Report: Napolitano considering Hamas-linked CAIR's demands for Muslim women in airports, including the "self-pat-down"

Good idea, PMK, but isn't this somewhat sexist? I think all men should be able to pat themselves down, too!

...a Muslim woman,...acting like some kind of demigoddess whose head and neck are untouchable by sullied human hands.

Your post was funny and brought to mind the Latin:

Dextra mihi deus.
(My right hand for me, is a god.)

This is just stunning idiocy from Janet Incompetentano. If President Obama had any sense, he would fire her.

We will vote out the entire Obama crowd at the next election.

"Seriously though.. How can Napolitano even consider such a thing?"

Pretty damn simple. Her boss is a Muslim sympathizer who will always side with Islam.

It wasn't weird people in the gov't...it was those wacky muslims. Silly muslims, thinking there are special or something.

"We also know that the profile of airline related terror is that of young Muslim men,exclusively."

Not exactly.

First, Muslim men have been known to plant bombs on unsuspecting Western girlfriends. An El Al interview caught an Irish girl with a bomb once.

Second, Palestinian and Iraqi women have been suicide bombers. Just because they have not been "airline related" does not ensure they will not be in the future.

Sounds like a great idea but I would bet big bucks you get pulled out the line in NY second and arrested. The TSA has the crazy idea (I think provided to them by our current gov't admin and, more specifically, our president who wants these body scanners) that they are above the law and can do as they wish to screw with people. The whole situation is beyond absurd and the fact that we even have to have this conversation is beyond belief.

wellington: you are exactly correct. while I have an american passport, it say in it country of birth, Iran. I know I am being pulled over speacally in Europe when I am returning to states, becuase of that. but guess what, I am perfectly okay with this profiling as I do not want my ass blown off 35,0000 feet in the air.
m

this is not true. I am a liberal and I am all for profiling as well. this notion that liberals are against profiling etc... is not correct. like i said before, I was raised a mulim and I will the first one to be causios getting on a plane with muslim guy dressed in Islamic cloth with beard. then a gain this f...ks are getting smartter by the minute. Bin Laden directed his people to shave their beards and dress up in western clothing. so here is another reason to check them out.
M

I also saw that interview last night, gravenimage, and was disappointed with Laura Ingraham, which is seldom because she's ordinarily quite tough and good on most any subject, but she treated Zahra Billoo with too much respect. Billoo is essentially a spiritual fascist and either shouldn't be interviewed at all or not treated very kindly if she is. Totalitarians of whatever ideology need to be put on the hot seat again and again. Not even remotely should they be treated as just another Joe or Jane with an opinion on something. Of course, what occurs time after time is that an exception is made for Muslims. This exception needs to cease.

who is this woman?
m

You're right, Eastview. It IS sexist. If the men want to pat themselves down, I'm for that, too.
I was just going by what seemed to be the Muslim rule. CAIR were the ones who apparently said women couldn't be touched. I heard nothing from CAIR saying it was against Islam for Muslim men to go through this indignity.
Unless we intend to profile with a seriousness that has, so far, been lacking, then the same rules should apply to everyone. If Muslim women are going to get special consideration, then all women should receive the same treatment.
Sauce for the infidel is sauce for the Muslim.

Well, then Miriam, you must be like those moderate muslims we keep hearing about....few and far between. Surely, you would agree that most liberals would cringe at the word alone. Part of the problem is the perception that profiling indicates something racial and that people would be suspected based on skin color alone. I would not support that...but I do support profiling based on intelligence.

"When do we decide they're not worth the trouble they foment, not worth another dime of our blood and treasure?"

Probably not until several more cities have been attacked and tens of thousands killed, and my guess is even then there will be people telling us not to judge the "peaceful" Muslims living among us.
The next time there might not be a "let's roll" moment. The Capitol or the White House might be destroyed and all we'll hear is multiculti nonsense - if we survive the next attack.

"Pretty damn simple. Her boss is a Muslim sympathizer who will always side with Islam."

Exactly. Hussein is a Muslim (that's what I think) and Janet is a pathetic kowtowing Dhimmi nutjob.

Wellington wrote:

...disappointed with Laura Ingraham, which is seldom because she's ordinarily quite tough and good on most any subject...
...............

Wellington, I think Laura Ingraham is like a lot of what I tend to think of these days as "common-sense anti-Jihadists".

She was clearly suspicious of Billoo and the irony of Muslims—of all people!—being allowed to opt out of flight security measures.

But at the same time, I don't think she is terribly well-versed on Islam, on Jihad as a concept, on the nasty history of CAIR, or of Zahra Billoo's resume.

As a result, her stand against Jihad tends to be piecemeal and inconsistent—and she tends to miss a lot of points that would appear obvious to someone better educated on the subject.

That being said, though, I think Ms. Ingraham's disgust over this issue—which she made very clear in the segment—is becoming quite widespread.

One doesn't have to be terribly knowledgeable about the philosophy behind it to realize that there is something deeply perverse about Muslims' demanding special dispensation to opt out of a procedure that wouldn't be necessary in the first place if their devout co-religionists weren't so intent on blowing sh*t up.

Gravenimage

thanks for that reminder, in your 11.30 posting above, about Billoo's track record.

hi. there are many of out there. and a lot of us are also well aware of why we get profiled and are ok with it. the biggest probelm we are facing mulims is that we are not questioning many aspect of Islam and worse yet, those of who do question it are threatened with violence or death and I am sure you are awre of it.

I agree with all that you wrote, gravenimage. Laura Ingraham is certainly a sharp, no-nonsense woman and, to the extent that I was disappointed with her this time, it was due to what you said, that she could be more knowledgeable about Islam than she is.

It would have been appropriate when interviewing someone like Billoo to have mentioned outright that security problems would be almost non-existent but for Muslims. Take Muslims out of the equation and, presto, almost no difficulty anymore. Also, someone in Ingraham's position shouldn't let a single opportunity go by to query someone like Billoo if she is fully supportive of the First Amenement, which would include being perfectly free to criticize or mock any religion and its founder. Can't ever let a Muslim off the hook so to speak. Hope you are doing well.

No privacy rooms for muslims...
They must be humiliated in front of all the non-muslims...

Otherwise it's Shariah, and Taqiyya

Despite the "no breaks" headline, I think it would be interesting to travel in a burqa/niqab and see what kind of treatment follows.

OT-I forgot to ask everyone here to remember Navy diver Robert Stethem's birthday this week. It was Nov. 17, the same as mine. He was tortured and murdered by Hezbollah on June 15, 1985, my wedding day.

One of his murderers was killed, but I believe the other three have been paroled (Thanks Germany for no extradition) or all on the loose.

It's important not to forget these victims of jihad. Tell your children how Muslims hijacked planes and struck terror in our hearts per their founder Mohammed. In October 1985 Muslims hijacked the Achille Lauro and murdered another American Leon Klinghoffer. Klinghoffer was a Jew and confined to a wheel chair. Wonder why they chose him. I believe his murderers are still free.

At this point in time, all the struggles against jihad keep growing. When will we fight back?

Robert Stethem, Happy Birthday and RIP. Leon Klinghoffer, RIP.

Your suggestion is the best one in this thread. Let the Muslims whine all they will. As so many have pointed out, literalist Muslims are the cause of the security problems with travel - problems not really answered by the TSA's security theater. The TSA's procedures only add to the nightmare of flying anywhere. The TSA ought to look for the bomber first, and the bomb second. Perhaps a little real humiliation of Muslims would cause them to wonder why Islam has put them into so much trouble. We have put up with this Islamic crap long enough.

Well said as usual, classicus.

PMK, I believe you are correct. And the scariest part is that these people to whom you refer--the surrender-artists, none of whom has the spine of a squid (least of all Janet Incompetano) are the ones running the show!
So where does that leave us?
We are left to hope that the bad folks (muslims) succeed and hundreds and thousands are killed and maimed by these low-lifes (again) and hope that that will be enough to declare open war on islam. Even when 9/11 (and some 15,000-plus documented attacks since then) haven't been enough.
The whole GD business would be a joke if it weren't such an effing nightmare...

Thanks for that, Saleem, disturbing as it is. But, of course, nothing surprises me anymore when a Mohammedan cultist wants to go full max with his profoundly twisted belief system.

You know, all totalitairan ideologies have been a burden to mankind, but Islam is arguably the worst of them all because it hides behind a religious veil and thus has more staying power, i.e., fools more ordinary folks, than the rest of those malevolent notions disguised as wisdom, though they have been anything but. Ah, how I have come to despise Islam and its founder, as much as Marx and Marxism, Hitler and Nazism. Maybe even more.

On a lighter note, hope you are doing well up there in Canada. Take care, my friend.

oops, i meant to say..

yeah you too Brother...

cheers indeed...

Lou

thanks for posting that link.

People- everybody - please, read it.

It contains an account of a protest march and rally on behalf of Assyrian Christians, carried out by 600 people in Phoenix, Arizona, where Assyrian Christian migrants and refugees have found haven.

And there is testimony giving details of what happened in that church in Iraq, that none of our mainstream media have deigned to tell us. It reminds me of Mumbai, and of Beslan.

Here's what the jihadist murderers did:

“A woman trying to save her child from the bullets covered her child with her body,” Oshana said. “**They flipped her over and purposely killed the child and allowed the child to die in front of the mother** {my emphasis - dda} while she was holding onto his neck because he was bleeding.”

Psychopaths, sadists, serial killers do this kind of stuff.

More of the same:

"Msgr. Felix Shabi, episcopal vicar for the Chaldean Catholic Church in Arizona and a native of Iraq, was not able to attend the Nov. 7 protest, but relayed some of the details of the attack in a phone interview with The Catholic Sun.

“When [the terrorists] came to the church, the priest had just finished reading the Gospel,” Msgr. Shabi “He told them, “Please, we are praying, just leave us in peace.”

"The terrorists demanded the priest make an Islamic announcement. {That probably means that they demanded that he say the Shahada, i.e. publicly convert to Islam - dda}.

'"When he refused, he was shot.

"They then demanded that a 4-month-old baby who was crying “shut up.”

"A second priest told the terrorists the mother was trying to calm the infant.

"**The gunman’s response was to shoot the priest, then turn his gun on the baby** ".
END EXCERPT.

Why, why, why are we still letting Muslims into our countries?

Because once there are enough of them, history says that sooner or later some of them will do in *our* schools and churches and temples *exactly* what they have already done in the school at Beslan, or in the church in Iraq. They will *kill*, deliberately, sadistically, extravagantly, and they will do it in the name of their infernal god.

Thanks Wellington. I don't deserve it. If my prose ever improves, it will be because of reading you, Mr. Spencer, Marisol, and the other sharp observers on this site. And I should add that jewdog, with enviable talent, has a strong purchase on funny. I hope that you and yours are well. Have a great weekend.

I will remember Robert Stethem and Leon Klinghoffer and the other victims of Jihad, with candles this weekend. But I will think of the shameful, cowardly, warriors of Islam with the contempt they have earned.

DDA,

I've just read Mr. Bator's link. You've summarized everything perfectly.

If we can only get our leadership to understand this problem we will be getting somewhere.

I sometimes think of Beslan when I see the school bus going by. It horrifies me, the way those murderers threatened and killed those defenseless children, and erased the deepest hopes of their parents. To think of such a thing happening again is chilling. Not even Nero sinned in this way. Islam has no God.

At least the subject of this thread, the "self pat down," leaves a far less horrifying thought by comparison.

Have a great weekend DDA.

Bosch Fawstin wrote:

My TSA cartoon - Commander in Crotch
...............

Excellent work as always, Bosch.

I don't know about "fragility" being a factor. Qur'an sanctioned beatings for wives from whom one fears disobedience suggests fragility might not be much of a concern. I think rather it's a matter of Islamic gender apartheid of various kinds. Also, as you mentioned, the najis or unclean status of non-Muslims, our supposed inferiority, and of course the honor culture, and probably several other doctrinally sanctioned pathologies of Islam.

Anyway, TSA inspections and pat-downs of Muslim women would of course be done by female TSA officers -- not males.

A man's honor is shaken to the core if more is glimpsed or touched of his female relative than is permissible to him, whereas his honor is strengthened if he is strict with her behavior or gives her a gentle and sanctioned beating. Or worse, as often seen in places like Kurdistan. Yeah, 'gender apartheid' could be the easiest explanation. Why beat about the bush?
Except Muslim women seem quite reconciled with it. Gender apartheid of course is as old as mankind, and the Muslim prophet pandered to many things Arabs took for granted but we would consider primitive and outdated.

Beautifully put, George. Outstanding post.

daoud,

the number one priority of any normal sane and honest government should be to ensure the safety of its citizens of harm from without and WITHIN.
at present, the government has been hijacked by a muslime who proceeded to install his wittless dhimmis to be at his beck and call.
i am sure that even you can realize that napolitano is a mentally defficient truth challenged individual who in spite of her vast amounts of adipose tissue, she manages to perform some incredible twists and turns and convolutions to be politically correct...

there is a 800lb muslime gorilla in the room that incredibly so, is just not addressed...

well daoud, allow me to spell how i believe this absurd situation should be handled:
if you want to be successful - seek others who have achieved success in the area you are interested, and do what they did! (isn't that simple? daoud?)

now let's see.... who should we imitate....
hmmmm.....
how about israel's el-al ....
it must be killing you, i know, but just as a mental exercise, stay with me...

imagine daoud

INTELLIGENT agents in charge of security, that ASK provoking open-ended questions and while watching your response... if there is THE SLIGHTEST DOUBT interrogate some more...
the attempt is to weed out THE PERSON and not the bullshit item du jour... since this will lead to an endless chase (you know, today, a shoe, tomorrow an underwear, next cartridges.... and then the imbecile face of j.n. will appear once more assuring us that we have immediately reacted to a terrorist attempt and therefore from now on we are safe...)

and yes daoud statistically speaking there will be a very direct correlation between the people pulled aside for further questioning and their religion...
it will definitely appear that 99% of those pulled aside for further questioning are named muhamad (or any variation of such) and yes.. there MAY be a 'tim mcvey' pulled aside
however let us err on the safety side...

i would not want to be banned (again) from this site so i shall phrase my conclusion very carefully, but i am sure you will get the message:

for everyone's sake, (including those elusive moderate muslimes, whoever they are....yeah right)ALL MUSLIMES should be profiled and undergo a battery of questions and strip searches prn (if need be).they must arrive a few hours earlier for this proper search to be performed and so that the rest of the passengers not be inconvenienced .
those muslimes that object are free to fly camel air or carpet air...

enough bs let's call a spade a spade!

statistically, the ONE group that was statistically successfull in causing over 16000 lives to be snufferd out, were M U S L I M E S....

it is high time we turn the tables around

do you understand that? mister?

//The body of the Muslimah is according to CAIR off-limits if she refuses both the full body scan and the full body pat-down in case she is taken aside for the extra screening, and in a worst case scenario anything not discovered in a metal detector - such as chemical substances and fluids - remains undiscovered.//

This sentence is worded poorly, and it is difficult to understand what you are saying. CAIR never said that anyone should or could refuse both the body scan and the manual search. Nobody can do this. CAIR said that you should not get the body scan (good advice), and should ask for the manual search instead. CAIR says that you have the right to have the manual search done by someone of the same sex, and that you have the right for the search to be done in private if you prefer. This is correct. CAIR said nothing in their travel advisory other than relay current TSA procedures and options. If any chemicals remain undiscovered in your "worst case scenario," it is because the TSA did not do their job.

Queenie:
//Janet Incompetano is considering giving muslim women a pass and could allow them to pat themselves down? This is totally ridiculous.//

No. Janet "Incompetano" is not considering giving Muslim women a "pass". The self pat down procedure is only for religious head coverings and only relates to chemical detetion. The self pat down procedure followed by chemical testing is perfectly able to detect the trace explosives. This procedure has been in effect for 3 years now. CAIR is not asking for any new procedures or special treatment. They are simply explaining current rules. Please read my post above.

Yomayngsup:

//the solution is simple--we all wear hijabs or topis (those fashionable yalmulka look alikes) and refuse to let them pat us down.//

Please read my post above. You are confused. If you read my post, you will realize how stupid this thread is. There should be no more posting on this thread by anyone who can reason.

"Self pat down? No thanks, the last thing I want to do is find a bomb in my shorts..."

Now, that's funny! Thanks for the laugh, duh_swami!

//do you understand that? mister?//

I understand that this thread is not about racial profiling. Read what Mr. Spencer talked about. He was not talking about racial profiling. Mr. Spencer brought up two "facts". Let's consider these "facts":

1."First, the whole point of being searched by someone else is to find concealed objects." -Mr. Spencer

This "fact" completely misses the point. Concealed objects are found by metal detectors along with either a body scan or a manual search. CAIR is not objecting to metal detectors, and they recommend manual searches over the body scanner. A combination of a metal detector and a manual search should find concealed objects. The specific issue of self pat downs related to trace explosives. Trace explosives can be detected by a self pat down of the head covering following by chemical testing. This procedure has been in effect for 3 years. Mr. Spencer's first "fact" involves a misreading of the issue.

2. "Secondly, the fact that Napolitano could even be considering such a measure highlights a double standard for special treatment that would not be considered for any other religious group, but is extended to Muslims without a second thought." -Mr. Spencer

This "fact" again misreads the issue. Npolitano is not considering this measure, because this measure has already been in effect for 3 years. Why would she consider a measure that is already in effect? CAIR and Muslims are not asking for "special treatment". The "special treatment" was asked for by SIKHS, not Muslims. The SIKHS received the "special treatment" they asked for because a self pat down of any head covering followed by chemical testing is just as effective at finding explosives as any other method, and there is no reason not to respect a request by SIKHS or any other group if that request can be addressed while still addressing the desired security concern.

Please try to stay on topic, or you will be banned.

//If ever I am in the pat down situation, I'll just strip in front of everyone.//

It's already been done:

http://cubachi.com/2010/11/14/german-flesh-mob-strips-in-airport-to-protest-of-tsa-body-scanners/

Exactly, if Muslims are exempted from security scrutiny and they are the sole motivator of this mesures... why don't other religious groups use it?
If militant Muslims are the sole motivation for this actions and there is no doubt that sooner than later they are going to produce a "man-made disaster", why do they bother the others?

//I would have to say that at this point: EVERYONE SHOULD UNDERGO FULL BODY SCANS!//

The full body scanners unzip your DNA and cause cancer. I do not use them, because I want to live. I would rather have strangers feel me up. I do that all the time anyway.

/What's to stop a terrorist from wearing a turban and filling it up with the al-Qaeda-explosive-flavor-of-the-month?//

I don't think you understand the how effective analyzing for trace explosives can be. The TSA even tested a procedure where people were handed a card. THe card was then given back to the agent by the passenger and the card was then analyzed for explosives:

http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2005/press_release_0615.shtm

If a person has explosives on them, trace analysis will show it. There is no need for invasive searches for this reason.

//Exactly, if Muslims are exempted from security scrutiny and they are the sole motivator of this mesures... why don't other religious groups use it?//

Other religious groups do use it. The reason the self pat down measure is in effect is because SIKHS asked for it 3 years ago.

//this whole "Report: Napolitano considering Hamas-linked CAIR's demands for Muslim women in airports, including the "self-pat-down" bullshit is a direct result from muslimes//

No. The "'self-pat-down' bullshit" has nothing to do with Muslims. SIKHS asked for the self pat down procedure 3 years ago. Sikhs are not Muslims.

thank you for enlightening me.
'THAT' was the missing piece of information i really needed so that my life would now be complete...

what i wrote in my prior post, the gist of it is STILL VALID even if this self-pat-down is sikh originated.
do you REALLY fail to understand that all the extra security bullshit that we have to go through now is a direct result from the MUSLIMES attacks and the IDIOTIC, CRIMINALLY INSANE administration that would twist the truth which is staring you in the face , (christ!, stevie wonder would see it!)and do ANYTHING B U T identify the problem by its name (pisslam in other words)

oh, btw, have you not found a way to somehow blame this whole things on the zionist entity and the jooooooz?

"Do you realize the FBI has been directed by DOJ to cease any and all investigations involving CAIR?"

G*d d*mn those people! Would you have a link with further information? This is very depressing, but not surprising. Reinstating the investigations of CAIR, ISNA, etc., and following up with prosecutions, ought to be a priority of the new Congress. Perhaps Eric Holder himself needs to be "investigated" for possible inappropriate links to these groups.

re dave742

Humm, yes: I have too agree the sentence is less than perfect when I look upon it a second time. English is not my primary language and it does tend to become a bit stilted when I try my hand at writing it. I very rarely speak it.

I try again: "According to CAIR, if a Muslima is taken aside for a secondary screening her body is off-limits to the TSA officer if she refuses both the full body scan as well as the full body pat-down. In a worst case scenario anything not discovered in a metal detector - such as chemical substances and fluids - therefore remains undiscovered."

CAIR in the advisory writes :"Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down."

CAIR in this sentence is saying that once you are about to be patted down - because you are either selected for a pat-down or have requested it instead of the full body scan - you must request it be limited to head and neck. I suppose because of the alleged jihab-profiling: the last part of the CAIR advisory is addressed to Muslim women wearing the hijab.

CAIR continues by suggesting a self-pat-down, also of the head and neck area only.

In all of this a physical examination of the body other than the head and neck is not mentioned by CAIR, indeed they mention ONLY the parts that CAN be patted down. They write this very specifically.

What all this means for a Muslim woman wearing the hijab and who is selected for a secondary screening, is that she can refuse any closer examination if she deems it occasioned by hijab-profiling. I cannot read it any other way.

And therefore I find it hard to blame the TSA in case of the worst case scenario: if they have not the means to search everyone equally they are not given full opportunity to do their job.

"dave742" wrote, replying to Captain Nemo:

Please try to stay on topic, or you will be banned.
..........................

Good thing I didn't have a mouthful of coffee when I read that.

"dave742" is here trying to pass himself off as the 'voice of reason', just a guy concerned about the rights of religious minorities such as Sikhs and Muslims.

What a load of crap.

Back in the IntenseDebate comment system days, "dave742" used the *Hizb'allah logo* as his avatar. I think that tells you a lot more about his views on the prevention of Islamic Jihad than his meretricious vaporings here about TSA standards ever will.

//CAIR in this sentence is saying that once you are about to be patted down - because you are either selected for a pat-down or have requested it instead of the full body scan - you must request it be limited to head and neck....In all of this a physical examination of the body other than the head and neck is not mentioned by CAIR...//

You are not understanding the advisory. CAIR gave the following general recommendations:

"If you opt out of the full-image body scanner, you have the right to request that the manual search be conducted in private. It is your right to be screened by an officer of the same gender..."

This means that if you are selected to have a secondary screening either because the metal detector went off or because there is an "SSS" on your boarding pass, then CAIR says you should not get the body scan, and should get the manual search. This is the same manual search everyone gets - head to toe.

After the general recommendations, there is a separate section about hijab wearers. In this section, they are talking about a very specific situation - one that meets all of the following:

1. The metal detector did not go off
2. There is no "SSS" on the boarding pass.
3. You ask if the secondary screening is because of your hijab, and the agent replies "Yes".

In that case, you can request a self pat down.

If the metal detector goes off, you get a head to toe search like everyone else.

If you have an "SSS" on your boarding pass, you get a head to toe search like everyone else.

If the detector does not go off, and you do not have an "SSS" on your boarding pass, and you ask the TSA agent if the reason for the secondary search is because of the hijab, and he says "No", you get a head to toe search like everyone else.

It is irritating tat I have to explain this to you. I am proud of myself that I did not call you a name. I am trying to be nice from now on.

// "dave742" used the *Hizb'allah logo* as his avatar//

Yes. I support the right of occupied people to resist occupation.

//oh, btw, have you not found a way to somehow blame this whole things on the zionist entity and the jooooooz?//

If you are saying that we have pat downs now because of 9/11, then you are close. I don't blame "Jews", because not all Jews were responsible for 9/11. Some Jews, however, along with some Americans, are responsible for 9/11. I think you probably knew my stance on this. This, however, is off topic. We can discuss it another time.

Terrorism in general, you know, is not an invention of Muslims. Many groups and religions ave used terrorism for centuries. This includes Jews (Irgun, etc). Regarding the specific case of suicicide attacks - the first known case of it was froma Jewish group.

Dave you seem like a nice enough guy, but you are becoming increasingly desperate I think.

The core of this global conflict, in reality, is the fact that it is impossible for non-Muslims to socially integrate with Muslims, while remaining free in a demographically diverse geographical location whose social heterogenia includes large numbers of Muslims, this is a universal fact, which you can see from Morocco to Pakistan. It is the core of the conflict in Bosnia, and Israel where non-Muslims refuse this fate worse than death, which is this social integration with Muslims on a large scale. You can see Islamic cultural influences in regards to these ridiculous TSA rulings on our society all ready, these are social symbiotic responses to demographic changes underway in our society.

In regards to the Sikhs, their only crime is the fact that they have some similar head coverings as some Muslims. It is just as ridiculous to apply screening countermeasures for Sikhs, which should only be applied to Muslims, as it to frisk 3 year old girls and Nuns.

Muslims flee the Islamic world in large numbers to escape what their culture has created, only to seed the societies they flee to, with that which would destroy them in the long run ... their presence demographically.

Sorry, but this is just the truth no whitewash just the cold hard truth.

Peace :-)

//In regards to the Sikhs, their only crime is the fact that they have some similar head coverings as some Muslims. It is just as ridiculous to apply screening countermeasures for Sikhs, which should only be applied to Muslims, as it to frisk 3 year old girls and Nuns.//

I hate to quote Wikipedia, but I don't hav time right now for anything more thorough:

"In 1985, Sikh terrorists bombed an Air India flight from Canada to India, killing all 329 people on board Air India Flight 182. It is the worst terrorist act in Canada's history."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_India

For some generalities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_extremism

That was so last century... nobody is having chronic problems with Sikhs.

NOPE. NOT BUYING IT... OR YOU!!

A person is exposed to much more radiation on the actual flight than passing through a full body scan. Here's a couple of links for you since you like 'em so much:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2005/0907-flying_and_radiation_risk.htm

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/nov/18/john-pistole/tsa-administrator-claims-new-body-scanners-emit-mu/

And as far as testing for trace explosives, well let's just say that I'd rely on a scanner or a dog to detect them far more accurately than a little old card that can and does give false-positives.

In fact, I'm having a kind of painful fun reading all about it from the US Dept of Justice:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/178261.pdf

I think it's a much more logical conclusion that we all undergo full body scanning than to come to an Orwellian determination and give certain religious groups privileges which they have no right to since they claim to want to be in a free society.

We agree completely until very near the end and there is absolutely no reason for you to walk me through again what I have already written: that it depends on the hijab-profiling.

If the TSA officer confirms it is a hijab-profiling the Muslim woman should expect only the head and neck to be patted down, according to CAIR.
The Sikh case :"Officials say the coverings will only be patted down if traveler permits it. Instead the person can opt to pat down their own head covering, and then have their hands swabbed with a cotton cloth to check for chemical residue". This is almost verbatim what is proposed by CAIR. But there is nothing about a body search being ruled out because of this: the Sikh case is not valid in this respect.

The problem for me in all this is that I find CAIR to have jumped from the limited head and neck pat-down to rejecting the full-body pat-down with no justification. The two are pat-downs ……but that is the only connection.

If the TSA officer does not confirm it is hijab-profiling she'll be treated like everyone else. It is all a bit muddled, but this is the way CAIR has chosen to interpret it. I cannot help that.

Thanks for another opportunity to look through the relevant passages. New interesting points continue to emerge.

We can't have you are irritated because of my slow understanding, and so I say Good Night.

Sikh terrorism to a very limited extent does exist. Hell, even a few Christians and Jews (very, very few) go off the deep end from time to time, but do you not concede that, if you take Islam and its many deluded followers out of the equation, something like 95% of the worldwide terrorist problem would be resolved immediately?

Frankly, I find you essentially dishonest by the way you argue. Quit the high theory and also the implicit exculpation of man's worst religion of all time. Your kind is an obstacle, not a solution, to dealing with the great menace which is Islam, a religion founded by a fraud, psychopath and sexual pervert. Grow up intellectually if you can, which I kinda' doubt is in the offing.

//A person is exposed to much more radiation on the actual flight than passing through a full body scan.//

Your first link says that being in an airplane exposes you to higher than average levels of radiation. Yes - I know this. I weigh that risk with the benefits of air travel and decide for that for myself I prefer to take the risk. Your second link says that the amount of radiation coming from a full body scanner is equivalent to three minutes of air travel. This comes from the head of the TSA, and is supposedly supported by various governmental and world-governmental agencies. This is very funny, IMO. The very notion of comparing the radiation being emitted from a full body scanner with solar radiation is ridiculous. Read this article:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294

If you want to trust your government sources, then stand in your body scanner as long as you like. It is your choice and I could care less. I will opt for the manual search.

//I think it's a much more logical conclusion that we all undergo full body scanning than to come to an Orwellian determination and give certain religious groups privileges which they have no right to since they claim to want to be in a free society.//

If you think that trace tests for explosives do not work, then gather your evidence and write your concerns to the TSA. This protocol has been active for three years now, so if you are uncomfortable with the test then I suggest you discontinue flying. If the protocol we are discussing was not in place, then the TSA agent would simply take a direct sample from the hijab or turban himself and test it with the same chemical test, just as he would with a suspicious liquid in a bottle. There is no difference if the sample is taken by the agent or the person wearing the item in question. I do question why this issue did not concern you for the past three years. I checked, and when the Sikhs initiated this request which was granted by the TSA, JW had no thread that criticized it. Nobody seemed to care about the protocol when the Sikhs asked for it. That's strange.

Ho hum.

I only just found out about the Sikhs from you. So to be appalled at this point is not unusual. I really don't want to get on a plane with a bomb in someones turban. Or hijab. Or underwear or shoes or anything.

What's so wrong about requiring full body scans for airplane travel? If this is an equal and free society, then everyone should comply, Sikhs, musselmen, Christians, and so forth..

I would rather be safe than sorry, while it seems you would rather give preference to other sexes and/or certain religious backgrounds.

I ask for equality in this PC mess that has been propagated by the TSA. What is unreasonable or offensive about that? Again, I believe plain logic trumps "beliefs" or personal humiliations in this type of scenario. What do you think is a solution? I am truly curious about that one. As for me, I never ever ever want to see another 9/11 again, no matter how determined those islamic terrorists are.

//if you take Islam and its many deluded followers out of the equation, something like 95% of the worldwide terrorist problem would be resolved immediately? //

This would take a long, long time to discuss. First, you would have to discuss what terrorism even is. For example, there are numerous examples of incidents where a person shoots at a uniformed member of a particular nations armed forces, and JW or the MSM will call it "terrorism." In my view, shooting at a member of a nation's army is not terrorism. And that is only the first step. The next step would be to research terrorism (using the agreed-upon definition) in a global manner. If you look at how much terrorism is reported on in the MSM, it is certainly true that 95% involves Muslims. I would say closer to 99%. Of course, on JW it is 100%. But this is not an unbiased sample. You have to look at ALL incidents. In the case of suicide terrorism, this has been done by many people. What they find time and time again is that there is absolutely no correlation between suicide bombings and Muslims. This is impossible for you to believe because you get your news from JW and the MSM. The group that has committed more suicide bombings than any other in recent times is the LTTE. They are a secular/Hindu group. They are never in the news, however, because Israel has no plans to occupy Sri Lanka. If Israel had made their little state in Sri Lanka in 1948, and Israel was trying to expand their state into LTTE territory, and the LTTE committed the same suicide bombings that they did during the past decades, it would have been in the news every day. In that case, Hinduism would be evil. It is only because Israel covets Muslim lands that you think Islam is evil. If Israel was given their country in Argentina, then right now Argentinians would be evil. (In that case, it would not be blamed on their religion, for obvious reasons). Do you know what suicide terrorism is correlated very strongly with? Occupation. Look up Robert Pape, Diego Gambetta, Ariel Merari, etc. When you occupy someone elses land, they will resist. (A lot of Muslim countries seem to be occupied at the moment, BTW). The occupiers will then label them as terrorists. It is very basic stuff. If China occupies the US and takes my house, I will resist, and China will call me a terrorist. Whatever.

//That was so last century... nobody is having chronic problems with Sikhs.//

I am glad you are so flippant with an incident that claimed over 300 lives just 25 years ago. In 15 years I will make a flippant remark about 9/11 and judge your reaction.

BTW, if Israel or the US decides that they want to take over Sikh land or subjugate their people, I guarantee you that all of a sudden there will be chronic problems with the Sikhs.

//What's so wrong about requiring full body scans for airplane travel? //

First of all, because body scans cause cancer. The head of the TSA disagrees with this, but MIT scientists do agree. I have read the data, and I side with the MIT scientists. Have you read the data?
Second, as I explained above, there is no difference whatsoever in who takes the sample for the chemical test. If the TSA officer pats the headscarf or the person themself does, it does not matter. The only thing that matters is if the test is positive or negative. One of Santa's elves can pat the turban to get the sample. Doesn't matter.

This is not an issue of decreased security as a result of a request by the Sikhs. If it was, it would not have been granted. Keep in mind that this request was granted in 2007 under the leadership of the wonderful GW Bush. If you don't agree with the decision, then let's talk about why Bush allowed this to happen.

//Strange indeed, Dave....//

When we are talking about the safety of the altered procedure and whether or not the altered procedure is effective,the group that requested it does not matter. In 2007, when the Sikhs asked for and received the new protocol for self pat downs, alarmists like Mr. Spencer could easily have said, "Of course we have nothing to fear from Sikhs, because they are not evil, but what if the evil Muslims use this loophole to terrorize the upright, holy and righteous Americans? We need to stand up against this dangerous alteration of TSA procedures so the evil Muslims don't use it to kill us all!!"

Why didn't this happen? This didn't happen because the procedure is just as safe as it was previously, as I already explained above.

Do you wonder why you care about this issue when it has been with us for three years? It's because some imbecile read a completely innocuous CAIR advisory that did absolutely nothing but relay the present TSA rules and decided to spin it into a story that says that the evil Muslims are trying to change the rules so they can smuggle explosives onto planes in order to kill us all. It's ludicrous. It's pure propaganda.

well daoud, one thing is for sure:
you need a life man!
i mean it is saturday night and you've been busy answering all the volleys flying your way from us jw readers.
thank you for the entertainment.
so predictibly enough, you DID manage to blame the jews, israel and the west.
you DO realize of course that israel and the west WILL prevail, there WILL be muslime profiling in all civilized countries, deportations WILL become the norm and we'll all sing kumbaya....
and on that note my little muslime defender, gfy.

In my last response to you I said "First, you would have to discuss what terrorism even is." In relation to this, I just read that pot growers are terrorists:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/11/pot_growers_portrayed_as_terro.html

In that case, I don't think that Muslims constitute 95% of terrorists. I think there are a lot more pot growers in the US than in Muslim countries.

Israel covets Muslim lands? Oh brother. What Israel covets is peace and has since 1948. Israel would have annexed no lands nor engaged in any wars, all the while providing more freedoms to Muslims within Israel than any Muslim country to date has for Muslims, had only the Muslim world acknowledged Israel's right to exist from the get-go. You know this or should know it. In your own warped way you have twisted Israel's right to self-protection into the coveting of other lands. Wow.

You also know or should know that any Hindu terrorism is not a worldwide problem and, if you look at what I wrote above to you, I was very clear that Muslims account for almost all of the WORLDWIDE terrorist problem. Some Basques going psycho in Spain or the IRA acting barbarically in the British Isles or Hindu extremism in the Subcontinent does not constitutue a "worldwide terrorist problem." Again I charge you with disingenuous argumentation. Just look at the subject article in this thread, concerning as it does what the US is doing (stupidly to date) to make flights safer. Think any of this crap would be going on if Islam didn't exist? Besides, as Bertrand Russell observed, Islam is the only major faith which is totalitarian in structure and ideology. Grasp this and it will then easily be comprehended that the term "radical Islam" is redundant.

We are all exposed to radiation every day and in every way. I don't believe that the scanners have even been around long enough for you to assert that they cause cancer. Where's the body of research for that? For that matter, my annual mammogram could cause breast cancer. I don't think so..

Again, what's your solution? A free pass for certain so-called religious beliefs? I don't think so..

I vote. I pay taxes. I live in a supposedly free society. I have every expectation of my society that we are all treated equally.

Unfortunately Dave, whether or not you like it, those heretofore unnameable terrorists, are mostly muslim and will try again and again for terror in the skies. So eventually, the TSA will just have to go with full body scanners one day. I'm only suggesting we beat the muslim terrorists to the punch. Literally.

Just like you to get into an abstruse polemic about what constitutes terrorism. Yeah, pot growers are a real threat to world stability and probably the hidden reason why airport screening is really occurring. You're tedious at best and malicious at worst.

dear wellington,

at 10;50 am i posted a reply to this dave guy and my closing statement was:

"if you STILL fail to see the correlation...i give up.
i'll let somebody else try to help you...
wellington? classicus? are you there? "

well, you sure came, and in your inimitable style you tried to knock some sense into this guy. i am afraid that we have a case of hyperostosis of the skull on our hands .
(incidentally, a condition that exhibits a 'thick skull' is acromegaly... and one such person to have been aflicted by this condition was... the pedophile mass murderer, pisslam founder himself).

please accept my apologies...

Dave, I thoroughly disagree with much of your facts and conclusions and thank Wellington and Nemo and others for their satisfying reply to you.

But even if you were right about occupation causing resistance and thus violence, should you yourself not be wiser than supporting that?

I mean, even if it is a notoriously vaque term, happiness is the highest goal to strive for, isn't it? Much higher than just revenge, or a particular stretch of land, some sort of statehood. Which both are within grasp for most humans on divers places, not only in one particular place.

Claiming some lands to be ancestral lands seem in the long scheme of things pretty irrelevant. Knowing as we do that we all descend from some African tribe, which then wandered all over the place. In the process so many lost "their lands" but their descendants always grew over it after 1 or more generations.

Robert Spencer is not into the sort of limited goals Muslims and you seem to be into. He just wants to protect freedom from it's enemies, so to speak.

Now, look at occupation, this can be with severe oppression, impoverishing, extinquishing all hope for people, who are given no choice for expanding freedom, prosperity, happiness. Yes, then it would be justified, logical to resist. As it would be, if possible, for religious minorities in Islamic countries.

But when "occupation" was done by otherwise peaceful, democratic, prosperous-generous occupiers, bestowed on people believing in and used to an dictatorial, obsolete ideology like Islam, then I think wiser, knowledgeable people should be on the side of these "occupiers", for the sake of the better future of the next generations of the occupied people.

But you, you obviously stick to the clearly less free, less advanced Ideology, Islam. Finding ingenious excuses, which do not get higher than denial of bad influence and actions by its followers. or TU QUOQUE; "other did it too".

Well many others performed much better than Islam and Muslims on aggregate and Muslims do not seem to be able to compete very well with those others on positive goals and achievements. Denial and tu quoque is 99 % what we hear from Muslims and you too.

//For that matter, my annual mammogram could cause breast cancer. I don't think so.. //

Ionizing radiation is a non-threshold carcinogen. Mammograms certainly do cause cancer.

The risk, of course, is very small, but it is non-zero. There are people who do get cancer from mammograms. This is indisputable.

On this website, they ask:

"Should women be concerned about the radiation they receive when having periodic mammography x-rays or other procedures involving chest irradiation?"

http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/physical/fs52.radiation.cfm

The answers is:

"As stated earlier, cancer risk is related to age at the time of radiation exposure and the dose of radiation received. A mammography x-ray might result in a breast tissue dose of about 0.3 cGy. If a woman received 10 mammograms as a young woman, the total dose would be about 3 cGy. What is the risk associated with such exposure? Keeping in mind that epidemiologic studies have not detected statistically significant increases below a dose of about 20 cGy, we do know that 100 cGy increases risk by about 40%. One can estimate that the 3 cGy from periodic mammography screenings would increase your risk by about 1.2% or a relative risk of 1.012. Such low risks are not detectable in human studies. Nonetheless, all unnecessary radiation should be avoided and although the presumed risk is very small, it should be clear that the benefit from the medical exposure would far outweigh it. Decisions to have diagnostic procedures because of medical symptoms, however, should not be delayed because of the concern over presumed radiation risk."

Getting 5 or 10 mammograms in your fourties has a non-zero risk of causing a cancer 30 or 40 years down the road. If you got a mammogram every day for 10 years, I could almost guarantee that you would get cancer.

Another question is:

"Is it true that while ionizing radiation can definitely cause breast cancer, it is not a major source of breast cancer cases?"

The answer:

"Yes. It has been estimated that less than one percent of all breast cancer cases might be attributed to ionizing radiation. Since most of this radiation comes from natural sources, which we have little control over, and from medical sources, which are for our benefit, there are few opportunities to reduce exposure and thus reduce risk. It should be noted though, that a few groups of women are at high risk of radiation-induced breast cancer for whom surveillance for early detection should be considered."

Less than 1 percent is not zero. There is a reason that the radiation tech that gives you a mammogram stands behind a shield.

Check out this study where they found that women who got regular mammographies got 22% more cancers:

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/11/25/do-mammograms-sometimes-detect-cancer-that-would-disappear/

The suspected reason for this is not because of radiation, but it is interesting nonetheless.

//But when "occupation" was done by otherwise peaceful, democratic, prosperous-generous occupiers, bestowed on people believing in and used to an dictatorial, obsolete ideology like Islam, then I think wiser, knowledgeable people should be on the side of these "occupiers", for the sake of the better future of the next generations of the occupied people.//

The psychology involved with people believing things like this is very interesting. My wife studies it - she does a lot of work on in-group psychology. You believe this because your in-group is doing the occupying, and most people cannot be objective about the actions of their in group. If the Chinese occupy the US and take my house and rape and kill my wife, there will be people in China making statements like the one you made. Of course, I will see the situation a little differently, being on the receiving end of the "benevolent occupation." There's not much more I can say here. I could write an entire book on this quote of yours. I don't really have the time right now.

Dave--I can hear someone saying,

"I support an occupied people's right to resist occupation, too. Muslims need to leave all regions they occupy and return to the Hijaz and Najd. Leave northern India. Leave Western China [many Hui claim Arab or Persian lineages]. Leave Anatolia and the Balkans. Leave North Africa. Leave Egypt and the Nile Valley. Leave Iran, Central Asia, and Southern Russia. Leave the Fertile Crescent to the Jews [an indigenous tribe that re-claimed its historical patrimony] and Aramaean Christians. And, especially, leave the West."

That's exactly my point! WE AMERICANS have to level the playing field to equal treatment in this matter and also in matters of law!

I came back from Iraq and Turkey very recently. At those airports I didn't see any "rooms of worship" or "prayer rooms." They were called plain and simple, MOSQUES. So, obviously, no one but musselmen were allowed. There are so very many degrees of favoritism and not-so-subtle entitlements for muslims in muslim lands. But absolutely none for any other religion.

OK, Dave, so I should be more careful in what to think and formulate, because OK, I am thinking "in-group".

But basically I and many of us here are FOR the most free system, empowering the biggest possible number of people in a society. You are the one that associates with the worst of occupiers, Muslims oppressing and not really letting the oppressed "out-group" or even many of their own "in-group" choose, be autonomous as society can allow.

And Kepha just showed you what your favorite "in-group" did. You know, if you compare "our occupiers" to your ideal but non-existent states, or system, then of course you are right that "our occupiers" fall short.

But you support Islam, a competitor system to ours, that has had 1400 years to show and prove itself. And which definitely did much worse than "our occupiers" now do.

Your wife should study the "in-group"mentality of Muslims also in depth. And ask herself if a full worldwide democratic system is not the best (=least bad) answer to it.

And those you call occupiers, who are they, what are their aims? Well, the Americans; They clearly support those of the local politicians who are voted into power, they clearly support freedom of speech. They bring technological improvement and if Muslims allowed it, more education, trade and prosperity.

Your assessment about "in-group"-thinking was right. It's just that Western politicians long since recognized it and now use Democracy to supersede it. It's the Muslims that can't shed the "in-group"-mentality.

First, you would have to discuss what terrorism even is.

No, dave, there is no "discussion" when it comes to Muslim Terrorism (TM). We ALL know the dangers of Islamic jihad-terrorism, so there is no need to sidetrack this discussion on some tangential issue. Back to the point...

In the interest of 'multiculturalism' we must NOT exclude any one group from equal treatment to other groups within any society. Ergo, Muslims get the same body-screen, pat-down, profiling-quiz, that would any one else. And this is not even taking into account that it was MUSLIMS who got us into this ridiculous airport-security mess in the first place! What exactly is the problem?

"You need to tip Mr. Spencer off on the Sikh danger--perhaps he'll change the site-name to "Sikh Watch." Meanwhile, make sure to demand all Sikhs get the "enhanced-pat down; we're counting on you, Dave, to keep us safe in the unfriendly skies..."

After reading the remarks from Dave I was laughing at him quietly inside, but after reading what you said ... it turned into an audible guffaw ..

//But you support Islam, a competitor system to ours, that has had 1400 years to show and prove itself. And which definitely did much worse than "our occupiers" now do.//

Up until the point that the West occupied Muslim lands, Muslims had a far more advanced culture than the West. It was only when the West intervened with its "benevolent occupation" did things change. Being subjugated by an occupying power has a profound efect on a culture. For a discussion of this in relation to legal systems, see the section titled "Status of Islamic Law Just Prior to the Colonial Period" on page 73 here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20753339/Gates-of-Ijtihad

I hardly think that a fair assessment of the Muslim and Western world could lead to your conclusion that "Up until the point that the West occupied Muslim lands, Muslims had a far more advanced culture than the West." This persistent myth, which you have in rote fashion repeated, is belied by such Western achievements as the intellectual architecture of men like Erigena, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas and William of Ockham, actual architecture in Romanesque, Gothic and Baroque form, stunning literature such as Beowulf, the Divine Comedy and the Canterbury Tales, beautiful music as evidenced by Gregorian Chant and early polyphonic compositions, the extraordinary phenomenon of the entire Italian Renaissance and the development of the scientific method from the sixteenth century onwards.

You continue to look for excuses to exculpate regressive and very bad behavior by the Muslim world. I wonder what your next one will be.

@ OT dave: Up until the point that the West occupied Muslim lands, Muslims had a far more advanced culture than the West.

What rubbish. You can't be serious, or you are seriously challenged in your reasoning of 'Islamic advancements', which stopped at about 1200 AD. The West took off with the Renaissance and left Islam way behind, long before it 'colonialised' Islamic north Africa and the Middle East. By the time of the colonial era, from roughly 1500 to 1900, Islam was already a backwater of civilization. Here is the real story of so-called Islam's Golden Age: How Islam breathed new life into slavery and the slave trade in Europe. Read it and learn.

//I hardly think that a fair assessment of the Muslim and Western world could lead to your conclusion//

Then read my assessment, and tell me where I went wrong. I will wait for your rebuttal.

As an example, let's look at what Count Lean Ostrorog had to say about Islam. Ostrorog was an Orientalist who first used the term "gates of Ijtihad." This term was a fabrication made by Orientalists to demonize Islam, and I showed that this was a fabrication in my paper (which Mr. Spencer has yet to reply to). Ostrorog was certainly not pro-Islam. Nevertheless, Ostrorog did have this to say about Islamic law:

“Considered from the point of view of its logical structure the [Islamic law] system is one of rare perfection, and to this day it commands the admiration of the student…Those Eastern thinkers of the IXth century laid down, on the basis of their theology, the principle of the Rights of Man, in those very terms, comprehending the rights of individual liberty, and of inviolability of person and property; described the supreme power in Islam, or Caliphate, as based on a contract, implying conditions of capacity and performance, and subject to cancellation if the conditions under the contract were not fulfilled; elaborated a Law of War of which the humane, chivalrous prescriptions would have put to the blush certain belligerents in the Great War; expounded a doctrine of toleration of non-Moslem creeds so liberal that our West had to wait a thousand years before seeing equivalent principles adopted.” (see page 92 for citation)

In a scholarly setting, even an Orientalist has to speak some truth in order to gain respectability.

//What rubbish. You can't be serious//

Yes, I am serious. Read my paper and tell me what I misinterpreted:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20753339/Gates-of-Ijtihad

I will wait for your reply

One more source, dave, for you to read: Fjordman's excellent response to David L. Lewis' "God's Crucible: Islam and the making of Europe".

You ought to know by now that dave742 supports Islamic terrorists and probably handed out sweets to his future terrorist offspring when the 9/11 atrocity took place. A mere 70 years ago, someone like him, who obviously supports the enemy (He would have wanted Hitler and Tojo to emerge victorious) would have been hanged as a traitor.

Dave742s a hopeless headcase and belongs in a padded cell in Pakistan. This thick as concrete terrorist-loving troll thinks the Reconquista was the opccupation of Muslim lands.

Ha ha! Dave, I will answer your long rant paper with your own words: "It's ludicrous. It's pure propaganda." - LOL

//One more source, dave, for you to read: Fjordman's excellent response to David L. Lewis' "God's Crucible: Islam and the making of Europe".//

I was looking at your link and noticed a reference to a paper by Andrew G. Bostom. That is a coincidence, because I am currently working on a paper that takes a look at one of Bostom's papers. Ever try looking up Bostom's references? It is quite enlightening. I will be finished with it soon. Meanwhile, you can read my paper on Iran and the IAEA:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/39038338/Pierre-Goldschmidt-Critique

//Ha ha! Dave, I will answer your long rant paper with your own words: "It's ludicrous. It's pure propaganda."//

Exactly the response I expected.

In your own words, Dave, your long rant ends thus:

"The plan is to end Islam. This plan, however, will not work. Although the West has done incredible damage to
Islamic culture of the past two centuries, ultimately, Muslims will not allow their culture
and religion to be destroyed by the West. Islamic culture is in the process of
transformation, and regardless of the exact outcome, Muslims will not allow their system
of law to become a copy of the West: [snip] ... Any legal system that is imposed on Muslims that has any Western fingerprints on it will
never be accepted by the Muslim people in the long term. Whatever form Islamic law
ultimately takes will need to have an organic link with the past in order to be accepted.
All legal systems need authority in order to be accepted. As Thomas Hobbes said, "it is
not wisdom but authority that makes a law." An imposed Western law, or law that is the
result ofij t ih a d by the lay-person (especially if influenced by the West), will not be
accepted.: ―Once Islamic law is viewed from the perspective of law and legal science, the appearance of stasis and the privileging of provenance over substance take on a
different meaning. Unalloyed,ijt iha d turns out to be far less effective as an instrument of
change. For without the advantage of a genetic link to pre-existing authorities, the results
ofijt iha d often lack the authority to command assent, just as the process ofijt ih ad itself
lacks the power of self-authentication. This is why feminist, modernist, reformist, and
even fundamentalist forms of independent interpretation tend to exert such little influence on the actual substance of Islamic law.‖341 Anything that does not have an authoritative link to the past (taqlid), will ultimately fail: ―In view of the fact that Islam and Sh a ri‟a h values are deeply rooted in the Muslim collective conscience and form a major foundation of Muslim culture, any process of modernization and development that proves insensitive to these will certainly be met with resentment and failure."

Is this the writings of an impartial scholar? Or is it the propaganda of an Islam apologist? My original response stands, with good reason. ;-)

In case you haven't noticed I already rebutted you. Your claptrap about the superiority of the Muslim world over the Western world until the time of Western imperialism is hogwash, perpetuated by folks like you who don't want to look at the facts, many of which I provided to you in my 10:51 A.M. post above. One rebuttal is enough.

As for the superiority of Islamic law, I write to you as the attorney that I am and I tell you plainly that Sharia is just about the most draconian, stupid and non-liberating legal system ever devised by man. To assert that it speaks for the principle of the Right of Man when it considers non-Muslims as the equivalent of human waste doesn't just border on the preposterous, it has crossed over into the land of preposterous notions, irrespective of who is asserting such nonsense.

I write to you as the attorney that I am and I tell you plainly that Sharia is just about the most draconian, stupid and non-liberating legal system ever devised by man. To assert that it speaks for the principle of the Right of Man when it considers non-Muslims as the equivalent of human waste doesn't just border on the preposterous, it has crossed over into the land of preposterous notion...

I totally agree!... YES!!!

//Is this the writings of an impartial scholar?//

The paper I wrote is a review article, and consists mainly of quotes from current scholars in the field of Islamic Law. I did say the following near the beginning of my paper:

"This is a review article. Because I want this paper to be a reflection of modern scholarship, I have tried not to insert too many of my own opinions, at least until the end."

In the second half of the paper, I did insert many of my own viewpoints. So what. I can do this, because it is my paper and I can do what I like. My opinions, however, are in general supported by the quotes throughout my paper.

So you quoted something from my paper. Tell me why you don't agree with it.

//it has crossed over into the land of preposterous notions//

I read hundreds of books and articles on the subject written by the top Islamic scholars, write a paper summarizing this material, and you glance at it and say that it is "preposterous" without addressing a single line. You say that it is "preposterous" because the research that has been done by these top scholars does not agree with what you read on Jihad Watch. You are a complete imbecile. BTW, the quote given above from my paper by "Battle of Tours" includes a quote from the following paper

Jackson, Sherman, “Shari’ah, Democracy, and the modern Nation-State: Some Reflections on Islam, Popular Rule, and Pluralism,” Fordham International Law Journal, 27 Fordham Int'l L.J. 88 (2003)

If you are a lawyer, maybe you should start reading some law journals instead of JW.

Once again, Mr. 472, you have adopted a condescending tone in your posts, perhaps with the purpose of casting others as intellectually inferior to you. For someone so intellectually superior, you seem to have overlooked a detail - one among many. Here is an example of what I mean. You wrote:

I understand that this thread is not about racial profiling. Read what Mr. Spencer talked about. He was not talking about racial profiling. Mr. Spencer brought up two "facts". Let's consider these "facts":
1."First, the whole point of being searched by someone else is to find concealed objects." -Mr. Spencer

It is a little difficult to maintain a reputation for high intellectual standards and to browbeat others for not reading carefully, when you do not understand who posted the article that began the thread. Wouldn’t you say? Marisol’s prose style is different from Mr. Spencer’s style – or hadn’t you noticed? The article is Marisol’s sir. I don’t consider her work a small detail. One wonders if you might have overlooked or misunderstood other important points when you fail to recognize authorship. That would be a reasonable assumption.

As you wrote earlier, the Sikhs asked the TSA for some special consideration, a fact not found in the article Marisol quoted. That the Sikhs asked for a dispensation is irrelevant. If the self pat-down is bad policy, and it is, it was bad when the TSA adopted it, and it is still bad now. The point of what Marisol had to say was that the public is right to question the efficacy and competence of Janet Napolitano and the priorities she has set for the TSA. Marisol correctly pointed out that CAIR advised Muslims to ask for special procedures from the TSA when they believe that they, as Muslims, are being singled out.

CAIR’s advice to Muslims is for the purpose of defending Muslims as Muslims first, and is an element of their design to herd non-Muslims into dhimitude. You have read the Qur’an, so you must know that the purpose of a Muslim’s life is to submit to the will of Allah and to spread Islam. Mr. Spencer and others have presented the evidence of this many times. CAIR is a wicked group determined to see Sharia law become the law of the Unites States. They are not loyal Americans. It does not matter that they have had only limited success. They will continue to insist, in matters large and small, that America become a Muslim nation by adopting Sharia. Ibrahim Hooper has said before that he would like to see the United States under Sharia and his work shows that he is determined to bring that to fruition.

To characterize your rhetorical style, and the form of your words, rather than address directly each of your specific points, I find that in general, you argue like a teenager, with petulance, and by edges, by question – begging, and very often by ignoratio elenchi. The evidence for this is that you frequently stray from the point. To mix metaphors somewhat, it makes you seem like a nitpicker, or a lint sculptor, a gnatcatcher or a barker at a flea circus. I would think that the intellectual would argue better.

I got the author wrong! I withraw everything I said.

//If the self pat-down is bad policy, and it is, it was bad when the TSA adopted it, and it is still bad now.//

I do not remember anyone addressing why it is bad policy. Can you explain it to me? If a TSA agent touches a religious headcovering and tests his glove for trace explosives, how is that different from having the person touch it and testing their hand? If you give me a rational answer that makes sense, I will never post here again.

Imbecile? Ah, getting desperate aren't you? And I don't care how many books you've read on the subject of Islamic law. Any legal system which disallows true freedom of speech (can't criticize or mock Islam or Mohammed under Islamic law, can we now, without major punishment waiting in the wings?) and real freedom of religion (Islam disallows conversion from Islam to another religion or non-Muslims preaching their faith to Muslims, again with dire punishment awaiting those who do) can hardly be said to uphold the Rights of Man. And any scholar who avers otherwise is a doofus, which many scholars are I might add.

You've drunk the Islamic Kool-Aid and that's your problem, not mine. You know, reading lots of books means nothing if doing so doesn't result in possession of more wisdom but merely arid knowledge. Speaking of such, here's a piece of wisdom for you: the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America contains more enlightened thought in it than all of Islamic law does throughout the centuries, not that you'll grasp this since you seem to grasp so little. And while we're at it, do you unequivocally support my right and the right of others to criticize, even severely criticize or mock, Islam and Mohammed without consequent threats of bodily harm or death accompanying such an exercise in freedom of speech? Yeah, answer this query if you will, if you can.

Is this the writings of an impartial scholar? Or is it the propaganda of an Islam apologist? My original response stands, with good reason. ;-)

Your response should stand Battle of Tours. Mr. 472, however, will not be corrected. His work is obviously not the work of an impartial scholar; but I should add that his is sloppy work as well. You cited one of Mr. 472's paragraphs in your reply. I found that paragraph error prone and badly written; but I will go to the site and read the entire paper, just to be fair.

"Imbecile" = desperate
"Doofus" = scholarly??

You are funny.

Let me know when you would like to discuss something substantive.

There is no sample being prepared by the testee. The testee merely has to touch his head. It is impossible to trick someone else into thinking you touched your head when you did not.

Mr. 742,
Scholars may make typographical errors, but they do not ignore authors.

We indulge here in a past-time of sententiousness, to which everyone is prone. It is an ingrained human characteristic. On a small scale, there are no bad effects to this but a few hurt feelings. Satire would be impossible without it.

I think that since you have read the Qur'an you can see that Muhammad indulged in the sententious to truly extravagant proportions and created something with the imprimatur of religion that is unquestionably pernicious.

Again, the devout followers of Muhammad's words, take those words literally and as a result, create problems for other Muslims generally and for non-Muslims in particular. There is no escaping that fact.

I've been discussing substantive matters all along and you keep not replying to my substantive arguments. For instance, after you averred that the Islamic world was superior to the Western world until the age of colonization, I gave you many examples of why I thought you were wrong, from Gothic architecture to the Italian Renaissance to the development of the scientific method. And what did you do? You didn't even bother to address this. As another example, I maintained that the First Amendment is superior to the entire corpus of Islamic law. Again you simply ignored this and posted about my not engaging in substantive argumentation. This has become your modus operandi. You make assertions. You think that having read a lot and quoting others buttress these assertions. But you don't reply to counters to your assertions. You just keep on making assertions, allude to others who agree wtih you and throw in some insults for good measure. Try growing up intellectually if you can.

That question is especially good Mr. Larsen. May I say also, that I have never found anything wrong with your English. Your writing is better than the writing of many native speakers of the language, and I'm sure that Wellington can attest to the same.

To begin with, in order to compare cultures, you have to actually compare them. Do you know what "compare" means? Pointing out achievements of one culture cannot possibly prove its superiority over another if the other is not mentioned. Make an actual comparison. I spent 16 pages in my paper making comparisons between Islam and the West only in respect to legal systems. These pages contain references to many books and articles. Regardless, I barely scratched the surface. You cannot argue superiority of entire cultures on a blog thread. This is ridiculous. It is ridiculous to bring up some examples like "Gothic architecture" and expect that to be a convincing argument of the superiority of one culture over another. When looking at the subject as a whole, all of modern scholarship acknowledges the superiority of Islam over the West until the 17th century.

You bring up Gothic architecture. Here is an example of Gothic architecture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalha_Monastery

Here is an example of Islamic architecture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultan_Ahmed_Mosque

Which one is "superior"? It is a meaningless question. They are both lovely.

Here is a nice quote on the subject:

"This architecture which we call Gothic came down to us from the Arabs" -Francois Fenelon

Quoted in Peter Draper, "Islam and the West: The Early Use of the Pointed Arch Revisited" Architectural History, Vol. 48 (2005), pp. 1-20

I am able to see if someone is or is not touching their head. If you cannot, please do not apply for a job as a TSA agent.

There you go again. Now it's BS about what "compare" means. Moreover, you're the one who started this by maintaining the superiority of Muslim culture over that of the West up until the time of colonization. So, I countered your assessment by noting several major achievements of the West before the age of colonization. And what do you now do? You go into a tedious, sophistic spin about my not knowing what a true comparison of cultures entails (never mind your pathetic attempt to subordinate Gothic architecture to Islamic buildings). Do you not finally begin to comprehend how evasive and essentially dishonest you are? No, I doubt that you do. At least you could quit providing links to other peoples' thoughts, cease mentioning what you've written and just argue your damn points afresh as succinctly as you are able.

And for the record, I assert emphatically that Western Civilization is EASILY superior to Islamic culture. From ancient Greece (this civilization alone blows away the entire Islamic world from its beginning to the present) through Rome, to a splendid medieval civilization, to the Italian Rennaisance, to the Age of Reason, to the American Revolutionary Era through the nineteenth century and into the modern era, the West is so beyond the Islamic world that it's risible to maintain otherwise. The Islamic world had some sporadic achievements in its early centuries, often due to Byzantine, Sassanian or other non-Muslim influence, but after about 1200 A.D. the Muslim sphere of mankind became pretty much an empty vessel in virtually every area of man's endeavors on earth.

One last thing. Know well that I think that Islam is the one major religion which is rotten to the core. It was founded by a brutal fraud and is replete with totalitarian sentiments. Every other major faith, from Christianity to Buddhism to Judaism to Hinduism, is a greater faith than Islam (how's that for a comparison?). As Arthur Schopenhauer observed, Islam is "a despicable doctrine." Or, as Thomas Jefferson remarked, the Koran is "demonic." Just so.

thanks :)

//And for the record, I assert emphatically that Western Civilization is EASILY superior to Islamic culture. //

Oh! Now that you say it emphatically, using CAPS, no less, I am convinced. You win.

//I'll simply not answer to you from now on.//

I am very sad. I will miss you always.

To begin with, Dave, why do you think that the Western nations had the power to occupy Islamic Lands? They got that because of human progress. If you believe Islam was once a progress for mankind, why don't you believe that by now Islam is surpassed by greater progress by other systems?

You wrote:
"Muslims will not allow their culture
 and religion to be destroyed by the West. Muslims will not allow their system
of law to become a copy of the West: [snip] ... Any legal system that is imposed on Muslims that has any Western fingerprints on it will 
never be accepted by the Muslim people in the long term."

But, Dave, you talk about allowing and accepting of and by Muslims, but it is the Democratic system that even asks consent of voters.

The Islamic system depends on God's word and its chosen interpretators and the powers that have grabbed powers. These are the Muslims who do not allow and accept, the ordinary masses of Muslims have no say.

But the elite will allow not a Western system in which the majority of Muslims would have a vote! The Western system is the system that is least imposing. That even has freedom of speech so that imposing by propaganda and censorship on people is decently challenged. That's the system that allows your "comparing cultures", your system does not.

You should be wiser than to support a system for the elite and their watchdogs that, if practiced by a real autocratic opponent of your ideas would soon put you, such an intellectual free spirit, out of business, cut you short, literally, or make you cringe before those in authority.

Robert Spencer, the Americans, the Israeli's, they merely DEBATE you. Insult you a little, as you do them, but they let you speak, live.

Don't you see what a barrel of contradictions you really are? Don't you see that when your system wins, even your intellect would whither when no longer honestly gainsayed?

And don't Muslims see that if ideas, laws are to be chosen, it should never be about where the ideas originate, but about the quality of the ideas themselves?

Furthermore, now that you have argued that the Muslims will never accept Western laws, isn't it time to openly admit Robert Spencer was right when he wrote exactly the same thing? Why then do you adopt such a righteous tone?

You can't be in favor of full democracy after what you wrote. Why don't you tell this to the world, to the mainstream-media, to the political-correct elite, the ordinary people, your co-religionists?

Well stated, demsci, but I think it highly likely it will be wasted on dave742. He looks at so many individual trees (and mostly the least impressive ones at that) that he can't see the forest. And, as you noted, his understanding of democracy and freedom is quite limited, even to his eventual own detriment should the ideology he defends ever become paramount throughout the world. In short, he's clueless. Hope you and yours are well.

...amazing....

i REALLY did not think that the discussion on this thread was still going on.... when i left last night, i gave dave specific instructions what to do... and instead he is still at it...

"Have you ever paid anyone money to beat you?"

you all remember the movie 'dirty harry' of course...
i don't remember the name of the punk that hijacked the bus with the kids but now that you MENTION IT...
i can just see this dave guy getting hit by you, wellington, classicus,demsci, larsen, battle of tours, spirit, lorfalcoln, gravenimage .....god! have i left anybody out??? i think we all had a shot at this character.. and he is coming back for more....

i am curious who is going to put him out of his misery...

//why do you think that the Western nations had the power to occupy Islamic Lands? They got that because of human progress.//

It is true that the West in the 18th century had the military superiority to defeat Islamic lands. However, in my view, there is more to a civilization than the strength of it’s military.

//But, Dave, you talk about allowing and accepting of and by Muslims, but it is the Democratic system that even asks consent of voters.//

Our democratic system is a complete joke. There is absolutely no difference between Democrats and Republicans other than the methods they use to rule. Regardless of which party wins, the economy is run by the bankers, the foreign policy is run by Israel, the health care system is run by the pharma companies, etc. Voting for which figurehead you prefer to see on the news each night is meaningless.

//The Islamic system depends on God's word and its chosen interpretators and the powers that have grabbed powers. These are the Muslims who do not allow and accept, the ordinary masses of Muslims have no say. But the elite will allow not a Western system in which the majority of Muslims would have a vote!//

The degree that the masses in any country have any influence on their government is a function of their awareness and of their ability and desire to challenge authority. The rulers of most countries do whatever the masses let them get away with. Muslims are far more politically aware than Americans, and will act if they are pushed too far. In comparison, Americans are fat, lazy and stupid. They believe the propaganda that is fed to them by the MSM, and if they don’t, they’re too fat and apathetic to get up and do anything about it. The masses in Islamic countries have at least as much effect on their rulers as fat, apathetic Americans have on theirs.

//The Western system is the system that is least imposing. That even has freedom of speech so that imposing by propaganda and censorship on people is decently challenged. That's the system that allows your "comparing cultures", your system does not.//

It is not “my system.” I am an American of Polish and German descent, and I think all religions are silly. My wife and I engage in wife-swapping, which I think is un-Islamic.
The propaganda in this country is so complete people don’t even know what it is. Our “free” press has headlines that state things like “Napolitano considering allowing Muslim women to pat themselves down at Airports!”, and people believe this crap! Even when someone shows them it is complete crap, they defend it tooth and nail and refuse to admit that they are being lied to. Americans are complete imbeciles. If the citizens are complete imbeciles and believe whatever you tell them, you can let them say whatever they want. If someone does have a real dissenting view, they are allowed to express it in a “free speech zone” in an abandoned warehouse somewhere. How nice. In addition, freedom of the press in Islamic countries may not be as bad as what you might expect from reading our “free press.” For example, Michael Ledeen wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal about Ahmad Shirzad, a politician in Iran. Ledeen said that Shirzad gave a speech to the Majlis, where Shirzad claimed that Iran had underground nuclear facilities in Isfahan and Parchin. Ledeen said that Shirzad was “instantly silenced” and was “awaiting the inevitable charges from the regime's Islamic tribunals.” He said that Shirzad “is destined to join the ranks of thousands of brave critics of the regime who have one glorious moment of protest and are then consigned to the regime's torture chambers.” Shirzad, then, must have been tortured and killed for revealing Iran’s secret nuclear program to the public, right? It must be true, because we read about it in our “free press”, right? No. As I detailed in my paper, Shirzad has been in the Iranian media constantly since that incident. He was never jailed or tortured. As a matter of fact, Shirzad wrote several articles in the Iranian press after the incident. How often do you read articles from those who want to completely change our system of government in our press? Shirzad was not “silenced”, and is still a prominent figure in Iranian politics. It is our media that lies, not theirs. As a matter of fact, the entire story about Shirzad revealing the location of underground nuclear facilities is a lie. Their press allows strong government critics to print articles in the papers. Our does not. For details of this story, see page 244 here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/39038338/Pierre-Goldschmidt-Critique

Our media tells us that Iran destroyed a site in Lavizan to hide a nuclear facility. This is an obvious lie. They tell us lies constantly, and many are detailed in the above paper. You think we have a free press because you believe these lies.

//You should be wiser than to support a system for the elite//

It is freakin hilarious that a supporter of the American political system would make this statement. Did you know that Ahmadinejad lives in a small house and brings his lunch to work each day in a paper bag? Doesn't sound very elitist to me.

//Robert Spencer, the Americans, the Israeli's, they merely DEBATE you. Insult you a little, as you do them, but they let you speak, live.//

BS. See Ahmad Shirzad.

//Furthermore, now that you have argued that the Muslims will never accept Western laws, isn't it time to openly admit Robert Spencer was right when he wrote exactly the same thing?//

I didn’t know that Spencer said this, or that I disagreed.

//Why then do you adopt such a righteous tone?//

Because I am righteous.

Look. I understand that there are a lot of problems in Islamic countries. I tend to concentrate of the problems in my own country, because I am a US citizen and I live here. As for Islamic countries, the best that the West can do for them is to stop bombing them, stop supporting their dictators, and to start reforming their own countries.

this is beyond amazing...

the instructions last night were clear:
"gfy"
and you have TOTALLY missunderstood and proceeded to
"My wife and I engage in wife-swapping, which I think is un-Islamic. "

well NOW i am really impressed...
your moral fiber is soooo rich, you obviously are sooooo enlightened and avant guarde....
wow!
and your intelect...the way you keep deflecting all them annoying jw readers without addressing their points... it is truly masterfully done....

btw, this wify swappy buiseness is it because she figures 'anything is better than this' or what?....

any other 'gems' to share with the hoi polloi?

Your 5:47 P.M. post, replete with mention of how much more attuned the Muslim masses are than are Americans who, by your characteriztion, are "fat, lazy and stupid" (boy, Muslims really clean up at the Olympic games and other world games, don't they now, being so trim and athletic as they are?) reveals you for the pathetic character that you are. The wife-swapping crap only adds to this (you're big-time guilty here of TMI---too much information). The apologia for Ahmadinejad as living a simple life is reminiscent of Communist apologists talking about how Uncle Joe Stalin lived in so modest a way, e.g., a single bare cot in his bedroom and rubbish along these lines)

You need help, buddy, real fast like. You have an exaggerated sense of your own self-importance, you grossly underestimate those who disagree with you and your kick-America-first attitude types you as just another boring, clueless rube. In short, you have nothing to offer. You're on the fringe left (have to be with stupid (yes, that's right, stupid) statements like "Our democratic system is a complete joke" and "There is absolutely no difference between Democrats and Republicans..." Get some help if you can. Done with you.

//Te ipsum laudas. Quaelibet gallus suam laudat.//

You write in Latin, and I have gaul? My righteous comment was a joke in response to the question "Why then do you adopt such a righteous tone?" Do I have to put a "/sarc" behind everything for you to get it?

You guys really reacted to my wife swapping comment. Why is this different than saying I am German and Polish? I get sick of imbeciles thinking I am Muslim because I tell the truth as I see it. Just trying to convince you that I am not Muslim, and it is possible to evaluate your out-group based on facts.

Any comments about the lying MSM that you guys beleive in so much?

"Napolitano considering allowing Muslim women to pat themselves down at Airports!"

What a freaking joke you people are.

A very good night to you too, classicus. Yes, one for the record indeed.

Thanks, Wellington,

Well, in this thread I felt at one with my "tribe", the Democratic Islam-wise people, to which I am utmost loyal.

But Dave742 in some ways I respect. He brings out the best in you and others for instance. Because he at last is willing to debate in depth and not many Muslims or Islam-defenders are. He gives us the opportunity to give our arguments fully.

But I still think that it is our side that has the most knowledge about both Islam & Democracy, the 2 opposing systems and comparisons between them. And that it is our side that is most eager and most patient to debate.

Furthermore I think that without debate, deep discussion, there might well be much violence and a horrible war. But Democracy with Freedom of Speech, with a good dose of insults but without allowing violence, that has for me the capacity to resolve the by now undeniable big controversy between Islam & Democracy.

I speculate and hope that our conversations with Dave742, who is high on Loonwatch as Danios, I heard, and who thus has much standing and influence, are read by many of his supporters too.

And now he has openly admitted and explained why that he supports a different system than our current Democratic system, practised in some 89 countries. His alternative for this seems to be the system working in most of the 56 Islamic countries of the OIC. But it also looks like he has some utopia in his head, nowhere in existence, compared to which of course the Democratic system miserably fails in most Democratic Nations.

But these on many valid standards still, according to UN-statistics, perform much better than Islamic Nations in the REAL world.

But if Dave742 and other Islam-defenders and Muslims really prefer their own Islamic system over it's competitor, then they should broadcast this, say it in advance in every discussion. For that I could respect them very much.

And if that preference and allegiance of Muslims is established it could be asked of them to cooperate with the Democratic people to in future create a world in which is mankind is sorted out into supporters of the one and the other system. And then we can place them in the countries where their chosen system holds sway. Democracy-loyals to the Democratic Nations, Islam-loyals to the Islamic countries.

That way in future we could ensure that citizens indeed can be loyal to the system of their countries, or neutral, but not loyal to the very enemies of their countries, as so many Muslims nowadays seem to be.

"Look. I understand that there are a lot of problems in Islamic countries. I tend to concentrate of the problems in my own country, because I am a US citizen and I live here."

Wrong approach, now that tens of millions of Muslims live in Democratic Nations, the first concern should be to observe the whole world equally as best we can and then honestly compare with a single set of standards.

Only then should we consider where we have the most influence and try to change things.

In your approach you are bound to apply double standards, if not in contents, because you miss a lot of information from abroad, then still in volume of criticism, because you unjustly direct the bulk to the very nations that allow you to see and discuss their shortcomings.

And anyway, I thought you had given up on the influence of American citizens on the way their nation was run. Why then do you even try to concentrate on the problems of the US, if it makes NO difference in citizen's influence with all the rest of the world, in your stated opinion?

//I thought you had given up on the influence of American citizens on the way their nation was run. Why then do you even try to concentrate on the problems of the US, if it makes NO difference in citizen's influence with all the rest of the world, in your stated opinion?//

I like to be aware of the world around me. I don't think I will make a difference, no. I will be content to sit back and watch Usrael implode. The only way I could make a difference would be to do something illegal, and I am not ready to do that. So I watch. The people that are making a difference are the people that physically stop the agressors. Like Hezbollah. So I support them.

That said, I am only one person. The world is waking up to the actions of Usrael, and things are changing. I am one person in that movement. Israel is terrified of the growing boycott movement, and I participate in that. BTW, thousands of people have read my scribd papers, and hundreds have downloaded them (which costs money). People who disagree with me might look at the papers, but people who download them have a real interest. Someone listens.

So people were having such a good time getting down on Napolitano when they thought she was considering self pat downs. When I show them that Bush appointees actually enacted the self pat downs years ago, you hear crickets. People are very funny.

Your response should stand Battle of Tours. Mr. 472, however, will not be corrected. His work is obviously not the work of an impartial scholar; but I should add that his is sloppy work as well. You cited one of Mr. 472's paragraphs in your reply. I found that paragraph error prone and badly written; but I will go to the site and read the entire paper, just to be fair.

You pegged Mr. 472 right, classicus, same as has Wellington, Larsen, many others. There is no debating an intellectually immature mind whose near-autistic behavior does not respond to direct questions, but slithers all over the floor like a typical Islamist tossing ad hominems, one step short of explosive rage. Furthermore, his demands to answer points within some arguments in his paper is 'thread hijacking' and not crickey. Well, it's okay in the Islamic world, since "highjacking" and taking hostages for ransom has been honed to a fine art over the past 1400 years. His subsequent posts show similar intellectual weaknesses, so I've chosen to ignore him in future. This deluded bloke will live and die in ignorance.