues?
no it's not unreasonable. that is called racial profiling. it's quick and (I'll admit) dirty but it's a starting point. from there, it SHOULD be branching out to groups that have such ties and from there other that those groups come in contact with.

Now if the Irish attacked the US with the same ferocity as Al Quida did. you bet the Irish would be treated the same way.

If you read back, I did state that monitoring only one group is foolish.

but it's also logistically impossible to monitor all groups.

but there has to be a starting point. just as long as it moves on to others, I see no problem with it.

you may not see a problem with it, but the supreme court does. they dont allow unwarranted searches of people's homes.

how that applies to mosques, i have no idea.

As UpwardThrust pointed out... your logic only works if you assume that a suicide bomber in Washington, LIVES in Washington.

If someone wishes to place a dirty bomb near the White House, they would probably LIVE somewhere like Wyoming.... where they had a lot of space all to themselves to prepare.
Exactly ... it all depends on your definition of local

If "THEIR" home is not in the effected radius they are not really destroying (literally) their home

So that really is not a deterrent for them

And if they are psychic enough

Because, of course, Iraqi's have been such a problem in the motherland...

Perhaps you aren't thinking about the North/South divide? There are certainly Bible-Belt areas that still insist the 'South is gonna to Rise Again'. If you lived in the right part of the South, and your target was some 'Yankee' stronghold, you could probably get exactly the kind of following you suspect of Iraqi's, from 'good, honest' US citizens.
man, I love how you people latch on to examples like leeches. I wonder what would've happened if I had said Midets... or Cambodians?

you may not see a problem with it, but the supreme court does. they dont allow unwarranted searches of people's homes.

how that applies to mosques, i have no idea.
I agree, no UNWARRENTED SEARCHES should be allowed without Probable cause,

now are they entering the premises? or checking the environment immediatly around such premesis?

Exactly ... it all depends on your definition of local

If "THEIR" home is not in the effected radius they are not really destroying (literally) their home

So that really is not a deterrent for them

And if they are psychic enoughas I said, my definition of Local is on a NATIONAL scale.

as I said, my definition of Local is on a NATIONAL scale.

Yes - that is YOUR definition of local.

However, unless it is YOU that is thinking about the planting of dirty bombs... YOUR definition is pretty much irrelevent, no?

I agree, no UNWARRENTED SEARCHES should be allowed without Probable cause,

now are they entering the premises? or checking the environment immediatly around such premesis?
entrance isnt an issue. its still a search if you peek in the window, if you crack the door open and look inside or if you use a machine that looks inside for you.

they are looking inside the building not just checking for radiation on the lawn.

as I said, my definition of Local is on a NATIONAL scale.
Then with that definition how is it a physical deterrent for someone to plant a dirty bomb in their “home” ?

no it's not unreasonable. that is called racial profiling. it's quick and (I'll admit) dirty but it's a starting point. from there, it SHOULD be branching out to groups that have such ties and from there other that those groups come in contact with.


It's quick... dirty, and basically useless. Racial profiling deals with the 'average' citizen of a given race... and the 'terrorist' is unlikely to be the 'average'.

What racial profiling does, is victimise Indian shopkeepers for the crimes of groups half a world away.


Now if the Irish attacked the US with the same ferocity as Al Quida did. you bet the Irish would be treated the same way.

I don't understand your logic.

Saudis committed a terrorist act in New York... therefore, it is okay to monitor Iraqi's?

And yet, the Irish, who have been slaughtering innocents in the UK for decades, are not a target of similar scrutiny?

This is a crime of convenience. I'm sorry, but it really appears that the US assumes anyone of a similar skintone is 'okay', and a little bit darker, they MUST be bomb-weilding psychopaths.

Yes - that is YOUR definition of local.

However, unless it is YOU that is thinking about the planting of dirty bombs... YOUR definition is pretty much irrelevent, no?
Exactly ... it all depends on your definition of local


he did ask for my Definition of "Local"

now if you're crazy enough to destroy YOUR home to make a point. then that's you.

entrance isnt an issue. its still a search if you peek in the window, if you crack the door open and look inside or if you use a machine that looks inside for you.

they are looking inside the building not just checking for radiation on the lawn.

Exactly... the guy who peeps in the girls window is doing something very different to the guy who sees a girl getting dressed in the street.

It is a matter of intent.

he did ask for my Definition of "Local"

now if you're crazy enough to destroy YOUR home to make a point. then that's you.
But again as I pointed out he would not be distroying his home
If he is from montana and he takes out newyork he is not really taking out "his home"

Again your deffinition of home to be the entire nation is rather useless ... it has been amply shown that people are willing to "attack" other parts of their "home" look at civil wars

How is this suposed to be a deterent to someone? their real home is not phisicaly in danger only a part of their "national" home (which people dont always feel that same nationalizm as others)

he did ask for my Definition of "Local"

now if you're crazy enough to destroy YOUR home to make a point. then that's you.

I suspect you'll find, if you examine carefully, the 'your' in the text, is a 'collective you'.

Why would I destroy my home? Were we not talking about terrorists, a moment ago?

The argument you SEEM to be making, is: homegrown terrorists would not destroy 'their home'.... the point UT and I are making is... if you live in Seattle, you might not consider New York 'your home', if you were planning to plant bombs.

Try to see the point I'm making.... YOUR definition of 'local' would only affect YOUR actions.

entrance isnt an issue. its still a search if you peek in the window, if you crack the door open and look inside or if you use a machine that looks inside for you.

they are looking inside the building not just checking for radiation on the lawn.
actually, if someone is committing a crime and the windows are open, and viewable on the street, then the police can deem probable cause and search your premisis without warrent.

if your window drapes are pulled back to give your 50 potted Marijuana plants some light and a cop passes by and can see the plants from your window, then he can perform a warrentless search.

same thing with radiation leaking from your home. IF it's detectable from the street.

Thermal however, I believe is iffy and arguable in court. because while it's not physically crossing boundary lines, you are pointing a device at the property. (Like a telescope/binoculars or lisenting device.)

and whether Mosques (and any Religous place) is defined as a Private place is up to the lawyers.

I suspect you'll find, if you examine carefully, the 'your' in the text, is a 'collective you'.

Why would I destroy my home? Were we not talking about terrorists, a moment ago?

The argument you SEEM to be making, is: homegrown terrorists would not destroy 'their home'.... the point UT and I are making is... if you live in Seattle, you might not consider New York 'your home', if you were planning to plant bombs.

Try to see the point I'm making.... YOUR definition of 'local' would only affect YOUR actions.
look at home grown terrorists who bombed areas that were local on a National level, but not Local in a community level. The Unibomber. Turned in by his own brother. the Oklahoma bombing. the whole nation joined in on that one. he didn't stay free for long did he.

so yes, Home grown terrorists can "Bomb" their own Nation. they just won't get away with it because what makes terror cells hard to catch is the fact that they will hide in the civilian population. If they do anything to turn that population against themselves, then they are basically shooting themselves in the foot. Their members are drawn from the community, loose that, and the terror cell lose their greatest resources.

same thing with radiation leaking from your home. IF it's detectable from the street.


Again, though... THIS is only relevent if you are casually monitoring the whole street.

If you use some technology to enable you to specifically target ONE house, your allegorical 'cop' is no longer just 'catching sight of pot plants'... he is conducting a (potentially illegal) search.

actually, if someone is committing a crime and the windows are open, and viewable on the street, then the police can deem probable cause and search your premisis without warrent.

if your window drapes are pulled back to give your 50 potted Marijuana plants some light and a cop passes by and can see the plants from your window, then he can perform a warrentless search.

same thing with radiation leaking from your home. IF it's detectable from the street.

Thermal however, I believe is iffy and arguable in court. because while it's not physically crossing boundary lines, you are pointing a device at the property. (Like a telescope/binoculars or lisenting device.)

and whether Mosques (and any Religous place) is defined as a Private place is up to the lawyers.

well now if the fbi is given the information that someones house is leaking the sort of radiation that comes from nuclear bombs, they can certainly get a warrant to go take a look

they CANT perform an electronic search of a particular persons home without a warrant or at least immediate probable cause. they cant draw up a list of likely suspects and search their homes in any manner without a warrant.

look at home grown terrorists who bombed areas that were local on a National level, but not Local in a community level. The Unibomber. Turned in by his own brother. the Oklahoma bombing. the whole nation joined in on that one. he didn't stay free for long did he.

so yes, Home grown terrorists can "Bomb" their own Nation. they just won't get away with it because what makes terror cells hard to catch is the fact that they will hide in the civilian population. If they do anything to turn that population against themselves, then they are basically shooting themselves in the foot. Their members are drawn from the community, loose that, and the terror cell lose their greatest resources.

Like Randy Maske, the Peoria Abortion Clinic Bomber?

Or Eric Rudolphe, who bombed abortion clinics, lesbian bars, and the 1996 Olympics?

Your problem here, is that you are somehow assuming that a homegrown terrorist would automatically be stupid...

Randy Maske carried out his bombing action, and was ONLY discovered, when he was caught for a DUI. Eric Rudolphe went into hiding, and was caught by accident, while scavenging for food.

You somehow seem to envision that a homegrown terrorist must walk around with a flashing neon light above their head... "Terrorist Here... It Was Me"...

as I said, my definition of Local is on a NATIONAL scale.

...How the heck can someone living in the US miss this?

The US is the third largest nation in the world. It is 2.5 times the size of the European Union. It has an area of 9,631,418 sq km. It's divided into 50 distinct chunks, many of which are larger than most European nations.

In the US, sectionalism is still a rather powerful force. The country is so large that seperate areas have developed distinct cultures- there's a rather drastic difference between California and Florida. For many people, state loyalties prevail over national loyalties; Robert E. Lee chose to fight for Virginia over fighting for the Union, and if California chose to secede, I think I would do the same.

The Ku Klux Klan, specifically is determined to form a new Confederacy that institutes slavery and functions effectively as a Christian theocracy. They're a Southern nationalist group. As such, the KKK would have no qualms at all about attacking New York, Washington, or San Francisco. Their definition of 'local' is not yours, and in this case, theirs is the only definition that matters.

Read my post carefully, and you'll find that I don't advocate surveillance of all groups; just the opposite. I propose surveillance (with warrants) of individuals who, through real documentation, have been linked to terrorist organizations- NOT broad-sweep surveillance of everyone in a particular religious/racial group, which you yourself said is hopelessly expensive. Therefore, white Christian Southerners, Irish immigrants, and Muslims would all be spared blanket survaillance in favor of monitoring people who may actually be connected to terrorist plots.

Someone wise once said "TThe test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.”

Or as I like to call it, “O.J. killed his wife, and the police are corrupt.”

One mind, two things-here’s another one: while it’s true that most Muslims or Arabs are not terrorists, almost all the terrorists are Muslims or Arabs. The question, therefore, is: upon which one of these independent facts do we concentrate more heavily on right now?

almost all the terrorists are Muslims or Arabs.

:headbang: Not. True. Must we once again point to the IRA, Timothy McVeigh, the KKK, and abortion clinic bombers?

:headbang: Not. True. Must we once again point to the IRA, Timothy McVeigh, the KKK, and abortion clinic bombers?
The difference is, TM had, like what, 5,000 suporters at most?
How many Arabs support the complete distruction of the westen infidels?
Millions. Big diff. Come up with something comparable, and then we can talk.

One mind, two things-here’s another one: while it’s true that most Muslims or Arabs are not terrorists, almost all the terrorists are Muslims or Arabs. The question, therefore, is: upon which one of these independent facts do we concentrate more heavily on right now?

If one is rational: the first.
If one has been infected by the great big terrorism scare: the second. But then the terrorists have won.

look at home grown terrorists who bombed areas that were local on a National level, but not Local in a community level. The Unibomber. Turned in by his own brother. the Oklahoma bombing. the whole nation joined in on that one. he didn't stay free for long did he.
Erm... I'd just like to point out here that Timothy McVeigh was already sitting in the police station after being arrested for some other charge when they decided to start looking for him for questioning regarding the Oklahoma bombing. (I think he was arrested for not having a license plate on his car, but I don't remember for sure...)
And the government's initial guesses regarding who the bombers were? Foreign nationalists, members of Al Qaeda. The American public was pretty shocked to find out some ex-soldier was bombing government buildings trying to make a point about Waco.
On a random note about terrorism-- I was flipping through some old Reader's Digests recently and found an article in one from 1994... it was titled "Osama bin Laden" and said underneath something to the effect of "You've probably never heard of this man, but you should know who he is, because he wants you dead." It was about all of the US embassy bombings that he was suspected of, or had made public statements supporting. Interesting that we knew all this back in '94, isn't it?

To add, I am probably the loudest, most in-your-face civil libertarian on this board (if I do say so myself ;) ).
But sometimes I gotta call a duck a duck, and a religious extremist a Muslim whackjob who wishes death upon the western devils.

If one is rational: the first.
If one has been infected by the great big terrorism scare: the second. But then the terrorists have won.
Right, halfway. A war against a noun without a nation is silly. Like the "war" on drugs. :rolleyes:

But I do see that we have a war going on right now against religious fundamentalists who want to see the end of the very ideals I (consitently) defend. It's walking a tightrope, albeit, but that's the balance I hope we'll reach.
I'd rather hear suggestions rather than idealistic excuses.
The whackjob fundie arabs do want to see us dead, innocent and Bush-supporters alike. :p
How do you propose we deal with that successfully without wasting time on appearing PC?

The difference is, TM had, like what, 5,000 suporters at most?
How many Arabs support the complete distruction of the westen infidels?
Millions. Big diff. Come up with something comparable, and then we can talk.

This is all imaginary, my friend.

You have no way of knowing how many people have supported McVeigh. You don't have anything but a loose belief to support your assertion that there are NOT millions of supporters for Abortion Clinic Bombers.

Lord knows, the area where I live, the majority of people seemed to find it somehow unjust when Eric Rudolph got caught.

And, your 'millions' support complete destruction of the western infidels.... where do you get the 'evidence' for this assertion? I've known hundreds of people from 'Arab' backgrounds, and surprisingly few of them have been pro-destruction of anyone.

But then... why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good prejudice?

The whackjob fundie arabs do want to see us dead, innocent and Bush-supporters alike. :p
How do you propose we deal with that successfully without wasting time on appearing PC?

By focussing on living your life, instead of focussing on its continuation.

To rephrase: if you are a pessimist just continue as normal, accept that there is another cause of death besides drunk cabdrivers, scary diseases and so on.
If you are an optimist just life your live to the fullest and be happy with every moment.

The whackjob fundie arabs do want to see us dead, innocent and Bush-supporters alike. :p
How do you propose we deal with that successfully without wasting time on appearing PC?

By focussing on living your life, instead of focussing on its continuation.

To rephrase: if you are a pessimist just continue as normal, accept that there is another cause of death besides drunk cabdrivers, scary diseases and so on.
If you are an optimist just live your life to the fullest and be happy with every moment.

This is all imaginary, my friend.

You have no way of knowing how many people have supported McVeigh. You don't have anything but a loose belief to support your assertion that there are NOT millions of supporters for Abortion Clinic Bombers.

Lord knows, the area where I live, the majority of people seemed to find it somehow unjust when Eric Rudolph got caught.

And, your 'millions' support complete destruction of the western infidels.... where do you get the 'evidence' for this assertion? I've known hundreds of people from 'Arab' backgrounds, and surprisingly few of them have been pro-destruction of anyone.

But then... why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good prejudice?

You're letting your usually-spot-on tolerance blind you to the obvious.
If you travel to the mideast, I can assure you that it's not Bush'es face you'll see pinned up in ever cab. It's Osamas. Are you denying the fact that he has superstar status over there?
I'm not talking about American muslims. I believe they're probably more anti-Osama than most of us. But terorism is, for the most part, an import.

Those clinging to political correctness even in an age of war like to bring up the example of Timothy McVeigh-you know, the all-American terrorist, who shows us it could just as easily be the guy with the blonde crewcut. Yes, it could be, but not just as easily. You can get wet by a single raindrop in a sunshower or by a tidal wave heading toward you. Only fools treat them equally. Timothy McVeigh was a lone wolf, supported by maybe 5,000 fringe militia types, whose ranks have since thinned due to over-masturbation to gun magazines. 5,000 people in the whole world who thought McVeigh’s philosophy and methods were sound, and only a handful who would actually help out.
But how many Muslims around the world-in Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Gaza, and Saudi Arabiathink what bin Laden has been doing is a good thing, and would love to help out? He’s the big seller on T-shirts, that ought to tell you something. People don’t wear Timothy McVeigh T-shirts in America, but Osama bin Laden is, for a people who don’t have too many recent heroes, Michael Jordan, Bill Gates and Batman all rolled into one. And as long as his face is hanging from the mirror in guys’ cabs in Jordan, it means bin Ladenism is mainstream.
It’s time we insisted that the Muslim silent majority, the one that claims to abhor Islamist fanaticism and its message of hatred and violence, stop being silent on this issue and actually say so. Say it out loud. In newspapers, and on Al Jazeera, and in the public square. Yes, some people will get jailed and even killed for speaking out, but change comes no other way. Bloodless revolutions are rare. Somebody has to stand up and produce a play as offensive to Allah as Piss Christ was to anyone in America who lives above Canal Street. Somebody has to do Chris Rock’s act for Arabs. :D

If you read back, I did state that monitoring only one group is foolish.

but it's also logistically impossible to monitor all groups.

but there has to be a starting point. just as long as it moves on to others, I see no problem with it.



How much Does anyone want to bet it doesn't move on to ther groups. Also, I should point out that according to CNN the private homes that were monitored were mostly the homes of U.S. citizens.

The difference is, TM had, like what, 5,000 suporters at most?
How many Arabs support the complete distruction of the westen infidels?
Millions. Big diff. Come up with something comparable, and then we can talk.

As Grave_n_Idle said, it's highly likely you pulled that number out of your ass. Further, you failed to address my other examples.

How many people do you think supported the Irish Repulican Army when it was bombing the UK? Hundreds of thousands or millions of Irish in Ireland and the US.

How many people do you think support the KKK? Hundreds of thousands or millions of white Christian Southerners.

How many people do you think support various abortion clinic bombers? I guarantee that this one goes into the millions; with 2.1 billion Christians in the world, a tiny segment of a percent that feel that killing abortion doctors is perfectly justified is going to go well into the millions.

To add, I am probably the loudest, most in-your-face civil libertarian on this board (if I do say so myself ).
But sometimes I gotta call a duck a duck, and a religious extremist a Muslim whackjob who wishes death upon the western devils.

I can claim that I'm a Christian, right-wing, Bible-thumping conservative, but I'd be lying through my teeth. Methinks that you are as well- that, or severely misguided.

As Grave_n_Idle said, it's highly likely you pulled that number out of your ass. Further, you failed to address my other examples.

How many people do you think supported the Irish Repulican Army when it was bombing the UK? Hundreds of thousands or millions of Irish in Ireland and the US.

How many people do you think support the KKK? Hundreds of thousands or millions of white Christian Southerners.

How many people do you think support various abortion clinic bombers? I guarantee that this one goes into the millions; with 2.1 billion Christians in the world, a tiny segment of a percent that feel that killing abortion doctors is perfectly justified is going to go well into the millions.
I detest these groups. I won't defend them. But none of this excuses the current situation. It doesn't even make sense given the current topic.



I can claim that I'm a Christian, right-wing, Bible-thumping conservative, but I'd be lying through my teeth. Methinks that you are as well- that, or severely misguided.
You can go fuck yourself for that statement. Check up on my position concerning the wiretap scandal before calling me inauthentic.

Or, let's put it this way-- I think it would be silly to hunt for KKK terrorists by wasting our time hunting in Jewish temples.
We'd be better off looking for individuals at NASCAR fan gatherings, or Jeff Foxworthy shows.

Likewise, if it's truly unconstitutional, then we shouldn't be doing it at all.
But playing the PC game and looking everywhere is both impossible and stupid.
If you know where they typically hang, go there. Or don't go at all.

One's stupid, the other offensive.
I just don't like the solutions to the problems I'm hearing here.
If that makes me an asshole, so be it.

I can claim that I'm a Christian, right-wing, Bible-thumping conservative, but I'd be lying through my teeth. Methinks that you are as well- that, or severely misguided.
I dont agree with him in this situatuon ... but his statement was deffinatly representing him

He is deffinatly a hardcore libertarian

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10155531&postcount=53

Just to reiterate a view on another thread.

I dont agree with him in this situatuon ... but his statement was deffinatly representing him

He is deffinatly a hardcore libertarian
Thanks, sweetie. :fluffle:
I may not be in the majority here, but I'm not sure why my opinion on this made me out as a fuckin' phony. Them be some pretty strong words, indeed.

I'm not aguing for this, or against it, really. I'm not a lawyer, and it's ticky. I can see both the for, and against, and they kinda wiegh the same.
I'd just like to see some much-needed honesty in our approach to problems like these.

Jews don't blow up abortion clinics. Christians do.
The KKK doesn't hang WASP's. They hang anyone not a WASP.

I think the PC approach to situations like this is stupid. The obvious is just that. I can't change it, just point it out when everyone else insists otherwise.

(BTW, you should TG me you email addy. We're married and all, I'd like to say "hi" outside of public eyes ;) )

:eek: Eichen and Upwardthrust married...

:eek: Eichen and Upwardthrust married...
On an old thead I named him my choice of husband. He didn't say "he do", but I insist upon it. :D

I'm not aguing for this, or against it, really. I'm not a lawyer, and it's ticky. I can see both the for, and against, and they kinda wiegh the same.
I'd just like to see some much-needed honesty in our approach to problems like these.

Jews don't blow up abortion clinics. Christians do.
The KKK doesn't hang WASP's. They hang anyone not a WASP.

Yet America has historically proven to be unequal in this approach.

After Pearl Harbor, every Japanese was sent packing to a desert camp.

After 9-11, anyone known to be or suspected of being Muslim has to endure a humiliating barrage of questions, searches and skunkeyes.

When Eric Rudolph blew up the Alabama Clinic, there wasn't any filtering of WASPS with the last name of Rudolph on the suspicion that they might be relatives aiding and abetting him.

There weren't any massive WASP sweeps whenever the KKK lynched someone. But then again that was when the KKK practically owned the South so that's a moot point.

Or, let's put it this way-- I think it would be silly to hunt for KKK terrorists by wasting our time hunting in Jewish temples.
We'd be better off looking for individuals at NASCAR fan gatherings, or Jeff Foxworthy shows.

Likewise, if it's truly unconstitutional, then we shouldn't be doing it at all.
But playing the PC game and looking everywhere is both impossible and stupid.
If you know where they typically hang, go there. Or don't go at all.

One's stupid, the other offensive.
I just don't like the solutions to the problems I'm hearing here.
If that makes me an asshole, so be it.

We're NOT CALLING FOR SURVAILLANCE OF EVERYONE. That's the BLOODY PROBLEM- the government is targetting a broad sweep of Muslim property INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON INDIVIDUALS. It's PROFILING; THAT'S WHY WE'RE ANGRY. It has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with preserving civil rights- you do claim to support those, right?

You stated a factual inaccuracy when you said that almost all terrorists are Muslims. You haughtily responded by pulling a number out of your ass (or so I assume- I've yet to see your source on only 5,000 supporters for McVeigh) on one of the examples I mentioned without so much as glancing at the others. I call you on your bullshit, pointing out that the 'millions' of supporters of fanatics apply across the board; since we don't monitor every white Christian to catch KKK members, we shouldn't monitor every Muslim to catch Al Qaeda members. You pussyfoot away from the topic by claiming that it's not important to the discussion anyway. Very bloody mature.

The wiretap topic is off of the second page, and I'm too lazy to track it down. I merely wonder how you reconcile abhorring unwarranted survaillance of the general populace with feeling blasé about unwarranted survaillance of a single religious group- at much greater financial cost than monitoring individuals; hence, the comment about being either phony or misguided (you know, so you don't miss that element of the either-or statement again).

Yet America has historically proven to be unequal in this approach.

After Pearl Harbor, every Japanese was sent packing to a desert camp.

After 9-11, anyone known to be or suspected of being Muslim has to endure a humiliating barrage of questions, searches and skunkeyes.

When Eric Rudolph blew up the Alabama Clinic, there wasn't any filtering of WASPS with the last name of Rudolph on the suspicion that they might be relatives aiding and abetting him.

There weren't any massive WASP sweeps whenever the KKK lynched someone. But then again that was when the KKK practically owned the South so that's a moot point.
I totally hear what you're saying, and I think we have to be more than caeful concerning our civil libeties, because we never get them back once they're lost.

On the other hand, I don't think it's outrageous to consider that, if Christians stated blowing up buildings in the fashion that the 9-11 terorists did, and then were made superstars by the so-called "moral majority", it might be rediculous to weed them out by searching the Dalai Lama's cohorts.

It's a weird situation, and I'd like to hear some solutions, as opposed to trumped up charges of innocents. That's what we need.
And we should see a more vocal, in-your-face group of Muslims given the current predicament, and less apologists for this disicable religious fundamentalism.

We're NOT CALLING FOR SURVAILLANCE OF EVERYONE. That's the BLOODY PROBLEM- the government is targetting a broad sweep of Muslim property INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON INDIVIDUALS. It's PROFILING; THAT'S WHY WE'RE ANGRY. It has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with preserving civil rights- you do claim to support those, right?

You stated a factual inaccuracy when you said that almost all terrorists are Muslims. You haughtily responded by pulling a number out of your ass (or so I assume- I've yet to see your source on only 5,000 supporters for McVeigh) on one of the examples I mentioned without so much as glancing at the others. I call you on your bullshit, pointing out that the 'millions' of supporters of fanatics apply across the board; since we don't monitor every white Christian to catch KKK members, we shouldn't monitor every Muslim to catch Al Qaeda members. You pussyfoot away from the topic by claiming that it's not important to the discussion anyway. Very bloody mature.

The wiretap topic is off of the second page, and I'm too lazy to track it down. I merely wonder how you reconcile abhorring unwarranted survaillance of the general populace with feeling blasé about unwarranted survaillance of a single religious group- at much greater financial cost than monitoring individuals; hence, the comment about being either phony or misguided (you know, so you don't miss that element of the either-or statement again).

You're not getting a response. Raspberry me from afar, if you'd like, but you're douchbaggery warranted something i usually have a hard time doing, ignoring you. KMA.

I totally hear what you're saying, and I think we have to be more than caeful concerning our civil libeties, because we never get them back once they're lost.

On the other hand, I don't think it's outrageous to consider that, if Christians stated blowing up buildings in the fashion that the 9-11 terorists did, and then were made superstars by the so-called "moral majority", it might be rediculous to weed them out by searching the Dalai Lama's cohorts.

It's a weird situation, and I'd like to hear some solutions, as opposed to trumped up charges of innocents. That's what we need.
And we should see a more vocal, in-your-face group of Muslims given the current predicament, and less apologists for this disicable religious fundamentalism.
Ack!... My "R" key is stuck something fierce, and I can't edit typos. Sorry for the confusion.

snip.

It's a weird situation, and I'd like to hear some solutions, as opposed to trumped up charges of innocents. That's what we need.
And we should see a more vocal, in-your-face group of Muslims given the current predicament, and less apologists for this disicable religious fundamentalism.
Yeah but do we ever get that sort of group
I hear the same thing for christian groups "why do you let them speek for you" but in the end thoes that speek in a radical way tend to grab attention

Hard core anti radicles tend to just not get attention ... and that makes a bad situation worse

Yeah but do we ever get that sort of group
I hear the same thing for christian groups "why do you let them speek for you" but in the end thoes that speek in a radical way tend to grab attention

Hard core anti radicles tend to just not get attention ... and that makes a bad situation worse
To be honest, yes, but it's still skewed in a political direction.
Bush'es admin opted for secret surveillance of far-left animal-rights and ecological groups, but didn't follow up with anything remotely right-wing (fundamentally speaking, of course).
That's a sham, and a shame.

To be honest, yes, but it's still skewed in a political direction.
Bush'es admin opted for secret surveillance of far-left animal-rights and ecological groups, but didn't follow up with anything remotely right-wing (fundamentally speaking, of course).
That's a sham, and a shame.
Correction, the only far-ight fundamentalist group being suveyed was the Muslims, and that's not very "across-the-board".

Therefore, survaillance of all Arab Muslims in the US is unwarranted.

Not all Arab Muslims in the US are being serveyed. Only a few.

If information is discovered about a future terrorist attack in such surveillance operations, and that information is used to save many lives, how do the ends not justify the means?

You need not bring up Japanese internment either. This is nowhere near the same thing, in that most of the people being watched aren't even affected by it.

By the way, I also support the surveillance of obvious Klan supporters, the guys whose homes, etc are plastered with Confederate flags, crosses burning in the garden, etc.

White caucasian males with a high rank in the US military?
Aren't soldiers surveyed anyway?

Radiation screening applied solely to one specific ethnic group is revenge racism.
It's not about revenge; it's about prevention. Recently, the vast majority of terrorist attacks upon the US and Europe have been committed by Arab Muslim extremists. It makes sense to monitor Arab Muslims a bit more than other demographics.

Indeed, looking at the history of recent terrorism, the group we SHOULD be focussing on... for sheer longevity of terrorist activity... is the Irish.

Do you think that we should set up monitoring devices on Irish venues?
Refer to three lethal terrorist attacks upon America committed by Irish people. Are you really serious about this? No Irish group has ever done anything on the scale of 9/11. The IRA (I assume that's who you're talking about) is nowhere near as well organised, fanatical or well-equipped as al-Qaeda.

The IRA only started up in the early 1970s. They wound down in the late 1990s. That's about thirty years. Muslims from the Middle East have been committing terrorist activities against western targets for that long.

Perhaps you aren't thinking about the North/South divide? There are certainly Bible-Belt areas that still insist the 'South is gonna to Rise Again'. If you lived in the right part of the South, and your target was some 'Yankee' stronghold, you could probably get exactly the kind of following you suspect of Iraqi's, from 'good, honest' US citizens.
Yes, and these people should be treated the same way as al-Qaeda sympathisers should be treated.

What racial profiling does, is victimise Indian shopkeepers for the crimes of groups half a world away.

Racial profiling is OK because it works. For example, in America the police start with white men aged 18-34 when searching for murder suspects, because most murders are committed by white men aged 18-34.

And yet, the Irish, who have been slaughtering innocents in the UK for decades, are not a target of similar scrutiny?
Believe me, in the 1970s and 80s in the UK, they were targets of scrutiny. But we're talking about America in the early 21st century here. Most major terrorist attacks recently have been committed by Muslim extremists, not Irish people.

This is a crime of convenience. I'm sorry, but it really appears that the US assumes anyone of a similar skintone is 'okay', and a little bit darker, they MUST be bomb-weilding psychopaths.
Notice how African-Americans are not being targeted.

You're really overreacting. The US government is being cautious. Arab Muslims are statistically more likely to be "bomb-weilding psychopaths" as recent events have proven. That doesn't change the fact that 99.9% of Arab Muslims are not terrorists, but the statistical significance cannot be ignored.

You're not getting a response. Raspberry me from afar, if you'd like, but you're douchbaggery warranted something i usually have a hard time doing, ignoring you. KMA.

Right, because responding with arguments is douchbaggery.

On the other hand, I don't think it's outrageous to consider that, if Christians stated blowing up buildings in the fashion that the 9-11 terorists did, and then were made superstars by the so-called "moral majority", it might be rediculous to weed them out by searching the Dalai Lama's cohorts.

...Eh? Where did this come from? No one here is proposing looking at Christians for Al Qaeda members- we're proposing looking at people who might actually have connections to Al Qaeda, rather than blanket watching every one of the 3 million Muslims in the US.

It's a weird situation, and I'd like to hear some solutions, as opposed to trumped up charges of innocents. That's what we need.
And we should see a more vocal, in-your-face group of Muslims given the current predicament, and less apologists for this disicable religious fundamentalism.

There are anti-terrorist Muslims (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8636700/); they just aren't well publicized. For some more:

Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Muslim_Coalition_Against_Terrorism)
American Muslims Intent on Learning and Activism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Muslims_Intent_on_Learning_and_Activism)
Council on American-Islamic Relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations)
Muslim Student Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Student_Association)
Islam for Today on Terrorism (http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm)
Muslims Against Terror (http://www.m-a-t.org/)
Muslim Anti-Terrorism quotes (http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm)
Progressive Muslim Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Muslim_Union)

Amazing what a few minutes on the Internet can glean.

Ok, here's a reasonable question (maybe):

How is government officials covertly checking Moslems for radiation any different than horny guys wandering around and upskirting women?

To be honest, yes, but it's still skewed in a political direction.
Bush'es admin opted for secret surveillance of far-left animal-rights and ecological groups, but didn't follow up with anything remotely right-wing (fundamentally speaking, of course).
That's a sham, and a shame.
Agreed ... infact I think I was the one that posted the origional article on how the cia "accidently" kept illegal records in their database of people that were of no threat

When called on it of course it was a "computer glitch":rolleyes:

Ok, here's a reasonable question (maybe):

How is government officials covertly checking Moslems for radiation any different than horny guys wandering around and upskirting women?
Fairly simmilar lol I think they both should be illegal:p (awsome analogy there lol)

entrance isnt an issue. its still a search if you peek in the window, if you crack the door open and look inside or if you use a machine that looks inside for you.

they are looking inside the building not just checking for radiation on the lawn.
No they're not. They're basically using geiger counters. Which require the radiation to come to them. They emit nothing.

This is just further proof that if a specific ethnic group kicks America in the crotch, every single member of that ethnicity will collectively suffer for the sins of a few. Japanese Internment anyone?

On 911 America was attacked by a group of terrorists who killed over 3,000 Americans. These same terrorist have vowed to kill many more Americans and have expressed a desire to do so with dirty nuclear bombs, chemical and biological weapons. These same terrorists have carried out attacks on innocent men, women, and children in Indonesia, Spain, Russia, the Philippines, and England. Other attacks by these terrorists have been thwarted.

These terrorist are not Irish Catholics, they are not European Protestants, they are not Asian Buddhists, nor are they African animists. All of these terrorists have been Muslims and most of them have been Middle Eastern Muslims.

The question then becomes should we waste or intelligence resources monitoring the Irish Catholics, European Protestants, Asian Buddhists and African animists who have not attacked us or should we use those resources to monitor those who have attacked us?

Let us get real people and understand there are some radicals in the Muslim religion who want to destroy us. Now before you stoke the flames, notice I said radicals. How are we supposed to know who the radicals are unless we gather intelligence?

We should also note that the surveillance took place on public property or in parking lots and alleys where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant is not needed.

Not all Arab Muslims in the US are being serveyed. Only a few.

If information is discovered about a future terrorist attack in such surveillance operations, and that information is used to save many lives, how do the ends not justify the means?

You need not bring up Japanese internment either. This is nowhere near the same thing, in that most of the people being watched aren't even affected by it.

By the way, I also support the surveillance of obvious Klan supporters, the guys whose homes, etc are plastered with Confederate flags, crosses burning in the garden, etc.


Aren't soldiers surveyed anyway?


It's not about revenge; it's about prevention. Recently, the vast majority of terrorist attacks upon the US and Europe have been committed by Arab Muslim extremists. It makes sense to monitor Arab Muslims a bit more than other demographics.


Refer to three lethal terrorist attacks upon America committed by Irish people. Are you really serious about this? No Irish group has ever done anything on the scale of 9/11. The IRA (I assume that's who you're talking about) is nowhere near as well organised, fanatical or well-equipped as al-Qaeda.

The IRA only started up in the early 1970s. They wound down in the late 1990s. That's about thirty years. Muslims from the Middle East have been committing terrorist activities against western targets for that long.


Yes, and these people should be treated the same way as al-Qaeda sympathisers should be treated.


Racial profiling is OK because it works. For example, in America the police start with white men aged 18-34 when searching for murder suspects, because most murders are committed by white men aged 18-34.


Believe me, in the 1970s and 80s in the UK, they were targets of scrutiny. But we're talking about America in the early 21st century here. Most major terrorist attacks recently have been committed by Muslim extremists, not Irish people.


Notice how African-Americans are not being targeted.

You're really overreacting. The US government is being cautious. Arab Muslims are statistically more likely to be "bomb-weilding psychopaths" as recent events have proven. That doesn't change the fact that 99.9% of Arab Muslims are not terrorists, but the statistical significance cannot be ignored.

Unlike most posting here, I gotta say that, although I almost always disagree with ya, you're prolly the only person here talking common sense.

I don't know why the obvious is evading most people here. I'd like to keep our civil liberties intact, but I have to point out stupidity whenever it rears its ugly head. And you're post doesn't contain any.

Agreed ... infact I think I was the one that posted the origional article on how the cia "accidently" kept illegal records in their database of people that were of no threat

When called on it of course it was a "computer glitch":rolleyes:
Yeah, sure. That was just an oopsy. :rolleyes:

Saudis committed a terrorist act in New York... therefore, it is okay to monitor Iraqi's?

And yet, the Irish, who have been slaughtering innocents in the UK for decades, are not a target of similar scrutiny?

This is a crime of convenience. I'm sorry, but it really appears that the US assumes anyone of a similar skintone is 'okay', and a little bit darker, they MUST be bomb-weilding psychopaths.
I don't think anyone was bitching about britain monitoring the irish on their soil. As soon as the IRA starts regularly making threats against the US I'm sure they'll be monitored too. For that matter, the KKK has never made threats to detonate a nuke anywhere, whereas various muslim terrorist groups and even governments have. Hmmm. Interesting coincidence that the majority of muslims are of a certain skintone. If the majority of muslims were white I'm sure they'd be doing it to those who are white, in fact I'm betting they do it to white muslims as well.

No they're not. They're basically using geiger counters. Which require the radiation to come to them. They emit nothing.

Geiger counters only detect radiation in their immediate vicinity. They can't tell you where the stockpile has been sitting for how long a time. And as Chernobyl has proven, radiation can be picked up and scattered on the wind by dust. A Geiger Counter won't tell you that radiation it's picking up off the scale came from the other side of the world instead of that Muslim house you're hoping it's from.

On 911 America was attacked by a group of terrorists who killed over 3,000 Americans. These same terrorist have vowed to kill many more Americans and have expressed a desire to do so with dirty nuclear bombs, chemical and biological weapons. These same terrorists have carried out attacks on innocent men, women, and children in Indonesia, Spain, Russia, the Philippines, and England. Other attacks by these terrorists have been thwarted.

These terrorist are not Irish Catholics, they are not European Protestants, they are not Asian Buddhists, nor are they African animists. All of these terrorists have been Muslims and most of them have been Middle Eastern Muslims.

The question then becomes should we waste or intelligence resources monitoring the Irish Catholics, European Protestants, Asian Buddhists and African animists who have not attacked us or should we use those resources to monitor those who have attacked us?

Let us get real people and understand there are some radicals in the Muslim religion who want to destroy us. Now before you stoke the flames, notice I said radicals. How are we supposed to know who the radicals are unless we gather intelligence?

We should also note that the surveillance took place on public property or in parking lots and alleys where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant is not needed.

Except that the USA PATRIOT Act is being applied to Muslims in general. Not just Arab Muslims. Even Southeast Asian Muslims and perhaps a few Black Muslims get highlighted for the humiliation being deemed a Probable Terrorist. If Jose Pedilla never converted to Islam in prison, his case wouldn't get a fraction of the publicity it did.

Geiger counters only detect radiation in their immediate vicinity. They can't tell you where the stockpile has been sitting for how long a time. And as Chernobyl has proven, radiation can be picked up and scattered on the wind by dust. A Geiger Counter won't tell you that radiation it's picking up off the scale came from the other side of the world instead of that Muslim house you're hoping it's from.
*sighs* There's a level of backround radiation anywhere. Anything, as you so eloquently put it, scattered by chernobyl would be spread over a large area and wouldn't see that much of an increase. As one gets closer to a source of major radiation however, the amount of radiation hitting the geiger counter increases.

[QUOTE=Pennterra]Al Qaeda: Extreme terrorist group seeking to create Arab Muslim empire.

Ku Klux Klan: Extreme terrorist group seeking to create white Christian empire.

Conclusion: Al Qaeda = KKK with different ethnicities and religions

/QUOTE]

You may be right but; The KKK has not been terrorizing or killing innocent people during the last 20 to 30 years. Also, the KKK was infiltrated and monitored by the FBI in the 1960s and that is one of the major reasons they haven't carried out many terrorist activities since then. The FBI also infiltrated and monitored the American Nazi Party and that is why they are no longer as active as they used to be.

Yeah, sure. That was just an oopsy. :rolleyes:
Yeah agreed... of course NOW they "caught" their error (after network TV got ahold of the story)

Tell you what if something like that happened to our SCHOOL admission database the person in charge of that database would be fired

Of course the government is held to lower standards:rolleyes:

Except that the USA PATRIOT Act is being applied to Muslims in general. Not just Arab Muslims. Even Southeast Asian Muslims and perhaps a few Black Muslims get highlighted for the humiliation being deemed a Probable Terrorist. If Jose Pedilla never converted to Islam in prison, his case wouldn't get a fraction of the publicity it did.

Yes, not just Arab Muslims are being targeted. Not all terrorists are Arab or Asian or Black and Muslims, but a vast majority have been Muslims. So, doesn't it make sense that we spend our limited and valuable intelligence resources looking at Muslims and not Christians, Jews, and Buddhists?

Sweet Buddha, how did I wind up starting the talking points for the conservatives here? I'm creeped out, but I have to admit I agree with them for once here.
Meh, isn't the first time, nor the last, most likely.

Yeah agreed... of course NOW they "caught" their error (after network TV got ahold of the story)

Tell you what if something like that happened to our SCHOOL admission database the person in charge of that database would be fired

Of course the government is held to lower standards:rolleyes:
Honestly, I hope the scandals coming to light make people reconsider their "vote for the lesser evil" stances, and take another look at the only party truly concerned with civil liberties, with a consistent record.
;)

Yeah agreed... of course NOW they "caught" their error (after network TV got ahold of the story)

Tell you what if something like that happened to our SCHOOL admission database the person in charge of that database would be fired

Of course the government is held to lower standards:rolleyes:
*shrugs* The BATF and FBI have been pulling this shit for years with gun records, but no outcry from the MSM has gone up about it.

Honestly, I hope the scandals coming to light make people reconsider their "vote for the lesser evil" stances, and take another look at the only party truly concerned with civil liberties, with a consistent record.
;)
Erm, That's still the republicans. Not by much anymore, sadly enough, but they've still got the edge.

Erm, That's still the republicans. Not by much anymore, sadly enough, but they've still got the edge.
LOL, if we're not talking principals, not power, that party is the LP (http://www.lp.org). ;)

Erm, That's still the republicans. Not by much anymore, sadly enough, but they've still got the edge.

Apparently you live in another reality alltogether.

LOL, if we're not talking principals, not power, that party is the LP (http://www.lp.org). ;)
Okay, let me rephrase that. Of the two major parties in the US that will probably win the next 5 presidential elections, unless America manages to pull it's collective head out of its ass, the republicans are still slightly more likely to protect civil rights.

Apparently you live in another reality alltogether.
I was a bit nicer, but same diff. :D

Okay, let me rephrase that. Of the two major parties in the US that will probably win the next 5 presidential elections, unless America manages to pull it's collective head out of its ass, the republicans are still slightly more likely to protect civil rights.
I don't agree. The Republicans will continue to help us acheive economic liberty, at the expense of social freedoms.
reverse the above for my take on the Dumbocrats.

:headbang: Not. True. Must we once again point to the IRA, Timothy McVeigh, the KKK, and abortion clinic bombers?
He said "most terrorists are Muslims". He did not say "all terrorists are Muslims". But keep baiting. Maybe someday you'll find somone willing to be an apologist for the IRA, Timothy McVeigh, the KKK, and abortion clinic bombers.

This is all imaginary, my friend.

You have no way of knowing how many people have supported McVeigh. You don't have anything but a loose belief to support your assertion that there are NOT millions of supporters for Abortion Clinic Bombers.
Because Americans are more conservative than Middle Eastern Muslims. :rolleyes:

All you have is anecdotal evidence. Every time al-Qaeda attacks the west there are celebratory demonstrations at various points in the Middle East. This doesn't prove that Middle Eastern Muslims generally support al-Qeada. (They don't.) But it proves that there are at least enough supporters to muster up a crowd for a flag-burning street party.

This is more than the Abortion bombers' supporters, if any, could muster. Where were the anti-abortion street parties in America following those attacks?

How many people do you think supported the Irish Repulican Army when it was bombing the UK? Hundreds of thousands or millions of Irish in Ireland and the US.
I am Irish. As soon as the IRA focused its attacks on civilians and not on British soldiers, support dwindled down to a small minority.

How many people do you think support the KKK? Hundreds of thousands or millions of white Christian Southerners.
It's unlikely, since so few white Christian Southerners seem to get bothered about black people, Jews or the Irish any more. (they focus hate on gays and abortion now)

How many people do you think support various abortion clinic bombers? I guarantee that this one goes into the millions; with 2.1 billion Christians in the world, a tiny segment of a percent that feel that killing abortion doctors is perfectly justified is going to go well into the millions.
And it's probably the violent fundamentalist Christians in Africa who most support such actions. Bombing abortion clinics goes very much against the avowed pro-life stance taken by Christians in the west.

I think the PC approach to situations like this is stupid. The obvious is just that. I can't change it, just point it out when everyone else insists otherwise.
I wonder if they really believe that the IRA is as dangerous as al-Qaeda? Or are they just playing the "you're a racist" card as a substitute for an argument?

When Eric Rudolph blew up the Alabama Clinic, there wasn't any filtering of WASPS with the last name of Rudolph on the suspicion that they might be relatives aiding and abetting him.

There weren't any massive WASP sweeps whenever the KKK lynched someone. But then again that was when the KKK practically owned the South so that's a moot point.
All I have to say is: there should have been. Then perhaps the KKK could have been suppressed decades sooner.

You stated a factual inaccuracy when you said that almost all terrorists are Muslims.
Most of the terrorists that matter (i.e. the most dangerous ones) are Muslims. I no longer consider the IRA, the KKK or Timothy McVeigh to be very dangerous.

I don't agree. The Republicans will continue to help us acheive economic liberty, at the expense of social freedoms.
reverse the above for my take on the Dumbocrats.
Actually, I take that back. The Republicans will help us achieve economic liberty, but only if we're already filthy-rich.
The Democrats will do the same.

I don't agree. The Republicans will continue to help us acheive economic liberty, at the expense of social freedoms.
reverse the above for my take on the Dumbocrats.
In which state is there more freedom, Kalifornia or Texas?

Because Americans are more conservative than Middle Eastern Muslims. :rolleyes:
I agree with everything you stated above, but this is rediculous.

The Arabs beat even the most Ann-Coulter-tit-suckers among us on the "conservative" scale, by today's defintion of the word.

In which state is there more freedom, Kalifornia or Texas?
Does it matter when state's rights shrink while federalism grows under this administration?

Does it matter when state's rights shrink while federalism grows under this administration?
Federalism grows under both administrations. Just in slightly different directions. Of course, the states are still pretty damned good at protecting their own federal pork.

Federalism grows under both administrations. Just in slightly different directions. Of course, the states are still pretty damned good at protecting their own federal pork.
Now you're being honest. I agree.

Unlike most posting here, I gotta say that, although I almost always disagree with ya, you're prolly the only person here talking common sense.

I don't know why the obvious is evading most people here. I'd like to keep our civil liberties intact, but I have to point out stupidity whenever it rears its ugly head. And you're post doesn't contain any.
Thank you Eichen!

I don't agree. The Republicans will continue to help us acheive economic liberty, at the expense of social freedoms.
reverse the above for my take on the Dumbocrats.
Surely you don't believe that do you? Come on, Eichen you're a libertarian and tr00, you know the Republicans' dirty little secrets. They're not particularly champions of economic liberty (needlessly porking and subsidising across the board). Nor do I consider the Democrats to be champions of civil liberties (banning guns and offensive speech).

*Notices Eichen's correction*
1) that's right
2) are you aware of the edit function? you don't have to quote yourself to make a correction

Sweet Buddha, how did I wind up starting the talking points for the conservatives here? I'm creeped out, but I have to admit I agree with them for once here.
It's weird for me too, card-carrying leftist that I am. I just wish that American "leftists" (i.e. centrists) would stop it with the relativism, imagined racism and assaults on civil liberty.

Erm, That's still the republicans. Not by much anymore, sadly enough, but they've still got the edge.
*snigger*

That "said", however, I don't think that civil liberties are the be-all and end-all. For example, security is often more important (no-one dare quote Ben Franklin at me!) because you cannot enjoy civil liberties while dead.

In which state is there more freedom, California or Texas?
Could you have asked a more vague question? (btw, that's a threadjack)

I agree with everything you stated above, but this is rediculous.

The Arabs beat even the most Ann-Coulter-tit-suckers among us on the "conservative" scale, by today's defintion of the word.
Hence the rolleyes. Do you have images turned off?

Also, are these people sucking Ann Coulter's tits while married to her? Surely there can be only one because polygamy is wrong, and divorce is wrong, and I'll have to check the memos, but sucking on tits might also be evil. ;)

Thank you Eichen!
I like to defend honesty, unfettered by PC anytime I have the opportunity.
Thank you for giving me one.


Surely you don't believe that do you? Come on, Eichen you're a libertarian and tr00, you know the Republicans' dirty little secrets. They're not particularly champions of economic liberty (needlessly porking and subsidising across the board). Nor do I consider the Democrats to be champions of civil liberties (banning guns and offensive speech).

*Notices Eichen's correction*
1) that's right
2) are you aware of the edit function? you don't have to quote yourself to make a correction
Cool, you noticed my backtrack corrections. I don't have the EDIT function available to me at all. It doesn't even appear. :(
It's weird for me too, card-carrying leftist that I am. I just wish that American "leftists" (i.e. centrists) would stop it with the relativism, imagined racism and assaults on civil liberty.
I got a boner reading that. When is the so-called "leftist" Democratic party start living up to its "progressive" label? If it did, I might actually vote that way come election time. Instead, they pander. And that's insulting to your, and my inteligence.

That "said", however, I don't think that civil liberties are the be-all and end-all. For example, security is often more important (no-one dare quote Ben Franklin at me!) because you cannot enjoy civil liberties while dead.

We disagree on this. I think, with all of the best minds here, we should be able to come up with something balanced. Partissan hackery keeps that objective off in an idealistic corner, unfortunately. We've become so concerned with "winning" ideological battles that we can't honestly engage in a real one. :(


Hence the rolleyes. Do you have images turned off?
That went over my head. My apologies. :fluffle:

I got a boner reading that. When is the so-called "leftist" Democratic party start living up to its "progressive" label? If it did, I might actually vote that way come election time. Instead, they pander. And that's insulting to your, and my inteligence.
I'm glad I gave you a boner. Maybe again sometime. The Democrats don't insult my intelligence, because I don't have to share a country with them!

We disagree on this. I think, with all of the best minds here, we should be able to come up with something balanced.
I didn't expect an anti-utilitarian mind like yours to agree with that one.

We've become so concerned with "winning" ideological battles that we can't honestly engage in a real one.
It seems in the past few years American political discussion has become more partisan to the point where conceding that your opponent may be at least partially right is the ultimate dishonour.

It seems in the past few years American political discussion has become more partisan to the point where conceding that your opponent may be at least partially right is the ultimate dishonour.
sad, but true. That really isn't the case, but alot of people (not just Americans mind you) take any concession, partial or otherwise, and use that to try to make it a total win for them.

the best thing for America is that eveyone's viewpoint be heard and discussed.

to bad when that happens, it results in flamefest too many times.

I'm glad I gave you a boner. Maybe again sometime. The Democrats don't insult my intelligence, because I don't have to share a country with them!
LOL. Though, you come off as a Trotskyist... or something like it. Are homosdesuals/bisexuals on your "hit list"?
You're new enough, I don't feel bad asking. I'm not being pedantic, considering your moral absolutism (I shae that trait, although my trump card is liberty, not equality).


I didn't expect an anti-utilitarian mind like yours to agree with that one.
If utilitarianism means "what actions work in the real world", I consider myself the penultimate utilitarian.

It seems in the past few years American political discussion has become more partisan to the point where conceding that your opponent may be at least partially right is the ultimate dishonour.
Couldn't agree more. It's like America is a poker game, and honesty is equivalent to "tipping your cards". It makes my stomache turn.
Sorry for assuming you were American. Where are you from?

LOL. Though, you come off as a Trotskyist... or something like it. Are homosdesuals/bisexuals on your "hit list"?
You're new enough, I don't feel bad asking. I'm not being pedantic, considering your moral absolutism (I shae that trait, although my trump card is liberty, not equality).
I admire Trotskyism a lot; probably more than any other flavour of socialism or communism. But communism doesn't work in the real world. So I am a democratic socialist/Keynesian for the most part (aka 'reluctant capitalist' ;) ). I have no problem with gays and bis. They make the world more interesting.

If utilitarianism means "what actions work in the real world", I consider myself the penultimate utilitarian.
That's not what it means. Utilitarianism can be summed up in "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and "the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people". Utilitarianism is the basis for the institution of government. That said, I won't endorse any policy just because it fits with utilitarian principles. I'm a pragmatist.

Couldn't agree more. It's like America is a poker game, and honesty is equivalent to "tipping your cards". It makes my stomache turn.
Sorry for assuming you were American. Where are you from?
Ireland. I should put that in my location. There is a lot of partisanship in our politics at times... but it's somehow not the same as in America. It's like Irish people don't take it as personally, and we don't have the habit of overreacting to everything like many Americans seem to have.

*shrugs* The BATF and FBI have been pulling this shit for years with gun records, but no outcry from the MSM has gone up about it.
And of course that makes it better:rolleyes:

I admire Trotskyism a lot; probably more than any other flavour of socialism or communism. But communism doesn't work in the real world. So I am a democratic socialist/Keynesian for the most part (aka 'reluctant capitalist' ;) ). I have no problem with gays and bis. They make the world more interesting.


That's not what it means. Utilitarianism can be summed up in "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and "the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people". Utilitarianism is the basis for the institution of government. That said, I won't endorse any policy just because it fits with utilitarian principles. I'm a pragmatist.


Ireland. I should put that in my location. There is a lot of partisanship in our politics at times... but it's somehow not the same as in America. It's like Irish people don't take it as personally, and we don't have the habit of overreacting to everything like many Americans seem to have.

I'm so blown away by you honesty, I don't really know what to say...

Besides thanks for being honest. I don't agee with you, but I appreciate the size of your balls. Where I come from, the liberals have surrendeed to teeny-tinyinsm.
It's offensive, and sad.

Mery Christmas, Happy New Year. :)

I like you. You'e weird, but that's a good thing, considering.

I totally hear what you're saying, and I think we have to be more than caeful concerning our civil libeties, because we never get them back once they're lost.

On the other hand, I don't think it's outrageous to consider that, if Christians stated blowing up buildings in the fashion that the 9-11 terorists did, and then were made superstars by the so-called "moral majority", it might be rediculous to weed them out by searching the Dalai Lama's cohorts.

It's a weird situation, and I'd like to hear some solutions, as opposed to trumped up charges of innocents. That's what we need.
And we should see a more vocal, in-your-face group of Muslims given the current predicament, and less apologists for this disicable religious fundamentalism.

One TLA:

IRA.

LOL, if we're not talking principals, not power, that party is the LP (http://www.lp.org). ;)

I'd rather vote for Satan.

Libertarianism is pure capitalism, but without a conscience.

No they're not. They're basically using geiger counters. Which require the radiation to come to them. They emit nothing.
you know that doesnt make any sense.

All you have is anecdotal evidence. Every time al-Qaeda attacks the west there are celebratory demonstrations at various points in the Middle East. This doesn't prove that Middle Eastern Muslims generally support al-Qeada. (They don't.) But it proves that there are at least enough supporters to muster up a crowd for a flag-burning street party.

This is more than the Abortion bombers' supporters, if any, could muster. Where were the anti-abortion street parties in America following those attacks?


I am not sure I buy into the philosophy that 'no flag-burning street parties' equates with 'no support'.


It's unlikely, since so few white Christian Southerners seem to get bothered about black people, Jews or the Irish any more. (they focus hate on gays and abortion now)


I guess that must depend on the area. The Bible Belt still has it's fair share of anti-Black sentiment, although that situation is is now being helped by the fact that American Southern Blacks and American Southern Whites can agree to hate Mexicans.


Most of the terrorists that matter (i.e. the most dangerous ones) are Muslims. I no longer consider the IRA, the KKK or Timothy McVeigh to be very dangerous.

Perhaps you are not a British soldier, a black American, or an Abortion Clinic doctor, then.

Most people seem to place more import on Al-Qaeda because they are LESS specific about their targets. Obviously, if you can make sure you are not one of the groups being attacked by other organisations, it's okay.

"I'm alright, Jack" as policy.

Um, no. They damaged a building, not the land itself. Biiig difference. Nukes/dirty bombs, especially the type most likely to be used by a terrorist, would do long-lasting damage to the land itself, leaving it uninhabitable.
So...therefore...Muslims damage land...bringing down real estate values...so that's why we need to make sure none of the Arabs in our neighborhoods glow...is that your reasoning?

Because -- and this is just me -- I wouldn't buy a house in a neighborhood full of weapons-hoarding, white, Christian militiamen, even if they don't have nukes.

Embassy bombings can be counted as US soil. including US bases and miliary property like ships. (Yemen) also, the WTC was bombed and attacked years before. 9/11 was the third that I Can remember off hand.

agreed, but the point is, that home-grown terrorist, like the Radicals of the KKK (and I consider terrorists 'Radical' Muslims) won't use Dirty Nukes on US soil. however, Radical groups based on other countries, won't have those qualms.

big difference between a chemical bomb, (Oklahoma City) and a 'Dirty Nuke' if you need to see the difference, check out Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

agreed. after all, these aren't idiots, anything they do will be at the homes of Sympathisers.

so you don't mind higher taxes or program cutbacks to screen every known and unknown group that 'might' have a bomb. great to know.
I disagree. I think we are dealing with idiots here. Total idiots who couldn't tell the difference between a "sympathizer" and a toaster oven and, therefore, will go ahead and screen all Arabs just in case -- and, hey, just to be safe, anyone who looks swarthy, because you never can tell.

Also, regarding the difference between a chemical bomb and a nuclear bomb -- it's not so much not knowing the difference as not caring about it. The chemical bomb is already over the line of what I'll tolerate, and that's why I despise this picking and choosing of which terrorists we'll worry about (again, it's the swarthy ones; just pointing it out).

My definition of Local is on a Nation level.

after all, sure a group in Alabama, or even Hawaii can set off a bomb in New York. The results: the locals would turn on them faster than the Government.

Now Iraqi cell sets off a nuke in Texas, the locals in Iraq would probabaly hail them as heroes and flock to join other radical groups.
You think so? You're more idealistic than me. I'm more inclined to think that the farther from the bombing the terrorists are within the US, the less likely the "locals" are to do anything at all beyond watch the tv news. And frankly, depending on where in the US you are, the locals may be more likely to agree with Falwell and Robertson when they appear on tv saying New York brought it on themselves for not hating gays, pagans and feminists.

This, of course, does not apply to local cops. They will bust their asses to catch terrorists, no matter where they are, where they're from, or where they did their crime, or what ethnic group they belong to, or whether they used nukes or not.

As Grave_n_Idle said, it's highly likely you pulled that number out of your ass. Further, you failed to address my other examples.

How many people do you think supported the Irish Repulican Army when it was bombing the UK? Hundreds of thousands or millions of Irish in Ireland and the US.

How many people do you think support the KKK? Hundreds of thousands or millions of white Christian Southerners.

How many people do you think support various abortion clinic bombers? I guarantee that this one goes into the millions; with 2.1 billion Christians in the world, a tiny segment of a percent that feel that killing abortion doctors is perfectly justified is going to go well into the millions.



I can claim that I'm a Christian, right-wing, Bible-thumping conservative, but I'd be lying through my teeth. Methinks that you are as well- that, or severely misguided.
I agree with you completely. Just on the one bolded comment, straight up to the 1990s, there were serious debates, and investigations, and calls for surveillance, etc., going on about the millions of US dollars flowing from Irish Americans to the IRA, and about suspected links between the IRA, American gun runners, and Mideast and South American terrorists.

My whole complaint about this so-called "war on terror" is that, by linking the idea of terrorism with just one group of violent extremists, it creates the false notion that it's a war that can be won, and that all we have to do to be safe is corral the right people. (It also creates a neat us-vs-them mentality that makes it easy to manipulate the public, but that's another topic.) There are no right people to corral. Terrorism is a tactic without borders or preferred groups, and no system or tactic will work against it, unless it is (a) applicable to everyone and (b) something that can be used without infringing on the civil rights of free people.

For instance, if we're so worried about dirty bombs, why not randomly screen all streets in high risk areas? Why specifically target any one group, since we know perfectly well that any group can produce a terrorist?

Thanks, sweetie. :fluffle:
I may not be in the majority here, but I'm not sure why my opinion on this made me out as a fuckin' phony. Them be some pretty strong words, indeed.

I'm not aguing for this, or against it, really. I'm not a lawyer, and it's ticky. I can see both the for, and against, and they kinda wiegh the same.
I'd just like to see some much-needed honesty in our approach to problems like these.

Jews don't blow up abortion clinics. Christians do.
The KKK doesn't hang WASP's. They hang anyone not a WASP.
I think the PC approach to situations like this is stupid. The obvious is just that. I can't change it, just point it out when everyone else insists otherwise.

(BTW, you should TG me you email addy. We're married and all, I'd like to say "hi" outside of public eyes ;) )

Yes, it is true that, even though you don't know who will win the race, you should still bet on the fastest runner. But it's also true that it was a Jew who assassinated Rabin in Israel.

My point is, terrorism is a tactic available to anyone with the right mindset and the right motivation. Let's say you're in charge of a city with a large Muslim population and a lot of high risk terrorist targets. You put all your resources into screening the Muslim neighborhoods for radiation. Then a dirty bomb gets set off in your financial district by a mentally unstable, radical, Christian anti-abortionist who believes the pharmaceutical industry is profiting from murder and who took ten years working out of his basement to organize this blow on behalf of the unborn. How much of your resources did you waste, because you concentrated them in the wrong neighborhood?

Well, that is three for three.

Three posts, in a row, I completely endorse.

Oh - and nice 1000th post, too. :)

Far too many people on this thread have shown themselves to be more concentrated with vengeance than prevention, and we wonder why terrorism exists... The idea that a terrorist or terrorist group would have significant qualms about damaging "their lands" or "their people" is being taken too far. Terrorist organizations are almost always "nations without borders" - I think it would be tough to find a terrorist who attacked a country, or the people of it, and also agreed with the country's views. Terrorism is an extremely radical move and there doesn't seem to be any one ethnicity that is more prone to it over the course of humanity.

It also seems that whether the terrorist "gets away" or "gets caught" AFTER THE ACT is almost unimportant, considering people, maybe one maybe several million, have died because of the terrorism. To me, that is the issue: preventing death. Hunting for "the evildoers" might help do that in some cases, but it is not an answer to terrorism and stands to plant the seeds for a lot more.

So, what do we do then? Maybe this is naive of me, but I think that it makes much more sense to monitor dangerous materials rather than people - weapons of mass destruction should be watched for and contained as a first priority. A fanatic may have to push the button, but the weapon kills the people and there are no good uses for atomic or biological weapons.

Ok, here's a reasonable question (maybe):

How is government officials covertly checking Moslems for radiation any different than horny guys wandering around and upskirting women?
The first one is arguably illegal and the second one is definitely illegal, without any argument. That's the difference.

Well, that is three for three.

Three posts, in a row, I completely endorse.

Oh - and nice 1000th post, too. :)
Thanks :) -- but, 1000 posts? Crap, I need a more interesting job... ;)

Thanks :) -- but, 1000 posts? Crap, I need a more interesting job... ;)
How do you think I feel :)

Far too many people on this thread have shown themselves to be more concentrated with vengeance than prevention, and we wonder why terrorism exists... The idea that a terrorist or terrorist group would have significant qualms about damaging "their lands" or "their people" is being taken too far. Terrorist organizations are almost always "nations without borders" - I think it would be tough to find a terrorist who attacked a country, or the people of it, and also agreed with the country's views. Terrorism is an extremely radical move and there doesn't seem to be any one ethnicity that is more prone to it over the course of humanity.

It also seems that whether the terrorist "gets away" or "gets caught" AFTER THE ACT is almost unimportant, considering people, maybe one maybe several million, have died because of the terrorism. To me, that is the issue: preventing death. Hunting for "the evildoers" might help do that in some cases, but it is not an answer to terrorism and stands to plant the seeds for a lot more.

So, what do we do then? Maybe this is naive of me, but I think that it makes much more sense to monitor dangerous materials rather than people - weapons of mass destruction should be watched for and contained as a first priority. A fanatic may have to push the button, but the weapon kills the people and there are no good uses for atomic or biological weapons.
Good point.

All those who endorse this screening of Muslim areas keep saying it would be too expensive and difficult to screen all areas randomly. But I wonder how much money is already being spent on this and if it couldn't be just as easily put to a broader program. Why not place permanent detectors in near high risk targets? Why not send teams around randomly to check lower risk areas, like residential neighborhoods, to look for suspicious readings? Why not make that a job? We don't have enough people out of work? Why set up a system only to monitor one group when we know that any group could be the source of a threat?

Yes, it's true that Arab Muslim terrorists are the most active at the moment, but that's just this moment. While we obsess over Muslims, what other groups are organizing without interference? Do we really want to stay ignorant of them until they are as big and dangerous as al-Qaida?

We should be protecting ourselves against terrorists, not against Arabs or Muslims.

How do you think I feel :)
Oh, shit, yeah, man...now that you mention it... damn. :D

How do you think I feel :)

Kind of smooth... somwhat muscular... bumpy in places... ermmm...

Maybe that's not what you mean. *shifty eyes*

you know that doesnt make any sense.
Do normal microphones go to the sound or does the sound come to them? Do you're ears emit anything ot hear the sounds they do? Same thing, just with alpha and beta particles as well as gamma and x-rays. They have to hit material inside the geiger counter.

So...therefore...Muslims damage land...bringing down real estate values...so that's why we need to make sure none of the Arabs in our neighborhoods glow...is that your reasoning?

Because -- and this is just me -- I wouldn't buy a house in a neighborhood full of weapons-hoarding, white, Christian militiamen, even if they don't have nukes.
What possible reason could someone have for the amounts of nuclear material that the US gov would be looking for? Unless their trying to make their own nuclear reactor to generate power(highly illegal) than the uses for that material falls pretty much under the category of Something Very, Very Bad.

Nuclear Monitoring of Muslims Done Without Search Warrants
(http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/nest/051222nest.htm)

Yes, because every single Muslim in the world man, woman and child all share a communal Borg-like hivemind with Osama Bin Ladin.

:rolleyes:

This is just further proof that if a specific ethnic group kicks America in the crotch, every single member of that ethnicity will collectively suffer for the sins of a few. Japanese Internment anyone?
Whats next? Jews, Blacks, Asians, Spanish? We need to stop this now.

Do normal microphones go to the sound or does the sound come to them? Do you're ears emit anything ot hear the sounds they do? Same thing, just with alpha and beta particles as well as gamma and x-rays. They have to hit material inside the geiger counter.
what a brilliant analysis

that is EXACTLy why this radiation monitoring thing is almost certainly unconstitutional.

what a brilliant analysis

that is EXACTLy why this radiation monitoring thing is almost certainly unconstitutional.
? Things picked up by a normal style microphone in a public area in relatively plain sight are not illegal. Things picked up with a shotgun mike are, but that's different. There is no such thing as a "shotgun geiger counter" the only way to figure out the source is to play Hot/Cold with impersonal radiation. And you could probably argue that any non-natural increase in backround radiation constitutes a public disturbance and/or heath issue quite similar to any noise laws whereby the people therein have to stop the "noise" or be punished. As they wouldn't have the first clue as to stopping the radiation that would give the authorities ample cause to move in.

? Things picked up by a normal style microphone in a public area in relatively plain sight are not illegal. Things picked up with a shotgun mike are, but that's different. There is no such thing as a "shotgun geiger counter" the only way to figure out the source is to play Hot/Cold with impersonal radiation. And you could probably argue that any non-natural increase in backround radiation constitutes a public disturbance and/or heath issue quite similar to any noise laws whereby the people therein have to stop the "noise" or be punished. As they wouldn't have the first clue as to stopping the radiation that would give the authorities ample cause to move in.
no really, you arent allowed to fish for crime.

it may not seem logical to you, but you dont count, the supreme court does.

if you want to "search" someone's home with a geiger counter, you need a warrant. its not like the fbi is aimlessly wandering around big cities to see if there is a spike of radiation anywhere (not that im saying that would be legal either, i dont know if its legal or not) they are targeting mosques, hangouts for moslems and the homes of certain moslems. you need a warrant to search someones home (at least). if thermal searching is illegal so is radiation searching.

What possible reason could someone have for the amounts of nuclear material that the US gov would be looking for? Unless their trying to make their own nuclear reactor to generate power(highly illegal) than the uses for that material falls pretty much under the category of Something Very, Very Bad.
I'm objecting to your assumption that that "someone" is always going to be an Arab or a Muslim. Please read the rest of my posts to see why I think it would be a far better use of resources to make random scanning a part of basic civil defense than to target one group over another.

no really, you arent allowed to fish for crime.

it may not seem logical to you, but you dont count, the supreme court does.

if you want to "search" someone's home with a geiger counter, you need a warrant. its not like the fbi is aimlessly wandering around big cities to see if there is a spike of radiation anywhere (not that im saying that would be legal either, i dont know if its legal or not) they are targeting mosques, hangouts for moslems and the homes of certain moslems. you need a warrant to search someones home (at least). if thermal searching is illegal so is radiation searching.
Some people seem to have a problem accepting that you can't enforce the law by breaking the law. Or maybe they've always hated the law and are frustrated that they can't use terrorism as an excuse to break it. I'm not sure which.

I think that the law would be properly served and everyone's civil rights properly protected if security surveillance, radiation scanning, etc., were applied equally everywhere, straight out in public where everyone can see it and prepare themselves to avoid looking suspicious or get the right kind of legal help if they do fall under suspicion. It's the secrecy of these programs and the targeting of one group while ignoring all other sources of threat that cause the problems -- not only are such programs likely illegal; they are also ineffective.

Actually it was scientifically proven that all Muslims are born killers and can communicate over long distances using a mutation in their frontal lobe. Conveniently, I can not find the link to the study right now. ;)

Actually it was scientifically proven that all Muslims are born killers and can communicate over long distances using a mutation in their frontal lobe. Conveniently, I can not find the link to the study right now. ;)

oh darlin', youre not expected to prove that which is common knowlege.