Profiling? -Test Inside-

[C0ma]

gosh you wont understand.
al quaida dont care about muslim or arab or anything.
if you start profiling arab people. they'll use different people they dont care.

this is why palestine started using kids and girls as kamikaze. because 17-40 years male where being search exclusively ...

same thing gonna happen, you gonna search all the black guys, and alquaida will find a way to use that old white woman and blow her bag off ...
but you dont get it. profiling is useless.

How is Bin Laden going to recruit these people?? right now they are being recruited based on their religion..... they are feeding on a misinterpretation of their religion...... so how are they going to get an 89 year old Catholic Woman to blow something up? get a clue before you start telling me that Irish teenage girls are going to hi jack planes in the name of Allah.?

I think the point they're trying to make (again, clarification only..not defending one way or the other) is that it's impossible to look at that 89 year old woman and know she's catholic....just like it's impossible to look at a middle-eastern man and know he's a muslim.

I understand the logic, but how many white 89 yearold Muslim women have bombed planes, trains, or shopping malls lately??

We are being attacked by a specific type of terrorist, and they don't look like one of the Golden Girls, so why search Bea Arthur at an airport looking for terrorist bombers?

If I called ahead to the local shopping mall and told security that i was comming by to abduct a child, and then told them that i was 35-30 years old ?6 feet tall, caucasian, dark hair, and green eyes would they go around following a 5'4" 65 year old asian man... I hope not.

[pilferk]

it is about the preservation of a much higher ideal upon which our country was founded... the ideal of freedom for all people, not just the people who fit within a certain preferred racial and/or religious belief system.

Unfortunately, your net of freedom seems to extend to terrorists as well.? How is searching people who fit the description of terrorist sacrificing any ideals?? I would give up the freedoms of middle eastern men to make my kids safer...any fucking day of the week.? If they don't like it, then they can do something themselves to chnage it.? They can take actions themselves to fix this problem.? Otherwise, they can live with the inconvenience of a few searches.? Damn, smallest price I ever heard of to pay.

You'd sacrifce their freedoms, but would you trully want to sacrifice your own?  See, this is one of the problems I have with the "pro" side of the argument: If you give the government the right to do this, trampling on civil liberties in the process, where does that trampling end?  Sure, today it's middle eastern men, because they're viewed as the violent threat.  10 years from now, once you've set the precedent, it's 30 year old white women who are protesting the government's newliy won right to ban abortion.  I think we all know that government, left or right, tends to use the powers granted to it, either directly or indirectly, to their fullest ability until they are put "in check".  That piece of allowing profiling is one of the things that bothers me.

Though I do agree it can be a useful tool, when used appropriately.

[pilferk]

so here you go.
instead of searching all the middle eastern looking people
we think + analyse + and makes more specific profiles: like people who have records, who are linked to religious groups, we use inteligence systems....

see , we're getting somewhere.

Which is all well and good (and the best way to combat this) but the second we pull 5 "suspected terrorists" out of Logan Airport in Boston the ACLU will be launching frizilous lawsuits against the Airport , the screeners, the government crying for the rights of a terrorist who is probably here illegaly. And their first argument is going to be "profiling" the whole reason I want "racial profiling" to be accepted in this case, is to take away the ACLU's power to intimidate groups like baggage screeners and security personel in airports. How can you do your job when you are looking over your shoulder the whole time.

If Muhammed Atta was pulled off of his plane on 9/11 a disaster would have been averted, but at the same time the ACLU would have launched a campaing that would probably be still going on now in defense of people who illegally over stay student visa's and how they deserver the same or more rights than an American Citizen. That group is the biggest Cancer in this counrty.

Again, a clarification: Atta would not have been pulled off the plane, nor would any of the other 9/11 terrorists, even if they HAD been searched.  They weren't carrying anything that was considered contraband (box cutters, small blades, and pepperspray were not prohibited at that time).  And, even if he had been, with the redundancy (4 on one, 5 on the others), his absence alone probably would not have aborted the mission.

[pilferk]

so here you go.
instead of searching all the middle eastern looking people
we think + analyse + and makes more specific profiles: like people who have records, who are linked to religious groups, we use inteligence systems....

see , we're getting somewhere.

Which is all well and good (and the best way to combat this) but the second we pull 5 "suspected terrorists" out of Logan Airport in Boston the ACLU will be launching frizilous lawsuits against the Airport , the screeners, the government crying for the rights of a terrorist who is probably here illegaly. And their first argument is going to be "profiling" the whole reason I want "racial profiling" to be accepted in this case, is to take away the ACLU's power to intimidate groups like baggage screeners and security personel in airports. How can you do your job when you are looking over your shoulder the whole time.

If Muhammed Atta was pulled off of his plane on 9/11 a disaster would have been averted, but at the same time the ACLU would have launched a campaing that would probably be still going on now in defense of people who illegally over stay student visa's and how they deserver the same or more rights than an American Citizen. That group is the biggest Cancer in this counrty.

back in my prgional arguement about it i said that the only way to do it is to seach everyone.... you waant to keep the ACLU off your back ... SEARCH EVERYONE!!!!! plus you will be making it more secure without infringing on the right of the people........ no discrimination.... you realise that steping to the point of racial profiling is not too too far away from jsut deporting every single imigrant ... then what would the us economy do? no cheap labour... your fucked.....

Let me start by saying I see the logic in what you're saying.  But I recognize the real world inefficiency of what you're proposing.  If you search everyone, especially in the major metro airports, airtraffic will plummet because no one wants to stand for 4 hours in a line that barely moves to go anywhere.  In addition, the airlines (which pay for airport security, indirectly, through airport fees) could never afford the increased cost.  They can barely function with the increased costs and decreased demand, now.

Whatever the solution is, it's not that.  It's too inefficient and too cost INeffective to do.

[pilferk]

gosh you wont understand.
al quaida dont care about muslim or arab or anything.
if you start profiling arab people. they'll use different people they dont care.

this is why palestine started using kids and girls as kamikaze. because 17-40 years male where being search exclusively ...

same thing gonna happen, you gonna search all the black guys, and alquaida will find a way to use that old white woman and blow her bag off ...
but you dont get it. profiling is useless.

How is Bin Laden going to recruit these people?? right now they are being recruited based on their religion..... they are feeding on a misinterpretation of their religion...... so how are they going to get an 89 year old Catholic Woman to blow something up? get a clue before you start telling me that Irish teenage girls are going to hi jack planes in the name of Allah.?

I think the point they're trying to make (again, clarification only..not defending one way or the other) is that it's impossible to look at that 89 year old woman and know she's catholic....just like it's impossible to look at a middle-eastern man and know he's a muslim.

I understand the logic, but how many white 89 yearold Muslim women have bombed planes, trains, or shopping malls lately??

We are being attacked by a specific type of terrorist, and they don't look like one of the Golden Girls, so why search Bea Arthur at an airport looking for terrorist bombers?

If I called ahead to the local shopping mall and told security that i was comming by to abduct a child, and then told them that i was 35-30 years old ?6 feet tall, caucasian, dark hair, and green eyes would they go around following a 5'4" 65 year old asian man... I hope not.

From a % of population basis?? Probably not that many more than muslim extremists have committed terrorist acts in the past year.

Little old ladies who comitted terrorism: 0/110,000,000 (using '02 census info for the US only), or 0%

Muslims who committed terrorist acts in the past year (documented terrorism does not include insurgency in Iraq): approx 50/1,600,000,000 (estimated global muslim population is 1.6 billion) or .000003%.

Not such a big difference, eh?

Now, someone check my math on this please, but I think that computes to a 1 in 333,333 chance that profiling MIGHT find a terrorist (and that's being VERY generous).? That means, on the generous side, you'd need to search 333, 332 "innocent" muslims to find one terrorist.? And I've no idea what % of air travellers are muslim...so I've no idea what that would translate to in "time".? ?To me, that seems a pretty bloody inefficient way to do things....but, by the same token, I can see the benefit of using it as one MORE tool in the arsenal.? And that's why I'm not voicing a hard opinion one way or the other.

[Prometheus]

gosh you wont understand.
al quaida dont care about muslim or arab or anything.
if you start profiling arab people. they'll use different people they dont care.

this is why palestine started using kids and girls as kamikaze. because 17-40 years male where being search exclusively ...

same thing gonna happen, you gonna search all the black guys, and alquaida will find a way to use that old white woman and blow her bag off ...
but you dont get it. profiling is useless.

How is Bin Laden going to recruit these people?? right now they are being recruited based on their religion..... they are feeding on a misinterpretation of their religion...... so how are they going to get an 89 year old Catholic Woman to blow something up? get a clue before you start telling me that Irish teenage girls are going to hi jack planes in the name of Allah. 

I think the point they're trying to make (again, clarification only..not defending one way or the other) is that it's impossible to look at that 89 year old woman and know she's catholic....just like it's impossible to look at a middle-eastern man and know he's a muslim.

I understand the logic, but how many white 89 yearold Muslim women have bombed planes, trains, or shopping malls lately??

We are being attacked by a specific type of terrorist, and they don't look like one of the Golden Girls, so why search Bea Arthur at an airport looking for terrorist bombers?

If I called ahead to the local shopping mall and told security that i was comming by to abduct a child, and then told them that i was 35-30 years old  6 feet tall, caucasian, dark hair, and green eyes would they go around following a 5'4" 65 year old asian man... I hope not.

From a % of population basis?  Probably not that many more than muslim extremists have committed terrorist acts in the past year.

Little old ladies who comitted terrorism: 0/110,000,000 (using '02 census info for the US only), or 0%

Muslims who committed terrorist acts in the past year (documented terrorism does not include insurgency in Iraq): approx 50/1,600,000,000 (estimated global muslim population is 1.6 billion) or .000003%.

Not such a big difference, eh?

Now, someone check my math on this please, but I think that computes to a 1 in 333,333 chance that profiling MIGHT find a terrorist (and that's being VERY generous).  That means, on the generous side, you'd need to search 333, 332 "innocent" muslims to find one terrorist.  And I've no idea what % of air travellers are muslim...so I've no idea what that would translate to in "time".   To me, that seems a pretty bloody inefficient way to do things....but, by the same token, I can see the benefit of using it as one MORE tool in the arsenal.  And that's why I'm not voicing a hard opinion one way or the other.

take into account that the "search" would ahve to include full backround checks of the profile fitters...


back to mine.... the cost can be agumented from military spending in the states..... if you took out 1% of the budget and put it directly toward these costs you should cover the increase in personal needed to do a standard search of everyone... or you can fund the mass xray machines where its a realtime feed that people jsut walk in line and they are passively scanned as they walk... it will show up most things on the body i know it was being feild tested at some point a few years ago... jsut that tehy cost a small fortuen but can screen 500+/h so a major hub would require about 5-10 cause you can limit them to long haul or certain size flights and do normal screening on the smaller commuter flights.

as well you can force an no carry on say for a small bag per person... something the size of a medium purse..... makes the searchmuch quicker


jsut a series of small things that can be done in concert to allow the floow of passengers to remain unchanged or improved in some cases.

and eveyone gets searched.

oh and they are doing teh large volume xrays of checked baggage now..... so that can be stepped up and well it even gets safer.....

[Surfrider]

no matter what the evidence no matter what the occurances no matter what arguements cropup...... you will never look at any principals other then your own. You will look upon the left and think that they are we are all single minded, yet our ideas are multilaterial, they focus on many areas at once to bring about the required end game.

I think both sides are guilty of this, and I think those on the left on this board are as guilty as those on the right as thinking they are right.  I hate when some people claim that they are open minded and look at things from all directions, yet others do not.  I dont see one person whose opinion is being swayed here.  Just because those on the left arent persuading those on the right doesnt mean those on the right are close minded, and vice versa of course.

[Prometheus]

i hvae neveer denied the need for force.. but i have also tried to show that one otion will not work!

[POPmetal]

i hvae neveer denied the need for force.. but i have also tried to show that one otion will not work!

I don't think there's even a question as to whether profiling is effective. It would certainly help us immensely and make it a lot more difficult for the terrorists to mount an attack. (Now, I know somebody will reply and say that it's not 100% effective and point to the 1 or 2 exceptions. YEah, I know, but in the real world, almost nothing ever is 100%, and if you're not gonna live in the real world, I'm not gonna bother arguing with you). The real question is whether it is worth to temporarily sacrifice some civil liberties so that we can have the upper-hand in defeating the terrorists? pilferk made a very good point about profiling setting a bad precedent for the future. But, fact is, that profiling has been used  by the United States in the past, like during World War II, and we did not emerge out of that as a police state. In applying profiling to the war on terror, we will not be "changing" the constitution. There is already a precedent set of curtailing civil rights during a time of war, and we are at war with terrorism right now.

[Charity Case]

haha, look at the two biggest TOOLBAGS get together on this one.

No SLC, you never open your post with any insults.

I didn't mention your name did I?

 

Was there any doubt who you were speaking about?? No.? And I was SO surprised to hear that you were against real action and for non-action.? Shocker.? ??

I love to hear all the bullshit about how profiling sacrifices "the ideals this country was built on".? In case people haven't noticed, things have changed considerable since the birth of the US.? We have to chnage with it.? We have already lost many of our civil liberity....many because of these terrorist attacks.? How come you liberals are more outraged by the idea of profiling than you are about the actual terrorist attacks that take place?? ?Are you actually so demented as to feel sorry for the terorist?? Can you see and sympathize with their perspective?? Are you that pathetic?

Interesting that you'd espouse changing with the times when, for the most part, the right espouses a literal interpretation of the Constitusion (ie: the words written 200+ years ago) rather than a living Constitution (taking into account the changes of the past 200+ years).? ? Just a point.

I may be conservative, but being conservative does not mean I have to follow EVERY conservative opinion of belief.  For instance, I believe firmly that the Catholic church is a joke and one of the main reasons for this is its inability to change with the changing times (i.e. priests must still be single, no woman priests, etc)..  Just to clarify.

[POPmetal]

Interesting that you'd espouse changing with the times when, for the most part, the right espouses a literal interpretation of the Constitusion (ie: the words written 200+ years ago) rather than a living Constitution (taking into account the changes of the past 200+ years).? ? Just a point.

I just had to point out that this is a major distortion of the literal vs. living constitution debate. The constitution was written with built in provisions to account for changes of the times. So you are wrong to imply that literal interpretation supporters (many of whom are liberal) do not wish to take into account the changes of the past 200+ years.

A so called living constitution leaves the meaning of the constitution up to the whims of unelected judges. Essentially, it throws the constitution in the garbage.

[Prometheus]

i hvae neveer denied the need for force.. but i have also tried to show that one otion will not work!

I don't think there's even a question as to whether profiling is effective. It would certainly help us immensely and make it a lot more difficult for the terrorists to mount an attack. (Now, I know somebody will reply and say that it's not 100% effective and point to the 1 or 2 exceptions. YEah, I know, but in the real world, almost nothing ever is 100%, and if you're not gonna live in the real world, I'm not gonna bother arguing with you). The real question is whether it is worth to temporarily sacrifice some civil liberties so that we can have the upper-hand in defeating the terrorists? pilferk made a very good point about profiling setting a bad precedent for the future. But, fact is, that profiling has been used  by the United States in the past, like during World War II, and we did not emerge out of that as a police state. In applying profiling to the war on terror, we will not be "changing" the constitution. There is already a precedent set of curtailing civil rights during a time of war, and we are at war with terrorism right now.

figured i might as well agree with ya...... but temp loss of civil liberties...... who decides when the temp loss is up?...... if it was locked down with a time limit off the start then fine... but now ending time... im sorry temp will be perm IMO. nad to you "ww2 " bit.. was done in canada aswell... diff was after teh war was over which was a short war... it was easy to come out of it.. but with this type of war we will be looking at atleast a generation growing up not knowing what it was liek backin the day and the laws wont change for some time.

[POPmetal]

i hvae neveer denied the need for force.. but i have also tried to show that one otion will not work!

I don't think there's even a question as to whether profiling is effective. It would certainly help us immensely and make it a lot more difficult for the terrorists to mount an attack. (Now, I know somebody will reply and say that it's not 100% effective and point to the 1 or 2 exceptions. YEah, I know, but in the real world, almost nothing ever is 100%, and if you're not gonna live in the real world, I'm not gonna bother arguing with you). The real question is whether it is worth to temporarily sacrifice some civil liberties so that we can have the upper-hand in defeating the terrorists? pilferk made a very good point about profiling setting a bad precedent for the future. But, fact is, that profiling has been used? by the United States in the past, like during World War II, and we did not emerge out of that as a police state. In applying profiling to the war on terror, we will not be "changing" the constitution. There is already a precedent set of curtailing civil rights during a time of war, and we are at war with terrorism right now.

figured i might as well agree with ya...... but temp loss of civil liberties...... who decides when the temp loss is up?...... if it was locked down with a time limit off the start then fine... but now ending time... im sorry temp will be perm IMO. nad to you "ww2 " bit.. was done in canada aswell... diff was after teh war was over which was a short war... it was easy to come out of it.. but with this type of war we will be looking at atleast a generation growing up not knowing what it was liek backin the day and the laws wont change for some time.

Nobody knew how long World War II will last before Hitler was defeated. It could have been decades before the Nazis succumbed. But ultimately, we won that war because we took every reasonable measure to ensure success. We are not doing this with the war on terror. Now, we are more concerned with being politically correct and not hurting other people's feelings. That only weakens us and prolongs the war. Had we been concerned about hurting Germans' and Japanese's feelings, that war could have lasted a generation as well.

[Surfrider]

Interesting that you'd espouse changing with the times when, for the most part, the right espouses a literal interpretation of the Constitusion (ie: the words written 200+ years ago) rather than a living Constitution (taking into account the changes of the past 200+ years).? ? Just a point.

I just had to point out that this is a major distortion of the literal vs. living constitution debate. The constitution was written with built in provisions to account for changes of the times. So you are wrong to imply that literal interpretation supporters (many of whom are liberal) do not wish to take into account the changes of the past 200+ years.

A so called living constitution leaves the meaning of the constitution up to the whims of unelected judges. Essentially, it throws the constitution in the garbage.

Not taking a original meaning view of the Constitution basically turns the Supreme Court into an oligarchy.  Something I dont believe the framers intended.  Read the federalist papers.

What exactly built in provisions are you referring to?  I don't see any.  Such built in provisions would do exactly what you accuse the living Constitution of doing.

[POPmetal]

Interesting that you'd espouse changing with the times when, for the most part, the right espouses a literal interpretation of the Constitusion (ie: the words written 200+ years ago) rather than a living Constitution (taking into account the changes of the past 200+ years).? ? Just a point.

I just had to point out that this is a major distortion of the literal vs. living constitution debate. The constitution was written with built in provisions to account for changes of the times. So you are wrong to imply that literal interpretation supporters (many of whom are liberal) do not wish to take into account the changes of the past 200+ years.

A so called living constitution leaves the meaning of the constitution up to the whims of unelected judges. Essentially, it throws the constitution in the garbage.

Not taking a original meaning view of the Constitution basically turns the Supreme Court into an oligarchy.? Something I dont believe the framers intended.? Read the federalist papers.

What exactly built in provisions are you referring to?? I don't see any.? Such built in provisions would do exactly what you accuse the living Constitution of doing.

Amendments. Which are different form the living constitution concept because people get to vote on them, so they are still democratic.

[Prometheus]

i hvae neveer denied the need for force.. but i have also tried to show that one otion will not work!

I don't think there's even a question as to whether profiling is effective. It would certainly help us immensely and make it a lot more difficult for the terrorists to mount an attack. (Now, I know somebody will reply and say that it's not 100% effective and point to the 1 or 2 exceptions. YEah, I know, but in the real world, almost nothing ever is 100%, and if you're not gonna live in the real world, I'm not gonna bother arguing with you). The real question is whether it is worth to temporarily sacrifice some civil liberties so that we can have the upper-hand in defeating the terrorists? pilferk made a very good point about profiling setting a bad precedent for the future. But, fact is, that profiling has been used  by the United States in the past, like during World War II, and we did not emerge out of that as a police state. In applying profiling to the war on terror, we will not be "changing" the constitution. There is already a precedent set of curtailing civil rights during a time of war, and we are at war with terrorism right now.

figured i might as well agree with ya...... but temp loss of civil liberties...... who decides when the temp loss is up?...... if it was locked down with a time limit off the start then fine... but now ending time... im sorry temp will be perm IMO. nad to you "ww2 " bit.. was done in canada aswell... diff was after teh war was over which was a short war... it was easy to come out of it.. but with this type of war we will be looking at atleast a generation growing up not knowing what it was liek backin the day and the laws wont change for some time.

Nobody knew how long World War II will last before Hitler was defeated. It could have been decades before the Nazis succumbed. But ultimately, we won that war because we took every reasonable measure to ensure success. We are not doing this with the war on terror. Now, we are more concerned with being politically correct and not hurting other people's feelings. That only weakens us and prolongs the war. Had we been concerned about hurting Germans' and Japanese's feelings, that war could have lasted a generation as well.

fine can you at least agree that a unilaterial view will not work... that force is not going to work alone... or this falling off on deaf ears yet again?

[POPmetal]

i hvae neveer denied the need for force.. but i have also tried to show that one otion will not work!

I don't think there's even a question as to whether profiling is effective. It would certainly help us immensely and make it a lot more difficult for the terrorists to mount an attack. (Now, I know somebody will reply and say that it's not 100% effective and point to the 1 or 2 exceptions. YEah, I know, but in the real world, almost nothing ever is 100%, and if you're not gonna live in the real world, I'm not gonna bother arguing with you). The real question is whether it is worth to temporarily sacrifice some civil liberties so that we can have the upper-hand in defeating the terrorists? pilferk made a very good point about profiling setting a bad precedent for the future. But, fact is, that profiling has been used? by the United States in the past, like during World War II, and we did not emerge out of that as a police state. In applying profiling to the war on terror, we will not be "changing" the constitution. There is already a precedent set of curtailing civil rights during a time of war, and we are at war with terrorism right now.

figured i might as well agree with ya...... but temp loss of civil liberties...... who decides when the temp loss is up?...... if it was locked down with a time limit off the start then fine... but now ending time... im sorry temp will be perm IMO. nad to you "ww2 " bit.. was done in canada aswell... diff was after teh war was over which was a short war... it was easy to come out of it.. but with this type of war we will be looking at atleast a generation growing up not knowing what it was liek backin the day and the laws wont change for some time.

Nobody knew how long World War II will last before Hitler was defeated. It could have been decades before the Nazis succumbed. But ultimately, we won that war because we took every reasonable measure to ensure success. We are not doing this with the war on terror. Now, we are more concerned with being politically correct and not hurting other people's feelings. That only weakens us and prolongs the war. Had we been concerned about hurting Germans' and Japanese's feelings, that war could have lasted a generation as well.

fine can you at least agree that a unilaterial view will not work... that force is not going to work alone... or this falling off on deaf ears yet again?

Yes, I certainly agree that force alone will not work   

[sandman]

i hvae neveer denied the need for force.. but i have also tried to show that one otion will not work!

I don't think there's even a question as to whether profiling is effective. It would certainly help us immensely and make it a lot more difficult for the terrorists to mount an attack. (Now, I know somebody will reply and say that it's not 100% effective and point to the 1 or 2 exceptions. YEah, I know, but in the real world, almost nothing ever is 100%, and if you're not gonna live in the real world, I'm not gonna bother arguing with you). The real question is whether it is worth to temporarily sacrifice some civil liberties so that we can have the upper-hand in defeating the terrorists? pilferk made a very good point about profiling setting a bad precedent for the future. But, fact is, that profiling has been used? by the United States in the past, like during World War II, and we did not emerge out of that as a police state. In applying profiling to the war on terror, we will not be "changing" the constitution. There is already a precedent set of curtailing civil rights during a time of war, and we are at war with terrorism right now.

figured i might as well agree with ya...... but temp loss of civil liberties...... who decides when the temp loss is up?...... if it was locked down with a time limit off the start then fine... but now ending time... im sorry temp will be perm IMO. nad to you "ww2 " bit.. was done in canada aswell... diff was after teh war was over which was a short war... it was easy to come out of it.. but with this type of war we will be looking at atleast a generation growing up not knowing what it was liek backin the day and the laws wont change for some time.

Nobody knew how long World War II will last before Hitler was defeated. It could have been decades before the Nazis succumbed. But ultimately, we won that war because we took every reasonable measure to ensure success. We are not doing this with the war on terror. Now, we are more concerned with being politically correct and not hurting other people's feelings. That only weakens us and prolongs the war. Had we been concerned about hurting Germans' and Japanese's feelings, that war could have lasted a generation as well.

great point! 

and let me add to that by saying that if there was TV coverage of WWII, the U.S. would not have been able to fight the war the way we needed to to win. war is ugly, but unfortunately it is sometimes necessary.

[Rocket_queen125]

Who invaded and slaughtered an innocent race of people to set up their own country? Who created a group solely commited to the murder and eventual end to anyone with a different skin colour to theirs? Who exploits the poorest countries in the world and makes money from their citizens by using their lack of knowledge of modern technology and economics? Who put millions of Jewish, Homosexual, Disabled and Gypsie people into concentration camps to be gased because they thought they were the source of all their problems? Who went in to a Middle Eastern country claiming to know of the where-abouts of WMD's (which they think the have the perfect right to own) that was already suffering from a violent dictator and made their problems worse? Who colonized Africa all those years ago and made the people their slaves?

I'll tell you who, White Christians. We are behind just as many (if not more) crimes against humanity as our Muslim brothers. Extreme action against these people, who have been brainwashed by corrupt leaders, just like George W's troops, will only harden their beliefs and make the problems worse, not improve them.

Your a god damn idiot how dare you say im BrainWashed?? your a fucking peace of shit, your the mother fucker thats awfully ungreatful whether ur an american of foreigner there is something u can thank and american military man for, ya stupid fuck

[Prometheus]

Who invaded and slaughtered an innocent race of people to set up their own country? Who created a group solely commited to the murder and eventual end to anyone with a different skin colour to theirs? Who exploits the poorest countries in the world and makes money from their citizens by using their lack of knowledge of modern technology and economics? Who put millions of Jewish, Homosexual, Disabled and Gypsie people into concentration camps to be gased because they thought they were the source of all their problems? Who went in to a Middle Eastern country claiming to know of the where-abouts of WMD's (which they think the have the perfect right to own) that was already suffering from a violent dictator and made their problems worse? Who colonized Africa all those years ago and made the people their slaves?

I'll tell you who, White Christians. We are behind just as many (if not more) crimes against humanity as our Muslim brothers. Extreme action against these people, who have been brainwashed by corrupt leaders, just like George W's troops, will only harden their beliefs and make the problems worse, not improve them.

Your a god damn idiot how dare you say im BrainWashed?? your a fucking peace of shit, your the mother fucker thats awfully ungreatful whether ur an american of foreigner there is something u can thank and american military man for, ya stupid fuck

 and i thought i stepped over the line with insults.......though you must fit the bill ..... or ratehr your self image must fall into that general line that was tossed down for ya...... and im waiting for your insults to me......