What the fuck are you talking about? If they want to get on an airplane, they should be more closely scrutinized. That's all. Nobody is going to their houses for an illegal search and seizure.

listen - let's say someone just committed a murder, & they jumped in their white jeep & fled the scene; police officers all over the city are looking for this criminal, so they start checking cars in the specific area he was heading in. now should every car driving in that particular vicinity be checked? yes - safety precautions for our wellbeing, always. should an emphasis be placed on checking white jeeps in that area? of course. at airports, should everyone have security procedures followed through on them? yes - safety precautions for our wellbeing, always. should an emphasis be placed on muslims, who are immensely more likely to commit a crime? of course.

this isn't rocket science, folks.

I doubt I'd remove any of those people from that list. But I'd scrutinize a few of them much closer than the rest, and for obvious reasons.

If you can't understand that, then I'm not sure what else I can do.

Why would we do that when we can just tap their phone lines?

It doesn't matter who's likely to do what, speaking on generalizations. Because that's what they are; generalizations. And it's so highly unconstitutional (you know, that whole "all men created equal" thing...) that I want to find a board of wood with a nail sticking through it, and do an headstand on it.

By searching I meant searching at airports. Even if all the terrorist who have been caught are muslims, it does not give you the complete picture. Number of terrorists found is a very small fraction of the number of muslims living/traveling in the country.
I'll give you an example. Assume that a particular fatal contagious disease is found 99% times in males and 1% times in females. But only 0.01% of all the male population has this disease. By just quoting the 99% figure you cannot justify screening the entire population of males alone, because as per your logic, males are 99 times more likely to have the disease than females. Since it is very rare disease (because of 0.01% number), it is a good idea to screen all the population. Plus it it contagious and fatal. OK this is the best I can do to logically explain my opinion.

and
Until you answer me without resorting to bullshit like "osama fucking my daughter", I can't understand your view. So can you tell me which groups (out of the list I provided) will you "scrutinize more closer than the rest" if you do not want to remove anyone out of it. I am asking you to choose from the list for a specific reason. I don't think it will take you too long to say , for example, "items 1,5 and 7 from your list should be scrutinized less than the rest".

You want to trap me in some kind of racist/xenophobic/psychobabble

Everyone knows you're a fascist anyway.

I love Echelon. It helped take down the mob, it's helping take down terror.

Probable cause, bitches!



What about my fucking civil rights? Or the 3-year-old in seat 14-A, sitting next to his mother? Or the married couple just leaving for their honeymoon? The decent, hardworking American citizens who are getting on planes to go about their business and everyday lives?

No. Fuck those civil liberties. After all, we wouldn't want to "alienate" the muslim world, which recently has given our society so many blessings like...what's that again? Suicide bombing? Oh yeah.

And the actual terrorists, LLC? Once again, I'll ask you yet again, show me these white people who are allegedly just as likely to be committing these heinous acts as radical Muslims...I still have those crack stickers waiting.

Everyone knows you're a fascist anyway.

See this is my problem all together; You're completely ignoring their rights. And you and I both know the majority of acts of terror in the US are being committed by citizens and aliens alike of Muslim descent; but I think svsg made a great point in comparing terrorism to that of a disease that occurs mostly in men, but the percentage of men infected is still relatively small. There aren't nearly as many acts of terror being committed as we'd be left to believe, the media just flocks to the few committed like a pack of rabid ex-cons to a voluptuous sixteen year old girl. It's a business built on fear.

I prefer the term, "Yankee Imperialist," thank you.

"There aren't nearly as many acts of terror being committed as we'd be left to believe." Really? So, what, after 9/11 (and before that, embassy bombings), that's like 3,500+ Americans killed. Maybe you're right, that's an insignificant number.

After all, 3,500+ decent, hard-working Americans died in vain so that Muslim terrorists could get on airplanes and blow up some more Americans.

Regards,
Double-J

Does FBI/CIA or whatever have any numbers? Please show us those kind of statistics and you will have no difficulty in proving us wrong.

If the CIA/FBI had those kind of facts and numbers, then you guys wouldn't even be having this debate.

Don't quote some random survey about 25% supporting suicide bombers, I don't believe its authenticity, it may well be written by someone who shares your opinions.

Please show us those kind of statistics and you will have no difficulty in proving us wrong.

That's the best post on this subject yet.

I didn't realize the Pew Research Center and the Associates Press were not reliable, authentic sources.

Thank you, come again!

[Now that is 1% as I suspected, not 25%.

Though I still don't know anything about Pew or Associate Press,
this is what Pew had to say:

They conducted survey on about 1000 muslims:


---------------------------------------------------------------
Very few Muslim Americans – just
1% – say that suicide bombings against
civilian targets are often justified to defend
Islam; an additional 7% say suicide bombings
are sometimes justified in these
circumstances. In Western Europe, higher
percentages of Muslims in Great Britain,
France and Spain said that suicide bombings
in the defense of Islam are often or sometimes justified.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Now that is 1% as I suspected, not 25%.

There are a lot of normal people who fall into the additional 7% . For those who remember, in the Hiroshima thread, a lot of people here supported Civilian attack, because it served a greater good. Probably including yourself. The survey does not give the details of what justifications those additional 7% had. Or even what they actually said. These can be mis-interpreted or taken out of context. It is those 1% that needs to be arrested and punished.... not the 99% of peaceful muslims. I will look at the other source (associates press) later. But if this survey is authentic, I guess I should see similar results.