• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP Congressman: ‘Increase Surveillance’ of Muslim Community

Jack Hays said:
Shoved underneath a rug by Muslims?:cool:
Click to expand...
A lot of the good muslims are just as hated by the radicals, during my college days I got to sit and have coffee with people of many different faiths and moderates by and large aren't that different. One of my muslim friends was here to study diplomacy, he wants a peaceful dialogue between the middle east and the western world, and he wasn't afraid to speak truth. The biggest problem I see regarding moderates is that to report the crackpot extremists is to invite retaliation, until that situation is cleared it's understandable that they are a little reluctant to report issues, that and islamaphobia may make some fear a rise in anti-Islam sentiment. The whole situation needs more discussion.
 
ReformCollege said:
Right, I think the number of deaths Muslim Americans terrorist acts since 2001 is something like 20? I agree that we should track those who come into the country suspiciously and agree with disrupting terrorist organizations overseas that could potentially attack the US, yada yada. But lets be serious. If you or I decided we wanted to make a bomb and take out a bunch of people in public we could do it. Fairly easily I might add. The only thing stopping you or I from doing it is rationality and valuing human life; and we can't spend tens of billions of dollars on surveillance of the 99.9% of rational people to try and prevent the .1% of irrational people from being able to do anything.
Click to expand...

So we have 20 (I will assume your number is relatively correct) deaths from terrorist bombings in 12 years compared to 900 deaths from mass shootings in 7 years. So, our conservative friends want to spend millions to "watch" the Muslims among us to prevent these two dozen deaths from "terrorists", but can't even pass a benign, almost inconsequential cost watered down background check bill.

But then again, 20 deaths in 12 years is terror and 900 deaths from mass shootings is just acceptable collateral casualties so that we can "enjoy" unlimited gun ownership. Even if you add in 9/11 and project this out over 30 years, statistically speaking, you are far more likely to die in a mass shooting (or even a car jacking) than in a terrorist attack, yet all the fear is about the Muslim boogeyman.

Of course, the idea of increase police surveillance has a cost.... it means MORE government spending and bigger deficits (unless you are willing to raise taxes to pay for it). Of course, you could re-elect GW and he could tell you how we can wage this new war on terror while cutting taxes to pay for it.

The logic of the Cons is beyond belief... its a part that hates Science, Math (the polls are always wrong) and now logic.
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
A lot of the good muslims are just as hated by the radicals, during my college days I got to sit and have coffee with people of many different faiths and moderates by and large aren't that different. One of my muslim friends was here to study diplomacy, he wants a peaceful dialogue between the middle east and the western world, and he wasn't afraid to speak truth. The biggest problem I see regarding moderates is that to report the crackpot extremists is to invite retaliation, until that situation is cleared it's understandable that they are a little reluctant to report issues, that and islamaphobia may make some fear a rise in anti-Islam sentiment. The whole situation needs more discussion.
Click to expand...

Courageous Muslim moderates seem to be rare, and all too often the courageous ones are killed off by the radicals. And even the good guys are eager to blame the West for the problems of their societies.:cool:
 
How many fatwas has John Hagee called for in the past few decades...or for that matter, any other prominent 'Bible Thumper'...speaking of labeling...I also wonder if those who are so concerned about the rights of our Muslim brothers and sisters have the same concerns about the unborn human beings who are murdered by the thousands for convenience in this country...to the best of my knowledge they'ed not advocated the killing of anyone...I could be wrong I suppose...
 
Jack Hays said:
Courageous Muslim moderates seem to be rare, and all too often the courageous ones are killed off by the radicals. And even the good guys are eager to blame the West for the problems of their societies.:cool:
Click to expand...
I don't agree completely. Moderate muslims to an extent might blame the west for their ills but no more so than some college graduates who had to live four plus years of the indoctrination by communist professors. I guess what I'm saying is that many moderates are probably silent to protect their families, they would be the first killed in a fatwa.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I don't agree completely. Moderate muslims to an extent might blame the west for their ills but no more so than some college graduates who had to live four plus years of the indoctrination by communist professors. I guess what I'm saying is that many moderates are probably silent to protect their families, they would be the first killed in a fatwa.
Click to expand...

These are the guys who tell us in private that they're with us, but we should "understand" that they have to blame us in public.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
These are the guys who tell us in private that they're with us, but we should "understand" that they have to blame us in public.:cool:
Click to expand...
I don't know about that extent. Silence doesn't help, but I don't see them blaming us any more in public. This is the moderates I mean.
 
upsideguy said:
So we have 20 (I will assume your number is relatively correct) deaths from terrorist bombings in 12 years compared to 900 deaths from mass shootings in 7 years. So, our conservative friends want to spend millions to "watch" the Muslims among us to prevent these two dozen deaths from "terrorists", but can't even pass a benign, almost inconsequential cost watered down background check bill.

But then again, 20 deaths in 12 years is terror and 900 deaths from mass shootings is just acceptable collateral casualties so that we can "enjoy" unlimited gun ownership. Even if you add in 9/11 and project this out over 30 years, statistically speaking, you are far more likely to die in a mass shooting (or even a car jacking) than in a terrorist attack, yet all the fear is about the Muslim boogeyman.

Of course, the idea of increase police surveillance has a cost.... it means MORE government spending and bigger deficits (unless you are willing to raise taxes to pay for it). Of course, you could re-elect GW and he could tell you how we can wage this new war on terror while cutting taxes to pay for it.

The logic of the Cons is beyond belief... its a part that hates Science, Math (the polls are always wrong) and now logic.
Click to expand...
Try over 3,000 in bombings over 20 years. 9/11 ring a bell? At least be honest about the numbers, and this is about a consgressman's stupid statement, not gun control.
 
Jack Hays said:
Fair enough. Please point them out whenever you find some.:cool:
Click to expand...
Well, my college friends for one. One was specifically training for diplomatic positions with the U.S. government to foster peace between the east, west, and middle east.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Well, my college friends for one. One was specifically training for diplomatic positions with the U.S. government to foster peace between the east, west, and middle east.
Click to expand...

Well good for them. (And I mean that.) I take it your friend would enjoy the benefit and protection of a U.S. diplomatic passport. That's a perk most Muslim moderates don't enjoy.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
Well good for them. (And I mean that.) I take it your friend would enjoy the benefit and protection of a U.S. diplomatic passport. That's a perk most Muslim moderates don't enjoy.:cool:
Click to expand...
And that's why I think most are silent, they help us and then have to go back into the same community with the whack job they helped put away, and it's not just their own lives but their entire families that are targets.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Well, my college friends for one. One was specifically training for diplomatic positions with the U.S. government to foster peace between the east, west, and middle east.
Click to expand...

I'm 71 years old. Do you have any idea how many times in my lifetime the 'foster peace' program has been spewed? Neither do I. I'll be dead and gone when most here are the age I am now, but, I'd be willing to bet, if I could come back from the dead, that nothing will have changed decades from now.
 
hfd said:
I'm 71 years old. Do you have any idea how many times in my lifetime the 'foster peace' program has been spewed? Neither do I. I'll be dead and gone when most here are the age I am now, but, I'd be willing to bet, if I could come back from the dead, that nothing will have changed decades from now.
Click to expand...
Possibly not, and the reality is that relations between the U.S. and the middle east have been extremely chaotic since the early 1900s. I don't have a decent idea of the fix but I'm sure it starts with moderates on both sides, definitely not politicians.
 
Rocketman said:
Peter King sees the attacks in Massachusetts this week as a wake-up call to local law-enforcement authorities to increase their surveillance and awareness of potential terrorists.

“Police have to be in the community, they have to build up as many sources as they can, and they have to realize that the threat is coming from the Muslim community and increase surveillance there,” the New York Republican congressman tells National Review.

“We can’t be bound by political correctness,” adds King, who chairs the House subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence. “I think we need more police and more surveillance in the communities where the threat is coming from, whether it’s the Irish community with the Westies [an Irish-American gang in New York City], or the Italian community with the mafia, or the Muslim community with the Islamic terrorists.”

GOP Congressman:
Click to expand...

And if there's plausible cause in a particular localized area to increase survellience on a particular community, that's fine. That's why it's okay to increase survellience on the Irish community in New York because of the Westies, but doesn't neecssarily mean that it justifies increasing it in Bufallo and Baltimore.
 
Rocketman said:
Peter King sees the attacks in Massachusetts this week as a wake-up call to local law-enforcement authorities to increase their surveillance and awareness of potential terrorists.

“Police have to be in the community, they have to build up as many sources as they can, and they have to realize that the threat is coming from the Muslim community and increase surveillance there,” the New York Republican congressman tells National Review.

“We can’t be bound by political correctness,” adds King, who chairs the House subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence. “I think we need more police and more surveillance in the communities where the threat is coming from, whether it’s the Irish community with the Westies [an Irish-American gang in New York City], or the Italian community with the mafia, or the Muslim community with the Islamic terrorists.”

GOP Congressman:
Click to expand...

Well, Hell, based on this logic, we need more surveillance in Congress and the WH!
 
Rocketman said:
You are right, we should not used commons sense backed up by statistical evidence, that would be a waste of time:roll:
Click to expand...

:lamo
And throw the Constitution right out the window right?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:lamo
And throw the Constitution right out the window right?
Click to expand...

"The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." Justice Robert Jackson, U.S. Supreme Court, 1949:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom