[Rictor]

Originally posted by aldo_14
I think Rictor is simply pointing out that the vast majority of Americans - arab or otherwise - will never have their door kicked down by the CIA or FBI, and thus it's less likely that they will be mobilized by that happening to the minority.  Until the majority are anticipating some from of oppression or abuse in that manner, it's highly unlikely they'll care about those few people it does happen to.

Yeah.

Originally posted by Kosh


Then why are you downplaying it by turning it into a numbers game? They ARE people too.

Really? They are? Are you really quite sure? Well, that changes everything. If only I had somehow known they were people.

Look. **** happens. I'm not going to sit here and act out fake concern. There are six and a half billion people on Earth, and many of them are a lot worse off that those in Gitmo. The thing is, I do look at it by numbers. It's not downplaying anything, and it's not exaggerating anything, it is assigning proportional value - exactly as it should be.

If they arrest one person illegaly, that's bad. But hell, it's one guy. I'm sure someone will hold a rally or start a petition, but that someone isn't me. If they arrest a hundred people illegally, it would seem that there is a problem, but all things considered it doesn't amount to widespread oppression. If they arrest a hundred thousand people, send them off to labour camps and starve them , that's a real ****ing problem, and then it can be legitimately claimed that the government is tyrannical.

No offence to you personally, because this isn't directed at you, but it seems to me that of people having this fake innocence lost routine. I have resigned myself to the fact that the world is far from perfect, and that justice is not always done. That's not news. So, yes, the situation at Gitmo isn't right, and I dare you to say I'm defending it, but compared to the world standard for such things, it's not too bad either. It's not the gulags all over again. There are many other grievances that can be held against the United States government, and of a much grander nature, so the fate of a handful of individuals, most of who are as far as I know captured fighters, isn't really #1 on my list of things that stir up my sense of moral outrage.

[EtherShock]

Originally posted by karajorma


No. Every thread regarding America turns into a over patriotic defence of America's flaws by people too blind to see that it has any and who then complain about anti-americanism the second anyone attempts to correct their blinkered thinking.

You'll notice that any time someone complains about the flaws in Britains government almost all the Brits agree that there is a problem. That's why you don't here complaints about anti-United Kingdomism even though the UK is pretty much just as guilty of civil rights abuses and idiotic foreign policy.

Seriously EtherShock what on this thread was anti-american? Most of the comments about America's flaws were from Americans! Is it anti-American now to complain about your own countries policies? Have you let your nation sink so low as to claim that any refusal to toe the party line in unpatriotic?

No Kara, simply no. I believe people have the right to speak out about things that they don't like.  I am not a red, white, and blue, flag waving patriot. Now settle down.

I haven't been here long enough to know exactly who is an American and who is not, so it appeared to me that it wasn't mostly Americans *****ing about this particular topic. If you have participated in the political discussions I have, then you have an idea of my stances regarding America, and that is there is a problem, always.

I agree that racial profiling is not a good idea. It's only opening up the door for abuse, not to mention it would bite us in the ass when a non-muslim/non-Arab tries their hand at terrorism, ala Timothy McVeigh. It's leaving the back door open.

[Kosh]

And if you start racially profiling arabs the terrorists will simply use black muslims and sneak by without detection.

Nah, they would just be racially profiled for something else.



@Rictor: Aldo cleared up what you were trying to say. Sorry if I misunderstood, but you were not very clear. Please try and be a little more clear about what you're trying to say next time, ok?

[Kazan]

Originally posted by kietotheworld
How on earth did we start debating religious profiling from a topic about Political ignorance?

becuase they're the same thing

[Kazan]

Originally posted by EtherShock
It seems to me like every thread regarding America turns into an anti-American rant.

if you think americans telling other american's that they're being stupid is anti-americanism then you have issues

[EtherShock]

OK, so maybe I was a little hasty in that response. I thought I cleared up this misunderstanding in my last post.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by EtherShock

No Kara, simply no. I believe people have the right to speak out about things that they don't like.  I am not a red, white, and blue, flag waving patriot. Now settle down.

I haven't been here long enough to know exactly who is an American and who is not, so it appeared to me that it wasn't mostly Americans *****ing about this particular topic. If you have participated in the political discussions I have, then you have an idea of my stances regarding America, and that is there is a problem, always.
 

Firslty, IMO it's worth nothing criticising America is not anti-American.  It's just criticism; it's human nature to examine what is wrong and try to (suggest ways to) fix it.

There are 2 reasons - IMHO - why it's mostly America, or more correctly the USA, that's criticised.  Firstly it's because the US is the worlds sole superpower and has more influence over nations than any other (note that most people will resent any nation having a sway over their nation - such as in terms of foreign policy- in this way); One result being that perceived mistakes of the US will often have a rebound effect on other nations.  Iraq being the easiest example.  Another result being that people are more sensitive to the US' faults through national pride - defining our nations good points whilst comparing the US' (as the dominant nation on Earth) bad points.  

The other reason is the US leadership postures the country as being a bastion and indeed bringer of 'freedom and liberty', labelling other nations as evil.  In doing so, it opens up the policies of the US to the highest level of scrutiny, as it's a nation that purports to be the epitome of freedom.

I think most people are - to a degree - blinded to their own nations faults through a combination of pride and the simple fact they live there.  I know I'm guilty of it sometimes myself; I support the NHS and hold it highly (they did a brilliant job when my dad was ill), but at the same time I'm aware it does need a lot of reform and is being ****ed up be the government.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by EtherShock
No Kara, simply no. I believe people have the right to speak out about things that they don't like.  I am not a red, white, and blue, flag waving patriot. Now settle down.

Then why label people speaking out as anti-americanism? That term should leave a nasty taste in your mouth as it's typically used in an attempt to silence any opposition to George Bush and his policies. If you pay attention you'll notice that most people who get complained at for being anti-american are actually trying to get America to shape up and act the way it should.

Originally posted by EtherShock
I haven't been here long enough to know exactly who is an American and who is not, so it appeared to me that it wasn't mostly Americans *****ing about this particular topic. If you have participated in the political discussions I have, then you have an idea of my stances regarding America, and that is there is a problem, always.

Then why assume that it's anti-americanism when you had no idea of the nationalities of those involved? It's pretty obvious that Kazan is American. The use of the word "we" instead of "you" should have told you that much but to be frank the nationality of the speaker shouldn't matter one jot as to whether the speaker is right or wrong.

[Roanoke]

Originally posted by karajorma
If the americans are stupid enough to only be targetting arabs after knowing that two of the July 21 bombers were black then I doubt they'd even stop the next plot at all.

The fact most Americans believed some of  the 9/11 terrorists to be of Iraqi Citizenship without  Bush having even to specifically say it is all you need to know about how Americans are informed.

Maybe if the 200 FBI Agents invstigating the Clinton impeachment had instead been returning those calls from Flight Schools about guys who wanted to fly but didn't care about landing, things may be very different right now.

And Karajorma, regarding your post about Americans being too lazy to vote, I don't think people are too lazy or uninterested, they just have a decent choice. I mean, loopy right wing Republicans, Democrats who are running scared of said Republiacans, or some indipendant they've never heard of, who would you choose ?

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by karajorma
Either you were talking about racial profiling or you're the kind of idiot who believes all muslims are arabs.

If you're so blind that you can't even understand that I wasn't talking about only one thing, they you don't even deserve a response.

@Aldo - I see you have some better ideas on how to locate terrorists? Why focus on anytihng we we can just thow are net wide and let the buggers slip trough the holes? Oh, that's right, I forgot - the US prolyl doesn't have the resources for a general, all out search?

[Charismatic]

Originally posted by Ulala I don't know, but this thread could sure use some more asterisks! **** this and **** that and **** everyone that mentions an idea or opinion that you don't agree with or find to be of lower intelligence than you're used to. **** them and **** their families instead of politely explaining the loophole or error in their thought(s), **** them because they're so ****ing idiotic and don't deserve to breathe let alone post their thoughts here on this public forum.


**** Americans too since ****ing them will solve every ****ing problem we have with them.

Well said! >) I totally and completely agree.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Firslty, IMO it's worth nothing criticising America is not anti-American.  It's just criticism; it's human nature to examine what is wrong and try to (suggest ways to) fix it.

There are 2 reasons - IMHO - why it's mostly America, or more correctly the USA, that's criticised.  Firstly it's because the US is the worlds sole superpower and has more influence over nations than any other (note that most people will resent any nation having a sway over their nation - such as in terms of foreign policy- in this way); One result being that perceived mistakes of the US will often have a rebound effect on other nations.  Iraq being the easiest example.  Another result being that people are more sensitive to the US' faults through national pride - defining our nations good points whilst comparing the US' (as the dominant nation on Earth) bad points.  

The other reason is the US leadership postures the country as being a bastion and indeed bringer of 'freedom and liberty', labelling other nations as evil.  In doing so, it opens up the policies of the US to the highest level of scrutiny, as it's a nation that purports to be the epitome of freedom.

I think most people are - to a degree - blinded to their own nations faults through a combination of pride and the simple fact they live there.  I know I'm guilty of it sometimes myself; I support the NHS and hold it highly (they did a brilliant job when my dad was ill), but at the same time I'm aware it does need a lot of reform and is being ****ed up be the government.

good points there.

My country is going down the drain. Eh politicians sold half the country and stole the cash. We don't even own a SINGLE BANK in our country! not to mention they kiss the asses of some local superpowers and are runing it into ruin.
Even our war of liberation is being turned into a evil endavour and our greatest generals set to Haag to answer for crimes they didn't commit! Even our former (now dead) president has been accused of genocide (with no small help from our current president who hated the mans guts and is sleeping in 10 beds at the same time..if you get my meaning)
Tragic...

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan

If you're so blind that you can't even understand that I wasn't talking about only one thing, they you don't even deserve a response.

Originally posted by TrashMan
Well, where would you look for terrorists if all the previos terrorist were of arab origin? Among the arab population of course.

Originally posted by TrashMan
Allright, MOST terrorists attacking the US are of Arab origin. And as far as I recall nearly all were muslim.

If 905 of potential terrorists come from a specific race/religion then it stands to reasn that by focusing most of your search on that specific group you will have higher chanced of finding them then if you focus equalyl on all.

Originally posted by TrashMan
but in 99% of cases they were muslims. I'm not talking about racial profiling, I'm talking about religious profiling.

As soon as Kara pointed out that the London bombers were not just Arab but black as well, you changed to and from 'Arab' and 'Muslim' and yet continued to equate both.

I'm not sure what the hell you're on about, but Kara seems to be spot on.  The usual response to being outwitted is usually along the lines of 'I won't bother with a response', though, so I understand.

Originally posted by TrashMan
@Aldo - I see you have some better ideas on how to locate terrorists? Why focus on anytihng we we can just thow are net wide and let the buggers slip trough the holes? Oh, that's right, I forgot - the US prolyl doesn't have the resources for a general, all out search?

AFAIK you haven't suggested a way in which racial profiling would be used to find terrorists, yourself, so I suggest you find an improvement over the current methods first.

What you've suggested is pretty nonsensical; you've not distinguished between profiling Arabs or Muslims.  In the former case it's only a tiny percentage of Arabs who even pose a risk, about the same as, say, white supremacists or militiamen.  In the latter it's impossible to profile religion.

Both cases have been comprehensively disproven by the London bombings; in that case the terrorists were neither visibly extremist Muslims, nor were they solely Arab.  In the case of the Madrid train bombings, the 4 suspects who killed themselves (excluding a 5th unidentified man, as there's no info on his origin) were (3) Moroccan - i.e. North African -  and 1 Tunisian (North African/Arab).  A further 4 suspects were Indian or Spanish of Indian origin.  So of these 8, only 1 would have been covered under racial profiling (and religious profiling is simply impossible as it's easy to hide religion) - and most were regarded as westernised, again distancing themselves from detection by profiling.

So how do you catch terrorists?  Same as any other criminal - follow the evidence.  You have 2 agencies; the intelligence agency monitor all communications, extremist groups, etc - anyone who may pose a threat, and work at interpreting the hidden signals to plan an attack or inflitration of actual groups.  And the police track suspicious purchases or activity reported by witnesses.

None of these require any form of 'profiling' to do; in fact profiling just removes attention from one segment of this intelligence.  It's the case of taking a big net as mentioned, and replacing it with a smaller one that has big gaps at the edges.  The difference being, of course, that a big net has accidental holes that can emerge - a small net has known and obvious holes that can be exploited.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Roanoke
And Karajorma, regarding your post about Americans being too lazy to vote, I don't think people are too lazy or uninterested, they just have a decent choice. I mean, loopy right wing Republicans, Democrats who are running scared of said Republiacans, or some indipendant they've never heard of, who would you choose ?

I'd read up on what the independant stood for. It's exactly the fact that most voters (and I'm singling out Americans here) are too lazy to do that which I'm complaining about. Instead they whine about the fact that they have no choice which is the biggest load of bull**** I've ever heard. The choice is there. It's just that they can't be bothered to look beyond the first couple of options.

I've said it before. Go in and spoil your ballots. If the election turns up 100 million spoiled ballots from people who usually don't vote that would show the independants that there is a huge number of voters out there who hate both parties.

Staying at home and not voting "because they're all the same" is no different from not voting because you can't be bothered. If the indies can't tell how many are in each camp then it's not worth sticking their neck out.

Originally posted by TrashMan
If you're so blind that you can't even understand that I wasn't talking about only one thing, they you don't even deserve a response.

Aldo's bang on the money here. You've been caught out and you're trying to say I'm being stupid to deflect attention.

Well fine. Assume I'm stupid. Explain to me how that wasn't a comment in favour of racial profiling of Arabs.

And you still haven't explained to me what the f**k religious profiling even is or how it could possibly work.

[Kosh]

I mean, loopy right wing Republicans, Democrats who are running scared of said Republiacans, or some indipendant they've never heard of, who would you choose ?

None. I am (technically) an american and I didn't vote precisely because there was no real choice (that and the electoral votes in my state were going to go to Kerry anyway, so there still is no reason for me to vote).

[Bobboau]

I voted Badnarik.

[EtherShock]

Originally posted by karajorma


Then why label people speaking out as anti-americanism? That term should leave a nasty taste in your mouth as it's typically used in an attempt to silence any opposition to George Bush and his policies. If you pay attention you'll notice that most people who get complained at for being anti-american are actually trying to get America to shape up and act the way it should.



Then why assume that it's anti-americanism when you had no idea of the nationalities of those involved? It's pretty obvious that Kazan is American. The use of the word "we" instead of "you" should have told you that much but to be frank the nationality of the speaker shouldn't matter one jot as to whether the speaker is right or wrong.

I really have nothing more to say. I know where I stand. I am a liberal and my message has been misinterpreted. I tried to clarify things. I screwed up, and if I'm going to be crucified for it, then go ahead and do so. I don't have to prove anything about where my political stances lie. I'm not going to continue with this drivel.

Now then...

I agree with aldo. The best way to approach terrorism is in the same manner you would any other crime.

People are so set here in the two party system that they don't know they have any other options. This has been going on since the founding of the nation. When Teddy Roosevelt ran for re-election under his Bull Moose party, he lost, probably because it was an independent party. It's possible that people didn't like him. I won't discount that. If Kane and Kodos ran under the two main parties, one of them would get elected.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Kosh


None. I am (technically) an american and I didn't vote precisely because there was no real choice (that and the electoral votes in my state were going to go to Kerry anyway, so there still is no reason for me to vote).

And how is that determined? Oh yeah. By voting. Vote for your Senators, your Representatives, your local authorities. So you don't vote for the president directly. Fix the part of the system you can.

Jesus, its like no one bothered to take year nine Civics.

Oh yeah. That's what this thread is about.

[Kosh]

Jesus, its like no one bothered to take year nine Civics.

We have Government in year 10, but I aced it pretty easily. I also took AP Government in year 12 and I aced that pretty easily too (lots of people didn't though).

Vote for your Senators, your Representatives

But what if I don't like either of the two candidates running for the senate or the house? Then what's the point? It still revolves around the problem of the two party system.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by EtherShock
I really have nothing more to say. I know where I stand. I am a liberal and my message has been misinterpreted. I tried to clarify things. I screwed up, and if I'm going to be crucified for it, then go ahead and do so. I don't have to prove anything about where my political stances lie.

I'm not out to crucify you. I'm simply pointing out why the term anti-amercanism has to be used with care. If you misused it I've got no further issue with the matter.

Originally posted by EtherShock
People are so set here in the two party system that they don't know they have any other options. This has been going on since the founding of the nation. When Teddy Roosevelt ran for re-election under his Bull Moose party, he lost, probably because it was an independent party. It's possible that people didn't like him. I won't discount that. If Kane and Kodos ran under the two main parties, one of them would get elected.

While that may be true, what can you ascribe this to apart from polictical ignorance and laziness?