All Hank, all the time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
They weren't writing to imply thet knew more about how the terrorists' minds work than the rest of us?

I didn't get that. Maybe it's something you read into it. Maybe you could point me to the line in their letter that you're relying.

They didn't point to their positions in parliment to imply some position of leadership?

Not over crazy Islamic men.

When you have to take off your shoes to get into your kid's public school sporting events maybe you'll start to understand. the fact is that the profiling mentioned above is something that will happen within 10 years- and the fact is that the people protesting it will be your ilk.

Maybe I understand better than you think I do.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder
I have no seen anyone on these boards object to profiling for airport security.

I believe the main objection to profiling is that it would cost money to pay more for competent airport security, and Republicans do not wish to pay taxes.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I didn't say I was for or against profiling- I said it seems inevitable. And in that context asked whether members of Parliment who are Islamic, not "leaders apparently, might want to take steps to avoid the seemingly inevitable.

My son is one of the best basketball players, so he's friends with the black kids- PLUS he is in good with the chaldeans so he'd be okay.

Actually what you said was "does it [profiling] taste better or worse than the residue of plastic explosives?"

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
Under your rule, you should be packing. Just something to think about. You know...Us v. You.

From now on, would you prefer to be called "Chamberlain" or just plain "Neville"?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I believe the main objection to profiling is that it would cost money to pay more for competent airport security, and Republicans do not wish to pay taxes.

So instead they pay for it in inconvenience at the airport. Which, when you stop to think about it, is even worse because it is a tax on productive business! Think of all those biglaw partners who are travelling on the client's dime to the tune of $800+ an hour. Oh the humanity!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're grading their PR or you disagree with what they said? Or both?

I am grading their PR. Very Poor.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
(b) Not to disagree with you, but.... Oh, hell, I disagree completely. Hatred -- killing hatred -- doesn't spring up overnight, or from nowhere. Especially a hatred purportedly based on faith and religious teachings. It is learned over years. Here, it is learned from leaders, especially religious leaders or those who coopt religion, who express and applaud hatred and violence in sermons and conversations and posters and the like.

Tolerance, too, is learned over years. But the carrier of that message must have the same credibility, the same inside influence, that the people promoting hatred have. Otherwise, it's a message from outsiders that is ignored.

Whatever condemnation we've heard has been tepid to say the least. Muslim leaders need to condemn Muslims who attack civilians. Full stop. They need to stop suggesting that it's bad, but okay if the other side does it, or let's look at Israeli "terrorism", or the like.

What I am asking them to do is the same thing that you ask American leaders to do over, say, Abu Ghraib or Gitmo -- say that it is wrong, say that it is not our values, say that those who did it or directed it should be punished. And not say "all torture of prisoners is bad, whether its done by Americans or Iraqis or Israelis or Russians." Because the former means that you are taking a stand against your own people and government, and you are trying to be a voice that influences others of your own people. And the latter is just saying "a pox on both their houses" and is ultimately meaningless.

If they cannot take a strong stand now, publicly, then it is absolutely certain that they are not taking that stand when it really counts -- in the mosques and writings and schools and private discussions that really influence people's lives. Muslim children need to grow up thinking "my Imam says Hezbollah is wrong because they intentionally kill civilians," not "my Imam thinks that both Israel and Hezbollah use bad tactics, but at least Hezbollah is fighting for the right cause."

OK. I'm just tired of the games I described on these boards. As debate, their tired. I would rather pay attention to what people say or do than look to some purported inconsistency with what they say or do and some other action or position. As you suggest, the important thing is what they say in the mosques and schools, etc.

(c) The CAIR statement is a prime example. They give a general "condemnation" of "terrorist" by all -- states, not-states, individuals, blah blah blah. In other words, they are equating Israel's conduct with Hezbollah's. And they are not singling out people of their own faith and their own ethnicity and their own community and saying "this is wrong -- these people are wrong."

I think we ought to take their words at face value. They condemn all terrorism. That surely includes blowing up passenger jets.

(d) Maybe, maybe not. But we did hear what they did say. And I suspect that if Muslim religious leaders were regularly speaking out against Hezbollah and Hamas, we would hear that too.

Notwithstanding your efforts to manufacture disagreement on my part, I basically agree with sebby's point that Muslims would rather criticize Israel's actions than Islamist terrorism or other atrocities committed by Muslims -- Darfur, anyone?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm suggesting that we can't nation build without being there. I think this is obvious. If we are not willing to do this, and we are not willing to nuke the entire place, then we might as well just give up.

Wait -- you're saying that our only choices are to invade a few more countries in the Mideast, secure in the knowledge that things will go as well as they have in Iraq, or surrender?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am grading their PR. Very Poor.

OK. I don't disagree (hi Sidd!) with that.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
The rest of the world noticed that Lebanon (generally) absorbed much the punishment, however meant for Hezbollah specifically.

The rest of the world was also subjected to endless propaganda (rigged photos, staged events, inflated casualty numbers), spewed by a complicit media, to make the Israelis look like a bunch of senseless butchers.

Where are the Reuters photos of the Israeli dead and the destruction from all the Hezzbollah rockets? Reading the papers, one would forget that Israel was merely defending itself.

I don't believe I said that it was a precursor. To observe that our Middle East policies stirs up animus against us is not to suggest that we are the cause of all unhappiness and/or terrorism.

Need I list (again) all of the Islamic terrorist activity pre-Bush?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think we ought to take their words at face value. They condemn all terrorism. That surely includes blowing up passenger jets.

I am sure that it does. I'm sure that from their perspective it also means bombing a rocket launcher and killing an innocent bystander in the process.

They equate the two. Do you?

And they seem to give no special attention to addressing their own. That's the problem.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Notwithstanding your efforts to manufacture disagreement on my part, I basically agree with sebby's point that Muslims would rather criticize Israel's actions than Islamist terrorism or other atrocities committed by Muslims -- Darfur, anyone?

Right. But it's all the fault of their mean governments, right?

(I wasn't "manufacturing disagreement" between you and someone else. I was disagreeing with something you said.)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
So instead they pay for it in inconvenience at the airport. Which, when you stop to think about it, is even worse because it is a tax on productive business! Think of all those biglaw partners who are travelling on the client's dime to the tune of $800+ an hour. Oh the humanity!

again, to focus on airports is to ignore the real targets that are most threatened and least protectible. you all seem to ignore it.

What do you think will happen once the terrorists start blowing themselves up on the subway or at ballgames?

the attacks on the Embassies, WTC 1, the Cole all occured before Iraq and Afghanistan- 20000 jihadis were trained in Afghanistan Before 9/11.

Does getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan take us back to those days of safety? really- don't we have to throw Israel to the wolves also, and what if they want us to give up France or England?

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The rest of the world was also subjected to endless propaganda (rigged photos, staged events, inflated casualty numbers), spewed by a complicit media, to make the Israelis look like a bunch of senseless butchers.

Where are the Reuters photos of the Israeli dead and the destruction from all the Hezzbollah rockets? Reading the papers, one would forget that Israel was merely defending itself.

How many rockets were fired into Israel from Southern Lebanon this year before Israel started bombing Lebanon?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's odd to me that these folks essentially said, attacks on civilians are wrong wherever they occur, and for this they are attacked for not condemning terrorism strongly enough. WTF?

At this time they should have just condemned the actions and left it at that. Adding that such actions should be expected with Britians policies in the middle east makes it signed like they are partially justifiying and are using an implied threat.

Right after such an attack they should just vociferously and unequivacoly condemn the terrorist acts and leave it at that. If they have a problem with British foreign policy now is not the time to bring it up.