NationStates Jolt Archive

And you thought this only happened in the US... ('http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070512/ap_on_re_eu/eu_mosques')

It would appear they agree on this.

VENICE, Italy - Security officials from Europe's largest countries backed a plan Saturday to profile mosques on the continent and identify radical Islamic clerics who raise the threat of homegrown terrorism.

The project, to be finished by the fall, will focus on the roles of imams, their training, their ability to speak in the local language and their sources of funding, EU Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner Franco Frattini told a news conference after a meeting on terrorism.

Italian Interior Minister Guiliano Amato said Europe had extensive experience with the "misuse of mosques, which instead of being places of worship are used for other ends.

"This is bringing about a situation that involves all of our countries and involves the possibility of attacks and developing of networks that use one country to prepare an attack in another," Amato said.

They've been doing this for a while in the US and UK - now it looks like the rest of the EU is going to do it as well. And based on historical events, it would appear that they have reason to do so.

Doesn't this infringe on freedom of religion?

We're bugging mosques here in the US? How is the ACLU not all over that?

It only makes sense really. I wouldn't be suprised if the Mosque I go to is monitored. But seeing as I go there only to pray and spend time with the brothers, it doesn't bother me. The only people who have to worry about this are people who are doing something illegal.

Doesn't this infringe on freedom of religion?

We're bugging mosques here in the US? How is the ACLU not all over that?

no, because they don't prevent people from worship, they just check on things.

Doesn't this infringe on freedom of religion?

Not really, it's been long held that inciting violence does not fall into the auspices of religious freedom

We're bugging mosques here in the US? How is the ACLU not all over that?

I have not heard anything about actively bugging mosques, it seems more to me that they're doing legal fieldwork to try and identify radically violent elements in the muslim community.

Theoretically I have no problem with this. That is, functionally, what police do...just as long as they keep up their efforts to try and identify radically violent elements of other communities as well.

I've never heard of this in the U.K, I should probably protest or something (out of interest shouldn't Fred Phelps be arrested?)

The only people who have to worry about this are people who are doing something illegal.

omg 1984!!!!111 :mp5:

Doesn't this infringe on freedom of religion?

We're bugging mosques here in the US? How is the ACLU not all over that?

Minister Amato has also an "Islamic consulting board" composed by the leaders and the representatives of the italian muslim community; I guess that the board gave green light - it is likely that most italian muslim don't want to be mixed with fanatical terrorists.

Of course the opportunity to monitor all religious groups for radical elements and terror connections are missed as Europe and the United States are still caught up in the pop-culture phenomenon of Muslim Exceptionalism.

Of course the opportunity to monitor all religious groups for radical elements and terror connections are missed as Europe and the United States are still caught up in the pop-culture phenomenon of Muslim Exceptionalism.

They just happen to be more involved in killing people, kidnapping people, cutting heads off, and blowing up civilians for fun than Christians at the moment.

After all, Christians were doing it for centuries, and I'm sure that Muslims are just trying to catch up.

Doesn't this infringe on freedom of religion?

We're bugging mosques here in the US? How is the ACLU not all over that?

We not only bug them, but FBI agents in full view stand in the back and listen to the sermons.

They just happen to be more involved in killing people, kidnapping people, cutting heads off, and blowing up civilians for fun than Christians at the moment.

does this mean I can persecute the Irish again?

They just happen to be more involved in killing people, kidnapping people, cutting heads off, and blowing up civilians for fun than Christians at the moment.

After all, Christians were doing it for centuries, and I'm sure that Muslims are just trying to catch up.

But nobody ever even jokingly advocated the sterilization of Christians either.

That's the same mindset that justifies and rationalizes racial profiling.

I have no objection to this.

Of course the opportunity to monitor all religious groups for radical elements and terror connections are missed as Europe and the United States are still caught up in the pop-culture phenomenon of Muslim Exceptionalism.

I'm not aware of any other religious radicalism that poses a threat in europe other then Islam currently, why waste funds?

But nobody ever even jokingly advocated the sterilization of Christians either.

That's the same mindset that justifies and rationalizes racial profiling.

You have the most amazing ability to wrongly conflate issues. And get your facts wrong too.

I'm not aware of any other religious radicalism that poses a threat in europe other then Islam currently, why waste funds?

Because it's foresight to keep tabs on any and all potential religious radical elements rather than focus on one specific and I might add extensively negatively publicized religion, only to have terrorist acts connected to another religion occur and then have to rotate priorities which wastes even more funds?

You have the most amazing ability to wrongly conflate issues. And get your facts wrong too.

This coming from Mr. "Paris Hilton Jokes are Anti-Semitism."

This sends a message to the world, which is "We only think Muslims are dangerous." Which in turn downplays the fact that there are radical elements in other religions that are just as dangerous but aren't perceived as such simply because the media obcession is on Jihadis. This is a chance to kill a lot of birds with one stone, but again this is being missed with the shortsighted Islamaphobia.

This coming from Mr. "Paris Hilton Jokes are Anti-Semitism."


The Jews have been after the Hilton family ever since one of the filthy Jews stayed at a Hilton hotel and was offended that the cleaning lady would be expecting a tip. Angered by this, the cheap Jew wrote a complaint to the HQ of the Hilton Hotels. After days of no reply, he got one of his Jew cop friends to pull Paris over.


That's high level humor for you though isn't it?

This sends a message to the world, which is "We only think Muslims are dangerous." Which in turn downplays the fact that there are radical elements in other religions that are just as dangerous but aren't perceived as such simply because the media obcession is on Jihadis. This is a chance to kill a lot of birds with one stone, but again this is being missed with the shortsighted Islamaphobia

It sends no such message. Stop making things up so you can tar every non muslim with the racism brush.

It's nice to see the little fascists agreeing with this. RO, I didn't quite realize you were DK until today. Nice to see you back, have you killed any Muslims lately?

It's nice to see the little fascists agreeing with this. RO, I didn't quite realize you were DK until today. Nice to see you back, have you killed any Muslims lately?

It's been years...

But nobody ever even jokingly advocated the sterilization of Christians either.

That's the same mindset that justifies and rationalizes racial profiling.

If you consider that Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, yes someone has...

:rolleyes: That's high level humor for you though isn't it?

I never laughed at that joke. Never found it funny. Which is odd, because you yourself admitted that very joke was.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12612099&postcount=19

I really don't care what you said in the OP. Actually it was kinda funny. What I don't care for is shitweasel joining in. He's always made it a point that it's all about religious tolerance and shit, unless it is jew hating apparently.


Quit being such a fucking disingenuous and hypocritical tard.

:upyours:

It sends no such message. Stop making things up so you can tar every non muslim with the racism brush.

Actually it does. Basically it encourages focusing intelligence and security resources on one specific threat out of many. But hey, it's worth letting a Timothy McVeigh or two slip past as long as you catch those damn dirty Muslims right?

But surely you haven't forgotten the supra-orgasmic pleasure of doing so, no?

Not an orgasmic pleasure....

It's been years...

But surely you haven't forgotten the supra-orgasmic pleasure of doing so, no?

At work today, we're having a party to celebrate this one:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IE15Df01.html

Quit being such a fucking disingenuous and hypocritical tard.

:upyours:



No, you quit. I get to laugh a Judaism, because I think all religion is stupid. You don't. I'm sick of your righteous indignation whenever islam is mentioned, but your tacit approval of mockery of all other religions.

At work today, we're having a party to celebrate this one:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IE15Df01.html

And if Your Beloved Dear Leader had stuck to Afghanistan instead of getting a hardon at the thought of going after Saddam to avenge Poppy's honor, the fucker would have been dead or irrelevant years ago.

No, you quit. I get to laugh a Judaism, because I think all religion is stupid. You don't. I'm sick of your righteous indignation whenever islam is mentioned, but your tacit approval of mockery of all other religions.

Ever looked up the word 'Hypocrisy' in the dictionary, Junior? Because your words there are the very essense of it.

And if Your Beloved Dear Leader had stuck to Afghanistan instead of getting a hardon at the thought of going after Saddam to avenge Poppy's honor, the fucker would have been dead or irrelevant years ago.

Why do you believe that I like Bush? I could care less about Bush.

Ever looked up the word 'Hypocrisy' in the dictionary, Junior? Because your words there are the very essense of it.

No, you're the one who defends Islam, and hates Christianity with a passion.

See where Gauthier is wrong.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-13-homegrown-bottomstrip_N.htm?csp=34

The FBI seems to think that they're worth keeping under surveillance.

No, you're the one who defends Islam, and hates Christianity with a passion.

This coming from someone who gets orgasms from killing Muslims and calls for their eradication or sterilization.

Still, I'll defend any religion that gets placed in the distorted and unfair spotlight that Islam is currently in. No religion is more or less violent than any other. It's simply a matter of human beings exploiting religion for their own political gains.

But again, human beings thrive on having social outcasts to persecute with impunity. You're just creaming in your pants because it's not the Pentecostals in that spot at the moment.

See where Gauthier is wrong.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-13-homegrown-bottomstrip_N.htm?csp=34

The FBI seems to think that they're worth keeping under surveillance.
Just because the FBI says it so doesn't it make it right or wrong - and they don't even mention Mosques or Imams at all anyway.

This coming from someone who gets orgasms from killing Muslims and calls for their eradication or sterilization.

Still, I'll defend any religion that gets placed in the distorted and unfair spotlight that Islam is currently in. No religion is more or less violent than any other. It's simply a matter of human beings exploiting religion for their own political gains.

But again, human beings thrive on having social outcasts to persecute with impunity. You're just creaming in your pants because it's not the Pentecostals in that spot at the moment.

No, we've seen you castigate other religions here, especially Christianity. I'm not the only one who has seen you do it - as is seen earlier in this thread - other people notice what you will not only not defend, but will outright attack.

It's not distorted that 90 percent of today's terrorist acts are committed by militant Muslims.

See where Gauthier is wrong.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-13-homegrown-bottomstrip_N.htm?csp=34

The FBI seems to think that they're worth keeping under surveillance.

Again in your excitement to read between the lines, you miss out on what I said.

I never said "Why mosques?" I said "Why only mosques?" If you're going to keep tabs on religious houses of worship why not focus on all if you're truly worried about terrorism? Or are we going to wait for them to kill people before we do anything about it?

Security officials from Europe's largest countries backed a plan Saturday to profile mosques on the continent and identify radical Islamic clerics who raise the threat of homegrown terrorism.

The project, to be finished by the fall, will focus on the roles of imams, their training, their ability to speak in the local language and their sources of funding, EU Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner Franco Frattini told a news conference after a meeting on terrorism.

Profile

pro·file (prō'fīl') Pronunciation Key
n.

1. the outline or contour of the human face, esp. the face viewed from one side.
2. a picture or representation of the side view of a head.
3. an outlined view, as of a city or mountain.
4. an outline of an object, as a molding, formed on a vertical plane passed through the object at right angles to one of its principal horizontal dimensions.
5. a drawing or the like representing this.
6. Surveying. a vertical section of the ground surface taken parallel to a survey line. Compare cross section (def. 6).
7. a verbal, arithmetical, or graphic summary or analysis of the history, status, etc., of a process, activity, relationship, or set of characteristics: a biochemical profile of a patient's blood; a profile of national consumer spending.
8. an informal biography or a concisely presented sketch of the life and character of a person.
9. a set of characteristics or qualities that identify a type or category of person or thing: a profile of a typical allergy sufferer.
10. the look, configuration, or lines of something: cars with a modern profile.
11. degree of noticeability; visibility.
12. Psychology. a description of behavioral and personality traits of a person compared with accepted norms or standards.
13. Theater. a flat stage property or scenic piece cut from a firm, thin material, as of beaverboard or plywood, and having an irregular edge resembling the silhouette of a natural object.
14. (in a gear) the outline of either end of a tooth.
15. Naval Architecture. a longitudinal elevation or section of a vessel. Compare outboard profile.
–verb (used with object)
16. to draw a profile of.
17. to produce or present a history, description, or analysis of: The magazine will profile the candidate in its next issue.

No, we've seen you castigate other religions here, especially Christianity. I'm not the only one who has seen you do it - as is seen earlier in this thread - other people notice what you will not only not defend, but will outright attack.

Funny, since when I pointed out the problems with Christianity it's to illustrate how it's no better than any other religion when it comes to problems.

It's not distorted that 90 percent of today's terrorist acts are committed by militant Muslims.

90% of globally publicized terrorist attacks.

Because it's foresight to keep tabs on any and all potential religious radical elements rather than focus on one specific

Why?


and I might add extensively negatively publicized religion, only to have terrorist acts connected to another religion occur and then have to rotate priorities which wastes even more funds?

Not really. Monitoring a few mosques and then adding a few other religious places of practice is still not as expensive.

90% of globally publicized terrorist attacks.

Wrong. Even among counterterrorism organizations and scholars, it's 90% of the terrorist attacks.

So you're so wrong...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6599233,00.html

`By far the largest number of reported terrorist incidents occurred in the Near East and South Asia,'' said the 335-page report, referring to the regions where Iraq and Afghanistan are located.

``These two regions also were the locations for 90 percent of all the 290 high-casualty attacks that killed 10 or more people,'' it said.

So, this looks like 90 percent... and they don't appear to be Jehovah's Witnesses, or Scientologists...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6599233,00.html

So, this looks like 90 percent... and they don't appear to be Jehovah's Witnesses, or Scientologists...

90 percent of terrorist attacks taking place in the regions nearest Iraq and Afghanistan, two occupied Islamic countries facing insurgency are Islamic, therefore 90% of all terrorist attacks in the entire world are Islamic?

Even before the words "Biased Sample" came to mind the words "No Duh" and "Crock of Shit" did.

So how exactly does Islamic insurgency and terrorism in occupied Middle East countries justify European screening of strictly mosques and no other religious institutions then?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6599233,00.html

So, this looks like 90 percent... and they don't appear to be Jehovah's Witnesses, or Scientologists...

The report said 6,600, or 45 percent, of the attacks took place in Iraq, killing about 13,000 people, or 65 percent of the worldwide total of terrorist-related deaths in 2006.
Iraq is a warzone and the largest problem.
Of the 58,000 people killed or wounded in terrorist attacks around the world in 2006, more than 50 percent were Muslims, the report, says with government officials, police and security guards accounting for a large proportion, the report said.

90 percent of terrorist attacks taking place in the regions nearest Iraq and Afghanistan, two occupied Islamic countries facing insurgency are Islamic, therefore 90% of all terrorist attacks in the entire world are Islamic?

Even before the words "Biased Sample" came to mind the words "No Duh" and "Crock of Shit" did.

So how exactly does Islamic insurgency and terrorism in occupied Middle East countries justify European screening of strictly mosques and no other religious institutions then?

Because 90% of the terrorist attacks in Europe and the US currently come from Muslims planning their attacks in mosques, and using mosques to recruit terrorists.

Would you prefer that we conduct surveillance in the shoe department of the local mall instead?

Because 90% of the terrorist attacks in Europe and the US currently come from Muslims planning their attacks in mosques, and using mosques to recruit terrorists.

Would you prefer that we conduct surveillance in the shoe department of the local mall instead?

Again, Why Only Mosques? You obviously think so, but I'll ask this question for anyone else reading: Are Muslims the only problem in the world today?

Again, Why Only Mosques? You obviously think so, but I'll ask this question for anyone else reading: Are Muslims the only problem in the world today?

90 percent of the problem today...

Where do you concentrate your government's resources? On the easiest place to get results...

90 percent of the problem today...

Where do you concentrate your government's resources? On the easiest place to get results...

You mean like how Your Beloved Dear Leader concentrated the government's resources on Afghanistan instead of rushing off to avenge Daddy's honor in Iraq and turned Afghnistan into a bastion of shining modern Islamic democracy in the Middle East, not to mention reduce the Taliban to a mere footnote in history?

Oh wait. That didn't happen.

Again, your obcession with exterminating Islam lets other groups slip under the radar if Europe and the United States were to follow such a narrow and specific focus.

Because 90% of the terrorist attacks in Europe and the US currently come from Muslims planning their attacks in mosques, and using mosques to recruit terrorists.
*Cough*

500 Terror Attacks in EU in 2006 - But Only 1 by Islamists

There were almost 500 acts of terrorism across the European Union in 2006 -- but only one, the foiled suitcase bomb plot in Germany, was related to Islamist terror, a new EU report reveals.
According to a report released Tuesday by Europol, the European Union's law enforcement organization, 498 attacks were carried out in the EU in 2006. Of them, only one -- the failed suitcase bomb attacks in Germany -- was perpetrated by Islamist terrorists.
However, Islamist attacks such as the German plot and the foiled airplane mass bomb attacks in the United Kingdom were aimed at mass casualities, the report points out. As a result, "investigations into Islamist terrorism are clearly a priority for member states' law enforcement," the report writes. Half of the 706 terrorism-related arrests made in 2006 were related to Islamist terrorism, with France, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands having the highest number of arrests of Islamist terrorist suspects.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,476599,00.html

Because 90% of the terrorist attacks in Europe and the US...

No, that's world.

If we just take out the Iraq count, which is 45% of the attacks, then that leaves us with 55% terrorist attacks occurring outside of Iraq. If we assume, incorrectly, that they All happen in Europe and North America then you're 10% off, as only 81,2% of the attacks would be muslim related.

And of course, that's ignoring all the other places that are non-european and non-american where the muslim attacks take place.

1/14338 = 0,00007% - That's the percentage of all terrorist attacks that happened in Europe and was carried out by islamists in 2006...

I have not heard anything about actively bugging mosques, it seems more to me that they're doing legal fieldwork to try and identify radically violent elements in the muslim community.

Theoretically I have no problem with this. That is, functionally, what police do...just as long as they keep up their efforts to try and identify radically violent elements of other communities as well.

It's something of a religious "walking the beat". Police work used to involve mingling with the people you're protecting, letting the community know that they're there for their safety, ingratiating themselves into the community, becoming trusted and in doing so learning what they know.

I know, for example, an element of the US program of monitoring for radicalism at mosques is also to protect members of mosques, and agencies usually start off with that as the more public task. Agents usually start off by seeking out the Imam and mid-level members and asking if they have experienced any harassment or discrimination, and then build a trusting relationship with the community over time, so that if a radical does seem to emerge, the community will catch it well before the FBI could.

1/14338 = 0,00007% - That's the percentage of all terrorist attacks that happened in Europe and was carried out by islamists in 2006...

Yet half of all terrorist related arrests in 2006 were Muslims.

No, the numbers that have been slung back and forth on this issue (from this report in particular) have become contorted and lost any of their original meaning.

Doesn't this infringe on freedom of religion?

We're bugging mosques here in the US? How is the ACLU not all over that?

Probabaly because the feds bug militias and other organizations where wackos frequent. It's argued that religion has little to do with it and the attraction of that particular organization to wackos does. It's a legitimate argument. I'm not sayng I agree with it, but it's legitimate.

Yet half of all terrorist related arrests in 2006 were Muslims.

No, the numbers that have been slung back and forth on this issue (from this report in particular) have become contorted and lost any of their original meaning.

Yes, but arrests does not mean anything more than arrests. They are not convictions.

And no, the numbers haven't lost their original meaning. You just have to be willing to look at the numbers (critically), which some posters here have a history of not doing...

Yes, but arrests does not mean anything more than arrests. They are not convictions.

And no, the numbers haven't lost their original meaning. You just have to be willing to look at the numbers (critically), which some posters here have a history of not doing...

For the vast bulk, both left and right, not looking at numbers critically is looking at them from the other sides perspective.

The numbers have lost their original meaning.

For example, many of those 353 terror related arrests that were tied to Islamic extremists were not in the operations side of the organizations, rather, they were logistics and support, operating networks.

More than that, Europol reported 498 attacks, not 14,338 in 2006, so your numbers seem flawed. I provide a Spiegel article as proof. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,476599,00.html

Or how about the m.o. of terrorist groups in Europe? ETA and the leftish groups tend to go for smaller scale attacks, designed to break stuff and make life more difficult, but minimize the loss of life. Islamist groups tend to seek to maximize loss of life in mega attacks, and there were several that were thwarted in the past year. So, while their are fewer attempted attacks, the attacks attempted are much more destructive.

For the vast bulk, both left and right, not looking at numbers critically is looking at them from the other sides perspective.

The numbers have lost their original meaning.

For example, many of those 353 terror related arrests that were tied to Islamic extremists were not in the operations side of the organizations, rather, they were logistics and support, operating networks.

More than that, Europol reported 498 attacks, not 14,338 in 2006, so your numbers seem flawed. I provide a Spiegel article as proof. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,476599,00.html

Or how about the m.o. of terrorist groups in Europe? ETA and the leftish groups tend to go for smaller scale attacks, designed to break stuff and make life more difficult, but minimize the loss of life. Islamist groups tend to seek to maximize loss of life in mega attacks, and there were several that were thwarted in the past year. So, while their are fewer attempted attacks, the attacks attempted are much more destructive.
No offense, but you should really read the thread.

a) I've presented the Spiegel article you've linked to above in post #47 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12648304&postcount=47), partly in response to
b) Remote Observers link to the Guardian Article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6599233,00.html) which presented the US State Departments global survey of terrorism. 14,338 is the number of world wide terrorist incidents.

I do not disagree with the points you bring up, on the contrary. My responses are directed at Remote Observer and his 90%-assertions back in post #43 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12648252&postcount=43)...

Only thing I do disagree with is that the numbers have lost their meaning.

another reason to hate the EU. The 272865th I'm adding to my list, I believe.

1/14338 = 0,00007% - That's the percentage of all terrorist attacks that happened in Europe and was carried out by islamists in 2006...

No offense, but you should really read the thread.

a) I've presented the Spiegel article you've linked to above in post #47 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12648304&postcount=47), partly in response to
b) Remote Observers link to the Guardian Article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6599233,00.html) which presented the US State Departments global survey of terrorism. 14,338 is the number of world wide terrorist incidents.

I do not disagree with the points you bring up, on the contrary. My responses are directed at Remote Observer and his 90%-assertions back in post #43 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12648252&postcount=43)...

Only thing I do disagree with is that the numbers have lost their meaning.

No offense, but you should really look at what you posted.

Not to pick a fight, because it would seem we rather agree on the relevant numbers, but I got the impression from the post with the simple math that you were arguing that there were 14,338 terrorist attacks in Europe.

No offense, but you should really look at what you posted.

Not to pick a fight, because it would seem we rather agree on the relevant numbers, but I got the impression from the post with the simple math that you were arguing that there were 14,338 terrorist attacks in Europe.

Nonono, I was just saying that out of all the world-wide terrorist attacks (14338) only one (1) took place in Europe and was carried out by islamists (while 497 took place in Europe but was carried out by non-muslims) - i.e. 0.00007% of the worlds terrorist attacks happened in Europe and was done by muslims. Is that clearer? :)

Nonono, I was just saying that out of all the world-wide terrorist attacks (14338) only one (1) took place in Europe and was carried out by islamists (while 497 took place in Europe but was carried out by non-muslims) - i.e. 0.00007% of the worlds terrorist attacks happened in Europe and was done by muslims. Is that clearer? :)

Ah, I see now. That's what I get for waking up at six and doing nothing but living off of coffee and empanadas since then.

Ah, I see now. That's what I get for waking up at six and doing nothing but living off of coffee and empanadas since then.

Healthy living :p

No problem - it could easily have been my sucky math skills that made problems :)

Healthy living :p

No problem - it could easily have been my sucky math skills that made problems :)

Trust me, I know sucky math skills :)

Having watched 'Undercover Mosque' I have to say it's about time.

Oh, and the article doesn't say they're going to bug every mosque in the EU, only that they're going to investigate them to find out where radical activity is taking place. What's so wrong with that? If significant numbers of people who belong to the YMCA start calling for attacks on the UK then we should inspect them too.

Yet half of all terrorist related arrests in 2006 were Muslims.

You can thank racial profiling for that.

You can thank racial profiling for that.

Not necessarily. According to Gravlen's link, while most of the acts of terrorism were commited by non-Islamic groups, it's the Islamic groups who are planning high-casualty attacks rather than attacks on property and buildings. It's only reasonable to focus on the small but very dangerous segment over the large but relatively harmless segment.

Doesn't this infringe on freedom of religion?

Of course not, now go about your life...eat your Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. Let all your worries just slide away...

We not only bug them, but FBI agents in full view stand in the back and listen to the sermons.interesting...
do you have a link for this?

It's not distorted that 90 percent of today's terrorist acts are committed by militant Muslims.

However that doesnt mean that their religon is responsible for their militancy.
Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine and Iraq are not exactly calm gardens that were all rosy 'except for them muslims'. Invasion and annexation plays a large part in it.

Hypocrits should get rid of their own religion before taking on the others.