CAIR speaks
Old Trooper sends along this link in which the Aero-News Network forwards Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) concerns about “profiling” in the wake of the latest assault on Americans’ freedoms caused by the government’s unwillingness to profile;
“While everyone supports robust airline security measures, racial and religious profiling are in fact counterproductive and can lead to a climate of insecurity and fear,” said CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper. CAIR touts itself as America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization and espouses a mission ‘to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.’
I suggest the government refrain from profiling Muslims just because they’re Muslims as soon as Muslims quit blowing up Americans just because we’re Americans and/or infidels. When I read that CAIR has condemned the actions of particular terrorist groups, maybe I’ll consider their complaints. As far as I know, CAIR can’t even bring itself to admit that Hamas conducts terrorist operations.
Me? When I ride the subway, I inventory the items with which every Muslim gets on and then off my particular car. I also look for evidence of guns and knives on Black and Hispanic youths. Yeah, I profile – it only makes common sense.
Category: Terror War
And yet at the same time, “duh libruls” can’t figure out why there has been NO successful hijacking or attempted terrorist act on any ElAl airplane in how many years now?
Police forces use racial profiling for the same reason martial artists, such as myself use strikes to the groin, it works, EVERY TIME. Ask the LAPD to stop using racial profiling in South Central, or the NYPD to stop using it in Harlem and watch the results…
I’d suggest that while profiling people for being Muslims may not meet what CAIR would like, how hard is it to accept that profiling suspected terrorists, regardless of religion or background might be a good idea? To be afraid to follow up on a lead that X-person might be a terrorist because you might be accused of “profiling based on religion” is just a joke.
I am reminded however, of a quote from Leo on West Wing in the aftermath of 9-11 in which he is talking to a Muslim they have pulled aside under suspicion in the White House:
Suspect: “Why is it that every time a plane blows up you immediately think-Muslim?”
Leo: “Yes. Why is that?”
I may be slightly paraphrasing the first part of that quote, it’s been a while, and it’s the gist of what he said, but the sardonic response was dead on.
When you hear hoofbeats, don’t go looking for zebras.
Profiling? When I was a young scout trooper we called it situational awareness. I thought that was a good thing.
I bet you racists loved that this happened to be honest. It had been so long since a muslim had done anything, that your anti-muslim banter was dying off and people were starting to look at more then just religion.
And Jonn, white kids carry guns and knives too, or do you just choose to ignore your own kind as being an issue?
Um, if there were any white kids on my train, I’d watch them, too.
Yeah, it’s been so long since a Muslim did anything…well, other than Hasan, Bledsoe, and the other 28 foiled plots.
I don’t profile anyone by race, creed, or color of skin. I rely on the 20th law of gunfighting-
‘Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet.’
Jonn, now you’ve done it. Another dem with his panties all twisted over “profiling”. It’s just amazing the way they throw around “racist”. As Don said in #2 and Finrod said in #4, it’s situational awareness. Doesn’t matter if it’s whites in a particular situation, blacks, hispanics or muslims. If a young man from Yemen or (insert country of choice) is travelling to the US, without luggage, on an international flight, and having paid cash for his ticket, he damn sure ought to be profiled, or just outright banned from the flight.
I see this as a fairly simple problem with a simple solution:
1. Fuck muslims
2. Fuck muslims
The correct response is to profile the people who ARE the problem. THEY ARE MUSLIMS. Followers of the religion of peace whatta load of crap. Profile the hell out of them and if the ones who haven’t yet gone extremist get tired of being treated like potential criminals and looked like they are a turd in a punchbowl, maybe they will unfuck their fellow followers or at least start putting pressure on them for their uncivilized and hateful behavior.
I owe them and their religion absolutely nothing. Tolerance is something earned with me particularly when they go around trying to kill Christians, especially American ones. And they don’t rate it until they quit acting like assholes.
Hey Jason; you are mistaken in that it’s not racist, since being muslim is not a race, so that’s one check mark for you being a drooling moonbat dumbass. Next, I want you to remember that not all muslims are terrorists, however the vast majority of terrorists are muslim, since the early 80’s. and if I recall, they’ve pretty much been at the center of a whole lot of death and destruction in the past 20 years.
Why is it that you leftist doorknobs jump up and scream “racist” so frequently? Do you even know what the word means? I’m asking, because with your stupid reply, it leads me to believe you couldn’t find your ass with both hands and a road map. Is it something that your leftist pamphlets tell you to say whenever you are challenged about your leftist claptrap, or when people speak the truth and you don’t like what they are saying? Using that word as the general response in order to stifle an argument is very old; probably older than you are, however, because it’s been over used and mis-applied by intellectual midgets, such as you, it has become rather weak and loses a lot of its true meaning. Maybe it would be applicable had we said we were going to go after someone based solely on their race, not their actions, but that’s not what we are talking about; is it?
Go back to class and brush up on some newer words to throw around, maybe if you throw enough of them around, you might actually use one that applies, of course by mistake. Plus, I suggest that you look up the definition of the word “racist” and notice that it talks about race, not religion.
As far as the profiling Whites v. profiling, if our intelligence organizations had indications of a white person (say, a Timothy McVeigh type) they should check that out and follow up on it as well. Profiling for terrorists is probably what you want to think of here.
If a Muslim group makes threats, should you not profile for Muslims within that group? I don’t think you’re saying here ALL Muslims, or probably shouldn’t, but when there is a substantial, and organized network of Muslim terrorists with plans that actively continue to target the United States, our allies, and our citizens at home and abroad, by the very nature of that threat, you have to look for terrorists within that subgroup.
If you were getting terrorist threat from the Dutch, wouldn’t you target Dutch people? In Northern Ireland, when Catholic IRA terrorists were targeting British and Protestant targets, shouldn’t the British have looked for those threats within the Catholic population of Northern Ireland? Were all Catholics in Northern Ireland IRA terrorists? Of course not, but the subgroup of Irish terrorists (and yes there were Protestant terrorists targeting Catholics as well…and you’d look for them within their subgroup)…the subgroup of IRA terrorists was within the Catholic community, thus that’s where you looked for those terrorists.
It’s not a racial or religious bias, it’s searching for something within the subgroup it exists within. Not because you dislike the overall subgroup, but because THAT’S WHERE THE TERRORISTS ARE.
I could probably lay out some mumbo jumbo anout the fundamentals of logic, and/or some Venn Diagrams that illustrate this better, but I’m assuming anyone with a High School education had some grounding in this that they might want to go back to and research before throwing around the “racist” card and making arguments based solely on emotion and opinion.
I once got called a racist by one of the pallid MoveOn octogenarians when I called his group of equally spectral nursery home habitues “you people” at a protest last year. Apparently “racist” is at the head of the line in their vocabulary.
The is zero chance that I could contact the two Club Gitmo graduates (for painting pointers) and the relocated Iman from Falls Church (to discuss non-alcoholic wine selections) without being on the DHS radar.
This is more of the “lets not jump to conclusions” crap they tried to shovel to us post Fort Hood.
Doctor trained on my dime, College Graduate living in a 4 million pound flat. We are NOT creating terrorists, their religion is.
“. . . .racial and religious profiling are in fact counterproductive and can lead to a climate of insecurity and fear,”
Annnndddd. . . . NOT profiling is leading to peace and security?
CAIR — what a bunch of f**kwads. Top of the target list. Right behind Kongress Kritters and shysters.
I apologize. In my haste I wrote racist where I should have written bigot.
Nice how you douche nozzles attack a word choice instead of your actions.
What’s next,using what’s happening in the west bank to claim jews are all violent??
UpNorth Says:
December 29th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Jonn, now you’ve done it. Another dem with his panties all twisted over “profiling”.
UpNorth, just before reading your comment I saw the photos of the Fruit of the Boom underwear, and it suddenly hit me-that terrorist is the very definition of a guy with his panties in a bunch.
Just another unintended consequence, Dave. As for Jason trying to bail on his “racist” comment, it might be believable, except for his use of “white kids carry guns and knives too, or do you just choose to ignore your own kind as being an issue?”. Let’s see, “white kids” and “ignore your own kind” in the same sentence, following HIS screed that we’re all racists.
Sorry Jason, you failed the credibility test. You go on that we “loved that this happened”, but provide nothing to back up your ignorant post.
Chosing any one group, based on race, religion, color, creed, sexual orientation all shows a lack of effort in finding what else is causing a group to act as they do. Maybe its because our contractors can go and shoot at anyone they feel like overseas that has these people angered. Maybe its that innocent people have been locked up in cuba for years that cause their family to retaliate.
The prominent religion that has been involved in attacks has been Muslim, but what other religion have we been attacking for the last 8 years? Have you all never heard of “an eye for an eye?”
If we were shooting, raping and killing thousands of hispanics, blacks, greek orthodox or jews, I bet they would become a concentrated group of attackers.
Would anyone really expect anything less from CAIR, an organization that is little more than an arm of the Wahhabi lobby that actively seeks to subvert every Western democracy.
As for the whole racist/bigot claim, CAIR and many of the other Islamic organizations in the US receive most of their funding and direction from Saudi Arabia which is probably the most bigoted country on the planet, not to mention utterly sexist. When is the Left going to speak up on that one?
Jason-
you are suffering from a lapse in logic. Your reasoning is that the people who seek to attack us (not described by any race, religion, color or any other indicator) are just following the old eye for an eye strategy. I.E. we fucked with them, so they will now fuck with us. Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line and so forth.
The problem with your logic is that if those who attack us are seeking revenge for something that we did or that they think we did, the only answer for the US is to kill them, their families, their neighbors and everyone who knows them. That is the only way to end a blood feud.
Are you in favor of that?
We have to negotiate. Killing will never solve anything.
Gotta weigh in, before I redeploy back to the land of the big PX.
Profile – hell yes. Too easy an answer, makes too much sense. And you can bet your ass we already are.
Jason: Negotiate. OK, good idea. Who do we negotiate with? What about? What are we willing to give up? What are YOU willing to give up?
You need to remember one thing when talking about muslim extremists: if they can’t convert us, they are willing to kill every one of us. You, me, the old lady across the street, the kids in the playground. Our methods do not compare to theirs; don’t even go there.
Bigoted? Maybe. But we all are.
You might want to get out of the coffee shop and get out into the world, see for yourself rather than echo the liberal apologists.
And tonights WINNER of The NEVIL CHAMBERLAND AWARD FOR APPEASEMENT is Jason. Sorry for typos and spelling its late.
Jason is absolutely right. It’s quite clear that we need to negotiate, and the link below will demonstrate how our fearless POTUS is leading the way.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_to_enter_diplomatic_talks
After watching this, you will all be convinced of the benefits of negotiation and “smart” diplomacy.
“We have to negotiate. Killing will never solve anything.”
No, we need to leave the barbarians to their own devices. Our meddling in their internal affairs is what motivates them.
Got some of this off of Lew Rockwell, who can be quite the prick, BTW, and Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe had this to say about how we should deal with the Jihadists & I agree with him 100%
“Some may ask, “Well, if it really is the case that Middle-Eastern, Islamic-based terrorism has been a reaction to the US government’s last 20 years of invasions and occupations of the Middle-east, then how can we protect our country from terrorism?” Here are just a few suggestions:
• Remove US governmental forces from Middle-eastern countries and stop invading and occupying their territories.
• End our dependence on Middle-eastern oil. Encourage the American states to ignore all federal laws and regulations and build nuclear power plants and drill for oil and gas.
• Encourage states to ignore all federal laws and regulations pertaining to armaments and arsenals and whatever weaponry is necessary for them to protect themselves against any foreign attacks or invasions.”
As Prof. Hoppe has stated,
“In order to combat terrorism it is necessary to engage in a non-interventionist foreign policy, to have a heavily armed civilian population – more guns, less crime – and to treat terrorism for what it is: not as a conventional attack by the armed forces of another state but as essentially private conspiracies and crimes which must be combated accordingly by police action, hired mercenaries, privateers, assassination commandos, and headhunters.”
“Chosing any one group, based on race, religion, color, creed, sexual orientation all shows a lack of effort in finding what else is causing a group to act as they do.”
Pssst! Jason, we screw them over for the resources, strategic minerals and shipping lanes, not simply to be meanies to them and hurt the feewings of their inner child. Guess what else? The Chinese are doing the SAME thing to secure resources, strategic minerals and shipping lanes in the Middle East & Africa.
Jason A. said: “Chosing any one group, based on race, religion, color, creed, sexual orientation all shows a lack of effort in finding what else is causing a group to act as they do. Maybe its because our contractors can go and shoot at anyone they feel like overseas that has these people angered. Maybe its that innocent people have been locked up in cuba for years that cause their family to retaliate. The prominent religion that has been involved in attacks has been Muslim, but what other religion have we been attacking for the last 8 years? Have you all never heard of “an eye for an eye?” If we were shooting, raping and killing thousands of hispanics, blacks, greek orthodox or jews, I bet they would become a concentrated group of attackers.” J-tard, is there another country on the face of this planet that has LEAPT to the defense of muslims as the USA has? Time and again, America sent her young men to fight and die on foreign soil at the defense of muslims. Look at our track record. Our nation also sends BILLIONS in foreign aid to muslim countries- countries filled with people who despise America and what she represents, countries led by regimes that not only tolerate terrorist organizations in their countries but actively support them! That islam’s most basic desire is to convert ALL to islam, either by voluntary conversion or forced conversion under penalty of death- this means nothing? Do you not believe their imams when they declare that sharia law should govern America and the Constitution be discarded? That American women are whores? That Jews are to be exterminated? That Christians be killed? That their prophet required total world submission to islam? For all you bleeding hearts, please keep in mind that islamic teaching forbids women to own anything, drive a car, leave the house without a male family member to escort her, that a man can marry a child and sexually consummate the marriage by her 9th birthday, that clitorectomies are the preferred method to ensure that the woman doesn’t enjoy… Read more »
I also agree with JuniorAG’s post #25. Well said.
Roger that.
Jason A:
You are a total dumbphuck! Which of my fellow contractors was shooting people overseas before, and causing the catastrophe that was 9/11/01? Which terrorists were we allowing to get all sun-tanned on their new prayer rugs in Gitmo that caused the Lockerbie bomber to act?
Just before I left that comment and scrolled down here to offer mine, I saw something about negotiating with them. I suggest that you read this:
http://hurricaneharry.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-to-negotiate-with-terrorists.html
Surely, it will educate you beyond your present level of knowledge on negotiating with dipshits. Do you also think that our troops should live the Geneva Convention rules while fighting these Muslim insurgents?
Now back to finish reading the comments.
“Never Forget the Ft. Hood Texas 14 11/5/09!”
I’m going to have to agree with much of JuniorAG as well. After all, our current policy regarding the Middle East involves us protecting the nation whom does the most to actively subvert and Islamicize the world(Saudi Arabia).
Redman and Debbie: While I would agree with Jr AG’s post if the premise were sound, I cannot because the premise isn’t sound. It is an excuse, not a reasonable response. I’m not talking about Jr AG’s response, but rather the premise that the reason terrorists attack us is because of our “meddling” in the middle East. If that were the case, then why, after the Israelis pulled back in Gaza, did the terrorists immediately move in and start launching rockets into Israel? The palestinians go what they wanted in the deal, but as usual, that was a snow job.
These islamic nutjobs would be involved in attacks no matter if we pulled outof the middle East, or not. It’s not like terrorism against us started because we were in the middle East, since we have been there for longer than the attacks against us have been taking place.
Isolationism is a great concept, however, like communism, it doesn’t work so well in practice. We’ve tried it before with disasterous results.
Just food for thought.
Old Trooper,
JuniorAG’s got a point. I’m not saying that we should adopt isolationism, but our current policy in the Middle East does involve us allying with and protecting the most imperialist, Islamofascist state in the region, one which poses a far greater threat to the world than any other state in that region.
At the same end, the rest of our Arab allies aren’t exactly Western Democrats either. In fact, they are all tyrants that preside over police states.
Fred,
That covers a wide swath of nations. I’m not an advocate of Saudi Arabia. I’m just not a fan of the isolationist point of view, either. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle in the middle East and that means that we need to be engaged. How we do that is what is open for debate and discussion. Do we pull everyone out and leave them to their devices? That would sure make us feel good for about a minute, but it wouldn’t last long. We tried that with the Iraqis in ’91 and it cost us dearly in both trust and intelligence in the South.
I don’t advocate that we be the world’s police force, either, so what I’m basically getting at is having a consistent and balanced policy so that there is no mistake as to where we are coming from. We haven’t had that in a long time.
Negotiate with terrorists? OUR actions inspire terrorism? Really? How can one negotiate with a culture that encourages young men, and a few women, to strap on a bomb, or hop into a car or pickup filled with explosives, and set it off?
As to whether some allies are “western democrats” or not, probably not really relevant. Democracy, up until last November at least, depends on an informed electorate, and the Jihadi’s can’t even educate the men, much less the women.
I agree with OldTrooper, once the Paks and Indians set off nukes, it kinda makes it imperative to be engaged there. The alternative is nukes in containers being off-loaded in ports on the East and West coasts, and the Gulf coast.
Old Trooper,
I’ll agree with the balanced foreign policy. Not isolationist but not the world’s police force. Albeit, throwing the Saudis under the bus would not be comparable to throwing the Shiites under the bus in Iraq back in 91.
Up North,
“How can one negotiate with a culture that encourages young men, and a few women, to strap on a bomb, or hop into a car or pickup filled with explosives, and set it off?”
Thanks to our current relationship with Saudi Arabia, we might be seeing alot more of that culture right here in the United States pretty soon. After all, I think 80+ percent of mosques in the US are funded by Saudi Arabia.
There can be a lot of stumbling over words and what their definitions are supposed to be. “Isolationism” is arguably an unfortunate term because the word itself seems to convey a concept that may not be what is actually intended, either by those who advocate it, or by those who fling the word around as an accusation. What our Founding Fathers envisioned for our nation’s foreign policy – even though it may not have ever been 100% followed – is one of “steering clear of entangling alliances” with foreign governments. It’s been my observation that some folks use the terms “isolationism” and “non-interventionism” interchangeably, while others prefer one term over the other for different reasons. I don’t really have a strong preference on what word is used as both of them have their weaknesses; it is the concept that is important. I consider the concept of non-interventionism to be a necessary condition for a foreign policy of freedom, but more is needed also, What else is needed is the “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations” spoken of by Thomas Jefferson at his inaugural address – in other words, open trade, travel, diplomacy, all that. Unlike most of my former associates in the antwar movement, I think that we would probably have a problem with Islamic terrorism even without having been meddling in the Middle East due to the oil concern. At the same time, I do think that US intervention in the Middle East IS a major contributing factor to the exacerbation of terrorism without necessarily being the cause, and that a different approach should be adopted by our government. That, to me, emphatically does not mean negotiating with terrorists or appeasing them. I have never had any trust of any of them in the first place, so in that area, I agree with Fred. In fact, I actually agree in part with whatever everyone here is saying – Fred, OldTrooper, UpNorth. JuniorAG particularly speaks my language, but I also recognize the valid points made by others. I don’t want to write a long tome here, so I’ll… Read more »