NewYorker if you noticed I didn't mention your name in the post so perhaps it is your own ego that demands that I call you out. That is opinion and not reality and perception among 40% of Americans doesn't create reality except that 40% of Americans hold a certain opinion. Many Muslims and Muslim leaders have spoken out against terrorism. It happens that you don't consider that meeting your definition of a movement which is completely subjective. You are choosing to generalize based on an arbitrary standard of your own creation. Even if 40% of Americans hold that opinion signifigant percentages of Americans believe that pro-wrestling is real and Saddam had an active hand in 9/11. Define "movement." Next see how many Muslims have criticized terrorism. The onus seems to be not on Muslims but on that 40% of Americans to get more informed about the many Muslims. Sure and Imus knew that "nappy headed hoes" is a sexist, racist and generally offensive term. He admitted as such. A view that you and others in this thread have expressed is that well since some Muslims have sympathies for terrorism therefore then its right to universally generalize that Muslims are terrorist sympathizers whereas previously on this forum we have discussed an individual who knowingly admits to making a sexist and racist comment yet many complained that its wrong to generalize that he harbors such beliefs. You don't see the irony of holding those positions? Now you happened to hold these contradictory beliefs so yes my statement does apply to you but it also applies in general. Does that massage your ego enough now?
To be fair to NewYorker, because even though IMO he is intellectually dishonest fairness should be granted, he did defend Islam, or what he considers as Islam, in the thread about the Saudi woman sentenced to 40 lashes.
Which seems rather hypocritical in retrospect. We're supposed to respect Saudi Arabia's brutal punishment and not call on Muslims around the world to condemn barbaric practices like that which according to the Saudis is based on the Quran. But in this case, Muslims around the world must condemn terrorism or be accused of condoning it.
I don't hold those views. I never said all Muslims are terrorist sympathizers. There's certainly a lot though, more then 10%, probably less then 50%. But anything more then 3% is alarming to me. And it's alarming that 40% of Americans see Islam as a religion that promotes violence. Just because it's not over 50% doesn't mean it doesn't matter. That's were you and I disagree. Of course, you feel that I label all muslims as sympathizing with the terrorists, which reflects that you are more interested in labeling me then actually trying to understand what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the shifting perception of Islam - not my own perception. I know that's hard for you to grasp. But I'm not generalizing or stereotyping anyone. I'm saying that the situation in the world, and the actions of moderates versus extremists - and the extremists are shaping THE PERCEPTION of Islam today. More and more americans see Islam as violent, that number is increasing. Now you can just call them ignorant, but that's a short-sighted way of dealing with a problem. In fact, it's divisive and shows a lack of interest in WHY things are being shaped that way. Yes, you can call the media full or propaganda...but what does joe in Alabama going to think when he sees a bunch of guys who were discussing blowing up JFK get arrested, and Muslims start saying it was a government trap and a bunch of propaganda. It LOOKS like to him that Muslims aren't willing to believe people of the Islamic faith can do these acts and would rather be blind then face the truth. All I am saying is that the words and reactions of Muslims are powerful - and right here on this board - you see more Muslims who are interested in attacking our government and media as spewing propaganda and the CIA is behind all of it then saying my god, there's some crazy nut-jobs in Islam and they are doing some nutty things and we need to do something about it. No, it's not about solving terrorism, it's about attacking those who fight terrorism because it may look Islam look bad. It's right here on this board. You don't see these guys talking about Islamic terrorists, you see them talking about how it's all propanganda.
I don't have a problem with Islamic culture. I don't think we should tell Saudi Arabia how they should allow their women to dress or whether or not they should be allowed to be alone with men. I don't think it does anything good. I think Muslims have the right to condemn and change that, but not us as non-Muslims. That was my point. It's for Saudis and Muslims to decide. I think it's wrong what the Taliban did. HOw they went around and imposed laws on people and if they didn't abide they cut off their heads. Now that's brutal. But if I sit there and say that the Saudis should allow their women to socialize with men, then I'm doing the same thing. I'm just imposing my values upon them. And that's not right. It's up for Saudis to decide, not us sitting here behind our computers in America. By the same token, it's not just up to us to stop terrorism and Islamic fanatics. It's up to Muslims too. They have to be a part of it. They are the biggest part of it. You see that as hypocritical - I see it as one philosophy. People think the British ended the caste system in India. That's the biggest lie - it was Indians who did. You can't impose your values upon others. It failed in Iraq, and it will fail in Saudia Arabia. I wasn't defending brutal Islamic law, I was defending the Saudis against those people who were calling them barbarians. They are not barbarians....no more then Americans. You can't look down on people, that's what I think.
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Experts_cast_doubt_on_credibility_o_06042007.html Experts cast doubt on credibility of JFK terror plot An alleged plot to blow up fuel tanks and pipelines at New York's JFK airport had little chance of success, according to safety experts, who have questioned whether the plot ever posed a real threat. US authorities said Saturday they had averted an attack that could have resulted in "unfathomable damage, deaths, and destruction," and charged four alleged Islamic radicals with conspiracy to cause an explosion at the airport. But according to the experts, it would have been next to impossible to cause an explosion in the jet fuel tanks and pipeline. Furthermore, the plotters seem to have lacked the explosives and financial backing to carry out the attack. John Goglia, a former member of National Transportation Safety Board, said that if the plot had ever been carried out, it would likely have sparked a fire but little else, and certainly not the mass carnage authorities described. "You could definitely reach the tank, definitely start the fire, but to get the kind of explosion that they were thinking that they were going to get... this is virtually impossible to do," he told AFP. The fuel pipelines around the airport would similarly burn, rather than explode, because they are a full of fuel and unable to mix with enough oxygen. "We had a number of fires in the US. All that happens is a big fire," he said. "It won't blow up, it will only burn." Even if the attackers had managed to blow up a fuel tank, the impact would be limited, he said, citing the example of North Vietnamese forces attacking US fuel dumps during the Vietnam war. "They hit the fuel tanks with pretty big rockets. You would get a big fire but not a big explosion other than the rocket." "There is a difference between just exploding the tank and a huge explosion. The tank may explode and blow up some metal, but that certainly wouldn't go very far," he said. His comments contrasted with those of US Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf, who insisted at the weekend that "the devastation that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable." Jake Magish, an engineer with Supersafe Tank Systems, also cast doubt on the credibility of the plot, saying: "The fantasy that I've heard about the people saying 'they will blow the tank and destroy the airport,' is nonsense." "There are people there responding to hysteria, I think. But from an engineering point of view, if someone is successful in blowing a hole into a tank, they will just have a fire from one tank. "There is no way for the fire to go from tank to tank, that is nonsense. It just won't happen." Besides the alleged plotters' capability, other questions have focused on the main source in the probe -- a convicted drug dealer who infiltrated the group and whose sentence was pending as part of his cooperation with police. Neal Sonnett, a former federal prosecutor, told the New York Times there was also a danger in overstating how serious or sophisticated a plot really was. "There unfortunately has been a tendency to shout too loudly about such cases," he said. "To the extent that you over-hype a case, you create fear and paranoia," he said. The New York Times on Sunday pointedly avoided giving much coverage to the alleged plot, devoting only a brief on its front page continued on the local section, despite the story breaking in the early afternoon on Saturday.
I'd like to walk to the moon, but the laws of physics also make that impossible. No money, no backing, no training, and no equipment. It seems all these guys had was google earth and a match. Arrest them and be done with it. Instead, we are getting an exaggerated photo op for the maligned Dept. of Justice.
When it comes to somethings, intent is the basis for establishing transgession of the law - not feasibility. For example, if you yell "bomb" in an airport - you're going to go to jail regardless of your ability to execute on it. Likewise, if you brag about a plot to kill the president, you're going to jail even if you clearly were deemed not likely to ever execute but had a history of writing emails plotting to do that and getting people to help you. If you talk about blowing up JFK, solitict help, research it, and engage people into your plot - you should go to jail. That's the law. It's not about picking on Muslims, it applies to everyone. And if you feel intent isn't enough to get jailed on, then there's many many many more laws you should be protesting against.
yup, walking on the moon and making something that goes boom...they are just a like. regardless of how "feasible" they thought it was, its still serious. money can be earned, backing can be gained, training can be taught, equipment can be purchased. At this phase, yes maybe it was not likely. But do you want to wait until it may be more likely? i'd sure in hell rather them get captured when the plan was not likely due to a lack of attainable things over time (like money, training, etc) than when the plan was likely. At least you have a margin for error with the former
The media will always be the media. All they want is ratings and $. **** like this sells. But yall need to decide if you are mad at the law or the media. Being mad at the media is like truly being mad that Spiderman 3 sucked. They still WANTED to blow stuff up and kill people. It's about the intent. Maybe these guys were were wrong about the extent of damage they would actually do. Maybe the next ones will be right.
I agree. If they truly had the intent to carry out those attacks and were actively seeking 'means' to deliver on it, then they should be locked up for as long as the law would allow. We'll see...
Again I'm amazed at the hypocrisy of your views. You will argue vociferiously that a person who made a racist statement shouldn't be criticized as being a racist and that it is that person's critics fault for judging that person without knowing them fully and that the onus is on the critics to be more informed about them than for them to improve their own image. In fact you rail about political correctness demanding that people try to improve their own image. somehow though you are fine with criticizing a whole group of people and demand that it is their fault, not their critics, for the image they have. Your argument is the exact same as the political correctness that you pretend to despise. You are arguing that perception is reality and that it is up to the group being criticized to change. How is that any different than someone saying they percieve Imus to be a racist because he made racist remarks, so in reality he is a racist, and its up to him to change? But you are looking down on Muslims. You are blaming them for the perception that other people have of them. You are accepting that other people's biases are correct whether they are true or not.
No, you are mis-stating my argument. You see, I never said the person made a racist statement. I don't think calling them nappy headed hoes is racist. You're totally twisting what I write to make your attack. It's actually a strawman technique you are using. I love how you twist things around just so you can call me a hyprocrit when it's actually as clear as day. Imus was tarred and feathered as a racist by racists. He didn't say anything racist. He said something politically incorrect. And the black community warped all your minds into thinking he was a racist - no one would have thought that. They would realize that Imus is actually a good guy who does a lot for children (black and white ones) and rips pretty much everyone. NOt to encourage hate, but to be edgy and politically incorrect. The other team had black girls as well, and he called them cute! It's the same thing with Muslims. You have a few crazies affecting perception. On the Islam side it's bin laden and guys like our friend in Iran. On the western side it's guys like pat robertson and farwell. They are the ones dupping people into thinking Islam is violent. Now...Imus failed to fight against Jackson and Sharpton. Instead he played appeasement and lost. Are Muslims going to do the same thing? Are they going to let others paint a bad name of Islam? Are they going to let others take the lead in the war against terrorism? It appears so. So I see Imus and Islam has the same problem. It's the same thing. Both of them have allowed others to control perception of who they are. It didn't help that Imus apologized which made him look guilty. It doesn't help that Muslims like Azarde are playing the "conspiracy" card every time which makes them look like they are in denial and more worried about attacking the U.S. gov't and media as anti-Islam and not concerned about Americans. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Actually, I don't think you read my posts, I think you just call me a hyprocrit and make some stuff up to support your arguement....
Good advice via TPM -- One among many reasons why NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg has no future in the national Republican party. On Monday Bloomberg weighed in on the JFK bomb plot -- -- Josh Marshall
