Another 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

[Dobbs 3K 0]

While it's true that this country has a history of white terrorism (you mentioned the KKK, and of course there is the Oklahoma City bombing), pretty much all recent examples of airline or mass transit terrorism have been perpetrated by young Arab Muslim men. Therefore, it makes sense to check someone like that at an airport.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20050801.shtml

 

John Leo had a great column in the paper today, in regards to terrorist apologists. I think everyone should read it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'll summarize the article:

 

Bush good. Liberals bad. Civil libertarians suck. The End.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thanks. Saved me a bunch of time.

 

Kotz: You can forget trying to talk your way out of being an apologist. Its not gonna happen. If you are on the left, you support terrorists. Just ask any conservative they will tell you "just how it is". It sucks I know, but thats what we are dealing with. People who are just as unreasonable as the fucks who want to kill us. As far as I'm concerned people like me are just caught in the middle.

 

Speaking of apologies. There is no good reason to not start trials for the dolts down in Gitmo. But apparently living up to our own standards is much too much to ask.

 

WMDs? I guess Scott Ritter was right afterall.

[SuperJerk 0]

While it's true that this country has a history of white terrorism (you mentioned the KKK, and of course there is the Oklahoma City bombing), pretty much all recent examples of airline or mass transit terrorism have been perpetrated by young Arab Muslim men. Therefore, it makes sense to check someone like that at an airport.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True, but it isn't completely justifiable to claim that just because all the recent terrorism directed at mass transit was committed by one group, that will continue to be the case into the future.

 

Also, racial profiling leaves a huge opening for middle eastern terrorists who can pass for white or some other group. I think that's the best reason not to do it.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

So what would you suggest? Doing nothing and hoping that none of them attack a subway, just like they did in London, even though the government apparently has info that terrorists are planning to do just that?

 

Groups like the ACLU are the most dangerous organizations in America. They would be fine if New York City gets turned into a big crater, as long as no one's rights are infringed upon, and no one gets offended in the process...

[SuperJerk 0]

Nobody here is advocating doing nothing, I'm just explaining why racial profiling is a dumb idea.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Which is more dumb:

 

a) Checking people who look like a bomber.

 

b) Checking people who look nothing like a bomber.

 

or, because I'm feeling generous:

 

c) Checking no one because someone might be offended, or feel that their "personal liberties are being violated" (which means they feel inconvenienced).

[Boon 0]

Was NOBODY listening to Hassan and Daivari?!

 

Also- I think it speaks to the idiocy of racial profiling that those guys are fucking Italian and are believed by the mainstream WWE audience to be Arab-American. Some people are just so retarded when it comes to race.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Enemy combatants and terrorists aren't entitled to due process. The Geneva Convention only applies to uniformed soldiers of a nation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't really agree with that, but even if you want to play it that way, it still is bullshit. Like Alberto Gonzales said, the US can technically get away with torture. Doesn't mean we should. Doesn't mean intentionally holding these guys without any kind of trial date is a good move after all this bravado about "bringing the terrorists to justice."

 

The fact of the matter is that we're no longer playing by the book and it's hard to ask other countries to give respect to do so in the future, especially when you wrote the damn book.

 

 

re terrorist profiling, you need to check all sorts of people because terrorists come in so many forms. Make it known that there is nothing uniform that shouts "check" and "don't check" because it's foolish at best and going to be exploited by the enemy at worst.

 

Otherwise, we're going to look stupid when six months of searching Muslims brings up nothing and Tim McVeigh's Biggest Fan drives a flaming truck into a government office.

[SuperJerk 0]

Which is more dumb:

 

a) Checking people who look like a bomber.

 

b) Checking people who look nothing like a bomber.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If we just search people who look like bombers, all the bombers would have to do is dye their hair blonde, put on some nice clothes, and they'd never have to worry about being searched because they don't "look like a bomber".

 

Disguising yourself isn't that hard to elude a racial profile isn't that hard to do.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

So what do you suggest doing? Just sitting back and hoping none of the terrorists attack again, because we might inconvenience too many people?

[SuperJerk 0]

So what do you suggest doing? Just sitting back and hoping none of the terrorists attack again, because we might inconvenience too many people?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm against racial profiling. I never said I was in favor of doing nothing.

 

By all means, let's search as many people as possible without resorting to a strategy that would eliminate possible terrorists from being searched.

[Art Sandusky 0]

So I watched The Real Cancun this weekend and decided that a further degeneration of society through our liberal lifestyles is unacceptable. Go, um, non-Christian but super moral conservatives.

[BruiserKC 0]

As a libertarian, here's my stance on the whole thing. As an American, I am willing to fight the war on terror and do whatever it takes to win. We're dealing with a group of people who want us either to bow before Allah or to die. No matter what their stance may be (support of Israel, military bases in Saudi Arabia, etc) their real agenda is the takeover of the world and the spread of Islam. Any reason they give is just to mask their real intentions. They must be destroyed. Any of their rights I don't give a shit about...if they are foreigners and try to hurt us they aren't entitled to the same protections under the Constitution as I am.

 

But I don't feel that I have to forfeit any of my civil rights to do so...in fact I refuse to do so on the grounds that any "temporary" removal of those rights would be permanent. The potential is there to abuse that power...especially with the zealots on both sides of the aisle who want to silence ANYONE who might even slightly disagree with their stance. Example...in Britain they are trying to pass legislation that would allow them to deport foreigners that preach hate. In and of itself it is a good idea...problem is that if something like that happened here in the US it could be used to deport people who disagree with their government leaders.

 

I especially take this stance in the age of over-politicizing everything. It's not OK if the other side says it but it's a good idea if you say it. That's a crock and a half. The hypocrisy shows both ways...it was wrong for the conservatives to see the mayor of San Francisco issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples...but OK for Judge Moore in Alabama to refuse an order to remove the Ten Commandments. Both the mayor and the judge overstepped their boundaries and abused their power. One is as wrong as the other...but it doesn't sound that way.

 

That's why I refuse to give the government any more power and I sure as hell will not give them the means to curtail even temporarily our liberties...as Benjamin Franklin said, "He who gives up liberty for more security is a fool that deserves neither liberty nor security."

[Art Sandusky 0]

Yeah, even though I thought that was a cool thing to do, issuing marriage licenses is a state-level thing. I'm all about working within the system.

[SuperJerk 0]

As an American, I am willing to fight the war on terror and do whatever it takes to win.  We're dealing with a group of people who want us either to bow before Allah or to die.  No matter what their stance may be (support of Israel, military bases in Saudi Arabia, etc) their real agenda is the takeover of the world and the spread of Islam.  Any reason they give is just to mask their real intentions.  They must be destroyed.  Any of their rights I don't give a shit about...if they are foreigners and try to hurt us they aren't entitled to the same protections under the Constitution as I am.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm interested in protecting the rights of innocent people. Sometimes their rights (and lives) get trampled in pursuit of the real terrorists.

 

Everything eventually boils down to economics, though. There are many, many countries which are not Muslim but don't get airplanes flown into their cities.

 

Bush is wrong. They don't hate us for our freedom, they hate us for our power. They see our power as a threat, and it scares them. It scares them so much that evil men are able to recruit them to kill and die for a destructive agenda.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Bush is wrong.  They don't hate us for our freedom, they hate us for our power.  They see our power as a threat, and it scares them.  It scares them so much that evil men are able to recruit them to kill and die for a destructive agenda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Good post Y2Jerk.

[BruiserKC 0]

I'm interested in protecting the rights of innocent people.  Sometimes their rights (and lives) get trampled in pursuit of the real terrorists.

 

Everything eventually boils down to economics, though.  There are many, many countries which are not Muslim but don't get airplanes flown into their cities. 

 

Bush is wrong.  They don't hate us for our freedom, they hate us for our power.  They see our power as a threat, and it scares them.  It scares them so much that evil men are able to recruit them to kill and die for a destructive agenda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I want to protect innocent people, no question. My comment was for the monsters who want to destroy us or even cheer about destroying us. I don't care one iota for their rights.

 

As for the freedom/power thing...it's really an issue of both. Our freedoms to them make us weak, make us corrupt. They can't (or won't) understand why we allow homosexuals, women, etc...to just do their own thing without fear of reprisal for the most part. To them women stay home and homosexuals have their domes lopped off. We are weak because we allow political opponents to speak out against the government. In the twisted mind of our enemies it speaks to them the weaknesses of our government and our society and how we must be destroyed.

[SuperJerk 0]

I want to protect innocent people, no question.  My comment was for the monsters who want to destroy us or even cheer about destroying us.  I don't care one iota for their rights. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afganis have already been punished for the actions of a guilty few. I'm not saying we should do nothing, but we need to be cautious. The "take no prisoners" attitude amongst many Americans is not compatible with protecting innocent people who have nothing to do with terrorism. There are innocent people at Gitmo, and there have been innocent people captured or killed in Iraq and Afganistan. We need to be cautious not to include too many innocent people when we protect ourselves from terrorism.