Lets all restrict civil rights for muslims

[zybch]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6729916/

Poll shows U.S. views on Muslim-Americans

ITHACA, N.Y. - Nearly half of all Americans believe the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim-Americans, according to a nationwide poll.

The survey conducted by Cornell University also found that Republicans and people who described themselves as highly religious were more apt to support curtailing Muslims’ civil liberties than Democrats or people who are less religious.

---This is the disturbing bit---

Researchers also found that respondents who watched more television news were more likely to fear terrorist attacks and support limiting the rights of Muslim-Americans.

While researchers said they were not surprised by the overall level of support for curtailing civil liberties, they were startled by the correlation with religion and exposure to television news.

---Nice one Fox---

[mireland]

err I think we ought to be more concerned about the illegal MEXICANS living in this country...:mad:

[krazefinn]

Precisely why the fear in intel community is that they are now recruiting non-stereotypical terrorists in order to thwart such profiling. The fact that 95% of active terrorista are young to middle aged arab/asian males only creates false sense of security when we target that segment, then the women/other ethnicities have free reign.

Not the solution. But what is? In many ways, though the terroristas capitalize on our open free society, we are now constricting the rights and freedoms in that society for the cause of *security*. We are doing their work for them in such actions...and the other side of that coin is, the very openess of our society, and the freedom to pursue individual pursuit of happiness, is a major beef they have with the west- blaming the moral decay on those non-controlled freedoms. But I ask, are not indiscriminate acts like 9/11 indication of an even greater moral decay, actually in their OWN society. I mean causing terror, death and destruction even to their own women ( although who don't account for too many camels in their caste) and children?

No question the very porous borders we have are both a virtue,and a libility for security.

How do we manage the risk, without totally contradicting ourselves and repealing the bill of rights, constitutional freedoms etc for any segment of society? Real conundrum, and the paradox of all millenia...

[zybch]

You found your thesaurus, didn't you :)

[mireland]

Originally posted by krazefinn
Precisely why the fear in intel community is that they are now recruiting non-stereotypical terrorists in order to thwart such profiling. The fact that 95% of active terrorista are young to middle aged arab/asian males only creates false sense of security when we target that segment, then the women/other ethnicities have free reign.

Not the solution. But what is? In many ways, though the terroristas capitalize on our open free society, we are now constricting the rights and freedoms in that society for the cause of *security*. We are doing their work for them in such actions...and the other side of that coin is, the very openess of our society, and the freedom to pursue individual pursuit of happiness, is a major beef they have with the west- blaming the moral decay on those non-controlled freedoms. But I ask, are not indiscriminate acts like 9/11 indication of an even greater moral decay, actually in their OWN society. I mean causing terror, death and destruction even to their own women ( although who don't account for too many camels in their caste) and children?

No question the very porous borders we have are both a virtue,and a libility for security.

How do we manage the risk, without totally contradicting ourselves and repealing the bill of rights, constitutional freedoms etc for any segment of society? Real conundrum, and the paradox of all millenia...


one of these days I'll get about actually reading what you just said...:eek:

[sjd]

Has anyone ever answered a poll truthfully?

[zybch]

If you are inferring that people lied, then I guess the numbers in favour for curtailing civil rights for mulsim people would be significantly higher that the poll recorded.
Nobody likes to think they are a biggot.

[krazefinn]

No thesaurus Z! However I did have bowl of alphabits for breakfast, now have verbal diarrhea....:t

[ukulele]

It's nice to know we have constitutional rights and should defend them as much as possible, but what the poll is referring to is a policy that has been in place since 9/11 in an unofficial way, anyway. How else can you fight an enemy within? When a religious faction turns to using our own commercial airlines against us as a weapon of war and hides behind the cloak of freedom, it is our governments duty and responsibility to curtail civil liberties to protect the country. It worked in World War II and the people just had to put up with it. People who want to whine about the loss of those liberty's and freedoms as a result of their own subversive activities are aiding the enemy and don't deserve those rights in the first place. People from foreign countries who take it upon themselves to instigate dissent, call our leaders criminals, and back bite America at every opportunity are nothing but dogs of hate too, and deserve no liberties in America either. That includes little men of poor in-site and no respect in Australia too.

[zybch]

Okay till the last 2 lines uke. You just don't get it do you.
How do you define dissent? Probably not along the lines of:

People shouldn't completely trust a right wing media, bloated through the active and unrelenting terrorism of their viewers.

Thats what I found interesting about the article, not so much the actual civil rights bit, but the causes of people's opinions regarding the targets of the lowering liberties.
I hope you've not bought into the 'whole world is not safe and is getting more and more dangerous so lets attack all the innocent muslims' message provided to you through the very biased media. I thought you had more brain cells than that.

[ukulele]

hope you've not bought into the 'whole world is not safe and is getting more and more dangerous so lets attack all the innocent muslims' message provided to you through the very biased media.

I don't take foolish chances if I don't have to. Why should the government who is in control of a lot more? The muslims have done nothing to deserve less suspicion. I don't see them disavowing the actions of others in their faith. If red necks were running around killing people, bombing civilians, crashing airplanes into sky scrapers and chopping off innocent peoples heads; I would advocate rounding them up too just because they had a red neck.

[zybch]

Good to see the media hasn't swayed you at all and that you aren't prejudiced against someone because they happen to live in another part of the world than you do.

Seriously, this is exactly the type of thinking that fascist/conservative governments the world over just love their citizens to have. Fear without reason, and gross generalisations.

[ukulele]

Originally posted by zybch
Seriously, this is exactly the type of thinking that fascist/conservative governments the world over just love their citizens to have. Fear without reason, and gross generalisations.

Your thinking is exactly the type that might one day get you head chopped off. :r

[zybch]

You didn't deny my statement, funny.

[j.m@talk]

Originally posted by ukulele
Your thinking is exactly the type that might one day get you head chopped off. :r

Question is ............ Is this a bad thing in this case? :cool:

[ScaryBinary]

Originally posted by ukulele
People who want to whine about the loss of those liberty's and freedoms as a result of their own subversive activities are aiding the enemy and don't deserve those rights in the first place.

...but (and pardon my stereotype here...) some muslim taxi driver in New York isn't responsible for the antics of the 9-11 wacko-extremists. It may not reflect on him too well if he doesn't stand up and say he's against such activities, but he can't be held accountable for them. If that's the case, then every Catholic priest is a molester, and every caucasion is a slave owner, ...etc. Desipite how we feel and react to these things, restricting the liberties of an entire group due to the actions of one isn't a rational act.

That's not to say we shouldn't be keeping our eye on them, though. ;)

Obviously there may be groups of individuals who are indeed sympathetic to the wacko-extremists, and despite the irrationality of restricting an entire group's liberties, it would be stupid for us not to somehow keep tabs on them.

There's hardly a middle ground....if we're too lax, bad people do bad things to us. If we're too strict, we become "Big Bother" and we have no individual freedoms anymore.

[Johnny Fist]

Its a little bit late now for rounding up arabs and putting them in detention centers. Had the government acted closer to 9/11 and began transporting arab americans to detention centers I don't think most people would have disagreed.

If I were president I would have immediately suspended civil liberties, seized full control of Washington and began transporting arabs to the west for internment. A land corridor to Alaska would also have been created with or without Canada's blessing. After a buildup of troops along the Great Lakes a fullscale invasion of Canada would ensure a solid base from which we could invade Europe, then North Africa, and finally Russia. Once these lands have been occupied and its people assimilated into the American Way Of Life, their population and resources could be better served fighting the Chinese Menace. Then, and only then, would the world understand our true responsibilty as The Fortress of Democracy.

HAIL!!!

[ukulele]

Originally posted by zybch
You didn't deny my statement, funny.

There is no point in arguing with a rock either.