Moslems in Minnesota.

[CobrayCommando]

Who died and gave you the right to preferential treatment?

A bunch of Islamic hijackers. And it's a privilege.

More importantly, why does their security work while ours doesn't?

We are the most powerful country in the world, a country of 300 million, they are a miniscule country of 7 million. They recieve massive amounts of military aid, and also conscript most men and women when they turn 18.

They assassinate people they suspect are terrorists. They raze the homes of suicide bombers. They raze buildings housing militants who refuse to exit.

I've been told that they will shoot through hostages and pay the victims family afterwards. They bomb refugee camps where terrorist leaders are hiding.

But hey, I'm sure they don't officially racial profile because it would hurt peoples feelings.

They have exactly two international airports (which handle relatively little traffic compared to some of ours, JFK handles almost 5 times as much traffic as Ben Gurion), and the advantage of a relatively massive and well funded military, whose many counterterrorist branches are extremely professional.

This is not an attack on Israel, but it is an answer to your question, as best as I can provide it as I am not an expert on the matter.

Also they have had quite a few suicide bombings on the ground which are much harder to stop, where we thankfully have not. It may just be a matter of time though.

And I almost forgot - we should single out Japanese folks before they try to board planes or ships. Because the vast majority of those involved in bombing Pearl Harbor were of Japanese descent.

Oh.... wait....

Once again, nonsensical. I could point out all the flaws in this argument, but I'm too lazy for that.

 

[Eghad]

I think the % of muslims who are Arabs is only like 15%. You have European Muslims who are not Arabs. If you only use racial profiling you might miss somebody, best to have a standardized procedure to catch everything. Nobody gets any preferential treatment. Just treat folks politely and do your business.

The guy that got into the country to do the original WTC attack had a decoy ahead of him with a suitcase full of literature that wasnt illegal to own but would raise some eyebrows. However, he got everybodys attention while the other guy slid through like butter on a hot biscuit.

 

[CobrayCommando]

You're assuming that we should be looking out for Moslems in general, which I believe is incorrect.

Now, I could be placing my foot in my mouth here, but it seems that the biggest threats by far to America are not white European Moslems, or even Indonesian Moslems but Arab Moslems.

So, it makes practical sense that if you can't screen everybody, or even the majority, screen the biggest potential threats, which would be people acting suspiciously and people who look like they are Arabs.

I'm not trying to say it is the right thing to do, or even that we should do it, I'm saying its worked before, probably already saved lives at the very least by discouraging random attacks, and it makes practical sense.

 

[DasBoot]

You have European Muslims who are not Arabs

.
As we do here.
But aren't they of middle eastern descent?
Thus exhibiting the expected physical attributes of those from that region.
Of course not ALL moslems are middle eastern.
It just happens that ALL of the terrorists that attacked our country WERE!
And some people don't think they should get just a little bit more attention than nun, or my 85 yr old mother!
Amazing!
I started this post about the behaviour of a sizable number of domestic Moslems and their refusal to not only comply with duties inherent in their jobs, but to CHANGE accepted norms in American society.
Sausage at a buffet for instance.
Or Winnie the Pooh.
They are flexing their muscles.
It's up to us all to see to it that's ALL they do......flex.

 

[rem33]

I started this post about the behavior of a sizable number of domestic Muslims and their refusal to not only comply with duties inherent in their jobs, but to CHANGE accepted norms in American society.
Sausage at a buffet for instance.
Or Winnie the Pooh.
They are flexing their muscles.
It's up to us all to see to it that's ALL they do......flex.

IMHO it is a way to stir up controversy and strife within our free society, as in the twin towers only in the open legally.
They say they want to live here but that our lifestyle and customs should change to fit theirs? I disagree 100%
America is my home I LOVE it leave it alone or take a hike.
Not well said but to the point.

This country was founded on certain principles, it is not perfect but, it has become the greatest society in the history of mankind. Why in the world would we the folks that live here love it, and live it's lifestyle want to make such a radical change as to accept ideals completely foreign to our way of life? Political correctness is not the answer my friends.

We are free if we allow this type of ideals to become prominent we will soon no longer enjoy freedom as we know know it. This is what they want. IMHO.

I am not jumping on Muslims as a whole here but they should respect our country and customs as we should if in their society. In a way what is happening makes as much since as a western guy trying to open a restaurant in Saudi Arabia that sells ham sandwiches with alcohol and the Hooters girls serving? Same idea.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Now, I could be placing my foot in my mouth here, but it seems that the biggest threats by far to America are not white European Moslems, or even Indonesian Moslems but Arab Moslems.

Might I point out Richard Reid? Or Jose Padilla? John Walker Lindh? Or do we think these are the only non-Middle Eastern muslims out there waiting to cause problems?

You can start trying to single out "biggest threats," but then you lose the right to use all that tasty "what if your family was on one of those planes" rhetoric...because as soon as you start focusing only on those from the Middle East it makes it easier for them to use people of other ethnicities. Which means eventually a Jose Padilla will make it through because you were focused on the perfectly law abiding Abdulla Mohammed. So what of the families of the people on that plane?

Also, as far as the cabbies go, it was Minnesota. They were, IIRC, mostly of Somali descent. My opinion on that is the same as my opinion on Christian pharmacists who don't want to dispense birth control; if you can't perform your job under the circumstances that are likely to come up, find another. I can make concessions for physical disabilities (since that's not exactly something they had any choice in)...but I think this is about as nonsensical as a Mormon suing a bar that wouldn't hire him even though he refused to serve liquor.

It just happens that ALL of the terrorists that attacked our country WERE!

On one day. During one successful attack. There have been other (less successful) attempted attacks by non-Middle Eastern Muslims. And note that the Muslims we're talking about in Minnesota aren't even Middle-Eastern...they're African. Apparently Somalia (and other African countries) have large enough Muslim populations that this is an issue...and you think that terrorist groups couldn't scare up a few of them to get around our profiling of Middle Easterners?

 

[gfen]

Where does all this craziness come from? Is this part of the vast left wing conspiracy?!



gfen,

 

[CobrayCommando]

Might I point out Richard Reid? Or Jose Padilla? John Walker Lindh? Or do we think these are the only non-Middle Eastern muslims out there waiting to cause problems?

You can start trying to single out "biggest threats," but then you lose the right to use all that tasty "what if your family was on one of those planes" rhetoric...because as soon as you start focusing only on those from the Middle East it makes it easier for them to use people of other ethnicities. Which means eventually a Jose Padilla will make it through because you were focused on the perfectly law abiding Abdulla Mohammed. So what of the families of the people on that plane?

When did I use the rhetoric you're describing? I'm not even necessarily pro-racial profiling, I'm playing the devil's advocate here. Coincidentally, you ask a rhetorical question at the end of that paragraph.

I never said to ONLY screen Arabs. You can still screen people who look like this:

I will consider you're point on focusing on one specific group though. I think Richard Reid actually made it onto the plane before he was caught lighting matches, trying to dry his shoes out.

 

[JuanCarlos]

When did I use the rhetoric you're describing? I'm not even necessarily pro-racial profiling, I'm playing the devil's advocate here. Coincidentally, you ask a rhetorical question at the end of that paragraph.

You didn't. Others did. Just because you're the one I quoted doesn't mean you're the only one I'm replying to.

I never said to ONLY screen Arabs. You can still screen people who look like this:
*he so crazy*

I suppose that might work. Until Sheik Abdulla Al-Blowuppasomthin' tells his guys to go ahead and shave and get a haircut before killing infidels. Then you've got to worry about Mexicans, Blacks, and disaffected white kids from Marin County.

 

[CobrayCommando]

Are you saying that everyone should be screened, nobody, or completely randomly based on computerised decisions?

Are you against racial profiling because you believe it doesn't work, or because you believe it is wrong, or a combination thereof?

 

[JuanCarlos]

Are you saying that everyone should be screened, nobody, or completely randomly based on computerised decisions?

Everybody or randomly...obviously the latter is more feasible.

Are you against racial profiling because you believe it doesn't work, or because you believe it is wrong, or a combination thereof?

Combination. I think what effectiveness it can provide is outweighed by its "wrongness." I see thousands upon thousands of people being subjected to extra inconvenience (and a dose of humiliation) in the hopes of catching maybe one person. At least if it's actually random we can say we're all suffering right along with them. I also think if there's one thing that will drive even more Muslims to dislike us and either sympathize with (or actually aid) terrorists, it's treating them like second-class citizens.

That, combined with the fact that extremists actually have several races with large Muslim populations (many of whom aren't fond of us) makes me think that racial profiling does more harm than good.

I also find it interesting that the portion of the OP that may have actually let to some sort of mildly interesting discussion (Somali Muslim immigrants in Minneapolis refusing to carry fares carrying alcohol, specifically as it relates to queues at airports where large numbers of people will have stuff from the duty-free), and for which the thread was titled, has instead degenerated into the standard racial profiling argument.

 

[applesanity]

because you believe it doesn't work, or because you believe it is wrong...?

I believe it is wrong. Nobody can deny that it may work, given the general demographic of the average soldier of God sent to kill infidels.

It is wrong because if you allow the government to justify arbitrary treatment over a group of people for what some people of their race/religion/nationality/ethnicity did, you give them too much power. They can start justifying any sort of profiling arbitrarily, instead of using reason and cause.

Today it's the Muslims, so what will it be tomorrow? We can look at history to see what becomes of the practice giving some people special treatment over others.

Not to mention the damage it does to the public perception of the group of people being singled out. Do you think the average guy with olive skin, a beard, and turban enjoys going to the airport? Do you think he enjoys being stared with contempt and fear, everywhere he goes? I know a few Muslim people, personally, who literally got beat up during the weeks after 9/11, simply because they looked the part.

"Good afternoon officer. Even though my name is Alhaji Muhammed bin Hussein, I swear I'm not going to blow anything up. I've had the misfortune of being born an Arab, and my parents decided give me a foreign sounding name. I didn't asked to be named Muhammed. Please treat me with a modicum of respect."

It's not an matter of political correctness. Just some human decency, for God's sake.

Or we can really, really put a final solution to all of those towelheads.... Lynch mob anyone? I didn't think so.

has instead degenerated into the standard racial profiling argument.

As for the original post, I thought the point of America was to make a melting pot. No majority (that has done nothing wrong) has to cater to the whims of a small minority. Go ahead and serve pork. I love bacon. The fact that the people making those dumb demands are Muslim is purely incidental. Everyday, someone wants me to conform to their version of the world. Doesn't mean I have to go ahead and dislike everyone of their kind.

The Catholic missionaries tell me that the Protestant missionaries are going to hell, and vice versa. The Jews tell me I'm not one of the Chosen People. The Muslims tell me I'm an infidel. According to almost every religion, everyone of every other religion is doomed. We're all doomed.

 

[JuanCarlos]

As for the original post, I thought the point of America was to make a melting pot. No majority (that has done nothing wrong) has to cater to the whims of a small minority. Go ahead and serve pork. I love bacon. The fact that the people making those dumb demands are Muslim is purely incidental. Everyday, someone wants me to conform to their version of the world. Doesn't mean I have to go ahead and dislike everyone of their kind.

Melting pot, maybe. I like to think of it more as a stew, where chunks of what was put in still remain. Somebody has a strong religious belief that prevents them from doing something related to their job? I think the proper course of action depends on both A) how "integral" to the job that action is and B) the level of inconvenience presented to the customer/employer.

In my (extreme) example of a Mormon bartender who won't serve alcohol, I think it's clearly an unreasonable request. As for the Somali cabdrivers...well, I've gotten into a couple "spirited" discussions on the issue but I'm still convinced their on the wrong side of the line. As for the clerk at the local Target/Wal-Mart...well, honestly I think people shouting about some great Muslim conspiracy to make them swipe their own bacon across the little scanner need to get over themselves. Personally I think it'd be better if the businesses in question kept the folks in question off the registers, but I don't see how this is really something worth getting riled up over.

 

[applesanity]

Mormon bartender

Now that's funny. Kosher pork? I'll agree though. Pro-lifers don't go seeking employment at Planned Parenthood; deaf people don't try to be traffic cops. On a more reasonable end, if the fare your back seat is carrying a six-pack, just get over it. He didn't ask you to pick up his beer, he didn't ask you if you wanted a cold one. And it's not like he's splashing beer all over you.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Moslem organizations, with full support from Pelosi & Co., seeking decreased airport screening of those that fit the Middle Eastern profile.
Trouble ahead?

Geez, can you say propoganda and thinly disguised hate speech?

How in the world are you connecting Nancy Pelosi, or any other politician, to such unsubstanciated garbage?

 

[JuanCarlos]

Pro-lifers don't go seeking employment at Planned Parenthood; deaf people don't try to be traffic cops. On a more reasonable end, if the fare your back seat is carrying a six-pack, just get over it. He didn't ask you to pick up his beer, he didn't ask you if you wanted a cold one. And it's not like he's splashing beer all over you.

Well, actually supposedly their religions says that transporting alcohol is a sin, and local clerics have stated that this would apply in the case of cabdrivers. So really it doesn't matter if you're drinking it, offering it to them, or spilling it all over the car...they simply aren't supposed to take you if you have it with you. And considering some of the hokey crap that other religions expect their followers to adhere to (including Christians) I'm not really going to judge them for this one.

But again, I think this falls just on the line of what I consider unreasonable. In most metro areas, taxicabs are heavily regulated and an important link in the chain of public transportation. In fact, in Minneapolis specifically I believe that cabs are supposed to take any "orderly" fare, and risk losing their permit if they don't. I think that in the case of taxis the inconvenience to the customer (and the city), as well as how often this issue is likely to come up, suggests that perhaps if they cannot get over this issue then driving a cab isn't their cup of tea.

Having a customer swipe their own pork (or asking another employee to give them a hand) seems like less of an issue to me. From what I read of the couple articles relating to it, it seems like it's nothing new and was only really brought up in the Minneapolis area after the whole taxicab thing.

Geez, can you say propoganda and thinly disguised hate speech?

Yes, yes I can. I especially like the use of "decreased airport screening," as if to suggest they'll be getting screened less than anybody else...when in actuality we're just talking about treating everybody equally. I think Danzig hit the nail on the head with post number 2:

This sounds like the opener for a Muslim bashing thread.

 

[applesanity]

Well, actually supposedly their religions says that transporting alcohol is a sin,

1. Goes back to what I was saying just before that - that cabbie should of chosen another line of work, or,

2. Really? If that's what what they believe in, then that's their faith, and there's no point to challenging someone's faith. OR is it a case of some religious leader stretching meanings, and making subjective, extreme extrapolations?

If I was at the grocery store and the muslim cashier asked me to scan my own bacon, I'd be a bit annoyed, but seriously - whatever. They get enough BS at airports anyway.

 

[mxwelch]

This thread is going to get hateful and spiteful real fast. People are going to say things that they'll regret, or would never say if their words had faces and names attached to them.

Everyone swore that Timothy McVeigh must have been some towelhead out to exterminate us infidels.

My what a bastian of tolerance and sensitivity you are. I suppose it's only wrong if someone else gets "un-PC"

As for racial profiling, I'm willing to admit it works. But that's still no excuse.

Real sound logic there. Let's let some people get killed because we don't want to offend anybody.

It's the freaking government that you're trusting to run your security. You give the government an inch, they'll take everything you own.

You're right. Let's strip them completely of the power to enforce security measures at airports.

The next big terrorist plot may very well be carried out by people of your nationality, religion, and ethnicity. Prepare to be screwed, royally.

Yeah, that happens quite a bit I bet.

Hey, I suppose we should put Muslims/Asians behind fences until the war on terror/Japan is over.

Oh, xenophobia.

Typical, instead of doing what can be done without violating anybody's rights you want nothing done at all or you claim the exact opposite will be carried out to the max.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Everyone swore that Timothy McVeigh must have been some towelhead out to exterminate us infidels.

My what a bastian of tolerance and sensitivity you are. I suppose it's only wrong if someone else gets "un-PC"

Well, in fairness we aren't really talking about political correctness here. His post shows (to me) that this isn't really a PC issue since it's possible to call Muslims dirty names and still think they deserve equal treatment as human beings. Go figure. Suggesting that people get equal treatment isn't political correctness.

Then again, we all know that I just think "political correctness" is nothing more than the complement to "racism" a majority of the time it's used.

Also, looking at the OP again it's pretty obvious it was nothing more than an attempt to stir the anti-Muslim pot. It took me all of 8 seconds to throw "muslim taxi" into Google to verify that it was Minnesota we were talking about. One would think that when coming up with an OP with which to start any worthwhile discussion somebody else could do the same.

Also interesting is that from a little further reading it appears that in this case it's really only Somali Muslims that have a problem carrying passengers with alcohol. Many other Middle-Eastern Muslims don't seem to interpret the scripture the same way. It's almost as though Muslims aren't a single homogenous group who all think, act, and hate us/plot our deaths the same way.

 

[applesanity]

My what a bastian of tolerance and sensitivity you are. I suppose it's only wrong if someone else gets "un-PC"

...And you have totally missed the point.

You're right. Let's strip them completely of the power to enforce security measures at airports.

Yes. Airline companies should be responsible for their own security. Airports are one of very few categories of places that rely on the government to do their own security jobs. I go to a sports game at some arena or stadium, and the security personnel are all private. Additionally, they operate much, much faster, while giving those of us standing in line very few headaches. My bank doesn't rely on the government to move its money. My college doesn't rely on government to keep its campus safe.

I would think that an Airline company has a higher stake is making sure its planes don't get compromised. By letting the TSA take care of this crucial task, they are deferring responsibility. The next time there's a terrorist attack against planes, United Airlines can say, "well it wasn't our job." Put the accountability directly where it should belong. It will become source of competition - if you know one particular airline has a bad track record of security, or that their security is mismanaged, too much of a hassle, and racist, will you board their planes?

Typical, instead of doing what can be done without violating anybody's rights you want nothing done at all or you claim the exact opposite will be carried out to the max.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Any middle ground becomes a liberty versus security debate. But I'm not one for compromising my liberties, or the liberties of fellow Americans for the sake of security.... are you? It is all or nothing. Either nobody gets preferential treatment, or everyone does - in which case, nobody is special. But if you're for treating some americans

like second-class citizens

then I think you need to reevaluate the way you view the world and the people around you.

I suppose it is comforting to know that you won't be harrassed and humuliated at airports. You're not on the receiving end.

His post shows (to me) that this isn't really a PC issue since it's possible to call Muslims dirty names and still think they deserve equal treatment as human beings.

No. I wanted to show, as an extreme case, that as soon as you start to single people out, you're just a few steps away from outright racism.

Suggesting that people get equal treatment isn't political correctness....I just think "political correctness" is nothing more than the complement to "racism"...

Yep.

The problem with racial profiling is not one of political correctness. The problem is that it doesn't treat your fellow human being with some decency. I'm sorry, but in this case, the ends definitely don't justify the means.

Every ethnic, religious, or national group of people has its own set of whackjobs. Some Christian extremist fundamentalists like to blow up abortion clinics. Perhaps we should single out every Christian that boards a plane to a pro-choice state.