So much to talk about here:

"London police have finally gotten the right idea and are using the right methods: an ultra-fast response and orders to "shoot to kill." "

And naturally, their first public execution without a trial just happens to be an innocent person. I guess that's to be put down in the column of "collateral damage," is it?

"The terrorists are laughing in New York while our police search little old ladies' bags. Muslims with white knitted skullcaps go uninspected, as they are not the fifth person "randomly selected." Racial "profiling" is long past due."

So any white American who is of the Muslim faith should be ignored, I suppose. What a terrific idea. I think the writer is not very used to being paranoid, or to thinking strategically.

Random searching in any high-traffic environment is only an effort to look busy. It won't help anything. But what if it did? Does the writer think that the only soldiers in this "world war" would be dark-skinned native men from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? The minute you start concentrating searches on one or two types of people, it will be readily apparent, and the enemy will see an opening to recruit a "safer" demographic.

"Thank God the Patriot Act will continue to protect fools and drunks who believe the Muslim culture wants to live in peace. Read the Quran. The final message is "kill the unbeliever, where ever you find him." "

So we are asked to simply ignore the vast number of Muslims who choose to see the Qur'an in terms of allegory, who see "Holy War" in terms of an internal struggle with their own sins? There's a pretty good-sized group of them, you know. I would guess it's a pretty big majority.

"How dumb are we going to continue to be? We have been at war with Islam for more than 1,400 years and it continues today. Immigration is war of another form."

Trying to pick a fight with an entire religion is always a bad idea. There's a billion Muslims in the world, and at least 95% of them mean us no harm. You want another crusade? Try reading what happened in all the earlier ones before charging off on your white stallion.

"Muslim communities are not interested in assimilation. They gather in one neighborhood, build their mosque, become citizens and fly their old flags. They claim a portion of Christian America -- for Islam."

There's no talking to one so consumed with xenophobia. Pity...

Political correctness will be the downfall of this country.

An innocent man is dead from this ultra-fast reaction. Why is it political correctness if one questions what took place?

I will put his comments about how théy are taking over our country alongside the KKK's arguement about how the blacks are taking over white america.

The vast majority of the terrorist enemy are of M.E. origin yet in America it's politically incorrect to profile these types(random searches based on appearance). Instead 80 year old grannies are getting felt up by TSA workers doing their "job".

If the enemy has a certain appearance then that appearance should be suspect and deserves additional survielance(sp?)until such time it's proven that the enemy no longer maintains such appearances.

We can't profile in America because someone's feelings might get hurt and the ACLU will file suit and the media will run with that story splashed all over the front page with interviews by dark haired people who are upset they were inconvenienced.

Yard Dog is right, political correctness will be the death of this country.

The man who was shot was carrying a backpack similar to the ones used by the bombers. He was told to stop and halt several times but he refused and insted run.
Political correctness will be the downfall of this country.

Hugh
Since timothy mcveigh was a white male american and most of the members of our militia groups are white and mostly male and as many of these groups also have no problem in blowing up government buildings with innocent people in them when do you suggest we start to line up the white males in our society and profile them. After all it is only a minor inconvience.

And yard dog you know you are right. He deserved to die for runninng away. Hell lets throw up a few work camps(that the nazi PC word for concentration camps in case you forgot) and throw any one looking arab, islamic in belief, in there and if they own a back pack just gas them on the spot. I mean if protecting basic rights is now PC's then lets not hold back here.

When did being concerned about basic rights become political correctness in this country?

Yard dog, you have a guy told to stop and he ran RIGHT AFTER this bombing attempt occurred. If the cops had done nothing and the guy was a terrorist, they would have been raked over the coals for that. It's unfortunate, but they did the best they could with the information at the time.

I find it ironic one of the terrorists in London ("bombers" for those of you who follow BBC lingo) was living on welfare. So the state paid him to sit around and plot attacks on the country. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

Agreed Yard Dog & Hugh, political correctness will be the death of this country. We will probably get hit again and it won't be by an 80 year old grandma from Des Moines.

Hey Hayes, haven't chatted with you in awhile, hope all is well.

The "McVeigh argument" always comes up when political correctness takes over common sense in profiling. Ok City was a rare, albeit tragic event. If law enforcement does become aware of people like McVeigh, they should be watched closely.

Please name any other other terrorist attacks (with exception of the IRA) in recent decades that were not carried out by Muslims.

Dan
Actually tried to stay away from this and spend more time on things important like my son.

I dont condemn the cops for the shooting at all. They had to make a hard decision at that moment and if it is the wrong one they are criticized,ie in reference to your point what if he had a ´bomb. I had this very discussion with my german students today actually.

BUt you cant blame the man for looking ME and for having a back pack and thus did he deserve to die for running away. Question is were there viable options other than shots into his head. Does this really help the british police in fighting terrorism? And though I dont condemn the act to accept as "well he deserved it" is for me also a little to far.

And to your reference about Mcviegh. I have seen to many interviews with leaders of different militia groups who profess to have no problem blowing up buildings,with innocent people inside, and see it as a viable option to reach their goals to say they are not a threat or to see it as PC for saying something.

I dont know how far back you want to go back with recent decades but you have the Red Brigade in germany, 11th November in Italy,they just finally put away the leader of this group, you have the Tokyo subway attack, and the attacks in South and Central America would take a book to list. There are many who would say what Israel is doing is terrorism(which gets to the arguement who determines who is a terrorist).

But what got me writing again was theme that being concerned about basic rights is now PC's.

If that is true then Bin Laden has kicked our butts in this war.

What is this reference to the 80 year old lady?

Hello Dan - Does the name Eric Rudolph ring a bell? How about Uni-Bomber? The Texas Tower shooter? How many more would you like?

Eric,

I agree with much of what you AND the writer are saying. The real truth, I believe, is somewhere in the middle. The only real problem I have with your conclusion is the part where you suggest picking another demographic to carry out the mission.

I believe that the "little old white lady" group is going to be a pretty tough sell. They still have to be willing to blow themselves up. But anyone can take a look at the lineup of all the terrorists that have done their thing over the last decade and come to the conclusion that there is a trend here.

Yes, continue to randomly pick people of all persuasions but for a policeman to HAVE to pick the 80 yr old grandma over the 25 yr middle-easterner with a 5 inch scar on his face is sheer lunacy.

Yellowdog,

Were any of those suicide bombers? Not saying that you have to die yourself to make an impact but those characters are very rare and we are not currently looking for one of them.

On the otherhand, there is an active campaign going on right now involving muslim suicide bombers that do follow a certain profile.

What gets me about the desire to profile against Muslims is that it's a religion -- not a race. There are many Muslims of African origin. There are also a fairly sizable group of Muslims who are European. So how you think you can look at a person's skin color and decide they should be suspect is beyond me.

One further thing. Take a look at the photos of the guys who executed the attacks on 9/11. I mean the security film photos. Was a single one of them wearing a beard, or a turban, a skullcap, or any of the acoutrements you think police should be concentrating on? No, they were trained to blend in, wear "normal" clothes and appear as non-threatening as possible until the time to strike. As I said earlier, if you start racial profiling, you make attacking the public an awful lot easier.

Hayes, the reference to the 80 year old lady is the new random searches on the subways, just like they do at the airports. Searching people who in no way are a threat just to be politically correct.

Agreed there are some other groups out there in Italy or Japan, but none of these groups has declared jihad against the west as Muslim groups have.

I agree with Eric that we don't take on an entire religion and label it as at war with us. I am Catholic and have nothing to do with the actions of the IRA in past years.

After the London attacks, some peaceful Muslims are FINALLY coming out and denouncing the radical jihadists. We need more of this, as their religion has been hijacked by the radicals, which leads to distrust (and profiling) of Middle Easterners. Yes I know Muslims are black, white, Asian, etc., but the ME ones are the ones creating terrorism.

Billy,
Who are we at "war" against? All Muslims? There are 5.8 million in the US. 42% of that number are African American, only 12% are Arab. Muslim countries? The US has important strategic, diplomatic and trade relatioships with Muslim countries all over the world. For example our NATO ally Turkey, oil providers Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, trade partners Morocco and Tunisia. What "smart people" understand is that extremist ideology in any form is what we need to fight against, and your view of a thousand plus year war against Islam is fits that category.

Keep naming them Yellowdog, but again none of them has declared a global jihad against infidels. I already said these people exist and need to be dealt with. Tim McVeigh will never commit a terrorist act again. Neither will Rudolph or the unibomber.

Racial Profiling: Is it right? Is it wrong? Is it necessary? What happens if it isn't used?

Racial profiling has been used throughout our country's history. In WWII, people of Asian decent were profiled. The same was true in the Korean war and Vietnam. To protect our country, racial profiling is necessary to an extent.

What I mean is, it is wrong to use racial profiling in instances where there is no war. In that, Florida used to racially profile blacks because it was alledged that most drug pushers were black. This has nothing to do with national security.

Since most Islamic extremists are of M.E. decent, it only makes sense to target them for the safety of our country. Right or wrong, I feel we need to use it.

And quite honestly, if terrorists were normally short, fat, gay white guys that drove pick-up trucks and drank beer...then I would expect to be targeted for searches as well. In fact, as an American citizen, I would be ticked off if I wasn't searched!

Either the terrorists are making advances beyond their wildest dreams by getting paranoid Americans to change this country for them or some in this country are using the fear of terrorism as justification for coming out of the closet with their ignorance and prejudices -- either way, very sad. "Land of the free and home of the brave" is becoming a hollow slogan thanks to the Billy Hammocks of this nation.

Correct again, Eric. They do blend in somewhat but they don't look anything like a 60-yr old, pale white man with a USMC tattoo on his forearm. Yes, Muslims come in all colors and like you said before, 95% (probably closer to 98%) of them are peaceful, loving people.

All the "other side" is saying is that it is ridiculous for a security guy to have to go by some numerical system or such instead of using his instincts and a case history.

Roch, the terrorists are making advances beyond their wildest dreams as they know we are a society obsessed with political correctness. While we are searching 80 year old grannies, they can plot future attacks.

Dan, what advances do you see the terrorists making in this country?

Roch, I see them making several advances, the example I used being one, mainly because some of us in this country are our own worst enemy in the war on terrorism.

I see the ACLU helping terrorist's causes by filing lawsuits against profiling. I see the left obsessing about Gitmo, including a U.S. Senator comparing it to Nazi concentration camps, gulags, Pol Pot's killing fields. I see Newsweek publishing information that is not true and inflaming hatred in the Muslim world. I see Jane Fonda getting ready to start a bus tour that will harm our military. I see the daily Bush bashing from the left. I see the blame America first crowd saying we are the problem and deserve terrorism. I see Teddy Kennedy saying the Iraqi war was concocted in TX for the gain of Halliburton.

Just a few examples of advances they are making. I'm sure all of this is very encouraging to terrorists worldwide.

We have not had a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, mainly because of steps that have been taken by the Bush admin. Now the left is whining about these steps, such as the Patriot Act. I'm sure if we do have another one under Bushs watch, the libs will be crying that we didn't do enough.

Dan, in case you haven't heard, there is no longer a war on terror, it's now a "A global struggle against violent extremism."

The corallary to your "examples" are that the terrorists are winning by getting Aericans to argue for things that are truley un-American: racial profiling, "shoot-to-kill" policing, more survelliance, diminishing of Fourth Amendment rights, war under false pretenses and national security secrets subverted to political objectives.

"We have not had a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, mainly because of steps that have been taken by the Bush admin."

Dan, I'd like to sell you a tiger rock. Ever since I've had this rock, I haven't seen one single tiger! This amazing technology can be yours, too, for the amazingly low price of....

Roch, call it what you want, it is still the same thing. Your new term sounds more politically correct, just like the BBC calls them "bombers", just like someone who blows up a market place in Iraq and kills 50 fellow Muslims is called an "insurgent".

As for your arguments, taking a closer look at young Middle Eastern males with backpacks going into a subway is not racial profiling, it's common sense. I take it the shoot to kill policing, you are referring to the Brazilian guy shot in London. Look back at my post from 8:10 this morning. Sadly, more surveillance is needed in the world we live in.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What's your definition of "reasonable"?

I'm not even going to go there with the war under false pretenses. That has been hacked to death in many, many past blogs.

Nice try busting Rove, let's see where the investigation goes. Aren't you a supported of innocent until proven guilty?

Mr. Watkins, go to a zoo with your rock.

"Your new term sounds more politically correct,"

Dan, you're right- political correctness from our President will be the downfall of our great country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4719169.stm

Hayes,how many government buildings have been blown up by white males in the US since 1995? I think the answer is one, two if you include Rudloph.

Compare that to the many times US interests been attacked around the workd in the past 10 years and it's always Middle Eastern radicals who claim responsibilty.

Profiling is necessary and people will die because some folks would rather live in a world where we don't do that.

Dan
First let me apologize for not returning the your hello the last time. So hello back.

Alot of your points from your last few blogs I would agree with. The senators comparison of Gitmo to concentration camps was wrong: I have my issues with things that HAPPENED at gitmo but to make the comparison was way overboard in many ways. I used HAPPENED it the past with intention because I believe what happened is in the past and doesnt take place today. The newsweek was a major screw up for them and you are right they inflamed something that didnt need help being inflamed.

The american first comment: I dont know if I fit but you will let me know. I believe that some of our policies over the last 50 years has created an anger and distrust of us in parts of the world. I have never argued and would never argue that means we got what we deserved,ie 911, simply put the people who died that day were murdered and noone deserved to die that day. But if we want to take a serious long term approach to this feelings towards us then we need to be honest about how ALL our policies have effected the lives of people around the world.

Final: Maybe something different with the point about how all this helps the terrorists. I believe, a little, that bin laden and the others watch what is going on here with at best a sense of amusement. Its like watching the fish eat each other instead of worrying about the shark. But I dont think he allows any of what goes on here to influence what he has planned. I feel he has fixed goals and a long term time schedule and rather we stand arm and arm together praising our brotherhood or start to plot the destruction of each other effects his plans not in the least. So we may be amusing him but not influencing what he is planning to do. Just a new thought I had recently.

Dan, you said:

"Please name any other other terrorist attacks (with exception of the IRA) in recent decades that were not carried out by Muslims."

So, is this what you're trying to say:

"Please name any terrrorist attacks that were not carried out by Muslims, except for those attacks that were not carried out by Muslims. They don't count, so don't name them. See? All terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslims!"

Anthony, why are you putting words in Dan's mouth? I think his meaning is clear and precise.

I wonder how long it would take,say..Angola,or Iran to round up all people of european decent if a hand full of christian fanatics hijacked a plane and flew it into their capital building and issued a press statment that this is a christian war on their countries? Not long,I'd wager. And I wonder how long these people of european decent would be able to keep their heads attached to their shoulders? Not long,I'd wager.
Mrwatkins,the fanatics are being kept at bay due in large part to Bush's policies. When we are hit again you libs will point the finger of blame at Bush(if he is still in office) and whine that he did not do enough.

Dan, don't forget, Clinton made Haliburton a king's fortune in Bosnia.

Anthony: Please read my 9:01 post, sorry you didn't understand.

Mr. Watkins: I don't agree with Bush's renaming, it's a war on terrorism plain & simple. See I don't agree with Bush on everything?

Now go take your rock to the zoo.

"Mrwatkins, the fanatics are being kept at bay due in large part to Bush's policies."

You're absolutely right. Terrorism isn't happening anymore. We've turned that corner. The "fanatics" haven't done anything at all lately. Gotcha.

Seems that the only fanatics NOT being held at bay are those of the Christian variety, but that's another story altogether.

M,terrorism isn't happening anymore? Hmmmm,tell that to the londoners.
(Gotcha) ????what's that all about?

yard dog
You right in some ways about blaming Bush if we are hit again. The man is trying to convince the people that with our war in Iraq the terrorists would rather fight us there than hit us here. The attacks in london at least shows the terrorist can still hit any where when they want. The man has spent nearly 2 years over 200 billion dollars and has bogged down 135,000 troops in his war against terrorism in Iraq but I dont see terrorism around the world decreasing. Most of the money goes towards the war in Iraq and some for afghanistan but little has been done here to beef up security around the country. Even the experts who defend Bush have said things are being poorly done here in the US.

Plus everything is shortterm and reactive mostly still. I have yet to here any long term plans other than attacking them and that solution will only keep us in a spiraling motion.

Now would it be fair to put all the blame on Bush if we are hit again? NO!! He would have only a PARTIAL blame. If they want to hit us they will find away regardless of who is in office. But I do think Bush has fought this war wrong with money and energy not going in the right direction. My beef with Bush is not the man himself but his policy.

yard dog, I think m was being saracastic.

ok sorry m

Dan,

"Please read my 9:01 post, sorry you didn't understand."

I did read it. My point was that in the post I originally responded to, you seem to be implying that Muslims are the only ones who use terror as a tactic, but you inexplicably eliminate groups like the IRA from consideration. The only way that Muslims are the only ones are if you ignore the others.

Also, in your 9:01 post you point out that none of those white Christians will ever terrorize again, but I think it's interesting that all of them were taken out of action by our criminal justice system rather that through military options. There is definitely a place for military action in all this, but I think the current administration and its supporters place too much emphasis on that route.

Hayes, every time Bush speaks of anything to combat terrorism here at home,he is opposed at every turn by the left. (Patriot act) They scream about "taking their freedoms" as if he is on the verge of requiring a passport to cross from state to state. What would they do if he came up with a real solution like kicking out all the muslim fanatics that are in the country? How loud would they whine if he closed the borders and placed the national guard at every point with orders to shoot anyone trying to cross illegally? Get my drift?

Either read and debate sensibily or keep quiet. Stope the "schoolyard" mentaility bickering. Debate issues, not personalities. Be civil.

Its time to realize that Christian fascism is just as dangerous as Mustlim fascism or any other form of fascism. When I say facsism, I mean an idealogy of hate, that brands large groups of people as enemies without individualized determination or any sort of rational reason other than a vague suspicion that some members of the group may be more prone to do harm. The real issue is this - through repressions of Nazi Germany, Ruwanda, and Sudan, Yougoslavia, Cambodia and Burma, as well as through repressions at home during Civil Rights movements, during Chinise riots, and during Japanise internment camps - the ugly face of facism is well alive today. "Billy" is that face, as well as many others who, I am sure, would love to expell, detain or perhaps simply exterminate people who are different from them. Millions of death through hunders of years did nothing to teach these "people" that hatred and intolerance breeds violence and misery and nothing else.

Darryl, does that "schoolyard mentality" include calling Bush a "babbler" and the repetive use of the term "turd blossom"? Just asking.

Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia and author of several books on Islam and the Middle East had this to say in a recent article in an overseas newspaper. The following is what he had to say concerning todays world and the goal of the Islamic extremist. The "appeasers" should pay very close attention to the last paragraph.

A biography of Abdullah Azzam, one of the most influential Islamist thinkers of recent times and an influence on Osama bin Laden, declares that his life "revolved around a single goal, namely the establishment of Allah's rule on earth" and restoring the caliphate.

Bin Laden spoke of ensuring that "the pious caliphate will start from Afghanistan". His chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, also dreamed of re-establishing the caliphate, for then, he wrote, "history would make a new turn, God willing, in the opposite direction against the empire of the US and the world's Jewish government". Another al-Qa'ida leader, Fazlur Rehman Khalil, publishes a magazine that declares: "Due to the blessings of jihad, America's countdown has begun. It will declare defeat soon", to be followed by the creation of a caliphate.

Or, as Mohammed Bouyeri wrote in the note he attached to the corpse of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film-maker he assassinated last November, Islam will be victorious through the blood of martyrs who spread its light in every dark corner of this earth.

Interestingly, Bouyeri was frustrated by the mistaken motives attributed to him, insisting at his trial: "I did what I did purely out of my beliefs. I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan and felt insulted."

Although terrorists state their jihadi motives loudly and clearly, Westerners and Muslims alike too often avert their eyes. Islamic organisations, Canadian author Irshad Manji observes, pretend that "Islam is an innocent bystander in today's terrorism".

What the terrorists want is abundantly clear. It requires monumental denial not to acknowledge it but we Westerners have risen to the challenge.

Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia and author of several books on Islam and the Middle East.

I apologize for the repeat of Mr. Pipes credentials . Given that fact then the appeasers should pay attention to the next to the last paragraph.

An observation:

Objections to profiling have nothing to do with being "politically correct." Instead, the objections are inevitable when one considers the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments to the Constitution), and the fundamental reason this country revolted and was formed to begin with, something that Bush speaks of with a great, hollow, insincere sound.

Speaking personally, if my infinitesimal chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are made slightly more infinitesimal by "profiling" at the cost of American ideals, it's not worth it. I would rather that America stay America, even if it means that there is almost as much chance that I will be killed by a terrorist as by a lightning strike.*

Dan, Hugh, Yard Dog, I'm beginning to feel like you guys are becoming friends, even though we may disagree to the extreme. I value your comments even though I may (okay, almost surely will ) feel differently.

One thing I would like to point out, however, and it is 70% serious and 30% joke. I do not accept the label "liberal" as applied to me (not that any of you have done so directly). In fact, I consider myself to be a "reluctant libertarian" as I am an anarchist by disposition, but I realize that no government at all is impractical, so if there *must* be a government, it should do something useful, like provide for defense, law enforcement, health care, food and housing for those who need it, etc.

Greensboro, where I have lived for 35 of the last 40 years, is becoming a more and more interesting place, thanks in part to the comments online made possible by the News and Record.

Best wishes and happiness to all,
Tony Ledford

Oops! Forgot my footnote above:

*http://www.rense.com/general54/eeter.htm

Tony

I guess, too, that I should explain what "70% serious, 30% joke" means.

It means that it is 100% accurate, but presented in (hopefully) an amusing way so as to create a certain ambiguity and uncertainty vis-a-vis accuracy.

Have a good evening,
Tony Ledford

Here's a test...

You are an airport screener. Your boss has told you to pull every fifth person aside for further inspection. The fifth person in line is a white, 20-ish blond lady and the sixth person is...

now turn to www.foxnews.com

On the front page you will see Haroon Rashid Aswat, one of the suspects in the latest London terrorist strikes.

Seriously, are you going to let the blond go so that you can get the sixth person or are you going to do only what the protocol says you are to do and let him go by?

Tony,ask yourself a question and answer honestly. If you were on a plane at 10,000 feet and the pilot came on and announced there has been a bomb threat. You look around the plane and see a variety of people from different countries, Japan,Africa,europe,and persons of middle eastern decent. Who are you going to suspect? I know who I would suspect.Right or wrong.
Not gonna call you a liberal because you have done no name calling here.

Turning to question of racial profiling: if you put aside the issue of whether or not it is morally wrong, constitutionally permitted or un-American - consider this - racial profiling is simply BAD for security. As probably the only person on this blog to have actually worked at TSA (Transportation Security Administration), I can tell you as a FACT that racial profiling leads to people overlooking the suspects rather than apprehending them. Here is an example - lets assume that the most likely terrorist is an Muslim -how does a typical Muslim look like? There are one billion Muslims from all over the world - Muslims from Indonesia look nothing like Muslims from Pakistan, who, in turn don't resemble anything like Muslims from Sudan, South Africa or, lets say - Mongolia. The reality is that unless you decided to profile anybody who does not have blue eye, pale skin and blonde hair - you may be missing a Muslim. As such, the class of "suspects" is potentially so large that profiling would simply mean excluding from inspection a solid minority of passengers - yes, minority - because many Latinos are dark skinned and would probably look threatening enough to fall under the "Muslim" umbrella. As you know, blacks can easily be Muslim or Christian so they are not excludable either. Final point - if you argue that we should exclude women, just look at Chechnya (by the way - have you seen a Chechen Muslim - he or she looks very much like your typical American red-neck that populate the streets of Greensboro in such abundance) - suicide women bombers killed and continue to kill in Chechnya, so you cannot discount women. Same goes for children - just look at Palestine. Which also reminds me - many Jews look very much like Arab, so they will be "Muslim" suspects too. My point is, simply, that if you racially profile, you end up looking at either too small a slice of a population - your narrow idea how a Muslim looks like, and you will miss the real terrorists. The best indicators are NOT RACE but BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS. That has been proven over and over again, and it is simply sad to see so much energy being spent on useless discussions, where any security experts will tell you that racial profiling is bad for security PERIOD.

Seriously people, I know that some of you don't believe in Evolution either (yes we all came here in 8 days), but do some research before engaging in useless blabber.

Verlok,

I made a post at 4:49. As a former screener, you are the perfect one to take that test. Look at the picture of Haroon. Would you or would you not subject him to further screening.

Nobody is arguing with you that Muslims do not come in many shapes, styles and colors. The people as a whole would no more harm a flea much less commit a terrorist act. But the FACT of the matter is that the group of people that have committed the most terrorist act in the last several years look pretty damned similar.

Go look at this guys picture and tell me what you would do if you were back at your old job.

Tony,

I appreciate your dedication to America and the Constitution. But do you not think that as an American that you have some responsibility to keep it from harm? Even if it means profiling someone who looks like Haroon?

Would you let a family member get on a bus with this guy knowing that he was never screened? If you would do so, do you feel like that makes you a better American?

Just curious.

As a matter of fact, Mike - I wasn't a screener, I worked in TSA's headquaters in Arlington, Virginia. My exact job parameters are classified, but I can assure you that I dealt with screener and security concerns on a daily basis.

The mistake that you are making is common - you are assuming that becaue a group of people in London (which is presumably one cell or 2 related cells) came from one nationality or one ethnicity, it means that that's how a typical terrorist would look like. You should be aware, however, that Al Quida is a GLOBAL organization, spanning HUNDERDS of ethnicities and nationalities. If you tell your screeners to look for a particular nationality - i.e. pakistani Muslim, he or she would immidiatly pay less attention to other ethnicities or natioalities - say Chechen, or Indonisian. Remembers there are hunderds of cells from hunderds of countries, concentrating on one would simply hamper TSA's ability to detect the real danger. I suggest you do some research and look at the faces of Al quida terrorists in the past 10 years, but don't forget to include terrorist acts in Bali, Kenya, Tansania, Egypt, Israel, Russia, etc. Print the faces of these people and look at them closely - then you should understand why racial profiling is simply a bad way to detect terrorists.

But would you pull this guy aside or not?

Michael wrote:

"Tony,

I appreciate your dedication to America and the Constitution. But do you not think that as an American that you have some responsibility to keep it from harm?"

Yes. Which is why I'm anti-Bush. :-)

Now to the non-sequitur: How is the terrorist harming the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? The terrorist is killing Americans because s/he is enraged by American foreign policy, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution, or even America, but is an artifact of whatever American administration is in power. I hope I'm wrong, but you seem to be believing this obvious smokescreen from Bush that "they hate our freedom" (truly simple-minded, Bush insults the intelligence of all Americans when he spouts crap like that) when what they hate is our foreign policy.

"Even if it means profiling someone who looks like Haroon?"

It is a fallacy to think that this is what "it means."

"Would you let a family member get on a bus with this guy knowing that he was never screened?"

Yes. The odds are several million to one that he is not a terrorist. You might as well ask if I would let a family member drive a car; s/he would be much more at risk than s/he would be getting on this bus.

"If you would do so, do you feel like that makes you a better American?"

Better than whom/what? I'm an American, no better than any other American.

"Just curious."

I hope I have helped with these responses.

Michael, I'll add you to my list of new friends, along with Dan, Yard Dog and Hugh; I hope you'll keep visiting here and letting us know what you think.

Regard,
Tony

Regard,==Regards,

Sorry. I'll start writing these offline and copying /pasting.

Tony

Anthony, there are isolated acts of terrorism perpetrated by non-Muslim groups, no one is denying that. Here is my point again, further supported mrproduce's 3:44 post, the fanatical Muslim groups have declared jihad on the West and are responsible for the majority of terrorist attacks. If you wish to deny that fact, then we don't need to continue the conversation.

I also put in a previous post that I am not in favor of launching a war against Islam, as the original writer seems to advocate. And I wish that peaceful Muslims would take a strong stand against terrorism, as some in Britain are finally doing.

Tim McVeigh, Rudolph & others were naturally dealt with by law enforcement, as again they are just a few wacko individuals. Terrorists are greater in number and need to be dealt with with military force, law enforcement, and other means. I hope you can understand my point now.

By the way, I'm watching the national news and see the IRA is giving up their arms.

Verlok,typical american redneck? Elite alert!

Tony, my new friend, that is a crock. Which ever administration is in power is to blame for terrorism? Huh? What exactly are you saying? It happens no matter who is in power.

Where in the Quran does it say to kill westerners when their armies are in your territory? No where. It commands you to kill infidels, period. Even Mohammed Atta left behind a note saying that what he did on 9-11 was to destroy democracy.

Should we adopt a foreign policy that says that we will not defend our allies? According to the Quran, even if we removed every soldier from every foreign nation, the Muslims MUST then kill all the Jews. Is that sound policy?

As for your million-to-one odds with Haroon...your odds would have increased one million percent with him.

And why is it a fallacy to ask if haroon should be profiled? That is precisely what this debate is about. No one is saying ONLY search people who look like this. The question is whether or not he should be excluded from profiling because he doesn't fall in a certain sequence or the fear of being politically incorrect.

Haroon looks like the grandson of that 80 year old grandma Smith from Des Moines that keeps getting pulled for random searches!!

Watching out for the elite alert yard dog. Good thing I'm drinking a Corona tonight instead of a Bud Select.

"Muslim communities are not interested in assimilation. They gather in one neighborhood, build their mosque, become citizens and fly their old flags. They claim a portion of Christian America -- for Islam."

Jeeze - and I thought that was Chinatown .. or Harlem .. French to Quebec or Louisianna ..

I'm not arguing against the fact - just stating it's not unusual from a historical perspective.

Now having partially defended Mr. Hammack - he sounds a bit over the top: "We have been at war with Islam for more than 1,400 years and it continues today. Immigration is war of another form."

Now having partially offended Mr. Hammack - if the moderate Muslims don't put their cultural squeeze on their radical elements- ultimately Mr. Hammack will be vindicated, 'cause it will escalate to either Us or Them.

I apoligize for the copy and paste of this rather lengthy article but I feel it is relevant to the subject and the link no longer exist as it has already been archived. It would seem that people from other places outside the US and Great Britian have perhaps a better slant on this issue. I certainly hope that this will help each of us realize that we are indeed in a war against an enemy like we have never faced before. Perhaps it will help us to better understand the mindset and the idealism which drives such a body of individuals. I have taken the liberty to place comments within this article. You may agree or disagree. The point is to allow you to think in different terms.
-------------------------------------------------------
Test of ideological will
16 July 2005
THE discovery that several of the London suicide bombers were British-born has shocked the West. That these young men were not immersed in great poverty and had not apparently suffered terrible trauma does render ridiculous the root causes branch of the argument, that terrorism is caused by poverty or general Western wickedness.

But really there should be no surprise in this aspect of the London tragedy. Britain has previously provided Islamist suicide bombers who have carried out missions in Kashmir and Israel and attempted to blow up passenger jets. Nor is radical Islamism the only cause to have inspired suicide bombings. The Tamil Tigers made it a kind of speciality. Japan's kamikaze pilots adopted it as a conscious military tactic during World War II.

None of this is to minimise the threat of radical Islamist terrorism in the form of the suicide bomb. Prime Minister John Howard and NSW Premier Bob Carr warned this week that there was no reason to think it wouldn't happen in Australia.

They were not giving away any intelligence secrets but merely stating the obvious. There have been repeated terrorist attacks or attempts on Australia or Australians. There are likely to be more, and suicide bombing is a favoured and devastating tactic.

But the key ingredient is missing in most analysis. The key is ideology. Because most Western intellectuals and commentators are infused with a sort of postmodern moral relativism, they find it exceptionally difficult to come to grips with an absolute and evil ideology. (This is an extremely important point and a valid one which I found to be true many years ago. )

There is an extreme distaste, especially among academics, for even using terms such as good and evil. Extreme behaviour is much more comfortably dealt with if it is explained away by sociology, or even psychological dysfunction, than if it is a logical outcome of a coherent ideology. (this is often called PC and unfortunately the writer is also correct in this statement)

Dennis Richardson, the former director-general of ASIO, gave several speeches in which he gently made this point. He was addressing the vexed question of whether Australia is a target because of who we are or what we do. The truth is we are a target because we fit into the cosmology of the terrorists' ideology. Richardson's explicit point was that the terrorists closely follow a "positive ideology" that is completely independent of us.

This cosmology does not depend very much on our specific actions, such as having troops in Iraq or, as the cause Osama bin Laden originally claimed against us, having had troops in East Timor. Rather, it is simply that we are part of the West and the West is an enemy. (So, of course, are moderate Muslim governments.) None of this is to suggest that terrorists will not pick particular tactical targets in which a big calculation may well be to affect our behaviour.

But in all the screeds written on terrorism, and certainly all the vast denunciations of George W. Bush, Tony Blair and Howard in the Western media, there is actually very little on what al-Qa'ida and other radical Islamist groups actually believe. This is partly because their beliefs at one level are often so crazy. The US Navy did the bombing in Bali, the Jews were behind 9/11, AIDS was invented by the US military, and so on.

But history has taught us time without number that a positive, clear ideology will attract people, no matter how extreme it is. Just as it is incredible that a young British-born man, of whatever origin, could become a suicide bomber on the London Underground, so it is incredible to think that in the 1930s some of Britain's elite, best educated and most privileged students and academics could sign up to communism and the service of the Soviet Union.

Marxism-Leninism was always a completely insane ideology, with its historical determinism and dreary and dogmatic materialism. Its monstrous amorality - anything was justified in the name of the revolution - is at least as perverted as anything al-Qa'ida has come up with. And in Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot it produced three of the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century (their only rival is Hitler).

Yet at the very time Stalin was murdering countless innocents in the Soviet Union, some among the most privileged of Britain - Burgess, Philby, MacLean, Blunt et al - became Soviet spies and undertook actions that saw many of their countrymen killed. Although communism's twin, Nazism, never had anything like the sway in the Western mind that Marxism had, it too produced loyal and devoted Western servants.

What successful extremist ideologies often have in common is that, though based on a false premise, they proceed from that premise with often Euclidean logic. Thus extremist ideologies often share a certain scripturalism as, enlightened by the single key "insight" at the ideology's core, there are then spirited, and in a sense genuinely learned, debates over interpretation and application.

That's also why it's quite wrong to describe recent terrorism as mindless or irrational. Although the key proposition may be irrational - that the West has destroyed authentic Islam or some such - as with the communists, the tactics and grand strategy may be highly rational and effective. Looking for the psychological pathology of terrorists is necessary but less enlightening than looking at their strategy.

Extremist Islamist ideology can be debated effectively by moderate Muslims, but it also demands a certain ideological response from the state, namely an insistence on support for certain norms - democracy, rule of law and so on - for any institution that is allowed to function in a free society.

These are almost exactly the same debates we had about communism 50 years ago. Of course terrorism, and the prospect that we must eventually face of nuclear terrorism, makes it much more urgent today than it was then.

There need be no threat to genuine civil liberties in any of this, though there may be inconveniences, but the state does have to stand for something. There has to be an ideological content in the state.
(We often overlook this in our hurry to condemn something that we may not agree with.)

The war on terror is going to be with us for a long time. The underlying challenge is neither religious nor sociological but ideological. Ideologies answer basic human needs - the need to know right from wrong, the need to feel part of a functioning group, the need to feel that life has a purpose.

In the end, you can't beat something with nothing. Whether the West has the ideological strength to respond to a deadly challenge was a question the communists and the Nazis both asked, and al-Qa'ida and its fellow travellers ask it today

( The Al Qaida is counting on our weakness of will and ideology as well as our division to eventually defeat ourselves from within. So far it would seem that some would rather appease than to show resolve through strength, even military strength at this point, in order to defeat this challenge. )

Thanks for taking time to read. I certainly hope that this has at least sparked a reason to ask ourselves some questions.

"... their first public execution without a trial just happens to be an innocent person. I guess that's to be put down in the column of "collateral damage"

Well, Eric - I think the answer is yes, and there will be a LOT more until either either they or we cave in.

I'm not a big fan of the Patriot Act, but Dan is right - it has saved a few attacks. The real problem is until we come up with a solution, we'll just keep tightening the screw on everyone to squeeze out the few bad apples.

and I'm not a big fan race profiling - same as the above - but keep in mind Pol-Pot had a version of race profiling - if you wore glasses you could probably read and were therefore a threat to his regime. A whole bunch of near sighted folks paid the price for Pol-Pot's version of the Patriot Act

Yet Roch101 is also right - Americans are now agreeing to things that are truley un-American.

MRProduct - I generally agree with your pasted report.

It is common for youth growing up to find simple fixed answer to the chaos of adulthood. Having a middle east that is 80% under 25 (or something like that) provide lots of new recruits.

I don't wholly buy "... it is simply that we are part of the West and the West is an enemy." From what I've read, over the past 50 years we've given them reason - and as proof I would ask -- first why havent they attacked China - afterall China doesn't even allow a God - talk about Infidels! Second - I've read they go after moderate Muslim governments because they are seen as religiosly corrupt.

PS -- all in all, an excellent thread -- purposeful discussions

Michael, I fear that once again I've been unclear. No administration is "to blame" (assigning blame is unproductive and runs counter to comprehension, it is an easy out for those who prefer not to think) for terrorism. On the other hand, administrations promote policies that have consequences. "So as ye sow, so shall ye reap." And we've been sowing this for 150 years.

And to all those who are thinking "Oh, it's another 'Blame American first' guy" it is important to point out that American is not responsible for this, it is the people who *run* America who are responsible for this (and again, this has gone on for years, Bush didn't invent it).

We must always remember not to confuse those who run America with America. You and I and these other people who are posting, and yes, the Muslim who is also an American citizen getting on the bus, *we* are America. And that is what makes America great, not the goons in Washington.

Sorry my posts are not clearer,
Tony Ledford

"The Al Qaida is counting on our weakness of will and ideology"."It would seem that some would rather appease than show resolve through strength". All wars have had their appeasers. But nothing prior to this one compares. We have today united states senators standing on the floor of the senate with the world watching and declaring"This is George Bush's vietnam". And "The war on terror is already lost". I related this story a few days ago,but it is worth repeating now. A captured terrorist in Iraq was being interrogated by us soldiers. He was defiant and boldly stated "We are winning the war against the americans". When asked why he said this he replied "Your own senators are saying so".
Thank you,Teddy Kennedy.

Mr. Produce, where did the lengthy article originate?

Darryl, The arrticle came from the Australian, a daily newspaper that I read each day on line. I apoligize for not getting the name of the paper copied. It turned out that only the date and the title copied. My error. Hope you enjoyed the article. I have several in my files going back for a year or more. Once the aticle goes into archives it is rather expensive to retrieve them.

Yard dog - Thanks also to Dick Durbin, Howard Dean, Micheal Moore, Jane Fonda, George Soros, John Kerry, Newsweak, mainstream media, and other useful idiots, not fair to give all the accolades to Teddy alone.

JDR, The earlier article which I posted addressed some of your doubts . I also have many article's written by Muslim moderates and experts in Muslim thoughts and beliefs who would take task with your doubts that Muslim radical's do not have the west as their primary target/enemy. They figure defeating the west, being the strongest and most influential, would bring the rest of the world into submission. They , from what I have read, have little use for China but also do not see them as great enemies because they are as you said atheist or what they consider another non-threating religion. They also feel that China will not involve itself in their conquest since they(China) also see the Western countries and their ideologies as the enemy. China is willing to allow the Muslim radical's do the dirty work for them.
As far as the radical's outlook on the moderates, yes they feel they are corrupt but not in the way that you and I would define corrupt. The see the moderates as "religiously corrupt" by their striving for a peaceful enviroment and coexisting with other religions/idologies rather than joining them in their conquest for world domination(see earlier post of today)
I am glad that you were somewhat enlightened by the post and that it has created some rational discussion, which was my purpose. It is better than beating the same old horse to death, yes?

Billy, you are one sick person. It is too bad that too many times it is beliefs like yours that are pushed to the forefront by this administration. What muslim nation has ever attacked a western nation as Bush attacked Iraq?
Why bother to try to get you to see the light. I believe you can't be healed.

JDR, Darryl and others who are interested in opinion from around the world. I am posting a link to an article which my friend Phillip Adams wrote in the Australian. It certainly takes a look at terrorist in a different light. I can agree with him on many points but then Phillip and I rarely agree totally on anything except that Australia is a great place to live with exception to taxes.
Read and enjoy: Bombers come from cults of personality

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16045685%255E12272,00.html

Tony Ledford:

"I consider myself to be a "reluctant libertarian"
Actually Tony, and Paul can correct me if I am wrong, but you are no "reluctant libertarian" when you wish for the government to basically provide welfare, health care, food and housing, that would fall under the socialism or communism realm. Libertarian is basically for the government to provide for defense and that would be about it.

"What they hate is our foreign policy."
So it our foreign policy the reason they drive car bombs into a group of children? It is our foreign policy the reason they blew up hotels in Egypt? It was our foreign policy the reason for the French oil tanker Limburg being bombed? It was our foreign policy the reason Morocco was bombed? No Tony the reason for their hate is because you do not bow down five times a day toward Mecca. What they hate is you do not follow Islam. Why they hate is because you are an infidel. They wish to install an Islamic caliphate and to impose sharia law on the entire world and they hate it that we don't allow it.

"So as ye sow, so shall ye reap."
So let's see every victim of a crime it's their fault. As an example, the little girl from Idaho, it was her fault that a judge let her rapist out on bail, it is her fault that time after time that monster was let go. She, along with her family, got to reap what the legal system sowed? Or what about that family driving down the road and gets hit by a drunk driver, I suppose it is their fault that alcohol was legal to begin with. Alcohol does have consequences. Or what about that shop owner that gets robbed, guess it is his fault because some failed government policy. Why don't we try this, why don't we blame the people who actually commit the crimes?

mr. produce,

Thank you for articles and link. Very good reading.

"your doubts that Muslim radical's do not have the west as their primary target/enemy." Did I say that? I don't recall, but the west (and west supporters) are clearly the primary target/enemy.

I'm not sure I wholly buy "They [ALL] see the moderates as 'religiously corrupt' by their striving for a peaceful enviroment and coexisting with other religions/idologies rather than joining them in their conquest for world domination(see earlier post of today)" My sense is there are several flavors of extremists, with a palette or rationalizations.

Between distroying the American manufacturing base (a move supported by American politicians and American taxes) and using the profits to purchase what's left of America, and "China['s willingness] to allow the Muslim radical's do the dirty work for them" .....

Man, we're seriously screwed.

"Man, we're seriously screwed."

Sorry - that's just my "negative" thinking - Mea Culpa and lows bows of appology to Queen Trish.

Trish;

1. Do you perceive the difference between "libertarian" and "Libertarian?"
2. The things that I listed that, as a *libertarian*, I think the government should provide was a list of examples (that is what was intended by the "etc."), not a complete list. It is true, however, that "subsidize corporate crime" would not have been on my list.
3. The answer to the four initial questions in your second paragraph is "yes." As to the rest of the paragraph, I don't agree with you; Muslims don't hate me because I'm not Muslim, in fact, they don't hate me at all. They hate American foreign policy. Although the attitude you attribute to them can certainly be found here in America among extremist fundamentalist Christian -- just substitute "Jesus" for Mecca and you've nailed it.
4. As to your final paragraph, did you miss my entire point about "blame?"

Regards,
Tony

Sura 5:51 O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians as friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them as friends, then surely he is one of them.

- from the peaceful, loving Quran

Sura 9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolators wherever ye find them, and take them captive and besiege them, and prepare them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, Merciful.

- the peaceful, loving Quran

Tony,

Would you mind clarifying your comparison to Jesus and Mecca?

Michael, it was an awkward analogy and (once again) I proved not quite articulate enough to clearly communicate.

To clarify:

Trish wrote:
"No Tony the reason for their hate is because you do not bow down five times a day toward Mecca."

I know and work with Muslims, I read the news and listen to what Muslims say on the television and radio news and what they write in op-eds and are quoted as saying in news stories.

Nowhere do I find anything to support Trish's statement.

On the other hand, I have firsthand, personal experience with fundamentalist Christians who make it clear that they despise me because I am not a Christian. These are also people I know and work with.

Hope this helps,
Tony

I don't wholly buy "... it is simply that we are part of the West and the West is an enemy."
"your doubts that Muslim radical's do not have the west as their primary target/enemy.

JDR, if I perhaps misunderstood the meaning of the first and restated it incorrectly in the second, then I offer my humble apologies.

They [ALL] see the moderates as 'religiously corrupt' by their striving for a peaceful enviroment and coexisting with other religions/idologies rather than joining them in their conquest for world domination(see earlier post of today)"

I quoted the opinions of radical Muslim clerics as shown by Daniel Pipes in his article and in others which I have read. Yes, you are correct that there are several flavors of these radicals running about today indeed have different ways of expressing thier idologies.

Glad to see that those who are reading are enjoying and perhaps learning something new from these different perspectives from another part of the world. I have articles from several other foreign newspapers that I will share as soon as I am able to retrieve the files on my old computer. ( May it rest in peace)

yard dog, I missed a very good post of yours above and I apologize. You wrote:

"Tony,ask yourself a question and answer honestly. If you were on a plane at 10,000 feet and the pilot came on and announced there has been a bomb threat. You look around the plane and see a variety of people from different countries, Japan,Africa,europe,and persons of middle eastern decent. Who are you going to suspect? I know who I would suspect.Right or wrong."

Good question, and I'll give you a completely honest answer.

I'm not certain who I would suspect. Certainly someone who *looked* Arab (wouldn't mean they were, remember the Singh who was beaten to death in Dallas after 9/11 because he was darkskinned and wearing a turban? that really made my Indian friends feel comfortable) would be high on my list. But I know that white separatist or anti-choice terrorists would pop into my mind as a possibility, too, along with (frankly) the possibility that it wasn't a real terrorist threat at all, but something designed to *look* like a terrorist threat so as to continue to inflame fear and hatred, which is essential to those currently in power retaining their power.

Most of all, I would *like* to think that what would be going through my mind would be how I could help disprove or eliminate the threat and thus help to save the lives of *everyone* on the plane, but I doubt that I have the courage for that, as some of the passengers and crew on flight 93 evidently did.

Thank you for a question that made me stop and think, yard dog. I think you demonstrate that just because we are miles apart doesn't mean we can't be civil, or even friendly. (One of the reasons why I, a born Southerner who has spent lots of his working life outside of the South, would never even consider leaving it.)

Regards,
Tony

Tony,

It seems that within these threads there is a great misunderstanding about our subjects- radical Muslims; jihadists. These guys only represent roughly 2% of the billion plus Muslims. The chances of you meeting one of these in the U.S. are extremely remote.

The Muslims you work with are likely just as disgusted by the terrorists as you are. I, too, know Muslims. My mechanic is one as well and there is no one I trust more to work on my cars.

But we are not talking about them. As to the radicals we are speaking of, Trish's comments could not be more dead on.

Tony, please do not lump all fundamentalist Christians into one basket because of those few with whom you work. They perhaps suffer from religiousity rather than being true Christians. Some of these folks are so bound up in the legalism of their denominational beliefs that they no longer see the grace and mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ. They have fogotten that Christ loves all and that they were at one time unbelievers also .
These folks who despise you are like those who Jesus refered to as vipers and called their righteous robes filthy rags.
Blessings

mrproduce, I would like to point out (if you haven't already, this is becoming quite a lengthy thread!) that one very easy way to get a drastically different perspective on the news from the one normally available from television news is to occasionally watch BBCA (BBC America), which is available to DirecTV subscribers (and I hope to cable subscribers). Very eye-opening to see how differently things are sometimes perceived in the only other (real) "coalition" country.

Thank you for your posts,
Tony

But mrproduce, some of the fundamentalist Christians I know would, if you called them "vipers" to their faces, "bust you in the chops."

:-)

I *hope* that I do *not* lump all fundamentalist Christians into this category, however, just as I do not lump all fundamentalist Muslims into any single category, either. Which was one of the points I was trying to make (not saying you didn't get it, I believe you did).

By the way, I think when this thread hits 100 comments, I'll drop out of it. :-D

Regards,
TL

Michael, I'm afraid many people (Trish may also be an exception) are not as discriminating as you, and either forget or disregard the fact that we're talking about 2% of Muslims. They choose (and the news media invite it) to hate and fear all Muslims.

And that's how you end up with dead Singhs.

Not certain now that we disagree on much,
Tony

Ahhh, but Tony , it would not be me that is calling them vipers. They can take it as they wish but truth is truth. I run into these folks from time to time in many churches across the country, it is so sad.

On the mention of the articles from Australia. Yes they are one of the coalition however often the articles are written by those who are not Australian, nor live in Australia. I also offer links to articles written by Phillip Adams, who by no means is a great fan of Mr. Howard, Mr. Blair nor Pres. Bush. I find them quite refreshing and informative for the most part and that is my reason for wanting to share them with others. Also as I stated "way back" it beats reading the same ole stuff and beating the same dead horse as is done so often. I try to offer "a fresh spot of tea" in the cup occassionaly. It also distracts me(and hopefully others) from those who can only repeat the same thing
over and over again and never offer anything of value to the discussion. I do not have to call names as I am sure you are well aware of who they are.
Yep, it's getting rather long isn't it. I beleive it will be dropped out on Saturday or Sunday into the archives.

Tony,

Completely disagree that the media is perpetrating hatred of Muslims. Most times they tell you the "suspects" name is Mohammed something or something Al-somebody but they won't link them to Muslim extremism. I wish they would.

And I also wish that the media and the administration would do a better job of pointing out who these guys are, what they believe and even more importantly- who does NOT fall into this category. Then again, if the Muslims in this country would come together and announce who they are and distinguish themselves from the others, we would all be better off.

Guys & Gals...This has been an experience. From being an OK Guy to being called a Sicko has been a wonderful test for myself... on my values!

I voted my values during the 2004 Election and I remain commited to principles that are still being argued or debated today! If I was sick then, I am still sick today

This analysis-paralysis or debating society is not really my cup of tea. To those who disagree with me I have no great need to convince you that you are wrong, except to call on your love for your Country.

To those who agree, my feelings are strong and are
unchangeable. Appeasement during WWII was wrong and Appeasement today is wrong. That is what I hear mostly from the liberals. Could I be wrong?

This America that we all love, is in real danger today as never before. I hope that soon we will all realize it and get in this fight together, because a house divided will not stand.

As Captain Christopher Jones put the "Mayflower" into harbor with 102 Christians on board, claimed America in the name of God and King James, they became a Christian Community!

There is no doubt in my mind that he was aware that the Muslim invasion of Europe had been stopped by the 4th Crusade at the gates of Vienna in 1683.

There was 1,2,3,4 Crusades in a defense of Europe against Islam. The 5th Crusade is going on today, but by Islam, and is the immigration that lives on socialism....that lives in Europe!

England, over the past few days, has shown the world how to fight terrorism. Fast, furiously and effectively!!!!

Profile-ing to me is when a policeman looks at 10 people and he decides which 1 person or more, needs to be stopped and searched!

That is legal profile-ing! Maybe there is an attorney in this august group?

Thank you all for your comments, its been interesting. God Bless All Of You!!!!

1. No to be honest I don't. Just like I see no difference in democrat and Democrat or republican and Republican.
2. Which confuses me why would you as a libertarian which for things that the democrats already provide.
3. Well explain it to me then how our foreign policy was the reason for the above examples I gave. First off Michael had it right, I was talking about terrorist not the average Muslim. However I do have to say that if the modern Muslims does not start speaking out against those fanatics then yes more people are going to lump them in all together and why shouldn't they when they don't speak out and more to the point it does seem that Christians all get lumped together. Also please provide some details about fundamentalist Christians: whose their leader, where do they operate, how many terror bombings have they done, hijacked planes, sawing off heads with dull knives anything? I hear all the time about these Christians but I have yet to see any proof of where they terrorize. A question for you, if you were walking down a dark alley and you had a choice between a fanatic Christian and a fanatic Muslim, which one you going to choose?
4. No but I got your message loud and clear, reasoning away murder and terrorism. Also the whole reap what you sow isn't that what you said?

Also Tony, as I already mentioned it is the fantics I was talking about. However you say you don't find anything to support my statements how about from the terrorists own words:

In a 1996 proclamation, bin Laden asked, "O Lord, shatter their gathering, divide them among themselves, shake the earth under their feet and give us control over them."

After the bombing of the French oil tanker a spokesman for the Islamic Army of Aden said, "We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels."

Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, neatly put it, "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

Bassam Tibi, a Muslim professor at G'ttingen University in Germany, gave an interesting speech a few months after 11 September: "Both sides should acknowledge candidly that although they might use identical terms these mean different things to each of them," he said. "The word 'peace', for example, implies to a Muslim the extension of the Dar al-Islam or 'House of Islam' to the entire world. This is completely different from the Enlightenment concept of eternal peace that dominates Western thought." Only when the entire world is a Dar al-Islam will it be a Dar a-Salam, or "House of Peace".

I forgot to address the above. That post is my response to Tony

Billy,

I suppose that you noticed that not one of our liberal friends would touch the "Hassoon test" with a ten-foot pole. I directed them to the photo of this guy and simply asked them if they were a screener if they would profile him.

All we got were protests to the test. How telling.

I assume that you agree with me that random searches should continue as normal (searching grannies) but that any screener should have every reason to search anybody that looks like their name is Mohammed Al-somethingoranother.

I think that the failure to answer the question was an admission that they would indeed.

Mike - look up my post above explaining why racial profiling is bad for security. I explained that in at least two posts and unless someone starts arguing with the substance of what I said, I am growing tired of repeating myself. Put aside an ideological zeal and think about my arguments. I am open to hear a refutation, as long as it does not consist of empty calls to look at the picture of one dark-skinned terrorist which, evidently, should convince me that all terrorists are like him. Of course you can take the side of our friend Billy here, who apparently has no idea what Crusades where about - explainer - they were NOT about stopping Islam, nor about much else rather than his "values".

Here's to 100.

Verl,

I have no problem with the techniques or philosophies of the TSA. I'm sure they are based on sound logic. What Billy and I are talking about is the occurance of a screener spotting someone like Hasoon but not being able to screen him because of some protocol.

You say that you look at people's actions. Great. I'm sure that is the most effective tool you have. But what if Mohammed Atta is looking and acting cool and does nothing that fits your perfect little mold of what would trigger a profiling?

No one is suggesting that anyone check every Muslim. All that we are saying is that a screener should have every right to take a closer look at the young, dark-skinned males that look like anyone of the hijackers or these more recent London terrorists.

I promise, the very first time a little, old white lady blows herself up and takes a bunch of kids down with her, I will change my tune. Promise.

Michael, our friend "verlok" seems to think we are both uneducated and don't understand history.

History tells us that ME Muslims have been at WAR with themselves and "we infidels" for centuries and that all of the 4 Crusades were self-defense in nature.

Profiling is also self-defense! It is not perfect solution but you will not find a terrorist by searching little old lades. He watches....and he laughs!

Since "verlok" was a high-up muckety-muck at TSA, with a "Top Secret" Clearence, it seems as though we can't read what he/she says and disagree with the idea or the threads used.

Dar al Islam (mentioned by Trish) where Islam is the dominate force in the world is their idea of Paradise on Earth. This is maybe where our focus should be....if we are interested in remaining a free country.

The Crusades were a belated responce to centuries of Muslim aggression... against Christian Lands.

The post-modern MYTH promoted by self-hating, so-
called Americans began in AD 1095 by the Muslims of that day, said that the Muslims were attacked
without cause by the Christians of that day.

That gave them the "woe is me" attitude but ignored the preceding centuries, starting with the early caliphs, when the Muslims armies swept through the Byzantine Empire and conquered 2/3 of the Christian World.

Islamic propagandists still try to spread their big lie and want people to support their view of mistreatment by the Christians. History tells us a different story if you are interested in the truth!

Profiling is "the sane and the correct" procedure at this time. It is tough to understand the liberals and their difference of opinion.

When you are right, you are called a racist or a bigit.

I wonder if "verlok" still thinks we are stupid and uneducated? It pains me to listen to people who haven't had an original thought during the course of this discussion.

I do admire the courage to be wrong!

Billy,

I knew once verlok reached for the Crusades straw that this had gone down hill. It's like a deep underlying guilt verlok has about possibly offending someone who looks ME Muslim. This instills very little confidence about what may be going on at TSA.

Of course, verlok is still avoiding the question of whether or not Haroon should be subject to an additional search based on his appearance or not. To say, "yes" is to admit to the obvious (which was the basis of your point). To say, "no" is to admit to stupidity and be proven wrong.

The correct answer is, "yes". Haroon should be looked at carefully just like the pale white guy who happens to be fifth in line. But in Haroon's case- no matter where he falls in line. I don't like it at all! But it today's times, common sense is going to have to take over.

Whoa! Here's somethin interesting:

FRANCE is ejecting 12 Imams (proclaimed preachers of hate) from their country...

Geez, even France has got this thing figured out. Yes, I know there is a difference between the guilty and the suspected but the is a decisive step based on common sense.

One day we will all learn that political correctness has gone too far, that reality is calling and we better answer it.

Guys & Gals....Thanks for making the "after-math" of my letter to the editor exciting/entertaining and educational.

The same old liberal elite arguments are there but there is still some common sense lurking in the shadows.

Some of you may remember the old "radio show"; "only the shadow knows"?

Anyway...as long as we can "reason together", we have the opportunity to save America from the big bad wolf "SATAN"!!!!!