What's 'sick', Steve, is how you tried to jump on the Norwegian attacks and use them to justify your position.

Back to the OT. I'm still not convinced that anyone should be above suspicion, even the saintly Rumsfeld. Wasn't there a big fuss when a Congresswoman tried to barge through security?

Oh where did I hear someone trying to use a tragedy to support their position. (Gabi Giffords...)

Javelin wrote:Was it that American security at airports is, like the rest of the country, overly concerned with politial correctness and legal correctness (helps you to not get sued even if you're doing the right thing)? Yes, we all know this too.

Do "we?"

Many, including the President, our previous President, and the head of DHS do not know this.

So what were you trying to say, and why did you suddenly jump a continent over to Norway?

Why? Because the presumption, on my part is that it was Muslim extremists. Why? Because nearly every significant terror attack around the world is motivated by Muslim extremism.

danivon wrote:What's 'sick', Steve, is how you tried to jump on the Norwegian attacks and use them to justify your position.

What's sick is that you can so ably read between the lines of what I never said and come up with such an implausible personal attack.

Back to the OT. I'm still not convinced that anyone should be above suspicion, even the saintly Rumsfeld. Wasn't there a big fuss when a Congresswoman tried to barge through security?

Ridiculous. Let me know the next time a former official with such access to power is involved in a terror/bombing plot. I wouldn't even make Hillary go through such screening. If the objective is to actually make flying safer, such searches do nothing.

M

bbauska wrote:Oh where did I hear someone trying to use a tragedy to support their position. (Gabi Giffords...)

I didn't bring it into a thread on something else; On the Gifford thing I was trying to point to a juxtaposition - you guys put words in my mouth afterwards.

Steve, so who else gets a pass? Why should present and/or former government employees not have to face the same inconveniences as everyone else?

Are they immune from mental illness, religious conversion, or being tricked into being a mule?

danivon wrote:Steve, so who else gets a pass? Why should present and/or former government employees not have to face the same inconveniences as everyone else?

Rummy, Hillary, et al are hardly "former government employees." It is absurd that a man who had the highest possible clearance, what, four years ago, should be patted down as a potential terrorist.

Are they immune from mental illness, religious conversion, or being tricked into being a mule?

Hmm, well, if you want to include DHS Secretary Napolitano, you might have a point.

If you're point is that anyone "might" be a terrorist, you probably ought to apply for TSA because you are in the vast minority.

It's not that this is inconvenient. This whole procedure is idiotic. We ought to be profiling--that is taking in every potential factor and weighing the totality, focusing on those who are more likely to be terrorists. Again, as soon as a 15 year-old Catholic school girl from Missoula blows up a plane, you've got a point. Until that point, maybe, just maybe a little bit of common sense should be applied?

Steve, if both your current and former President and significant members of their Governments cannot see the obvious staring them in the face then I can hardly be held responsible for that. I would, however, consider that state of affairs to be "business as usual" for your (and most) Governments.

It might be true that Muslim extremism is the most likely underlying cause behind major terrorist attacks for the past decade, but this is a long way from assuming that EVERY terrorist attack is automatically caused by it. Patriotism, resistance to foreign invaders and extremists of other religions all play their part too. To immediately assume that every terrorist attack was caused by Muslim extremism is foolish and profoundly distasteful to those who sympathise with the victims.

You'll remember that shortly before a Spanish General Election a few years ago a bomb went off in Madrid. The incumbent (who had led Spain into the war in Iraq) immediately pounced on it as a muslim extremist inspired attack and thus vindication of his hard line policy. Pretty soon it became clear that it was actually ETA who were responsible and the electorate, unamused and disgusted by such a sloppy attempt to score political points in response to the tragedy, kicked him out of office.

Neal, I look forward to the evidence that he was actually a Christian fundamentalist. I know lots of Christian fundamentalists. Not one would consider slaughtering people to be godly activity. Of course, none of them would cite as inspiration:

philosophers like Machiavelli, Kant and John Stuart Mill.

Let's see how the info comes out. My guess is he's going to be a "Christian" because he doesn't fall into any other group--kind of like the "Christians" involved in ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.

Again, in almost all of these situations, the info the government first releases turns out to be misleading or just wrong.

Regarding your other issue Steve (Rumsfeld etc), you call for common sense to be used in the process of screening for potential terrorists. You're entirely right - common sense and judgement based on experience should be used when attempting to screen for terrorists, as for criminals.

The problem is that the culture in the US is that everything has to be done perfectly according to the letter of the law or you run the very serious risk of getting sued. Appearing to single out one ethnic or religious group can get you into hot water over there, as I'm sure you're well aware. Try legislating for "common sense" or "judgement". Good luck! Now try applying common sense or judgement to the process by which people in the US can be sued for damages. Once again, good luck!

The point is that while you're right in theory, I can't see how your solution can be put into practice without a serious change in the legal culture in your country.

Javelin wrote:To immediately assume that every terrorist attack was caused by Muslim extremism is foolish and profoundly distasteful to those who sympathise with the victims.

We just disagree. When 90%+ of the terror attacks worldwide are committed by Muslims, why wouldn't first reaction be that it's likely Muslims? Why would that be "distasteful" to anyone? It just so happens to coincide with the facts.

You'll remember that shortly before a Spanish General Election a few years ago a bomb went off in Madrid. The incumbent (who had led Spain into the war in Iraq) immediately pounced on it as a muslim extremist inspired attack and thus vindication of his hard line policy. Pretty soon it became clear that it was actually ETA who were responsible and the electorate, unamused and disgusted by such a sloppy attempt to score political points in response to the tragedy, kicked him out of office.

Not convinced:

According to the Spanish judiciary, a loose group of Moroccan, Syrian, and Algerian Muslims and two Guardia Civil and Spanish police informants,[44][45][46] are suspected of having carried out the attacks. As of 11 April 2006, Judge Juan del Olmo charged 29 suspects for their involvement in the train bombings.[47]

No evidence has been found of al-Qaeda involvement,[48] although an al-Qaeda claim was made the day of the attacks by the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades. However, U.S. officials note that this group is "notoriously unreliable".[49] On August 2007, al-Qaida claimed to be "proud" about the Madrid 2004 bombings.[50]

According to The Independent, "Those who invented the new kind of rucksack bomb used in the attacks are said to have been taught in training camps in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, under instruction from members of Morocco's radical Islamist Combat Group."[51]

Seems more likely than not to have had some Muslim involvement, but I would say it is not entirely clear. Do you really want to get into a scoresheet battle? I don't think the odds of non-Muslims "winning" such a contest are very high, since there are Muslim extremists operating across the globe.

Javelin wrote:The problem is that the culture in the US is that everything has to be done perfectly according to the letter of the law or you run the very serious risk of getting sued.

Still, discretion is a reality of law enforcement. In CA, the only arrests cops have to make are: 1) intentionally causing a train wreck; 2) private person's arrest (it's a felony for cops to refuse); (next two I'm guessing) 3) spousal abuse (these laws are consistently being modified); 4) sexual abuse of a child.

Appearing to single out one ethnic or religious group can get you into hot water over there, as I'm sure you're well aware. Try legislating for "common sense" or "judgement". Good luck!

It would not be hard if politicians had a spine. They would have to undergo some epithets hurled their way by groups like CAIR, but so what?

The point is that while you're right in theory, I can't see how your solution can be put into practice without a serious change in the legal culture in your country.

It wouldn't be so hard to start investigating behavior, looking for behavior, etc. Israel does it and we could too.

When I was growing up, the word "terrorist" was almost always associated with "Northern Ireland". The Troubles in Northern Ireland lasted for decades (some would say centuries and are still ongoing), and focused on the cultural and religious differences between the adherents of two Christian sects in a very pious country. Islam hardly has a monopoly on terrorist violence, even if at the present moment in time it is in the ascendency.

Also, there are few things that annoy an electorate more than politicians callously trying to score political points off events which are national disasters leading to significant loss of life. That's exactly how your statements sounded earlier in this thread to me, and likely to others too.

Doctor Fate wrote:
Let's see how the info comes out. My guess is he's going to be a "Christian" because he doesn't fall into any other group--kind of like the "Christians" involved in ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.

Again, in almost all of these situations, the info the government first releases turns out to be misleading or just wrong.

I'm highly confident that you'll be able to rationalize it away even if it turns out he was a violent Christian nutjob. Your personal worldview is very resilient to what i like to call reality intruding upon it.