- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 10,101
- Reaction score
- 2,990
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
He lives in a country that believes in protecting its citizens.
I don't trust my Government with my address let alone protect me.
He lives in a country that believes in protecting its citizens.
Can you show me the evidence you have which indicates that Muslims are planning a bombing campaign?
Unfortunately suicide Bombers keep there plans well concealed.
Paul.
Unfortunately suicide Bombers keep there plans well concealed.
Paul.
So our "enemy" is dressed like a Muslim? That seems like a very ill-conceived and ignorant view on things. What happens if a white male assassinates Obama? Will the "white man" then become the next windmill for you to chase?
Well then we should certainly look into detaining all Middle Easterners as we did with AMERICANS of Japanese decent in World War Two. That seemed to be pretty effective. :roll:
No one even suggested such a thing. But our security response is commensurate with the threat level.
Then why make unsupportable claims to the contrary?
Wait, what attacks?
US hasn't had any other terrorist attacks .... has it?
Because we give extra attention to the enemies most likely. It's not my fault there isn't an al Qada uniform to help us in our search but I would rather we were more liberal with our caution than less, right now.
How do surmise my claims unsupportable? Do you not read the papers, watch the news? I have no need to demonstrate my ability to produce copious amounts of footage showing the aftermath of a "Bombing campaign".
Paul.
I do and show me where any of those things violates our Constitution. Don't patronize us with your opinion rather show us one Supreme Court rulling against each one of the above that violates the Constitution.
1. Universal Healthcare Removes liberty
2. Global Warming Carbon Controls (read cap and trade) Removes liberty
3. Progessive Income Tax Removes liberty
4. Smoking Bans in private establishments (like bars and restaurants) Removes liberty
Random searches means less time spent on the most likely targets.. might "feel good" but isn't practical.
No, but that's because of increased security...
Because we give extra attention to the enemies most likely. It's not my fault there isn't an al Qada uniform to help us in our search but I would rather we were more liberal with our caution than less, right now.
Its sterotyping and singling out a group - Lets just call it what it is but i personally wouldn't really mind if i was stopped once in a while. I'd be happy to give a few minutes [no longer than that] to ensure the security of everyone else and me. Seems a small sacrifice. It would just all depend on the attitude of those who are the ones searching you.
I respectfully disagree. The moral of the story is that the terrorists win every time bigotry is tolerated due to their threats. Preserving our Constitution is a lot more important to me than allowing morons on a plane to shout "FIRE" which is what they did and what the Constitution does not allow.
Ah, so I'm guessing you work in law enforcement? Or near law enforcement? Or have some kind of ties to law enforcement to make this call with any kind of factual backup besides just talking out of your ass, yes?
Do you consider terrorist attacks only those that actually take place in the United States when you're saying this? Because if you do, we went 8 years after the 1993 World Trade Center Bombings before we had another terrorist attack within our borders. Was THAT because of increased security? Or just coincidence then, but absolute truth that it is now?
Wait, are you going to bring up the Khobar Towers, or the U.S.S. Cole, or the Embassies? You can do that, but that opens up terrorist attacks outside the United States in which we HAVE suffered those in the past 7 years.
So....which is it MrVicchio? Attacks within our borders, in which case the 8 years during Clinton's term must've just been "Coincidence" but during Bush's has to have been "Security"? Or is it all terrorist attacks, in which case we have had numerous attacks?
That's fair. I don't think you would be detained in any way that could make you angry at the government response to a terrorist threat. You may decide to be a little pissed at the person who caused your detainment by being a little jumpy around you for looking like what she percieves as an enemy, but the government really doesn't have time to make that assessment and they have to err on the side of caution..."is it a plausible threat"? I think traditionally muslim and this woman giving a definitive report of hearing this group talking about "security" and taking an interest in the engine position, even if it was hearsay... it deserved checking out. If they missed a plane, I think the airline should have flown them for free. I think that is reasonable deterrent against making an inappropriate response. I also think that the FBI assuming responsibility of the arrangement was pretty impressive and a show of good faith from our government. But the airline deserves to take a hit for not being responsible for the bad judgment of its employees and policies toward the situation.
It's really not that big a story. 9 people were detained for understandable reasons.
Where is the right to fly in The Constitution?
A private business reserves the right to refuse service to people.
Under federal law, not on the basis of race, religion, ethnic background, sex or age.
I hope not anyway, thats where my problems lie. 'The enemy'
Is someone your enemy just for believing in a certain faith?
But lets look at it logically, those who dress up in traditional muslim garb would be less likely to be terrorists compared to those who don't.
I can look ultra extreme one day and normal as hell the other.
If the Government base its searches on those who dress a certain way then if i was planning to bomb something in the US. You'd be damn sure i'd be walking around in a mini skirt and heels as i'd be overlooked
Bars and restaraunts have dress codes. There are also codes of conduct. You can't say "bomb" or lot's of other things on an airplane.
I agree with you. And that's where random searches hit. This wasn't a case of just Muslim garb, obvious or not. It wasn't for looking a certain way. It was for matching several of the obvious signs of a probable enemy.
How does he address the fact that he proved that your notion of private business having the type of absolute authority cited is inaccurate?
(Also, why should I get in trouble if I say, "I bombed my final exam" to my friend just because I'm in an airport? Isn't this word sensitivity going a bit overboard?)
The typical white person just doesn't know enough about your culture to discern past the fact that you are different. We can't tell the good from the bad
"Wow, the jets are right next to my window." and looking Middle Eastern are enough to suspect that someone is an enemy? :shock:
Muslims and everyone else should be glad to assist in ferreting them out just to help stop them. When someone steals your wallet, you don't just let them have your identity while he's at it. You are proactive about stopping it and you certainly wouldn't hinder a legitimate investigation into finding them.