[quote]fred99 wrote:
To paraphrase the CNN guy, “Let’s do a little math”.
Let’s say Beck is way wrong. It’s not close to 1 in 10. Let’s say it’s only 1 out of 1,000.
That means (using CNN guy’s numbers) there are 1.57 million muslim terrorists? And my mom gets searched at the airport?
[/quote]
Of course she does. We are a politically correct society and it would be wrong to search those who look Arab. Ha ha, PC nonsense bringing us to a new low. If left in full control the left would create a society that they couldn’t even stomach. Look at the damage that they’ve already done and that’s in the face of opposition.
[…] where statistical and reporting black holes exist, it generally means that the answer isn’t the PC one. If there is a noticeable void of information and reporting on an issue. [/quote]
Why do you think this? There are a large number of both “left” and “right” think-tanks and news organizations in the country and around the world.
What “black holes” are you referencing?
Again, thanks for your thoughts. [/quote]
I already pointed out one case that I see repeated ad nauseum by the media.
I mean, Zakaria is a highly educated, highly intelligent, and highly liberal blowhard who can’t find anything of significance to jump on Beck about so he chose this
[/quote]
I couldn’t agree more.[/quote]
Umm, have you watched Fareed Zakaria’s GPS show? He has been called a conservative, a liberal, and a centrist, for a reason. Read the ‘Views’ section of Fareed Zakaria on Wiki.
The man knows shit about foreign policy than any of us could ever know.[/quote]
I have watched his show and read his columns. He is as dishonest as any of these media ghouls.
He picked this fight with a prominent member of the media (who can also be dishonest) in order to bring attention to himself.
The fact still remains that the Muslim world hates us and supports terrorism against the West in significant numbers. Much higher than 1%. Multiple polls confirm this.
Hell, in Afghanistan most people don’t know about 9/11 and the reasons for invading so of course they hate our guts.
This cannot be denied by honest people.[/quote]
If you watched his show, I don’t understand how you can say he’s dishonest… he mediates conversations between liberals and conservatives often, much like Meet the Press. It’s a show that generally provides facts, not his opinion [he often gives a pretty centrist solution to a problem he presented in the show].
As for many Muslims hating America, yeah you are right. The difference is, they favor the SENTIMENTS of terrorists and the reasons for why they are doing it. But when you ask most Muslims how they feel about terrorists blowing up buildings with no regard for the public… you’d be surprised how many are against it.[/quote]
I say he is dishonest more from his writings than his show. He is like all the others, he presents his slanted view. This case is a perfect example.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Another important point that Zakaria actually made.
If you are generous and assume that for each terror attack there are 100 supporters and enablers, you still only get 1,100,000 terrorists in the world.
The polls that Beck’s producer sighted were in relation to people supporting the acts of terrorists… as an opinion. They do not give any evidence to what percentage of the Muslim world actively supports terrorism in the manner of materials, money, etc…
…
[/quote]
I think Zakaria’s phony numbers are per year SO tha adds up. Giving money to Hamas = supporting terrorism.
Giving money to many, many Islamic charities = supporting terrorism. It is deeply ingrained. We need to expose it, not cover it up.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I don’t often follow polls, so I’m surprised to see some people here saying that there are “multiple polls” that show that what Zakaria said was incorrect. If you have access, could you please post the polls/polling information? I would much like to see it. Thank you in advance. [/quote]
This^
So far, the only player in this thing with useable statistics is Zakaria.
[/quote]
The poll is linked here and I think someone else posted it already.
This makes Zakaria look bad because he took the time to try to deconstruct an off the cuff comment by Beck and he couldn’t even do that right.
I am not sure how this is even debatable.
[/quote]
Sorry Big, I don’t know how I missed this earlier. I had clicked on the link but was turned off by the “negative” tone and didn’t get to the bottom of it. If I’m understanding this line of reasoning, you are agreeing that those who are called “terrorists” are those who have positive feelings towards terrorist acts. Is this right? If that is the case, then I agree, there isn’t much of an argument there.
Given a more restrictive definition of terrorism, would you agree the number is much smaller than Beck claimed?
If so, then I guess we’re down to a question of semantics. Thanks for your post and your thoughts. [/quote]
If we change the definition of the word to only the people to strap bombs to their chests, then yes less than 10% of Muslims have done this.
If we use real polling and the correct definition of the word Beck is correct. This is not playing semantics.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Another important point that Zakaria actually made.
If you are generous and assume that for each terror attack there are 100 supporters and enablers, you still only get 1,100,000 terrorists in the world.
The polls that Beck’s producer sighted were in relation to people supporting the acts of terrorists… as an opinion. They do not give any evidence to what percentage of the Muslim world actively supports terrorism in the manner of materials, money, etc…
…
[/quote]
I think Zakaria’s phony numbers are per year SO tha adds up. Giving money to Hamas = supporting terrorism.
Giving money to many, many Islamic charities = supporting terrorism. It is deeply ingrained. We need to expose it, not cover it up.[/quote]
Giving money to the Contras = supporting terrorism, traininmg and funding the PKK = supporting terrorism, giving money to the IRA = supporting terrorism.
Mmmmhh, seems to me there are terrorist EVERYWHERE!!!
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I don’t often follow polls, so I’m surprised to see some people here saying that there are “multiple polls” that show that what Zakaria said was incorrect. If you have access, could you please post the polls/polling information? I would much like to see it. Thank you in advance. [/quote]
This^
So far, the only player in this thing with useable statistics is Zakaria.
[/quote]
The poll is linked here and I think someone else posted it already.
This makes Zakaria look bad because he took the time to try to deconstruct an off the cuff comment by Beck and he couldn’t even do that right.
I am not sure how this is even debatable.
[/quote]
Sorry Big, I don’t know how I missed this earlier. I had clicked on the link but was turned off by the “negative” tone and didn’t get to the bottom of it. If I’m understanding this line of reasoning, you are agreeing that those who are called “terrorists” are those who have positive feelings towards terrorist acts. Is this right? If that is the case, then I agree, there isn’t much of an argument there.
Given a more restrictive definition of terrorism, would you agree the number is much smaller than Beck claimed?
If so, then I guess we’re down to a question of semantics. Thanks for your post and your thoughts. [/quote]
If we change the definition of the word to only the people to strap bombs to their chests, then yes less than 10% of Muslims have done this.
If we use real polling and the correct definition of the word Beck is correct. This is not playing semantics.[/quote]
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I don’t often follow polls, so I’m surprised to see some people here saying that there are “multiple polls” that show that what Zakaria said was incorrect. If you have access, could you please post the polls/polling information? I would much like to see it. Thank you in advance. [/quote]
This^
So far, the only player in this thing with useable statistics is Zakaria.
[/quote]
The poll is linked here and I think someone else posted it already.
This makes Zakaria look bad because he took the time to try to deconstruct an off the cuff comment by Beck and he couldn’t even do that right.
I am not sure how this is even debatable.
[/quote]
Sorry Big, I don’t know how I missed this earlier. I had clicked on the link but was turned off by the “negative” tone and didn’t get to the bottom of it. If I’m understanding this line of reasoning, you are agreeing that those who are called “terrorists” are those who have positive feelings towards terrorist acts. Is this right? If that is the case, then I agree, there isn’t much of an argument there.
Given a more restrictive definition of terrorism, would you agree the number is much smaller than Beck claimed?
If so, then I guess we’re down to a question of semantics. Thanks for your post and your thoughts. [/quote]
If we change the definition of the word to only the people to strap bombs to their chests, then yes less than 10% of Muslims have done this.
If we use real polling and the correct definition of the word Beck is correct. This is not playing semantics.[/quote]
No, just hypocrisy.
[/quote]
Although I can already guess at the twisted logic and reasoning you will use I am going to ask anyways. How did you come to a conclusion of hypocrisy?
The poll is linked here and I think someone else posted it already.
This makes Zakaria look bad because he took the time to try to deconstruct an off the cuff comment by Beck and he couldn’t even do that right.
I am not sure how this is even debatable.
[/quote]
Sorry Big, I don’t know how I missed this earlier. I had clicked on the link but was turned off by the “negative” tone and didn’t get to the bottom of it. If I’m understanding this line of reasoning, you are agreeing that those who are called “terrorists” are those who have positive feelings towards terrorist acts. Is this right? If that is the case, then I agree, there isn’t much of an argument there.
Given a more restrictive definition of terrorism, would you agree the number is much smaller than Beck claimed?
If so, then I guess we’re down to a question of semantics. Thanks for your post and your thoughts. [/quote]
If we change the definition of the word to only the people to strap bombs to their chests, then yes less than 10% of Muslims have done this.
If we use real polling and the correct definition of the word Beck is correct. This is not playing semantics.[/quote]
[quote] BB also said:
Giving money to many, many Islamic charities = supporting terrorism.[/quote]
I guess, to my mind, using “advocates” in the way Beck is, is playing semantics. This is particularity true given your increasingly broad definition of the term. Do you really believe that giving money to “many, many” charities makes one a terrorist?
That being said, it doesn’t sound like we’re disagreeing on numbers. We seem to be disagreeing on what defines a “terrorist.” If that’s the case, I think we have a semantic issue. If you disagree, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
[quote]fred99 wrote:
To paraphrase the CNN guy, “Let’s do a little math”.
Let’s say Beck is way wrong. It’s not close to 1 in 10. Let’s say it’s only 1 out of 1,000.
That means (using CNN guy’s numbers) there are 1.57 million muslim terrorists? And my mom gets searched at the airport?
[/quote]
Of course she does. We are a politically correct society and it would be wrong to search those who look Arab. Ha ha, PC nonsense bringing us to a new low. If left in full control the left would create a society that they couldn’t even stomach. Look at the damage that they’ve already done and that’s in the face of opposition. [/quote]
It’s just so PC to subject everyone to the same treatment rather than profiling Arabs. I wonder how well profiling Arabs could prevent someone like Theodore Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Eric Robert Rudolph, Bruce Edward Ivins, or Andrew Joseph Stack III from committing an act of terrorism.
[quote]fred99 wrote:
To paraphrase the CNN guy, “Let’s do a little math”.
Let’s say Beck is way wrong. It’s not close to 1 in 10. Let’s say it’s only 1 out of 1,000.
That means (using CNN guy’s numbers) there are 1.57 million muslim terrorists? And my mom gets searched at the airport?
[/quote]
Of course she does. We are a politically correct society and it would be wrong to search those who look Arab. Ha ha, PC nonsense bringing us to a new low. If left in full control the left would create a society that they couldn’t even stomach. Look at the damage that they’ve already done and that’s in the face of opposition. [/quote]
It’s just so PC to subject everyone to the same treatment rather than profiling Arabs. I wonder how well profiling Arabs could prevent someone like Theodore Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Eric Robert Rudolph, Bruce Edward Ivins, or Andrew Joseph Stack III from committing an act of terrorism.
[/quote]
Use your head for something other than a punching bag - We’re at war with muslim terrorists. Now are they blonde haired and blue eyed?
[quote]fred99 wrote:
To paraphrase the CNN guy, “Let’s do a little math”.
Let’s say Beck is way wrong. It’s not close to 1 in 10. Let’s say it’s only 1 out of 1,000.
That means (using CNN guy’s numbers) there are 1.57 million muslim terrorists? And my mom gets searched at the airport?
[/quote]
Of course she does. We are a politically correct society and it would be wrong to search those who look Arab. Ha ha, PC nonsense bringing us to a new low. If left in full control the left would create a society that they couldn’t even stomach. Look at the damage that they’ve already done and that’s in the face of opposition. [/quote]
It’s just so PC to subject everyone to the same treatment rather than profiling Arabs. I wonder how well profiling Arabs could prevent someone like Theodore Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Eric Robert Rudolph, Bruce Edward Ivins, or Andrew Joseph Stack III from committing an act of terrorism.
[/quote]
Use your head for something other than a punching bag - We’re at war with muslim terrorists. Now are they blonde haired and blue eyed?
DUHHHHH!!
[/quote]
That’s just quintessentially retarded. A white male is just as capable of killing innocent Americans as a Muslim, why single one group out? Prior to 9/11 the most destructive act of terrorism on American soil was perpetrated by white males.
Why are you a terrorist, ZEB? Why are you trying to bring our guard down an open us up for attacks? Everyone is the enemy. You’re just an America hater!
[quote]fred99 wrote:
To paraphrase the CNN guy, “Let’s do a little math”.
Let’s say Beck is way wrong. It’s not close to 1 in 10. Let’s say it’s only 1 out of 1,000.
That means (using CNN guy’s numbers) there are 1.57 million muslim terrorists? And my mom gets searched at the airport?
[/quote]
Of course she does. We are a politically correct society and it would be wrong to search those who look Arab. Ha ha, PC nonsense bringing us to a new low. If left in full control the left would create a society that they couldn’t even stomach. Look at the damage that they’ve already done and that’s in the face of opposition. [/quote]
It’s just so PC to subject everyone to the same treatment rather than profiling Arabs. I wonder how well profiling Arabs could prevent someone like Theodore Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Eric Robert Rudolph, Bruce Edward Ivins, or Andrew Joseph Stack III from committing an act of terrorism.
[/quote]
Use your head for something other than a punching bag - We’re at war with muslim terrorists. Now are they blonde haired and blue eyed?
DUHHHHH!!
[/quote]
That’s just quintessentially retarded. A white male is just as capable of killing innocent Americans as a Muslim, why single one group out?
[/quote]
Gee, I dunno why did we single out Germans and Japanese during WWII? Need time to think?
And prior to WWII I don’t believe that the Japanese ever harmed us. So, I guess you’re just never going to make sense are you?
That makes about as much sense as a homosexual claiming that another person is a latent homosexual because he argues against gay marriage. By the way that’s also out of the PC play book. (pats head) You’re a good little PC boy now run along.
[quote]fred99 wrote:
To paraphrase the CNN guy, “Let’s do a little math”.
Let’s say Beck is way wrong. It’s not close to 1 in 10. Let’s say it’s only 1 out of 1,000.
That means (using CNN guy’s numbers) there are 1.57 million muslim terrorists? And my mom gets searched at the airport?
[/quote]
Of course she does. We are a politically correct society and it would be wrong to search those who look Arab. Ha ha, PC nonsense bringing us to a new low. If left in full control the left would create a society that they couldn’t even stomach. Look at the damage that they’ve already done and that’s in the face of opposition. [/quote]
It’s just so PC to subject everyone to the same treatment rather than profiling Arabs. I wonder how well profiling Arabs could prevent someone like Theodore Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Eric Robert Rudolph, Bruce Edward Ivins, or Andrew Joseph Stack III from committing an act of terrorism.
[/quote]
Use your head for something other than a punching bag - We’re at war with muslim terrorists. Now are they blonde haired and blue eyed?
DUHHHHH!!
[/quote]
That’s just quintessentially retarded. A white male is just as capable of killing innocent Americans as a Muslim, why single one group out?
[/quote]
Gee, I dunno why did we single out Germans and Japanese during WWII? Need time to think?
And prior to WWII I don’t believe that the Japanese ever harmed us. So, I guess you’re just never going to make sense are you?
That makes about as much sense as a homosexual claiming that another person is a latent homosexual because he argues against gay marriage. By the way that’s also out of the PC play book. (pats head) You’re a good little PC boy now run along.
[/quote]
Because they were enemies. However, anyone can be an enemy of the state. It’d make no sense to have high standards for some then none for others, the system would eventually be exploited. Any person is capable of a terrorist attack against this country, not just Muslims. It’s nothing to do with being PC and everything to do with preventative measures.
I made no sense? Terrorist attacks aren’t exclusive to one group, acting as if they’re is ineffective. What sense would it make to have lax searches for a group of people that have already committed terrorist attacks against America?
You’re the one trying to give preferential treatment to a group of people already guilty of destroying countless buildings & killing or injuring numerous people, I’m calling for everyone to be held to the same standard.
However, anyone can be an enemy of the state.[/quote]
True, but militant Muslims are so why not use profiling techniques like Israel does? Does that make too much sense for the PC? Yeah, I guess it does.
No one said have “none” for others. But absolutely have a better look at Muslims.
Wrong it has everything to do with PC and nothing to do with better measures. Patting down a 21 year old Blonde woman from California only serves to titillate a TSA guard and nothing more. She’s not going to blow up the plane the Muslim behind here however, well he just might. Remember what we did to all Japanese at the beginning of WWII? Do you? We did that because we were at war with their people. The Danish could have harmed us then but we didn’t bother with them did we? I’m not saying we should go that far but at least profiling Muslims certainly makes sense.
Why don’t you ask Israeli airport security why they do it this way? And call me crazy but I think they know a little more about airport security than the PC in this country.
That’s because you are a PC liberal. You can’t help yourself. Just like Rush Limbaugh once said “liberalism is a mental disorder”. And if you don’t think so the next time that you see an 8 year old (non-muslim)child being patted down at an airport you have people like yourself to blame. The PC police are on the job and America is worse off.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I don’t often follow polls, so I’m surprised to see some people here saying that there are “multiple polls” that show that what Zakaria said was incorrect. If you have access, could you please post the polls/polling information? I would much like to see it. Thank you in advance. [/quote]
This^
So far, the only player in this thing with useable statistics is Zakaria.
[/quote]
The poll is linked here and I think someone else posted it already.
This makes Zakaria look bad because he took the time to try to deconstruct an off the cuff comment by Beck and he couldn’t even do that right.
I am not sure how this is even debatable.
[/quote]
Sorry Big, I don’t know how I missed this earlier. I had clicked on the link but was turned off by the “negative” tone and didn’t get to the bottom of it. If I’m understanding this line of reasoning, you are agreeing that those who are called “terrorists” are those who have positive feelings towards terrorist acts. Is this right? If that is the case, then I agree, there isn’t much of an argument there.
Given a more restrictive definition of terrorism, would you agree the number is much smaller than Beck claimed?
If so, then I guess we’re down to a question of semantics. Thanks for your post and your thoughts. [/quote]
If we change the definition of the word to only the people to strap bombs to their chests, then yes less than 10% of Muslims have done this.
If we use real polling and the correct definition of the word Beck is correct. This is not playing semantics.[/quote]
No, just hypocrisy.
[/quote]
Although I can already guess at the twisted logic and reasoning you will use I am going to ask anyways. How did you come to a conclusion of hypocrisy? [/quote]
In that the US has sponsored terrorists and a lot of these cases are out in teh open.
So the US is a terror sponsoring state.
Also, a lot of US citizens have sponsored terrorists and nobody gave a shit.
So if we use aqs broad a definition as Beck does and apply it to the US the numbers would probably be the same.
If we include “shock and awe”, a tactic that after all is designed to illicit an emotional reaction to achieve political goals, much, much higher.
However, anyone can be an enemy of the state.[/quote]
True, but militant Muslims are so why not use profiling techniques like Israel does? Does that make too much sense for the PC? Yeah, I guess it does.
No one said have “none” for others. But absolutely have a better look at Muslims.
Wrong it has everything to do with PC and nothing to do with better measures. Patting down a 21 year old Blonde woman from California only serves to titillate a TSA guard and nothing more. She’s not going to blow up the plane the Muslim behind here however, well he just might. Remember what we did to all Japanese at the beginning of WWII? Do you? We did that because we were at war with their people. The Danish could have harmed us then but we didn’t bother with them did we? I’m not saying we should go that far but at least profiling Muslims certainly makes sense.
Why don’t you ask Israeli airport security why they do it this way? And call me crazy but I think they know a little more about airport security than the PC in this country.
That’s because you are a PC liberal. You can’t help yourself. Just like Rush Limbaugh once said “liberalism is a mental disorder”. And if you don’t think so the next time that you see an 8 year old (non-muslim)child being patted down at an airport you have people like yourself to blame. The PC police are on the job and America is worse off.
[/quote]
It’s not that it makes too much sense, it doesn’t make any sense. A militant Muslim can kill you just as well as anyone else in this country, not imposing strict standards on everyone would make the safety procedures ineffective. In fact, two white men perpetrated one of the deadliest attacks in American history.
Why have a better look at Muslims when you can impose strict searches on everyone?
The blonde woman from California is equally capable of committing a terrorist act and should be treated as such.
America isn’t Israel. However, I’m willing to bet Israel would be wary of anyone who’s committed acts of terrorism against them whether they be Arab, Asian, Anglo, or a resident of Israel. All are equally capable of murdering, injuring, and property damage.
I’m sure Limbaugh has said many things while being in some prescription pain pill induced stupor. However, someone could be trying to use that eight year old non-Muslim child to transport illegal items on a plane. And since deadly terrorist attacks have already been committed by more than one group in this country, why a double standard? Everyone should be searched thoroughly.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I don’t often follow polls, so I’m surprised to see some people here saying that there are “multiple polls” that show that what Zakaria said was incorrect. If you have access, could you please post the polls/polling information? I would much like to see it. Thank you in advance. [/quote]
This^
So far, the only player in this thing with useable statistics is Zakaria.
[/quote]
The poll is linked here and I think someone else posted it already.
This makes Zakaria look bad because he took the time to try to deconstruct an off the cuff comment by Beck and he couldn’t even do that right.
I am not sure how this is even debatable.
[/quote]
Sorry Big, I don’t know how I missed this earlier. I had clicked on the link but was turned off by the “negative” tone and didn’t get to the bottom of it. If I’m understanding this line of reasoning, you are agreeing that those who are called “terrorists” are those who have positive feelings towards terrorist acts. Is this right? If that is the case, then I agree, there isn’t much of an argument there.
Given a more restrictive definition of terrorism, would you agree the number is much smaller than Beck claimed?
If so, then I guess we’re down to a question of semantics. Thanks for your post and your thoughts. [/quote]
If we change the definition of the word to only the people to strap bombs to their chests, then yes less than 10% of Muslims have done this.
If we use real polling and the correct definition of the word Beck is correct. This is not playing semantics.[/quote]
No, just hypocrisy.
[/quote]
Although I can already guess at the twisted logic and reasoning you will use I am going to ask anyways. How did you come to a conclusion of hypocrisy? [/quote]
In that the US has sponsored terrorists and a lot of these cases are out in teh open.
So the US is a terror sponsoring state.
Also, a lot of US citizens have sponsored terrorists and nobody gave a shit.
So if we use aqs broad a definition as Beck does and apply it to the US the numbers would probably be the same.
If we include “shock and awe”, a tactic that after all is designed to illicit an emotional reaction to achieve political goals, much, much higher.
[/quote]
The US isn’t perfect but there is not the kind of support for violence here that exists in the muslim world.
Probably the worst case of US supported terrorism, was Irish American support for the IRA. There are only about 40 million Irish Americans. Hardly the same numbers as muslims. Plus the IRA did have a habit of calling in a bomb threat before there was an explosion so people could be cleared out of the area.
I knew you would try to throw the Iraq war into this. The Iraqi’s and the rest of the world are much better off with Saddam and his sons dead. There is no way that they could have done it themselves without much more bloodshed and a worse result. So quit whining like a little bitch.
Beck’s definition is not broad and his estimate is way low if statistical surveys are to be believed. In Britain, Civitas conducted a survey of British, muslim, college students, that found over 30 percent of them felt that acts of violence committed in the name of religion were acceptable.
Islam is a threat to everyone yet all that stupid Europeans like you can think to do is play these stupid blame America for everything games. It wasn’t Americans who set a bomb off in Stockholm last week. All your liberal theories of it’s all because of evil, imperialistic, America, fail to explain that one.
It’s not that it makes too much sense, it doesn’t make any sense. A militant Muslim can kill you just as well as anyone else in this country, not imposing strict standards on everyone would make the safety procedures ineffective.[/quote]
But we are at war with muslim terrorists and they do look differently. So, let’s begin this entire security program by stopping them first! Not last, not in between and certainly not at the same rate as an 8 year old child.
And John Dillinger was public enemy number 1 in the early 40’s and he was white. Big deal! We had every Japanese person on American soil either locked up or being watched. We may have gone too far back then, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t go far enough today.
Why spend time watching the three teens that come into the local grocery store and are known to steal when we can watch the 65 year old lady who comes in once a week to buy her groceries and has a stellar reputation? And why put millions of Americans through unlawful pat downs and possibly dangerous x-ray machines when they’re are NOT the enemy?
Anyone is “capable” but who is most likely to do such a heinous crime? And who are we at war with? As soon as a brain is exposed to pc thinking something very wrong happens to it. Something very, very wrong.
Then why does Israel profile? I’ll tell you why. They’ve been living in the middle of a war zone for 60 years and understand who their enemy is. I pray America will not lose even one more person to terrorism, but I fear if we don’t smarten up it may happen again.
Good PC boy…good boy you read your lines nicely. Hold Limbaugh’s former addictions against him, but don’t say a bad word about any of the lefty’s who have had problems. Just keep in mind that they were brave enough to go public and give them a free pass - Right out of the left’s PC play book. You’re getting too predictable.
Why don’t you document the amount of times an 8 year old non-muslim child was used to perpetrate such an act? Rush was right liberalism is truly a mental disorder. Do you even read these things before you post them? LOL–Anyway I’m waiting name every case an 8 year old non-muslim child was used for terror in the US.
Because we are AT WAR WITH MUSLIM TERRORISTS. Therefore, anyone with a modicum of sense (which excludes every pc liberal in the country) knows that you look first and hardest at your known enemy.
Let me try to put it on terms you can understand. If you heard that there were a group of motorcyclists terrorizing neighborhoods in your area, and then that night you heard loud rumbling motorcycles driving past your house slowly do you think you might get just a little nervous? Maybe call the police? Maybe grab your gun (oh that’s right pc liberals don’t like guns are you an exception?). Or at the very least lock your door? Would you act the same if two vans and a car passed your house?
Is there no common sense left on your side? I certainly can’t tell by most of the threads on T-Nation lately.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I don’t often follow polls, so I’m surprised to see some people here saying that there are “multiple polls” that show that what Zakaria said was incorrect. If you have access, could you please post the polls/polling information? I would much like to see it. Thank you in advance. [/quote]
This^
So far, the only player in this thing with useable statistics is Zakaria.
[/quote]
The poll is linked here and I think someone else posted it already.
This makes Zakaria look bad because he took the time to try to deconstruct an off the cuff comment by Beck and he couldn’t even do that right.
I am not sure how this is even debatable.
[/quote]
Sorry Big, I don’t know how I missed this earlier. I had clicked on the link but was turned off by the “negative” tone and didn’t get to the bottom of it. If I’m understanding this line of reasoning, you are agreeing that those who are called “terrorists” are those who have positive feelings towards terrorist acts. Is this right? If that is the case, then I agree, there isn’t much of an argument there.
Given a more restrictive definition of terrorism, would you agree the number is much smaller than Beck claimed?
If so, then I guess we’re down to a question of semantics. Thanks for your post and your thoughts. [/quote]
If we change the definition of the word to only the people to strap bombs to their chests, then yes less than 10% of Muslims have done this.
If we use real polling and the correct definition of the word Beck is correct. This is not playing semantics.[/quote]
No, just hypocrisy.
[/quote]
Although I can already guess at the twisted logic and reasoning you will use I am going to ask anyways. How did you come to a conclusion of hypocrisy? [/quote]
In that the US has sponsored terrorists and a lot of these cases are out in teh open.
So the US is a terror sponsoring state.
Also, a lot of US citizens have sponsored terrorists and nobody gave a shit.
So if we use aqs broad a definition as Beck does and apply it to the US the numbers would probably be the same.
If we include “shock and awe”, a tactic that after all is designed to illicit an emotional reaction to achieve political goals, much, much higher.
[/quote]
The US isn’t perfect but there is not the kind of support for violence here that exists in the muslim world.
Probably the worst case of US supported terrorism, was Irish American support for the IRA. There are only about 40 million Irish Americans. Hardly the same numbers as muslims. Plus the IRA did have a habit of calling in a bomb threat before there was an explosion so people could be cleared out of the area.
I knew you would try to throw the Iraq war into this. The Iraqi’s and the rest of the world are much better off with Saddam and his sons dead. There is no way that they could have done it themselves without much more bloodshed and a worse result. So quit whining like a little bitch.
Beck’s definition is not broad and his estimate is way low if statistical surveys are to be believed. In Britain, Civitas conducted a survey of British, muslim, college students, that found over 30 percent of them felt that acts of violence committed in the name of religion were acceptable.
Islam is a threat to everyone yet all that stupid Europeans like you can think to do is play these stupid blame America for everything games. It wasn’t Americans who set a bomb off in Stockholm last week. All your liberal theories of it’s all because of evil, imperialistic, America, fail to explain that one. [/quote]
No, America just set off a lot of bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What you perceive as the bigger threat depends entirely on where you live.
And no, the Irish were ot the only ones.
If they were however, I think they would be at least as legitimate a threat as Muslim Americans, yet nobody went apeshit because of them.