It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
but the fact is the percentage of 'radical' Muslims is much higher than in the general population and it is easier to assume they are dangerous than to try to figure out their intent
easier to assume they are dangerous than to try to figure out their intent
It's common sense in the animal kingdom. Previous threat dictates future threat until proven otherwise. Lions are ferocious creatures, known to kill. If you walked across an area with lions, you best have your bearings about you due to that threat. And I'm sure someone would say "well not all lions will eat a human", and that would be true.
The regime was characterized by the systematic suppression of political parties and the persecution of dissidents to an extent that was unprecedented in the history of Chile. Over-all, the regime left over 3,000 dead or missing, tortured thousands of prisoners,[1] and forced 200,000 Chileans into exile.[2]
We need to make it illegal to teach hate and murder and opposition to US constitution and laws.
Which other segment of the world's population is going around beheading people and blowing themselves up because of capitalism and NATO?
I say: I am going to avoid all Muslims.
You: Why don't you put them all in a concentration camp or hate all brown people or whatever.
It's BS and you know it.
How am I supposed to tell the difference? Sociopaths are inherently difficult to identify and I don't have the tools or the inclination to determine which of these people is 'good' and which are 'bad'. The main problem I have is I don't NEED to have Muslim people in my life so why should I risk having them around me?
I don't NEED to have Muslim people in my life so why should I risk having them around me?
originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: MysticPearl
Which other segment of the world's population is going around beheading people and blowing themselves up because of capitalism and NATO?
Well the US has no moral qualms in using Depleted Uranium in the Middle East? Your government even shuts its eyes in the poisoning of its people in Flint Michigan.
But that doesnt get as much TV traction as a beheading?
originally posted by: Rocker2013
originally posted by: Power_Semi
But currently all terrorists are muslims.
Factually and blatantly untrue, to the point of being ridiculous.
There are terrorists of all races, religions and creeds. The notion that "all terrorists are Muslim" really displays how ignorant the average Muslim-hater has become.
You claim this is "currently", so how far back are you willing to go?
How about the right-wing extremists burning down migrant shelters in Germany?
How about the southern boy who murdered people in church - based on his political beliefs?
How about the "Christian" Conservative white man who murdered people in a Family Planning clinic - based on his political beliefs?
How about the teenagers who shoot up their school?
How about the white, right-wing Americans taking over Malheur threatening to murder people - based on their political beliefs?
How about the Oregon terrorist who armed himself and threatened Muslim Americans?
You seem to be deliberately picking and choosing who the terrorists are based on their religion. My suggestion is that you stop watching Faux News and start paying attention to reality.
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
originally posted by: Rocker2013
originally posted by: Power_Semi
But currently all terrorists are muslims.
Factually and blatantly untrue, to the point of being ridiculous.
There are terrorists of all races, religions and creeds. The notion that "all terrorists are Muslim" really displays how ignorant the average Muslim-hater has become.
You claim this is "currently", so how far back are you willing to go?
How about the right-wing extremists burning down migrant shelters in Germany?
How about the southern boy who murdered people in church - based on his political beliefs?
How about the "Christian" Conservative white man who murdered people in a Family Planning clinic - based on his political beliefs?
How about the teenagers who shoot up their school?
How about the white, right-wing Americans taking over Malheur threatening to murder people - based on their political beliefs?
How about the Oregon terrorist who armed himself and threatened Muslim Americans?
You seem to be deliberately picking and choosing who the terrorists are based on their religion. My suggestion is that you stop watching Faux News and start paying attention to reality.
After reading this thread I have come to the conclusion that people have been trained to view any act of violence as an act of terror. Terror has been clearly defined for decades, until very recently. Now, thanks to fairly recent legislation, just about anyone who commits an act of violence can be called a terrorist. The kid who shoots up his school is not a terrorist. He is a troubled kid who committed murder. The extremists burning down migrant shelters are not terrorists. They are fighting against the terror that has been visited upon them against their wishes. And so on.
The true definition of terrorism is the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
Terrorism is a very serious threat that needs to be treated as such. Calling every act of violence an act of terrorism only serves to make terrorism more palatable by including acts of lesser severity than would normally be considered as terrorist activities.
Imagine how people would view terrorism if only the most heinous acts were labeled as such. No one in their right mind would tolerate or excuse any act of terrorism in any way, shape or form. But when you start including some guy who gets beat up one too many times and gets revenge on his tormentors, the word terrorism starts to become a bland, white washed version of itself that people can more easily ignore.
The same can be said of hate crimes. If every crime committed by a person against someone of a different race, gender, religion, skin color, sexual orientation, etc, is considered a hate crime, then by far the greater majority of crimes qualify as hate crimes. That doesn't mean they are hate crimes. It means that real hate crimes are going to be overlooked more often as part of the hype and rhetoric of the day.
We do ourselves a great disservice by softening these words and making them easier to swallow.
originally posted by: HAZE3
If the majority of americans dont want certain groups, faiths or races in their country, its the will of the people. If that is truly what they want then they should be able to do it, it is their country.
Doesnt mean its right, or moral, or that it even remotely reflects every view from within.