Good News Everyone: Terrorists Win

[theamericandream38]

What are you talking about? The so-called "security" measures do not work. They are what's known in the business as "security theater".

So needless to say I think these rules are fucking stupid and the TSA needs to be almost entirely obliterated.

How do they not work? There haven't been any plane bombings/hijackings since 9/11. Seems to be working to me >_> If you are seriously suggesting that America not use any airport security at all (which would just cause everyone to avoid using airplanes), I don't even know what to say ._.

 

[Surgo]

How do they not work? There haven't been any plane bombings/hijackings since 9/11. Seems to be working to me >_> If you are seriously suggesting that America not use any airport security at all (which would just cause everyone to avoid using airplanes), I don't even know what to say ._.

There's so much wrong with this comment that I don't even know where to begin. Guess I'll start with the obvious:

* Did you miss the plane bombing that just happened to a UPS cargo plane, and didn't go off? Want to know why it was stopped? It wasn't stopped by a backscatter device or retardedly invasive "security" measures, it was a tip from the Saudi Arabia government.

* You are attributing the lack of plane bombings/hijackings in the 9 year stretch since 9/11 to the security measures. You do not, in fact, know that these "security" measures are what caused the lack of plane bombings and/or hijackings. But this is disingenuous at best, because if you look at the stretch running before 9/11, ie, the entire 1990s, you'll note that there was only ONE plane hijacking. And that plane hijacking was by a disgruntled employee, which current security theater would not stop. And this flight was FedEx Express 705, which current security theater doesn't even touch. So what you're saying is now: "oh look, we went from zero hijackings to zero hijackings, guess what we're doing is really good!"

* I'm not suggesting America use no airport security, and in fact nowhere did I say that. I suggested the TSA be mostly obliterated, as they are a retarded organization that would even manage to fuck up securing a remote Antarctic base if they were given the opportunity. They are more interested in security theater than actual security.

 

[Deck Knight]

So um, do you seriously see that one terrorist or Al-Qaeda as a representative of Islam? Don't you realize that one fourth of the world is Muslim and a majority of them are peaceful?

Yes, because it is more than just one Muslim (Major "Allahu Ackbar" Hassan? The Panty Bomber?), and moreover moderate Muslims fail to address this element of Islam from within. Islamic terrorists will never stop taking the mantle of Islam until the other Muslims call them up on their radical bullshit. If that does not happen then the "moderate" Muslims simply enable terror through deafining silence. Giving terrorists safe harbor through silence is a legitimate reason to give extra scrutiny to Muslim passengers with ties to the aforementioned countries that export radical Islam. Until Muslims call these people out in a significant way, ostracisize them and theologically deconstruct and obliterate their perversion of some kind of "true, peaceful" Islam, that can never happen and any attempts to defeat terrorism will be global whack-a-mole. The terrorists will win because we're fighting a violent perversion of a religion with body scanners and pat-downs.

Remind me why USA invaded Iraq.

Because our and the rest of the entire world's intelligence agencies thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and Saddam was playing it up as if he had them. Such weapons could easily fall into the hands of Islamic terrorists if Saddam was willing to cut a deal with them. Remnants of Saddamn's chemical weapons have been found in massive amounts, but there was no yellow cake uranium so I'm sure you'll claim there was no justification, given "WMDs" never includes chemical weapons when we're talking about Iraq.

I'm sure you already knew all of this though. Not that it's really all that relevant to the discussion at hand, but you asked so I am happy to inform.

Um, which African countries have been attacked by terrorists? Half of Africa is Muslim anyways and most wars have been about natural resources.

You have heard of Darfur in Sudan, right? Violent Muslim domination of other nations is not a new historical trend, Sudan is just a recent example where Islamic marauders sought to detroy infidels and spread the truth of Islam with no other immediately discernable gain. Has it occurred to you that Islam has historically been spread through violent methods in these nations? Islam there is *not* like Islam in America, where any kind of action used in the former will quickly get you incarcerated and possible executed.

Anything else?

 

[theamericandream38]

There's so much wrong with this comment that I don't even know where to begin. Guess I'll start with the obvious:

* Did you miss the plane bombing that just happened to a UPS cargo plane, and didn't go off? Want to know why it was stopped? It wasn't stopped by a backscatter device or retardedly invasive "security" measures, it was a tip from the Saudi Arabia government.

I knew of it, and I knew it was stopped. I had heard nothing of how the tip came from the Saudi Arabian government, as nothing like that was mentioned in the article I read about it.

* You are attributing the lack of plane bombings/hijackings in the 9 year stretch since 9/11 to the security measures. You do not, in fact, know that these "security" measures are what caused the lack of plane bombings and/or hijackings. But this is disingenuous at best, because if you look at the stretch running before 9/11, ie, the entire 1990s, you'll note that there was only ONE plane hijacking. And that plane hijacking was by a disgruntled employee, which current security theater would not stop. And this flight was FedEx Express 705, which current security theater doesn't even touch. So what you're saying is now: "oh look, we went from zero hijackings to zero hijackings, guess what we're doing is really good!"

This is a good point, but I would say that if the security were weaker then there would almost assuredly be more attacks. This is all guesswork but due to the large amount of animosity shown towards America since 9/11, it seems like a reasonable conclusion to me.

* I'm not suggesting America use no airport security, and in fact nowhere did I say that. I suggested the TSA be mostly obliterated, as they are a retarded organization that would even manage to fuck up securing a remote Antarctic base if they were given the opportunity. They are more interested in security theater than actual security.

You're right, you just said that the TSA should be removed and then failed to provide a solution. It would be stupid to get rid of the security and THEN try to come up with a new plan, so instead they (or I guess you in this case, because I have not heard of any serious politician suggesting this) should create a new plan and then you can eliminate the current system.

 

[Firestorm]

tad, if security is working, I don't understand why you think it should be taken a step further rather than kept at the level where it's working and only somewhat invasive.

 

[Shiny_Tyranitar]

Yes, because it is more than just one Muslim (Major "Allahu Ackbar" Hassan? The Panty Bomber?), and moreover moderate Muslims fail to address this element of Islam from within. Islamic terrorists will never stop taking the mantle of Islam until the other Muslims call them up on their radical bullshit. If that does not happen then the "moderate" Muslims simply enable terror through deafining silence. Giving terrorists safe harbor through silence is a legitimate reason to give extra scrutiny to Muslim passengers with ties to the aforementioned countries that export radical Islam. Until Muslims call these people out in a significant way, ostracisize them and theologically deconstruct and obliterate their perversion of some kind of "true, peaceful" Islam, that can never happen and any attempts to defeat terrorism will be global whack-a-mole. The terrorists will win because we're fighting a violent perversion of a religion with body scanners and pat-downs.

You fail to notice a big thing. While you're holding all muslims in the same light as extremists, I'm going to hold all Christians accountable for the KKK and George "Colonel Clusterfuck" Bush and their respective murders. Hey, I've never heard any Christian call them on their radical bullshit. Oh wait, you'll do that from the safety of your home, yeah go to Afghanistan and stand up to the Taliban.

Because our and the rest of the entire world's intelligence agencies thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and Saddam was playing it up as if he had them. Such weapons could easily fall into the hands of Islamic terrorists if Saddam was willing to cut a deal with
them. Remnants of Saddamn's chemical weapons have been found in massive amounts, but there was no yellow cake uranium so I'm sure you'll claim there was no justification, given "WMDs" never includes chemical weapons when we're talking about Iraq.

You see, by carefully examining your statement cherry picking words and letters, I have discovered your hatred for this great country. Yeah, if the world agreed, why'd we act unilaterally again??

You have heard of Darfur in Sudan, right? Violent Muslim domination of other nations is not a new historical trend, Sudan is just a recent example where Islamic marauders sought to detroy infidels and spread the truth of Islam with no other immediately discernable gain. Has it occurred to you that Islam has historically been spread through violent methods in these nations? Islam there is *not* like Islam in America, where any kind of action used in the former will quickly get you incarcerated and possible executed.

Anything else?

This is a far stretch of logic. A guy trying to smuggle bombs in his underwear on a plane, and a muslim fighting a christian in Darfur are two completely different things. Hell, to throw a giant wrench into your belief, what about Rwanda? They had a pretty large genocide to the tune of 800,000 people, and they were roughly 83.6% christian and 4.5% Muslim. I hate to cast such a stereotype on a continent, but the African civil wars are a fact of life, a fact that is probably attributed more to poverty, exploitation of resources, and European imperialism than religion.

Also, Christianity was also largely spread by warfare, but I will agree that they are lagging for the most part in freedom of speech and religion (and one could argue that America is still struggling with state sponsored religion to a smaller degree with Zelman v Simmons-Harris and religious extremists with the KKK, WBC, and abortion clinic bombers). But again, this is their problem and not ours, and making it our problem only makes it worse.

 

[CaptKirby]

Doctors already touch my genitals, breasts are nothing special, I do not really care. Obviously this can lead to some sexual harassment, but that will be the exception not the norm. People who are uptight about being touched are uptight morons, same with people who only feel that way because it is public. The human body is not that embarrassing, human interaction is not that embarrassing, and this is absolutely not a big deal.

 

[theamericandream38]

tad, if security is working, I don't understand why you think it should be taken a step further rather than kept at the level where it's working and only somewhat invasive.

I don't really think this law is that great to be honest. I would be fine if it were kept the way it is right now. I am not very terrified at the moment of the possibility of having my next flight bombed, but that doesn't mean we should just abandon all defenses as some people seem to want to suggest. I wish as much as everyone else that it wasn't necessary but it just isn't reasonable =/

 

[Firestorm]

Sonuvabitch. Apparently batteries are a threat now and many countries and shipping companies are not letting people ship items with lithium-ion batteries overseas (DS, PSP, laptops, iPods, etc). The day they stop me from using my DS or laptop on a plane is the day I start protesting this shit.

 

[Deck Knight]

You fail to notice a big thing. While you're holding all muslims in the same light as extremists, I'm going to hold all Christians accountable for the KKK and George "Colonel Clusterfuck" Bush and their respective murders. Hey, I've never heard any Christian call them on their radical bullshit. Oh wait, you'll do that from the safety of your home, yeah go to Afghanistan and stand up to the Taliban.

If you're going to hold groups accountable for the KKK I'd start with the Democratic Party from which it was founded (another thing you should look up while you look up the background information on entry into Iraq/Afghanistan). But on a more serious but equally factual note, George W. Bush never murdered anyone, or perhaps if you are using his foreign policy as your basis for such an accusation then every president in US history is a murderer, including Clinton, Carter, Kennedy, FDR, Truman, Wilson, Lincoln, and every founding father who ever became president.

Moreover the KKK burns crosses as part of their ritual. They do not act in the name of Christianity unlike Islamic terrorists who directly cite the Quran as their justification for slaughting infidels. The two situations are entirely different and your moral equivocation regarding them is an indication that you do not believe this is a serious problem worth applying your intelligence to.

You see, by carefully examining your statement cherry picking words and letters, I have discovered your hatred for this great country. Yeah, if the world agreed, why'd we act unilaterally again??

We didn't act unilaterially, and everything in my paragraph was true. Maybe if you were reading entire sentences instead of individual letters you'd have noticed it.

This is a far stretch of logic. A guy trying to smuggle bombs in his underwear on a plane, and a muslim fighting a christian in Darfur are two completely different things. Hell, to throw a giant wrench into your belief, what about Rwanda? They had a pretty large genocide to the tune of 800,000 people, and they were roughly 83.6% christian and 4.5% Muslim. I hate to cast such a stereotype on a continent, but the African civil wars are a fact of life, a fact that is probably attributed more to poverty, exploitation of resources, and European imperialism than religion.

The Rwandan genocide wasn't performed because Christians wanted to wipe out Muslims though. In fact it was largely a tribal dispute. Europe stopped colonizing Africa long ago, now all they do is send foreign aid that never reaches the average African citizen and is instead used by their tribal government to fund further tribal campaigns. African Governments were selling other Africans long before Europeans started purchasing them. African governments are corrupt all on their own, and historic European influence is just another of their excuses in their attempts to justify their barbarity. They certainly don't have a problem taking European money for people so incensed at Europe, no?

The point being that America's primary threat is islamic terrorism, a terrorism predicated on a particular interpretation of Islam. That interpretation tends to go unadressed internally and subsequently our policy is to continue searching for bombs in toothpaste, boxcutters, and baby formula instead of addressing the root cause. Whatever other conflicts may have existed in the world and their various reasons, this particular conflict has a global religiously inspired motivation for destroying whomever they please on one end and countries who citizenry is often foolish enough to justify their attempts at the other.

Also, Christianity was also largely spread by warfare, but I will agree that they are lagging for the most part in freedom of speech and religion (and one could argue that America is still struggling with state sponsored religion to a smaller degree with Zelman v Simmons-Harris and religious extremists with the KKK, WBC, and abortion clinic bombers). But again, this is their problem and not ours, and making it our problem only makes it worse.

America doesn't have any state sponsored religion. The First Amendment of the Constitution explicitly prohibits America having a state-sponsored religion. Your gripe is that Christians have a voice in government and sometimes they decide on things you don't like personally. Your disagreement with the fact 80+% of your brethren like their society to respect the traditions and practice of their religion does not mean we have state-sponsored religion.

The terrorists however do believe in state-sponsored religion. Going back to Shahzad, another quote of his is that "one day the flag of Islam will fly over the White House." Those are the people attacking us but our airport policy doesn't address them.

 

[gvmgvm40]

But on a more serious but equally factual note, George W. Bush never murdered anyone

Iraq War total excess deaths: ~1.400.000
Afganistan War total excess deaths: ~70.000

?

Moreover the KKK burns crosses as part of their ritual. They do not act in the name of Christianity unlike Islamic terrorists who directly cite the Quran as their justification for slaughting infidels. The two situations are entirely different and your moral equivocation regarding them is an indication that you do not believe this is a serious problem worth applying your intelligence to.

Lord's Resistance Army has killed more civillians than al-Qaeda since 2008, and they claim they are fighting in the name of God. Do you see people claiming all Christians are terrorists?

Also I have probably said this a billion times, but there is no verse in Quran that terrorists can cite their actions to. Just because terrorists twist some verses to support their cause doesn't mean the religion supports terrorism.

The Rwandan genocide wasn't performed because Christians wanted to wipe out Muslims though. In fact it was largely a tribal dispute.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Darfur War is also about tribal conflicts. The population of Darfur and all factions that fought in the war are Muslim.

The terrorists however do believe in state-sponsored religion. Going back to Shahzad, another quote of his is that "one day the flag of Islam will fly over the White House." Those are the people attacking us but our airport policy doesn't address them.

Those people = %25 of the world?

 

[Shiny_Tyranitar]

If you're going to hold groups accountable for the KKK I'd start with the Democratic Party from which it was founded (another thing you should look up while you look up the background information on entry into Iraq/Afghanistan). But on a more serious but equally factual note, George W. Bush never murdered anyone, or perhaps if you are using his foreign policy as your basis for such an accusation then every president in US history is a murderer, including Clinton, Carter, Kennedy, FDR, Truman, Wilson, Lincoln, and every founding father who ever became president.

True, the KKK was founded by democrats because the republicans at the time were too liberal. The parties switch positions over time, but I'm not going to say the CONSERVATIVES of the 1860's are responsible for the Klan, because that's not what they are today. Today they are a protestant terrorist group, and I won't hold all protestants as Klansmen, because they aren't. I saw these pics from the rally to restore sanity on my point.

Seriously, implying all muslims/the islamic religion is intrinsically violent is insane.

Moreover the KKK burns crosses as part of their ritual. They do not act in the name of Christianity unlike Islamic terrorists who directly cite the Quran as their justification for slaughting infidels. The two situations are entirely different and your moral equivocation regarding them is an indication that you do not believe this is a serious problem worth applying your intelligence to.

Yes the Klan does. I won't bother to waste my time looking it up, because it is widely known they are a protestant organization, but to save some time, the Klan is similar to another group called CHRISTIAN identity (see the big word). Second, didn't Jesus say "I come not to bring peace, but a sword?" But I'm not going to bastardize the good claims in the bible by those nine words, nor will I believe all Christians adhere to that. For most people in the world (bar extremists) religion takes a back seat in life. We don't boycott a movie because of Scientologist Tom Cruise or Mormon Glenn Beck, we don't hate our abortion supporting friends, or our religiously different friends. Just because a small fraction of Muslims want to blow shit up, doesn't mean we should hate all of them or their religion.

We didn't act unilaterially, and everything in my paragraph was true. Maybe if you were reading entire sentences instead of individual letters you'd have noticed it.

Oh, My bad, I forgot Poland......

The Rwandan genocide wasn't performed because Christians wanted to wipe out Muslims though. In fact it was largely a tribal dispute. Europe stopped colonizing Africa long ago, now all they do is send foreign aid that never reaches the average African citizen and is instead used by their tribal government to fund further tribal campaigns. African Governments were selling other Africans long before Europeans started purchasing them. African governments are corrupt all on their own, and historic European influence is just another of their excuses in their attempts to justify their barbarity. They certainly don't have a problem taking European money for people so incensed at Europe, no?

I know it was all a tribal dispute, that was my point. Africa is so entrenched in disputes (because the arbitrary districting of land on Europe's part) that it is unfair to point out a civil war where their dividing factor is religion. If it's not religion, its blackness, wealth, or the shape of their noses.

The point being that America's primary threat is islamic terrorism, a terrorism predicated on a particular interpretation of Islam. That interpretation tends to go unadressed internally and subsequently our policy is to continue searching for bombs in toothpaste, boxcutters, and baby formula instead of addressing the root cause. Whatever other conflicts may have existed in the world and their various reasons, this particular conflict has a global religiously inspired motivation for destroying whomever they please on one end and countries who citizenry is often foolish enough to justify their attempts at the other.

And the more paranoid the American people are, and the more we allow the government intrusion into our privacy under the guise of "National Security" is the more the terrorists win. One poster said it better than I ever could, it's a market to make us feel safe. All the spending achieving the taliban's goal. Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan only created a hot bed for terrorists, while on the other hand it was an intelligence tip that thwarted that last fiasco.

America doesn't have any state sponsored religion. The First Amendment of the Constitution explicitly prohibits America having a state-sponsored religion. Your gripe is that Christians have a voice in government and sometimes they decide on things you don't like personally. Your disagreement with the fact 80+% of your brethren like their society to respect the traditions and practice of their religion does not mean we have state-sponsored religion.

The terrorists however do believe in state-sponsored religion. Going back to Shahzad, another quote of his is that "one day the flag of Islam will fly over the White House." Those are the people attacking us but our airport policy doesn't address them.

The Supreme Court case I posted involved the city of Cleveland sending 96% of the students of one public school to private Christian schools, and it was upheld as constitutional. Second, I never said I have a problem with Christians, and if I implied it I'm sorry, my gripe is that there are still Americans who want a theocratic nation, and we are still tackling the issue, and we are a far more secular society than those in the middle east (secularism and technology tend to go hand in hand). Finally, you seem to forget that Osama disliked Saddam, because he felt Iraq was too secular (actually at the time of invasion, it was the most secular nation in the middle east).