Now that Iraq is in shambles....

[tedwick]

The KKK are ass-holes but the last time I checked, they havn't hijacked any planes and flown them into goddamn office towers. Poor analogy.

no. they just firebomb churches. because that's so much better. but if this example doesn't work, we'll try another one.

say you were going to ireland. should you be detained because you're catholic or protestant? no. you should be detained if there is actual evidence that shows that you're a threat.

just because someone is muslim doesn't mean they're a terrorist threat the same way that just because someone is black doesn't mean they're a murderer. there are plenty of non-islamic terrorists. muslim sects are simply the most prominent ones these days. (by the way: islamist extremism accounted for 57% of terrorism fatalities in '04 and '05 according to the national counterterrorism center. it's predominant, but by no means exclusive. see the terrorism article referenced later for citation). pulling someone over because they're black is just the same as detaining someone because they're of middle-eastern descent. you can say it's more likely that a terrorist because they're muslim all you want, and you can say that the battle against terror is more important than the battle against homicide. it doesn't change that it's profiling, plain and simple. i'm all for limited detention with actual evidence, but using someone's religion as evidence against them is morally and logically wrong at it's base.

You really think that in the Arab world radical Islam isn't mainstream? Radicalism isn't mainstream among American-born Muslims, but elsewhere it assuredly is.

i'll take this opportunity to point out the wikipedia articles on islam and islamic extremist terrorism. They're not definitive, but it's all referenced and i have a feeling that it's more accurate than most people's current-events-fueled perspective. I would like to bring attention to this quote in particular.

A public opinion survey released following the election, indicated that nearly three quarters of Palestinians believe that Hamas should change its policy regarding the destruction of Israel and 84% of Palestinians support a peace agreement with Israel. Among Hamas voters, 73% of respondents supported a peace agreement with Israel.

mind you, this is from muslims in the heart of the arab/israeli conflict. even in the heat of the battle, a very strong majority want peace. I'm not sure where your facts on the matter come from, but i think these may be a bit more authoritative. islam is not a violent religion by any stretch of the imagination. it's just that fox news and its ilk only focus on the violent factions.

For the most part I agree. But there are times when you know somebody knows something... I'll raise a hypothetical situation. Had we caught one of the 19 hijackers on September 10, 2001 and we knew that the man was a member of Al Queda, we would be at a severe disadvantage if we were not given the green-light to use torture methods to find out why he's in America, who else is with him, and what they intend to do. That disadvantage would have cost 3,000 American lives. Don't tell me why I'm wrong in this explanation, tell it to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11.

under no circumstances is it ok to use torture. since i've already given you all the moral and ethical reasons why we shouldn't use torture, i'll appeal to your practical side. A quote from the wikipedia article on torture
;

Incrimination of innocent people

One well documented effect of torture is that with rare exceptions people will say or do anything to escape the situation, including untrue "confessions" and implication of others without genuine knowledge, who may well then be tortured in turn. The cases of the Guildford Four, Birmingham Six and Maguire Seven are notorious examples of the dangers of extracting confessions and information using duress and coercion.There are rare exceptions, such as Admiral James Stockdale, Medal of Honor winner, F. F. E. Yeo-Thomas, G.C., or Jean Moulin, who refused to provide information under torture.

With torture, the results you get are not going to be accurate. If someone is strong-willed enough, you're going to perpetrate a despicable act and still not get anything out. even worse, if you get the wrong guy, you perpetrate a despicable act against an innocent and probably get put on the wrong track while you're at it. and i guess since you didn't want to hear it, at your behest, i'll tell the victims' families that we shouldn't debase our culture with the use of torture. rather, we should devise better methods of intelligence (that don't involve the suspension of civil rights).

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

no. they just firebomb churches. because that's so much better. but if this example doesn't work, we'll try another one.

Um......when was the last time that happened? And you didn't refute the whole civil rights analogy you used with the airport example.

say you were going to ireland. should you be detained because you're catholic or protestant? no. you should be detained if there is actual evidence that shows that you're a threat.

Actually, no. I've had family in the Republican movement and you should ask some of them whether they would have ever taken advantage of lax security.. answer: yes.

You have to be practical or people die. So should Arabs be checked out at airports? Absolutely, that's the way things just have to be until everything's calmed down and God only knows when that will be.

As for torture, there's no denying that it will lead to people giving answers that the intel. agents want to hear. But if you know someone's involved in something, it doesn't matter. Chances are, you'll get a little information. And that information, how little it is, matters.

In the 9/11 hypothetical situation I gave you an excellent example of when torture is very practical and reasonable and if you can't relate to it, then your credibility just took a major blow. You're taking the extreme on one issue, torture, and I'm taking the middle-road; there are times when it is effective and there are times when it is not.

 

[tedwick]

Um......when was the last time that happened? And you didn't refute the whole civil rights analogy you used with the airport example.

it was a conceptual example. i guess if you wanted a more concrete example, it would be WASPs during the early 1900's buying wood or rope. but it's more about the concept, which you don't seem to comprehend. and i'm not sure what you meant by how i "didn't refute the whole civil rights analogy used." I don't think i ever used a civil rights analogy... and why would i refute my own argument? to paraphrase the princess bride, i do not think that word means what you think it means.

oh, and if you meant constitutional right instead of civil right, your 4th amendment right is protection against unlawful search and seziure. which is the right you have that racial and religious profiling violates.

Actually, no. I've had family in the Republican movement and you should ask some of them whether they would have ever taken advantage of lax security.. answer: yes.

You have to be practical or people die. So should Arabs be checked out at airports? Absolutely, that's the way things just have to be until everything's calmed down and God only knows when that will be.

ok. that doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be detained without evidence against them. Presuming that intelligence is good, concerted terrorist efforts should be able to be rooted out without blindly arresting muslims. also, recall that not all muslims are arab and not all arabs are muslim. a black chicago native was arrested in the terrorism sweep after 9/11. also, recall that the kurds in iraq are actually christian. they're also arab. good law enforcement can do its job without profiling, and in no way should the law (and law enforcement) see color or religion. either EVERYONE should be checked at the airport, or NOBODY. I don't mind going through the metal detectors, but i'd prefer not to have a full cavity search if they don't have evidence against me.

As for torture, there's no denying that it will lead to people giving answers that the intel. agents want to hear. But if you know someone's involved in something, it doesn't matter. Chances are, you'll get a little information. And that information, how little it is, matters.

In the 9/11 hypothetical situation I gave you an excellent example of when torture is very practical and reasonable and if you can't relate to it, then your credibility just took a major blow. You're taking the extreme on one issue, torture, and I'm taking the middle-road; there are times when it is effective and there are times when it is not.

you're right. i am taking the extreme on the issue of torture. i'm not debating whether it's effective or not, although i did point out examples of where it's not effective. i acknowledge that there are times when it's very effective. however, there is no time when it is reasonable, which was my main point, which you conveniently sidestepped with your "think of all the 9/11 victims" red herring. there is NO SITUATION where the potential for information should take precendence over the dignity of human life. If you allow torture in one situation, you get on a slippery slope where it's debatable what information is worth torturing for, etc. for instance, combine profiling and torture. two bad ideas, when combined, allow law enforcement to torture people because they might have information. that suspicion is only motivated by their race or creed. and that's a very bad situation to be in.

 

[grantland]

I understand that your acknowleding a loss of argument can be disturbing to an Irish Blackthorn such as yourself, but you've been swayed by Bushmills............it happens.

I thought OG was Catholic.

 

[Clotho]

No, I'm not racist. That's all I need to say, as I'm the only person that knows the answer to that question. If I were racist, well, I don't think I'd bother to deny it. Nor do I take anyone seriously who suggests I am, as they are liberals who think that anyone with a differing opinion on anything is racist. Even if it's the issue of "what's better? Pepsi or Coke?"

So your argument is that racists can only be identified by themselves? That there is a liberal conspiracy at this board to find your posts racist? That the "liberals" here have picked on you, specifically, and no one else, for no apparent reason? If you're not racist, why are there most posts from you that seem racist to other members here than from every other poster combined? A sampling:

Okay, I feel ashamed for what I'm about to say, but I'll say it, because surprisingly, it's been on my mind for a pretty long time:

Ronald Talley seems like a thug.......


There, I said it. I thought about bringing it up last season, but I didn't because he was on the team and hadn't done anything. Chances are, he still hasn't done anything, but I just never got a good vibe from his attitude/character......

You know, he could be a great guy and I could very well be completely wrong, but that's just the impression I had.

Why would you "feel ashamed"? Why would you say it so timidly, and write the equivalent of an exhale after saying it? You knew how racist it was, and that everyone else would know how racist it was. And you had the bad fortune that people didn't just pass over it silently, but called you on it. A few of your fellow knuckleheads came to your defense and tried to used some semantics spin to absolve you, but your comment was so obviously racist that they never really stood a chance. More? Just read back through this thread. You've littered it with them. Checking your post history I also found a thread about Pope Benedict's comments, in which you made about a dozen more racist comments. Where there's smoke, there's fire. If you keep being called racist where no one else is, or by people who don't accuse anyone else of racism, it's probably not a liberal conspiracy- you're probably just racist. The first step is admitting you have a problem. The second is to move out of whatever redneck wonderland you're living in, or while you're there, at least read real books, and not the latest Sean Hannity.

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

Two words:


Fuck off

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

Two words:


Fuck off

I like it...quick and to the point! I give it an 8.5! Well done, young man.:awesomewo

 

[tedwick]

i give it a 9.2. bonus points for vulgarity.

 

[Clotho]

Two words:


Fuck off

Which translates to three words: I give up.

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

No, it really translates to: "I really don't care what you think"

 

[tedwick]

alright. i'll let it go. i'm not going to beat a dead horse, nor do i want to argue with someone who doesn't have any ammunition left. i just want to get in one parting shot.

you should really re-evaluate your thoughts toward the islamic faith and those of the arab world. a very small minority feel that islam is a violent religion, and the rest are quite morally decent people. just because someone follows islam does not mean they are associated with terrorism just as protestants are not associated with the KKK or catholics are not associated with the slaughter of arabs during the Crusades. There's no reason to treat those of the muslim persuasion any different in the eyes of the law, or otherwise. It's neither morally nor legally defensible. Profiling and intolerance go hand in hand, and are just thinly veiled forms of discrimination.

With regard to torture: sure, it could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. it could have gotten plenty of valuable information. but the moment this nation throws away its ethical integrity simply to save itself, it no longer becomes worth saving. i guess this is a relative of the famous Ben Franklin quotation "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

I really hope you reconsider some of the things you've posted here. I like to believe the best in people and the human race in general... don't give me evidence to the contrary.

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

1. Tell that to her:

And if you don't know who this is....don't bother posting about Islam again, you're overly uninformed.

And then---I know you'll love this---pick up a copy of this book:

Lastly, it's not that I don't have any ammunition left---trust me, I've got more than enough---it's that your "arguments" are boring. I think the PC-bullshit coming from the two of you is getting a bit out of hand. When you enter reality, tell me about it. But until then, I'm not interested in hearing worldviews I could get from the back of a goddamn cereal box.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

1. Tell that to her:

And if you don't know who this is....don't bother posting about Islam again, you're overly uninformed.

And then---I know you'll love this---pick up a copy of this book:

Lastly, it's not that I don't have any ammunition left---trust me, I've got more than enough---it's that your "arguments" are boring. I think the PC-bullshit coming from the two of you is getting a bit out of hand. When you enter reality, tell me about it. But until then, I'm not interested in hearing worldviews I could get from the back of a goddamn cereal box.

"There endith the Lesson."

 

[tedwick]

ok. you got me. who is it?
somehow, i don't think the fact that i couldn't name someone associated with islam when presented with a picture is not a hit to my credibility. considering most of what i know on the subject is from print and not fox news, i'm comfortable with my knowledge... and unfortunately, that doesn't really say anything about any of my points. read up on logical fallacies, specifically an ad hominem argument, and get back to me when you can provide an actual counterpoint.

and if you're getting at the fatwa issued against rushdie (you didn't really make a point by just posting a picture of the book cover, so i guess i'll just interpret), i'll admit, that's certainly a black spot on the structure of the muslim religion. however, you can find episodes of this in pretty much every religion. the spanish inquisition is one shining example in the catholic faith. that's not saying anything against the catholic faith, as the fatwa shouldn't say anything against the muslim faith. it's a function of the structure, and most religions get bloodthirsty every once in a while. it's not a function of the faith. thus, you shouldn't view those of the muslim faith any differently than those of the catholic religion.

and i'm sorry to hear that human right, constitutional rights, and basic human decency bore you. but if it weren't for people standing up for those, who knows where we'd be... like i said before, combining the two things you advocate could result in torturing people just because of their religion. you know what that sounds a lot like? nazi germany, where they were fine putting jews in concentration camps and gassing them because they were viewed as lesser people who were damaging the motherland. we're now approaching a state in the US where people are debating using torture and profiling people based on religion? it sounds like we're only a couple drastic steps away from a nazi-like state where anyone who speaks out is un-patriotic and un-american.

explain to me how torture and using someone's religion as evidence against them wouldn't result in something like what i describe.

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is her name. She is a former Dutch politician and probably the only Dutch politician of any merit...ever. Look her up on wikipedia or something. She is the world authority on Islam.

 

[Clotho]

No, it really translates to: "I really don't care what you think"

If you're willing to (weakly) defend yourself for seven pages against people whose opinions are valueless to you, you need a job, or a hobby or something.

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

Oh uh, and comparing frisking Arabs at airports to the Holocaust.......that is a blatant mockery of the suffering that went on in Auschwitz and other death and concentration camps all across Europe.

 

[Clotho]

So wait, your idea of an argument ender is to refer all arguments to some random Dutch politician who is somehow the last word on Islam, and to tell us to read the Rushdie novel? Are you joking?

 

[tedwick]

From my quick and limited introduction to her, she seems like a brilliant person with a great lot to say, and indeed, i agree with her ideas on islam and feminism from what i could quickly gather.

however, i highly doubt that she is "the world authority on islam" (or the only notable dutch politician ever, but that's besides the point). I guess i would agree that she would be one of the world's formost voices regarding islam, but I don't think that someone that partial could possibly be THE world authority.

I guess I would be more inclined to get a partial view from this guy:

what, you don't know who that is? Why, it's John Esposito!

John Louis Esposito (born 19 May 1940, Brooklyn, New York City) is a professor of International Affairs and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University. He is editor-in-chief of The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, The Oxford History of Islam, The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, and Oxford’s The Islamic World: Past and Present. He is the founding director of Georgetown’s Prince Waleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, and has served as president of the Middle East Studies Association of North America and of the American Council for the Study of Islamic Societies.

Esposito was raised a Catholic in an Italian neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York City, and spent a decade in a Catholic monastery. After taking his first degree he worked as a management consultant and high-school teacher. He then studied for a masters in theology at St Johns University. He earned a PhD at Temple University, Pennsylvania in 1974, studying Islam for the first time. Esposito then taught religious studies (including Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam) at the College of the Holy Cross.

seems a bit less, how do i say it, one-sided?

i'm still waiting to hear on your predictions for the mixing of profiling and torture... please explain to me how that is NOT a bad idea.

edit: oh, and i was referencing the holocaust for the aspect of torture it had, along with the religious profiling. jews were targeted because of their race, and then tortured. that's where this whole profiling+torture thing is headed. surely you're not saying that those who have been tortured don't suffer, right?

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

So wait, your idea of an argument ender is to refer all arguments to some random Dutch politician who is somehow the last word on Islam, and to tell us to read the Rushdie novel? Are you joking?

It was a suggestion, not an argument ender. My argument ender was basically recognizing the two of you as morons.

 

[tedwick]

awww... how cute. he storms off in a fuss and calls me a moron without refuting a single point i had. and... what is that i spy!? it's the looney toons!!! I LOVE THE LOONEY TOONS!!!!

uhhh... yeah. if that was your idea of letting us all know that you're a smart, logical person, i think you may have failed... the "go to hell" approach to an argument is always the losing one.

 

[Clotho]

I like debates in which my opponent essentially forfeits. Saves time and effort, which can be spent on better things.