NPR = morons

[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.a...1/652311559001 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.

[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...#ixzz13lBiWMlg

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

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/shoc...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?!?!

[mtnairlover]

You want to stop terrorism?

Get informed...

Domestic Terrorist organizations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesti..._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...sts-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...sts-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/...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? 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/...islam-protest/

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

http://www.radiosurvivor.com/2010/10...appropriately/

[TinkerinWstuff]

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

http://www.radiosurvivor.com/2010/10...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/forum...&postcount=150