NPR = morons

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Another example of how we cater to the sensitivities of the muslims:
================================================== ===

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101021/cm_yblog_upshot/npr-fires-juan-williams-for-muslim-remarks-on-fox


"So Juan Williams is fired for saying something the liberals at NPR find controversial?" Goldberg said. "One more piece of evidence that liberals have forgotten how to be liberal."
Goldberg continued: "These are the kind of people who brag about how open-minded they are -- as long as you agree with them. And here's the dirty little secret: lots and lots of liberals feel the same way Juan does when they get on an airplane. And a lot of those liberals work at NPR. Juan's 'crime' was saying it out loud."

Weekly Standard Editor and Fox contributor Bill Kristol also had some choice words for NPR (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/yblog_upshot/cm_yblog_upshot/storytext/npr-fires-juan-williams-for-muslim-remarks-on-fox/38128995/SIG=12k4c0vh1/*http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/national-politically-correct-radio_511450.html), which he dubbed "National Politically-correct Radio." Kristol concluded a post about the firing by saying: "NPR -- unfair, unbalanced ... and afraid."
=======================================
Don't say anything bad about us, or we'll kill you! Don't draw a picture of mohammed or we'll kill you! Yep, that's tolerance of other cultures.

[Sean]

Thank goodness I know how Fox contributor, Bernie Goldberg feels about current trends in liberal media. Phew, I can finally sleep tonight. :rolleyes:

[Canuck]

^+1 :lol:

[drago52]

Terrorists attacked us on 9/11. Not Muslims. There is a clear distinction between calling a group of people (who may or may not be muslims) terrorists and calling all muslims terrorists. you can see the difference, right?

[Canuck]

I'm only afraid of the white man.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Terrorists attacked us on 9/11. Not Muslims. There is a clear distinction between calling a group of people (who may or may not be muslims) terrorists and calling all muslims terrorists. you can see the difference, right?
PC people hiding their heads in the sand and refusing to call a spade a spade doesn't change the fact that the people who flew the planes into the buildings were muslims as well as terrorists. Are all muslims terrorists? I hope not. But, statistically, almost all people that are suicide bombers and IED bombers are in fact (drum roll please) muslim. Fact. In fact, if you were to try and tell them that they WEREN'T muslim (because that suited the PC agenda-see comment about hiding head in sand), they'd simply kill you. THEY believe they're muslim enough to die for it.

Saying that they weren't and aren't muslims is like saying that the people that ran the concentration camps in WWII weren't Germans.......

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

I'm only afraid of the white man.
As you should be! :)

[drago52]

But, statistically, almost all people that are suicide bombers and IED bombers are in fact (drum roll please) muslim. Fact.


(sigh) I can see how things can get way out of hand with your point of view.

[TinkerinWstuff]

kinda hard to argue with facts

Not that a solid number has been provided - but I don't know if you could find anyone delusional enough to argue with where the mass majority of terrorists come from.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

(sigh) I can see how things can get way out of hand with your point of view.
Show me I'm wrong. The people that flew the planes were raised muslim, practiced muslim, and themselves claimed to be. So, what would make them NOT muslim? Do you have a specific checklist? Of course, all muslims are not terrorists, any more than all Germans were death camp guards, yet they WERE German, as the terrorists WERE muslim. So, to believe otherwise is just hiding from reality.

[TinkerinWstuff]

you kind of have to be willing to accept the facts before you can do anything to change them. I'm not necessarily saying that profiling or discrimination is the answer - but how do you go forward and establish a plan to change attitudes and perceptions between cultures if you aren't willing to identify with the truth?

the muslim culture/religion breeds far more terrorists toward western ways than any other at this point in time.

[drago52]

...as the terrorists WERE muslim. So, to believe otherwise is just hiding from reality.

That is the point I am making. The terrorists were muslim, yet. But are all muslims -> terrorists (as you and Fox and O'Reilly contend)? No, but that's what you're saying. "Muslims killed us on 9/11"

You can see how using this logic turns everything into a holy war, right? Look at it from the terrorist perspective. Christians (USA in god we trust) invade bagdad under false pretenses, prepare to invade iran, etc. Retaliation should then be expected if it's christians vs muslims.

Call "a spade a spade", but don't call a muslim a terrorist (although feel free to call a terrorist a muslim if warranted. :) )

[TinkerinWstuff]

you got your history wrong

Iraq invaded Kuwait first and we responded (I was there)

We left Sadam in place because we knew at the time that it would destablize the region.

Then the terrorists flew a plane into the towers - unprovoked, not in response. Do your research.

[TinkerinWstuff]

You can see how using this logic turns everything into a Jihad?

Fixed

[Zach929rr]

ohlookanotherkindofpoliticalthread

[SOCAL4LIFE!!]

you got your history wrong

Iraq invaded Kuwait first and we responded (I was there)

We left Sadam in place because we knew at the time that it would destablize the region.

Then the terrorists flew a plane into the towers - unprovoked, not in response. Do your research.

One of the cool things about being over here this time is I work with guys who know the history of Iraq. Anyone know why Iraq invaded Kuwait to begin with? And not it wasn't for oil.

Kuwait was a province in Iraq before the Brits came and took it over. Iraq just wanted it back. Possibly for the oil :D ok so maybe it was about oil. But the fact remains that Kuwait wasn't a country of it own and Iraq just wanted it back.

[SOCAL4LIFE!!]

ohlookanotherkindofpoliticalthread
It what 11 days until the next election? Of course there will be some. Don't worry we will take a break after around Jan 2011 until Jan 2012 :)

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

you kind of have to be willing to accept the facts before you can do anything to change them. I'm not necessarily saying that profiling or discrimination is the answer - but how do you go forward and establish a plan to change attitudes and perceptions between cultures if you aren't willing to identify with the truth?

the muslim culture/religion breeds far more terrorists toward western ways than any other at this point in time.
Exactly. Hence the comment about the PC hiding their head in the sand. You have to clearly identify a problem before you can even think about a plan to eliminate it.

[TinkerinWstuff]

The US wasn't a country of it's own. We were a province of Britain (and others). If they want it back, should they be allowed to invade now?

How about Tibet?

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

One of the cool things about being over here this time is I work with guys who know the history of Iraq. Anyone know why Iraq invaded Kuwait to begin with? And not it wasn't for oil.

Kuwait was a province in Iraq before the Brits came and took it over. Iraq just wanted it back. Possibly for the oil :D ok so maybe it was about oil. But the fact remains that Kuwait wasn't a country of it own and Iraq just wanted it back.
Maybe Kuwait wasn't it's own country at a certain point in time, but borders have shifted so many times over the centuries, who cares? The point is, that Kuwait WAS it's own country at the time Eye-Rack invaded it, and that's really all that matters. Hell, part of the US was owned by mexico, do you think we should give it back? Oops, sorry, we already have.... :(

I think we should freeze all the worlds borders as of today. Nobody invades nobody else. Period.

[drago52]

you got your history wrong

Iraq invaded Kuwait first and we responded (I was there)

We left Sadam in place because we knew at the time that it would destablize the region.

Then the terrorists flew a plane into the towers - unprovoked, not in response. Do your research.

I can see you aren't going to accept "hey, you shouldn't call 25% of the world's population terrorists simply because of their faith", so let's dig deeper into your psyche.

The terrorist attack certainly appeared unprovoked. What was their motive again for attacking us? From this motivation, what lead you to the belief that all muslims were terrorists? Just lay back on the couch and let's talk about your feelings..

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

That is the point I am making. The terrorists were muslim, yet. But are all muslims -> terrorists (as you and Fox and O'Reilly contend)? No, but that's what you're saying. "Muslims killed us on 9/11"

You can see how using this logic turns everything into a holy war, right? Look at it from the terrorist perspective. Christians (USA in god we trust) invade bagdad under false pretenses, prepare to invade iran, etc. Retaliation should then be expected if it's christians vs muslims.

Call "a spade a spade", but don't call a muslim a terrorist (although feel free to call a terrorist a muslim if warranted. :) )
muslims DID kill us on 9/11. Not ALL of them, obviously. Just like Japan DID bomb us at Pearl Harbor. Not ALL of them either. But, again, to claim that being a terrorist somehow doesn't make them muslim as well is unrealistic. They were, are, and did it in the name of allah, their god.

[SOCAL4LIFE!!]

I think we should freeze all the worlds borders as of today. Nobody invades nobody else. Period.

What do you define a "invade?" I would classify what the Mexicans are doing as invading the US. The only people that would care about freezing the borders now and not invading are the people who wouldn't invade anyways.

[Sean]

Saying that they weren't and aren't muslims is like saying that the people that ran the concentration camps in WWII weren't Germans.......But they were devout Catholics. I fear all Catholics as much as I fear all Muslims.

[drago52]

The US wasn't a country of it's own. We were a province of Britain (and others). If they want it back, should they be allowed to invade now?

They did try to take it back and we beat their asses (with some help).

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

What do you define a "invade?" I would classify what the Mexicans are doing as invading the US. The only people that would care about freezing the borders now and not invading are the people who wouldn't invade anyways.
I agree. They ARE invading us. Time to stop that shit, immediately, and ship 'em back.

[TinkerinWstuff]

I can see you aren't going to accept "hey, you shouldn't call 25% of the world's population terrorists simply because of their faith", so let's dig deeper into your psyche.

The terrorist attack certainly appeared unprovoked. What was their motive again for attacking us? From this motivation, what lead you to the belief that all muslims were terrorists? Just lay back on the couch and let's talk about your feelings..

Now you're putting words in peoples mouths to suit your arguement.

No one, not anyone I know of, has said "all muslims were terrorists"

Lets talk about your debating skills?

[drago52]

But they were devout Catholics. I fear all Catholics as much as I fear all Muslims.

exactly, thank you

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

But they were devout Catholics. I fear all Catholics as much as I fear all Muslims.
When was the last time a bunch of Catholics flew jets into a building? ;)

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Now you're putting words in peoples mouths to suit your arguement.

No one, not anyone I know of, has said "all muslims were terrorists"

Lets talk about your debating skills?
How's this: not all muslims are terrorists, but by a vast majority almost all terrorists are muslims. Does that make anyone feel better? Or would you like R. Lee Emery as a psychotherapist? :)

[salsashark]

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_WENF5AxFUtU/TKk7VpMY8hI/AAAAAAAALms/w56_bPIIUMc/hCi9g.gif

[TinkerinWstuff]

jumping outside of the arguement

People who do not feel they have opportunity will turn to crime and violence. Muslims live in a region of the world where most of them work day to day just to SURVIVE, not to improve their daily quality of life like we do here.

If Muslims living in that region of the world felt they had opportunity, they would have more to live for than killing in the name of Allah. It will be interesting to see if the minerals found in Asscrackistan become the wealth of a select few like the oil in Saudi? Or will the citizens get to earn an honest living and improve their daily quality of life?

[drago52]

How's this: not all muslims are terrorists, but by a vast majority almost all terrorists are muslims. Does that make anyone feel better? Or would you like R. Lee Emery as a psychotherapist? :)

yay.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

yay.
Would you like a tissue? :)

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

jumping outside of the arguement

People who do not feel they have opportunity will turn to crime and violence. Muslims live in a region of the world where most of them work day to day just to SURVIVE, not to improve their daily quality of life like we do here.

If Muslims living in that region of the world felt they had opportunity, they would have more to live for than killing in the name of Allah. It will be interesting to see if the minerals found in Asscrackistan become the wealth of a select few like the oil in Saudi? Or will the citizens get to earn an honest living and improve their daily quality of life?
Poverty does not, in and of itself, spawn terrorism. If so, there'd be a bunch of toothless, Baptist, Southern rednecks driving pickups with a bed full of jerry cans into buildings.... :)

[Sean]

Just like Japan DID bomb us at Pearl Harbor. Not ALL of them either. But, again, to claim that being a terrorist somehow doesn't make them muslim as well is unrealistic. So if an Asian person gets on a plane (because in WWII there were plenty of suicide bombers) we should also be fearful? I feel like that's the generalization the NPR is disputing in the article.


No one, not anyone I know of, has said "all muslims were terrorists"But that's why this started, becuase the guy got fired for generalizing all Muslims. Maybe I misread the link (which is completely possible), but he was saying that the terms Muslim and terrorist go hand in hand. Which is why he got fired. Please correct me if you got something else.


When was the last time a bunch of Catholics flew jets into a building? ;)That's your argument? seriously?

[rforsythe]

Poverty does not, in and of itself, spawn terrorism. If so, there'd be a bunch of toothless, Baptist, Southern rednecks driving pickups with a bed full of jerry cans into buildings.... :)

:spit:

Best. mental. image. ever.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

jumping outside of the arguement

People who do not feel they have opportunity will turn to crime and violence. Muslims live in a region of the world where most of them work day to day just to SURVIVE, not to improve their daily quality of life like we do here.

If Muslims living in that region of the world felt they had opportunity, they would have more to live for than killing in the name of Allah. It will be interesting to see if the minerals found in Asscrackistan become the wealth of a select few like the oil in Saudi? Or will the citizens get to earn an honest living and improve their daily quality of life?
It seems, over there, they have over thousands of years developed a culture of bloodthirsty acts, justifying anything and everything in the name of allah. See how the predominantly Christian nations behave and treat their subjects (and outsiders) vs. those under muslim rule/sharia law. And that has nothing to do with poverty, but mentality and twisted ideals.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

:spit:

Best. mental. image. ever.
Here's the soundtrack:

Hey y'all, hold my PBR and watch this! :)

[rforsythe]

It seems, over there, they have over thousands of years developed a culture of bloodthirsty acts, justifying anything and everything in the name of allah.

Careful. Catholicism/Christianity has been used the same way for a couple thousand years as well. Different god, still a lot of dead people. Just because it isn't the predominant religion waging holy wars today does not make that point less relevant.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

So if an Asian person gets on a plane (because in WWII there were plenty of suicide bombers) we should also be fearful? I feel like that's the generalization the NPR is disputing in the article.
Um, that was 70 years ago in the middle of a little skirmish called WWII?

But that's why this started, becuase the guy got fired for generalizing all Muslims. Maybe I misread the link (which is completely possible), but he was saying that the terms Muslim and terrorist go hand in hand. Which is why he got fired. Please correct me if you got something else.
If the majority of people flying planes into buildings IS in fact arab muslims, then the generalization is warranted IMO.

That's your argument? seriously?
For the last 40+ years I've watched time after time, starting with the Olympic massacre, muslim terrorist acts. To the point where it's the norm, and a part of daily life in those parts of the world. After a while of trying to deny what your own eyes tell you, you cave in to the facts. In my line of work, that's what I'm trained to do. Establish root cause, regardless of if the conclusion is what I want to see or not.
x

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Careful. Catholicism/Christianity has been used the same way for a couple thousand years as well. Different god, still a lot of dead people. Just because it isn't the predominant religion waging holy wars today does not make that point less relevant.
True, but those barbaric acts (and they WERE barbaric) occurred many hundreds of years ago. I can see a primitive people commiting such acts, but we're to the point where for the most part the world is civilized enough to realize that those acts are not acceptable today. If people are civilized enough today to make a call on a cell phone, they're (or should be) civilized enough to NOT use that cell phone as a bomb trigger. ;)

[jbnwc]

jumping outside of the arguement

People who do not feel they have opportunity will turn to crime and violence. Muslims live in a region of the world where most of them work day to day just to SURVIVE, not to improve their daily quality of life like we do here.

If Muslims living in that region of the world felt they had opportunity, they would have more to live for than killing in the name of Allah. It will be interesting to see if the minerals found in Asscrackistan become the wealth of a select few like the oil in Saudi? Or will the citizens get to earn an honest living and improve their daily quality of life?

I used to think that way, but not all terrorist are from impoverished nations. Many of them are born or have lived much of their life outside of "Muslim" countries. Besides, there are plenty of poor people in the US that never turn to violence, so the attraction to Jihad cannot be based on money.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

I used to think that way, but not all terrorist are from impoverished nations. Many of them are born or have lived much of their life outside of "Muslim" countries. Besides, there are plenty of poor people in the US that never turn to violence, so the attraction to Jihad cannot be based on money.
Exactly. There IS no connection. It is the IDEALS that make them terrorists, not their economic position. Indeed, many of them are middle-class and somewhat educated.

[Sean]

xMan, there are 1.57 billion Muslims in the world inover 50 countries equating almost 24% of the population. Your generalization is not warrented.

And as for Christianity being better, you need to read some history. Catholics and Protestants have a long history of war. And if you're going to say that it's not recent, ever been to Northern Ireland?

[jbnwc]

True, but those barbaric acts (and they WERE barbaric) occurred many hundreds of years ago.

What were Muslims doing in Jerusalem? ...and Turkey, Greece, Spain, Austria, etc? hmmmm

[jbnwc]

And as for Christianity being better, you need to read some history. Catholics and Protestants have a long history of war. And if you're going to say that it's not recent, ever been to Northern Ireland?

The difference here is that the Irish are not killing each other because of religious ideas.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Man, there are 1.57 billion Muslims in the world inover 50 countries equating almost 24% of the population. Your generalization is not warrented.

And as for Christianity being better, you need to read some history. Catholics and Protestants have a long history of war. And if you're going to say that it's not recent, ever been to Northern Ireland?
Yes, it is. The vast majority of what are considered terrorist acts are perpatrated by muslims.

Northern Ireland is not as bad as it was when I was growing up. And, I agree, those guys were just as much terrorists as the muslims today are. And, for reference, the IRA was the ones who mostly taught the modern terrorists how to build the bombs. The difference is, the IRA has stopped that, and the muslims seem to be just ramping up. Plus, they've done a LOT more damage than the IRA ever did.

[Sean]

The difference here is that the Irish are not killing each other because of religious ideas.Exclusivly, no. But to deny that it played a role would be kind of hard. It also had to do with government and land, but the Protestant/Catholic beliefs were included. Then again, I would have a hard time believeing that terrorists attacked the US 100% for religious reasons.

[dirkterrell]

I used to think that way, but not all terrorist are from impoverished nations. Many of them are born or have lived much of their life outside of "Muslim" countries. Besides, there are plenty of poor people in the US that never turn to violence, so the attraction to Jihad cannot be based on money.

It ultimately comes down to power and money for a handful. The poor masses are used as a tool to achieve those things. The instrument by which the poor are convinced to give/risk their lives to give power/money to the few? Religion. History is replete with examples.

Dirk

[jbnwc]

Exclusivly, no. But to deny that it played a role would be kind of hard. It also had to do with government and land, but the Protestant/Catholic beliefs were included. Then again, I would have a hard time believeing that terrorists attacked the US 100% for religious reasons.

The religious lines had a role to play in their politics, but they aren't killing because one likes infant baptism and the other doesn't, for example. It's a political war.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

What were Muslims doing in Jerusalem? ...and Turkey, Greece, Spain, Austria, etc? hmmmm
Blowing shit up....... :)

[jbnwc]

Blowing shit up....... :)


I'm sure it was peaceful, whatever it was. I'm sure they were just migrant workers.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

It ultimately comes down to power and money for a handful. The poor masses are used as a tool to achieve those things. The instrument by which the poor are convinced to give/risk their lives to give power/money to the few? Religion. History is replete with examples.

Dirk
Exactly. But, why is this particular religion so filled with people eager to be suicide bombers? To kill innicents in a day and age where we should know it's wrong. What is it in particular that breeds this type of fanaticism? The very origins of all the religions of the area are shockingly similar, but what made one branch turn the way it did? If it was Christians that were preominantly suicide bombers, then I'd be ragging on them for the same reason. I'm just at a loss to explain why the numbers are so stacked in that area.

[jbnwc]

It ultimately comes down to power and money for a handful. The poor masses are used as a tool to achieve those things. The instrument by which the poor are convinced to give/risk their lives to give power/money to the few? Religion. History is replete with examples.

Dirk

That's interesting since Christianity teaches extensively on giving to the poor. Perhaps Islam is different.

[Sean]

Yes, it is. The vast majority of what are considered terrorist acts are perpatrated by muslims.And this is why the tread will continue until an admin locks it. There are a lot of terrorist acts that go on in the world and the US doesn't hear about most of them (gotta love filtered news). Many of these different attacks in Asia and South America have nothing to do with Muslims. The ones we hear about do. Because that perpetuates fear (back to a firm Catholic belief)Check out more world news.


The religious lines had a role to play in their politics, but they aren't killing because one likes infant baptism and the other doesn't, for example. It's a political war.Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't it start out as the belief/religion behind the government? And then evoled much more into politics after? The point I was trying to make is that terrorist attacks on the US were not completely religious based. It was only one of their motivators.

[jbnwc]

Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't it start out as the belief/religion behind the government? And then evoled much more into politics after? The point I was trying to make is that terrorist attacks on the US were not completely religious based. It was only one of their motivators.

Where they attacking on behalf of Saudi Arabia? Iran? Afghanistan? Oil? Or perhaps they have something against tall buildings or those that aren't square shaped?

[TinkerinWstuff]

Hold on. So it's ok to generalize and say the muslim religion breeds more terrorism than another but not ok to generalize and say that poverty CAN too?

There is no fixed certain rules or the solutions would be easy to see.

[jbnwc]

Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't it start out as the belief/religion behind the government? And then evoled much more into politics after? The point I was trying to make is that terrorist attacks on the US were not completely religious based. It was only one of their motivators.

Are you implying that we deserved it? That we "had it coming" so to speak?

[jbnwc]

Hold on. So it's ok to generalize and say the muslim religion breeds more terrorism than another but not ok to generalize and say that poverty CAN too?

There is no fixed certain rules or the solutions would be easy to see.

Unfortunately, there isn't even a correlation to poverty, let alone causation.

[jbnwc]

I'm bored already. Back to work. Good luck solving this one gents.

[Sean]

Where they attacking on behalf of Saudi Arabia? Iran? Afghanistan? Oil? Or perhaps they have something against tall buildings or those that aren't square shaped?No, none of those reasons. I would say display of power, domination, being recognized/heard as a group/leader, proving that they are a global power to be contended with, are aspects that could play a role in prompting attacks.


Are you implying that we deserved it? That we "had it coming" so to speak?:wtf: Not sure how you got that out of my statement, but no.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Maybe no correlation to the ones who flew the plane. But the suicide and roadside bomber in asscrackistan isn't the shopkeeper with ample money to feed his kids.


Unfortunately, there isn't even a correlation to poverty, let alone causation.

[dirkterrell]

Exactly. But, why is this particular religion so filled with people eager to be suicide bombers? To kill innicents in a day and age where we should know it's wrong. What is it in particular that breeds this type of fanaticism? The very origins of all the religions of the area are shockingly similar, but what made one branch turn the way it did? If it was Christians that were preominantly suicide bombers, then I'd be ragging on them for the same reason. I'm just at a loss to explain why the numbers are so stacked in that area.

It' not the religion per se driving it, but the desire of a few for power and/or wealth. And in a (mostly) religiously homogeneous society, it is easier for those few to whip up massive numbers of people to support a given idea and demonize the small numbers of those who are against it. The same approach can work in an ethnically homogeneous society. (By homogeneous, I mean that a large majority of the population slots into one category, be it religion, ethnicity, whatever is relevant to the idea being debated.) Nazi Germany was an example of the ethnic approach.

The Founding Fathers recognized this and it was a driver for the idea of separation of church and state. Government wields tremendous power and by removing the explicit use of religion for making governing decisions, you have a better chance of avoiding the use of that power to enforce religious concepts. That is freedom at its most fundamental level.

Dirk

[dirkterrell]

That's interesting since Christianity teaches extensively on giving to the poor. Perhaps Islam is different.

It is no different in Islam. But, again, it is not the religion itself that is the source of the strife we are talking about, but a subset of the population who use the religion to achieve their power/money ambitions.

Dirk

[Filo]

When was the last time a bunch of Catholics flew jets into a building? ;)
Timothy McVeigh. Oh, wait, that was a truck.

[Filo]

It' not the religion per se driving it, but the desire of a few for power and/or wealth. And in a (mostly) religiously homogeneous society, it is easier for those few to whip up massive numbers of people to support a given idea and demonize the small numbers of those who are against it. The same approach can work in an ethnically homogeneous society. (By homogeneous, I mean that a large majority of the population slots into one category, be it religion, ethnicity, whatever is relevant to the idea being debated.) Nazi Germany was an example of the ethnic approach.

The Founding Fathers recognized this and it was a driver for the idea of separation of church and state. Government wields tremendous power and by removing the explicit use of religion for making governing decisions, you have a better chance of avoiding the use of that power to enforce religious concepts. That is freedom at its most fundamental level.

Dirk

Don't you dare bring reason to this, or I am going to have to add middle aged white VFR riders to my group of boogie men. Along with Muslims and Catholics. And Jews. And Blacks. And Carnies.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Timothy McVeigh. Oh, wait, that was a truck.
Ok, that was ONE......any others you can name beside him and the nutjob who flew his plane into the IRS building for other than religious reasons? One, does not a trend make. ;)

[Filo]

Ok, that was ONE......any others you can name beside him and the nutjob who flew his plane into the IRS building for other than religious reasons? One, does not a trend make. ;)
I won't limit myself to just this country, and for the most part I will just name groups, not individuals...

Sons of Freedom
National Liberation Front of Tripura
Padraic Pearse
Brian OHiggins
Lord's Resistance Army
Army of God
Lambs of Christ
Concerned Christians
Hutaree
Oh, and the Ku Klux Klan

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

I won't limit myself to just this country, and for the most part I will just name groups, not individuals...

Sons of Freedom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Freedom_(band) (Them Kanadian rock musicians LOOOOVE to fly planes into buildings, eh?) :)

National Liberation Front of Tripura
Padraic Pearse
Brian OHiggins
Lord's Resistance Army
Army of God
Lambs of Christ
Concerned Christians
Hutaree
Oh, and the Ku Klux Klan
Have the combined acts of ALL these groups equalled just the 9/11 attacks in terms of death count and billions of dollars in damage? If so, then obviously we have Christians as our worst enemy.

[Aphrodite]

Rush was talking about this today, glad to see he is not the only one that is talking. :scramble:

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Rush was talking about this today, glad to see he is not the only one that is talking. :scramble:
Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson, and Neil Peart were talking about NPR???? :)

[Aphrodite]

Yup so was Rush on his radio program. (about the NPR ordeal)

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Funny....
http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/1010/Fox_hands_Williams_2_million_contract.html

[TinkerinWstuff]

good for him. he's usually well informed on issues and provides a thought provoking view point. I don't usually end up agreeing with him but he challenges my beliefs and I find him to be honest and lives in reality rather than an ideologue.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

good for him. he's usually well informed on issues and provides a thought provoking view point. I don't usually end up agreeing with him but he challenges my beliefs and I find him to be honest and lives in reality rather than an ideologue.
Yeah, I respect the guy as well. Good for him. He probably got a raise! Like I said, the muslims seem to be intolerant of any criticsm. Remember that book writer that had all the death threats? Or the people that were threatened for drawing mohammed? Or even Southpark, and especially the one guy from Southpark who was muslim and ok with poking fun at everything else, but when it came to making fun of islam, he quit? Yep, that's tolerance.

[mtnairlover]

A simple search brought this up...

http://www.alrisala.org/Articles/mailing_list/charity.html (http://www.alrisala.org/Articles/mailing_list/charity.html)

"Charity, preached by every religion of the world, is a way of bringing justice to society. And justice is the essence of religion. Islam has therefore made charity, that is, zakat, obligatory and binding upon all those who embrace the faith; it has been made into an institution in order to give it permanence and regularity.

All human beings, according to Islam, have been created by one and the same God, and for this reason they belong to one great brotherhood. All being descendants of the same progenitor, Adam and Eve, they should naturally be each other’s well-wishers. They must willingly come to one another’s assistance, like members of the same large family. Islam has, therefore, laid the greatest of emphasis on the support of destitute and disabled members of society. It is a sacred duty of the wealthy to give part of their possessions to fulfill the needs of the deprived sections of the community."

In my opinion, it's so freakin easy to condemn that which we are ignorant of. Do a little more digging and you get the truth and you begin to understand.

I also searched to find out who the writer of this page was...Maulana Wahiduddin Khan...is a noted Islamic scholar. He has received, among others, the Demiurgus Peace International Award, under the patronage of the former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev; the Padma Bhushan, India's third highest civilian honour; and the National Citizen’s Award, presented by Mother Teresa. He has translated the Quran in simple and contemporary English and currently give lectures on ETV Urdu, Bridges TV, ITV, ARY Digital, QTV, Aaj TV, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maulana_Wahiduddin_Khan

Terrorism is just that...terrorism. When it comes to McVeigh and blowing up the Federal Center in OK, it was a terrorist act. He wanted to make a statement and make people listen to his message. The same is true for all other terrorists. The thing is, when you talk to people from the Arab countries, the things they hate about "the West" is the loose ways in which we live. They do not want Western ways to influence how they live. They've lived that way for many more years than we have lived our ways and they do not like the changes that are occurring in their own countries. This is radicalism at its worst. And they will find any reason, any excuse to be heard and to entice and convert others into their way of thinking.

When I look at this whole thread and generalize as everyone else has been generalizing, then I can equate some of what is being said here as the same as what terrorists do to convert others. I hate generalizations, because I spend so much of my time learning about all the intricacies of things and people that interest me.

Ok, getting off my grumpy soapbox...go ahead and blast me for being a freakin bleeding heart namby pamby liberal (moron)...sigh...

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

You're right, McVeigh is a terrorist as much as the IRA are terrorists as much as the 9/11 guys are terrorists. It's the same ideal of violence to achieve an end that drives them, they differ in the particulars. Religion did not drive McVeigh though. However, as I mentioned, why are there so many more muslim terrorists, and by such a vast margin? Why does that particular religion spawn so many compared to all the others. And, can you find a single muslim charity that caters to the poor Christian world, as is the case in many instances the other way around?

As far as the truth, well, as you said, dig and find how barbaric sharia law is. If they want to be "left alone" as opposed to "conquer", why are they trying to get sharia law passed in Britain, and even here? Talk to women from those countries (as I have) to see how they're treated. Talk to an Egeyptian born there and raised Christian (as I have) who's family had to flee the country because of their beliefs. Look at the honor killings, and female circumcision. Find a single recent instance where a Christian has cut off an innocent person's head on video. You can't ignore this.

[mtnairlover]

No you cannot ignore, but you cannot also generalize. All of that is still a small number as compared to the many millions who do not believe in radical Islam. And that is what it is...radicalism.

Christianity had its own radicals in the past and even now. Other religions have theirs as well. My thought? It is a group of people's way of controlling that which they feel out of control with.

Here's a very simple way to explain what I think drives these terrorists (radicals)...

People/groups/communities, etc. live their lives based on what they have and that is the way it has been for thousands of years in the mid-eastern countries. Introduce other ideas, other cultures, other ways to live into these countries and blast it in their faces over and over again and you will catalyze nations.

Do I blame the western culture...no way in hell. But, these countries and the radicals that live in them have been living their way of life for a very long time...longer than we have been living ours. Some have been able to go with the flow and adapt ideas to meet their own needs, some have hated change...so much so that they have radicalized their beliefs. They want to remain as they have been for thousands of years. They want to control their own destinies, but so much is changing around them so quickly, that they refuse to adapt and they will fight to maintain their way of living.

It's a human thing to not want to change when you are comfortable doing as you have done for your whole life. Ever read "Who moved my cheese?" I had to read that in my previous job because there was so much change going on in our building and ways of doing things were changing so quickly that we had some (a very few people out of the whole group) who were completely adamant about not changing the way things were going...they were fine as they were, why change?

I know...this is so very simplistic...but that's how I see it. I've known Muslims...lived with one for 3 years...so I know what a few of them think and what their outlook is of the world.

Here's another way to think of it...how long have we known of terrorism? Was it around in the early 1900s? When traveling was not as easy as it is now and when no one had any idea what went on in other parts of the world, because there was no television? Outside cultures have bombarded these countries for the past 100'ish years with their ideas (oil is good) and ways, and in the grand scheme of things in all the time they've lived like they have, now all of a sudden there are some who want to live and act differently...who want to modernize and allow women to work and be considered as equal. It's a shock to the steadfast traditionalist.

When I look at things from a different standpoint, then maybe some sort of understanding can be derived and generalizations can dissipate. But, that's just me.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

No you cannot ignore, but you cannot also generalize. All of that is still a small number as compared to the many millions who do not believe in radical Islam. And that is what it is...radicalism.

Christianity had its own radicals in the past and even now. Other religions have theirs as well. My thought? It is a group of people's way of controlling that which they feel out of control with.

Here's a very simple way to explain what I think drives these terrorists (radicals)...

People/groups/communities, etc. live their lives based on what they have and that is the way it has been for thousands of years in the mid-eastern countries. Introduce other ideas, other cultures, other ways to live into these countries and blast it in their faces over and over again and you will catalyze nations.

Do I blame the western culture...no way in hell. But, these countries and the radicals that live in them have been living their way of life for a very long time...longer than we have been living ours. Some have been able to go with the flow and adapt ideas to meet their own needs, some have hated change...so much so that they have radicalized their beliefs. They want to remain as they have been for thousands of years. They want to control their own destinies, but so much is changing around them so quickly, that they refuse to adapt and they will fight to maintain their way of living.

It's a human thing to not want to change when you are comfortable doing as you have done for your whole life. Ever read "Who moved my cheese?" I had to read that in my previous job because there was so much change going on in our building and ways of doing things were changing so quickly that we had some (a very few people out of the whole group) who were completely adamant about not changing the way things were going...they were fine as they were, why change?

I know...this is so very simplistic...but that's how I see it. I've known Muslims...lived with one for 3 years...so I know what a few of them think and what their outlook is of the world.

Here's another way to think of it...how long have we known of terrorism? Was it around in the early 1900s? When traveling was not as easy as it is now and when no one had any idea what went on in other parts of the world, because there was no television? Outside cultures have bombarded these countries for the past 100'ish years with their ideas (oil is good) and ways, and in the grand scheme of things in all the time they've lived like they have, now all of a sudden there are some who want to live and act differently...who want to modernize and allow women to work and be considered as equal. It's a shock to the steadfast traditionalist.

When I look at things from a different standpoint, then maybe some sort of understanding can be derived and generalizations can dissipate. But, that's just me.
Why can't you generalize? If you own 10 Fords, and 9 of them are pieces of shit, will you steer clear of Fords? If you buy M/C tires and 9 times out of 10, the Chen Shing tires suck, wouldn't you avoid them? Yes, I know all of the bazillion-six muslims are not terrorists, but, the fact is still that they are by FAR the majority of terrorists. Here's a couple pics to illustrate the point. (Warning-graphic).

[Sarge]

My wife and I have had this conversion ourselves once or twice. Sh's just finished her Masters in Political Science & International Relations, with a concentration in Middle Eastern studies, and she always brings up good points.

#1 Why does everybody hate Iran? Sure, they don't like America, but look it up, they have never publically attacked or condoned attacks against America, and only the "Revolutionary Guard" is considered a Terrorist Organization, but can you find ONE example of when they've committed a terrorist act against the United States?


The United States has decided to designate Iran's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/iran.html?nav=el) Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401662.html

(So, we can designate a Army a terrorist organization, but not the Government paying for it? Sounds fishy to me...)

#2 Only 6% of Terrorists around the world are actually Muslim.



Okay, let’s get one thing straight: not all terrorists are Muslim. Yes, I said it and it’s completely true. Why people continue to generalize all terrorists as being Muslim is beyond me- perhaps it has to do with their lack of knowledge on the topic and laziness to find out the legitimacy of the claim. It is also possible that since people are so quick to believe what they are told, they are able to easily adopt someone else’s views as their own. I wouldn’t doubt it- I mean; we all know hardly anyone can think for themselves these days anyway.
...
So, that being said, let’s think for ourselves and do some research: exactly what percent of Muslims are terrorists? Well, according to FBI files, which can be accessed through fbi.gov, only 6 percent of terrorists are Muslim. The remaining percentage of terrorist attacks on U.S. territory includes: Latinos at 42 percent, extreme Left Wing groups at 24 percent, Jewish extremists at 7 percent, Communists at 5 percent, and other terrorist organizations at 16 percent.
...
But the point here is, Muslims are being targeted unfairly for terrorism when Islamic extremists carried out only 6 percent of the attacks. According to SFGate.com, “if only 10 percent of Muslim Americans were sympathetic toward Islamic extremism, they would constitute a force greater in number than the Coalition forces used to invade Iraq. I submit that if a force that large was in the United States, New York would look a lot more like Baghdad. It doesn’t, because the number of Islamic extremists is actually only a tiny percentage of the Muslim-American population.”

http://www.dailytitan.com/2010/09/13/only-6-percent-of-terrorists-are-muslim/

#3. The media is biased against Muslim terrorists. See Fox News:

Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade Claims “All Terrorists Are Muslim” (http://www.oliverwillis.com/2010/10/15/fox-news-brian-kilmeade-all-terrorists-are-muslim/)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/fox-host-muslims-terrorists-keep-job/

#4. A list of American Terrorists who have killed Americans:
Timothy McVeigh
Eric Rudolph
Irv Rubin
Ted Kaczynski
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold
Bruce Edward Ivans
James Von Brunn
"Look at ‘em, all them Moooslims what killed ‘mericuns!"
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2010/10/15/fox-news-brian-kilmeade-all-terrorists-are-muslim/

Anyway, I could go on and on, and don't get me wrong, I agree that the Muslism terrorists tend to be some of the worse, especially in terms of violence and the civilian, woman and child death toll, but they are CLEARLY not the only modern terrorist organization, and by FAR not the largest.

Biggest point being: 6% of all Terrorists are Muslim, which means that it's a far cry to claim that all Muslims are terrorists. If the numbers above are correct, 25% of 6 Billion would mean that there are almost 1.5 Billion Muslim terrorists. Even if you assumed that 6% Muslims were terrorists, you'd still have 900,000 Muslim Terrorists.


If you believe that, then the terrorists have already won...

-Sarge

*edit*
Best estimate I could find is that there are approx. 500,000 (and this is a gross exaggerration) terrorists worldwide. That would mean that there are approx. 30,000 Muslim terrorists worldwide, which really isn't that big of a number. Compare that to the estimated number of Muslims world wide, and something like .0002% of all Muslims are Terrorists. Keep in mind I used 500,000 as an example, when some people only figure as few as 50,000 terrorists exist worldwide, which would drop the percentage of Muslims who are Terrorists to .000002%.


For the intentions of this column, I am going to assume that the sum total of all (loosely defined) terrorists worldwide, stands at 500,000. This is not a real number, and the actual figure probably hovers around 50,000, although the higher figure represents far less than 1 per cent of world population, while the lower one is one tenth of 1 per cent. It seems to me that the rest of us (99 to 99.9 per cent) should not be too afraid of gangsters who threaten us.


http://www.bt.com.bn/classification/opinion/2007/05/28/how_many_terrorists_are_there

[mtnairlover]

Why can't you generalize? If you own 10 Fords, and 9 of them are pieces of shit, will you steer clear of Fords? If you buy M/C tires and 9 times out of 10, the Chen Shing tires suck, wouldn't you avoid them? Yes, I know all of the bazillion-six muslims are not terrorists, but, the fact is still that they are by FAR the majority of terrorists. Here's a couple pics to illustrate the point. (Warning-graphic).

That's exactly what they do as well...shock us into believing they can win us over with fear. You just tried to shock me with your graphic photo posting. What are you trying to prove here? That terrorists are evil? Yes, they are. That all Muslims are terrorists? Wrong. And Sarge just posted some good numbers to prove that point.

I think what should be done when thinking about terrorists is to think about what they do...terrorism...and the tools they use to put fear into humanity. They use all kinds of things...religion is a big one. Ask any Muslim what they think of terrorists who hide behind Islam to wage their "war" and you will get a completely different viewpoint.

I think the last paragraph on this terrorism research (http://www.terrorism-research.com/) site says it all...

"There are three perspectives of terrorism: the terrorist’s, the victim’s, and the general public’s. The phrase “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is a view terrorists themselves would accept. Terrorists do not see themselves as evil. They believe they are legitimate combatants, fighting for what they believe in, by whatever means possible. A victim of a terrorist act sees the terrorist as a criminal with no regard for human life. The general public’s view is the most unstable. The terrorists take great pains to foster a “Robin Hood” image in hope of swaying the general public’s point of view toward their cause. This sympathetic view of terrorism has become an integral part of their psychological warfare and needs to be countered vigorously."

Most people use words to gain some sort of psychological advantage in winning people over. You see it in political campaigns a lot. I hate those campaigns like nothing else. I do not like sound bites, I want to know the details. It's the same with terrorists, but they use violence and criminal activity to do the same thing...create some sort of psychological control over a group of people to further their cause.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Looks like NPR really opened up a world of shit for itself. I just saw the the video in question where Juan was speaking of a personal feeling of nervousness when people in full Muslim garb board a plane. He didn't say anything about all Muslims being terrorists. It was really a non-issue and I believe echoed a fear many people feel due to events of recent years.

Even supporters from the left are blasting NPR and now there is renewed talk of legislation to remove public funding for NPR.

[Aphrodite]

Looks like NPR really opened up a world of shit for itself.

Exactly. +1

[Matty]

[QUOTE=Sarge;525973]

#2 Only 6% of Terrorists around the world are actually Muslim.

http://www.dailytitan.com/2010/09/13/only-6-percent-of-terrorists-are-muslim/

Biggest point being: 6% of all Terrorists are Muslim, which means that it's a far cry to claim that all Muslims are terrorists.




-Sarge [\QUOTE]

/end thread.

[TinkerinWstuff]

......it's a far cry to claim that all Muslims are terrorists.


BUT NO ONE HAS SAID THAT!!!! :cussing:

[Matty]

BUT NO ONE HAS SAID THAT!!!! :cussing:

Nevermind.......

[TinkerinWstuff]

Don't mean to be an ass. Just frustrated because everyone involved in the debate, here and on every media coverage of the topic, has gone out of their way to say that "all Muslims are NOT terrorists."

The debate is about why does it feel like all terrorists today are Muslim? And what is the correct way to deal with or treat the situation? How do you bring peace and make people feel safe again.

Fear of a culture is what brought the prison camps of the Japanese in WWII. No one wants to see that again. But the truth of the matter is that there are Muslim extremists who have declared war on western culture, so what next? It's not as easy as saying, "all Muslims are not terrorists so don't be scared."

[bodhizafa]

tribes + memes + cognitive dissonance = this discussion :jerkoff:

[TinkerinWstuff]

How's this for a simplified comparision;

All sharks are not killers. Statistically, there are very few shark attacks when you look at the number of sharks and people who swim in the ocean. You can see video of people swimming with sharks who are not attacked or injured.

If I see a shark swimming in the water, statistics be damned, I'm getting the fuck out.

[dirkterrell]

The debate is about why does it feel like all terrorists today are Muslim?


One thing you learn about when you undertake statistical studies is to be aware of potential selection effects when you extend the conclusion about a sample to the population that supplies that sample. When we make comments about populations (e.g., Muslims, terrorists, motorcyclists, cagers, etc), we are implicitly applying our own sampling to that population. None of us has or ever will meet all Mustlims/terrrorists/motocyclists/cagers so we are naturally drawing conclusions from our own sampling.

Now, it is perfectly legitimate to make conclusions about a population from a properly drawn sample. Randomness of selection is a key part of doing so, however. If your sample is not random, you can get skewed statistics. This is what is called a selection effect. Your process of selecting the sample has an effect on the statistics and often skews the results. For example, if you stand outside a church and ask about opinions on abortion as people come out, you will very likely get different statistics than you will by standing outside a Planned Parenthood facility. In either case, if you then drew conclusions about the general population from your statistical results, you would be doing so improperly.

So, when you ask "why does it feel like all terrorists today are Muslim?", you're thinking about statistics of a population, and you need to think about selection effects. The quoted FBI statistics, if correct (I haven't looked at them yet. I am always a bit hesitant to believe statements that don't give me a link to the source of the claim.), imply that only 6% of terrorists attacking US territory are Muslim. So why does it feel like that number is much larger? Selection effects. Certain groups (e.g. politicians, news media) may have a vested interest in exacerbating those selection effects. Your job as a conscientious citizen and independent thinker is to recognize and account for those selection effects. Gather information from a variety of sources. Be leery of information providers who claim to be "independent", "unbiased" or "impartial." Treat their information just like anyone else. Gather and consider the whole of the information, and then draw your conclusions.

If the FBI numbers are right, then there is a serious disconnect between the facts and the way you feel. Why? The FBI numbers appear to be based on attacks against "US territory." Are the numbers different for attacks on "territories of the US and allies?" How are the numbers different if you normalize the numbers by the populations of those groups in US territory? Interesting things to think about that might make for a more productive discussion than arguing about obviously false absolute statements and whether people are bigots.

Dirk

[Filo]

The debate is about why does it feel like all terrorists today are Muslim? And what is the correct way to deal with or treat the situation? How do you bring peace and make people feel safe again.


It is, to go along the same lines as Dirk, due to a bias in the observations. If you lived in Sri Lanka and were a Muslim, you would be the target of the Tamil Tigers which is the local terrorist organization. The Tigers are not Muslim, hence not all terrorists today are Muslim. Right now there are some extremist Muslims who are targeting this country. The news companies, whos main goal is to sell advertising time, make a big deal of this at all times so that you watch. Because of this bias, you think all terrorists are Muslim.

How about that drug cartel in Mexico that beheaded that american out on his boat? I would call that terrorism. And those folks were not Muslim.

As for the rest of your question - realizing the bias helps to deal with the situation. I am not sure how to bring peace. I don't know that people have ever truly been safe.

[TinkerinWstuff]

My God Dirk, I'm sure glad you poke your nose in and contribute to these posts.

BTW - when are we going to get the V4's together for a ride?

Anyway, back to the debate. I agree the news media in our age has realized that by feeding fear they get more viewers and more dollars. People seek out information about what scares them today, whether it's the economy, the war, or the (turned out to be nothing) swine flu.

To Dirk's point about debating who's a bigot or not; that was really what I was trying to get at with the shark analogy. How many of the same people who call those fearful of Muslims bigots, would get out of the water when they saw a shark fin? Does being fearful make you a bigot? Because Jacques Cousteau understands sharks better and is willing to swim with them and I'm scared shitless, am I bad person?

Because one person may understand Muslims better than I and is not afraid to fly when they see a turban sitting next to them, does that make me a bigot?

Animals have survived for years by being skeptical of what they don't know or understand. If you want to change a perception, maybe it's better to try and understand where the fear comes from rather than just discount someone as a bigot.

I think sharks should get together and have a PR campaign to get out the facts about how many attacks there really are. I bet most sharks would really enjoy swimming with us and their feelings are hurt by our irrational fear of them. I want to see a church for sharks off the beach of L.A.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Excellent points to Sarge, Dirk, and Tinker.

But, I'm unable to find this "6%" statistic quote by an unknown "writer" who's only even seemed to contribute to the quoted source a few times anyway. That, to me, does not a valid source make. Not even close

So, until I find a verified source on that 6%, I can say that:
Olympic massecre = muslim
Beirut = muslim
attack on the USS Cole = muslim
Shoe bomber = muslim
9/11 = muslim
Times Square bomber = muslim
beheading videos = muslim
London train bombing = muslim
daily IED bombs in iraq = muslim
daily IED suicide bombings in Israel = muslim

So, again, I'll say of course they're not all like that, by why then is the overwhelming perception (nod to Dirk et. al.) that it's a muslim issue?

[dirkterrell]

My God Dirk, I'm sure glad you poke your nose in and contribute to these posts.

BTW - when are we going to get the V4's together for a ride?


I've been on a crazy schedule this summer but things have finally settled down. I'll try to get a ride together sometime soon.



To Dirk's point about debating who's a bigot or not; that was really what I was trying to get at with the shark analogy. How many of the same people who call those fearful of Muslims bigots, would get out of the water when they saw a shark fin? Does being fearful make you a bigot?


It depends on the reason for the fear. That's my point. The fear may or may not be justified. Unlike the shark analogy, actions involving people can have consequences for the other party. The shark suffers no real effect by your leaving the water, except maybe an easy meal but that probably won't bother it for too long. In the case of acting on fears involving people, they can have negative effects. Implementation difficulties aside, we might act on our fear of Muslim terrorists by forcing all Muslims to go through stricter security. If the occurrence of terrorists among Muslims is tiny, then we are probably breeding discontent in an otherwise peaceful population. The power-hunting types I referred to previously would then use this ("They treat us all like criminals!") to inflame that discontent. If the occurrence rate of terrorists in 90%, then we are probably wise to enforce the extra security. So, we need to understand the situation before we act on fears. Politicians (left and right) and ne'er do wells love to seize on fears and direct you away from clear thinking.

Dirk

[dirkterrell]

So, again, I'll say of course they're not all like that, by why then is the overwhelming perception (nod to Dirk et. al.) that it's a muslim issue?

Well, here is a list of domestic terrorism incidents from 1980 to 2005 , along with the perpetrators from the FBI. (Source (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05)). I'll see if I can write a script to tally things up and look at the numbers, but this isn't overwhelmingly Muslim. (ok, looks like it didn't format too well. Check the end of the source document above for the table.) ELF = Earth Liberation Front.



Chronological Summary of Terrorist Incidents in the United States 1980-2005
Date Location Incident Type
Perpetrator Killed Injured
1/7/1980 San Juan, PR Pipe Bombing Anti-Communist Alliance
1/13/1980 New York, NY Bombing Omega 7 4
1/13/1980 Miami, FL Bombing Omega 7
1/19/1980 San Juan, PR Bombing Omega 7
3/12/1980 Hato Rey, PR Armed Assault Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
3/15/1980 Chicago, IL Hostile Takeovers (2) Armed Forces of National Liberation
3/17/1980 New York, NY Bombing Croatian Freedom Fighters 3
3/25/1980 New York, NY Attempted Bombing Omega 7
4/19/1980 Chattanooga, TN Shooting Justice Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 4
4/30/1980 New York, NY Assault Revolutionary Communist Party
6/3/1980 Washington, DC Bombing Croatian Freedom Fighters
6/3/1980 New York, NY Bombing Croatian Freedom Fighters
7/14/1980 Dorato, PR Multiple Bombings (2) Organization of Volunteers for the
San Juan, PR Puerto Rico Revolution
7/14/1980 Ponce, PR Multiple Arsons (2) Organization of Volunteers for the
Mayaguez, PR Puerto Rico Revolution
7/22/1980 Hato Rey, PR Multiple Bombings (4) Revolutionary Commandos of the People,
Santurce, PR Ready and at War
Rio Piedras, PR
8/20/1980 Berkeley, CA Pipe Bombing Iranian Free Army 2
9/11/1980 New York, NY Shooting Omega 7 1
10/7/1980 New York, NY Attempted Bombing International Committee Against Nazism
10/12/1980 New York, NY Bombing Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide 4
10/12/1980 Hollywood, CA Bombing Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide 1
10/14/1980 Fort Collins, CO Shooting Libyan Revolutionary Committee 1
12/21/1980 New York, NY Pipe Bombing Armed Forces of Popular Resistance
12/30/1980 Hialeah, FL Attempted Bombing Omega 7
1/8/1981 Santurce, PR Multiple IncendiaryBombings (3) People’s Revolutionary Commandos
Ponce, PR
Rio Piedras, PR
1/12/1981 San Juan, PR Bombing Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
1/23/1981 New York City, NY Bombing Croatian Freedom Fighters
1/26/1981 San Francisco, CA Bombing Jewish Defense League/American Revenge
Committee
2/2/1981 Los Angeles, CA Attempted Bombing 3-Oct
2/9/1981 Eugene, OR Assault Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade
2/22/1981 Hollywood, CA Bombing Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation
of Armenia
3/15/1981 San Juan, PR Attempted Bombing Armed Forces of Popular Resistance
4/21/1981 Santurce, PR Robbery Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
4/27/1981 Washington, DC Incendiary Bombing Iranian Patriotic Army
5/16-18/81 New York City, NY Multiple Bombings (5) Puerto Rican Armed Resistance 1
6/25/1981 Torrance, CA Incendiary Bombing Jewish Defenders
6/26/1981 Los Angeles, CA Bombing June 9 Organization
7/30/1981 New York City, NY Hostile Takeover Libyan Students
8/7/1981 Washington, DC Hostile Takeover People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran 3
8/20/1981 Washington, DC Arson Black Brigade
8/20/1981 Los Angeles, CA Bombing June 9 Organization
8/27/1981 Carolina, PR Bombing Grupo Estrella
8/31/1981 New York City, NY Hostile Takeover Jewish Defense League
9/3-4/81 New York City, NY Multiple Bombings (2) Jewish Defense League
9/9/1981 Washington, DC Assault Concerned Sierra Leone Nationals
9/11/1981 Miami, FL Multiple Bombings (2) Omega 7
9/12/1981 New York City, NY Bombing Omega 7
9/22/1981 Schenectady, NY Bombing Communist Workers Party
9/24/1981 Miami, FL Attempted Bombing Omega 7
10/1/1981 Hollywood, CA Bombing Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia

10/25/1981 New York City, NY Incendiary Bombing Jewish Defense League
11/11/1981 Santurce, PR Bombing Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
11/14/1981 Glen Cove, NY Shooting Unaffiliated Extremists
11/20/1981 Los Angeles, CA Bombing Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide
11/27/1981 Fort Buchanan, PR Shooting National Liberation Movement 1
11/27/1981 Santurce, PR Multiple Bombings (2) Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
Condado, PR
12/24/1981 New York City, NY Attempted Pipe Jewish Defense League
Bombing
1/28/1982 Los Angeles, CA Shooting Justice Commandos of the Armenian 1
Genocide
2/19/1982 Miami, FL Multiple Bombings (2) Omega 7
2/19/1982 Washington, DC Bombing Jewish Defense League
2/21/1982 Rio Piedras, PR Pipe Bombing Antonia Martinez Student Commandos
2/28/1982 New York City, NY Multiple Bombings (4) Armed Forces of National Liberation
3/22/1982 Cambridge, MA Bombing Justice Commandos of the Armenian
Genocide
4/5/1982 Brooklyn, NY Arson Jewish Defense League 1 7
4/28/1982 New York City, NY Multiple Bombings (2) Jewish Defense League
4/29/1982 San Juan, PR Multiple Bombings (2) Provisional Coordinating Committee of the
Bayamon, PR Labor Self-Defense Group
4/29/1982 San Juan, PR Shooting Provisional Coordinating Committee of the
Labor Self-Defense Group
5/4/1982 Somerville, MA Shooting Justice Commandos of the Armenian 1
Genocide
5/16/1982 San Juan, PR Shooting Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros/ 1 3
Group for the Liberation of Vieques
5/17/1982 Union City, NJ Incendiary Bombing Omega 7
5/19/1982 Villa Sin Miedo, PR Shooting Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros 1 12
5/20/1982 San Juan, PR Attempted Bombing Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
5/25/1982 San German, PR Kidnapping Grupo Estrella 1
5/30/1982 Van Nuys, CA Attempted Bombing Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of
Armenia
6/10/1982 Carolina, PR Multiple Bombings (3) Armed Forces of Popular Resistance
7/4/1982 New York City, NY Multiple Pipe Croatian Freedom Fighters
Astoria, NY Bombings (2)
7/5/1982 New York City, NY Multiple Pipe Jewish Defense League
Bombings (2)
8/20/1982 Old San Juan, PR Bombing Armed Forces of National Liberation
9/1/1982 Naranjito, PR Attempted Bombing Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
9/2/1982 Miami, FL Bombing Omega 7
9/8/1982 Chicago, IL Bombing Omega 7
9/20/1982 New York City, NY Bombing Armed Forces of National Liberation
9/25/1982 Miami, FL Attempted Bombing Omega 7
10/15/1982 Washington, DC Hostile Takeover Islamic Extremists
10/22/1982 Philadelphia, PA Attempted Bombing Justice Commandos of the Armenian
Genocide
11/4/1982 New York City, NY Smoke Bombing Jewish Defense League
11/16/1982 Carolina, PR Multiple Robberies (2) Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros 1
12/8/1982 Washington, DC Attempted Bombing Norman David Mayer 1
12/16/1982 Elmont, NY Multiple Bombings (2) United Freedom Front
12/21/1982 New York City, NY Attempted Pipe Bombing Jewish Defense League

12/22/1982 McLean, VA Hostile Takeover People of Omar
12/31/1982 New York City, NY Multiple Bombings (5) Armed Forces of National Liberation 3
1/11-12/83 Miami, FL Multiple Bombings (3) Omega 7
1/28/1983 New York City, NY Bombing Revolutionary Fighting Group
2/13/1983 Medina, ND Shooting Sheriff’s Posse Comitatus 2 4
2/15/1983 Killeen, TX Hijacking Hossein Olya
2/19/1983 Washington, DC Pipe Bombing Jewish Defense League
3/20/1983 San Antonio, TX Bombing Republic of Revolutionary
4/26/1983 Washington, DC Bombing Armed Resistance Unit
4/27/1983 Miami, FL Attempted Bombings (4) Haitian Extremists
4/29/1983 Rio Piedras, PR Hostile Takeover Ejercito Popluar Boricua Macheteros
5/12/1983 Uniondale, NY Bombing United Freedom Front
5/13/1983 New York City, NY Bombing United Freedom Front
5/27/1983 Miami, FL Bombing Omega 7
7/8/1983 Miami, FL Kidnapping Ejercito Revolucionario Del Pueblo
7/15/1983 Rio Piedras, PR Robbery Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros 1
8/8/1983 Detroit, MI Attempted Incendiary Bombing Fuqra

8/8/1983 Detroit, MI Shooting Fuqra 1
8/9/1983 Detroit, MI Arson Fuqra 2
8/16/1983 Los Angeles, CA Hostile Takeover Carlos Martinez
8/18/1983 Washington, DC Bombing Armed Resistance Unit
8/21/1983 New York City, NY Bombing United Freedom Front
8/27/1983 Washington, DC Incendiary Bombing Unknown
10/12/1983 Miami, FL Pipe Bombing Omega 7
10/30/1983 Hato Rey, PR Rocket Attack Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
11/7/1983 Washington, DC Bombing Armed Resistance Unit
12/13-14/83 East Meadow, NY Multiple Bombings (2) United Freedom Front
New York City, NY
1/29/1984 New York City, NY Bombing United Freedom Front
2/23/1984 New York City, NY Bombing Jewish Direct Action
3/19/1984 Harrison, NY Bombing United Freedom Front
4/5/1984 New York City, NY Bombing Red Guerrilla Resistance
4/20/1984 Washington, DC Bombing Red Guerrilla Resistance
5/9/1984 New York City, NY Attempted Assassination Bashir Baesho
8/22/1984 Melville, NY Bombing United Freedom Front
9/26/1984 New York City, NY Bombing Red Guerrilla Resistance
9/26/1984 Mount Pleasant, NY Bombing United Freedom Front
12/10/1984 Levittown, PR Multiple Bombings (5) Organization of Volunteers for the
Rio Piedras, PR Puerto Rican Revolution
Ponce, PR
Mayaguez, PR
Cayey, PR
1/25/1985 Old San Juan, PR Rocket Attack Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros/Organization of Volunteers for the Puerto Rican Revolution


2/23/1985 New York City, NY Bombing Red Guerrilla Resistance
5/15/1985 Northridge, CA Pipe Bombing Jewish Defense League
8/15/1985 Paterson, NJ Bombing Jewish Defense League 1 1
9/6/1985 Brentwood, NY Bombing Jewish Defense League 1
10/11/1985 Santa Ana, CA Bombing Jewish Defense League 1 7
11/6/1985 Bayamon, PR Shooting Organization of Volunteers for the Puerto Rican Revolution 1

1/6/1986 Cidra, PR Multiple Bombings (4) Ejercito Revolucionario Clandestino/ National Revolutionary Front of Puerto Rico
Toa Baja, PR
Guanica, PR
Santurce, PR
3/17/1986 Ponce, PR Attempted Bombing Commando Rojo
4/14/1986 Rio Piedras, PR Bombing Organization of Volunteers for the Puerto Rican Revolution

4/29/1986 San Juan, PR Shooting Organization of Volunteers for the Puerto Rican Revolution 1 1

5/14/1986 Phoenix, AZ Sabotage Earth First Organization
9/2/1986 New York City, NY Tear Gas Bombing Jewish Defense League 17
9/15/1986 Coeur d’Alene, ID Pipe Bombing Aryan Nations
9/29/1986 Coeur d’Alene, ID Multiple Bombings (4) Aryan Nations
10/20/1986 New York City, NY Incendiary Bombing Jewish Defense League
10/28/1986 Bayamon, PR Multiple Bombings (7) Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros 1
Fajardo, PR
Mayaguez, PR
Aguadilla, PR
Santurce, PR
Fort Buchanan, PR
11/4/1986 Puerta De Tierra, PR Attempted Bombing Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
12/28/1986 Yauco, PR Multiple Bombings (2) Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
Guayama, PR


Dirk

[TinkerinWstuff]

No argument there Dirk.

You can only hope that the effected culture (Muslim) understand why western culture fear them. The fearful will almost never behave rationally. But the source of the fear has a lot more influence in changing the reaction of others toward it.

See the Martin Luther King Jr. model. While there were extremist groups (i.e. Black Panthers) fighting for civil rights, King realized that violence only fed the fear. Being an outspoken person in the community against violence clearly helped bridge the gap of understanding between whites and blacks. (admittedly all before my time but this is how the history books tell the story)

If Muslim leaders were actively, openly, and aggressively seeking out terrorists and holding them accountable for their extremist behaviors; people may see the culture differently. Unfortunately, the most predominant figure western culture sees from that side of the world is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talking about how evil the west is. We don't see Pakistan or Saudi Arabia being outspoken against him like other allied nations in Europe.

[dirkterrell]

Table continued:



4/16/1987 Davis, CA Arson Animal Liberation Front
5/25/1987 Caguas, PR Multiple Bombings (7) Guerrilla Forces of Liberation
Carolina, PR
Mayaguez, PR
Cidra, PR
Aibonita, PR
Ponce, PR
11/9/1987 Flagstaff, AZ Sabotage Evan Mecham Eco-Terrorist
International Conspiracy
1/12/1988 Rio Piedras, PR Multiple Incendiary Pedro Albizu Campos Revolutionary Forces
Bombings (2)
5/26/1988 Coral Gables, FL Bombing Organization Alliance of Cuban
Intransigence
7/22/1988 Caguas, PR Pipe Bombing Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
9/19/1988 Los Angeles, CA Bombing Up the IRS, Inc.
9/25/1988 Grand Canyon, AZ Sabotage Evan Mecham Eco-Terrorist International
Conspiracy
10/25/1988 Flagstaff, AZ Sabotage Evan Mecham Eco-Terrorist International
Conspiracy
11/1/1988 Rio Piedras, PR Multiple Bombings (2) Pedro Albizu Campos Revolutionary Forces
4/3/1989 Tucson, AZ Arson Animal Liberation Front
6/19/1989 Bayamon, PR Multiple Bombings (2) Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
7/3-4/89 Lubbock, TX Malicious Destruction of Property
Animal Liberation Front
1/12/1990 Santurce, PR Multiple Pipe Bombings (2) Eugenio Maria de Hostos International Brigade of the Pedro Albizu Campos Revolutionary Forces
Carolina, PR

2/22/1990 Los Angeles, CA Bombing Up the IRS, Inc.
4/22/1990 Santa Cruz County, CA Malicious Destruction of Property Earth Night Action Group

5/27/1990 Mayaguez, PR Arson Unknown Puerto Rican Group
9/17/1990 Arecibo, PR Multiple Bombings (2) Pedro Albizu Group Revolutionary Forces
Vega Baja, PR
2/3/1991 Mayaguez, PR Arson Popular Liberation Army
2/18/1991 Sabana Grande, PR Arson Popular Liberation Army
3/17/1991 Carolina, PR Arson Unknown Puerto Rican Group
4/1/1991 Fresno, CA Bombing Popular Liberation Army
7/6/1991 Punta Borinquen, PR Bombing Popular Liberation Army

4/5/1992 New York, NY Hostile Takeover Mujahedin-E-Khalq
11/19/1992 Urbana, IL Attempted Firebombing Mexican Revolutionary Movement
12/10/1992 Chicago, IL Car Fire and Attempted Boricua Revolutionary Front
Firebombing (2)
2/26/1993 New York, NY Car Bombing International Islamist Extremists 6 1042
7/20-22/93 Tacoma, WA Multiple Bombings (2) American Front Skinheads
11/27-28/93 Chicago, IL Firebombings (9) Animal Liberation Front
3/1/1994 New York, NY Shooting Rashid Najib Baz 1 3
4/19/1995 Oklahoma City, OK Truck Bombing Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols 168 754
(Michael Fortier found guilty of failing to alert authorities of plot)

4/1/1996 Spokane, WA Pipe Bombing/Bank Robbery
Spokane Bank Robbers
7/12/1996 Spokane, WA Pipe Bombing/Bank Robbery
Spokane Bank Robbers
7/27/1996 Atlanta, GA Pipe Bombing Eric Robert Rudolph 2 112
1/2/1997 Washington, DC Letter Bombing Unknown
Leavenworth, KS (Counted as 1 incident)
1/16/1997 Atlanta, GA Bombing of Abortion Clinic
Eric Robert Rudolph 8
2/21/1997 Atlanta, GA Bombing of Alternative Lifestyle Nightclub
Eric Robert Rudolph 5
1/29/1998 Birmingham, AL Bombing of Reproductive Services Clinic
Eric Robert Rudolph 1 1
3/31/1998 Arecibo, PR Bombing of Superaqueduct Construction Project
Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
6/9/1998 Rio Piedras, PR Bombing of Bank Branch Office
Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
6/25/1998 Santa Isabel, PR Bombing of Bank Branch Office
Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros suspected
1
6/27/1998 Espanola, NM Arson Raymond Anthony Sandoval
10/19/1998 Vail, CO Arson Fire at Ski Resort
ELF
3/19/1999 Santa Fe, NM Attempted Bombing Raymond Anthony Sandoval
3/27/1999 Franklin Township, NJ
Bombing of Circus Vehicles
Animal Liberation Front
4/5/1999 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
Malicious Destruction and Theft
Animal Liberation Front
5/9/1999 Eugene, OR Bombing Animal Liberation Front
7/2-4/99 Chicago, IL Multiple Shootings Benjamin Nathaniel Smith 2 8
Skokie, IL
Northbrook, IL
Bloomington, IN
8/10/1999 Granada Hills, CA Multiple Shootings Buford O’Neal Furrow 1 5
8/28-29/99 Orange, CA Malicious Destruction and Theft
Animal Liberation Front
10/24/1999 Bellingham, WA Malicious Destruction and Theft
Animal Liberation Front
11/20/1999 Puyallup, WA Malicious Destruction Animal Liberation Front
12/25/1999 Monmouth, OR Arson ELF
12/31/1999 East Lansing, MI Arson ELF
1/3/2000 Petaluma, CA Incendiary Attack Animal Liberation Front
1/15/2000 Petaluma, CA Incendiary Attack Animal Liberation Front
1/22/2000 Bloomington, IN Arson ELF
5/7/2000 Olympia, WA Arson Revenge of the Trees
7/2/2000 North Vernon, IN Arson Animal Liberation Front
7/20/2000 Rhinelander, WI Vandalism ELF
12/1/2000 Phoenix, AZ Multiple Arsons Mark Warren Sands
12/9-30/00 Suffolk County, Long Island, NY
Multiple Arsons ELF
1/2/2001 Glendale, OR Arson ELF
2/20/2001 Visalia, CA Arson ELF
3/9/2001 Culpeper, VA Tree Spiking ELF
3/30/2001 Eugene, OR Arson ELF
4/15/2001 Portland, OR Arson ELF
5/17/2001 Harrisburg, PA Bank Robbery Clayton Lee Waagner
5/21/2001 Seattle, WA Arson ELF
5/21/2001 Clatskanie, OR Arson ELF
7/24/2001 Stateline, NV Destruction of Property ELF
9/9/2001 Morgantown, WV Bank Robbery Clayton Lee Waagner
9/11/2001 New York, NY Aircraft Attack Al-Qa’ida 2972 est. 12000
Washington, DC
New Cumberland, PA
9/01-11/01 New York, NY Bacillus anthracis Unknown 5 17
Washington, DC Mailings
Lantana, FL
10/14/2001 Litchfield, CA Arson ELF
11/12/2001 San Diego, CA Burglary and Vandalism Animal Liberation Front
3/18/2002 Erie, PA Vandalism ELF
3/24/2002 Erie, PA Arson ELF
5/11-12/02 Harborcreek, PA Vandalism/Destruction of Property
ELF/ Animal Liberation Front

7/4/2002 Los Angeles, CA Shooting Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayat 2
8/02-10/02 Henrico and Goochland Counties, VA
Vandalism and Destruction of Property
ELF
8/11/2002 Warren, PA Arson ELF
9/15-16/02 Harborcreek, PA Vandalism/Destruction of Property
ELF/ Animal Liberation Front

11/26/2002 Harborcreek, PA Arson ELF/ Animal Liberation Front

1/1/2003 Girard, PA Arson ELF
3/3/2003 Chico, CA Vandalism Animal Liberation Front
8/03-9/03 San Diego, CA Arson ELF
8/22/2003 West Covina, CA Vandalism and Destruction of Property
ELF
8/28/2003 Emeryville, CA Bombing Daniel Andreas San Diego Suspected

9/26/2003 Pleasanton, CA Bombing Daniel Andreas San Diego Suspected

1/19/2004 Henrico County, VA
Arson ELF Suspected

4/1/2004 Oklahoma City, OK Arson Sean Michael Gillespie/Aryan Nations
4/20/2004 Redmond, WA Vandalism and Arson ELF
5/04-7/04 Provo, UT Vandalism and Arson Animal Liberation Front
12/27/2004 Lincoln, CA Attempted Arson ELF
1/05-2/05 Auburn, CA Attempted Arson and Arson
ELF
Sutter Creek, CA
4/13/2005 Sammanish, WA Arson ELF
7/7/2005 Los Angeles, CA Attempted Arson Animal rights extremists Suspected

9/16/2005 Los Angeles, CA Attempted Arson Animal Liberation Front
11/20/2005 Hagerstown, MD Arson ELF Dirk

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Thanks Dirk! As always, a fountain of objective (vs. subjective) knowledge.

From the link I pulled this:
This table shows Casualties of Terrorism from 1980-2005

Year Wounded Killed
1980 19 1
1981 4 1
1982 26 7
1983 4 6
1984 0 0
1985 10 2
1986 19 1
1987 0 0
1988 0 0
1989 0 0
1990 0 0
1991 0 0
1992 0 0
1993 1042 6
1994 3 1
1995 754 168
1996 112 2
1997 13 0
1998 2 1
1999 13 3
2000 0 0
2001 12,017 2977
2002 0 2
2003 0 0
2004 0 0
2005 0 0

Total 14,038 3178


For reference, the spike in 1995 was the bombing of the Federal building by the white guy, Timothy McVeigh.

Also, not in this chart as it predates it, is the 1983 Beirut bombings (muslim perps) that killed 241 of our armed service people.

So, you can see clearly, from the death toll alone, the vast majority of the terrorist deaths, have in fact, been perpetrated by muslims. Correct? And if we were to count the dollar cost of the 9/11 attacks in real property, cost of emergency personnell (and who knows what the cost of their long-term medica issues will be), and damage to the economy, it should again be clear that they're the #1 threat in that as well.

So, with the vast majority of deaths and damage in fact being perp'd by muslims, if not the actual number of minor attacks classified as terrorism, shouldn't that BE the focus, instead of insignificant "attacks" with little or no damage and deathtoll?

Discuss!

P.S. Ok, I tried 3 times and the formating is still fucked. I give up. Anyways, I couldn't get the numbers to line up, but the columns are space delineated. Fuck it, the numbers are right.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

No argument there Dirk.

You can only hope that the effected culture (Muslim) understand why western culture fear them. The fearful will almost never behave rationally. But the source of the fear has a lot more influence in changing the reaction of others toward it.

See the Martin Luther King Jr. model. While there were extremist groups (i.e. Black Panthers) fighting for civil rights, King realized that violence only fed the fear. Being an outspoken person in the community against violence clearly helped bridge the gap of understanding between whites and blacks. (admittedly all before my time but this is how the history books tell the story)

If Muslim leaders were actively, openly, and aggressively seeking out terrorists and holding them accountable for their extremist behaviors; people may see the culture differently. Unfortunately, the most predominant figure western culture sees from that side of the world is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talking about how evil the west is. We don't see Pakistan or Saudi Arabia being outspoken against him like other allied nations in Europe.
The problem I see is the the mullahs and imams just use our justified fear and actions to incite more violence and hate against us, all the while refusing to actively condemn and punish the acts of terrorism. I will reiterate that I don't know of any case where young Christians are sent to schools with the express purpose of turning them into terrorists as they do with the madrasah's. Again, not ALL their schools are like this, but an alarming number of them ARE terrorist training camps.

[dirkterrell]

Also, not in this chart as it predates it, is the 1983 Beirut bombings (muslim perps) that killed 241 of our armed service people.


No, these numbers go back to 1980, but these are numbers for domestic terrorism, so the Beirut bombing wouldn't be included.

Dirk

[dirkterrell]

No argument there Dirk.

You can only hope that the effected culture (Muslim) understand why western culture fear them. The fearful will almost never behave rationally. But the source of the fear has a lot more influence in changing the reaction of others toward it.



And we should strive to understand why they fear us...



See the Martin Luther King Jr. model. While there were extremist groups (i.e. Black Panthers) fighting for civil rights, King realized that violence only fed the fear. Being an outspoken person in the community against violence clearly helped bridge the gap of understanding between whites and blacks. (admittedly all before my time but this is how the history books tell the story)


Exactly.



If Muslim leaders were actively, openly, and aggressively seeking out terrorists and holding them accountable for their extremist behaviors; people may see the culture differently. Unfortunately, the most predominant figure western culture sees from that side of the world is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talking about how evil the west is. We don't see Pakistan or Saudi Arabia being outspoken against him like other allied nations in Europe.

Agreed. There are certainly Muslim leaders who speak out against such acts (e.g., the Imam at the heart of the "mosque at ground zero" debate), but we need to hear more of them.

Dirk

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

No, these numbers go back to 1980, but these are numbers for domestic terrorism, so the Beirut bombing wouldn't be included.

Dirk
Oops! I stand corrected. :) It's a pleasure debating with you Dirk!

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101022/cm_yblog_upshot/conservatives-call-to-defund-npr-after-williams-firing

"If NPR is unable to tolerate an honest debate about an issue as important as Islamic terrorism, then it's time for 'National Public Radio' to become 'National Private Radio,' Palin wrote on Facebook "It's time for Congress to defund this organization."

[TinkerinWstuff]

It seems we've solved this world problem. The solution is clearly milk, cookies, and a Barney sing along for everyone. Now is anyone else pissed off about this rain? I put brand new tires on last night and find myself too scared to scrub them in on wet pavement.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

It seems we've solved this world problem. The solution is clearly milk, cookies, and a Barney sing along for everyone. Now is anyone else pissed off about this rain? I put brand new tires on last night and find myself too scared to scrub them in on wet pavement.
I hear ya. Looking at the cord on the rear of mine now. wishing I had my pre-owned take-offs on it and the weather was better!

[dirkterrell]

It seems we've solved this world problem. The solution is clearly milk, cookies, and a Barney sing along for everyone.

The opening of cans of whoop-ass on some people might well be needed. We just need to make sure we have the right targets. If anyone individually has openly declared war on freedom, meet my sword. If an organization's purpose is to wage war against freedom, they must be attacked mercilessly and defeated.

Dirk

[mtnairlover]

How many of you have had to sign a "Code of Ethics" document before being hired by your company? The same is true for NPR.

There are two different schools of Journalism out there: opinion (sensationalized) and non-biased (just report the facts). Because opinion gets straight to people's emotions and is what sells, more and more news agencies allow that kind of journalism.

So, the guy who was fired by NPR also worked for Fox and now has a new contract with NPR (http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N47/long5.html).

Crazy what strong opinions can do to people, huh?

[TinkerinWstuff]

Crazy what strong opinions can do to people, huh?

Have you seen the video in question where Juan voiced his "strong" opinion?

[TinkerinWstuff]

If a person doesn't want opinion, don't tune into an opinion program like the O'Reilly Factor. Juan has been discussing opinion on Fox News for years and his statement was hardly jaw dropping if you actually watch the clip.

[mtnairlover]

Have you seen the video in question where Juan voiced his "strong" opinion?

No. I didn't. I only report the facts ;-)

Actually, I just read that story I linked. I was only mentioning the idea of strong opinion based on all the other discussion happening here.

If you want to debate non-biased journalism as compared to sensationalized, I will be happy to and will get back to ya tomorrow. I have to get back to work and will be playing tonight.

[dirkterrell]

There are two different schools of Journalism out there: opinion (sensationalized) and non-biased (just report the facts). Because opinion gets straight to people's emotions and is what sells, more and more news agencies allow that kind of journalism.


Every time I've seen him on Fox News, it was in the context of offering his editorial opinion on something. They never seemed to mind that he was doing so until now.

And let's not get into the "X news source is biased but Y isn't" nonsense. All news sources are biased. The best you can do is listen to as many sides of a story as you can, understand the biases, and draw your conclusions.

Dirk

[TinkerinWstuff]

check for yourself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71pWw51uLsc

[Aphrodite]

All news has their angles, and their slant. Those document you sign before going to work at a new agency are there to be the safety to get rid of you at their discretion. Omitting fact cab be as lethal/slanted as stating your opinion. Regardless of which side you take.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

check for yourself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71pWw51uLsc
What he said was his opinion, and I'm glad he had the balls to state it. Regardless of whether people will actually the balls to admit to this or not, they wouldn't want to be on a plane with people overtly muslim. Right or wrong, it's now an instinctive reaction.

Hey, maybe I should apply for his open spot at NPR???? :)

[dirkterrell]

Regardless of whether people will actually the balls to admit to this or not, they wouldn't want to be on a plane with people overtly muslim.

I have been on planes multiple times since 9/11 with people who were dressed in traditional Muslim garb, including men wearing a keffiyeh, and it didn't bother me in the slightest. If they started milling around and acting suspiciously, then it would bother me.

Dirk

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

I have been on planes multiple times since 9/11 with people who were dressed in traditional Muslim garb, including men wearing a keffiyeh, and it didn't bother me in the slightest. If they started milling around and acting suspiciously, then it would bother me.

Dirk
You're a better man than I Dirk. :) Call me paranoid (maybe it has to do with me working for the Defense for 15 years), but I'd be spooked and in a heigtened state of alert, and I'm not shy about admitting it. I also think I'm not the only one. Just like if I was tooling around that Southern border lake on a jetski I'd be extremely wary of anyone in a sombrero right about now. ;)

[TinkerinWstuff]

I too have flown with people in traditional Muslim attire. It caused me to give second glance for sure. My fear level was not up to code red panic or anything. Having to give second glance and ponder recent events equates to some level of fear and discomfort in my book. In the end, reason pans out and you realize that if the guy really was there to do harm, he'd probably try to hide himself by dressing like a flamboyant fagot (I KID, I KID!!).

Juan said he was scared or something like that. He didn't say what level that was and could have something to do with the debate here. Not everyone's definition of scared may be the same.

[dirkterrell]

You're a better man than I Dirk. :) Call me paranoid (maybe it has to do with me working for the Defense for 15 years), but I'd be spooked and in a heigtened state of alert, and I'm not shy about admitting it.

I'm almost always in a heightened state of alert. That has to do with many years of martial arts training. 8) Maybe that's why I don't spook easily. :dunno:

Dirk

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

I too have flown with people in traditional Muslim attire. It caused me to give second glance for sure. My fear level was not up to code red panic or anything. Having to give second glance and ponder recent events equates to some level of fear and discomfort in my book. In the end, reason pans out and you realize that if the guy really was there to do harm, he'd probably try to hide himself by dressing like a flamboyant fagot (I KID, I KID!!).

Juan said he was scared or something like that. He didn't say what level that was and could have something to do with the debate here. Not everyone's definition of scared may be the same.

You mean dressed like a male flight attendant on a funslide? :)

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

I'm almost always in a heightened state of alert. That has to do with many years of martial arts training. 8) Maybe that's why I don't spook easily. :dunno:

Dirk
Yeah, I hear ya. I won't say many, but enough, but I still see certain things as danger signals. Unfortunately, after our problems with Syria in the '80's, and both gulf wars and the heightened awareness at the base I was involved with, it just kinda rubs off on you. Not that it's "right or wrong", but it does. Besides, even Chuck Norris's mad skills can't save you from a bomb.

[TinkerinWstuff]

I just want to say - not all Muslims are terrorists.


Now that we're on page 6 of this thread

someone had to say it

again

..

[Nick_Ninja]

Yawn ............ :roll:

[mtnairlover]

Have you seen the video in question where Juan voiced his "strong" opinion?

Thanks for the link....I saw it. As far as I am concerned, because it is his opinion and is entitled to it and stated it as such, from a Journalistic standpoint, that's fine.

But, as for the whole difference between NPR and him getting fired for stating his opinion, then you have to delve a little more deeply into reasons behind the firing. Employers have to follow rules, regs and laws. That's why I asked about the contract signing. Oh and by the way, I don't work for a news agency, but I did have to sign a "company ethics" statement when I got hired. So, when I read the story that I linked in my last post, then I kinda understood the reasoning behind the firing. I certainly hope I don't need to reiterate what we all should know about rules as far as a company firing its employees is concerned. We all should know that we are protected under the law from being fired for no good reason. But, when we sign a contract with our company and we violate that contract and we are warned a certain number of times that we are in violation...if we do not clean up our act and tow the company line, then yes, we can be fired.

The fact that it was NPR that did the firing and there's this huge disparity between how NPR reports the news and how FOX reports the news, of course people are gonna jump on the band-wagon and scream fowl.

It's too bad though, because it taints others...the public won't see the facts, they will react based on emotion and how much one news agency panders to their emotions as compared to another.

Sigh...anyhoo...gotta go play now. I need to let the work week get outta my head.

Y'all have fun now.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Thanks Dirk! As always, a fountain of objective (vs. subjective) knowledge.

From the link I pulled this:
This table shows Casualties of Terrorism from 1980-2005

Year Wounded Killed
1980 19 1
1981 4 1
1982 26 7
1983 4 6
1984 0 0
1985 10 2
1986 19 1
1987 0 0
1988 0 0
1989 0 0
1990 0 0
1991 0 0
1992 0 0
1993 1042 6
1994 3 1
1995 754 168
1996 112 2
1997 13 0
1998 2 1
1999 13 3
2000 0 0
2001 12,017 2977
2002 0 2
2003 0 0
2004 0 0
2005 0 0

Total 14,038 3178


For reference, the spike in 1995 was the bombing of the Federal building by the white guy, Timothy McVeigh.

Also, not in this chart as it predates it, is the 1983 Beirut bombings (muslim perps) that killed 241 of our armed service people.

So, you can see clearly, from the death toll alone, the vast majority of the terrorist deaths, have in fact, been perpetrated by muslims. Correct? And if we were to count the dollar cost of the 9/11 attacks in real property, cost of emergency personnell (and who knows what the cost of their long-term medica issues will be), and damage to the economy, it should again be clear that they're the #1 threat in that as well.

So, with the vast majority of deaths and damage in fact being perp'd by muslims, if not the actual number of minor attacks classified as terrorism, shouldn't that BE the focus, instead of insignificant "attacks" with little or no damage and deathtoll?

Discuss!

P.S. Ok, I tried 3 times and the formating is still fucked. I give up. Anyways, I couldn't get the numbers to line up, but the columns are space delineated. Fuck it, the numbers are right.
Anyone care to dispute these numbers or the conclusion drawn therefrom?

[TinkerinWstuff]

http://www.antisoccermom.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/letting-go.jpg

[dirkterrell]

Anyone care to dispute these numbers or the conclusion drawn therefrom?

That radical Islamic terrorists are the primary terrorist threat to the safety of US citizens? That's a reasonable conclusion.

Dirk

[csmith]

My wife and I have had this conversion ourselves once or twice. Sh's just finished her Masters in Political Science & International Relations, with a concentration in Middle Eastern studies, and she always brings up good points.

#1 Why does everybody hate Iran? Sure, they don't like America, but look it up, they have never publically attacked or condoned attacks against America, and only the "Revolutionary Guard" is considered a Terrorist Organization, but can you find ONE example of when they've committed a terrorist act against the United States?

Hezbollah was created, trained and funded from that very same Revolutionary Guard in Lebanon. In Iran they're the Guard, in Lebanon they're Hezbollah.

[csmith]

Excellent points to Sarge, Dirk, and Tinker.

But, I'm unable to find this "6%" statistic quote by an unknown "writer" who's only even seemed to contribute to the quoted source a few times anyway. That, to me, does not a valid source make. Not even close

So, until I find a verified source on that 6%, I can say that:
Olympic massecre = muslim
Beirut = muslim
attack on the USS Cole = muslim
Shoe bomber = muslim
9/11 = muslim
Times Square bomber = muslim
beheading videos = muslim
London train bombing = muslim
daily IED bombs in iraq = muslim
daily IED suicide bombings in Israel = muslim

So, again, I'll say of course they're not all like that, by why then is the overwhelming perception (nod to Dirk et. al.) that it's a muslim issue?

You forgot the underwear bomber. Then again, he's only a felon and not a terrorist.

[mtnairlover]

U.S.-Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908746.html

Major religions in the world - 1.5 billion follow Islam
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html


Muslim terrorists:

12,700 identifiable numbers using the highest number posted from this website http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908746.html. With the word several, I used the number 4 and with the word few, I used the number 3 as in 300, or 400/4000, etc.

The 'unknowns' of the identified groups are 8 unknowns in the 23 groups I identified as Islamic based on the name of their group and where they are located. Not all groups are actually identified as Islamic, so my reasoning is not sound...I am only making an assumption with some of these groups.

Most of the Muslim terrorist organizations operate oversees, in mid-eastern countries, to create Islamic states in their own countries. Their targets are not necessarily US targets. They are fueled by tradition as I had mentioned before.

The numbers breakdown of terrorists:

Muslim = 12,700

Other terrorists = 50,350

total = 63,050 identifiable terrorists in the world

7.86% of all terrorists identified as Muslim

A more telling number is the percentage of Muslims who are terrorists which is .0000000000524

Bottom line...get to understand human behavior before making a rash judgment about the way a person is dressed. It will be in what a person does, how he/she behaves/what they say that will be the telltale sign as to whether they mean harm.

[TinkerinWstuff]

I'm with Nick - this has pretty much run full circle.

you've both proven that you can spin statistics to suit your argument any way you like

Justified or not, it's kind of hard to argue that many people are nervous and skeptical. That isn't fixed with statistics.

[Sarge]

There was an explosion today. Some sort of projectile. Won't go into more details, but I'm sure it wasn't Christains. ;)


/troll

[csmith]

There was an explosion today. Some sort of projectile. Won't go into more details, but I'm sure it wasn't Christains. ;)


/troll

I blame Westboro Baptist Church for it.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

That radical Islamic terrorists are the primary terrorist threat to the safety of US citizens? That's a reasonable conclusion.

Dirk
Thank you Dirk, that was the only point I was trying to make from the numbers, they're pretty overwhelming.

I'm not here to preach hate or violence towards them, I just want people to be aware of the numbers without the happy-happy-feel-good PC spin that "everyone's your friend". Like it or not, there's some very evil people in the world, of all colors and religions (or athiests), but just as far as pure numbers go in relation to people getting blown up, well.....

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

U.S.-Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908746.html

Major religions in the world - 1.5 billion follow Islam
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html


Muslim terrorists:

12,700 identifiable numbers using the highest number posted from this website http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908746.html. With the word several, I used the number 4 and with the word few, I used the number 3 as in 300, or 400/4000, etc.

The 'unknowns' of the identified groups are 8 unknowns in the 23 groups I identified as Islamic based on the name of their group and where they are located. Not all groups are actually identified as Islamic, so my reasoning is not sound...I am only making an assumption with some of these groups.

Most of the Muslim terrorist organizations operate oversees, in mid-eastern countries, to create Islamic states in their own countries. Their targets are not necessarily US targets. They are fueled by tradition as I had mentioned before.

The numbers breakdown of terrorists:

Muslim = 12,700

Other terrorists = 50,350

total = 63,050 identifiable terrorists in the world

7.86% of all terrorists identified as Muslim

A more telling number is the percentage of Muslims who are terrorists which is .0000000000524

Bottom line...get to understand human behavior before making a rash judgment about the way a person is dressed. It will be in what a person does, how he/she behaves/what they say that will be the telltale sign as to whether they mean harm.
I'd never heard of the "infoplease" site (unlike the FBI). I also didn't like that they didn't identify if there was a particular religion associated with it, but by the name you could still read between the lines and, again, most of them seemed islamic in nature. In addition, for member strength, they often had no numbers at all. SO, I guess I didn't see much there, sorry. I thought the FBI stats much more telling, and accurate.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

I'm with Nick - this has pretty much run full circle.

you've both proven that you can spin statistics to suit your argument any way you like

Justified or not, it's kind of hard to argue that many people are nervous and skeptical. That isn't fixed with statistics.
Well, there's spin (the 6% number) and there's accuracy. If you count every car that was keyed by some ELF lunatic as "terrorism", well, you get the "6%". If you look at the REAL damage in deathtoll etc., well, one has only to look at the FBI stats themselves. I didn't spin that, just commented on the overwhelming numbers pointing to my conclusion. ;)

[mtnairlover]

Disclaimer: Sorry guys, I know some of you want this done...so don't read if you are tired of it all. But, some of this stuff is pretty good...;)

The reason there are no identifiable numbers is because it is hard for the authorities (FBI, etc) to know how many people are in one group or another. But they do know there are various groups by name. The other thing is that terrorism research is constantly changing based on many factors. Read some of this report and you will understand why...http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terror_08.pdf. This is an actual FBI report.

One of the things that was mentioned in this research report in the beginning where they qualify their research, they say..."We continue to refine our counting rules as the study of terrorism evolves. Interaction with academics and outside terrorism experts convinces us that there will never be a "bright red line" around terrorist attacks, but instead, the definition of terrorism will always be a point of thoughtful debate. This evolution in our methodology for counting attacks is reflected in WITS and means that some types of year-to-year comparisons may be misleading."

As to the InfoPlease website...(a little lesson in understanding valid websites) if you scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the About Us link, you will find this...Information Please has been providing authoritative answers to all kinds of factual questions since 1938.

Also, take a look at where this website gleaned its information from...The U.S. State Department has designated these groups as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). The table includes a description of each terrorist group, its goals and targets, estimated strength in numbers, year established, and its suspected activities...this is at the top of the page.

This site is a peer-reviewed site, because it also provides a copyright by a publishing company and to be copyrighted, you have to be reviewed for facts.

So, back to the numbers...

When I counted the numbers, as I said in my original post, I used the higher number every time. When there was no number, well, I couldn't count, but based on the fact that I used the higher number when they listed for instance 300-400, then I used the higher. When they said several thousand, I used the number 4000.

Dirk's information (Apples to Oranges) of domestic terrorism attacks includes crimes committed by domestic terrorists, which are not associated with Islam. It also only shows attacks, and not which group perpetrated the attack. My information points to who are the terrorists, which is more telling based on the accusations in this thread. His only shows attacks, not who perpetrated those attacks.

The website I linked only included terrorist groups outside of the US. If you want terrorist groups inside the US, then here's a list...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States. Note: None of these groups are affiliated with Islam.

My posts were meant to point out that not all terrorists are Muslim and not all Muslims are terrorists, which I did prove with that link. I added the numbers to show that the fear is unwarranted. When 1 in every 150,000 Muslims is a terrorist, you have some pretty freaked out people who say they are uneasy around someone who is dressed on a thobe. You are more likely to date a supermodel, than be attacked by a Muslim wearing traditional clothes (Odds of dating a supermodel: 88,000 to 1)...http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_385745.html

I will say it again...it is not logical to assume by a name, or dress, or anything else that someone belongs to one group or another. That is why I added those statements in the numbers I read. If you want true statistics, you have to be certain...show proof. That's why even the FBI does not have actual numbers.

It's like saying that all sport bike riders are complete assholes who think they own the road. We all know that is not even close to truth.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Disclaimer: Sorry guys, I know some of you want this done...so don't read if you are tired of it all. But, some of this stuff is pretty good...;)

The reason there are no identifiable numbers is because it is hard for the authorities (FBI, etc) to know how many people are in one group or another. But they do know there are various groups by name. The other thing is that terrorism research is constantly changing based on many factors. Read some of this report and you will understand why...http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terror_08.pdf. This is an actual FBI report.

One of the things that was mentioned in this research report in the beginning where they qualify their research, they say..."We continue to refine our counting rules as the study of terrorism evolves. Interaction with academics and outside terrorism experts convinces us that there will never be a "bright red line" around terrorist attacks, but instead, the definition of terrorism will always be a point of thoughtful debate. This evolution in our methodology for counting attacks is reflected in WITS and means that some types of year-to-year comparisons may be misleading."

As to the InfoPlease website...(a little lesson in understanding valid websites) if you scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the About Us link, you will find this...Information Please has been providing authoritative answers to all kinds of factual questions since 1938.

Also, take a look at where this website gleaned its information from...The U.S. State Department has designated these groups as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). The table includes a description of each terrorist group, its goals and targets, estimated strength in numbers, year established, and its suspected activities...this is at the top of the page.

This site is a peer-reviewed site, because it also provides a copyright by a publishing company and to be copyrighted, you have to be reviewed for facts.

So, back to the numbers...

When I counted the numbers, as I said in my original post, I used the higher number every time. When there was no number, well, I couldn't count, but based on the fact that I used the higher number when they listed for instance 300-400, then I used the higher. When they said several thousand, I used the number 4000.

Dirk's information (Apples to Oranges) of domestic terrorism attacks includes crimes committed by domestic terrorists, which are not associated with Islam. It also only shows attacks, and not which group perpetrated the attack. My information points to who are the terrorists, which is more telling based on the accusations in this thread. His only shows attacks, not who perpetrated those attacks.

The website I linked only included terrorist groups outside of the US. If you want terrorist groups inside the US, then here's a list...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States. Note: None of these groups are affiliated with Islam.

My posts were meant to point out that not all terrorists are Muslim and not all Muslims are terrorists, which I did prove with that link. I added the numbers to show that the fear is unwarranted. When 1 in every 150,000 Muslims is a terrorist, you have some pretty freaked out people who say they are uneasy around someone who is dressed on a thobe. You are more likely to date a supermodel, than be attacked by a Muslim wearing traditional clothes (Odds of dating a supermodel: 88,000 to 1)...http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_385745.html

I will say it again...it is not logical to assume by a name, or dress, or anything else that someone belongs to one group or another. That is why I added those statements in the numbers I read. If you want true statistics, you have to be certain...show proof. That's why even the FBI does not have actual numbers.

It's like saying that all sport bike riders are complete assholes who think they own the road. We all know that is not even close to truth.
I resent that! I'm an asshole, and I DO, in fact, own the road! :)

[TinkerinWstuff]

I didn't realize you two were married

Arguing statistics really seems pointless to the issue at hand.

I doubt anyone would disagree that many people in America are skeptical and nervous around Muslims. It wouldn't be at the front of the news day in and out if that weren't the case. We wouldn't have the debate about the ground zero mosque if that weren't the case. Juan got canned for admitting a feeling of nervousness when someone in full Muslim traditional dress boards a plane. THEN went on to say that all Muslims are not terrorists.

So isn't the real issue here whether they were justified in firing him and how do you bridge the gap between the cultures?

Hold on while I find another statistic to argue about.

[dirkterrell]

This site is a peer-reviewed site, because it also provides a copyright by a publishing company and to be copyrighted, you have to be reviewed for facts.


Umm, no, that's not true. Copyright is simply ownership of something that has been created. It could be complete bullshit. The Weekly World News copyrights its stuff. Peer review is something completely diferent.



Dirk's information (Apples to Oranges) of domestic terrorism attacks includes crimes committed by domestic terrorists, which are not associated with Islam.


Not sure where you get that. Some of the attacks in that list from the FBI are by Islamic groups.



It also only shows attacks, and not which group perpetrated the attack. My information points to who are the terrorists, which is more telling based on the accusations in this thread. His only shows attacks, not who perpetrated those attacks.


Go back and read it again, as I said at the top of the post:


Well, here is a list of domestic terrorism incidents from 1980 to 2005 , along with the perpetrators from the FBI. (Source (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05)).

My posts were meant to point out that not all terrorists are Muslim and not all Muslims are terrorists, which I did prove with that link. I added the numbers to show that the fear is unwarranted.


And my post did the same but I think you misread it.



I will say it again...it is not logical to assume by a name, or dress, or anything else that someone belongs to one group or another.

As did I, although not quite so explicitly.



It's like saying that all sport bike riders are complete assholes who think they own the road. We all know that is not even close to truth.

As my alluded to in my first post in this thread ...

Dirk

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Juan blasts 'em!

http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/22/juan-williams-calls-for-the-government-to-defund-npr/

[mtnairlover]

I didn't realize you two were married. Arguing statistics really seems pointless to the issue at hand.

I couldn't marry someone who believes the things C_M believes in. It's not a good thing to argue like that in a marriage...at least it wouldn't be for me. I dunno, maybe C_M likes to argue?:dunno:




I doubt anyone would disagree that many people in America are skeptical and nervous around Muslims. It wouldn't be at the front of the news day in and out if that weren't the case. We wouldn't have the debate about the ground zero mosque if that weren't the case. Juan got canned for admitting a feeling of nervousness when someone in full Muslim traditional dress boards a plane. THEN went on to say that all Muslims are not terrorists.

How old are you TinkerinWstuff? I don't know if it means anything, but I've been through a time in our history when Americans acted like complete idiots before...not like we still don't...but I was born in '64 and spent time listening to BS from freaked out white folk when it came to how they felt about African Americans (back then, it was blacks). Anyway, it's why I argue so adamantly about not judging people by look, name, or clothing, etc. So, I just happen to be just a tad hard on those who can't get past their own fears. I've never had a time in my life when I had to truly fear for my life because of another person...so maybe that's another reason...hell, I live in America, ya know? Not like I live in a war-torn mid-eastern country.



So isn't the real issue here whether they were justified in firing him...

Juan Williams was fired because he had violated company ethics guidelines one time too many.

New York Times article (http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/nprs-schiller-says-juan-williams-was-fired-because-of-ethics-guidelines/)...

NPR Company Ethics Guidelines (http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/ethics/ethics_code.html)...



...and how do you bridge the gap between the cultures?


Are we not talking about that as well in this thread? First thing is to stop freaking out and saying things in public like Juan did. That's one thing that tends to perpetuate hatred and fear. You want to bridge the gap, open up your minds. Talk to someone in full Muslim dress who boards a plane. Talk about the weather, family, work, etc. Get to know a Muslim instead of turning and walking away in fear.

Another way to think about it is this...If you allow the fear to rule what you do and what you say, then you've allowed the terrorists to win.


I resent that! I'm an asshole, and I DO, in fact, own the road!
...:lol:...no comment


Umm, no, that's not true. Copyright is simply ownership of something that has been created. It could be complete bullshit. The Weekly World News copyrights its stuff. Peer review is something completely diferent.


Ok, so maybe I should have gone a little further. The website is copyrighted by Pearson Education, a publishing company. In order to be published by a publisher, your work has to be deemed as valid (if the work deals with facts) and is checked by your peers via the publisher.



...more info, etc....



So, then...how did C_M come to the conclusion that all terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by Muslims (except for McVeigh)?


Juan blasts 'em!



Ah...now I think I see the light. You like this guy, Juan don't ya C_M? He's like you, right?

[dirkterrell]

So, then...how did C_M come to the conclusion that all terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by Muslims (except for McVeigh)?


I don't recall that he did. I asked him to clarify his conclusion:


That radical Islamic terrorists are the primary terrorist threat to the safety of US citizens?

And he responded:


Thank you Dirk, that was the only point I was trying to make from the numbers, they're pretty overwhelming.

And that is a reasonable conclusion based on the FBI numbers which define domestic terrorism as occurring on US property, rather than being committed by US citizens as your Wiki link defined it. Even though the number of terrorism incidents committed by Islamic groups was not in the majority, the destruction wrought in deaths (~3000 out of ~3200) and injuries (~12,000 out of ~14,000) greatly exceeded all of the others. Therefore, the chance that a US citizen would be killed or injured by Islamic terrorists is greater, by a wide margin, than being killed/injured by another group. That is his argument as I understand it.

Dirk

[TinkerinWstuff]

I couldn't marry someone who believes the things C_M believes in. It's not a good thing to argue like that in a marriage...at least it wouldn't be for me. I dunno, maybe C_M likes to argue?:dunno:

Just poking fun



How old are you TinkerinWstuff? I don't know if it means anything, but I've been through a time in our history when Americans acted like complete idiots before...not like we still don't...but I was born in '64 and spent time listening to BS from freaked out white folk when it came to how they felt about African Americans (back then, it was blacks). Anyway, it's why I argue so adamantly about not judging people by look, name, or clothing, etc. So, I just happen to be just a tad hard on those who can't get past their own fears. I've never had a time in my life when I had to truly fear for my life because of another person...so maybe that's another reason...hell, I live in America, ya know? Not like I live in a war-torn mid-eastern country.

I'm just a young pup in the mid 30's. But I've been half way around the world and lived in a handful of states here in the US.

Ever been shopping in a Saudi mall where there are armed guards with machine guns on the 3rd floor watching your every move?


Juan Williams was fired because he had violated company ethics guidelines one time too many.

New York Times article (http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/nprs-schiller-says-juan-williams-was-fired-because-of-ethics-guidelines/)...

NPR Company Ethics Guidelines (http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/ethics/ethics_code.html)...


So they say....


Are we not talking about that as well in this thread? First thing is to stop freaking out and saying things in public like Juan did. That's one thing that tends to perpetuate hatred and fear. You want to bridge the gap, open up your minds. Talk to someone in full Muslim dress who boards a plane. Talk about the weather, family, work, etc. Get to know a Muslim instead of turning and walking away in fear.

Stop having a public discussion about real feelings felt by many in this country? We should fear termination from out jobs for having a discussion in public about a difficult subject that the country currently faces? It's not like Juan was picketing with a sign full of hate speech in front of a Mosque. Juan admitted to his fear and went on to SUPPORT the Muslim people by saying the feeling wasn't appropriate (in so many words) because ALL MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS.


Another way to think about it is this...If you allow the fear to rule what you do and what you say, then you've allowed the terrorists to win.

Right, as I said earlier, put your money where your mouth is and swim with sharks. If statistics showing that every terrorist in the world isn't a muslim is enough to allay fears, then statistics showing that every shark isn't a killer should be enough to keep from clearing the beaches.

I know it's not apples and apples - but I'm trying to say is that there is a population of Muslims who have declared war on the west and have killed many civilians. The fear people feel is real and NOT without basis.


Ah...now I think I see the light. You like this guy, Juan don't ya C_M? He's like you, right?

We covered this in an earlier post of this thread. He's a lefty that the right doesn't usually agree with but he's real and honest. He's educated and informed on issues. He challenges people to think without being confrontational.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Thanks Dirk! I'd ask you to marry me, but I've already promised myself to Cathy! :)

[TinkerinWstuff]

Page 7 - just here to say:

All Muslims are not terrorists.

ok, back to it....

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Page 7 - just here to say:

All Muslims are not terrorists.

ok, back to it....
I'm just here to say all terrorists are not muslim. :) (Just the deadly ones).

Ok, just to get that out of the way.....

[TinkerinWstuff]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/25/al-qaeda-video-asks-detroit-area-muslims-terrorize/



Al Qaeda Video Asks Detroit-Area Muslims to Act


Gadahn urged Muslims living “in the miserable suburbs of Paris, London and Detroit” to stage religiously motivated attacks on targets in Europe and the United States.
"It is the duty of everyone who is sincere in his desire to defend Islam and Muslims today, to take the initiative to perform the individual obligation of jihad," Gadahn said in Arabic in the video.
Detroit is the only U.S. city mentioned by Gadahn, who, in the video, also gives praise to the suspect involved in the attempted airplane bombing at Detroit Metro Airport.

The video, which asks Al Qaeda followers to individually stage attacks, has been condemned by Muslim leaders in the Detroit area, including Imad Hamad, the Regional Director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/25/al-qaeda-video-asks-detroit-area-muslims-terrorize/
Well, it's only Fox news, so obviously it's wrong and biased....... (sarcasm)

[TinkerinWstuff]

Juan Williams was fired because he had violated company ethics guidelines one time too many.

New York Times article (http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/nprs-schiller-says-juan-williams-was-fired-because-of-ethics-guidelines/)...

NPR Company Ethics Guidelines (http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/ethics/ethics_code.html)...



http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/25/npr-affiliate-managers-voice-discontent-firing-juan-williams?test=latestnews


Executives at NPR affiliate stations across the United States have begun publicly voicing discontent in the aftermath of the network's dismissal of news analyst Juan Williams, with several station managers openly questioning the actions and judgment of NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller.
Some station executives said Williams should not have been fired, while others said the firing should have been more professionally handled. Still others questioned whether NPR is fairly administering its own ethics rules, and suggested Williams was fired purely because he appears on Fox News.



Here's the best part:


Among the issues with which Schiller has been confronted in recent days was why NPR has not sought to make any change to the status of other NPR journalists - such as longtime legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg - who, like Williams, have appeared regularly on other TV outlets, freely dispensing opinions. NPR told Fox News late Friday no change was being considered in the status of Totenberg or Mara Liasson, NPR's national political correspondent, who, like Williams, is also a Fox News contributor.
In telephone interviews with Fox News this week, general managers of several stations affiliated with NPR spoke sharply about Schiller's performance in the episode. Janet Campbell, general manager at Kansas station KANU, said she did not believe Williams should have been fired at all, and that she "absolutely" saw a double standard at work in the network's treatment of Williams and Totenberg.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Ok, before anyone gets all pissy, this is a caricature of Osama Bin Laden, definatelyt not your average muslim.

[Wintermute]

If it's possible, I'm now dumber for looking at that dipshit cartoon.

Yeah, it's just so fucking black and white. Holding employees to account for saying stupid, bigoted shit on TV that breaks your organization's ethics rules means that we now have to let terrorists do whatever they want. Or something.

That's what this soldier died for, right?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3253/2959545882_e5a4e61609_z.jpg

So he and 1.5 billion other Muslims could be tarred with a mile-wide bigot brush?

[Wintermute]

Well, it's only Fox news, so obviously it's wrong and biased....... (sarcasm)

Yeah, I really like the "Fair and Balanced" way Murdoch pulled $2,000,000 out of NewsCorp's (Fox's parent company) coffers to give to the GOP.

I guess "Fair and balanced" isn't a fantasy if you repeat it enough times.

[TinkerinWstuff]

I suggest you avoid Saturday night live and the daily show if you cannot handle politicalsatire without getting your girl panties wadded up

[Wintermute]

If that shitty cartoon passes for "satire" on the right, reason #2,345,876 that conservative humor = massive fail.

I'll ignore the personal slur.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Why bother? You have taken everything else so personal that you fail to see the real discussion here. So go right ahead.

[Aphrodite]

OK guy's chillax there is no snow on the ground yet, so there is no indications of cabin fever yet. Go to your corners and regroup. Big breath and realize we are friends here eh?

[Bueller]

Big breath and realize we are friends here eh?

:lol: That is funny. Nothing in the rules says we have to be friends here.

[Aphrodite]

But we are though. Can't help it. :alien:

[TinkerinWstuff]

the satire is about political correctness run amok. And it's clear you haven't read this thread or seen the actual video of what Juan actually said.

[Wintermute]

Political correctness?

Yeah, the current rightwing "political correctness" is that under no circumstances can there ever be consequences for being a bigot against Muslims. Helen Thomas says stupid things about Israel, she's gone in days. Rick Sanchez says pants-on-head-retarded shit about Jews, gone in days. Brian Kilmeade says "All terrorists are Muslim", no big deal, still got a job.

It's horseshit, and I won't chuckle and go along with it.

[TinkerinWstuff]

I still say you have not read the thread nor watched the whole video of Juan's statement in context.

[TinkerinWstuff]

If a woman gets nervous when she passes a man in a dark alley, does that make her a bigot? Statistics show that not all men are rapists. Few men are actually rapists.

rapists don't wear signs or uniforms that identify them as the bad guy.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

....figures someone from Boulder would get their panties all wadded up.

It was a joke, right? For that soldier, I'll raise you the one in Texas that slaughtered his fellow soldiers because he hated us.

Murdoch can donate whatever of his own money to do whatever he wants. That doesn't neccessarily mean the show is biased.

I saw the video clip of Juan, and it wasn't nothing to get yer panties wadded about, unless of course you like them that way. But, I'm not gonna ask, and you shouldn't tell....

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

....It gets funnier:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44255.html

[TinkerinWstuff]

son of a bitch - I have to re evaluate my position now that I've found myself on the same side of an issue as Jesse Jackson.

[mtnairlover]

Political correctness is not what Juan's statement and his subsequent firing was all about. It was his disregard of his contract. The fact that he identified himself as an NPR employee at the end of his statement changed things when he made that statement. Nothing too wrong with making that statement, but then identifying the company you work for starts to go into contract and legal issues.

Another thing and this has to do with the fear mongering again...but, if terrorists are gonna board a US plane domestically, they are not gonna be dressed in traditional clothing, which taints Juan's statement as just a tad on the bigoted side. People should think before they speak sometimes and that's not a PC thing to say...it's something that is going way astray in this country these days...manners have taken a dive as far as I'm concerned.

Not only that, but when you put someone in the limelight like that and try to justify the words, you influence the younger generations...they start to think it's ok to say stupid things like that and continue bullying kids who are different...yes, I'm gonna say that, cuz I for one have seen it happen.

People just don't care what they say anymore and who hears it and I'm not talking about PC...it's a different thing.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Political correctness is not what Juan's statement and his subsequent firing was all about. It was his disregard of his contract. The fact that he identified himself as an NPR employee at the end of his statement changed things when he made that statement. Nothing too wrong with making that statement, but then identifying the company you work for starts to go into contract and legal issues.

Another thing and this has to do with the fear mongering again...but, if terrorists are gonna board a US plane domestically, they are not gonna be dressed in traditional clothing, which taints Juan's statement as just a tad on the bigoted side. People should think before they speak sometimes and that's not a PC thing to say...it's something that is going way astray in this country these days...manners have taken a dive as far as I'm concerned.

Not only that, but when you put someone in the limelight like that and try to justify the words, you influence the younger generations...they start to think it's ok to say stupid things like that and continue bullying kids who are different...yes, I'm gonna say that, cuz I for one have seen it happen.

People just don't care what they say anymore and who hears it and I'm not talking about PC...it's a different thing.

And I say BULLSHIT. Go back and read the article excerpts I quoted above. And you are disregarding Juan's WHOLE STATEMENT where he said all terrorists aren't Muslim and there isn't much sense in being nervous.

[TinkerinWstuff]

We had homeland security chief Janet Napelitano come out and say that people need to be more vigilant. She said the Denver guy who planned a bombing bought an extra large quantity of a substance capable of making bombs (peroxide?) and no one reported it. http://www.9news.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=652311559001#/News/Janet+Napolitano/49906872001/50183015001/652311559001 On the other hand, if you are nervous or suspect something, you could be marginalized, called a bigot, and/or get fired from your job. That's the satire.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Page 8 - apparently it didn't matter that the disclaimer was there on page 7 but I'll do it again anyway:

All Muslims are not terrorists
All terrorists are not Muslim - (just the really deadly ones)

[busagirl]

I'm only afraid of the white man.


+1

[Sarge]

Page 7 - just here to say:

All Muslims are not terrorists.

ok, back to it....


+1

Page 8

[Sarge]

Page 8 - apparently it didn't matter that the disclaimer was there on page 7 but I'll do it again anyway:

All Muslims are not terrorists
All terrorists are not Muslim - (just the really deadly ones)


Damn, I was just reading this post and you beat me to it. :turtle:

[Sarge]

....It gets funnier:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44255.html




However, Jesse Jackson remains in NPR’s good graces despite once saying ‘there is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery—then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved’.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44255.html#ixzz13lBiWMlg


:crazy:

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

:crazy:
So, maybe this would be a good segue to post the crime statistics by race? Especially, black on white crime? ;)

But, Jesse's right, he has FAR more to fear from being beaten/robbed/killed by another black man than he is a white guy. And if you're a white guy, it's even worse.

As soon as I can get more verification of the numbers, I'll post those links too in another thread.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

The link is not, but the video is from CNN:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/shock-radical-muslim-cleric-describes-islam-for-cnn/

[Ghost]

Taken as a microcosm of society (albeit not a wholly accurate segment slice) this thread is the perfect representation of why societies in general, and our uniquely diverse one in particular, always fail to have a uniform or even informed opinion on anything.

Change the topic to global warming/climate change, loud pipes save lives, god's existence, or anything else, and everything devolves to the fractured discussion you see here.

Like most "discussions" online (and too often in person) there's no real hypothesis/antithesis/synthesis of ideas, no genuine evolution of ideas.

It's just a series of entrenched beliefs with varying levels of support/justification--and I'm willing to bet that no one will alter their perception of the topic by one iota.

So, the meta question becomes "why have these 'discussions' at all"?

What purpose do/can they serve? Or are they simply a place to vent and/or 'litmus test' everyone's position and political leaning?

[mdub]

yep u tell'em ghost....if this world does not get it's shit together...the end will be near....and this is coming from one that can give a shit about religion....the world was here billions of yrs before us and will be, after we do ourself in...

[mtnairlover]

So, the meta question becomes "why have these 'discussions' at all"?

What purpose do/can they serve? Or are they simply a place to vent and/or 'litmus test' everyone's position and political leaning?

Giving up completely?

I don't know if that's the answer either.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Taken as a microcosm of society (albeit not a wholly accurate segment slice) this thread is the perfect representation of why societies in general, and our uniquely diverse one in particular, always fail to have a uniform or even informed opinion on anything.

Change the topic to global warming/climate change, loud pipes save lives, god's existence, or anything else, and everything devolves to the fractured discussion you see here.

Like most "discussions" online (and too often in person) there's no real hypothesis/antithesis/synthesis of ideas, no genuine evolution of ideas.

It's just a series of entrenched beliefs with varying levels of support/justification--and I'm willing to bet that no one will alter their perception of the topic by one iota.

So, the meta question becomes "why have these 'discussions' at all"?

What purpose do/can they serve? Or are they simply a place to vent and/or 'litmus test' everyone's position and political leaning?
All of the above! Until Dirk so thankfully provided the FBI link, I never knew the death toll due to the jihadists, and the vast difference in the death toll vs., say, ELF or other lunatic terrorist groups. It was enlightening to me, so I learned something. I don't believe people should bury their heads in the sand and pretend it isn't an issue because it's politically incorrect to actually point the finger where it needs to be pointed.

Radical islam IS our greatest terrorist threat when on a plane, or in public. Period. Now, what can we do about it? Best case scenario would be to stop them from WANTING to blow stuff up, and be productive members of a society NOT filled with hate and oppression.

[Sarge]

Radical islam IS our greatest terrorist threat when on a plane, or in public. Period. Now, what can we do about it? Best case scenario would be to stop them from WANTING to blow stuff up, and be productive members of a society NOT filled with hate and oppression.

You mean, GIVE IN to the terrorists?!?! :jawdrop:

[mtnairlover]

You want to stop terrorism?

Get informed...

Domestic Terrorist organizations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States

* 2.1 Animal Liberation Front
* 2.2 Alpha 66 and Omega 7
* 2.3 Army of God
* 2.4 Aryan Nations
* 2.5 Black Liberation Army
* 2.6 The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord
* 2.7 Earth Liberation Front
* 2.8 Jewish Defense League
* 2.9 Ku Klux Klan
* 2.10 May 19th Communist Organization
* 2.11 The Order
* 2.12 Phineas Priesthood
* 2.13 Symbionese Liberation Army
* 2.14 United Freedom Front
* 2.15 Weathermen

Notable attacks associated with domestic terrorism

* 3.1 Bath, Michigan Bombings
* 3.2 Ludlow Massacre
* 3.3 Bombing of Los Angeles Times building
* 3.4 Attacks by the Jewish Defense League
* 3.5 Wall Street bombing
* 3.6 Unabomber attacks
* 3.7 Oklahoma City bombing
* 3.8 Centennial Olympic Park bombing
* 3.9 Columbine High School massacre
* 3.10 2001 anthrax attacks
* 3.11 Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting
* 3.12 Austin IRS attack

Know what the terrorists look like, ie. they look like you and me...

American couple nabbed by FBI for terrorist plots. The husband had turned to radical Islam. No one even suspected this couple.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/23/nation/la-na-adv-alaska-terrorists-20100723-1


http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/dt

The national terror alert response center says this about identifying terrorists...
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/suspicious-activity/

"It is impossible to identify a terrorist by

* Appearance
* Nationality
* Language

You CAN only identify a terrorist threat by observing or hearing about suspicious activity that may lead to a criminal act."

Stopping terrorism takes a whole lot more than freaking people out about another group of people. It takes getting to know others...not immediate judgmental responses. The only thing that comes from judgmental responses is a polarization of people...as has happened here.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Do we need to go around and around with this again??

The fucking animal liberation front isn't going to blow me up on a plane or a train.

[mtnairlover]

That's not the point of my post.

The point is that you cannot make a snap judgment about a person and identify them as terrorist. Even the FBI and the National Terror Alert Response Center warns against that kind of identification. It points back to how ridiculous Juan's statement was.



Know what the terrorists look like, ie. they look like you and me...

American couple nabbed by FBI for terrorist plots. The husband had turned to radical Islam. No one even suspected this couple.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/23/nation/la-na-adv-alaska-terrorists-20100723-1


http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/dt

The national terror alert response center says this about identifying terrorists...
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/suspicious-activity/

"It is impossible to identify a terrorist by

* Appearance
* Nationality
* Language

You CAN only identify a terrorist threat by observing or hearing about suspicious activity that may lead to a criminal act."



Yes, I will agree a person is allowed to make statements based on how they feel about something, but doing it in a public manner creates more fervor than is necessary, especially when you consider that it may influence too many others the wrong way. You get idiots who will accost others solely based on the way they look, dress, speak, etc.

Not only that, the other point of my post is that it is wrong to think that Islamic extremists are the only terrorists that operate in this country.

Black Man Who Looked Vaguely “Muslimish” Accosted at NY Anti-Islam Protest
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/08/23/black-man-who-looked-vaguely-muslimish-accosted-at-ny-anti-islam-protest/

[mathman1000]

How far back in history should we go in order to label people terrorists?

Should we go back to the white people who went to Africa, hijacked blacks, brought them to our country, and enslaved them with the punishment of death if they refused?

How about the white people that dragged Mathew Sheppard behind a truck because he was gay? I don't know about you, but I'd rather be blown up by a bomb instead of being dragged behind a truck until I was dead.

How about the Huguenots that were slaughtered by the Catholic Church in the 16th & 17th century because they disagreed with the church? How about when the Catholic Church killed women by the tens of thousands by calling them witches. "You know a remedy for a common cold??!! You must be a witch....DIE". Not to mention the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of other people they killed in "The Name of the Church".

And now this conversation is heading in the direction of a persons color. Really? Are we that stupid to call up stats about who creates more crime, so we can then label/marginalize a certain part of population, to prove our deep seated racist beliefs? How long have blacks in this country even been allowed to drink out of the same water fountain as you? And you can't understand why they don't think/act/believe like whitey? Really? You're that short sighted?

Maybe we should take a look at ourselves, look at what organizations we are part of, and ask ourselves "by association, who do I terrorize?". Stop pointing your fingers at everyone else. Terrorism doesn’t necessarily mean you strap a bomb to yourself to blow something up, but maybe you just throw around slandering rants to prove your point about how much you hate those not like you, and support laws that limit the rights of those not like you.

[TinkerinWstuff]

try to focus. :) The discussion was whether NPR was justified in firing Juan Williams because he admitted to being nervous when someone in full Muslim garb boards a plane.

Everyone knows terrorism has been going on for as long as people have populated the earth. We shouldn't have a public discussion about what is really going on in the world? :blowup:We should delete this thread because a public discussion of who might or might not be perpetrating terrorism is dangerous and unfair to non terrorists of the same religion or skin color.

[mtnairlover]

...you cannot make a snap judgment about a person and identify them as terrorist. Even the FBI and the National Terror Alert Response Center warns against that kind of identification. It points back to how ridiculous Juan's statement was.

...

Yes, I will agree a person is allowed to make statements based on how they feel about something, but doing it in a public manner creates more fervor than is necessary, especially when you consider that it may influence too many others the wrong way. You get idiots who will accost others solely based on the way they look, dress, speak, etc.


Black Man Who Looked Vaguely “Muslimish” Accosted at NY Anti-Islam Protest...
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/08/23/black-man-who-looked-vaguely-muslimish-accosted-at-ny-anti-islam-protest/



Yes, NPR was justified. Read the last paragraph...

http://www.radiosurvivor.com/2010/10/23/firing-juan-williams-did-npr-act-appropriately/

[TinkerinWstuff]

Yes, NPR was justified. Read the last paragraph...

http://www.radiosurvivor.com/2010/10/23/firing-juan-williams-did-npr-act-appropriately/

Not Justified - read my post on page 7 of this thread where I linked examples of other employees NPR has who have been allowed to continue giving their opinions.

So NPR is allowed to censor opinions it doesn't agree with while taking accepting our public funds for operation costs

[Sarge]

It's not NPR anymore, its N(PC)R, for National Politically Correct Radio. ;)

[TinkerinWstuff]

Just because YOU don't agree with Juan's opinion doesn't make his firing justified. I may not agree without someone else's opinion so should they be fired for it? (i.e. the other employees still allowed to keep their job while moonlighting as opinion jockeys).

Firing Juan only adds to the public perception that news is slanted by what the ownership WANTS you to hear and not what's really going on.

[mtnairlover]

Not Justified - read my post on page 7 of this thread where I linked examples of other employees NPR has who have been allowed to continue giving their opinions.



Can't find that post on page 7.


Just because YOU don't agree with Juan's opinion doesn't make his firing justified. I may not agree without someone else's opinion so should they be fired for it? (i.e. the other employees still allowed to keep their job while moonlighting as opinion jockeys).

Firing Juan only adds to the public perception that news is slanted by what the ownership WANTS you to hear and not what's really going on.

No, I agree on the firing based on the contract and ethics guidelines. Everything else I've stated is because of reading those guidelines.

Your other statement about slanted news...it's a sad fact that sensationalism sells. No one wants to just hear the facts anymore, they want what sells, plain and simple. It isn't the fault, necessarily (it's more a result of), of the news outlets...it's the public's reaction and what the public buys that creates the slant. Public outlets...those that don't get funded by advertising but by fund-raising are falling by the wayside because of what the public buys...and a greater majority eat up sensationalism, rather than recognize the value of straight facts.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Can't find that post on page 7.



No, I agree on the firing based on the contract and ethics guidelines. Everything else I've stated is because of reading those guidelines.


Your other statement about slanted news...it's a sad fact that sensationalism sells. No one wants to just hear the facts anymore, they want what sells, plain and simple. It isn't the fault, necessarily (it's more a result of), of the news outlets...it's the public's reaction and what the public buys that creates the slant. Public outlets...those that don't get funded by advertising but by fund-raising are falling by the wayside because of what the public buys...and a greater majority eat up sensationalism, rather than recognize the value of straight facts.

my answer to both your points:
http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/showpost.php?p=526663&postcount=150

[mtnairlover]

my answer to both your (IMO -weak) points:
http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/showpost.php?p=526663&postcount=150



My point? That article does not mention what those NPR employees say when they state their opinions. So, you are basing your opinion on conjecture? Are you inferring that the other employees also commented the same way that violate NPR ethics? Are you inferring that they have been warned by NPR as Williams was warned repeatedly before he was fired?

There is not enough info in that article. We can all assume things, but to make a judgment based on so very little fact is just as bad as making a slanted statement on a news outlet.

[TinkerinWstuff]

How about his peers and affiliate stations who said it was not a just firing? I'd say they're far more informed that you or I.

I deleted my unnecessary comment - apologies.

I think it's all right here:
Quote:
Executives at NPR affiliate stations across the United States have begun publicly voicing discontent in the aftermath of the network's dismissal of news analyst Juan Williams, with several station managers openly questioning the actions and judgment of NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller.
Some station executives said Williams should not have been fired, while others said the firing should have been more professionally handled. Still others questioned whether NPR is fairly administering its own ethics rules, and suggested Williams was fired purely because he appears on Fox News.





Quote:
Among the issues with which Schiller has been confronted in recent days was why NPR has not sought to make any change to the status of other NPR journalists - such as longtime legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg - who, like Williams, have appeared regularly on other TV outlets, freely dispensing opinions. NPR told Fox News late Friday no change was being considered in the status of Totenberg or Mara Liasson, NPR's national political correspondent, who, like Williams, is also a Fox News contributor.
In telephone interviews with Fox News this week, general managers of several stations affiliated with NPR spoke sharply about Schiller's performance in the episode. Janet Campbell, general manager at Kansas station KANU, said she did not believe Williams should have been fired at all, and that she "absolutely" saw a double standard at work in the network's treatment of Williams and Totenberg.


Maybe the other people haven't been warned because the managers at public radio, using public funds, "like" their opinions better?

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Yes, NPR was justified. Read the last paragraph...

http://www.radiosurvivor.com/2010/10/23/firing-juan-williams-did-npr-act-appropriately/
"Regardless, although Williams is obviously entitled to his personal beliefs (free speech issue aside) he still shouldn’t have made his comment publicly. Yet Williams chose to make his comment on an extremely ideological television show on a borderline extremist news network, publicly proclaiming his (in the very least) prejudices against a group of people that, not coincidentally, have been the large focus of news in this country since 9/11. This sort of behavior is simply not acceptable for an objective network, and Williams, an individual with a large amount of experience in the industry, should have known that."
This is the writers PERSONAL opinion, and is of course no more valid than Juans. Since we do NOT know the details of Juans contract with NPR with regards to what he can and cannot do and/or say, to say the firing was justified because it fits in with yet another persons personal opinion, well..... We might see how the courts interpret this, as they WILL have access to his contract. A person's freedom of speech is not to be trifled with, even by a gov't-funded radio.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Do we need to go around and around with this again??

The fucking animal liberation front isn't going to blow me up on a plane or a train.

Yeah, I thought I'd made that pretty clear from culling the indisputable FBI stats....... ;)

But, I guess if people are REALLY worried that some tree-hugging "terrorist" is going to key their Hummer with a "save the earth" message, well, then, maybe they ARE our greatest threat, eh?

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

You mean, GIVE IN to the terrorists?!?! :jawdrop:
Never. I mean by deprogramming them to NOT hate everything else. If that doesn't work, there's always the fallback plan of "nuke & pave". :)

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

You want to stop terrorism?

Get informed...

Domestic Terrorist organizations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States

* 2.1 Animal Liberation Front
* 2.2 Alpha 66 and Omega 7
* 2.3 Army of God
* 2.4 Aryan Nations
* 2.5 Black Liberation Army
* 2.6 The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord
* 2.7 Earth Liberation Front
* 2.8 Jewish Defense League
* 2.9 Ku Klux Klan
* 2.10 May 19th Communist Organization
* 2.11 The Order
* 2.12 Phineas Priesthood
* 2.13 Symbionese Liberation Army
* 2.14 United Freedom Front
* 2.15 Weathermen

Notable attacks associated with domestic terrorism

* 3.1 Bath, Michigan Bombings
* 3.2 Ludlow Massacre
* 3.3 Bombing of Los Angeles Times building
* 3.4 Attacks by the Jewish Defense League
* 3.5 Wall Street bombing
* 3.6 Unabomber attacks
* 3.7 Oklahoma City bombing
* 3.8 Centennial Olympic Park bombing
* 3.9 Columbine High School massacre
* 3.10 2001 anthrax attacks
* 3.11 Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting
* 3.12 Austin IRS attack

Know what the terrorists look like, ie. they look like you and me...

American couple nabbed by FBI for terrorist plots. The husband had turned to radical Islam. No one even suspected this couple.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/23/nation/la-na-adv-alaska-terrorists-20100723-1


http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/dt

The national terror alert response center says this about identifying terrorists...
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/suspicious-activity/

"It is impossible to identify a terrorist by

* Appearance
* Nationality
* Language

You CAN only identify a terrorist threat by observing or hearing about suspicious activity that may lead to a criminal act."

Stopping terrorism takes a whole lot more than freaking people out about another group of people. It takes getting to know others...not immediate judgmental responses. The only thing that comes from judgmental responses is a polarization of people...as has happened here.
I'm sorry, what was the total death toll of all the stated groups vs. JUST the 9/11 attacks again?

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Ok, we'll relate this in motorcycle terms:

For the radical Christian threat, we'll relate that to 10,000 drops of rain spread out on your ride from P2P to Estes.

For the radical islam threat, we'll say it's 100 drops of unseen oil in the middle of an 80+mph decreasing-radius corner with a cliff on the outside of the turn.

Yep, the rain is the major threat, RIGHT?

[Sarge]

:mrt:

[TinkerinWstuff]

I'm out. Traveling for work this week and I've grown weary of this anyway. In summary, my position is Juan shouldn't have been fired. It's evident that NPR doesn't enforce it's own policy uniformly with regard to other employees who moonlight as opinion jockeys. Just because some percentage of population may not agree with his opinion, doesn't make terminating his employment appropriate action.

His opinion is mirrored by a significant number of people and dialog about the topic is important rather than hiding in the sand if we're ever to get past this. There are significant statistical information to support the fact that the most likely group to try to hide a bomb or hijack a plane (in recent years) would be someone affiliating themselves as Muslim.

Many people had connections with people lost in 9/11 and everyone watched it on T.V. Boarding a plane is like no other place where you put yourself completely at the mercy of others. Many irrational fears show up in people while on a plane even though it's statistically the safest method of travel. Terrorists don't wear signs identifying them as a bad guy just like rapists don't wear rapists hats and yet a woman may get nervous in a dark alley crossing paths with some big man.

Juan's firing was unjustified and that's my take. That's my last word here and I'm unsubscribed.

[mtnairlover]

How about his peers and affiliate stations who said it was not a just firing? I'd say they're far more informed that you or I.

I deleted my unnecessary comment - apologies.


Maybe the other people haven't been warned because the managers at public radio, using public funds, "like" their opinions better?

Apologies accepted.

I understand you are done with the topic...I'm pretty much done, too...well, 'cept for some last thoughts.

Williams got himself a nice fat $2mil contract with FOX after being let go from NPR. Here's my thought...maybe he kept poking at NPR's ethics rules so that he could move on to FOX? One way to get out of a contract is to get fired. And then covering your tracks by pitching a fuss helps not only Juan, but boosts FOX's ratings for a little while, while the hubbub is still floating around.

The other things I found out about NPR contracts, etc. were these...


depending on your role, ie. journalist, analyst, etc., you are bound by certain conditions
Juan's role was as an analyst. Analysts analyze fact...that's all. Their role is not as political pundit. So, violating the contract terms anywhere, on any other media outlet will get you in trouble.
The other employees were not hired as analysts. They dispensed opinions elsewhere and got in trouble. I only read the bio on one of them and she mentioned having to write apology letters for a 1995 opinion statement she made...back in '95. Since that time, I don't know that she had violated her contract.

Either way...Juan has a heftier load in his pockets...lol...and FOX's ratings go up, yielding them more money.

NPR's public funding is 16% of their overall funding...the rest comes from elsewhere.

Hmmm...I think that's about it.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Another "ethics" violation costing someone their job while exercising free speech.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/05/nj-conductor-burned-koran-sue-firing/?test=latestnews


NEWARK, N.J. -- A former New Jersey train conductor fired two days after publicly burning pages from the Koran on Sept. 11 is expected to file a lawsuit Friday seeking reinstatement and monetary damages.


NJ Transit's code of ethics requires employees to give notice to an ethics liaison officer before participating in political activities. An employee can then participate in political activities so long as state or federal law or agency rules don't explicitly prohibit them and "the activity doesn't conflict with the employee's official duties."

[Aphrodite]

Humn, free speech is no longer free speech.

[TinkerinWstuff]

you can say what you want, if you ask permission first.

Add to the list Keith Olbermann who was also suspended today for ethics contract rules. Donating to Democratic party candidate campaigns. Also requires permission. In his case/situation, I almost understand. But I always thought of Keith as being an opinion jockey like Hannity or Mathews and not a "journalist". I would be shocked if you told me he didn't donate money.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/05/msnbc-suspends-keith-olbermann-indefinitely-contributing-democratic-campaigns/

[Aphrodite]

I would rather not have to ask X employer or anyone for permissions to say my opinion away from work especially, if it is unrelated to work and I don't tell the people I an giving my opinion too that I work for X.

I Went to work for a company here in Denver 8 years ago and they hired me knowing I was dating a guy with in the company and then they handed me a no fraternization form, I was like WTF??? The lady I spoke with basically told me it ment nothing, it was just if things got dramatic it could be mean of termination for both of us. A week later he was asked to quit supposedly not knowing he was dating me, which somehow I think was the game they were playing to hire me to get rid of him, They then terminated me a week later after that due to "Conflict of Interest." Another week after that we split because of the whole situation.

My point is that is just leverage for the any/company for them to use if they choose to do so. All BS till they want to enforce it.

[mtnairlover]

Another "ethics" violation costing someone their job while exercising free speech.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/05/nj-conductor-burned-koran-sue-firing/?test=latestnews

I think when you look at the business and their ethics guidelines, then you need to realize that once a contract is signed to work for someone if you violate that contract, then you are in jeopardy of also losing your job. Business ethics and the 1st Amendment may tend to collide...maybe a tad...but, American businesses still acknowledge and abide by the law to the point that as long as the free speech does not insight violence and is done not on their time, or the company is not identified in that speech, then all bases are covered.

But, this is a really gray area it seems as far as what I've looked at...

Let me make it a tad personal and ask you why you did this...




I deleted my unnecessary comment - apologies.



I think that's the same idea as corporations are trying to get across and the law is trying to get across to the masses. As long as the speech does not insight violence (there are other catches within the law as well, I just don't remember all of them), then the speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. I mean, all you have to do is look at the incident that I had posted about the African American being mistaken for a Muslim and you can see how a crowd of people can get stupidly unruly...it's completely ridiculous if you ask me and completely uncalled for. But...I do realize that each ethics violation needs to be looked at separately to make the determination of whether or not one law or another was truly violated.

By the way...at first, I was gonna come back with something just as witty and then I too, muffled my speech...it wasn't necessary.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Looks like a review of the firing by NPR management is in agreement; the firing of Juan Williams was WRONG.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/06/npr-boss-fired-juan-williams-resigns/

[Mel]

Pretty certain this thread died (as it greatly needed to) back in November. Let's not start about battle about who is and isn't a terrorist.

[salsashark]

Pretty certain this thread died (as it greatly needed to) back in November. Let's not start about battle about who is and isn't a terrorist.

But Mel, if people don't argue pointlessly on the interwebz, the terrorists will win!

[TinkerinWstuff]

http://www.colonelscrypt.com/Videos/CC%20Vindication%20Report%20(2).jpg

http://cdn.newsone.com/files/2009/02/jwilliams.jpg

http://www.esubulletin.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/smelly-0003-300x299.jpg

http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/010611_npr_20110106_150330.jpg