The Social Taboo of Criticizing Radical Islam

reply to post by dbates


The thing is I can offer as a (_________ fill in the blank) a criticism of Islam, or any other religion, as an outsider only. Really it is only those who are either fully involved from the inside, or those who have been and stepped out, who can fully understand the mind frame, the spirituality, the social and cultural context that any radicalism comes from.

Political parties are not the same as they cross social, racial and religious barriers. The same is true of businesses.

The thing is if you were, say a Christian, would you be happy with an atheist or Muslim or a Jew offering a critique of your faith?

Its the same sort of thing.

[edit on 27-2-2008 by grover]

So, now we have new evidence that an islamic country is using its laws on blasphemy to restrict access to videos critical to its major faith. Amazingly, Pakistan also banned the film 'The Da Vinci code'. So, unlike the UK, their laws apply to more than the single predominate religion.

However, again, we have evidence that muslims and islamic states have a taboo against criticism of islam. I think that's established, but I'm not sure that is the thread's thesis. However, hey, who cares, anything will do.

Youtube consistently remove videos critical of many religions, and indeed have banned numerous users for posting videos critical of religion (there's actually organised groups that flag atheist videos for hate speech). So, the Pakistani state is doing their job for them.

[edit on 27-2-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by tamar.kh85


You'll get no disagreement off me there.

As I have repeatedly stated on ATS, I believe organised religion to be the bane of mankind and is the biggest single restriction on our advancement as a species.
I agree that religion has been the primary causation of the majorty of wars throughout history.

I also agree with you about the affects of some denominations of Christian belief systems on current Western Foreign Policy. (Both Bliar and Bush are "religious" people).

However, I also think that Muslim Fundamentalism is the single, biggest threat to world peace we face at the moment.
I also believe that if we are to address this then it is essential that Muslims themselves accept some sort of collective responsibility for the actions of this small minority and start taking actions against them themselves.
At present it seems that there is some sort of "taboo" within Muslim communities which prevents them from speaking out against these terrorists.
Not all Muslims are terrorists.
Only a small proportion are.
But it is an even smaller proportion who speak out against their activities and beliefs.

Listening to the majority of Muslim responses it always tends to be
"Yes, but you did this first"
or
"But what about this".
There is rarely any attempt to accept any responsibility for the #ing mess we have jointly managed to construct.

Sorry for the rant, but it's about time Muslims accepted and acknowledged the part they have paid in this whole, sorry mess.

reply to post by grover


Wow, I never expected that from you.
That's religious fascism, (or communism, take your pick)

So as an agnostic I am not qualified or should not be allowed to comment on any religion despite the massive impact religions have on society as a whole and despite me reading every major religious work there is and constantly trying to keep abreast of religious beliefs and dogma's.

Hardly denying ignorance, more like re-enforcing ignorance.

Islam has affected each and every individual on this planet, as has Christianity, yet you believe only Muslims should be allowed to critique it or comment on their impression of it and how it affects them personally?

CRITICIZING ISLAM/RADICAL ISLAM: IT JUST ISN'T 'DONE'

WASHINGTON ? Michael Graham, the Washington, D.C., talk-show host suspended for linking Islam and terrorism, has been fired by ABC Radio following weeks of pressure applied by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a group with its own well-documented connections to terrorism.

Graham was the popular mid-morning host on WMAL in the nation's capital until three weeks ago when CAIR demanded he be punished for his on-air statements about Islam. After initially backing the host, WMAL suspended him without pay July 28.

Talk show host fired for linking Islam to terrorism.

Now, some might think this host deserved everything that happened to him. Or that he was wrong in associating Islam with terrorism. But even after being suspended CAIR pushed for his complete termination.

Now notice the connection with CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations). Are they using their pull to to silence critics or those who defame Islam? You decide.

Now this is interesting in itself: The CAIR organization. It is the first to step in to a controversy when criticism of Islam is involved and the first to cry, "Foul! Intolerance!' Some equate the organization with jumping into critical controversies like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton and that they defend their own but turn a blind eye to everyone else. Do they have an agenda to silence the critics of Islam? Are they trying to get us to walk on egg shells and program us to be so scared to say anything against Islam in the fear of being labeled intolerant? Or are they simply fighting for a better America and Muslim sentiments? You decide.

Conyers has also masterminded House Resolution 288, which condemns “religious intolerance” but clearly singles out Islam as needing special protection from such criticism.

Consistent with these origins, CAIR’s former Board Chairman Omar Ahmad told a Muslim audience in 1998: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant…The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.” Although Ahmad now denies saying this, the reporter who witnessed his speech stands by the accuracy of her story. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper has himself said: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

CAIR's Congress

Is anyone familiar with the Flying Imam incidence? If not, click HERE for Wikipedia's An Idiot's Guide to the Flying Imam Controversy. There is now tentative legislation that would make people legally responsible if they report possible terrorist activity if the suspected is found innocent regarding air travel. Some consider this a form domestic terrorism by making citizens too scared to come forward to report suspicious activity. After all, we don't want to be 'profiling' anyone. Hence, it looks like a taboo is being creating within Congress itself. It's 'intolerant' and now we have possible legislation to make it so.

So, are we being programmed to be politically correct in regards to speaking out against Islam? Is it becoming taboo to speak out against Islam or is it already considered intolerant? Why is legislation in the air to prosecute those who report possible terrorist activity regarding air travel?

You decide.

Originally posted by AshleyD
So, are we being programmed to be politically correct in regards to speaking out against Islam? Is it becoming taboo to speak out against Islam or is it already considered intolerant? Why is legislation in the air to prosecute those who report possible terrorist activity regarding air travel?

You decide.

Aye.

We have groups of muslims who are doing their best to stop infidels from criticising their faith and its main aspects. In islamic countries, this is generally written in the laws of the country.

Outside of the faith, the criticism/mockery is everywhere. That's why we have groups of muslims doing their best to stop infidels from criticising their faith.

In fact, this situation also applies somewhat to other faiths, and protection for all faiths has been written in larger human rights legislation. It is not just an islamic thing, it's a religion thing - it is important to hinder criticism as much as possible, and criticism of particular faiths is seen as personal. Thus, the adherents to these faiths get hurt and whinealot when someone mocks their faith and points out its failings.

reply to post by melatonin


If your problem is waning energy then I am having the same problem. I can typically keep up with a topic for a day or to then get burnt out. To be honest, I'm pretty ignorant of the who Wahhabism aspect. The previous comment was put together from only about an hour of reading. Beachcoma sounds like he knows more about it than I do.

reply to post by Beachcoma


Thank you very much for putting all of that together. Your comment was an interesting read and I gave you a star. Will read the material in your links in a moment.

reply to post by tamar.kh85


Thanks for all that but if you read my original thread linked to in your reply it is clear I made the distinction of radical Islam and not Islam as a whole.

reply to post by Freeborn


I always enjoy your comments on threads and cannot help but stop to read your views whenever I spot your avatar. This thread is no different. Even if we don't fully agree, thank you for contributing your thoughts. You offered a very honest and even handed perspective.

reply to post by tamar.kh85


I do not believe 'every' war on the planet has been started by religious radicals although many have. But again, this is not about who did what in terms of atrocities but are we being programed to be silent against them.

reply to post by Sparky63


Hey, Sparky. Just wanted to say many thanks for your thoughts on this thread. You really know your 'stuff' and have been very valuable to this discussion.

reply to post by dbates


Thanks for joining us Dbates. Although I don't expect everyone to agree with us, this has been an interesting lesson in human psychology. It's the proverbial INK BLOT TEST. We're all seeing the same blots but coming up to our own interpretation.

Originally posted by AshleyD
If your problem is waning energy then I am having the same problem. I can typically keep up with a topic for a day or to then get burnt out. To be honest, I'm pretty ignorant of the who Wahhabism aspect. The previous comment was put together from only about an hour of reading. Beachcoma sounds like he knows more about it than I do.

Oh, it's not a general losing interest in this thread, although that is happening now, it was just a case of being a performing class-monkey for 5 hrs straight and reading stuff after 12am.

So I wasn't sure if I was missing something.

Originally posted by melatonin
That's why we have groups of muslims doing their best to stop infidels from criticising their faith.

Thanks again for your thoughts, Mel. It is pretty obvious with CAIR there is a Muslim sponsored organization. Although they seem a little over sensitive, it is understandable if we again use Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson as an example. People have a pattern of protecting 'their own.' Or like with the Jewish Anti Defamation League. But I have to say the actions of the UN and US congress mentioned in this thread are surprising as well. We'll see how it goes.

reply to post by dbates


Are Christians the only ones allowed to critique Christianity?

...Is this your first time into the CiR forum, dbates?

To answer the main question in the OP, the problem is Political Correctness. It just aint savvy to criticize a minority belief, until ofcourse they start blowing up your homes. And even them some people refuse to open up their eyes.

I have seen the exact same approach in different countries where Islam or Christianity are in the minority. Our brothers must be handled with kid gloves, while they kick our collective balls to hell!

You just have to look at the history of the religion, the ideology it is based upon - believe us or die! It IS that simple! That is how the religion is spread like a virus throughout the middle and far east.

And there is no such thing is non-radical Islam, the core premise is radical. You can argue all you want - and sure there are intelligent/rational people of Islamic faith. But who the hell wants a fatwa in their name just for criticizing a religious belief.

So shut up and be PC, or shut and stay alive - depending on your situation!

reply to post by AshleyD


On the Michael Graham story. All he said on his talk radio show was

Islam is a terror organization.

Ok so he wasn't walking on any eggshells was he?

Talk radio is supposed to stir people up. Stimulate heated discussion.

He was taken off the air. But not just taken off air....

It was against the wishes of his supervisors.

I quoted it back in this post

So like the anti defamation league, CAIR has some heavy pull with the

owners of the media. Political pull - not content based editorial pull.

Criticize Islam too hard and lose your show.

So much for free press in America.

Originally posted by AshleyD

There is now tentative legislation that would make people legally responsible if they report possible terrorist activity if the suspected is found innocent regarding air travel. Some consider this a form domestic terrorism by making citizens too scared to come forward to report suspicious activity. After all, we don't want to be 'profiling' anyone. Hence, it looks like a taboo is being creating within Congress itself. It's 'intolerant' and now we have possible legislation to make it so.

So, are we being programmed to be politically correct in regards to speaking out against Islam? Is it becoming taboo to speak out against Islam or is it already considered intolerant? Why is legislation in the air to prosecute those who report possible terrorist activity regarding air travel?

Listen, I understand what you are trying to say, but you say it wrong. Look at how you are criticizing Islam, not the select few insane Islam radicalists.

As far as profiling ... IT IS WRONG and unconstitutional. I have been profiled, and it is not a fun experience to be treated guilty until they find no evidence, because you are an honest citizen.

So, I agree with Congress saying that if you are going to accuse people of terrorism, you better # well be sure it is for the right reasons, not because of skin tone, religion, class, style, or any other discriminatory reason.


Now ... can we really call radical Islam, any different than radical Judaism? An extremist is an extremist.

Look at how anyone that questions the emphasis on Jewish loss of life in the holocaust. They are ridiculed heavily, and some are threatened severely with harm to themselves and family.

Estimates of up to 3 million Soviet prisoners of war were slaughtered alone, not including those killed in combat. Quite a huge number we don't really hear about. Upwards of 1.5 million politicals. More than half million Serbs. So, millions and millions died other than the Jewish, but this is hardly even mentioned in schools and the public. So, it is fine to mention the Jewish loss, but on an even level with other similar losses. It was a sick act, and a sad time for humanity.

The Palestinian/Israeli conflict stems from stealing land from Palestine and giving it to post-WWII Jewish people. This land was lived on and developed by people who were displaced for those fortunate survivors of a horrible war. Palestine committed no atrocity to the Jews during that war, and therefore, Germany should have been the place to create the Jewish state of Israel. I know that is not what the Zionists want, because they want the Holy land they were kicked out of by G-d. Well, G-d also said that it is not up to man to recreate Israel, but only G-d can do this ... so any creation of Israel by man is a false one ... as this Rabbi stated hismelf:

With God’s help I pray to God to put the words of truth in my mouth that I should be able to convey His message to the media that the word can get out to the world, the true words of Judaism, the true representation of Judaism of the Jewish people.

As people know, Judaism is a religion; it is not a political movement. Judaism is the belief in God and Judaism is the following of the Torah, without straying from the words of the Torah one iota. We are the followers of Judaism. We are following the tradition and the laws of the Torah for thousands of years and we refuse to stray from what God has given us; From God’s holy word; we refuse to stray from the Torah; When God sent the Jewish nation into exile 2000 years ago we accepted this lovingly from God and when God told us that we are forbidden to try to return and make our own entity, to form our own state, we accepted God’s decree and we are waiting patiently for the day when ultimately God Himself without any human intervention will end this exilic period and all of the nations of world together will go up and serve God in harmony and peace. This is what we are waiting for and until that day we refuse to go along with this movement called Zionism. We refuse to go along with people who are rebelling against God, people who are misrepresenting God and his Torah.

Zionism, formed 100 years ago is a movement of heretics, people who refuse to accept God’s word, who refuse to put God in the equation of what happens on this world.

Speech by rabbi yisroel d weiss
14 april 2004
washington dc demonstration during visit of arial sharon to president bush


It is socially taboo to question the Zionists. Look how the Iranian president talks about the Zionist regime will eventually dissolve and he is touted as being a psycho and his words twisted to mean he will nuke Israel, which would never happen.

It could be argued that the Jihadists and Zionists are equal on their level of social taboo towards the criticism of their desires and actions.

So, now you have two Abrahamic based religious extremists/radicals who wish to bring upon the end of the world, though they are few, criticism against them is not against the base religion these people have perverted.

Which leaves Christianity to be the only Abrahamic religion allowed to be persecuted, but J-sus said we are suppose to be tested, have faith that our souls are saved, and be pacifists to even our enemies. We are not to judge others, but live our life by example.


Islam, Judaism, Christianity as a whole isn't extremist. Each have people who claim to be of the faith (like 'Jesus Camp' with the 'Kids on Fire Ministry' who meet at 'Devil's Lake', teaching a militant attitude/violence), but are falsely claiming that as an excuse for their evil ways and to push blame off of them and their corrupt followers.

Militant believers, false leaders, and grossly twisted misinterpretation masters are all wrong for their deluded paths.


But, let us not just attack religious nuts, there are plenty of atheist and agnostic that do atrocious acts. They are never singled out as a radical atheist or a agnostic extremist.


The label should purely be, a terrorist who did this. An extremist who did that. A crazed person committed an atrocity. A member of a militant group caused destruction. Leave religion out of it. A nut is a nut regardless of what they believe or don't believe.


Back to profiling ... if you falsely accuse someone of a crime, it is a crime, and falsely accusing someone of a crime as severe as terrorism should be an offense not taken lightly. If you are culturally insensitive enough to think that an African head wrap is a turbine, and see dark skin and call foul ... then that turns our to be a prince of a nation ... who has egg on their face? It isn't walking on eggshells, it is being respectful of other cultures than the ones in your small little world/life.

False Accusations, different topic, same crime

I can safely say that false allegations are much more common than is commonly asserted.

Now, if you see something suspicious, by all means report it, no matter the color of the skin or how they are dressed and groomed. That is a duty to protect yourself and others. If you see distinguished looking white guy in a business suit drop off a briefcase and then leave the area, you would be insane not to notify an authority figure ... but it would be just as insane to call on someone who doesn't fit into your view of reality who otherwise is acting normal.

Learn how people act when they have social anxiety, as not to confuse it with the anxiety of anticipation of some crazy crime. We need to not fear everything and have a bit of courage.

I don't want to be harassed because I have a tan and am Enochlophobic, like Albert Einsein.


This thread criticizes Islam and radical Islam. ATS servers are running, thread is open. Not so taboo here.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
As far as profiling ... IT IS WRONG and unconstitutional. I have been profiled, and it is not a fun experience to be treated guilty until they find no evidence, because you are an honest citizen.

Of course profiling is wrong. I do not believe I implied it was acceptable. But the tentative legislation is a bit different. It looks like you are putting words in my mouth I never said. As much as I hate the term and think it is way overused, that was a strawman tactic by saying I was basically endorsing profiling. Most people will agree profiling is wrong so therefore I must be wrong when that is not remotely what I said.

The legislation arose from the Flying Imam controversy. I'm not even going to pretend to know the truth about the events of that day because I was not there and there are conflicting accounts between the Imams and witnesses at the airport and aboard the flight.

In order to prevent me from having to summarize, read the link I submitted of the incident above. Their behavior would definitely look suspicious to some. It's not a case of, "Oh! There is a Muslim- boot him from the flight!" The captain, copilot, passengers, and gate crew felt uncomfortable from their odd behavior.

Let's say you are a passenger on an airplane and see what looks like a 'dry run.' Well, thanks to this legislation you might be too scared to say anything about it. You realize how hard it would be to prove they were doing was a dry run or preparing for an attack and you certainly don't want to get sued so you sit there quietly in your seat and hope for the best. That is not profiling. That is intimidation.

Some conspiracy theorists believe their behavior was purposely suspicious just so they would get thrown off the plane, be able to cause a big stink, and then sue everyone's pants off, gain media attention, and enact legislation so this 'horrible act of intolerance' never happens again. It gets weirder when some of the involved Imams traced back to one of Osama's centers and the 9/11 attackers. If true, then this is definitely a case of something big going on behind the scenes. However, I'm going to hold my tongue on this one because I truly do not know.

And that is as far as I read into your comment because I immediately take something with a grain of salt once I see my previous words are being twisted to accuse me of saying something I was not. They are trying to make it out to be profiling. As an ex post 9/11 flight attendant, I've probably been frisked more than most because profiling was such a hot issue so they tested everyone as to not single anyone out.

Hello every body this is my first time on this website. I check it a couple of times a day and couldnt resist signing up for this one. What has the Muslim religion done for the world. I am not a christian or muslim or any religion and would like to know a little more about muslims contributions to society.

reply to post by AshleyD


too bad you won't listen when you don't understand what someone is saying. Way to deny ignorance


When you set a precedence for something, it is not used only for the extreme, it is used for all.


Conversation about current events in native tongue is not illegal ... and OBL and the execution of Saddam, a man the U.S. put in power and armed, being sentenced to execution two weeks earlier. Funny that this Arabic speaking passenger said they mentioned killing Saddam, since at that point in time, it hadn't happened for a month yet.

I may tend to request for seat belt extensions myself, though it is because I know in some vehicles, the seat belts feel too constricting and it gives me a feeling of panic. If after I requested them, I found I didn't need them, I would probably lay them on the floor in front of me until I figured the attendant wasn't busy any more with pre-flight duties.

The seating thing is a bit odd, but I will take the CSI Grissom approach and say, instead of telling them to get to their assigned seats, ask them why they feel they need to sit elsewhere. Honey over poo can get you better reactions.

Though it appears the police report shows them sitting appropriately, since even if you book together, you don't always get seats together. I had a friend have to take a different flight on a different day just to get a seat next to their significant other. And what if they took the flight anyway and switched seats with someone, would they have been suspicious? Oh no! A pale girl with tattoos not in the assigned seat!

I have known people to buy one way tickets and not take luggage. This is not a sign of terrorism necessarily. It is something that may not be hugely common, but I wouldn't take any luggage with me, I figure they would just lose it, and it is less hassle getting through the airport by not having to check in bags or look for them afterwards. I do agree though, most people would need some spare clothes, but not everyone is going on a vacation when they travel.

Imams are in charge of prayers. Religious or community leaders.




So, let us play a role reversal. Say a set of Christians are in China. They were flown on a private jet to a morning congregation and some of them brought luggage, some of them didn't because they knew they were going to fly back that evening anyway. So now we have Jim and Tammy Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard, Thomas Weeks and Juanita Bynum flying back to Beijeing. They all believe in the same thing, but they had a big argument at dinner and none of them wish to sit together in a big group. One pair told Tammy she wears too much make up, the other laughed and spilled wine on the jokers best clothes that ruined it and had to be disposed of.

The are talking about lead paint, and how some people have been forced out of their homes for growth of cities and how wrong the Chinese are for it. An English speaking Chinese over hears and calls foul. All six are detained because they are suspiciously not sitting together, have one way tickets, some don't have luggage, and talking trash about things in current events they don't agree with.


It is all perspective.




I am glad you have the courage to do your job. I hope you always remain safe. If you see something suspicious, speak out about it, but don't do it because they have 'towels' on their heads, speak a different language, or otherwise are odd.

Don't you trust your security measures of removing shoes, and screening passengers thoroughly?

Or, are you saying security is lax and that is the real problem?

Do you not trust the passengers to know when something is fishy?




I didn't present a stick man argument, I argued for freedom against people making improper judgments based on stereotypes, aka, profiling.

I support being concerned, paying attention. I also know there is two sides to every story, and, to only take one side and dismiss the other is not fair to anyone.




See you fail to mention this part, which means you are intentionally using a case and selectively omitting items to further your agenda

The Associated Press reported that in late July 2007, "lawmakers in Congress reached a deal on a homeland security bill to include language, crafted in response to the imams case, that would give immunity from lawsuits to people who report suspicious behavior. The bill passed the House and Senate.

Source: Wiki
Wiki's Source, AP article MSNBC site
This is the caption for a video in the above link

MSNBC video

'See something, say something'
July 25: Congress is debating a new security bill to provide legal immunity to travelers who report suspicious behavior.

MSNBC

And the conflicting testimony from the Wiki:

Shahin denied allegation of suspicious behavior[27] and said everyone in the group had round-trip tickets and that he has the documentation to prove it, that he asked for a seatbelt extension because he weighs 290 pounds (130 kg), and that the group conducted their sunset-time prayers in a quiet manner.

The police report shows the imams sitting in seats 1B, 9C, 9D, 21B, 25D and 25E.[28] Regarding the claim that the Imams did not sit in their assigned seats, Omar Shahin stated that only one Imam, Sadeddin, switched seats. Marwan Sadeddin, who is blind and claimed to need assistance, convinced a coach passenger to exchange seats so that he could sit next to Mahmoud Sulaiman[29] on Row 9. Explaining his seats in first class, Omar Shahin said that he is a frequent flyer and had received an Elite Member upgrade to first class. [29]

Of course, a real terrorist I suspect to lie, but, we cannot assume everyone is a terrorist and everyone is lying, or else our country is dead and terrorism already won. If you cannot see that giving up your freedoms, suspecting everyone of being against you is the loss of the ideal of the country, then I am sorry you never understood what the U.S.A. and it rights and freedoms stood for in the first place.



Look, you can try to attack me, but plugging your ears and saying 'nah nah nah' when you don't like or agree doesn't make what they say any less valid, nor does it do you any good in how you show respect for others nor your tolerance of others that don't conform to your ideas. I respect you despite you not wishing to hear me out. I just wish you had more love for all life despite the differences.

reply to post by goblue


If you google "Muslim contributions to society" you will get approx 531,000 links.
There is a wealth of information there.

In fact this link was the first one that popped up,
www.khwarzimic.org...

A Muslim invented Algebra......however my 12 year old doesn't classify that as a contribution...

What are your views and opinions regarding the OP's statement regarding, The Social Taboo of Criticizing Radical Islam"?

Looking forward to your posts.

Radicial wheather your talking about Christianity, Islamic,Jewish or any other are a bunch of NUTS. I have no problem with someone praticing there religion, but extrimest are a different story, Look at the problems in the middle east. All religions get along here in the great melting pot.
As far as political correct who cares.
I'am a red-neck, being political incorrect can be a preatty cool thing.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
too bad you won't listen when you don't understand what someone is saying. Way to deny ignorance

You were putting words into my mouth and twisting my previous comment to imply I approved of profiling. So please forgive me if I did not find the time to write a lengthy reply. But no worries because this will be clarified in just a moment in this reply.

I am glad you have the courage to do your job. I hope you always remain safe. If you see something suspicious, speak out about it, but don't do it because they have 'towels' on their heads, speak a different language, or otherwise are odd.

Emphasis on the 'ex.' I don't work for the airlines anymore due to Hubby's uneasiness but thanks for your concern. That was a sweet thing to say. And, no. I never 'reported' someone just for being Arabic, Muslim, wearing a turban, etc.

Don't you trust your security measures of removing shoes, and screening passengers thoroughly?

Security makes mistakes all the time. When working for the airlines were trained to know that 'security does not stop at the metal detector' and that we were to keep our eyes peeled.

Or, are you saying security is lax and that is the real problem?
Do you not trust the passengers to know when something is fishy?

We're taking this so off topic but I feel like a rude thread hostess if I don't respond so here is how it was when I worked for Continental Airlines before and after 9/11. We were basically told we (the flight attendants) were the 'eyes and ears' of the cabin because the pilots obviously couldn't see what was going on. Immediately after 9/11 (as in possibly the first couple of weeks) the safety announcement at the beginning of the flight was altered from the usual 'seatbelt and tray table' rhetoric to also asking passengers to reporting suspicious activity and if there was a takeover to all work together to stop yes. It gives me goosebumps just to remember those times. Anyways, things eventually fizzled down and my last day with the Airlines was in October 2002. Haven't been back since so I don't know what it is like now.

But anyways, that is what I am saying in regards to your question regarding the passengers knowing when something is fishy. Part of the legislation would make it legal to prosecute the passengers for reporting something that later turned out to be false. Or the flight attendants. Or the Captain. Or the gate agents. Anyone who brought suspicious activity to the attention of security could be prosecuted if their suspicions proved false. After outcry, it looks like they were taking passengers out of the bill and now the lawsuits only pertained to the flight crew but it has been a while since I've read up on it so things might have changed since. My honest opinion? That they continue to ban racial/religious profiling but do not pass a bill where normal citizens can be prosecuted for making a report.

I didn't present a stick man argument, I argued for freedom against people making improper judgments based on stereotypes, aka, profiling.

Honestly, Hon, yes you did. But it's okay. If you misunderstood something allow me to clarify: I do not approve of profiling. But I also do not approve of people being sued for reporting suspicious activity if it is proven false especially with as hard it would be to prove someone's intentions because obviously something never ended up happening.

See you fail to mention this part, which means you are intentionally using a case and selectively omitting items to further your agenda

1) I have no agenda. 2). I find it amusing you accuse me of leaving out information when I specifically said:

"I'm not even going to pretend to know the truth about the events of that day because I was not there and there are conflicting accounts between the Imams and witnesses at the airport and aboard the flight."

"However, I'm going to hold my tongue on this one because I truly do not know."

There are so many conflicting accounts on it. I could find ten links to back up one side and you can find ten links to support another side. That is why this bunny trail is hopeless. We aren't going to know because it is one group's word against another group's word and pundits, the media, commentators, and the likes have been debating both angels since the event occurred. To get a pretty even side, I'd run a Google search to learn about the events and the legislation. Read accounts of both sides. That is what I did and why the entire incident confuses me because I have listened to both parties with an open mind. After doing so, you will get a pretty fair stance on the whole controversy.

Look, you can try to attack me, but plugging your ears and saying 'nah nah nah' when you don't like or agree doesn't make what they say any less valid, nor does it do you any good in how you show respect for others nor your tolerance of others that don't conform to your ideas. I respect you despite you not wishing to hear me out. I just wish you had more love for all life despite the differences.

Not sure where you are getting this from but you have not been attacked. Your arguments have been debated but you as a person have not been criticized. Read the first few pages of this where I insisted on not sinking to personal levels in this thread. I have no intention of sinking to a low level starting with you. You're safe with me.

If you feel you are being attacked, then you might want to go up and reread. I am thoroughly enjoying hearing your perspective now just like I did on your other thread where we met. Claiming I supported profiling irked me but I think that issue has been resolved. You are a very sincere person and and probably put your thoughts together as well. But please do not accuse me of attacking you because 1) I have not done so 2) I refuse to do so. You are open minded, mature, and we are having a good time even if this topic is getting a little tired and we are off topic. We are only at odds with each other because we have a different perspective.

ash, excuse me for not going through the 17 pages of posts or reading the OP, but i just want to throw in my two cents:

"diaper headed savage"
"arab loony toons"
" crazy sand ______s"

and i could go on and on with what i've heard
i've heard it a lot lately and in the past


there is no social taboo against criticizing radical islam
in fact, there isn't even a taboo against criticizing all of islam and all arabs for that acts of islamic terrorists.

you even repeatedly hear the refrain "why aren't moderates saying anything about it?" to justify such ignorance...and when you provide evidence of moderates speaking out, nobody pays attention (look for some of my threads, i have 2-5 threads about instances of moderates speaking out, i don't think any of them went into multiple pages)

[edit on 2/28/08 by madnessinmysoul]