Americans are ignoring the facts of Islam and terrorism

[spare_change]

By Billie Louden

Religion and politics are things you should never discuss unless you want an argument, but when these two subjects blur and cause widespread tragedies, they must be addressed.

Alarmed, but not shocked, I followed coverage of the latest foiled terror plots unfolding in Europe. Had the evil plans been successful, the devastation may have equaled Sept. 11.

Viewing both local and national news programs, I saw the usual media pundits analyzing and decrying the potentially heinous plots. But the group conspicuously not heard from should have been the ones denouncing them the loudest. This would be the moderate leaders and followers of the Islamic faith who, we are constantly told, make up the majority of the Muslim world.

To be fair, I have seen a few spokesmen from this group criticize the radical sects of their religion when some violent act is committed in the name of Allah, but their lukewarm responses against the perpetrators always fall short of an apology.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, when America learned the nationalities and religious beliefs of the hijackers, we as a nation seemed determined not to have a knee-jerk reaction like the shameful debacle of World War II, when innocent Americans were herded into camps because they happened to be the same race as the enemy bombers of Pearl Harbor.

But in our quest to be politically correct, we have become blind to obvious truth. I know that all Muslims are not terrorists, but how do we ignore that all the latest terrorists follow some form of Muslim faith? This unspoken fact has become the pink elephant hopping around in the middle of the room that everyone dangerously pretends not to see.

With a presidential election looming, both Republicans and Democrats have made Iraq the focal point of their respective campaigns. The president and Congress have locked horns over this debate, as if that nasty little killing field holds the answer to peace between us and them - with them being that colorful pachyderm I mentioned before.

Does anyone truly believe that if every American warrior was pulled out of the Middle East tomorrow, the jihadists would never trouble us again and we could do away with airport screeners?

The more hidden cells and death plans exposed, involving both foreign and homegrown conspirators, the less attention it gets in the media. What should be bold-lettered, extra-edition news is often found in small blurbs on back pages, mentioned only after the latest Paris Hilton escapade.

If we faced a traditional enemy who had uniforms like the Nazis and Kamikazes, or who was confined to an area like Korea or Vietnam and never threatened to infiltrate our borders, maybe I could understand a "Make love, not war" sign. But those days are gone forever, and we'd better realize it.

When religion enters a fight, the battle becomes spiritual, where not only are lives placed on the line, but souls are threatened. How can we fight a conventional war against an enemy who views earthly existence as unimportant, whose belief surpasses all things, and who proudly believes strapping belts of suicidal death around themselves and their children is righteous?

Though many issues are being debated, the subject of terror-fighting techniques should not be one of them. The much-argued hard tactics and tough interrogations being used by our protectors, and vehemently denounced by the "peace at any cost" groups, are the key to our survival and should be upheld with the same sacrifice as parents sending their children into battle.

As noble as we Americans see ourselves, we are being ridiculed by our enemies for our weak stomachs for war. We graciously try to understand and sympathize with those who hate us, never realizing that their version of heaven can only be obtained with the death of all infidels, which includes everyone outside their faith.

To survive, we have got to stop ignoring the huge distraction in the room and prepare to get a little dirty. I'm not advocating mass civil-rights violations and over-the-top cruel torture tactics. This is only a plea for the realization that difficult times call for difficult measures.

If we don't stop immersing our heads in the sand, we will surely find ourselves buried in it.

Billie Louden is a deputy sheriff and an Army veteran.

[dartgirl]

I have to say that to a large degree I agree with what you've said. I realize that we do not want to behave like the people we are trying to win against, but there has to be some middle ground. They see us trying to help and showing all of this liberal thinking, they exploit it. I personally don't understand a people that thinks nothing of sending their children out with a bomb strapped to themselves and know that I am killing them. I don't understand people having children they can't feed or support either. But obviously they all have a different view of morality and the sooner are political nay-sayers realize this maybe we can come up with a strategy that will win.

[baby face]

I am with you! Its time to start focusing on those assholes who are wanting us all dead! We can't pull all of our soldiers out or worse things then 9-11 are going to happen. If they are trying to do it now imagine what it will be like if we backed off. Its scarey to see what our world has come to, and sucks to live here in the United States and not feel safe about going to one of the big cities because we all no that is where the terriorst are going to attack.......We are planning a trip to New York for our 10th wedding anniversary next June and I'm still doubting it cause of the thoughts of what could happen.........Living in Kansas is the only thing that makes me feel some what safe but just cause a plane or something else doesn't hit something in our state doesn't mean it doesn't effect us when it hits another state.......Here in the United States we are all one and when someone attacks our country in affects us all.......We as a country need to protect ourselves and do what is needed to keep those assholes out of our country!

[Shiane]

I firmly believe that the all of the war and turmoil in the middle east stems from extremist muslim fanatics. I believe it now just like I did over a year and a half ago. Some people thought I was being unrealistic then but now they are seeing what I saw a long time ago. They are hell bent on destroying America and you better hang on to your hat because it is only going to get worse. Not all Muslims are fanatics in this country but I think that little group is very much the minority of Muslims.


That great big pink muslim elephant that no one wants to talk about is going leave a wide path of destruction and dung everywhere it goes!

A Christian martyr says I will die for what I believe.
A Muslim martyr says you will die for what I believe.

[oldandnaked]

I know we've disagreed in the past on the war in Iraq, but when it comes to the war on terror I think political correctness should be thrown out with the garbage when it comes to racial profiling. Mr. Louden makes alot of sense.

[Cotties]

I didn't realize you knew any christian martyrs well enough to quote them

A Christian martyr says I will die for what I believe.
A Muslim martyr says you will die for what I believe.

[Shiane]

I didn't realize you knew any christian martyrs well enough to quote them

You would be surprised to know who I know.;)

[tt]

Are you willing to do the same for the Christian Fundamentalists in this country, who have blown up buildings and killed innocent people as well, or do you reserve hate just muslims?


I would remind you that it was a "Christian" who bombed the Olympic Games in Atlanta, yet not one word about how there should be crack down on Christian Radicals, not one single word.

Or what about Oklahoma City? McVay was a U.S. born and raised, home grown terrorist. How many U.S. terrorists have been arrested, or detained? Lots anger over muslims, but when comes to the home grown type, there is just one whole helluva lot of silence.

Not Muslims are radicals bent on the destruction of the United States. Don't broad brush everyone for the acts of the violent few.

[spare_change]

If I understand correctly, you are equating fundamental Christianity with radical Islam?

Undoubtedly, there are aberrations in any movement -- and they reflect badly on all those involved. But, I think you must agree that radical Islam is a movement unto its own - not an aberration.

The assumption of a broad brush was yours, not theirs. When I take the time to actually read what was posted, I see many qualifiers that make it clear the discussion is about "extreme muslim fanatics"

I find your assumption that we don't pursue "home grown" terrorists to be fallacious, given the number of arrests in the recent months -- whether it be attempts to blow up FBI offices, airport runways, or carry shoe bombs on to airplanes. The last time I checked, McVey and Nichols were aggressively pursued, as was the Olympic bomber, and Ted Kacyzinski, etc. etc etc. Again, you make nice generalizations that sound good, but truly have no basis in fact.

I'm sure, though, that you agree with Mr. Louden that one of the key elements to resolving the "extreme muslim fanatic" issue is for the moderate muslim community to take a clear stand denouncing the radical actions, and promoting communications between the opposing viewpoints. I'm sure you also agree that their voice of reason has been conspicuous by its absence.

[tt]

If I understand correctly, you are equating fundamental Christianity with radical Islam?

Undoubtedly, there are aberrations in any movement -- and they reflect badly on all those involved. But, I think you must agree that radical Islam is a movement unto its own - not an aberration.

The assumption of a broad brush was yours, not theirs. When I take the time to actually read what was posted, I see many qualifiers that make it clear the discussion is about "extreme muslim fanatics"

I find your assumption that we don't pursue "home grown" terrorists to be fallacious, given the number of arrests in the recent months -- whether it be attempts to blow up FBI offices, airport runways, or carry shoe bombs on to airplanes. The last time I checked, McVey and Nichols were aggressively pursued, as was the Olympic bomber, and Ted Kacyzinski, etc. etc etc. Again, you make nice generalizations that sound good, but truly have no basis in fact.

I'm sure, though, that you agree with Mr. Louden that one of the key elements to resolving the "extreme muslim fanatic" issue is for the moderate muslim community to take a clear stand denouncing the radical actions, and promoting communications between the opposing viewpoints. I'm sure you also agree that their voice of reason has been conspicuous by its absence.

Your brush is just as broad as mine. Fundalmentist Christians are just as guilty of murdering people in the U.S. as Fundamentalist Islam. Yet, you seem to find that to be all kinds of fine, well, right, and good.

When and if you, as a Conservative are as welling to condemn Christians in the U.S. who bomb clinics, shoot people in the back and should be treated as the terrorists that they are, including a isolation cell at GitMo, then maybe you will your kinda one sided here.

Fundamentalist White Christian Americans who kill as guilty of murder as Fundalmentist Islam. Your bias is showing .

[Cotties]

A friendly reminder to all who choose to discuss heavy issues. No name calling please.

[spare_change]

Your brush is just as broad as mine. Fundalmentist Christians are just as guilty of murdering people in the U.S. as Fundamentalist Islam. Yet, you seem to find that to be all kinds of fine, well, right, and good.

When and if you, as a Conservative are as welling to condemn Christians in the U.S. who bomb clinics, shoot people in the back and should be treated as the terrorists that they are, including a isolation cell at GitMo, then maybe you will your kinda one sided here.

Fundamentalist White Christian Americans who kill as guilty of murder as Fundalmentist Islam. Your bias is showing .


You know -- I am getting a little tired -- no, make that a whole lot of tired --- of your assumptions of what I believe and don't believe. You are so ready to project your inadequacies on to me that it just plain gets tiresome.

If you had bothered to ask me how I felt about those fundamentalist Christians who did all those things you claim, I would have told you that I abhor them even more than Islamic radicals, because of the advantages they have been given and have abused. But, you didn't bother to ask, did you? You decided that you already knew -- -and went off half-cocked.

So, my friend, ask me and I will tell you -- but don't even try to put words in my mouth, or assume who I am or what I am.

By the way, I've listened to you accuse and complain, but I haven't heard any solutions.

[cherokeered]

I really don't know how we are ever going to win this war...because we can't....it's an unfortunate reality that i think everyone needs to face....
you see...we have a problem with profiling....and until we come to terms with exactly where that starts and being vigilant ends....we can never win, because as soon as someone says they were investigated/stopped/arrested or looked at simply because they are....whatever....it's over
You will have someone screaming about how their rights were violated...while the rest of us are trying to pick up the pieces
I'm not saying profiling is acceptable or that it doesn't cause someone some embarrassment or discomfort....but is that such a big price to pay to keep the next 9-11 from happening??
Now we come to another issue....sympathizers....sleeper cells of people outside the profile....and radicals
Can you ever be truly sure of who you are sitting near and whether they are going to set off a bomb or possibly just open fire to prove a point or make a statement...answer is, no you can't
The best weapon we have is our vigilance...and if it annoys some, is inconvenient or embarrasses others...well perhaps it's just too bad...because the world is not just black & white anymore....it's gray

[spare_change]

I really don't know how we are ever going to win this war...because we can't....it's an unfortunate reality that i think everyone needs to face....
you see...we have a problem with profiling....and until we come to terms with exactly where that starts and being vigilant ends....we can never win, because as soon as someone says they were investigated/stopped/arrested or looked at simply because they are....whatever....it's over
You will have someone screaming about how their rights were violated...while the rest of us are trying to pick up the pieces
I'm not saying profiling is acceptable or that it doesn't cause someone some embarrassment or discomfort....but is that such a big price to pay to keep the next 9-11 from happening??
Now we come to another issue....sympathizers....sleeper cells of people outside the profile....and radicals
Can you ever be truly sure of who you are sitting near and whether they are going to set off a bomb or possibly just open fire to prove a point or make a statement...answer is, no you can't
The best weapon we have is our vigilance...and if it annoys some, is inconvenient or embarrasses others...well perhaps it's just too bad...because the world is not just black & white anymore....it's gray






While I disagree with your premise that the war can't be won --- mainly because we can't afford to lose --- I applaud your comments.

[cherokeered]

While I disagree with your premise that the war can't be won --- mainly because we can't afford to lose --- I applaud your comments.


Well thank you.....:kk

It's okay we don't agree on winning the war...but the war on terrorism is not winnable....but i would love to be proven wrong

[spare_change]

I'm curious -- why is it not winnable?

[UltimateNaneki]

Anericans are not ignoring, they are choosing to forget a little and living their lives more. That is all!

[PlayfulMale69]

Are you willing to do the same for the Christian Fundamentalists in this country, who have blown up buildings and killed innocent people as well, or do you reserve hate just muslims?


I would remind you that it was a "Christian" who bombed the Olympic Games in Atlanta, yet not one word about how there should be crack down on Christian Radicals, not one single word.

Or what about Oklahoma City? McVay was a U.S. born and raised, home grown terrorist. How many U.S. terrorists have been arrested, or detained? Lots anger over muslims, but when comes to the home grown type, there is just one whole helluva lot of silence.

Not Muslims are radicals bent on the destruction of the United States. Don't broad brush everyone for the acts of the violent few.

Are you saying there was NOT an outcry for Timothy McVay? There sure wasn't silence in Texas and Oklahoma. There have been plenty of US born criminals doing acts of violence. Jeffrey Dommer (sp?) killed and ate babies and he was punished for those crimes. There was an uproar about that as well.

I think the acts of Terror against the US seem to be done mostly by Muslims that are on a Jihad. The Sep 11 deaths alone were a significant number far exceeding the number McVay killed in Oklahoma.

I do agree with you that if someone has done a crime they should be punished regardless of his color or religion. I just think it is not accurate to say that there is only an outcry against the Muslims when there has been outcry's for other atrocities.

Have a good one!

[PlayfulMale69]

Well thank you.....:kk

It's okay we don't agree on winning the war...but the war on terrorism is not winnable....but i would love to be proven wrong

Cher,

what do you propose we do? Do you think that us hiding in a corner is going to make things better? (This is an honest question, not a slam)

I am not trying to justify or not justify the current war in Iraq. I am curious to know what you think.

I believe we will always have trouble with terrorists and people who want to take advantage of us or steal our money and belongings. I do think that it is worth fighting against those that want to steal from us. So I guess I agree with you that we will never stop fighting the enemies of freedom.

I guess I am just trying to say what that slogan says best: "Freedom is not Free"

I will stop rambling now. I hope this made some sense. Time for bed, these 24 hour days are wearing on me. :D

[cherokeered]

Cher,

what do you propose we do? Do you think that us hiding in a corner is going to make things better? (This is an honest question, not a slam)

I am not trying to justify or not justify the current war in Iraq. I am curious to know what you think.

I believe we will always have trouble with terrorists and people who want to take advantage of us or steal our money and belongings. I do think that it is worth fighting against those that want to steal from us. So I guess I agree with you that we will never stop fighting the enemies of freedom.

I guess I am just trying to say what that slogan says best: "Freedom is not Free"

I will stop rambling now. I hope this made some sense. Time for bed, these 24 hour days are wearing on me. :D

I'm not saying we should stop fighting....I just think that we need to realize that terrorism is not a localized entity....and the thought of ever being able to control or erradicate it is unrealistic....you yourself said we won't ever be free from some sort of terrorism...and that is my point..a war on terrorism can never end and will never have an obvious winner...

[scottd]

you cant fight against the inevitability of a selfdestructive human nature.



I'm not saying we should stop fighting....I just think that we need to realize that terrorism is not a localized entity....and the thought of ever being able to control or erradicate it is unrealistic....you yourself said we won't ever be free from some sort of terrorism...and that is my point..a war on terrorism can never end and will never have an obvious winner...

[spare_change]

I'm not saying we should stop fighting....I just think that we need to realize that terrorism is not a localized entity....and the thought of ever being able to control or erradicate it is unrealistic....you yourself said we won't ever be free from some sort of terrorism...and that is my point..a war on terrorism can never end and will never have an obvious winner...

In the strictest sense of the word, you're right, of course. There is always somebody who wants what you have ---

But, in the sense of a global movement, I think that can be resolved. Establishment of democracy, with its incumbent capitalism, in the middle east will give people hope that they have a chance to improve their lot in life. Once that happens, the lure of terrorism pales significantly.

[Frenchie]

I Dissagree with the writers oppignion on this subject,

I dont think that since your a muslim "Or any faith for that matter" you should be treated any different or should it be deemed o.k. to "bend the rules a little" since you follow a different religion. If where all equal what gives us the right to choose what is the all mighty religion or the right one to follow? How much sence does that make?

I will agree that it's time to go to the right place for answers and Iraq isnt that place.

[spare_change]

I Dissagree with the writers oppignion on this subject,

I dont think that since your a muslim "Or any faith for that matter" you should be treated any different or should it be deemed o.k. to "bend the rules a little" since you follow a different religion. If where all equal what gives us the right to choose what is the all mighty religion or the right one to follow? How much sence does that make?

I will agree that it's time to go to the right place for answers and Iraq isnt that place.



If I told you that there is a group of people that wear swastikas on their arms, and SOME of those people are interested in killing you, what would you do? If you saw a swastika armband coming toward you on the street, what would you do?

Doesn't your reaction amount to profiling?

I am confused --- you make this sound like the intentional and active suppression of a religion in favor of another. In reality, though, isn't it really identification of a group that is intent on doing you harm?

Should we be proactive, identify enemy combatants, and take action, or should we be reactive and wait until they strike before we do something?

Actually, the question is much simpler -- do we presume all Muslims are terrorists until we can verify otherwise, or do we presume all Muslims are not terrorists until they kill 3,000 people?

[Frenchie]

If I told you that there is a group of people that wear swastikas on their arms, and SOME of those people are interested in killing you, what would you do? If you saw a swastika armband coming toward you on the street, what would you do?

Doesn't your reaction amount to profiling?

I am confused --- you make this sound like the intentional and active suppression of a religion in favor of another. In reality, though, isn't it really identification of a group that is intent on doing you harm?

Should we be proactive, identify enemy combatants, and take action, or should we be reactive and wait until they strike before we do something?

Actually, the question is much simpler -- do we presume all Muslims are terrorists until we can verify otherwise, or do we presume all Muslims are not terrorists until they kill 3,000 people?

I knew you where lurking around here! lol

I Understand what your getting at and you raise a good point. In the end for me it's still a bit much to put them all in the same pot if in fact it's a select group that's doing the damage.

With that anaglogy in mind, Black people could come to the same conclusion on white people in america who for the most part practise the same religion.

Since a bunch of white folks decided to wear white bed sheets and do the unthinkable, Do they beleive all of us are racist and a treat to them? Do they walk around us fearing we will kidnap them a the local wallmart so we can burn em on a cross?

No cause it's a select group of people who's responsible for those actions. Sure they could put us all in the same bowl and I'm sure some do but in the end you cant assume everyones guilty.

So

Seem we have quite the connundrum since on one hand Islamic "Extremist" where responsible for 9/11 wouldnt it be only logical for them to be angry at us for the death we have inflicted?

Interesting debate

[spare_change]

I knew you where lurking around here! lol

I Understand what your getting at and you raise a good point. In the end for me it's still a bit much to put them all in the same pot if in fact it's a select group that's doing the damage.

With that anaglogy in mind, Black people could come to the same conclusion on white people in america who for the most part practise the same religion.

Since a bunch of white folks decided to wear white bed sheets and do the unthinkable, Do they beleive all of us are racist and a treat to them? Do they walk around us fearing we will kidnap them a the local wallmart so we can burn em on a cross?

No cause it's a select group of people who's responsible for those actions. Sure they could put us all in the same bowl and I'm sure some do but in the end you cant assume everyones guilty.

So

Seem we have quite the connundrum since on one hand Islamic "Extremist" where responsible for 9/11 wouldnt it be only logical for them to be angry at us for the death we have inflicted?

Interesting debate

Well, as a matter of fact, there is a segment of the black population that believes exactly what you are saying (maybe larger than you suspect).

So, if I understand correctly, we should assume all muslims are upright citizens until they prove otherwise (even though, we know that proof will result in 10s, 100s, 1000s dead). We should take no precautionary actions other than to fortify ourselves against the pending assault.


Interesting -- hope it isn't the super market where your wife shops.

[Frenchie]

Well, as a matter of fact, there is a segment of the black population that believes exactly what you are saying (maybe larger than you suspect).

So, if I understand correctly, we should assume all muslims are upright citizens until they prove otherwise (even though, we know that proof will result in 10s, 100s, 1000s dead). We should take no precautionary actions other than to fortify ourselves against the pending assault.


Interesting -- hope it isn't the super market where your wife shops.

lol I like the last line thats cute.

I never said we should assume there all Innocent but the article states that we should pretty much assume there all bad people that way we wont get surprised and that's a perfect way to just spread useless fear in people. What I said is that you cant put em all in the same basket and make it O.K to do to then what ever we want cause of one group of guys who delivered 9/11 to us.

The Writer clearly states that mistake was made before but states that sometimes you got to do what you got to do... that if anything is misleading.

That being said, sure we should take precaution to protect areself against a treat but my point is it's against Everybody. Not just Muslim's but everyone.

It's doesnt make a difference where the next attack hit's or who does it. the end result will be the same weather it's a Jordan an Arab or a Iranian that does it. Focussing on one group will only distract us from the one that squeaks behind us.

We are in a dire need to open are eye's and look ahead of the curve instead of trying to control back into it.

That's my point

Oh, please stop making it sound like I'm actually waiting for innocent people to die it's misleading.

[spare_change]

lol I like the last line thats cute.

I never said we should assume there all Innocent but the article states that we should pretty much assume there all bad people that way we wont get surprised and that's a perfect way to just spread useless fear in people. What I said is that you cant put em all in the same basket and make it O.K to do to then what ever we want cause of one group of guys who delivered 9/11 to us.

The Writer clearly states that mistake was made before but states that sometimes you got to do what you got to do... that if anything is misleading.

That being said, sure we should take precaution to protect areself against a treat but my point is it's against Everybody. Not just Muslim's but everyone.

It's doesnt make a difference where the next attack hit's or who does it. the end result will be the same weather it's a Jordan an Arab or a Iranian that does it. Focussing on one group will only distract us from the one that squeaks behind us.

We are in a dire need to open are eye's and look ahead of the curve instead of trying to control back into it.

That's my point

Oh, please stop making it sound like I'm actually waiting for innocent people to die it's misleading.


Ok -- I heard ya.

But, I will qualify one thing --- we are not fighting a country; we are fighting a multi-national force. I don't think anybody is focusing on a single group -- thus, the use of the umbrella phrase "radical Islamics".

So, what do you propose? What do you suggest we do? What does your crystal ball tell you we have to do in order to protect ourselves? What proactive, even preemptive, actions do you recommend? Are we doing the right things now? What's wrong with our approach today?


(Notice, if you will, I have not made a single suggestion on what we should do)

[Corvid]

Well, as a matter of fact, there is a segment of the black population that believes exactly what you are saying (maybe larger than you suspect).

So, if I understand correctly, we should assume all muslims are upright citizens until they prove otherwise (even though, we know that proof will result in 10s, 100s, 1000s dead). We should take no precautionary actions other than to fortify ourselves against the pending assault.


Interesting -- hope it isn't the super market where your wife shops.


Profiling solely against a particular religion or race is pointless. It would be necessary only for a would be terrorist to convince the security apparatus that he or she was not the targeted religion, or to find an agent that didn't fit the profile. Even someone as deranged and patently stupid as Richard Reid could pull it off. And how do you know someone is a Muslim? Can this guy Louden identify a Muslim on sight? Can you, SC?

Moreover, profiling against Muslims in the way Louden desires is counterproductive because it is likely to increase the chance that a young muslim, especially young Arabs and South Asians will become a threat. As the security expert Bruce Schneier points out, "If we are going to increase security against terrorism, the young Arab males living in our country are precisely the people we want on our side. Discriminating against them in the name of security is not going to make them more likely to help."
(http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/profiling.html)

I'm not against profiling, and if that is all that Louden means by "hard tactics" then I reluctantly agree with him (unfortunatley, he doesn't distance himself far enough from torture). I think it is a reasonable response to identify potential threats. But it needs to take in the whole picture - behavior, credit history, communication patterns. In fact, religion and race are probably minor concerns. 25 years ago we were worried about the godless Red Brigade and the very Catholic IRA. Times change: shaking down Muslims isn't going to stop Muslim extremists and isn't going to stop the next terrorists de jour.

[Frenchie]

Ok -- I heard ya.

But, I will qualify one thing --- we are not fighting a country; we are fighting a multi-national force. I don't think anybody is focusing on a single group -- thus, the use of the umbrella phrase "radical Islamics".

So, what do you propose? What do you suggest we do? What does your crystal ball tell you we have to do in order to protect ourselves? What proactive, even preemptive, actions do you recommend? Are we doing the right things now? What's wrong with our approach today?

Agreed! lol

See now that's why I'm very interested to see who you have coming in the house next election. As much as I like Democrat's I dont think they will have the guts to muster what's needed to really get serious about some serious issues IE: Iran AKA."The shit disturber"

I dont really think are approach is bad as of today I just think people need to get that time is needed in order to fix what's going on in the middle east. Like it or not, you cant pull out of there, not entirely anyway.

As a remedy, Educate. get to know the world, get to know people from different places in the world, different cultures, history, different beleif's different views!

if you want to get to know your enemy you need to do some research and right now I think it's time we start focusing on who's who and who's doing what with accuracy.

Security needs to get serious, stop paying joe blow's 5 bucks an hour and start getting serious about it. People wont like it for fear of invasion of privacy but hey I go to the CN tower now and hell I go through a damn x ray machine! lol But it's needed so I understand that.

Good stuff, good tread

[spare_change]

Profiling solely against a particular religion or race is pointless. It would be necessary only for a would be terrorist to convince the security apparatus that he or she was not the targeted religion, or to find an agent that didn't fit the profile. Even someone as deranged and patently stupid as Richard Reid could pull it off. And how do you know someone is a Muslim? Can this guy Louden identify a Muslim on sight? Can you, SC?

Moreover, profiling against Muslims in the way Louden desires is counterproductive because it is likely to increase the chance that a young muslim, especially young Arabs and South Asians will become a threat. As the security expert Bruce Schneier points out, "If we are going to increase security against terrorism, the young Arab males living in our country are precisely the people we want on our side. Discriminating against them in the name of security is not going to make them more likely to help."
(http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/profiling.html)

I'm not against profiling, and if that is all that Louden means by "hard tactics" then I reluctantly agree with him (unfortunatley, he doesn't distance himself far enough from torture). I think it is a reasonable response to identify potential threats. But it needs to take in the whole picture - behavior, credit history, communication patterns. In fact, religion and race are probably minor concerns. 25 years ago we were worried about the godless Red Brigade and the very Catholic IRA. Times change: shaking down Muslims isn't going to stop Muslim extremists and isn't going to stop the next terrorists de jour.

Ok -- i'm easily confused, so you have to use small words!

You're not opposed to profiling and believe it is a reasonable response, but you think profiling is useless and counterproductive. And, you believe that religion and ethnicity shouldn't be factors if you are going to do it. Have I got it right?

How do you feel about the Swift program (the program tracing terrorist funds that was very effective - until the New York Times spread it all over the front page)? How about the monitoring of calls between people in the US and known terrorists overseas? Do you think suspected terrorists should be considered enemy combatants (thus, subject to the Geneva convention) or civilian suspects (thus, eligible for standard legal rights in civil court)?

[Corvid]

How do you feel about the Swift program (the program tracing terrorist funds that was very effective - until the New York Times spread it all over the front page)? How about the monitoring of calls between people in the US and known terrorists overseas? Do you think suspected terrorists should be considered enemy combatants (thus, subject to the Geneva convention) or civilian suspects (thus, eligible for standard legal rights in civil court)?

I only said race and religion are pointless since race is meaningless, and religion is too easily faked.

The so called Swift program and other programs, NSA evesdroping, etc. are in fact ok by me, in general. I don't see how they affect my civil rights and are probably effective in identifying potential threats. Some of the events surrounding their implementation are disturbing, however.

Not extending conventional rights to suspected terrorists in captivity makes us contemptible hypocrites.

[spare_change]

I only said race and religion are pointless since race is meaningless, and religion is too easily faked.

The so called Swift program and other programs, NSA evesdroping, etc. are in fact ok by me, in general. I don't see how they affect my civil rights and are probably effective in identifying potential threats. Some of the events surrounding their implementation are disturbing, however.

Not extending conventional rights to suspected terrorists in captivity makes us contemptible hypocrites.

You don't see them as enemy soldiers? What if we caught them in the act? What status do you assign them, then?

[Corvid]

In the act? Terrorists could be charged and tried successfully with a range of crimes: attempted murder, murder, conspiracy of various sorts. The list goes on. Most of the men imprisoned at Guantanamo we caught in the act of doing nothing, however, though no doubt there are among them many fervent Taliban that deserve to be imprisoned. We ought to have the courage to investigate each of these individuals, to bring to trial those that have committed crimes against us, and to repatriate those against whom we find no evidence.

Some might believe that Western culture or even especially American society is no better than others, but I'm not in that camp. Western society has achieved something that others haven't. We enjoy a security and freedom that is really unique in world history. What ever elements go into making it so, I believe it starts with the rule of law and trust in a fair and effective system of justice. These are Western society's greatest acheivements. When we detain individuals as we have Guantanamo without access to lawyers, without clear charges, without any due process; when we deny habeus corpus; and when we flaunt international treaties and conventions, we are undermining these strengths. And not just in the eyes of the world. I think it cheapens the value of justice and law for us, too.

[SirFox]

Americans are indeed ignoring the facts of Islam, the basic facts about the World, the real terrorism threat and what has considerably helped making the United States of America a country that is terrorized about terror.

[Shiane]

Personally I don't care what color you are, I don't care what your religion is. If you pose no threat to the safety of my country then yee haw do as you wish!

I have nothing against muslims, I may not agree with them but they have their religion and I have mine. There are however extremist, and those are the people I DO have a problem with. If you chose to coexist with the rest of the world, that is fantastic. But, these extremist do not. It seems that everytime I hear of a terrorist attack it is followed by muslim extremist on the front page. I am sorry to say, but they do seem to have their own agenda, and destroying the US is number one on that agenda. So yeah I am very cautious and biased in that regard. I love this country and by golly we gotta do whatever it takes to protect it.

As far as those people who committed heinous crimes here in the states. First of all it makes my heart ache. I can't understand why someone would do that, especially an American. I personally don't think any punishment is severe enough. I don't care if he claims christianity, that kind of disregard for your fellow countryman is enough reason to hang em up by their balls regardless of what they claim.

As far as profiling. Hey whatever it takes to keep the psychos at bay is good enough reason in my mind. I do not want to see another attack like we saw here in Oklahoma, or in NY. If some of these so called American's are trying to cause death and destruction to their own country's innocent people then any means taken to stop them is justified. If you don't agree, well I have to question your loyalty.

I believe people should be judged by their actions. If you chose to knowingly affiliate with terrorist, then you should be considered a great threat plain and simple. In this day and age you can't be too careful, too many innocent lives are at risk.

[Cotties]

I don't mean to change the subject and have been waiting eagerly for your return to the news thread...whats a man like you think of France being the third largest supplier of arms in the world to third world countries? Also what about the French track record in Africa and how they were accused of assisting in the genocide in Rwanda??? don't worry about answering ...lets go back to picking on the Bush administration me old foxyAmericans are indeed ignoring the facts of Islam, the basic facts about the World, the real terrorism threat and what has considerably helped making the United States of America a country that is terrorized about terror.

[spare_change]

In the act? Terrorists could be charged and tried successfully with a range of crimes: attempted murder, murder, conspiracy of various sorts. The list goes on. Most of the men imprisoned at Guantanamo we caught in the act of doing nothing, however, though no doubt there are among them many fervent Taliban that deserve to be imprisoned. We ought to have the courage to investigate each of these individuals, to bring to trial those that have committed crimes against us, and to repatriate those against whom we find no evidence.

Some might believe that Western culture or even especially American society is no better than others, but I'm not in that camp. Western society has achieved something that others haven't. We enjoy a security and freedom that is really unique in world history. What ever elements go into making it so, I believe it starts with the rule of law and trust in a fair and effective system of justice. These are Western society's greatest acheivements. When we detain individuals as we have Guantanamo without access to lawyers, without clear charges, without any due process; when we deny habeus corpus; and when we flaunt international treaties and conventions, we are undermining these strengths. And not just in the eyes of the world. I think it cheapens the value of justice and law for us, too.

So, we should apply the same burden of proof, the same criminal's rights, the same litigation and appeal process, that we allow criminals in the US today?

I guess I'm stunned that you don't realize that the modern world accepts that there is a difference between the genocide of 3 million people and a drive by shooting, that there is a difference between the subjugation of a complete country and a parking ticket, that there is a difference between killing 3000 innocent citizens and a speeding ticket. I suggest you take the time to actually study the Geneva Convention - the governing authority. I think you will be amazed at how much further we could go, but choose not to.

You delude yourself if you think our justice system is something the rest of the world looks up to -- they have seen too many OJs, too many Britneys, too many Michael Jackson's.

What they USED to look up to was our resoluteness, our commitment to doing what is right no matter what it took, our strength,our willingness to use it, and our ability to temper it to fit the specific situation, and our unselfishness.

Now, they look DOWN on us because we don't have the balls to do what we said we were going to do -- that we can't be trusted in the international community to live up to our promises -- that our allies can only depend on our support until it isn't politically expedient -- that we talk big until it comes time to put our dicks on the line, and then we run home like scared little puppies.

We should be ashamed.

[spare_change]

I don't mean to change the subject and have been waiting eagerly for your return to the news thread...whats a man like you think of France being the third largest supplier of arms in the world to third world countries? Also what about the French track record in Africa and how they were accused of assisting in the genocide in Rwanda??? don't worry about answering ...lets go back to picking on the Bush administration me old foxy


Zinnnngggg!!!

I'm just gonna hide and watch -- I promise not to say a word!

[SirFox]

I don't mean to change the subject and have been waiting eagerly for your return to the news thread...whats a man like you think of France being the third largest supplier of arms in the world to third world countries? Also what about the French track record in Africa and how they were accused of assisting in the genocide in Rwanda??? don't worry about answering ...lets go back to picking on the Bush administration me old foxy

I do not like the latest arms sales to Libya AT ALL, Cotties, by EADS, the same company that builds Airbus and other technology. I am aware, to my discontent, that France plays two games: of being the defense of Human Rights on the one hand, and selling very sophisticated arms abroad to regimes that do not need those arms in the first place.
Personally speaking I wonder what SARKOZY's objective is to chumming up with Khaddafi. Is it better to control the man using economic means than having him as a foe? Let's see what happens.

I do not know the Rwanda dossier enough to discuss it. That has to do with arming militias and dividing ethnic peoples to conquer.

[Frenchie]

I like this tread it's pretty cool


Interesting exchange of point of views and it's still civil lol. Shiane as some nice points in there too, I like the way she puts it out.


It's an interesting thing the dilemma where faced with at the moment and the upcoming future, it's particularly difficult since like raised before it's not like the people we are looking for have a clear symbol or emblem to distinct them out of a crowd.


In the end I don’t think there’s much we can do to actually stop someone from doing something bad per say but if we all work together in pointing out the things that stand out or that don’t jive, I really think there’s a possibility to make a positive impact on future treats.


Like I said before, I don’t think singling out one denomination will help but if you see something that doesn’t jive like guys taking flying lessons that don’t need to land to big weapon purchases or chemical purchases, companys with access to dangerous goods need to become pro active on what to look out for.


If we can manage to unite together I do believe we can put a serious dent in future terrorist action plans.

[Cotties]

France has no jurisdiction to try our people - Kagame (http://www.francewatcher.org/2006/11/france_has_no_j.html)

Culled from The New Times - Rwanda's Leading Newspaper (http://www.newtimes.co.rw/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9549&Itemid=58)Wednesday, 29 November

2006 President Paul Kagame recently held an interview with Reuters News Agency on the latest stand off between France and Rwanda. This is a New Times transcript of the interview:

There is a new twist in relations between France and Rwanda. You have decided to cut off diplomatic relations with France after the recent international arrest warrants issued by a French Judge. What in your view, do you think is the agenda of the French?

Well I can’t understand it. But let me say that it should not only be heard that it’s only the government of Rwanda that should know that France was responsible for the genocide Rwanda. This was done in broad day light. There are facts. There is evidence. The whole world should know about it. Sometimes it sounds as if it’s only Rwanda that is accusing France. No! Even other people should be accusing France of that because they saw it, they know it, there are facts to that. Later on some people were bold enough to come up and apologise and say we didn’t do much to save the situation.

When you read a link like this is makes me wonder why France just won't let go of Africa and are not scrutinized more often for their actions over many decades...let alone thinks its a leader in human rights issues

http://www.francewatcher.org/I do not like the latest arms sales to Libya AT ALL, Cotties, by EADS, the same company that builds Airbus and other technology. I am aware, to my discontent, that France plays two games: of being the defense of Human Rights on the one hand, and selling very sophisticated arms abroad to regimes that do not need those arms in the first place.


Personally speaking I wonder what SARKOZY's objective is to chumming up with Khaddafi. Is it better to control the man using economic means than having him as a foe? Let's see what happens.

I do not know the Rwanda dossier enough to discuss it. That has to do with arming militias and dividing ethnic peoples to conquer...I will partially hi-jack this thread as I don't wan't to start up a thread just to bash France around but really feel like I won't to know more from a guy who lives there.

[SirFox]

France has no jurisdiction to try our people - Kagame (http://www.francewatcher.org/2006/11/france_has_no_j.html)

Culled from The New Times - Rwanda's Leading Newspaper (http://www.newtimes.co.rw/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9549&Itemid=58)Wednesday, 29 November .......http://www.francewatcher.org/..I will partially hi-jack this thread as I don't wan't to start up a thread just to bash France around but really feel like I won't to know more from a guy who lives there.

COTTIES: You give me no choice but to research this subject if I am to save face about knowledge. :sc

[Cotties]

After watching a few shows which I'm sure they don't care to air in France my interest has been heightened on the subject..enjoy the readCOTTIES: You give me no choice but to research this subject if I am to save face about knowledge. :sc..geez the list of countries goes on with so many interesting topics
FRENCH TWISTED: Don't Help Paris Rape Africa (http://www.francewatcher.org/2006/06/french_twisted_.html)

By Ralph Peters
New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/)
June 19, 2006

THIS spring, I visited French-speaking West Africa. Wherever I went, two things remained consistent: The French government was hated, and Africans looked to Washington for a square deal.

President Jacques Chirac (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000I4DB3G?ie=UTF8&tag=shortwaveradiostore-20&link_code=em1&camp=212341&creative=380429&creativeASIN=B000I4DB3G&adid=8fb4202b-c008-4e04-b656-f1951b2c0659) and his racist minions know it, and they don't like it, and they're trying to do something about it: Sucker America into showing "solidarity with an ally in the War on Terror." The French want our military and diplomatic cooperation - but not our economic presence, of course. Let me translate what the parasites of Paris really mean: "Support our brutality and exploitation of West Africa, stiff-arm tens of millions of Africans yearning to be free of French neo-imperialism - and just maybe we clever Frenchmen will toss you stupid Americans a little bone now and then."

And we're in danger of falling for it.

[Iwantutowantme]

Well thank you.....:kk

It's okay we don't agree on winning the war...but the war on terrorism is not winnable....but i would love to be proven wrong

The so called war on terrorism is not something to win. There was no intention to win anything including the war in Iraq. Just invade and occupy, while stealing oil and bankrupting the US taxpayers. With no less than 7 PERMANET BASES built in Iraq, the creators of this so called planned war on terrorism had no intentions of leaving Iraq, ever. We to need see the trees, not just the forest. The longer the wars last,,,the longer the corporate AMerica makes money from it and the more debt the taxpayers will have to pay. With terrorist training camps in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, and Syria there will never,,,,NEVER be a lack of willing suicide bombers, etc. We need to destroy the training camps. Not much of anything can hide from the spys in the skys...satelights. We know where they are, but refuse to do anything about them because it would hinder the prolonged war on terrorism. If Binladen was killed...then what would the next reason to invade be....etc, etc.

Disbanding the standing Iraqi Army and destablizing the infrastructure of Iraq because of the initial destruction of electrical power, water sources, businesses, etc. were all in the 'plan' to make the Iraqi people powerless and put under the thumb of the invading forces for a very very long time.

[tt]

I didn't realize you knew any christian martyrs well enough to quote them

The man who planted bombs at the Atlanta Games was a "Christian" who had bombed abortion clinics, I don't recall a hudge demand, an out cry of "What about those damn Christian Terrorists." McVeay was a "Christian" as well, and exactly Christain Terrorists are currently under arrest for acts of terror committed against U.S. Citizens? It seems that it's terror only when it is NOT committed by a Christian.

[Carlfy]

I seem to remember that all the IRA and Provo's in Northern Ireland said they were Christians s too. Plus all those good Christians in the States giving money to the IRA to fund bombing campaigns in the UK. One day the US will see the bigger picture and realise that sticking your nose in other countries is someting you have made a pigs ear of for years now, 50's Korea, 60's South East Asia, 80's South America, any of these ring bells?????

[SirFox]

I would like to ask a fundamental question.

How can the American public be expected to understand Islam, or the religion, the language of Islam, the thoughts, the countries, terrorist groups and al, when these are so foreign to the essence of America?

Let me go one step further.

How can anyone living IN THE WEST (North America and Europe) understand the Middle East (including Israel) when the thought processes are so different?

One thing is certain: our leaders have screwed up completely in our various policies vis a vis many predominately Islam countries, the recent assasination of Benazhiur Bhutto included.

[spare_change]

The man who planted bombs at the Atlanta Games was a "Christian" who had bombed abortion clinics, I don't recall a hudge demand, an out cry of "What about those damn Christian Terrorists." McVeay was a "Christian" as well, and exactly Christain Terrorists are currently under arrest for acts of terror committed against U.S. Citizens? It seems that it's terror only when it is NOT committed by a Christian.


If you'll pardon the expression, what a fundamentally ridiculous comment.

Your so-called "christian terrorism" is not condoned, nor encouraged, by the religious leaders of Christianity, unlike the tacit, and active, support of the Islamic religious community. Further, the underlying guidelines of Christianity do not advocate, nor demand, that its followers kill any one who does not believe as they do.

[spare_change]

I would like to ask a fundamental question.

How can the American public be expected to understand Islam, or the religion, the language of Islam, the thoughts, the countries, terrorist groups and al, when these are so foreign to the essence of America?

Let me go one step further.

How can anyone living IN THE WEST (North America and Europe) understand the Middle East (including Israel) when the thought processes are so different?

One thing is certain: our leaders have screwed up completely in our various policies vis a vis many predominately Islam countries, the recent assasination of Benazhiur Bhutto included.




So, your position is that the assassination of Bhutto was all the fault of the West? Interesting.

You do, however, raise a very valid point that the criteria by which we measure the actions of the Middle East cannot, and should not, be judged by West European standards.

[tt]

Not every Muslim is a terrorist. I know it fun to broad brush and blame everyone.

In Florida Paul Hill, a member in good standing of "Operation Rescue", former Southern Baptist Minister shot and killed a man who provided abortions. Mr. Hill was later executed for his crime (I do not support State Sponsered Murder).

For several weeks afterward, Planned Parent Hood Clinics across the country received "Anonymus" Calls (Cowards who refused to say who they were, typical of such people.) who sited Hills use of murder and wanted to know if the person on the other end of the phone "Wanted To Be Next." I guess the so-called "Right To Life." is only extended to those who support it, you can kill the rest.

I don't recall any big time attempt by the government to round up any "Known Associates." of Hill, no one was held without charge, tried without an attorney or sent to a foreign country to be tortured.

Christian Terrorism is just as real as Islamic. But because Muslims are "Not Christian. Not American. Not White." It is easier to attack them.

Oh, by the way, Rudloph (Atlanta Bomber) was also a Christian (Damn Research right spare?) who bombed Abortion Clinics and shot at least person in New York State. He was just as much a terrorist as Bin Laden. But He Was White, He Was Christian and He Was American. Exactly how many of his "Known Assoicates." were brought in for questioning? How many people who supported him, gave him aid and comfort became prisoners of the U.S.?

Terrorism, regardless who practices it, is terror. Christian, Muslim, whomever. Just because a person is of a different religious belief does not automatically make them a terrorist.

[Iwantutowantme]

Not every Muslim is a terrorist. I know it fun to broad brush and blame everyone.

In Florida Paul Hill, a member in good standing of "Operation Rescue", former Southern Baptist Minister shot and killed a man who provided abortions. Mr. Hill was later executed for his crime (I do not support State Sponsered Murder).

For several weeks afterward, Planned Parent Hood Clinics across the country received "Anonymus" Calls (Cowards who refused to say who they were, typical of such people.) who sited Hills use of murder and wanted to know if the person on the other end of the phone "Wanted To Be Next." I guess the so-called "Right To Life." is only extended to those who support it, you can kill the rest.

I don't recall any big time attempt by the government to round up any "Known Associates." of Hill, no one was held without charge, tried without an attorney or sent to a foreign country to be tortured.

Christian Terrorism is just as real as Islamic. But because Muslims are "Not Christian. Not American. Not White." It is easier to attack them.

Oh, by the way, Rudloph (Atlanta Bomber) was also a Christian (Damn Research right spare?) who bombed Abortion Clinics and shot at least person in New York State. He was just as much a terrorist as Bin Laden. But He Was White, He Was Christian and He Was American. Exactly how many of his "Known Assoicates." were brought in for questioning? How many people who supported him, gave him aid and comfort became prisoners of the U.S.?

Terrorism, regardless who practices it, is terror. Christian, Muslim, whomever. Just because a person is of a different religious belief does not automatically make them a terrorist.

**
Terrorism is.......is. anyone that instills fear upon another person(s) with intent to kill, wound, steal, kidnap, torture, etc, etc,...is a terrorist. Bush and company is a good example.... It doesnt make any difference what religious or non religious organization you belong to.

[Sylar]

[QUOTE=Iwantutowantme]**
Bush and company is a good example.... QUOTE]

Well that certainly sums it up in a nice, neat, tidy bundle. Too bad it's not quite that simple, though...

[spare_change]

Not every Muslim is a terrorist. I know it fun to broad brush and blame everyone.

In Florida Paul Hill, a member in good standing of "Operation Rescue", former Southern Baptist Minister shot and killed a man who provided abortions. Mr. Hill was later executed for his crime (I do not support State Sponsered Murder).

For several weeks afterward, Planned Parent Hood Clinics across the country received "Anonymus" Calls (Cowards who refused to say who they were, typical of such people.) who sited Hills use of murder and wanted to know if the person on the other end of the phone "Wanted To Be Next." I guess the so-called "Right To Life." is only extended to those who support it, you can kill the rest.

I don't recall any big time attempt by the government to round up any "Known Associates." of Hill, no one was held without charge, tried without an attorney or sent to a foreign country to be tortured.

Christian Terrorism is just as real as Islamic. But because Muslims are "Not Christian. Not American. Not White." It is easier to attack them.

Oh, by the way, Rudloph (Atlanta Bomber) was also a Christian (Damn Research right spare?) who bombed Abortion Clinics and shot at least person in New York State. He was just as much a terrorist as Bin Laden. But He Was White, He Was Christian and He Was American. Exactly how many of his "Known Assoicates." were brought in for questioning? How many people who supported him, gave him aid and comfort became prisoners of the U.S.?

Terrorism, regardless who practices it, is terror. Christian, Muslim, whomever. Just because a person is of a different religious belief does not automatically make them a terrorist.


Of course, the argument carries no weight -- if we were to apply the term "terrorist" to anybody who stepped outside the bounds of acceptable behavior, we would have jails full of "terrorists" not common criminals. It is really popular to also take shots at Christians because, after all, everybody does it in the secular media. But, the logic fails ... there is simply no comparison between the behavior of a few miscreants, who happen to be Christian, and those acting under the flag of, with the full knowledge of, and with the full cooperation and support of, the religious structure itself.

If you wish to Call Rudolph, Hill, or McVey, Christian terrorists, be my guest. If you feel it necessary to mobilize the national forces against the Christian terrorists, I'll help you. But to minimize, or lessen, the actions of Islamic terrorism, to ignore its goals of global conquest, to fail to recognize its plan, to somehow excuse or forgive their uncivilized barbarism, all because you have a hardon against Christians, is guaranteed to be a fatal mistake.

[spare_change]

**
Terrorism is.......is. anyone that instills fear upon another person(s) with intent to kill, wound, steal, kidnap, torture, etc, etc,...is a terrorist. Bush and company is a good example.... It doesnt make any difference what religious or non religious organization you belong to.


What a wonderfully simplistic definition -- but, what the hell, it doesn't have to be accurate, it just has to fit your political agenda.

[tt]

The bombings of abortion clinics are not terrorism? The shooting of abortion providers by a former Baptist Mininster are not terrorism. The bombing of the Oklahoma Federal Building wasn't terrorism? If not, then please inform the Federal Bureau of Investigaton (F.B.I.), because that is what the feds called them.


I love how conservatives will always try to dance around something. Muslims are Terrorists, Christians aren't. Yep, real american of you.

[spare_change]

The bombings of abortion clinics are not terrorism? The shooting of abortion providers by a former Baptist Mininster are not terrorism. The bombing of the Oklahoma Federal Building wasn't terrorism? If not, then please inform the Federal Bureau of Investigaton (F.B.I.), because that is what the feds called them.


I love how conservatives will always try to dance around something. Muslims are Terrorists, Christians aren't. Yep, real american of you.


I got to give you credit, Trav --- you are definitely consistent.

You consistently respond without reading the post.

I quote: "If you wish to Call Rudolph, Hill, or McVey, Christian terrorists, be my guest. If you feel it necessary to mobilize the national forces against the Christian terrorists, I'll help you."

[spare_change]

Not every Muslim is a terrorist.

You are absolutely correct -- but every Muslim who does not loudly, vociferously, and adamantly condemn the actions of the terrorists is a contributor to the terrorism. The failure of the so-called moderate Muslim community (by far the largest segment of the Muslim population) to take a strong stand against the violence is both tacit approval of the actions of the extremists, and a greater crime than the acts of the terrorists themselves.

There - somebody had to say it.

[tt]

You are absolutely correct -- but every Muslim who does not loudly, vociferously, and adamantly condemn the actions of the terrorists is a contributor to the terrorism. The failure of the so-called moderate Muslim community (by far the largest segment of the Muslim population) to take a strong stand against the violence is both tacit approval of the actions of the extremists, and a greater crime than the acts of the terrorists themselves.

There - somebody had to say it.

And why should they have too? Does every Christian loudly, vociferously and adamantly condemn the bombings of Abortion Clinics? The answer is no. "The failure of the so-called "Right To Life." to take a strong stand against such violence is both tacit approval of the actions of the extremists, of the terrorists themselves. "

You condemn on hand the actions a violent minority of one religion, and then would just was willing to lend silent assent to another.

[spare_change]

And why should they have too? Does every Christian loudly, vociferously and adamantly condemn the bombings of Abortion Clinics? The answer is no. "The failure of the so-called "Right To Life." to take a strong stand against such violence is both tacit approval of the actions of the extremists, of the terrorists themselves. "

You condemn on hand the actions a violent minority of one religion, and then would just was willing to lend silent assent to another.

You know, you continuously confer onto me your opinions of the stereotypical Christian conservative, when, in fact, you have no idea whatsoever who I am or what I believe. Frankly, it not only is getting irritating, it is extremely boring. If you want to have a pissing contest, just say so, and we will get it on. I guarantee I can piss higher and farther than you can ever imagine. If, on the other hand, you want to have an intelligent dialog, you need to address the issues, not my perceived faults.

As a matter of fact, all the "right to life" organizations did come out and loudly, vociferously and adamantly condemn the bombings of Abortion Clinics. The problem is, you weren't listening, because it didn't fit your prejudiced view of Christian conservatives. If you like, I'll be happy to research and provide the press clippings.

[Iwantutowantme]

What a wonderfully simplistic definition -- but, what the hell, it doesn't have to be accurate, it just has to fit your political agenda.


Perhaps you should have attended the Bilderburg meeting in Instanbul along with Hillary. Then you may have a different viewpoint.,,,maybe. Fear is a tool that terorist use and it starts with an evil desire to control. Such as controling the masses.

Have you looked at the back of the one dollar bill. It has the all seeing eye of the illuniati and the pyramid of its organization to usher in the new world order........which is also printed underneath the pyramid in Latin. You can spin it any way you want, that is what the intention of the global corporate elite. All your newspaper clippings, magazine columns, internet research is only a coverup of what the truth really is.......... quit spending the dollar bill if you dont want to believe the truth. Perhaps the bartering system would be better.

[Pebbles]

I don't really think Americans are ignoring the facts fo Islam and terrorism!



Bush orders clampdown on flights to USEU officials furious as Washington says it wants extra data on all air passengers
Ian Traynor in Brussels The Guardian, Monday February 11 2008

The US administration is pressing the 27 governments of the European Union to sign up for a range of new security measures for transatlantic travel, including allowing armed guards on all flights from Europe to America by US airlines.

The demand to put armed air marshals on to the flights is part of a travel clampdown by the Bush administration that officials in Brussels described as "blackmail" and "troublesome", and could see west Europeans and Britons required to have US visas if their governments balk at Washington's requirements.

According to a US document being circulated for signature in European capitals, EU states would also need to supply personal data on all air passengers overflying but not landing in the US in order to gain or retain visa-free travel to America, senior EU officials said.

And within months the US department of homeland security is to impose a new permit system for Europeans flying to the US, compelling all travellers to apply online for permission to enter the country before booking or buying a ticket, a procedure that will take several days.

The data from the US's new electronic transport authorisation system is to be combined with extensive personal passenger details already being provided by EU countries to the US for the "profiling" of potential terrorists and assessment of other security risks.

Washington is also asking European airlines to provide personal data on non-travellers - for example family members - who are allowed beyond departure barriers to help elderly, young or ill passengers to board aircraft flying to America, a demand the airlines reject as "absurd".

Seven demands tabled by Washington are contained in a 10-page "memorandum of understanding" (MOU) that the US authorities are negotiating or planning to negotiate with all EU governments, according to ministers and diplomats from EU member states and senior officials in Brussels. The Americans have launched their security drive with some of the 12 mainly east European EU countries whose citizens still need visas to enter the US.

"The Americans are trying to get a beefing up of their visa-waiver programmes. It's all contained in the MOU they want to put to all EU member states," said a diplomat from a west European country. "It's a very delicate problem."

As part of a controversial passenger data exchange programme allegedly aimed at combating terrorism, the EU has for the past few months been supplying the American authorities with 19 items of information on every traveller flying from the EU to the US.

The new American demands go well beyond what was agreed under that passenger name record (PNR) system and look certain to cause disputes within Europe and between Europe and the US.

Brussels is pressing European governments not to sign the bilateral deals with the Americans to avoid weakening the EU bargaining position. But Washington appears close to striking accords on the new travel regime with Greece and the Czech Republic. Both countries have sizeable diaspora communities in America, while their citizens need visas to enter the US. Visa-free travel would be popular in both countries.

A senior EU official said the Americans could get "a gung-ho frontrunner" to sign up to the new regime and then use that agreement "as a rod to beat the other member states with". The frontrunner appears to be the Czech Republic. On Wednesday, Richard Barth of the department of homeland security was in Prague to negotiate with the Czech deputy prime minister, Alexandr Vondra,

Prague hoped to sign the US memorandum "in the spring", Vondra said. "The EU has done nothing for us on visas," he said. "There was no help, no solidarity in the past. It's in our interest to move ahead. We can't just wait and do nothing. We have to act in the interest of our citizens."

While the Czechs are in a hurry to sign up, Brussels is urging delay in order to try to reach a common European position.

"There is a process of consultation and coordination under way," said Jonathan Faull, a senior European commission official involved in the negotiations with the Americans.

To European ears, the US demands sound draconian. "This would oblige the European countries to allow US air marshals on US flights. It's controversial and difficult," an EU official said. At the moment the use of air marshals is discretionary for European states and airlines.

While armed American guards would be entitled to sit on the European flights to the US, the Americans also want the PNR data transfers extended from travellers from Europe to the US to include the details of those whose flights are not to America, but which overfly US territory, say to central America or the Caribbean.

Brussels has told Washington that its demands raise legal problems in Europe over data protection, over guarantees on how the information is handled, over which US agencies have access to it or with whom it might be shared, and over issues of redress if the data is misused.

The Association of European Airlines, representing 31 airlines, including all the big west European national carriers, has told the US authorities that there is "no international legal foundation" for supplying them with data about passengers on flights overflying US territory.

The US Transport Security Administration has also asked the European airlines to supply personal data on "certain non-travelling members of the public requesting access to areas beyond the screening checkpoint".

The AEA said this was "absurd" because the airlines neither obtain nor can obtain such information. The request was "fully unjustified".

If the Americans persevere in the proposed security crackdown, Brussels is likely to respond with tit-for-tat action, such as calling for visas for some Americans.

European governments, however, would probably veto such action, one official said, not least for fear of the "massive disruption given the huge volume of transatlantic traffic".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/11/usa.theairlineindustry


With the London bombings in the summer of 2005. We are seeing a new, more deadly breed of Islamic terrorist... one with a British passport.
Because of this, and Europe's growing Islamic population, many of which are terrorist sympathizers, Washington should take a closer look at it's generous visa-waiver program.
It shouldn't be thrown away all together, I think the visa-waiver program is good for both Europe and the U.S.
But I do think Europe should be more forthcoming with sharing personal data with the U.S. government. Perhaps a gesture like this, would allow the U.S. to maintain the status quo of the current visa-waiver program. Obviously, those visiting the U.S. who are of Middle Eastern, North African, or Asian (Pakistani or Indian), Southeast Asian descent or of the Islamic faith should be looked at more closely.

[spare_change]

I don't really think Americans are ignoring the facts fo Islam and terrorism!



Bush orders clampdown on flights to USEU officials furious as Washington says it wants extra data on all air passengers
Ian Traynor in Brussels The Guardian, Monday February 11 2008

The US administration is pressing the 27 governments of the European Union to sign up for a range of new security measures for transatlantic travel, including allowing armed guards on all flights from Europe to America by US airlines.
.....................

European governments, however, would probably veto such action, one official said, not least for fear of the "massive disruption given the huge volume of transatlantic traffic".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/11/usa.theairlineindustry


With the London bombings in the summer of 2005. We are seeing a new, more deadly breed of Islamic terrorist... one with a British passport.
Because of this, and Europe's growing Islamic population, many of which are terrorist sympathizers, Washington should take a closer look at it's generous visa-waiver program.
It shouldn't be thrown away all together, I think the visa-waiver program is good for both Europe and the U.S.
But I do think Europe should be more forthcoming with sharing personal data with the U.S. government. Perhaps a gesture like this, would allow the U.S. to maintain the status quo of the current visa-waiver program. Obviously, those visiting the U.S. who are of Middle Eastern, North African, or Asian (Pakistani or Indian), Southeast Asian descent or of the Islamic faith should be looked at more closely.

It does create an interesting conundrum.

I don't think most Americans realized just how easy it is to get on a flight in Berlin and land in Atlanta.

Obviously, we value our European friendships, but we also value our security. It's like that uneasy feeling you get when your neighbor asks for a key to your house so they can watch it while you're away.