The Religion of Peace

[Greg the dogsitter]

mikeylikesit wrote:
I screwed that one up. It was aimed at Screwy Swampy and it came out different. Not to say Greg isn't screwy also -- did I cover enough bases or do I need to grovel further?

The way you did it was a bit more surreal, so I like it better.

[Black Landlord]

MacGurl wrote:
[quote=Black Landlord]
The moral of this thread: Don't piss off mac gurl :-)

Ahh, if I was actually pissed I would have just told Swampy to F-off, but I didn't. Instead I tried to reason with "her", forgetting there is no reasoning with trolls. It takes a lot more than a cranky old troll to get me pissed.
Unfortunately it seems what you've done is driven the obsessive hate-mongering christian jihad underground to the private message trenches. How special on a Sunday morning.

[MacGurl]

Yes, but silly PM's (unlike your's) are so easy to ignore.

[swampy]

Well, this "silly old troll", has reached a point in life where I have time to give back to my community. There is pain and suffering all around and you really don't have to go far to find it. You just have to get off your butt and out from behind your computer and meet your neighbors, talk to people and get involved. I spend about 30 hours a week doing volunteer work. Humane Society, Abused Family Shelter, Karamah, Head Start, Chamber of Commerce, Cancer Society, Habitat for Humanity are some of the organizations that I try to help.

I don't have all the answers to all the problems, but that doesn't mean that my experiences are not valid. It might be selfish on my part, but I can't tell you the joy I get when a child's face lights up when "the light bulb goes on" and they understand a concept. There is elation in hearing that a cancer patient that you have driven 250 miles round trip three days a week for two months for treatments learns they are in remission. There is pride in watching a single mom with three kids receive the keys to her new home and knowing you had some small part in making it possible.

There is also sadness when a dog comes into the Humane Society that has been so abused and broken that it must be put down. There is an ache in my heart for my Doctor friend and his wife. Tears flow freely when a cancer patient succumbs to that terrible disease. There is fear when a client and her children at the Family Abuse Center are being stalked by a vengeful ex husband and he's standing outside with gun. There is real pain when a head start student is critically wounded by a random bullet fired by a drug pusher on the street when a deal went bad.

There's real life out there. Even in my little town of 25,000 people, I've managed to experience these realities because I'm not content to just sit safely behind my computer and discuss theoretical ideology with you.

And so you complain about my opening post in this thread as being "inflammatory". "Frightening! And it is spreading...Great Britain, Canada, Holland, Germany, Spain, France. Sharia law is making headway. We cannot afford to lose the war on terror because this is what the Religion of Peace holds in store if we do."

Why does the term "terrorist" offend you? Radical Islamic Fundamentalists? Jihadis? I give you guys credit for having intelligence enough to know there are good Muslims and there are bad Muslims. I assumed you knew that. I thought that was tacit in any discussion of the War on Terror among intelligent people. Maybe you guys aren't as intelligent as I had assumed if it has to be explained to you. You, on the other hand, seem to assume that I don't know the difference.

The "good Muslims" don't abuse women. The "bad" ones do. If you find that inflamatory, so be it.

Good article here on Terrorist Profiling: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050826b.aspx


"Radical Islam believes that killing Americans -- killing, murdering Westerners -- is fulfilling God's will. When you are fighting that kind of war, you can't be politically correct."..."Critics of racial profiling say that terrorists come in all shades - just look at Timothy McVeigh. But the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of today's terrorist attacks are committed by young Muslim men of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and North African descent."..."“We know that the 19 (9-11) hijackers were Middle-Eastern men between 18 and 23,” Safir remarked. “We know that the people who hit the Cole were the same profile. We know that the people who hit the embassies in Africa were the same profile. So not using what we know--that the probability that a Middle-Eastern male between 18 and 23 is going to be a terrorist--not using that, is folly. And I think we should use it. But it's not racial profiling, it's terrorist profiling.”

[Greg the dogsitter]

swampy wrote: Why does the term "terrorist" offend you? Radical Islamic Fundamentalists? Jihadis? I give you guys credit for having intelligence enough to know there are good Muslims and there are bad Muslims. I assumed you knew that. I thought that was tacit in any discussion of the War on Terror among intelligent people. Maybe you guys aren't as intelligent as I had assumed if it has to be explained to you. You, on the other hand, seem to assume that I don't know the difference.

You don't write as if you know the difference. "We cannot afford to lose the war on terror because this is what the Religion of Peace holds in store if we do" necessarily equates Islam with terrorism.

You should try to stop belittling others.

[Gutenberg]

"So not using what we know--that the probability that a Middle-Eastern male between 18 and 23 is going to be a terrorist--not using that, is folly. And I think we should use it. But it's not racial profiling, it's terrorist profiling.”

Pardon me? You believe this guy? Who says that any Middle Eastern male between the ages of 18 and 23 is likely to be a terrorist? And you don't understand why most of the people on this forum don't want to take you seriously. Un-be-freaking-lievable.

[swampy]

Gutenberg wrote:
"So not using what we know--that the probability that a Middle-Eastern male between 18 and 23 is going to be a terrorist--not using that, is folly. And I think we should use it. But it's not racial profiling, it's terrorist profiling.”

Pardon me? You believe this guy? Who says that any Middle Eastern male between the ages of 18 and 23 is likely to be a terrorist? And you don't understand why most of the people on this forum don't want to take you seriously. Un-be-freaking-lievable.

"The Guy" is the Former New York City Police Commissioner Howard Safir.. Is there some reason I shouldn't believe him? If you had read my link, you would have known who said it.

And if you are going to quote my quote, at least quote it in context.

Here, let me make it easy for you. I'll bold type the parts of the quote you found convenient to leave out.

"We know that the 19 (9-11) hijackers were Middle-Eastern men between 18 and 23,” Safir remarked. “We know that the people who hit the Cole were the same profile. We know that the people who hit the embassies in Africa were the same profile. So not using what we know--that the probability that a Middle-Eastern male between 18 and 23 is going to be a terrorist--not using that, is folly. And I think we should use it. But it's not racial profiling, it's terrorist profiling.”

From which I conclude that if there were a terrorist attack on NYC, it will probably be done by a Middle Eastern male between the ages of 18 and 23 and that to not use this information in profiling probable terroists would be folly.

Based on the full context, that's a wrong conclusion? Why is it "Un-be-freaking-lievable"?

Gutenberg.. you used to make some sense sometimes, but in your desire to vilify my every post, you're going off the deep end. Take a deep breath. Don't let "silly old Swampy" rattle you so much.

[Greg the dogsitter]

Thr quote is wrong because it infers from a very small sample to a very large population, regardless of which racist said it.

[deckeda]

Profiling, be it racist or "terrorist" is a crutch that historically is used by law enforcement unwilling or unable to do their homework. It's an incomplete checklist of characteristics, to be plain. And it's a whole bunch like treating someone as guilty before proven so. The worse part about it, from a crime-solving perspective, is that it's ultimately an inefficient and unreliable means to the solution. It's foolish to take that ex-cop's assessment as "the thing" to look for when gettin' the bad guys.

[swampy]

Wait, you have 100 terrorist, 96 of them fit the profile. So the profile is wrong? You have 10,000 terrorists and 9,235 of them fit the profile. Not valid? You have 13,000,000 terrorist and 12,765,942 fit the profile, The numbers are out of whack?

Here's the deal....

You get on the subway and sit next to a guy who appears to be in his 20's who has a backpack on the floor between his legs, and he's wearing an oversized coat that looks kind of lumpy, he's rather middle eastern looking, he keeps looking at his watch, seems a little nervous and he's carrying a Koran and mumbling something that sounds like "Allahu Akbar".

Are you
A. Getting off at the next stop?
B. Play the odds because you know 'the numbers are wrong'?

Just curious.