If you speak Arabic, you're a terrorist.
POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 23:13
VIEWED: 9253
PAGE 7 of 8
Quote:You should have asked that before you implied that I'm racist, and I have never called you a terrorist supporter.
Originally posted by citizen:
You're comparing me not calling you a racist with you calling me a terrorist supporter. What do you want? Do you want me to call you a racist?
Quote:So you should assume they are a terrorist because they are an old lady? Is it racist to suspect that white men might have been behind the bombing of a black church?
Originally posted by citizen:
And lets get one thing straight, assuming someone is a terrorist because they look muslim is racist, you're supporting that position, you have your reasons I'm sure, and I doubt those are racist .
Quote:Because it’s not implying what should happen at all.
Originally posted by citizen:
How is the question "Xenophobia or be blown up?" not implying we should treat anyone different as a terrorist?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just don't get why no one gets Citizen. He's probably the funniest F'er on the entire board.
But then again I rarely found Seifeld funny. Seinfeld SUCKED!!!
As for the brown people thing, I still can't stop giggling. Having a menacing skin tone all I can say is this, Kiss my light brown ass. All folks who have become too scared of their own F-ing shadow and are ignorant enough to persue such ill informed persuits can wallow in their fear. I may even stir up a small ruckus the next time I fly, just to see the looks on their sheepish faces. Should brush up on the Arabic just to see how many wet spots materialize.
Thanks Citizen for the chance to tell the cowards of the world to pucker up. I rarely get the chance to do so.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I never said you were a racist. I categorically said you were not.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You should have asked that before called me a racist, and I have never called you a terrorist supporter.
And no, you're right you merely implied I was a terrorist supporter.
Quote:I don't think we should assume anyone’s a terrorist, assumption of terrorism on no evidence is what you are defending, not me.
So you should assume they are a terrorist because they are an old lady?
Quote:If the only things known is that it's a church and black people go there, yes it is.
Is it racist to suspect that white men might have been behind the bombing of a black church?
Is it racist to arrest a white guy for walking past a black church because they might bomb it because they're white and it's a black church?
Quote:Your question: either be a xenophobe or be blown up. This is a clear implication that everyone who's different should be treated as a terrorist or you will be blown up.
Because it’s not implying what should happen at all.
If that is not what you intended why did you ask the question?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn ol' buddy, I see you're still trying to make your case for racial profiling. I think it's time to just concede defeat, or maybe just "crawl away like a bitty, little punk." Just joking. 
But seriously, there's no rational defense for racial profiling. Your proposal is going to exacerbate the tensions that already exist, and simultaneoulsy alienate the people we need to help us the most. Don't let fear be a reason for sacrificing the liberties of others, because next time it may be your liberties that are taken.
"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I didn’t even imply that you were a terrorist supporter. I’ve never used the term ‘terrorist supporter’ in reference to you, so this is purely your imagination, and nothing else.
Originally posted by citizen:
And no, you're right you merely implied I was a terrorist supporter.
Quote:Then you believe we should get rid of all airport screening?
Originally posted by citizen:
I don't think we should assume anyone’s a terrorist, assumption of terrorism on no evidence is what you are defending, not me.
Quote:And in the case where the bombed black church is in a series of church burnings that the KKK members were known to have committed?
Originally posted by citizen:
If the only things known is that it's a church and black people go there, yes it is.
Quote:No one is talking about arresting anyone.
Originally posted by citizen:
Is it racist to arrest a white guy for walking past a black church because they might bomb it because they're white and it's a black church?
Quote:It doesn’t imply what should happen at all. And I didn’t intend it to.
Originally posted by citizen:
Your question: either be a xenophobe or be blown up. This is a clear implication that everyone who's different should be treated as a terrorist or you will be blown up.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Now you've taken a leap off the deep end. Airport screening doesn't assume everyone going to the airport is a terrorist. It's also metted out evenly to all comers, not given only to those with a certain ethnic look, so really you comparing airport security with assuming someones a terrorist because they look a bit like a muslim is laughable.
Then you believe we should get rid of all airport screening?
Quote:You do realise what thread your on, right? My example is infinatly more pertinent to the issue we are discussing than yours. Namely that people were assumed to be terrorists cause they looked a bit muslim.
No one is talking about arresting anyone.
Quote:Well I could cop out here like you did and say "we ain't talking about black churches" but I actually can answer this
And in the case where the bombed black church is in a series of church burnings that the KKK members were known to have committed?
.You suspect that the KKK had something to do with it. What you don't do is what you suggest, suspect every white guy of being a mad church bomber.
Quote:I see, so you weren't trying to get me to endorse your side of the argument by answering 'xenophobia' to your question. You didn't ask a question that gives only two choices: either get blown up or distrust anyone who's different. Because It sure looks like you did.
It doesn’t imply what should happen at all. And I didn’t intend it to.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s kind of a mischaracterization, isn’t? I never used the term “racial profiling.” What I did say was:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
Finn ol' buddy, I see you're still trying to make your case for racial profiling. I think it's time to just concede defeat, or maybe just "crawl away like a bitty, little punk." Just joking.
Quote:
I suggest that we consider evaluating potential suspects based on a broad spectrum of characteristics including behavior. And yes, we should more closely examine Muslim passengers then old women.
Note that I didn’t refer to race at all. Nor did I say that all Muslims were terrorists. What I said and do think, and what is quite defensible, is that a Muslim from Saudi Arabia (for instance) is more likely to be a terrorist against American interests then an old women from Vermont. So it simply makes rational sense that if you wish to prevent a terrorist attack against American interests you should pay more attention to a Muslim from Saudi Arabia then an old women from Vermont. That’s just common sense, not racism. But I never made the claim that race or even religion should be the backbone of intercepting would-be terrorists. I said “a broad spectrum of characteristics including behavior” instead of random methodology, which is quite commonly employed by law enforcement everywhere else, except airport screening.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:As opposed to assuming a random sample are terrorists.
Originally posted by citizen:
Now you've taken a leap off the deep end. Airport screening doesn't assume everyone going to the airport is a terrorist. It's also metted out evenly to all comers, not given only to those with a certain ethnic look, so really you comparing airport security with assuming someones a terrorist because they look a bit like a muslim is laughable.
Quote:You do know that no one is arrested for being screened at the airport, right?
Originally posted by citizen:
You do realise what thread your on, right? My example is infinatly more pertinent to the issue we are discussing than yours. Namely that people were assumed to be terrorists cause they looked a bit muslim.
Quote:How many black people are there in the KKK? If you suspect the KKK, does it make sense to suspect a random sample of the population (which is likely to include African-Americans), or rather to limit the sample by assuming that KKK member will be white?
Originally posted by citizen:
You suspect that the KKK had something to do with it. What you don't do is what you suggest, suspect every white guy of being a mad church bomber.
Quote:I asked a question that goes to the state of mind of people who might suspect that someone is a terrorist based on their choice of language.
Originally posted by citizen:
I see, so you weren't trying to get me to endorse your side of the argument by answering 'xenophobia' to your question. You didn't ask a question that gives only two choices: either get blown up or distrust anyone who's different. Because It sure looks like you did.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I thought that you were implying we should screen people based, at least in part, on ethnicity, nationality, and religion. Oh wait, you did: "And yes we should more closely examine Muslim passengers than old women." But if I'm reading this the wrong way, then I apologize. Nevertheless, I still think you could use a break from this thread. Try my crop circles thread. It's bound to be more fun than debating this ad nauseam.
"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DEEPGIRL187:
Exactly. I think that 1984 is one of the scarier books I have ever read just becuase I think thats the direction we're headed and it scares me 
I wish I had it in digital form, but I cut out a comic from a school newspaper that was talking about racial profiling shortly after 9/11. It starts off with FDR talking about how the Japanese people are a danger to our nation and for our own safety, they would be relocated to internment camps. The last frame was W saying "What he said, except for the towlheads".
There exist dogs who bite people and of those dogs a few of them have rabies. Therefore, for the protection of my fellow citizens I propose that all dogs that aren't muzzled and leashed at all times or any dog that barks or grawls for any reason be confiscated by animal control for confinement and/or euthanization. However, since everyone knows that cats don't bite or attack people ever, they will be allowed to go about their business.
*** No, I'm not serious about the dog thing. Just trying to make a point ***
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME