This has to do with both of these points. Muslim countries like Turkey and Pakistan helped the 'Christian' Americans in the whole Afghanistan war. Pakistan also recently apprehended several Al Qaeda operatives. In the recent apprehension of the terrorists in Buffalo, NY the FBI thanked the Islamic community for their help. We see Muslims going against Al Qaeda and OBL, and also helping in Afghanistan. In both cases of Bosnia we see Christians going against Christians who do bad things, and we see Muslims going against Muslims who do bad things in respect to Afghanistan, and the war against Al Qaeda both in the mid-east and here in the U.S.
So now the real question is, "Would the lady at Shoneys have called the police and FBI if the guy's talking about making America cry and laughing had been white, with blond hair and blue eyes?"
No one is saying that any middle-easterner is automatically suspicious. I think it is very fair to say that Middle Easterners who fit the young, male, fundamentalist profile, are suspicious. Not guilty, but suspicious. This is just common sense. If a dog bites you, then you shy away from dogs. If an Islamic fundamentalists runs a plane into two of the tallest buildings on earth and kils 3,000 people, then you shy away from Islamic fundamentalists/extremists. FB -- you are guilty of playing the word twisting exaggeration game once again.
FBlade...your last 2 posts show me that you just don't get it. The USA is at war. We are not at war with Jewish men. We are not at war with girls with backpacks. We are not at war with African Americans. we are not at war with Asians. We are at war with Muslim extremists who target Americans because we are American...most, and possibly EVERY SINGLE ONE of these extremists looks middle eastern...from Saddam Hussein to Osama Bin Laden to the 6 jerkoffs that got pinched in Buffalo. Now read what I wrote again...it doesn't say we are considering going to war with muslim extremists....it says we are AT war. If visually checking out a middle eastern looking male is going to make me or any other American feel better, then deal with it. If that is an inconvenience to middle eastern looking males, then I am sorry...but we have nothing else to go on. If it is so bothersome that they cant live their everyday lives, well then they can use the same border to leave the country as they did when they came in. Take your pick...be stared at occasionally(since we are at war) or get crushed by 2 jet planes and 2 110 story buildings. I could probably name 3000 (some middle eastern looking) or so people who wouldnt mind being handed strange looks about now.
And, quite a few of those terrorist arrests were because of leads from a local mosque that tipped off the authorities.
And that is relevant because??? No one is saying that all middle eastern looking men are bad, terroristic people. What we are saying is that the ones who are getting arrested and found to have ties to Al Queda are ALL middle eastern men.
Well actually not ALL who are getting arrested and found to have ties with Al Qaeda are middle eastern men.....you may remember 1 man by the name of say.....hmm....John Walker Lindh???? Yes, MOST of the men getting arrested are middle eastern but this shows those who think that all muslim people approve of this that they are wrong. As a matter of fact, a few months back, my dad reported a white guy who used to live around here and have talks with this arabic guy all the time but then both of them left after Sept.11th.
Actually your post including this one shows me that you don't get it. We are at war with Jewish men who are also terrorists, we are at war with girls with backpacks if they are terrorists.(Though in her case it was her boyfriend) We are at war with African Americans and Asians who happen to be terrorists. This is where you are wrong. We aren't just at war with Muslim extremists. We are at war with terrorists. Many of them are muslim extremists, but other jewish, others are Christians, or whatever it doesn't matter to me what they are. We should be careful, and keep an eye on everyone that looks suspicious. I don't care if people look suspiciously at middle eastern looking males as long as they have a reason other than the people's heritage causing them to be suspicious. I'm trying to deal with it. I'm dealing with it, by pointing out that it's not effective in combatting terrorism, and that it's racism. I'll do that, and those that continue to use ineffective methods of fighting terrorism and harbor racist ideas, they should deal with that themselves as best they can. Some of the middle-eastern people we are talking about were born here, and didn't enter through a border. Also, there are many people who did enter a border, are legal citizens, have committed no crimes, or maybe they have even tipped off FBI agents like the example from NY. Yet to these people, you say that if they are prevented from living normal lives, because of other people's racism, they should leave? Frankly I think it's the racist people who prevent them from living their normal lives that should leave the country, because it's not American, it goes against what President Bush has asked to do, and it would be getting rid of some of the people who turned in a terrorist cell in Buffalo NY. That hardly seems an effective way to fight terrorism. Just remember what James Madison said. 'He who sacrifices liberty for security has neither.' You can take your pick, Either live out the American ideals such as equality, innocent until proven guilty, etc. since you claim a love for America. Or try to fight terrorism by an uneffective, racist policy, while Islamic education centers full of children are blown up, planes are exploded and other terrorist plots are carried out by terrorists who aren't of Middle-eastern heritage.
It's relevant because if you alienate the people who gave the govt. the tips by profiling Middle-eastern looking men, then you end up not getting the tips, and there is one more active Al Qaeda cell in operation in the U.S.
<i>...so much in common with the other thread, but this is the one that is active</i> <b>Pakistan</b> The family background and educational attainments for Benazir Bhutto are quite unique in the Muslim world. Would she have attained that high office without those factors working in her favor? Since Pakistan is being used as an example for <i>Progressive Islam</i>, why has the country been unable to maintain stablity and something close to democracy? Military coups and overall misguided leadership have kept Pakistan a country going nowhere economically. <b>Now on to Indonesia</b> <A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/indonesia/Story/0,2763,527490,00.html">Great expectations</A> <i>As Indonesia's first woman president settles into her job, John Aglionby asks what her election means for ordinary women Special report: Indonesia and East Timor Thursday July 26, 2001 The Guardian Looked at from afar, the fact that the world's most populous Muslim country, Indonesia, has just appointed its first woman president is worthy of celebration - a precedent-setting destruction of the ultimate glass ceiling. It appears that Megawati Sukarnoputri's unanimous election on Monday by the country's supreme legislature shows that the bias that contributed significantly to her defeat in 1999, when several Islamic-oriented factions said they could not vote for a woman, has been buried. But the cheers are muted. "It was political expediency then and political expediency now," says Smita Notosusanto, a leading political activist. "And if it's politically expedient to impeach her, like they did her predecessor Abdurrahman Wahid, then they will do it. Politics here is all about short-term interests." <b> No one disputes that Megawati, 54, would not have ascended to the pinnacle of power if she were not the daughter of Indonesia's founding president, Sukarno.</b> She dropped out of university to help her father after he was placed under house arrest when ousted in 1966. She also failed to complete her second attempt to get a degree and has never held down a job apart from being a conspicuously silent legislator in the 1980s and 1990s during the dictatorship of General Suharto. She shot to international fame in 1996 as leader of one of the two minority parties General Suharto allowed, when it appeared she was getting too popular for the president's comfort. He kicked her out of the party, but she refused to be bowed and went on to form a new party, the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, which won the most seats at the last general election, in 1999. Megawati's political savvy was immediately called into question, however, when she failed to be elected to the presidency in the ensuing ballot of legislators and had to settle for the number two slot. When Wahid was impeached, it would have required a monumental faux pas by Megawati for her not to be elected, as the constitution stipulates that the vice-president automatically takes over. "She's got there by default," says Julia Suryakusuma, a feminist intellectual. "No one else could have done it with her CV." But how she got there is now irrelevant, the activists agree. What's important is whether she uses her position to break down stereotypes in a country where only 8% of the 500 members of parliament are women and<b> some provinces are considering imposing a night-time curfew on women for religious reasons.</b> Notosusanto is not holding her breath. "She does not have much of a track record so we're not willing to endorse her before she fulfils the women's agenda," she says. "Megawati's got to prove herself and the fundamental problem is her basic belief. She's a conservative." She also has a frighteningly long list of crises to tackle, including a floundering economy, several armed separatist campaigns and other ethnic conflicts, rampant corruption, a lack of functioning government institutions and the absence of the rule of law. Suryakusuma does not believe this is a justifiable reason not to redress the gender imbalance in Indonesian public life, although Megawati has said in the past she is not in favour of affirmative action for women. "Most people [in Indonesia] see women as being an issue separate from other issues - as marginal," she says. "But in the end politics is about life and how can you separate women from life." The comparative lack of glass ceilings in other areas, such as business, media and marketing, should help Megawati, according to Indra Soebardi, a headhunter. "It's not nearly as bad here as in Australia," she says. "There the chauvinism is much more noticeable. " Desi Anwar, a senior TV journalist, thinks Megawati could make life easier for herself by getting help in changing her image as a non-intellectual, reticent housewife. "Politics now is so much about perception," she says. "As she's not exactly someone with revolutionary ideas, she should get an image-maker and then she could well blossom. Otherwise, she risks losing all the popularity she's built up over the last five years." Suryakusuma agrees it all depends on how she is seen to perform. "If she performs well she could unwittingly help the feminist movement," she says. "If not, it could reinforce the stereotypes and make life much harder in the future." The view on the streets is equally ambivalent. At a central Jakarta shopping centre, some women say they are really excited about having a woman president but the majority view is more cautious. "She did little for women when she was vice-president," says Sumarti, a junior civil servant. "So I'm not expecting much now. But we are all hoping." </i> As both pictures illustrate, neither woman wears the <i>suggested</i> clothing of women in Islamic countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Would Benazir Bhutto and Megawati Sukarnoputri be in trouble with religious authorities in some Islamic countries for not following the religious dress code? Since you have read some of the HayesStreet thread.......which is the true Islam, that of Indonesia which has had influence from other religions that it has had contact with in Asia or that of Saudi Arabia which has had little contact/influence from other religions?
Actually NJ Rocket is saying that. He claimed he might not board a plane with middle-easterners on it. I'm not saying to ignore anything someone of middle-eastern heritage does or says. I don't want any terrorists to carry off any successful acts. I'm guilty of playing any games at all. I'm basing what I said on posts by NJRocket.
I hate to break it to you F Blade....if you think that my views are racist (looking suspiciously at a middle easterner for fear of terrorism), then you live in a racist country. If doing that makes me an elephant, then im an elephant. If it makes me an orange, then im an orange. If it makes me a racist, then im a racist. and BTW...you dont get it...if 7 foot white guys start blowing up innocent people, Ill make sure to report the next time I see Rik Smits and Swen Nater having a mind melt. Why do you think the FBI calls in PROFILERS to solve crimes? Think about it. They PROFILE the type of person who is most likely to commit the crime at hand. In this case, there is a much greater chance of a middle eastern looking male to be the next guy I see being led away in cuffs for terrorist actions then there is that it will be a group of white 30 year olds from North Dakota for the same reasons. Remember...the government calls them PROFILERS...you call them RACISTS.
I said that if I saw 3 middle eastern lookig men boarding a plane that I was about to get on, I would be hesitant to get on and may not get on at all. Thats not racism ...thats fear. EDIT: if i had said that I would ask the men to be removed, then you could call me a racist...but excusing MYSELF from the flight is my business and would be done out of fear of something happening.
The problem is we have non-muslims telling Muslims which is the 'true' Islam. In other words the most violent interpretations are the only ones some people who are against Islam seem willing to accept. They say anything else is influenced by something else. I think it's better to allow followers of Islam to decide what the religion demands of them. Does any one that won't stone prostitutes to death not really following 'true' Christianity? Or what about any rich person who doesn't give away all of his belongings. IS that person really following 'true' Christianity? Or what about a divorced person who remarries? Christ himself spoke about that, yet many Christians aren't on their first marriages. Could it be they are actually following a hybrid of Christianity and other influences? There are more than one thousand denominations of Christianity, and obviously ISlam has different followers who interprate it different ways.
Racism often displays itself as fear. A person who walking down the street and sees three black youths, becomes scared and moves to the other side of the street, is guilty of racism, unless there was some other threatening language used or weapons etc. Enforcing rules on others based on race would be discrimination. But keeping the fear to yourself would still be racist, just not rise to the level of excluding them from a basic right based on race. Basing any decision solely on race even it's just for you, is still racism.
Exactly, that is why I am asking which is correct. Exactly which major variation in Christianity would the dress of Benazir Bhutto and Megawati Sukarnoputri be offensive to? <A HREF="http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/03151612.htm">'Pak. army calls off anti-Al Qaeda operations</A> <i>New Delhi, Sep 15. (PTI): Despite President Pervez Musharraf's claims that Pakistani tribals along the Pak-Afghan border were now cooperating with government forces, Pakistan Army has had to call-off its operations against al Qaeda in North Waziristan area due to the locals' refusal to hand over terrorists belonging to Osama bin Laden's outfit. Intelligence reports said the army, which was carrying out the operations with the support of US agencies, called off its operations in Jani Khell area of North Waziristan even after nabbing six prominent Al Qaeda men, all non-Pakistanis, from there earlier this week. After being nabbed, these terrorists were handed over to the local tribal chiefs "under pressure" but with a promise that they would be handed over to the army authorities next day, the reports said. However, the tribals refused to hand them over, which led to a violent clash between army men and the armed tribals leading to several troops casualties, the report said. Musharraf had on Friday told a press conference in New York that the inhabitants of the tribal zones along the Pak-Afghan border, once considered Al-Qaeda sympathisers, were now aligned with government forces. According to unconfirmed Western media reports including those quoting Rahimullah Yusufzai, a Pakistani scribe who is considered close to him, Laden could be anywhere in these tribal areas of Waziristan. However, Musharraf has denied this saying "the Pakistani army and the civilian armed forces are operating in the border areas all along now. It is very difficult for the force to be hiding and not being seen." </i> Musharraf could have done more than he has, but runs the risk of being ousted for turning too strongly against the fundamentalists and the Al-Qaeda members that they protect in Pakistan. In regards to Muslim Turkey helping the U.S. against terror, there has been considerable grousing in the Muslim world with respect to Turkey being too secular.
They often include race in the profile, regardless what they call them. FB, I understand your sensitivity on the issue, but based on many threads, the appearance is that you might be a little quick to use 'racist'. I only mention that for your own benefit because it does seem to stress you out. I'm also not saying that you're wrong. Maybe there are a bunch of racists here, I won't analyze each use of the term, but somethings seem more like common human nature than racism. When does profiling change from normal survival instinct to racism? I don't know. Do you? If I decide to not walk into a diner at 3 am when there are only 6 skinheads in there, am I being racist?
