- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Sounds like common sense to me.
Agreed. Good evening, Pero.:2wave:
Sounds like common sense to me.
"Unfortunately, we have too many mosques in this country. There are too many people who are sympathetic to radical Islam. We should be looking at them more carefully. We should be finding out how we can infiltrate."
"I think there’s been a lack of full cooperation from too many people in the Muslim community. And it’s a real threat here in this country."
“[Y]ou could say that 80-85 percent of mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists.”
“I know of any number of mosques in New York…where there are radicals in there.”
Muslims are “an enemy living amongst us.”
“They won’t turn in their own. They won’t tell what’s going on in the mosques. They won’t come forward and cooperate with the police.”
he probably won't. ever. that's how it works when you only seek data that supports your theory instead of testing your theory with data.
don't get me wrong; I'm depressed by this violent bull****, and I find zealotry of all types to be the root cause. however, I doubt that the number of violent Muslims in the US even approaches one percent. what he's suggesting is akin to monitoring all white people in order to catch serial killers.
Agreed. Good evening, Pero.:2wave:
Howdy Jack, I hope all is well with you and yours
It has to do with the statistical justification for your idea, if you're going to target a specific group like that then the exact same logic applies to targeting males over females for gun crime or any crime in general for that matter.
Show me where I stated target, you can't, stop making stuff up
Pssst.....those are quotes from Peter King.If you know there are radicals in the New York mosques, have you told the local police or Homeland Security,or the FBI?
Target the Muslim community with increased surveillance. That's what you meant, so why not target males with increased surveillance they commit most crimes in every category.
That's a weak retort man, you're just stalling and distracting.
So now you are telling me what I meant instead of reading what I posted, you should definitely change your handle here.
In Peter King's defense, in 1995 he advocated rounding up everybody who's last name started with "Mc" and putting them in concentration camps. Oh, he didn't?....Never mind then.
I don't want to play word games so let me just rephrase the question. If we are going to increase surveillance on Muslims, why not all males in general, there's statistical justification for both?
Really? show us
Show us how how many terrorist attacks have taken place on US soil by each group. Let's also see the list of casualties and damage
A very indicative fact in this entire case about the nature of Islam is that these guys family NEVER called in and said they recognized them. They have extensive family here. A father, uncle, aunt, sisters, etc and none of them called in and said they knew who he was. I don't care if my wife or son did this, they would be as good as caught if they did.
All I know of at this point is two male and one female room mate. We don't know anything about them yet which is why I didn't mention them. Also, their family (minus one uncle) has claimed a big US conspiracy against them and denied that they did it. This is despite the fact that the FBI has video of the youngest dropping one of the packs that blew up. Disbelief and withholding are two very different things. I was in disbelief that the young man they kept showing on TV was a terrorist as I'm sure many others were.And to the many others who have been brought forth that were classmates, friends, and so forth that were in disbelief that it was them?
All I know of at this point is two male and one female room mate. We don't know anything about them yet which is why I didn't mention them. Also, their family (minus one uncle) has claimed a big US conspiracy against them and denied that they did it. This is despite the fact that the FBI has video of the youngest dropping one of the packs that blew up. Disbelief and withholding are two very different things. I was in disbelief that the young man they kept showing on TV was a terrorist as I'm sure many others were.
Why can't I say that? Very rarely do you see muslims roll over on fellow muslims. When they do, you see things like the OBL informer being imprisoned in Pakistan and tortured.These colleagues, classmates, and friends did not become public figures until today. This includes the family members. Some of the best statements against this heinous series of events came from one of the Uncles.
While I can both understand and have some issues with some family members claiming these two men were framed, and some reports that there was some truther elements involved, you cannot just say "oh this is indicative of Islam!"
Why can't I say that? Very rarely do you see muslims roll over on fellow muslims. When they do, you see things like the OBL informer being imprisoned in Pakistan and tortured.
Which post or series of posts are you speaking of? I don't think I read them.Maybe we aren't looking close enough and shut out contrary concepts, as had been discussed earlier.
Which post or series of posts are you speaking of? I don't think I read them.
Yeah, because you have tons of examples of bombings committed by people whose last name started with "Mc".
Oh, you don't? .... Never mind then.
One of the many threads in which it was about how Muslims keep silent against the acts of terrorism. Of course, when we showed otherwise throughout the years, that conveniently gets shoved underneath a rug.