RE: Republican Islamaphobia in terrorist hearings

RE: Republican Islamaphobia in terrorist hearings (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

eihwaz -> RE: Republican Islamaphobia in terrorist hearings (3/10/2011 7:43:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: David Schanzer, director of the centre, said the study "puts into perspective the threat presented by domestic radicalisation of Muslim Americans." [...] But less noticed is the cooperation offered by many American Muslims to law enforcement agencies in order to prevent such attacks, according to the report. The study said tip-offs from the American Muslim community provided the source of information that led to a terrorist plot being thwarted in 48 of 120 cases involving American Muslims since the attacks of September 11, 2001. American Muslims arrested on terror charges down sharply Human intelligence is by far the most effective technique for preventing terrorist attacks. I'd be interested in knowing whether law enforcement thinks Rep. King's hearings could potentially impair relations with the US Muslim community.

MrRodgers -> RE: Republican Islamaphobia in terrorist hearings (3/10/2011 9:41:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Wow, focusing on the greatest threat first...who'da thunk it. Who says they are the greatest threat...you ? FBI: 48 out of 120 tips on possible terrorist plots to it and HLS...by muslims. This is cheap political grandstanding and with a racial profile...period.

jack8007 -> RE: Republican Islamaphobia in terrorist hearings (3/10/2011 9:49:18 PM)
quote: Republicans want to focus on Muslims The question may be in the way it's presented - what do we want to secure ourselves against, people bombing buildings, or muslims? My suggestion is that a war on a particular tactic, let alone an undefined target - with no population and no territory - is a self-defeating strategy. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi - why weren't we worried about Saudis? We would be better off to regard these people as international criminals, and treat them along the lines of 17th century pirates, than yammering about a war on terror, or muslims. We should recognize that crime is what we want security against. We might get somewhere then.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Republican Islamaphobia in terrorist hearings (3/10/2011 10:01:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz Who is he to say? Chairman and long term member of the committee. Exactly who should be saying it.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Republican Islamaphobia in terrorist hearings (3/10/2011 10:06:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Wow, focusing on the greatest threat first...who'da thunk it. Who says they are the greatest threat...you ? Yup, me. Oh...and the Obama Administration's head of Homeland Security and the chairman of the HS Committee. Oh...and common fucking sense. Something libs dont have a lick of.

StrangerThan -> RE: Republican Islamaphobia in terrorist hearings (3/11/2011 3:05:43 AM)
You know jt, where I have a problem with this stance is simple. The only reason you're bitching about is because the focus is on muslims. If it was on any of those groups you described as a greater threat, then I get the feeling my man jt would be happy as a pig in shit. Now you if you go type white supremacy and federal probe into about any search engine, you'll get a crap load of hits in return, many with words like sentenced, charged, indicted.. you know those words that come with people who are investigated and arrested. And if you're suggesting that such folk have never been the target of a Congressional hearing, then yeah, I'd go along with the delusional tag issued above. The real problem though, is the fear of even having a hearing. I'd explain that but I don't think there are words that can successfully navigate the labyrinth of denial mechanisms that exists in a brain that says, it's ok to investigate one group but not another, and you're racist if you try. I'd have better luck breaking both my feet, turning them around backwards, and trying to win the Boston Marathon.

eihwaz -> RE: Republican Islamaphobia in terrorist hearings (3/11/2011 4:58:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz Who is he to say? Chairman and long term member of the committee. Exactly who should be saying it. Has he adduced any evidence or is he just saying it?

tweakabelle -> RE: Republican Islamaphobia in terrorist hearings (3/11/2011 12:16:50 PM)
quote: The study said tip-offs from the American Muslim community provided the source of information that led to a terrorist plot being thwarted in 48 of 120 cases involving American Muslims since the attacks of September 11, 2001. American Muslims arrested on terror charges down sharply Numbers are sometimes revealing. In the approx 10 years since 9/11, a total of 120 cases of domestic terrorism involving Muslim extremists. Of these 120 incidents, 48 (40%) were thwarted. Of the remaining 72 (60%), more than a few were so hapless and amateurish there was no loss of life. Even where there was loss of life, in most instances it was negligible. Fatalities were minuscule compared to say, gun killings or road fatalities, or even as several posters have pointed out, hate crimes generally. (This is not to excuse these incidents in any way whatsoever.) An incident that occurs, on average, once every two months in a country the size of the US hardly constitutes a crisis. In short, these numbers fail to justify the level of political attention and/or Congressional resources being devoted to the issue. Fail utterly. The reason(s) for the existence of this inquiry do not lie in the issue itself. There is a need to look elsewhere. The obvious candidate is political expediency.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Republican Islamaphobia in terrorist hearings (3/11/2011 12:18:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz Who is he to say? Chairman and long term member of the committee. Exactly who should be saying it. Has he adduced any evidence or is he just saying it? Uhhhh thats what the hearings are, evidence gathering and discussion.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Republican Islamaphobia in terrorist hearings (3/11/2011 12:21:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: The study said tip-offs from the American Muslim community provided the source of information that led to a terrorist plot being thwarted in 48 of 120 cases involving American Muslims since the attacks of September 11, 2001. American Muslims arrested on terror charges down sharply Numbers are sometimes revealing. In the approx 10 years since 9/11, a total of 120 cases of domestic terrorism involving Muslim extremists. Of these 120 incidents, 48 (40%) were thwarted. Of the remaining 72 (60%), more than a few were so hapless and amateurish there was no loss of life. Even where there was loss of life, in most instances it was negligible. Fatalities were minuscule compared to say, gun killings or road fatalities, or even as several posters have pointed out, hate crimes generally. (This is not to excuse these incidents in any way whatsoever.) An incident that occurs, on average, once every two months in a country the size of the US hardly constitutes a crisis. In short, these numbers fail to justify the level of political attention and/or public resources being devoted to the issue. Fail utterly. The reason(s) for the existence of this enquiry do not lie in the issue itself. There is a need to look elsewhere. The obvious candidate is political expediency. And numbers are sometimes meaningless. On August 5, 1945 there were exactly 0 instances of nuclear bombs being deployed. That doesn't mean they weren't the greatest threat to the Japanese war effort.

mnottertail -> RE: Republican Islamaphobia in terrorist hearings (3/11/2011 12:25:35 PM)
Wooden Cities, Robert McNamara, and Curtis LeMay (and in that order) were the greatest threat to the Japanese war effort. Read up on it, and double check the numbers while you learn. So your non sequiturs relating nothing of substance to the Second World War may be republican islamaphobia, but not germain, nor even cogent to anything under discussion.

rulemylife -> RE: Republican Islamaphobia in terrorist hearings (3/11/2011 12:35:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity If Congress holds hearings to determine the truth, leftist flag burners and certain other rabble rousers join together in protest. So whats your point? quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 There is no proof that Muslims are the greatest threat... "Flag burners and rabble rousers". I think my time machine just took me back to 1967.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Republican Islamaphobia in terrorist hearings (3/11/2011 12:56:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity If Congress holds hearings to determine the truth, leftist flag burners and certain other rabble rousers join together in protest. So whats your point? quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 There is no proof that Muslims are the greatest threat... "Flag burners and rabble rousers". I think my time machine just took me back to 1967. I think that was his point. Libs havent learned a damn thing since "Make Love, Not War" except that they need Viagra.

mnottertail -> RE: Republican Islamaphobia in terrorist hearings (3/11/2011 12:59:08 PM)
So with the servs having never learned anything at all, that would make the one-eyed man king.

tweakabelle -> RE: Republican Islamaphobia in terrorist hearings (3/11/2011 1:11:35 PM)
quote: And numbers are sometimes meaningless. I'm sure you won't mind me reminding you of that line next time you make a point related to economics, willbe :) As you and the rest of us well know, numbers have the potential to provide an excellent basis for comparing things, or, as in this instance, prioritising things. Why this needs to be pointed out to someone who claims economic acumen is lost on me. Stats do need a certain critical mass to be useful so, in this particular case, your example is, I'm sorry to say, meaningless and irrelevant.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Republican Islamaphobia in terrorist hearings (3/11/2011 1:19:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: And numbers are sometimes meaningless. I'm sure you won't mind me reminding you of that line next time you make a point related to economics, willbe :) As you and the rest of us well know, numbers have the potential to provide an excellent basis for comparing things, or, as in this instance, prioritising things. Why this needs to be pointed out to someone who claims economic acumen is lost on me. Stats do need a certain critical mass to be useful so, in this particular case, your example is, I'm sorry to say, meaningless and irrelevant. No, it is exactly on point. When you use statistics only (statistics that, btw, are inherently flawed because the definition of whether an act was "domestic terorism" has been chosen to fit an agenda to start with) you ignore current realities. Anyone who believes for a second that random acts of violence that happen to be committed by people with some element of their background that had no relevance to their acts in common and are then aggregated into a statistic is anywhere near the threat of an organized, well funded, government sponsored effort that has proven effective in other countries and of which there is plenty of evidence of organization efforts within the US is an idealogue that can only spout talking points.

mnottertail -> RE: Republican Islamaphobia in terrorist hearings (3/11/2011 1:27:13 PM)
And you have the facts to back this up? Because to focus on Muslims only, by your very explication here, is then absolutely islamaphobia, since there is nothing to say that these are not random acts having no commmonality, nor well funded foreign government sponsorship of which there is no surfeit of proof. It is ideology, plain and simple.

rulemylife -> RE: Republican Islamaphobia in terrorist hearings (3/11/2011 1:48:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife "Flag burners and rabble rousers". I think my time machine just took me back to 1967. I think that was his point. Libs havent learned a damn thing since "Make Love, Not War" except that they need Viagra. You are sadly mistaken. Liberals use Cialis and have erections lasting longer than four hours. And we never call our doctors.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Republican Islamaphobia in terrorist hearings (3/11/2011 2:21:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife "Flag burners and rabble rousers". I think my time machine just took me back to 1967. I think that was his point. Libs havent learned a damn thing since "Make Love, Not War" except that they need Viagra. You are sadly mistaken. Liberals use Cialis and have erections lasting longer than four hours. And we never call our doctors. Ahhh, thank you for clearing up why you have so little blood flow to your brain.

Charles6682 -> RE: Republican Islamaphobia in terrorist hearings (3/11/2011 4:23:37 PM)
This is nothing more than pandering to the white trash kkk/teabaggers base.Muslim scare tactics,thats all it is.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875