Back at the start of the Terrorist War, some people pointed out that the Muslims hated us for our freedoms. And this was promptly shouted down by the Left as too simplistic
( Read more... )
“Back at the start of the Terrorist War, some people pointed out that the Muslims hated us for our freedoms. And this was promptly shouted down by the Left as too simplistic.”
It's also quite horribly wrong. Not “freedom,” mind you, but “freedoms” (sic). That is, those things which the Federal Government has not yet prohibited you from doing - for your safety and protection, of course. After all, there's a war on!
In my eight years as a police reporter for the Washington Times, the police needed probable cause to conduct a search, this being defined as “an articulable reason to believe that a specific person was committing a specific crime.” (Sometimes they lied when they wanted probable cause, but the requirement nonetheless provided a degree of protection for the public.) Walking through Penn Station in Baltimore does not meet the definition of probable cause, yet the PA system constantly announces that people are subject to random search
( ... )
Yes, the TSA sucks. It needs to be reformed, possibly abolished and re-created with totally different staff.
Nevertheless, given that we're at war with an enemy willing to deliberately strike at civilian targets with covert action teams, it's difficult to see how we can avoid some sort of security monitoring of our transportation choke points.
What alternative do you propose?
And to get back to my original question, what do you propose to do about the fact that the Muslims hate us for our freedoms? If your argument is "they don't," then how do you explain the Embassy attacks?
Start applying the discrimination in immigration to these groups/nationalities which espouse violence to the West and its' values which keep the ones who want to abide by Western values out.
And before I get jumped on - Jordan knows what I'm talking about, as do quite a few of the others here.
But you obviously see the problem. It's the same problem as I had with my father: He was fond of quoting Supreme Court Justice O W Holmes' famous dictum, “Freedom of speech does not extend to shouting 'FIRE!' in a crowded threatre.”
My father believed that this should be stretched like taffy, pulled farther and farther until any opinion with which HE disagreed would be classed as - wait for it - “shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre,” And thus outlawed, you see.
“Sure, 'What a wonderful place this world would be / If everyone in it agreed with me,'” I said. “But what if it's somebody else, not you - and you don't?!” That gave him pause.
“these groups/nationalities which espouse violence to the West” - define “violence.” And tell me how “disagreement with the government” can be excluded from that definition, by the government which enforces it.
You're being rather faceteous I think. The 'fire in a crowded theatre' adage we've previously taken apart here - if there IS a bloody goddamn fire, OF COURSE YOU YELL THAT THERE IS A FIRE.
Attacks = violence. You know, the kind that aren't just verbal. Verbal attacks and threats get you looked at with suspicion. Action is always what it has always been - the outright escalation from theoretical to reality. Peaceful protest has always been clearly defined - calling for the deaths of XYZ or Bush or Clinton or even Obama is not the same as "DOWN WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT", so don't even try. Attacking innocent people = act of war. So don't try the whole 'define violence' to me. The Islamics have crossed lines nobody else and no other group crossesAnd frankly if political upheaval is so bad in a country anyway that mere disagreement and criticism is seen as an act of war, you probably already HAVE a full blown revolution at hand, so the comparison is rather spurious, and the nation itself does not deserve to survive. A healthy nation is far
( ... )
“And frankly if political upheaval is so bad in a country anyway that mere disagreement and criticism is seen as an act of war, you probably already HAVE a full blown revolution at hand”
- That's pretty much what I said to my father. He would not like the country he thought he wanted… which is true for many on the Left as well.
If they want to blow their own shit up, I say we let them. But anyone throwing anything at the embassy gets instantly shot (and we tell everyone that one bullet in 10 was soaked in pig's blood).
Problem solved. They don't believe anyone can say X or Y? That's their business. If you don't like $Book or $film then don't read/watch it. You start saying everyone on the planet can't write/say what you don't want, then that's war in my book.
Instead, it is the behaviour of people claiming the justification of Islam for their actions that affects the reputation of Islam.In January, the governor of the Punjab province in Pakistan, Salman Taseer, was murdered because he opposed the severity of the nation's blasphemy laws
( ... )
Re: Let them behave as they wish in the security of their own borders.jordan179September 20 2012, 19:55:10 UTC
Indeed, much of their "normal" is illegal in most of the Civilized world. They are only able to practice it there, to the extent that they can, because the Civilized countries have foolishly suspended or modified the enforcement of their laws to the full normal rigor, when the subjects are Muslim.
Comments 52
“Back at the start of the Terrorist War, some people pointed out that the Muslims hated us for our freedoms. And this was promptly shouted down by the Left as too simplistic.”
It's also quite horribly wrong. Not “freedom,” mind you, but “freedoms” (sic). That is, those things which the Federal Government has not yet prohibited you from doing - for your safety and protection, of course. After all, there's a war on!
[“Thank God!” Who said that?]
In my eight years as a police reporter for the Washington Times, the police needed probable cause to conduct a search, this being defined as “an articulable reason to believe that a specific person was committing a specific crime.” (Sometimes they lied when they wanted probable cause, but the requirement nonetheless provided a degree of protection for the public.) Walking through Penn Station in Baltimore does not meet the definition of probable cause, yet the PA system constantly announces that people are subject to random search ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Nevertheless, given that we're at war with an enemy willing to deliberately strike at civilian targets with covert action teams, it's difficult to see how we can avoid some sort of security monitoring of our transportation choke points.
What alternative do you propose?
And to get back to my original question, what do you propose to do about the fact that the Muslims hate us for our freedoms? If your argument is "they don't," then how do you explain the Embassy attacks?
Reply
Reply
And before I get jumped on - Jordan knows what I'm talking about, as do quite a few of the others here.
Reply
But you obviously see the problem. It's the same problem as I had with my father: He was fond of quoting Supreme Court Justice O W Holmes' famous dictum, “Freedom of speech does not extend to shouting 'FIRE!' in a crowded threatre.”
My father believed that this should be stretched like taffy, pulled farther and farther until any opinion with which HE disagreed would be classed as - wait for it - “shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre,” And thus outlawed, you see.
“Sure, 'What a wonderful place this world would be / If everyone in it agreed with me,'” I said. “But what if it's somebody else, not you - and you don't?!” That gave him pause.
“these groups/nationalities which espouse violence to the West” - define “violence.” And tell me how “disagreement with the government” can be excluded from that definition, by the government which enforces it.
Reply
Attacks = violence. You know, the kind that aren't just verbal. Verbal attacks and threats get you looked at with suspicion. Action is always what it has always been - the outright escalation from theoretical to reality. Peaceful protest has always been clearly defined - calling for the deaths of XYZ or Bush or Clinton or even Obama is not the same as "DOWN WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT", so don't even try. Attacking innocent people = act of war. So don't try the whole 'define violence' to me. The Islamics have crossed lines nobody else and no other group crossesAnd frankly if political upheaval is so bad in a country anyway that mere disagreement and criticism is seen as an act of war, you probably already HAVE a full blown revolution at hand, so the comparison is rather spurious, and the nation itself does not deserve to survive. A healthy nation is far ( ... )
Reply
“And frankly if political upheaval is so bad in a country anyway that mere disagreement and criticism is seen as an act of war, you probably already HAVE a full blown revolution at hand”
- That's pretty much what I said to my father. He would not like the country he thought he wanted… which is true for many on the Left as well.
( ... )
Reply
Problem solved. They don't believe anyone can say X or Y? That's their business. If you don't like $Book or $film then don't read/watch it. You start saying everyone on the planet can't write/say what you don't want, then that's war in my book.
Reply
Stumbled on this: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/how-i-lost-faith-in-multiculturalism/story-fn59niix-1226031793805
Instead, it is the behaviour of people claiming the justification of Islam for their actions that affects the reputation of Islam.In January, the governor of the Punjab province in Pakistan, Salman Taseer, was murdered because he opposed the severity of the nation's blasphemy laws ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment