UPDATE: I’ve been convinced that this post asserts a charge against Glenn Reynolds that is unfair. I apologize to any of his fans who may have been offended, and especially to him. (Still, would it kill him to add a disclaimer each time he writes on this topic???)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With a hat tip to Von for the title.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Glenn Reynolds runs this bit today:
INTERESTING FIND in the 9/11 Commission report:
In this sense, 9/11 has taught us that terrorism against American interests “over there” should be regarded just as we regard terrorism against America “over here.” In this same sense, the American homeland is the planet. But the enemy is not just “terrorism,” some generic evil. This vagueness blurs the strategy. The catastrophic threat at this moment in history is more specific. It is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism —especially the al Qaeda network, its affiliates, and its ideology.
As we mentioned in chapter 2, Usama Bin Ladin and other Islamist terrorist leaders draw on a long tradition of extreme intolerance within one stream of Islam (a minority tradition), from at least Ibn Taimiyyah, through the founders of Wahhabism, through the Muslim Brotherhood, to Sayyid Qutb. That stream is motivated by religion and does not distinguish politics from religion, thus distorting both. It is further fed by grievances stressed by Bin Ladin and widely felt throughout the Muslim world—against the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, policies perceived as anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, and support of Israel. Bin Ladin and Islamist terrorists mean exactly what they say: to them America is the font of all evil, the “head of the snake,” and it must be converted or destroyed.
It is not a position with which Americans can bargain or negotiate. With it there is no common ground—not even respect for life—on which to begin a dialogue. It can only be destroyed or utterly isolated.
(Emphasis added [by Reynolds]). This language was found by Wizbang, which notes that the Washington Post seems to have missed the significance of this statement.
Ironic critique, that last bit: “the Washington Post seems to have missed the significance of this statement.” That might be because the Washington Post bothered to continue reading the report.
The bit Reynolds didn’t reprint (despite his selective emphasis):
Islam is not the enemy. It is not synonymous with terror. Nor does Islam teach terror. America and its friends oppose a perversion of Islam, not the great world faith itself. Lives guided by religious faith, including literal beliefs in holy scriptures, are common to every religion, and represent no threat to us. Other religions have experienced violent internal struggles.With so many diverse adherents, every major religion will spawn violent zealots.Yet understanding and tolerance among people of different faiths can and must prevail.
Edward,
I don’t understand your point. The follow-on is consistent with what was stated previously. You’re pretending that the InstaDude failed to include the later passage and somehow changes the meaning of the first. It doesn’t.
The whole point of the word “Islamist” is to isolate and identify the focus on the menace to both us and mainstream Islam.
I have to agree with Macallan. You aren’t distinguishing between Islamist and follower of Islam, a distinction that both Reynolds and the report regularly make.
True, Sebastian and Macallan. There are those who call for the death and/or conversion to Christianity of all Islam-dom (hey, WTH it’s Friday gimme a break), but Instapundit isn’t one of them.
Then explain the point of Reynolds’ bolding. Or his point at all. I don’t get it. Does he think everyone is focusing too much on Irish terrorism or something?
Slarti, the term you’re looking for is Muslitude.
Again, there seems to be no real point to his post other than another illogical attempt to create a nefarious plot where none exists.
Reynolds has clearly identified the type of terrorism that is exceedingly dangerous. Islamist.
Who is going to argue that?
For those of you who don’t get it we are still searching babies and old ladies at the airport and letting others on board without batting an eyelash.
My 6 month old just got searched a couple of weeks ago.
I agree with Glenn… let’s focus on the Islamist for goodness sakes.
Not that it’s all that relevant to this discussion, but my wife and I were searched every step of the way going to and coming back home from China. On the way back home, there were diapers everywhere while they searched our carry-ons. The moronic thing about it was: we were searched (and held up the airplane) at one stop where we literally had to sprint to catch the next plane (there was no way we could possibly have left the gate area).
Sometimes, the wrong thing is done in order to put on the appearance of maintaining security. That annoys me a great deal.
Um, Edward?
“I agree with Glenn… let’s focus on the Islamist for goodness sakes.”
Sure. And what does an Islamist look like?
What does a Christian look like, by the way?
Sorry about bad blockquoting. (Fixed now; Mom always said to clean up after yourself.)
I was specifically refering to the type of terrorists… Islamist… as I think Glenn was.
As far as what Islamists terrorists look like…
Let me check with the security video from Dulles… or the photos of the 9/11 hijackers.
Only someone being dishonest would say there is not a kind of pattern in their looks.
That would probably be a better starting point than a blond hair blue eyed baby.
Throw in a strong Arabic accent and you have a pretty good start.
Would that possibly include some totally innocent people and miss some totally guilty ones? Of course.
But, on my flights I prefer they err on the side of caution.
The question about Christians is irrelevant. I don’t remember them threatening my life lately.
But, if I must… most Christians in the west look like they are of European decent. Most Islamic terrorist look like they are of Middle Eastern decent.
Only someone being dishonest would say there is not a kind of pattern in their looks.
Good God Blue. Their looks are consistent with an entire region of the world spanning many religions. Maybe you’re blonde and blue eyed, but many many many nonMuslim and more importantly nonterrorists (including those who are Muslim) are not and could easily be mistaken for the profile you’re saying is so easy to recognize. Many Greeks, Italians, Israelis, etc, etc. all look like that.
I’m really sorry if your sense of entitlement was disrupted by having your baby searched (and sincerely no disrepsect meant to your child), but I’d rather the searches be fair and random (and no, I’ll never be mistaken for an Islamist terrorist myself and neither will my partner by just looking at him) so we can be sure 1) a non”terrorist” looking person doesn’t get through with a weapon and 2) the country remains a place dedicated to treating all people equally.
Mac et al. There are many other passages Reynolds could have emphasized: e.g., “Usama Bin Ladin and other Islamist terrorist leaders draw on a long tradition of extreme intolerance within one stream of Islam (a minority tradition)” but he didn’t.
sidereal nailed it: “Does he think everyone is focusing too much on Irish terrorism or something?”
But Edward, how is the meaning of what he’s highlighting change if he used your choice instead?
Mac, take only what he highlighted
Islamist
and
It is not a position with which Americans can bargain or negotiate. With it there is no common ground—not even respect for life—on which to begin a dialogue. It can only be destroyed or utterly isolated.
He didn’t even bother to highlight “terrorism” where he highlighted “Islamist” (despite it being the most important part of the problem and it being the next word in the sentence).
Taking the parts he does highlight together (assumedly why he highlighted them), he’s offering the idea that the 9/11 Commission is suggesting Islamists mus be destroyed or isolated.
Not that “Islamist terrorists” must be destoyed or isolated. Simply “Islamists.”
Now there are some who distinquish between “Islamist” and “Islamic.” And perhaps elsewhere in the 9/11 Commission report they do so, but Reynolds did not.
This kind of selective emphasis needs scrutiny. That’s why I’m here.
OK Edward, which Islamists can be bargained with? Which Islamists shouldn’t we seek to isolate? Name all those rational players out there who are in fact Islamists.
Given that I should have some street cred given the numerous times I’ve argued that you can’t smear Islam because of a fringe cult that self proclaims ownership of the faith, give me some credit. Islamists are as much the enemy of the majority of the faithful followers of Islam (if not more) as they are ours. If you seek conflate the two, I think you do a disservice the moderate and liberal faithful.
Would you want your partner to live openly under an Islamist regime?
Edward,
Good God! You insist on ignoring the point.
Do you ever fly? It is very easy to spot the people who MIGHT be Islamic terrorists on any given flight in the U.S. I acknowledge that even my own brother could fit the profile (Native Indian) But if we could exercise some common sense for a change… as soon as he opens his mouth you know he isn’t for the ME.
The number of people from ME decent on any given flight in the U.S. is small. The number of people with a foreign accent is small.
Let’s target the right peeople and let’s do random searches also. But, just doing random searches in foolish and huge waste of resources.
You don’t know jack about me… that’s uncalled for.
I’m not sorry that your partner might be unfairly targeted… just like I am not sorry that my brother might be unfairly targeted… just like I am not sorry that my son was randomly selected.
But randomly selecting my son and ignoring the more likely danger is absurd.
Given that I should have some street cred given the numerous times I’ve argued that you can’t smear Islam because of a fringe cult that self proclaims ownership of the faith, give me some credit.
I do give you credit Mac. I apologize if that response seemed snippy at all. I didn’t intend it to.
I don’t give Reynolds any credit though. I think a good portion of his audience will take away from that post what I suspect he intended them to take away (i.e., Islamists must be isolated or destroyed…only I don’t think the distinction between Islamist and Islamic is one all Americans understand…and I think he knows that).
But this is not a major point. I’m just reemphasizing the portion of the report Reynolds didn’t bother to include. It bears repeating in this context.
Sigh. I just went through this argument on various threads at Winds of Change. I take it you are unaware, by the way, of blond, blue-eyed, Circassian Arabs.
Your argument, in fact, would leave us all in great danger. As I pointed out at WoC:
And so Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, is declared not to exist. And all those tens of thousands of people who went through the Taliban camps are retroactively made “Arab.” And so there are no Muslims and no Islamic terrorists from Pakistan. Or Malaysia (where you may find many, hint, Muslims of Chinese descent). Or the Phillipines. Or Uganda. Or Surinam. Or Cote d’Ivoire. Or India. Or Sri Lanka. Or Albania. Or Uzbekistan. Or Nigeria. Or Guyana. Or Benin. Or Turkmenistan. Or Azerbaijan. Or Indonesia. Or Mali. Or Senegal. Or Togo. Or Gambia. And on and on. Nor, for that matter, are there terrorist sympathisers from European stock in the US, such as John Walker Lindh, or from Europe itself.
There are not actually 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. No, only Arabs are a danger. Not, of course, Iranians, to be sure, either.
Yes, we’ll be very safe with this knowledgeable outlook. Be sure not to check any of the above groups! That would have caught the Bali bombers, and the members of Abu Sayyaf, for sure! And never, ever, ever, suspect Pakistanis or Indians or Iranians, nor Tajiks, Baluchis, Chechens! Only Arabs!
Wise advice, indeed.
Later:
Incidentally, we read here:
So those are among the places it’s undoubtedly wise to particularly keep an eye on people from or traveling from.
Those advising us to pay no attention to these people, but focus only on Arabs, are deeply clueless, and harming national security if listened to.
It remains a fact, as well, that Muslims come in every shape, size, race, age, dress, and nationality, and we can’t assume that anyone is definitely not a terrorist (or, of course, that being Muslim means you sympathise with terrorists). Israel learned that long ago, and has had great experience with the enemy having taken to wearing IDF uniforms, for instance.
That dealing with this inconveniences us is trivial in the face of saving lives. Shame on anyone who thinks otherwise, and places convenience over safety.
Thankfully, we actually have professionals in counter-terrorism, who don’t have the ignorant idea that most Islamist terrorism comes only from “Arabs” or “the Middle East.” (Tell it to Hambali.)
Let’s target the right peeople and let’s do random searches also. But, just doing random searches in foolish and huge waste of resources.
I’m really sorry if your sense of entitlement was disrupted
You don’t know jack about me… that’s uncalled for.
I don’t know jack about you, but you don’t know jack about the people you’re willing to be inconvenienced each time they fly because they fit some profile. What do you actually think that would accomplish, by the way? If we were to search each passenger who fit a profile (and who would determine that profile?) each time they flew, and you were a terrorist…would you just go to the airport and try to hijack a plane? Or would you disguise yourself or use someone who didn’t fit the profile. Really, your plan would be a waste of money and effort AND inconvenience people who just happen to look a certain way.
Sorry, but it’s not effective or fair.
Edward,
That is a rather serious, not to mention unfair, charge to try to hang on Reynolds.
That is a rather serious, not to mention unfair, charge to try to hang on Reynolds.
I didn’t see it that way when I posted it, Mac. But I’ll give your sense of it some thought and adjust the post if I find I believe you’re right.
Clearly it’s a hot button topic for me, but I don’t think it hurts folks to do what the commission did, regardless of how redundant it seems, and qualify ad infinitum that “Islam is not the enemy. ”
“But, if I must… most Christians in the west look like they are of European decent. Most Islamic terrorist look like they are of Middle Eastern decent.”
Wrong. Only a minority of Muslims are from the Middle East. The most populous Islamic nation is Indonesia.
Members of Jemaah Islamiah do not “look like they are of Middle Easter descent,” however decent they may or may not be. Ditto Abu Sayaff. Ditto Richard Reid. Ditto most Muslims.
Buy a clue.
Incidentally, do tell the Baptists how they’re mostly of European descent.
1) Understand that without other changes in our terrorism policies, profiling does not only mean inconvenience at the airport. It could mean you are detained outside your apartment or doing your job. It could mean imprisonment. It could mean deportation on a minor, technical immigration violation that is not even your fault. Then there’s the Arar case–an extreme example to be sure, but one that most Muslim’s know about. It’s a lot worse to be stopped when you have reason to believe there’s a presumption of guilt.
2) The goodwill of Muslims in the U.S. matters for tactical reasons.
3) What makes you think we are not doing racial profiling now? We talked about this in my terrorism class, and there was no question that Arabs were stopped more. One girl had been strip searched 10 or 12 times. She may have had a European passport, but so does my stepfather–he’s not Lebanese, however.
The DOJ guidelines allow racial profiling in anti terrorism as long as it doesn’t violate the Constitution. They don’t give any guidance as to what would violate the Constitution, so until a court rules on the issue, there are no real limits on it.
We also know they rounded up immigrants and had them register at DOJ offices and deported them according to religious and racial criteria.
Most experts seemed to think that pure racial profiling could be both effective and justified in an emergency, but was neither in the long-term. There are more accurate means of profiling, and there should never be a whole class of people that are never questioned because terrorists will figure it out.
I have a funny profiling story too, but I’ll save it for later. Skipping town.
Edward, now you’re being, forgive me, a tad ignorant. Yes, the Commission, and Glen, are distinguishing between “Islamist” and “Islamic.” I’ve yet to see anyone who doesn’t (except for confused bigots, of course). There have been endless articles written in the past two and a half years about “Islamists as opposed to Muslims.” If you’ve not been reading them, yes, you’re left out of the discussion and terminology, but that’s neither the Commission’s fault nor Glen’s. Who refers to ordinary non-terrorist Muslims as “Islamists”? Answer: no one.
Yes, the Commission, and Glen, are distinguishing between “Islamist” and “Islamic.” I’ve yet to see anyone who doesn’t (except for confused bigots, of course).
No offense Gary, but you’re most likely hanging with a crowd that pays a bit more attention to all this than the average Instapundit reader.
I’ll accept that Reynolds makes that distinction (which I’m willing to bet is lost on a vast majority of Americans) if someone can show where he has.
I can’t tell you how much I dislike defending Reynolds, but I did a quick google, and he rarely uses “Islamic” to denote our enemies without adding another word to modify it. “Islamic fundentalist,” “Islamic extremist”, “Islamic jihadist”, “Islamic terrorist” yes, but he does not use “Islamic” as a synonym for “terrorism.” He uses the word “Islamist” differently.
Some of his readers could probably do with having the distinction driven more forcefully into their heads, but he does make it.
Clearly it’s a hot button topic for me
Yes it is Edward, which automatically generate a pause when you comment on it.
Let me be really clear here too.
The term “Islamic terrorist” is not necesarily automatically different from “Islamist terrorist” in that an “Islamist terrorist” is STILL an “Islamic terrorist.”
I believe the commission tried to address the potential confusion by following up their assessment with the disclaimer that “Islam is not the enemy.” Reynolds feel no such need.
That’s my beef.
Emphasis added [by Reynolds]).
He didn’t even bother to highlight “terrorism” where he highlighted “Islamist”
I can see why you thought that from Insty’s post, but actually, the emphasis on the word “Islamist” was in the original report, while the paragraph highlight was done by WizBang (who made the distinction clearer by simply italicising the word “Islamist”).
but you’re most likely hanging with a crowd that pays a bit more attention to all this than the average Instapundit reader.
Gee Edward, that’s an interesting allegation.
OK, OK, you’re convincing me.
Reynolds did not mean to imply that Islamic people should be destroyed or isolated. I’ll send him a personal apology.
Would it have killed him to reprint that addtional paragraph though?
Would it have killed him to reprint that addtional paragraph though?
I doubt it would have killed him, but what he did quote was already about 5 times longer than his usual.
“I’ll accept that Reynolds makes that distinction (which I’m willing to bet is lost on a vast majority of Americans) if someone can show where he has.”
I have plenty of beefs, frequently, in modern times, with the way Glenn puts a lot of stuff.
But in this case, I’d suggest that it’s more incumbent upon you to show a place where he has not (which still, however, wouldn’t demonstrate that he wasn’t so distinguishing in this case).
I’m going to bow out of further discussion of this, because I don’t want to get into another cycle where, essentially, I keep suggesting you’re wrong, and you get stubborn. I think in saying Glenn was slurring Muslims here, you’re wrong, and I’ll leave it there.
Would it have killed him to reprint that addtional paragraph though?
Talk to WizBang — Insty was just parroting, I’m sure he had no idea what the context was.
but you’re most likely hanging with a crowd that pays a bit more attention to all this than the average Instapundit reader.
Gee Edward, that’s an interesting allegation.
Poorly phrased perhaps, but the point is the distinction is not one most Americans appreciate, and given that Instapundit’s traffic reports indicate he gets more readers than other sites, he should follow the commission’s lead and add the disclaimer.
Okay, I have to reiterate. What was the point of Reynold’s emphasis? What makes it interesting? I find it incredibly uninteresting that the council decided that the brand of terrorism we are facing is Islamic. I’m sure Edward does, too. And in the face of two possible interpretations. . one that Reynolds is into posting braindead-obvious tautologies, or two that Reynolds is trying to say something about Islam, assuming the latter doesn’t seem out of line.
There’s also this:
Emphasis mine, obviously, but it is in there.
I think in saying Glenn was slurring Muslims here, you’re wrong, and I’ll leave it there.
I’ve already admitted as much at the top of the post.
No offense Gary, but you’re most likely hanging with a crowd that pays a bit more attention to all this than the average Instapundit reader.
You have friends in low places, is that it?
You have friends in low places, is that it?
And how!
Gary,
I’m not convinced you read my post.
You went through alot of effort to avoid my point… since you feel the need to help clue me in let me extend a hand to you also.
“…most Christians in the west look like they are of European decent.”
Last time I checked Africa wasn’t part of what most consider the West. I think it is fairly common understanding that when one says the West… like I said the West… that one is primarily referring to Europe and North America. Please, if Africa really is part of the West then I hope this clarifies my intent in the statement.
“Most Islamic terrorist look like they are of Middle Eastern decent.”
No actually what I said is correct given the context of what I was saying that you chose to ignore. I was specifically talking about people who are flying planes in the U.S and we have them on video tape and we know their identities. And I think it is safe to say that they were mostly from ME.
If we have word of attacks from Islamic terrorists from Indonesia then you are more informed than I. But, I don’t think that is a huge threat at this time. They seem to have their hands full.
This is why your analysis is so off. We both know that it is primarily people of Middle Eastern decent with foreign accents and Moslem that are targeting us. Not that there aren’t other dangerous people out there, but let’s focus on the ones we know.
Edward,
Edward, Americans are not as dumb as you think. But, atleast you are towing the Dem party line.
Edward, Americans are not as dumb as you think.
Well, I didn’t think any Americans would suggest racial profiling could prevent terrorists from hijacking planes, but it seems that wasn’t the first time I was in error today.
And by the way, plenty of the people who came to Reynolds’ defense were Democrats, so your second point doesn’t make much sense either.
;ppppp
“I think it is fairly common understanding that when one says the West… like I said the West… that one is primarily referring to Europe and North America.”
Where is the Church I linked to located?
“I was specifically talking about people who are flying planes in the U.S and we have them on video tape and we know their identities. And I think it is safe to say that they were mostly from ME.”
Were, are: what are you referring to?
Regardless, your point boils down to advising that we ignore Muslims from India, Pakistan, Takikistan, Indonesia, the Phillipines, the US, Germany, Spain, Baluchistan, and so forth, where plenty of al Qaeda terrorists have come from, since they’re not from the “middle east,” and, besides, we can tell people’s ethnicity by looking at them. Thanks, but trying running this past any professional in the field.
“If we have word of attacks from Islamic terrorists from Indonesia then you are more informed than I.”
Indeed.
I already mentioned Hambali, but you clearly have no idea who he is.
“Not that there aren’t other dangerous people out there, but let’s focus on the ones we know.”
Indeed.
Simply put Edward, while “Islam is not the enemy”, “radical Islam is the enemy”. There is a bipartisan effort going on making that distinction.
BTW did you get White’s email?
Simply put Edward, while “Islam is not the enemy”, “radical Islam is the enemy”. There is a bipartisan effort going on making that distinction.
someone should tell the folks at LGF and a few other sites I can think of.
BTW did you get White’s email?
Yes (thanks!)…check your email.
Edward,
Actually, both my points make sense… you just don’t like them or agree with them. Profiling is effective… it’s used all the time.
Katherine actually does have a point in stating that we don’t know how much profiling is really going on. I hope she’s right.
Katherine actually does have a point in stating that we don’t know how much profiling is really going on. I hope she’s right.
Katherine also noted that “Most experts seemed to think that pure racial profiling could be both effective and justified in an emergency, but was neither in the long-term.”
As your suggestion seems to be to make it permanent, Katherine’s point seems to indicate that would not be effective or justified. Which is essentially my point.
I fly quite a bit, Blue. And I grumble about being detained and actually had a run in with the Homeland Security department, and as a refugee my partner is stopped and interviewed each and every freakin’ time we re-enter the country (we add a good extra 45 minutes to our estimates of when we’ll get home), but in the end I would rather have three times as much aggrevation and delay than to see obvious racial profiling in our airports. If you’d ever travelled with someone who matches the profile you’re suggesting be used, you’d understand why. At least if you care how they feel.
Good for you, by the way, Edward, for saying you were wrong.
Cool.
Thanks to this thread, I’ve learned that every single dictionary in our company contains the wrong definition for “Islamist”. Each of the 12 I checked defined it as “believer or follower of Islam”.
I guess they haven’t been keeping up with all those online discussions. I suppose we’ll have to toss ’em on Monday.
Islamism.
Islamism.
Islamism.
Islamism.
It’s not an “online” thing. It’s a “scholarly” thing.
Gary,
If you check upthread
I also stated…
I really think you are accusing me of advocating something I never did. And I think you insist on ignoring the fact that Edward and I were talking about flying in the U.S. I read your posts alot and find you fairly balanced so I am not sure what your agenda here is.
I know you want to make me say that for some reason, but I didn’t. I also stated…
“Let’s target the right peeople and let’s do random searches also. But, just doing random searches is foolish and huge waste of resources.”
So you keep insisting I am saying something that if you read my posts I have not said. You still miss my point, Gary. Your policy has us sending a dollar to chase down two pennies. I think we can do better than that.
I never said that there aren’t other types of terrorists. You keep talking about the Indonesians in Indonesia or the Chechens in Chechnya or the Pakistanis in Pakistan… sorry but I am more concerned with those in the U.S. right now… I actually think the military is doing a decent job in other countries… just not in our own.
I see that you desire to be detailed in your analysis. Do this for me… take a look at all the terrorist activity in the the U.S. and against U.S assets in other countries and do some racial profiling. If you find that the majority of those commiting terrorists acts against us are Indonesian, Chechen or whatever I will admit that profiling on U.S. planes would be ineffective.
And your point about African-Americans is still mute. The number of black Christians in the West pales in comparison to those of European decent. If you read upthread you will see that I said MOST in the west and that is still accurate.
Edward,
“Katherine also noted that “Most experts seemed to think that pure racial profiling could be both effective and justified in an emergency, but was neither in the long-term.””
I also said random checks were necessary, not jsut profiling. That post of Katherine’s was probably the only post she has ever made that I agreed with.
And I fly so much I would rather be the safest possible. Even if it means my 6 month old son gets randomly searched twice and your partner gets profiled.
As a side note, I fly every week and I get randomly searched most of my flights. The reason is I often fly open ended. So when it comes to frustration at the airport… I know more than the average flyer. Which now probably explains why my son got nailed. He had an open ended ticket also.
Blue,
We may need Katherine to elaborate on that finding she noted, but I’m still confused a bit here.
If I understand what you’re advocating, you’d rather we stop each and every person who looks like they might be Muslim each and every time they fly. And then randomly stop folks who look like they are not Muslim. Correct?
Edward,
No that would be absurd… but if I was going to really advocate a policy I would put forth something more like the Israeli’s.
Let’s don’t play games. Let’s profile likely terrorists… do serious background checks and random checks. I would probably put a higher priority on for foreigners from the ME and other things that might identify terrorists… passports from other countries… visas… I wouldn’t throw out profiling because of some passengers sense of intrusion when we are at war and we know that planes are targets. Whether that’s my own sense or someone else’s.
Blue,
Then I misunderstood you. What exactly do you advocate (not familiar with the Israeli plan)? How would it work for me (fair, blue-eyed), say, and my friend “John” dark hair, olive skin, big mustache? Say we both fly twice a month.
“Let’s profile likely terrorists…”
We do. We profile them based on facts and information. Your problem is that you’re very confused about what makes a ‘likely terrorist’.
You got me sidereal… I admit it… our airlines have not been targeted by Islamic terrorists of Middle Eastern decent and it is unlikely that they will be in the future…
Head in sand… complete.
Edward,
Here are some article about El Al security.
http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/projects/terror/airline.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1582372.stm
There’s no perfect solution. During this war I am willing to sacrifice some for the most safest…
You got me sidereal… I admit it… our airlines have not been targeted by Islamic terrorists of Middle Eastern decent and it is unlikely that they will be in the future…
The point, which you seem to be wilfully overlooking, is that the set of people targeting our airlines is not restricted to people of Middle Eastern descent; and that by focussing on that one demographic, we both needlessly antagonize the innocent members of it (thus potentially radicalizing them) and wilfully ignore the other demographics which also contain people targeting us (thereby allowing them greater opportunity to strike).
Blue: 1) Who is Hambali?; 2) How many people detained at Guantantamo are or have been not from the Middle East?; 3) What region of the world is Afghanistan in? 4) Should we worry more about terorrists from Bahrain or Pakistan?
There’s no perfect solution. During this war I am willing to sacrifice some for the most safest…
Except, unless I miss my guess, you’re not sacrificing a damn thing of yours. To butcher a rather famous quote, your tolerance for the deprivation of other people’s civil liberties seems to be quite high.
[If you do happen to be a Muslim of Middle Eastern descent, please accept my sincere apologies. Forgive me if I rather doubt it, though.]
Anarch,
You comment is so misquided it is pathetic. It is just plain rude and inaccurate about what I have sacrificed during this war. No I am not Middle Eastern, but I can assure you that I would meet your sacrifice threshhold… where do you think my stance comes from.
I’m doing my best to mind my manners… to such a thoughtless response as to not violate the posting rules.
Since personal sacrifice is so huge for you… why don’t you list what sacrifices you personally have made because of the Patriot Act and the WOT and anything else you hate about the Bush administration and the U.S. in general. I feel confident I can top you or equal you.
Anarch has been a valued commenter on these boards since really even before we set up ObWi, Blue: I can assure you that s/he is amenable to reasoned discourse, and argues in good faith. I do not believe offense was meant: I myself would not have taken any if it had been directed towards me.
And a set of deep breaths all around would be in order, methinks. Can anyone tell me with a straight face that the general level of snarling on this thread has improved its utility in any particular way? 🙂
Moe,
I am not sure about what Anarch’s intent was… it seems pretty straight forward to me… he thinks I am just talking out my…
But, you are correct about the tone. I almost commented on it earlier as I noticed it going down hill… point taken.
Good point about the deep breaths, Moe. Lord knows that my posts can be abrasive if I’m not careful and it seems that I wasn’t here. With your permission, Blue, let me rephrase my previous comment in a less confrontational manner.
I read your previous post, in context, as calling for the sacrificing of the civil liberties of those of Middle Eastern descent. The problem I had was the use of the personal pronoun “I” and the (in retrospect) ambiguity about the word “some”:
There’s no perfect solution. During this war I am willing to sacrifice some for the most safest…
My point, phrased less antagonistically, is simply this: what you seem to be calling for in this case isn’t your sacrifice at all, but rather the sacrifice of others. [In fact, you admitted as much in your response; your civil liberties will not, in this case, be compromised one whit. Nor would mine, for that matter.] This isn’t, contra the implication of my response, meant to disparage your ability or willingness to sacrifice in general — which, for all I know, could be nigh-infinite — but rather that in this specific instance you’re demanding sacrifices be made by a group to which you don’t belong, which sacrifices (as has been repeatedly pointed out) are of limited utility and potentially high disutility.
Long story short, I took offense at that. I phrased that reaction badly, and for that I apologize. The general thrust of my response, however, remains: declaring a willingness to a) have other people make sacrifices while b) claiming those sacrifices as one’s own is in very, very poor form, one’s willingness to make sacrifices in other (non-contextual) spheres notwithstanding.
All this is contingent on the crucial interpolation of the word “some”, however. Some what? I assumed, in context, that the “some” referred to “civil liberties”; if I misinterpreted the ambiguity, however, this could all be one huge misunderstanding.
Anarch,
I think that if you go back upthread you will see examples of not only MY willingness to make peronsal sacrifices for safer planes, but the act of me doing it. But, I will state my own personal sacrifices out more clearly. I think that you will see that in this instance MY sacrifice is still more than most people who fly:
I am more at risk to terrorism in the sky because I fly more often. (I flew the same flight out of Newark that got hijacked a few days before the actually highjacking.)
My family is more at risk at losing me to terrorism in the sky because I fly more often.
I pay for my own tickets… they will cost more. Since 9/11 my bottom line has been hit hard. (I lost a large chunk of my income the day the towers fell. I worked there, but I wasn’t there on 9/11. Yes, I count myself extremely lucky to be so close in 2 instances.)
I pay for my my own time. As I mentioned upthread I almost always get flagged for security because I have to fly open ended. I always arrive at the airport atleast 2 hours ahead. I have to.
My family pays because I get to spend less time with them before I leave.
I am willing to sacrifice for safer planes. I am currently doing it. It is people like me that keep the airlines in business.
Yes, I am saying that at this time certain groups have to make more sacrifices than others. I am a part of a group that is already willingly doing it.
I am actually calling for not only my own personal sacrifice, but those of others that could be profiled but who are not terrorists until this threat has diminished.
Peace
Gary-
Well, this thread has moved along smartly since you provided the definitions for “Islamism”. I’ll keep this as brief as possible because an over-flogged horse won’t get us far, and because I generally find myself in agreement with your posts.
My point was regarding the use of the term “Islamist”, not “Islamism”. Specifically, I noted several early posts suggesting that it is (now) proper to differentiate between an Islamist and a follower of Islam. I admit that I tried to make the counter observation with too much snark (if there is such a thing). My point however, is that even if you confine a definitional search to online sources, the first returns for “definition of Islamist” are this, this, and this. Why does this matter? It matters because most people seeking a definition of the term are not “scholars”. Given the importance of the topic, and given that I’m not one of those scholars, my goal was to highlight the lack of precision. At this point, I should note that even amongst those scholars there is a pronounced difference of opinion (which may explain the NPOV dispute over the Wikipedia entry represented by your first link). In evidence of that, I offer this discussion regarding the “Islamist Movement”.
I’m in agreement with Edward’s update. Though I didn’t find anything particularly controversial in Reynolds’ post, he could have rendered some of us a service by adding a disclaimer or clarification regarding his particular take. Then again, that wouldn’t have drawn as much attention 😉
That’s all from me on this particular subject.
Blue,
I’ve spent the better part of two days trying to phrase my response in a way that will not result in an effect much like gasoline on an open flame. Given the parameters of the conversation, however, I don’t think this is possible; so, in the interests of comity, I will withdraw from the conversation.
Peace.
amateur mature orgy mature sex forum mature amateur sex home webcam free sexy mature women submitted webcam pic free shemale webcam sexy nude mature women free sex chat webcam mature hairy pussy pic free mature pussy in stocking pic hot mature moms mature women sex gallery free sex webcam free webcam women big mature women free gallery of mature women mature women fucking free webcam sex video free mature porn thumb mature lesbian porn free mature slut gallery free webcam viewing mature anal movie mature women sex video creative webcam free amateur mature women cam live.com sex web mature girl free live gay webcam mature naughty pussy picture free gallery hairy mature pussy mature porn video free mature women nude college webcam free webcam sluts mature women porn mature women in porn asian cam free sex web mature moms movie amateur mature pounding mature teacher sex live nude webcam chat free mature slut pic amateur babe mature free live xxx webcam mature gang bang classic mature free amateur sex webcam cam movie nude photo web