I think it is mostly blind racism. I live down the street from a fairly large Mosque and every time I drive by with one of my friends they have to make some sort of comment about sandn*ggers. Or if we go to a gas station where there are sikhs working not muslims they still make racial comments about sandn*ggers. And they're sikhs not muslims. I tell my friends you know they're not Arab muslims right? And they say so what they're still sandn*ggers. I'm surprised more people didn't vote yes.

___________________
I've never been able to eat a whole baby.
Kill the women. Eat the children.
It's just one of those days where you want to bend over everyone you know and kiss their ass goodbye with a big sideways boot.

Latest Mix

quote:

Originally posted by Zild ONE done by white guys my fucking ass. Before all this brainwashing that is currently going on it was the white guys who everyone expected to blow shit up. Not just because of ONE either, but then again I can sympathize with stupid people as I guess not everyone knows how to count or use their memory.

Just curious, can you name some of those attacks? I can name quite a few from the past 15 years from middle easterners, but very few from "whites."

1990:
November 5: Assassination of Meir Kahane head of Israel's Koch party and founder of the American vigilante group the Jewish Defense League in a Manhattan, New York hotel lobby by early elements of Al Queda.

1993:
January 25: Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fires an AK-47 assault rifle into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters, killing two and injuring three others, see FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives.
February 26: World Trade Center bombing kills six and injures over 1000 people, by coalition of five groups: Jamaat Al-Fuqra'/Gamaat Islamiya/Hamas/Islamic Jihad/National Islamic Front,[33] see FBI Most Wanted Terrorists, FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, Ramzi Yousef.
June: Failed New York City landmark bomb plot, see FBI Most Wanted Terrorists

1994:
March 1: In the Brooklyn Bridge Shooting, Rashid Baz kills a Hasidic seminary student and wounds 4 on the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City in response to the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre.[35]

1997:
February 24: An armed man opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, United States, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claims this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".

1999:
December 14: Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States–Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots

2001:
September 11: Attacks killed 2,997 in a series of hijacked airliner crashes into two U.S. landmarks: the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, and The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. A fourth plane, originally intended to hit an unknown, but likely prominent, Washington, D.C. target, crashes in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, after an apparent revolt against the hijackers by the plane's passengers; by Al-Qaeda.
December 22: Richard Reid, attempting to destroy American Airlines Flight 63, is subdued by passengers and flight attendants before he could detonate his shoe bomb.

2002:
July 4: An Egyptian gunman opens fire at an El Al ticket counter in Los Angeles International Airport, killing two Israelis before being killed himself.

2006:
July 28: An American Muslim of Pakistani descent opened fire inside the Jewish Federation of Seattle, killing one and wounding four.


--Now, those are just attacks on American soil. I'm not counting attacks against Americans abroad. In that time, I can think of two events caused by white males; Oklahoma City and Olympic Park. Perhaps you can "open my eyes" to where all of these other attacks you claim have come from.

I'll name just one since I don't like lazy people and you can look up the rest. Theodore Kaczynski. There are volumes more though so you won't have too much trouble when you try to look for more white guys who have shot up or blown up something.

Do false flag operations count? Because I can assure you many of the terrorist attacks that are done by 'arabs' are actually done by whites employed by security agencies to carry out false flag operations. I believe we started doing it in the 1950s and we still haven't stopped. I know a man through business connections, my friend does work for him, he was Army Special Forces, and after that he worked for the defense department. And while he didn't specifically say he had carried out false flag operations he did say that sometimes they would dress up like Arabs and use enemy weaponry like AKs etc...

Also what about when I white man goes into a gas station and shoots up some brown people working there? Does that count? By what you posted it seems like gunmen killing one or two people counts so I'm counting it.

___________________
I've never been able to eat a whole baby.
Kill the women. Eat the children.
It's just one of those days where you want to bend over everyone you know and kiss their ass goodbye with a big sideways boot.

Latest Mix

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I think those coming from regions where there is radical islam, should be looked at more closely when they are traveling in and out of the country, especially if they are going to the middle east..

Regions where they are radical muslims? So any country with a Muslim population?
Good luck trying to point a particular region because extremist Islam is prevalent all over the world where they are Muslim population.

I am a bit disappointed that a lot of you find it ok to alienate and divide American people.

I'm all for intelligence agencies cracking down on terrorist cells by using legal means to gather intelligence.

I am against random picking on minorities because they are perceived to be possible troublemakers.
Most of Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism and they just want to live their lives. Heck, most of them deplore what the terrorists and fundamentalists are doing in the name of Islam and giving Islam a bad name.

It is very easy to fall into fear, esp people that you don't know. Some of you had bad experience with some bad Muslims and that is also affecting your opinion.

My understanding of America is that it is based on principle that individual rights should not be trampled on in the name of for the good of the society.

Or else events like deportation of internment of Japanese Americans (and Japanese Canadians too) become acceptable.
Are we going to segregate Muslim into specific designated spots so that it'll be easier to keep an eye on them?

Policies like racial profiling will only cause more resentment and instead of promoting understanding and cooperation between all groups in the society, it will only promote fear, misunderstanding, ignorance and eventual hatred. How would you feel if you are singled out and harassed constantly? Would you feel wanted by America and be part of the society?

This racial profiling nonsense will only increase more American Muslims becoming terrorists and extremists.

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

a few of the posts here are trying to count muslim terrorist acts vs non-muslim acts of terror.
Does this mean if the statistics were to prove one group was higher risk of such acts you do support profiling or not?
Males pay higher insurance premiums on cars because statistics prove the risk. Is that discrimination?
I'm still not convinced race is going to skew the overall score of terrorism risk that much, there must be many more signigicant factors.

quote:

Originally posted by tubby a few of the posts here are trying to count muslim terrorist acts vs non-muslim acts of terror. Does this mean if the statistics were to prove one group was higher risk of such acts you do support profiling or not? Males pay higher insurance premiums on cars because statistics prove the risk. Is that discrimination? I'm still not convinced race is going to skew the overall score of terrorism risk that much, there must be many more signigicant factors.

I tend to agree, but because it's a 'race' and not a 'gender' being profiled, everyone's red flag goes up.

I guess the big question is, can statistics clearly determine predisposition?
The immediate answer should be no, however, it does give evidence as to where to start.
Is it right to do? Probably not, but then so is indifference.

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by tubby a few of the posts here are trying to count muslim terrorist acts vs non-muslim acts of terror. Does this mean if the statistics were to prove one group was higher risk of such acts you do support profiling or not? Males pay higher insurance premiums on cars because statistics prove the risk. Is that discrimination? I'm still not convinced race is going to skew the overall score of terrorism risk that much, there must be many more signigicant factors.

For better or for worse, I think the significant factor in targeting Muslims/middle easterners is publicity. People remember 9/11, they know of al Qaeda and they see what is currently going on in the middle east (Iraq/Iran). Add to that, whenever an Islamic cleric says something crazy or al Qaeda issues yet another threat, it's displayed everywhere.

In the end I don't know about statistics, but publicity-wise, middle eastern terrorists definitely have the advantage. You have a very present "threat" on the minds of the American people and they want something done about it.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono In the end I don't know about statistics, but publicity-wise, middle eastern terrorists definitely have the advantage. You have a very present "threat" on the minds of the American people and they want something done about it.

Publicity is all they've got. I mean really with a 350 or something billion a year defence budget which outstrips the combined spending of the rest of the world put together, surveilance systems able to read a licence plate off a car 75km up and enough warships, bombers and nukes to level a very, very large country which is capable of defending itself. Security services yanking people off the streets in foreign countries and selective missile attacks on any terrorist infrastructure anywhere in the world in a couple of hours notice, enough scanning and surveilance gear at every airport to tell you anything short of what anyone going through them has on them...

And they still can't feel safe?

It's passed the point of feeling naturally frightened of some arab chap with an AK47 or boxcutter.
It is at the level of shrieking, scared out of your wits paranoia!
And it starts from the top down, everytime that idiot opens his mouth theres three things he talks about.
War, Terror, Security
Thats all this bloody idiot talks about, all the time, every time.

War, is having people running around your streets, shooting up your people and a serious threat of annexation. Doing it in someone elses backyard is a Police Action
Terror, people hate the US for lots of reasons, ignoring the fact that they do very little in regards to ammend or right the wrongs of the past that caused such resentment in the future.
Security, if 300something billion doesnt buy you that, need to start looking for a better supplier...

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Publicity is all they've got. I mean really with a 350 or something billion a year defence budget which outstrips the combined spending of the rest of the world put together, surveilance systems able to read a licence plate off a car 75km up and enough warships, bombers and nukes to level a very, very large country which is capable of defending itself. Security services yanking people off the streets in foreign countries and selective missile attacks on any terrorist infrastructure anywhere in the world in a couple of hours notice, enough scanning and surveilance gear at every airport to tell you anything short of what anyone going through them has on them... And they still can't feel safe? It's passed the point of feeling naturally frightened of some arab chap with an AK47 or boxcutter. It is at the level of shrieking, scared out of your wits paranoia! And it starts from the top down, everytime that idiot opens his mouth theres three things he talks about. War, Terror, Security Thats all this bloody idiot talks about, all the time, every time. War, is having people running around your streets, shooting up your people and a serious threat of annexation. Doing it in someone elses backyard is a Police Action Terror, people hate the US for lots of reasons, ignoring the fact that they do very little in regards to ammend or right the wrongs of the past that caused such resentment in the future. Security, if 300something billion doesnt buy you that, need to start looking for a better supplier...

I think the problem is the US military is great when it comes to large, concrete targets...planes, tanks, ground troops, etc. However when it comes to more nebulous enemy activity, like Vietnam or Iraq, they don't do so well. That carries over to the US. If there's a large attack in one place, they'd probably do a great job of getting things under control, but when you have 300 million people and any one could be a "terrorist," they're SOL. The US used to be better at that sort of stuff during the cold war when you had the CIA/NSA going at full steam. The shift though has gone back to big things that blow up stuff, that's where most of the money goes.

Mind you, I wouldn't want to live in a state where all 300 million of us were constantly under surveillance. I know that this sounds a bit callous and maybe even a double-standard...but if I have three options: everyone is constantly under watch, a select few are under watch, or no one is under watch, I'd take the middle of the three. I'd love for the last option to be valid, but in all reality, with the world in the state it is, that would be like rolling out a welcome mat to more death and destruction on US soil.

As I've said before, I'm morally opposed to profiling, but in reality I don't know what alternatives there are that are "less evil."

A start at the top to control what is essentially a hysterical reaction by the use of language might be a start, that way you dont have anyone with brown skin in an airport hauled off to a room for a few hours 'detention' while they check everything about you and rip your luggage to bits.
It's at this point, they either find something or they dont and usually they don't hurl your ass back out with not so much as an apology which causes the resentment. Having to put up with it on a continous basis will cause genuine resentment and increase the sympathy for the 'terrorists' overseas because theres genuine reason to believe that youre not really living in a democratic nation, but rather a totalitarian one.

There will eventually be some kind of backlash over the isolation and harrassment of minority groups in any country that gets this kind of treatment. It will also deliver a bit of blunt trauma to the head of any kind of civilised integration by them, they wont want to be a part of the US, why would they? Theyre marginalised, civil rights abused and made to feel like theyre a threat to everyone else, thats a terrible amount of burden to place on anyone. May as well just tattoo 'KILLER' on their forehead and make them wear an armband or patch on their clothes.
And rather than having potential 'friendlys' the communities within the US, you've now got an entire generation who's been harrassed and niggled at every step of their life by the authorities.

Thus losing a vital bit in the chain of genuine intelligence, which is what the internal security services should be doing instead of running around as a knee-jerk, hysteria services jumping on everyone.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Publicity is all they've got. I mean really with a 350 or something billion a year defence budget which outstrips the combined spending of the rest of the world put together, surveilance systems able to read a licence plate off a car 75km up and enough warships, bombers and nukes to level a very, very large country which is capable of defending itself. Security services yanking people off the streets in foreign countries and selective missile attacks on any terrorist infrastructure anywhere in the world in a couple of hours notice, enough scanning and surveilance gear at every airport to tell you anything short of what anyone going through them has on them... And they still can't feel safe? It's passed the point of feeling naturally frightened of some arab chap with an AK47 or boxcutter. It is at the level of shrieking, scared out of your wits paranoia! And it starts from the top down, everytime that idiot opens his mouth theres three things he talks about. War, Terror, Security Thats all this bloody idiot talks about, all the time, every time. War, is having people running around your streets, shooting up your people and a serious threat of annexation. Doing it in someone elses backyard is a Police Action Terror, people hate the US for lots of reasons, ignoring the fact that they do very little in regards to ammend or right the wrongs of the past that caused such resentment in the future. Security, if 300something billion doesnt buy you that, need to start looking for a better supplier...

Excellent post Lilith .

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

Actually the wording is terrible in parts but I was in a rush with lots of other things, but I'll leave it there anyway.



Its sort of sad in way that the US doesnt have the leader it deserves to have, compared to past ones which where up there with some genuinely intelligent people from any other field its quite a shame.
But no, not the current one.
He's a cheerleader, up on the plinth banging on about war, terror and security, especially war, he likes that word. But its fairly obvious he bears no emotional or anxiety himself from the war even though theres plenty of references every time he opens his mouth.
Especially if you take a real war leader in a real war like Roosevelt to compare him with, that man literally died at his post for the US and dragged it out of the recession bigger and badder than ever.
Bush couldnt organise a pissup in the brewery so he falls back to mouthing off insensibly and playing on people fears to try and keep the shambles thats left of his presidency intact.