I don't think "profiling" beyond what's already being done will stop it. It's probably more effective to look at who's buying tickets in cash and other unusual behavior then merely race or a muslim sounding name. And despite my criticism of Muslims and Islam here, I do think we need better diplomacy and need to make a truer and more fair effort for peace in the middle east. We certainly had a hand in creating the mess we are in over the past 30 to 50 years along with other countries, and it may be too late to get out of it - but what happens overseas is not just pouring salt into a wound, it's pouring sulfuric acid.
I have in the past posted for the sake of taking unpopular stances to see if other perspectives are valid. I think there is some validity in all and the truth is often amorphous. Of course, you have to express some opinion or there really isn't any kind of discussion or debate. Finally, in this case, I am not arguing for the sake of arguing even though I don't see that as a bad thing. I'm not saying our gov't hasn't unfairly detained Muslims - it has and it's bound to happen in this environment. And it's a sad state what happened at Guatanamo and hilarious how Bush is releasing a few hundred at a time to try to quietly resolve that debacle of a mistake. I also agree that the media has been unfair and that we certainly play a role in the world that unecessarily has provoked violence. We often have CIA officials out in that part of the world who have zero understanding of the culture and despite wishing to make a sincere difference, there's just no way some white-bread midwestern is going to close that gap. It would be comic if it was not so tragic. My beef is with the lack of any kind of movement with Muslims anywhere in the world to take a stand against extremism. There is no counter balance. No organized movement. Perhaps it's a legitimate fear of reprisal against a group of people willing to kill and terrorize Muslims who stand against them. Perhaps it's a culture then doesn't encourage self-criticism and national introspection that we're accustomed to in the west. But I'm calling out that there is a big hole. And one of the results of that big hole is that the extremist elements get a magnified voice in the media and that's going to affect perceptions. That's how it works. Guys like Azarde can't accept it, so when you tell them that they assume you hate Muslims. I don't think Muslims are responsible for these fanatics. All I am saying is if you care about what other people think about Islam and Muslims, and it bothers you that the media shows all these extremist Muslims - then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Why can't 1.3 Billion muslims take some pride in their background and show us that Islam is virtuous and disgusted by the fanatics by going after them? You know what - only Muslims have the power to change what goes on in the Muslim world. Sure we can help by not pouring acid onto the situation, but at the end of the day - if there's no counter force, someone in the Muslim world offering a better way - then the fanatics will continue to be the face of Islam to most people who don't care to go beyond what they see in the media. That's just a fact. Nothing more.
People will always form opinions, because that's how we are. Every ethnic group in America has an 'opinion' (we call 'em "stereotypes") of the other ethnicities, good or bad. I think people should be less concerned about what a bunch of people they don't know choose to believe about them, and more concerned with themselves as individuals. It's somewhat amusing that some Americans choose to completely throw out that whole 'individualism' and 'individual responsibility' -- the cornerstone of the American way of life -- out of the window when it comes to Islam/Muslims; suddenly everyone is responsible for everyone else and how the rest 'perceives' them. I understand the agenda fully well, it doesn't bother me one bit and I don't dwell on it. It is what it is and I am fully aware of why it is that way...
pot calls kettle black - it seems like you just started attacking azarde out of nowhere and get upset when he responds to you. i love how you always go around accusing people of "getting angry" when all they are doing is responding to you. you seem to be a little too sensitive. who is "getting angry" again? oh, and way to generalize over 1 billion people.
these are very hypocritical statements to make, as you have attacked others for saying the same things (that the u.s. must take responsibility for their involvement in middle eastern affairs - that there are consequences to u.s. foreign policy, or "blowback" as the cia refers to it) this is why you have credibility issues - why should anyone believe anything you say or take you seriously? you admit you just like to argue for the sake of arguing. is that what you have been doing in this thread?
playing devils advocate and taking a stance that may not be your own does not constitute a lack of credibility. Arguing for the sake of arguing is one thing, but arguing to ascertain weak points and potential flaws, or whatever, is another issue. There is nothing wrong with questioning something if the intentions are good.
damn, im smart! http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/n...gion&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin "An informant with a criminal history including drug trafficking and racketeering agreed to work with investigators on the case, in exchange for payments and a reduced sentence." and when you look beyond the foxnews hype and hysteria... "Law enforcement officials said that Kennedy, which handles roughly 45 million passengers a year and 1,000 flights a day, was never in imminent danger because the plot was only in a preliminary phase and the conspirators had yet to lay out detailed plans or obtain financing or explosives. The airport is fed jet fuel, gasoline and heating oil through a capillary system of pipes that run from New Jersey through Staten Island, Brooklyn and Queens. Oil industry experts said safety shut-off valves would almost assuredly have prevented an exploding airport fuel tank from igniting all or even part of the network."
the neocons are already taking advantage - this is really sick. if someone who didnt support bush and the rest of the criminals running our country said that "we need more attacks on american soil like 9/11" fox news would be frothing at the mouth to report on it. http://talkback.lancasteronline.com/index.php?showtopic=48211 In his first interview as the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan told a reporter that America needs to be attacked by terrorists so that people will appreciate the work that President Bush has done to protect the country. "At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001]," Milligan said to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country." and of course gun-grabbing transvestite mayor giuliani used it as another opportunity to remind us all that he was mayor of nyc during 9/11! http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/3/120159.shtml Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani on Saturday used news of a plot to blow up a John F. Kennedy International Airport jet fuel line as another example of why he should be elected president. Giuliani told a crowd of 700 gathered at a Broward County Republican fundraiser that Democrats ignore the Islamic terrorist threat and that he is the Republican candidate best capable of handling it. "I've had the most experience dealing with terrorism," Giuliani said, citing his experience as a federal prosecutor and later as mayor of New York City, where he served during the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "There are some very good people on the Republican side that understand terrorism, I do not find too many on the Democratic side that do, but I think of the people that do, I understand it the best and can keep the country focused on being on offense," Giuliani said. Early in his nearly 30-minute speech, Giuliani mentioned the arrests of men who authorities say were part of a Muslim terrorist cell. He later held a press conference to make a statement about the alleged plot. "Today's arrests remind us that we're at war," Giuliani said. "It should remind us that the terrorists are at war with us, both overseas and here in the United States." He said it should not be a political issue, but rather a reality the country has to live with. "We need things like the Patriot Act, we need things like electronic surveillance. It has to be legal, but we need it. We need things like interrogation techniques to get information from people. Legal again, but it has to be aggressive," Giuliani said. "These are the things that keep us safe in a world in which there are more than a few people organized around Islamic terrorists who want to harm us and kill us." Earlier, he told the crowd to watch Sunday night's Democratic presidential candidate debate and see if the words "Islamic terrorist" are mentioned. He said they weren't during the first debate. "I want to see tomorrow night if you hear them utter those words, because if you do, I want you to put a little check mark next to my name and give me credit for it because I've been criticizing them for weeks for not mentioning the words 'Islamic terrorist,"' he said.
as someone who employs similar tactics i am not surprised that you feel this way. it makes it very easy to, when challenged on something you said, claim that you are just asking and that isnt how you actually feel. but new yorker himself says in post #62 that arguing for the sake of arguing is not a bad thing. this is a public message board and there are no rules against this sort of thing, but it is a very dishonest posting style and like co-president bush says "fool me once...sh...shame on you....fool...fool me...wont get fooled again."
Generalizations are not stereotypes always, at least not negative ones. Saying Americans like fast food doesn't mean you think every American likes fast food, it just means a lot do. But many take things literally and think that the person stating that means that 100% of Americans do. It's a pain in the butt to have to say, well, a sizable portion of Americans like fast food, even though many do not. At the end of the day - people are going to form judgements based on perceptions. Those perceptions are not necessarily fair. They are not necessarily 100% accurate, but they are generally based on observations. They are perceptions. Now, as a Muslim, you don't have to care about how people perceive Islam. That's your choice. But your indifference means that other Muslims will then control how Islam is perceived, since you aren't going to care. Unfortunately, it's always the loudest speakers that get heard. And since you aren't using your voice to control how Islam is perceived, you are somewhat implicit in the perceptions that are being formed. But then again, I think Americans are responsible for the mess in Iraq. Not just Bush. We can blame him all we want, but at the end of the day, Americans supported Bush. Oh - wait, we were lied to and misled? But the truth was there. It would most Americans choice to not investigate and question. So I don't think I'm singling anyone out by claiming Muslims are responsible for the perception of thier religion. They are. For sure - there's a lot of things Muslims could do here in the states and abroad to alter perception. But that's the choice of Muslims. They don't have to do anything, but it would benefit thier cause and Azarde wouldn't have to cry about media propaganda if he/she understood that.
It's ironic though that you are there crying about how people just you as a Muslim but you are in fact judging me just on my screen name. Do you not see how low you just sank? In fact, your behavior is actually the exact same type of behavior when someone says you must be a terrorist or violent because you are a Muslim. I really feel sorry for ya.
i agree. however, you did state that "aruging for the sake of arguing is one thing", implying that you are not an advocate of it...right? well, in post #62 new yorker said that he doesnt have a problem w/ arguing for the sake of arguing, so there you go. who, me???
