Right, my argument was against people agreeing with him I wasn't questioning his experiment.

DUDE, That post got me 2.5 strikes , I guess I'm all done with the language.

CarbineKid wrote: choopie911 wrote: Gotta love those vague generalizations...yeah...all muslims are bad allright.... Just like how Oswald proved all americans are murderers. Oh come on we all know Oswald had help I wonder if "racial profiling" would have stopped the attacks on 9/11? We will never know, but there han't been one since. So whatever we are doing it appears to be working.

march 2002, isreal, 63 killed

october 2002 indonesia, 202 killed

october 2002 moscow, hundreds killed

may 2003 morocco, 41 killed

may 2003 saudi arabia, 34 killed

november 2003 turkey, 60 killed

march 2004 madrid, 191 killed, 1,800 injured

September 1-3 2004 russia, gunmen take over 1,000 hostages at a school, 330 dead, 800 injured... mostly little children.

July 2005, publit transit system bombings in london...52 civilans killed, 700 injured

July 2006, Train bombings in india... 209 killed, over 700 injured.

Those are just the major ones, people die every day from terrorist attacks not just in the middle east but all over the world. Like, how would you define a terrorist? couldn't it be the gangs all over including america? The people who bring guns and shoot up a school? Wow, i'm pretty sure that's also in america. Murderers? plenty. rapists? tons.  99.99% of people in north america, when they talk about terrorists, they mean terrorists from the middle east.

Don't just tell me that you were talking about your country only.... 911 changed security all over the world not just in the US.

Oh and to everyone else: i don't hate americans as this may seem, i do not downplay september 11th as it was a tradgedy for sure. i'm just pissed at people who think that while their country has been safe, the rest of the world also has.

...Breathe.... mini-rant over

start your flaming in... 3...2...1 (unless of course you thought i made a good point or two)

edit appology: i overeacted a bit, sorry for taking it out on you i meant what i said besides the flames though. i have decided to keep what i said though, unedited so you can understand

no i appoliogise for lashing out at him but what i said was true.

i officially appologize for getting pissed at him and i pretty much knew he didn't mean that in that way but ..... well i really can't figure out a way to end this

just know that everything i said besides the flames, i meant.

bty is updated with a rant within a rant

CarbineKid wrote:   I wonder if "racial profiling" would have stopped the attacks on 9/11? We will never know, but there han't been one since. So whatever we are doing it appears to be working.

Can I just point out that the "there hasn't been one since" argument is the lamest of all time?

Pop quiz:  How many terrorist attacks by foreign terrorists have there been on US soil - EVER?

RicWhic414 wrote: Well there was two attacks on the world trade centers that I can remember and there have been attacks on our embassies which are considered US soil. So I'm going to take a guess of 10

No counting embassies.  US soil.  Real US soil.

And the answer, as best as I know, is just that - two.  About a decade apart, same target.

Two in total, ever, and a decade apart.  Bragging about how we have gone five years is somewhere between silly and disingenuous.

RicWhic414 wrote: You know I didn't really read much of these posts, but think of this if a muslim looking person comes on a plane do you start to get worried or start thinking what would you do if something went down? I know I was on a plane and 3 muslim looking men came onto the plane and my stomach drop (I'm not a racist person at all) but I still started to what should I do if something goes down.

That does in fact make you a racist - at least to this point.  Sorry.

The history of violence in this country doesn't give you anywhere near a logical basis for being afraid of a "muslim-looking person".  (BTW - I wonder if you can tell the difference between a Middle Eastern Arab and a Middle Eastern Jew or Christian?  Do you even realize how ignorant "muslim-looking" sounds?  Most muslims in the US look just like Christians)

Most terrorist attacks in this country have been committed by American white people, with a smattering of black terrorism thrown in for good measure.

We're forgetting pearl harbor. But in honesty muslim terrorist attacks, beyond the USS Cole, which in my opinion we should've slammed them for right then and there, and the two on the towers, are few and far between. Muslims are not the problem, extremist are, not even muslim extremist are the problem, christian extremists are. The muslim hatred for christians is deep rooted back to the crusades. They learned to solve religious differences with violence when christian crusaders ran through them, again not all muslims, muslim extremists. I've had and will have pleanty of muslim friends. Two of my good friends come from opossing sides, sunni and shiete and neither have a problem with each other.

Just becuase Pearl Harbor was during a war and we were attacked by a country does not mean it wasn't an act of terrorism. Pearl Harbor was a safe Harbor. We were not at war, we did not want to make war, we were currently at the time proposing peace with japan, and they attacked us while we were at rest in order to instate fear and anger amoung America, it was an act of terrorism.

Why? Becuase it was a country?

Razgriz Ghost wrote: Why? Becuase it was a country?

Pretty much, yes.  I don't think states can commit terrorist acts.  You can have state-SPONSORED terrorism, but not regular old state terrorism.

Otherwise all war is just terrorism.

Razgriz Ghost wrote: I know, and we acted upon it as such, but I don't consider it an attack of war, as we weren't at war nor we we interested in being at war.

But that's how most wars start.  How many invading countries ask permission before invading?

Well there's a fine line, acting like you wish to be allies and attacking someone imo crosses that line.

RicWhic414 wrote: Pearl Harbor was during war

No it wasn't. It STARTED a war.

We were deeply engaged with Japan in trying to prevent going to war with them for the longest time.

Pick up a history book or watch TORA TORA TORA.

having spent five years learning the trade of teaching social studies, and my education having spanned the post 9-11 world, I've been engaged in learning about, and teaching about Islam.

These generalizations that we are making are as moronic and as dangerous as anything else we could do.

.Ryan is right, the general populace is ignorant, belief that Islam is evil is rampant in out society, and its doing much more harm than good.

On the other had, racial profiling, while not having much merit kind of has a perverse logic to it, at least the basic principal does:

If a woman is raped, and the only thing she can say about her attacker was that he was a tall blonde male.....why should the police question short bald men? Or women. Or anyone BUT tall blonde men?

Racial profiling takes that two or three steps further. If Islamic terrorists blow up planes, why don't we question all Muslims?

I'll be the first to admit, No, I don't get a sinking feeling in my stomach when I'm around a Muslim, or a person of Middle eastern origin. Why the hell should I?

So much for judging people individually.

Adolf would be proud of us.

RicWhic414 wrote: ...I speak for a lot of Americans that when they get on a plane which is for some an already nervous time if they see "muslim looking people" they get even more nervous and think what should they do if something happens. Im sure tons of people have no idea what all the different "middle eastern" ethnicities look like.

And I think you are absolutely correct.  You do speak for many Americans.

But that doesn't make it right.  This is the type of hysteria that lead to a poor Sikh getting shot and killed after 9/11, and numerous other "muslim-looking" fellows around the country getting threatened or assaulted.

The answer isn't to institute racist policies.  The answer is to open your mind.

Reb Cpl wrote: On the other had, racial profiling, while not having much merit kind of has a perverse logic to it, at least the basic principal does: If a woman is raped, and the only thing she can say about her attacker was that he was a tall blonde male.....why should the police question short bald men? Or women. Or anyone BUT tall blonde men?

This, of course, is a favorite argument of proponents of profiling.  But there is a major difference between this and true profiling:  In this hypothetical we are looking for an actual criminal.  The more proactive (and odious) form of profiling involves not waiting for a specific crime (or threat of specific crime), but instead treats an entire class of people as if they are about to commit one.

RicWhic414 wrote: I have nothing against muslim people, Muslim is a religon and im not saying its wrong so dont make it seem like im an ignorant person

This would have been more convincing if you had not promptly followed it with an ignorant statement.

MT. Vigilante wrote: OK, I didn't read all the posts in this thread but that is because I am not commenting on this thread to argue with anyone, I just wanted to state my thoghts on that radio talk show host that started all this mess; he is a Nazi, plain and simple.

Methinks you probably should have read some of the posts before posting that...

Or at least the entire article.

Clark Kent wrote: Reb Cpl wrote: On the other had, racial profiling, while not having much merit kind of has a perverse logic to it, at least the basic principal does: If a woman is raped, and the only thing she can say about her attacker was that he was a tall blonde male.....why should the police question short bald men? Or women. Or anyone BUT tall blonde men? This, of course, is a favorite argument of proponents of profiling.  But there is a major difference between this and true profiling:  In this hypothetical we are looking for an actual criminal.  The more proactive (and odious) form of profiling involves not waiting for a specific crime (or threat of specific crime), but instead treats an entire class of people as if they are about to commit one.

Exactly. I was a bit hasty in ending my last post (lunch break was over) When there is a specific crime committed, then taking the facts and using what we can to find the guilty party is fine.

But the populace is starting to hand a bum wrap to those who are innocent of all crimes, just because they 'look like' they MIGHT commit a crime.

If that argument carries any weight, then many of you who posted in the "post your pic again" thread are in a lot of trouble.