When did I say their rights are more important?
You bring in the "all men are created equal" and how racial profiling would be unconstitutional, as if we have done Muslims a great wrong by simply acknowledging the fact that their community churns out anti-American malcontents the way Wal-Mart does lower prices.
Uh... Equal Rights Amendment? Racial profiling
is (as in, factually) unconstitutional. This is basically a mild and masked form of racial segregation. We are segregating the effort for saftey. I actually think your point was a bit weak, you can't really stir up enough racial bias to divert us from the preamble, especially when its foundation so deeply overtones this subject.
When did I say their rights are more important? The point I am trying to get across is that they deserve an equal right to transportation as any Caucasian-Christian American... Hence my exact words, "If you're going to search one group, search them all".
No one is denying them the right to travel.
No, just making it a hassle to access that right.
But like I said, the baby, the grandma, the mother, etc., don't they all have a right to travel safely? Again, I'm tired of essentially putting innocent lives at risk so we don't piss some group of people off, even though that's exactly what's happening.
I've always been in favor of
not pissing someone off when they are holding a weapon... I'm pretty sure that guy doesn't appreciate members of his race being singled out based on variables they have no control over.
And furthermore, taking an airplane is a privilege, not a right. Yes, you pay for your ticket, but if you're a fucking lunatic and airport security stops you, you won't be flying. It's not an entitlement.
It's a right, but like any right, it can be abused. If that right is abused, action must surely be made. But the right to freedom of speech is probably the easiest right to abuse; all you really have to do, in terms of textbook example, is go into a crowded theater and yell "fire!" Now, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the majority of people going into crowded theater's and yelling "fire!" are 12 year old girls who listen to My Chemical Romance. But, is there any sort of crackdown on 13 year old girls? Are we cutting their tongues off? It'd be an over-reaction to do such. And an unjust one, at that.
It's true the majority domestic terrorism is performed by those of Muslim decent.
Foreign AND domestic.
Most certainly. America seems to be getting the most carried away in this racial profiling business. Kind of like we assumed all socialists to be enemies during the bulk of the 20th century, or the Japanese-American's to be tyrannical during WWII, or all Southerner's/Northerner's in the Civil War, all British during the Revolution, and so on. America seems to have a problem in generalizing and type-casting in times of war and distress.
But the percentage of Muslims committing terrorism is rather low, in retrospect. When the majority of those of Muslim decent begin committing terrorism, I'll support your creepy, elitest methods of searching completely based upon race.
Compared to what? Rather low? So what, 3500+ people dead since 2001 is an anomaly, an aberration?
Again. You're confusing "acts of terrorism" with "casualties". And don't give me some sort of bullshit spiel to the likes of "acting on terrorism means creating casualties!" I'm talking acts of terrorism. This entire thread is talking acts of terrorism. Not casualties. Is the United States trying to decrease the number of casualties from say, 5,000 in a given period of time to 3,000 in a given period or time, or are they trying to eliminate the number of acts of terrorism? Casualties are casualties... It'd be preferable to eliminate ALL possible casualties. But we're going straight for the jugular... Eliminate ACTS of terrorism and you eliminate CASUALTIES of terrorism. We're just not going about eliminating terrorism in a very civilized or intelligent manner.
Or, it could be just plain fucking retarded, which I suspect.
It's just as retarded as racially profiling when we've seen court case after court case dealing with civil liberties in regards to race, and we've spent decades working for racial equality, have had to watch some of the greatest activists in the history of time die for these rights (Ghandi, Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcom X, etc, Robert Kennedy, etc.) and so on.
Creepy, elitist? No. Common sense? Yes. Did I say we were giving white people passes, and only searching Muslims? No. So go back, read, and you'll see my "methods" are not "completely based upon race."
Ok, so, we're seperating one racial group from another, and treating them differently in a public facility... How is this not elitest. And it totally is race related. If the majority of terrorists were black, we'd be treating blacks differently. If the majority of terrorists were Native American, we'd be treating Native Americans differently. It's RACIAL PROFILING. PROFILING based on RACE. How is it not RACIAL? The statistics add up, but not all Muslims are terrorists. So, statistics or no statistics, it is most deffinately in relation to race. There is no probable cause to back these searches up other than social generalizations, and these generalizations happen to be based upon race and religion.
"Act" and "casualty" are not synonymous.
So the JFK plot that just was taken down - because nobody died, we should just, you know, ignore it, right? Because, after all, it was only an "act" of terrorism that wasn't executed.
When did I say we should ignore it? I said that there are actually few acts of terrorism per quota, and you retorted by restating the figure of casualties lost on 9/11. This was totally irrelevant. How many acts of terror occurred on that day? If we want to count each plane, four? five? And those all stem from the same plan of action, so we could easily count them as one act, but for your sake, we'll count each plane that crashed. So, four planes or so, roughly 3,500 dead. Those are two different figures relating to two very different things. 34 students died in the Columbine school shooting. There were two shooters, both acting upon the same whacked out "cause". So that's one act. But by your standards, this is like saying there were 34 different shooters, 34 separate acts of school shootings. On September 11, there were a few planes and thousands of casualties. Not thousands of planes. If we had stopped one, or two, or five, or ten terrorists, we would have stopped one act, and saved thousands of lives. But that's still one act. I'm sort of droning, I know, but I just want to make sure we're all clear on the definitions of very basic and casual vocabulary.
The JFK terrorists should be tried (for their crimes, not their race), sentenced to life, and made an example of--even though we'll be complete hypocrite and give them the death sentence. But oh well, such is life.
I wouldn't say that. Hard-working? Alright, maybe most of them, but you're counting the ones that were probably sitting around, procrastinating and neglecting their work when all of a sudden--bam--the local air-transit is stuck over in corporate accounting.
What the fuck are you on about?
Never mind, I'll try not to use clever satire.
