Times Online reports that Tony Blair’s Labour Government…
… is discussing with airport operators plans to introduce a screening system that allows security staff to focus on those passengers who pose the greatest risk.
The passenger-profiling technique involves selecting people who are behaving suspiciously, have an unusual travel pattern or, most controversially, have a certain ethnic or religious background.
The system would be much more sophisticated than simply picking out young men of Asian appearance. But it would cause outrage in the Muslim community because its members would be far more likely to be selected for extra checks.
Officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) have discussed the practicalities of introducing such a system with airport operators, including BAA. They believe that it would be more effective at identifying potential terrorists than the existing random searches.
It’s encouraging to hear that finally someone has finally screwed up the political courage to even discuss the application of reality-based airport screening. As a relatively frequent flier, I’m ready to accept the heightened risk from blue-haired Texas grandmothers because airport security is waving them through in order to concentrate on 17 – 30 year old males fresh from finishing schools in Islamobad.
As always, YMMV.
Related – comments from John Stevens, former London police chief;
“stop the denial, endless fudging and constant wailing that somehow it is everyone else’s problem and, if Islamic terrorism exists at all, they are somehow the main victims”.
What will it take to waken us from our lethargy? The deaths of thousands of people? Massive plots to destroy aircraft and passengers? Skyscrapers falling into our streets? Oh wait… we’ve had all that. I guess political correctness will always reign.
What will it take to waken us from our lethargy? The deaths of thousands of people? Massive plots to destroy aircraft and passengers? Skyscrapers falling into our streets? Oh wait… we’ve had all that. I guess political correctness will always reign.
It’s about time.Political correctness will kill us all if we let it.
“stop the denial, endless fudging and constant wailing that somehow it is everyone else’s problem and, if Islamic terrorism exists at all, they are somehow the main victims”.
Finally someone with the guts to say it. Only thing, he is the FORMER London police chief. But deep in their hearts 99.9% of the police force would say Amen to that. This ‘war’ is to the death of western civilization, as Churchill saw the war against Hitler and the Nazis. Look how long it took for the rest of Britain, let alone the world, to rally around. And who was one of the first in 1939 to declare war? CANADA. And that was under a Liberal, someone who would have been classed as a wimp and a mummy’s boy – but damn it!, he at least fought the battle.
The lefties couldn’t battle anything – not a war on terrorism nor a war on AIDS, for all their talking. They’d talk themselves to death before they’d actually take some good, hard action. Geez, get off your fannies, stiffen your backbone, and do something decisive!
We need a leader, and thank God we have one in PMSH – and he’s subtle. So measured and subtle it’s a joy to watch!
One of the first books I read as a child was The Brothers Grimm; cautionary Fairy Tales……don’t go down by the river, because trolls live under bridges…..don’t wander in the woods, because there are wolves and witches……..nowadays such stories are non grata, counsellors are called, “There is no monster under your bed”…….”It’s OK, you’re safe”…
Is it any wonder that many people refuse to recognize the dangers?
Perhaps the blinders are finally falling off the British establishment. It seems at least a modicum of common sense is returning….
Hardline anti-backbaconist gellen said: “This ‘war’ is to the death of western civilization, as Churchill saw the war against Hitler and the Nazis.”
Godwin! Ha! You lose!
“Godwin’s Law (also Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a mainstay of Internet culture, an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. It is particulary concerned with logical fallacies such as reductio ad Hitlerum, wherein an idea is unduly dismissed or rejected on ground of it being associated with persons generally considered “evil”.
The law states:
Godwin’s Law:
“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”
Godwin’s Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin argues in his book, Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age, that hyperbolic overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
I am in love!!Now thats what I call a good speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Hnv0rPD7uE&mode=related&search=
Hmmmmmmm …never thought I’d see fellow conservatives cheering on the advent of big brother. It appears that the first casualty of the so called “war”: on terror is individual privacy and freedom more so than national security.
Gee I can hardly wait for this offial techno-paranoia to turn Canadian airports into bureaucratic techno-gulags….I wonder what type of reception I will get this year flying to my hunting destinations…2 dogs and 2 guns…maybe even a bottle of juice or toothpaste as well as ammo….do I start the “security process” 2 months in advance to satisfy all the air travel security commissars that; “yes, people DO hunt and they DO hunt in locations they have to fly to”.
This used to be a helluva free country but buying into big brother’s paranoia only steals more of the few freedoms you have left and conditions you to accept less and less freedom. I will seriously think of taking the train….perhaps the porters won’t go into a dead faint and a foaming paranoid frenzie at the sight of a rifle case.
Re Jo’s “Political correctness will kill us all if we let it”: It already has.
It would appear that political correctness was in part to blame for the disconnect between the FBI and the CIA intelligence gathering and their not taking action to prevent 9/11, and it certainly contributed to the London Underground and bus bombings last summer.
You’re right on, Nemo2, in your recognition that for the past 30 years or so, the warm-fuzzy message to kids, who too often become leftie wingnuts (unless their parents set them straight), is “There is no monster under your bed”…….”It’s OK, you’re safe”…
What a crock.
I call it “patting the snake.” It’s everywhere in Western culture, and kids are learning from a very early age–often in stories in school reading programs–that there’s no such thing as evil in the world, just people that we don’t understand. All cultures are the same, even though, unknown to most students because they’re not being taught history, they are in fact quite different. ‘Mustn’t say this, though.
Because of this indoctrination, most people in Canada, at least those on the left, have no means by which to discern the difference between what is harmful and what is not. In fact, to emphasize differences is a no-no. Huge problem. Imagine if we taught our children that there was no difference between crossing a field and crossing a street, that there was no difference between being hit by a bumble bee or hit by a car.
The thing is, we do teach our children about the dangers of crossing busy streets because they could be killed if they’re not extremely careful. So why can’t we extend this logic by warning the general public about the dangers of global terrorism, its impact in our country, and what they need to be vigilant about?
John Steven’s article is encouraging. More of us need to speak out along the same lines, so that a critical mass of Canadians begin to understand that to protect our security and that of our children and grandchildren is OK. It’s not only OK, it’s the normal, natural, and right thing to do.
Canadians, now, exhibit an abnormal and unnatural pathology in their rush to protect the very elements in our society which are trying to destroy us. It’s some kind of weird death wish which we need to get rid of. Fast.
Shawn Abigail tens of thousands.
‘WL Mackenzie Redux’ we wouldn’t need to have big brother keep us safe if we had no muslim immigrants.
We would be SAFE, alas it’s not the liberal way.
you have to understand the enemy, the leftist crowd’s mindset.
a leftist will never admit error, adherence to the leftist ideology is so strong admission of error and adjustment of actions is too great a shock to their system because you see, leftistism is so ingrained and intrinsic to their nature.
it is why pol pot killed 20% of his own people to reach the ‘ideal’ number under the marxist ideal.
and the never before nor since whackoness from mao’s mind.
its leftistism, thats why political correctness is STILL at the forefront despite the much much more recent events.
I can only hope that moderate Muslims will be offended to the point whereby they take their frustrations out on their terrorist brethern.
Racial profiling should be the order of the day. Afterall it’s 1 race of people that seem to be causing all the havoc in the world today.
“The Jackbooted Left Wight Fascist State Marches Forward”
Kate, I guess we know where you stand on political correctness. The titles of your topics are getting better every day. LOL
There’s really no profile,
http://www3.telus.net/public/safework/blog/audio/rp.mp3
: )
Safest Airline in the world to fly? El Al. Why? They use something called racial profiling for one thing, another, they use something called common sense. They don’t spend the same amount of time with the little old lady schoolteacher from Moose Jaw that they spend with the mussie that makes frequent trips to Pakistan. Gee, I wonder why. What F’ing idiots we are, no, they are.
Western Canadian
They also have a poser with a gun on all flights. To shoot terrorists.
El Al has been using this type of security protocol since at least the ’70s and they are the safest airline (from terrorists) in the world. It is about time the rest of the airlines wake up.
There really is only one group of people who are willing to blow themselves up and take lots of infidels with them. It only makes sense to profile for these persons at airports.
If we were dealing with any other phenomenon than terrorist people, “racial profiling” would be common sense. If we were dealing with a disease, like cholera, we’d start looking at water sources, and pretty soon we’d locate the source of bad water. If we were dealing with exploding cars, pretty soon we’d be studying fuel system design and pinpointing design flaws. But, even though the majority of modern terrorists are young Muslim males, we can’t say the obvious, and so millions of innocent people are faced with harassment, embarrassment, inconvenience, extra cost, and deprivation.
And please don’t ridicule “deprivation” because you can’t bring a can of Yoo-Hoo on board. My manager works in the UK, and he is coming over this week. He normally spends 5 hours on the flight each way catching up on correspondence, reports, etc. It’s not downtime for him. For him to lose 10 precious hours to be spent doing nothing because of terrorists is deprivation.
Kate, did you not spend the last weekend flying? Care to share your experience?
Political correctness is based on two completely false and unproven assumptions. One is psychological and the other is ideological.
The psychological false assumption is that everyone is equal in action and intent, everyone is equal in goodness, no-one is evil and any ‘bad things’ that happen are due only to non-individual social causes that inhibit this psychological equality – such as poverty, job differentiation. The individual is not responsible. The gov’t is responsible.
The reality is that, psychologically, people are NOT equal in action and intent, many people are evil, many people have no intention of complying with social rules of law and order. These are individual properties but political correctness refuses to accept individual responsibility.
The politically correct who assert this false psychological myth that ‘we are all similar and any differences are due to external ‘govt’ influences’ refuses to acknowledge this.
Then, there’s yet another type of inequality, apart from the above noted psychological. That’s ideological. Again, the politically correct assert that all ideologies are similarly valid. An ideology is group-based and also rejects individual responsibility.
That’s the basis of multiculturalism, enshrined as privileged over individualism, within the Canadian Charter. So, we are faced with an ideology that is clearly pathological – Islamic fascism. It rests within a dysfunctional political mode of organization, tribalism, that exists within the Middle East. And, it operates within an unreformed Islamism that promotes this tribalism – which sees women as denigrated, which views other peoples as ‘Other Tribes To Be Conquered’ etc. Defined as a religion, Islamism has moved itselt outside of analysis and question.
And, this ideology has a clear agenda of destruction of the West.
Political correctness, with its insistence that all ideologies are ‘cultural’, which means that they are created by a group and are the private property of a group – and that these ideologies are all equal to each other – can’t deal with the CONTENT of an ideology.
But we can’t live in the false and fictional world of the politically correct. We must acknowledge psychological, or individual, evil. And, we must acknowledge that not all ideologies are valid, just, moral, ethical.
The Islamic fascist ideology is evil. Not only the West but the Muslims have to ‘call it by name’; they have to declare it as unacceptable. Instead – when a Muslim, a member of the Islamic fascist group, commits a terrorist act, Muslims tend to get very angry at ‘you people’, at we who are the targets of Islamic terrorism. They assert that we are ‘mad at Muslims’ for this terrorism and insist that we stop.
Why? It’s a fact. We ARE targets of Islamic terrorism. And why don’t Muslims stop this ideology? Why don’t they prevent their imams from preaching hate? Why don’t they assert that such views are wrong? Instead – we see the opposite; eg, the women of the 18 presumed terrorists in Canada send emails to each other, insisting that their men act as Islamic terrorists.
Therefore, ‘ethinic profiling’, which acknowledges that ONE group, ONE religion, has publicly and actively declared its intention of mass murder and destruction – is a correct action.
You are all wrong.
I’m a democrat. I’m a computer scientist. I’m against racial profiling, and it has nothing to do with me being a democrat.
Why? Because I understand systems on a mathematical level, and know that a random system cannot be tested and gamed. The idea that by targeting Muslims for searches, we will be more safe, is foolish from a mathematical perspective. It will absoutely make the searches less effective…simply because anyone wishing to blow up a plane will be able to send their white buddy instead…knowing that he will escape scrutiny.
If we could be certain that all islamic fundamentalists look the same way, this would work….but they don’t. Jose Padilla and John Walker Lindh prove that they don’t all look the same.
Just wait until an aircraft is bombed which contains some left-leaning whacko (hopefully someone like Jack Layton, who wouldn’t be missed). The the Left will go into an enormous tizzy yelling and screaming that the “government” didn’t do enough to protect them.
We can only hope.
The opposition to profiling takes it to the extreme in that it’s assumed that “only” Middle Eastern males between the ages of 17-35 will be searched. WRONG! They most certainly WILL be searched, AS WELL AS anyone else that raises suspicion.
By so doing they have targeted the search on the group that does 99.99% of the crime and have streamlined the process of travel. What part of common sense is missing in this formula?
It’s like the US Police Chief that was interviewed in Toronto to aid in dealing with the gang problem. He said “Your problem is blacks, Jamaicans I believe?” and the response was “Well we don’t think like that.” His response was “Well you’d better start.” “Takeing it to them is the only way to win.”
Pat
ET, that has to be the longest definition of “crap” I have ever read. Errr, I mean “crap” being political correctness, not your definition 🙂
WL Mackenzie Redux: “It appears that the first casualty of the so called “war”: on terror is individual privacy and freedom more so than national security.”
WL Mac, I respectfully disagree with your comment and side with Dr. Wright. It’s a rare moment because your comments are usually very thoughtful, logical and somewhat bulletproof.
Don’t confuse responsible government policy to protect citizens with loss of freedom. The restrictions to freedoms you speak of is due to the inability of western muslims to address the spread of extremism in their communities. Dr. Maslow would agree that protection of citizens outweighs convenience on the social pyramid. The best way to protect is to focus resources on the sources of the threat…just common sense.
We are in a war much like an individual undergoing treatment for cancer is at war. That person’s freedom to enjoy life became restricted from the moment following diagnosis and the decision to undergo treatment. Our’s became restricted on 9/11. If we want to win the war those restrictions are necessary for our survival and will become more so if Islamic extremism continues to grow within our borders.
Aghast, if there was a crime spree in your neighbourhood that was traced back to, say native gangs, and you were approached by a couple of young native males who seemed to be looking around to see who was watching them, would you not be more wary than say if Kate’s Aunt Edith was coming down the street? Granted maybe dear Aunty is off her rocker and has an (unregistered) squirrel gun hidden in her bustle, but odds are she is not the one that poses the biggest potential threat.
No one ever said only check people because of race. Just check them a little closer.
ET :
The psychological false assumption is that everyone is equal in action and intent, everyone is equal in goodness, no-one is evil and any ‘bad things’ that happen are due only to non-individual social causes that inhibit this psychological equality – such as poverty, job differentiation. The individual is not responsible. The gov’t is responsible.
Well said. Saved me a long post. That would not have been not a third as good. Thank you. We can all thank Marx, Margret Mead, & Frued for the insanity of this pathology.
You’ve got a point, Aghast, but just because Islamofascists may take to using terrorists with lighter coloured skin, doesn’t mean that “the mussie that makes frequent trips to Pakistan,” as Western Canadian puts it, can’t be on a high- priority list for having everything about him/her checked at the gate. Up to this point, that’s been a no-no.
Common sense dictates that any Muslim who has been a frequent flyer to the ME, or who looks suspicious, can and will be searched and detained, if necessary. S/he will not get on that plane if there is the least suspicion that s/he means to blow it up or in any way is going to breach air safety or security.
So, no, we’re not all wrong; we just haven’t taken into account every possibility. Thanks for adding your comment. ‘More to think about.
ET NAILS IT, AGAIN !!
Political correctness is a handcuff used by the do-gooders.
Race is not the problem. SOME of the CULTURE within a race is what can be the problem. Race does not cause Racism, CULTURE causes racism.
Political Correctness claims we cannot fight culture. Even if it is killing us.
When I passed through security in heathrow in June 2006 with five other Canadian women we all had to remove our light jackets and shoes. In the next line over an extremely tall woman in full Burka, long black gloves, all you could see were the eyes, did not have to remove anything as she/he sailed through security. I read recently that Al Zarqawi used the burka to disguise himself on many occasions. It makes sense for a man to wear one as you have all the crap about muslim womens’ body privacy and not speaking to men etc. All people no matter what their religion or beliefs who want to use public systems such as airports etc. should be treated the same.PC should not overrule safety and I think anyone wearing a burka to an airport or any public place should invite immediate suspicion and full searches. The same as a man in a long black trench coat. However my example shows how many people were put at risk that day in June at Heathrow when no one did anything about the very obvious elephant in the room.
The awful thing about ignorance like yours is that it is wide and deep and forever.
Fascists are, by definition, members of your own knee-jerk reactionary party. Fascists are, by defintion, authoritarian corporatists who place business interests ahead of human rights – something only the Republican Party has done in recent years.
I just returned from the U.K.I think I was a matter of hours ahead of the clamp down.I flew Edmonton Calgary London Glasgow returning Glasgow London Calgary Edmonton.I went through the security checks 6 times.At one check point I was asked to remove my shoes and put them through the scanner [which has never happened to me before]They did not do this for all passengers because I watched for a while.Was I being profiled? a fair skinned fifty something with a Scottish accent?Oh the check point Ihad to remove my shoes? Calgary to Edmonton, go figure!
Aghast – I’ll disagree with your assertion that ethnic profiling can’t function as a major means of preventing terrorist attacks.
The ‘basic set’ of terrorists is Islamic. Islam is found in the majority within a particular population set. Therefore, you have already moved out of the phase of complete random testing by selecting this set as your target set.
Now, how do you describe a member of this set, if you can’t tell their membership by external visual cues? External cues are evident in 80% and more of the cases. As for the few who escape this visual criteria, you rely on historical investigative criteria (records of contacts, trips etc).
No system is 100% perfect, but the system that acknowledges (1) that a particular ideological group is the terrorist group and (2) that this group displays visually observable attributes will be operationally superior to one that ignores both aspects.
Aghast: what are you really? A 1st year student/wet-nose wannabe computer scientist?
A “random system cannot be tested and gamed”? It isn’t a pure random system. Different components of the system behave in different ways i.e. different probability distributions. Most of the components have a 0% probability of blowing themselves up on airplanes; that includes “little old ladies from Texas”!
No, fiskhus jim, your definition of ‘fascism’ is completely false. I think you are relying on an ignorant and false internet outline. I suggest that you read a few texts and books on fascism.
Fascism has nothing to do with corporations. Corporate industrialism is a mode of industrial production – which has to do with economics. It enables both the mass production of goods – a requirement in any nation with populations in the millions, and it enables future-oriented investment..also a requirement.
Fascism is a political mode; it privileges the state over the individual. A short definition is Mussolini/Gentile’s two page outline. Fascism denigrates human rights because it denigrates the individual.
I’m unsure why you bring in the Republican party, for it is based around the individualism that is a basic reality of America.
Good, point, Martin B. We are all going to have to forfeit some personal privacy and freedom in fighting the WOT. I don’t live in fear that my government has malicious intentions toward me unless I’m a terrorist engaged in fund raising or plotting here. Even these cell phone suspects, whose preposterous story of buying a 1000 phones, then, separating all of the parts out for resale, right!, get legal counsel and will get their day in court.
It’s ridicuously foolish to be so inflexible that the US Constitution becomes a suicide pact as the ACLU would like it.
Ironic isn’t it, that in spite of the repeating common thread of the local mosque as meeting grounds for these jihadis, we aren’t really doing what we should about this. Personally, I’d have every imam under surveillance and every service videotaped. I sure hope we are doing this.
A few months after the “Shoe Bomber” incident, we were in the security line-up, Peurto Rico to Chicago AA. Ahead of me shoes were being taken off, ladies, kids, everyone that I had seen. I, being of medium build, ect and wearing thick track runners was ready to unlace. Just waved me through. Go figure. It is not that they are stupid. There is definitely a reason. Political Correctness ?? Don’t want to risk being interviewed by some Journalist on a mission ??
Aghast: What does your mathematical perspective tell you about the odds of a potential suicide bomber being one of a possible pool of 1.5 billion Muslims, as opposed to the handful of white nutbars willing to blow themselves up?
cheryl – I’m sick and tired of the pc and multi culti crowds homage to the burqa. Amusing, isn’t it how our pc feminists muzzle themselves from denouncing burqas as a symbol of chattel status and a twisted reflection of the sexual dynamics in large parts of Muslim culture.
Burqas should be treated by airport security as both a symbol of piety and terrorism, one of those inconvenient ironies that the left refuses to reconcile.
aghast is onto something.
how long after ethic profiling becomes routine will the alqida operatives find a way around it??
to scoff whilst they smuggle rocket launcers in one part at a time??? via the lilly white caucasian ‘tourist’ who is nothing more than some nyc hooker PAID to act as courier? the rocket parts safely tucked in her unscanned unsniffed baggage ???
meanwhile all them surly swarthy ME types keep gittin snagged by the great new innovation ‘ethnic screening’ har har har
nothing like a big dollop of false sense of security to … create a sense of security !!!
Aw c’mon ET, YOU know why fiskhus jim brings in the Republican party………how else can one say “It’s ALL Bush’s fault”?
All fine and good, but what happens to a system of racial profiling when Al-Qaeda or some other groups convert blue-eyed, blonde haired men and women to their cause? It seems that they’ve already done so, according to the latest london bomb plots.
Obvious double standard the MSM media has on the issue of religion.
The MSM NEVER mentions religion when it comes to terrorism nor how it is the very root of the problem.
However, if an Evangilical Christian is running for the CPC/GOP what does the MSM focus on and is all too eager to expose? Yup, his religious beliefs.
WL Mackenzie Redux – “I wonder what type of reception I will get this year flying to my hunting destinations…2 dogs and 2 guns…maybe even a bottle of juice or toothpaste as well as ammo..”
As my favourite pants dropping president would say, I feel your pain. It would be just to bad to have your personal amusements disrupted by these nasty goings on.
How about you take your dogs, guns and ammo over to southern Lebanon. I expect the temporary ban on Hezbollah will soon be lifted.
I know that Kofi and Company have tried to set proportional limits but take no mind of that.
Pick up the recently updated guide from IDF for their warrens and dens.
“The Hizballah are moving back into their still undamaged bunkers and fortified civilian dwellings opposite the Israeli border.”
3w.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3111
When Islamic fascism moves into the non-Muslim population, then, it will become a problem larger than, odd as it sounds, Islamic terrorism.
Islamic fascism is directly related to the unevolved primitive tribal political mode of the ME – a mode suited to a non-industrial, low population economy and unsuited to a large population industrial economy – because it doesn’t empower and enable a middle class.
That’s why democracy, which empowers a middle class, is THE first vital tool in dealing with Islamic fascism. Other ‘tools’ would be the recognition by the Islamic community that they have a problem – and that their political and religious modes require maturation and reform.
But, IF, IF, Islamic fascism moves into a non-Muslim population, then, this is very serious. Why would a population living in democracy regress to a tribal mode? That’s what it would actually mean.
The only people who would ‘fall for’ this regression are the people who self-define themselves as ‘progressives’. The left Liberals and NDP. They are actually ‘regressive’. They live in a self-defined fictional utopian world, just as Islamism is also a self-defined fictional utopianism.
The regressives might fall for this, but, only in small numbers. I can’t see them moving beyond the rhetoric, the marches, the songs. Remember how the Canadian Do-Gooder Peacenik (I’m terrible with names; can’t remember) who was captured for ransom in Iraq and who carefully kept his homosexuality from his captors.
I don’t think that the regressives will move beyond the rhetoric. The regressive feminists ignore the denigration of women by Islam and romanticize about ‘the mystery of the veil’; that’s as far as they go. The regressive multiculturalists romanticize about ‘cultural equality’ but ignore the actualities of Sharia Law and dhimmitude.
So, I don’t see large numbers of white, aryans moving into actual terrorist actions.
But there are TWO tactics to deal with Islamic terrorism. One is ethnic profiling; this is factual. Almost 99.9999% of Islamic terrorists are Islamic and ethnically identifiable. (There’s no such thing as ‘race’). Of course ethnic profiling should be carried out; anything less is an act of extreme carelessness on the part of a gov’t sworn to protect its citizens.
The other tactic is historical intelligence, by which I mean, investigative snooping on mail, email, internet, phone calls, business deals etc. It has to be done. What society would enable a group of criminals to plot enormous harm to that society, by refusing to investigate the citizens – not all of whom are Good Citizens and some of whom are Bad Citizens.
Tex canuck….Political correctness IS crap, but so is ET’s definition. On the one hand, who specifically holds the view that all ideologies are equally just, moral and ethical? No one with an IQ above their shoe size. On the other hand, one is free to adhere to any philosophy one chooses, as long as putting that philosophy into practice does not violate someone else’s person or property. Fundamentalism, left, right, Islamic, Christian etc. is the scourge of humanity.
aghast and Robert J – what we really need to do, if you really want to take the ethnicity flaw out of the screening equation is to start religious profiling, as well as the obvious country of origin, since Islam cuts across many ethnic groups. After all, it is a religious war. We know it isn’t Christians, Jews, Mormons, the Amish, agnostics and atheists that are trying to blow us out of the sky.
There really can’t be that many non-Muslim girlfriends that can be duped into taking a flight alone, after Muslim boyfriend packs her bags and speeds from the airport curb, left.
Fundamentalism, left, right, Islamic, Christian etc. is the scourge of humanity.…who specifically holds the view that all ideologies are equally just, moral and ethical?
You. You just inadvertently did in your lame equation because they sure aren’t equally as evil either.
mary jane – fundamentalist Christians don’t have much of a body count to show for as scourges. Are they holding you back in life? Threatening personal harm? Get real.
ET, you write that “Other ‘tools’ [in dealing with Islamic fascism, aside from empowering a middle class] would be the recognition by the Islamic community that they have a problem – and that their political and religious modes require maturation and reform.”
My question is, what would ever motivate the Islamic community to either empower a middle class or to mature and reform? They’ve been quite successful as they are for thousands of years, and seem to becoming increasingly successful given all the pliant and useful idiots in the West…
I can’t imagine what would make them want to change…
“Fundamentalism, left, right, Islamic, Christian, etc. is the scourge of humanity.” – maryjane
A dictionary example of moral equivalence.
The Islamic fascists plan on blowing up planes, well, uh, it’s the same as those gnarly Christian fundamentalists blowing up things too. Even if they don’t, they could. So there.
Freakin’ idiot.
If pit bulls, cigarettes and coal burning plants are singled out and banned for killing – the hothouse that grows terrorists should be banned as well. Islam should be banned in Canada.
I can’t imagine what would make them want to change…
Nothing internally. Forget about building a middle class. It takes time and that’s what we are running out of with the increasing lethality of this cult. A literate middle-class didn’t reverse fascism in Germany either.
The only thing that changed Nazi Germany and Japan was total unconditional defeat with no latitude extended to them and democracy forced upon them with years of occupation enforcing the new rules.
The Communists ran out of money to fund their utopia plain and simple. They didn’t fall because they gained insight. There isn’t any time left for this cult to change in an orderly manner now that they are building their Islamic nuclear bomb to deploy on the rest of us.
‘been round the block – what will motivate Muslims to reform their religion and sociopolitical ideology?
First, they haven’t been successful. The Islamic world hasn’t invented a single technological device or had an innovative scientific development for 1000 years. The ONLY economy they have is – selling oil, for industries elsewhere. That’s a fragile economy and what happens when the oil runs out, or when the industrial world develops new energy sources?
What will motivate them to mature, is several things.
Globalization with its informational content will move the youth to want more freedom; the internet is part of that.
The modern economy is a linked and international economy; the youth will want to be part of that.
At the moment in the ME tribal zones, all the youth have is a pathological fundamentalism; they don’t have any economic or political power in their lands.
In addition to these, the West has to refuse to accomodate isolate tribalism, by which I mean, it has to refuse to accomodate ‘multiple isolate groups of civilians’. If you are a citizen of a western country, then, you abide by its laws; you don’t insist on the introduction of Sharia Law etc.
The West has to refuse to accept any limitations on its democratic developments, which include freedom of speech, thought and the press.
State and church have to remain separate.
The West also has to confront the Muslim world and assert its right to protect its citizens from their fascists. It has to inform the Muslim world that it is THEIR adherents who are fascist, who are terrorists, and the West has the right and duty of self-protection. If this self-protection includes ethnic profiling, surveillance of mosques, imprisonment for hate speech – so be it.
In other words – the West has to Be Firm and refuse to accomodate Islamic dhimmitude. It must say ‘NO’.
The West must be public about the need for reform in the Muslim world, about the fact that Islamic fascism is based in the ideology of the Muslim world – and that the Muslim world is responsible.
The regressives of the West (Liberals, NDP, left) claim that the West is responsible for Islamic fascism. Nonsense. Muslims aren’t machines; they don’t just react to external influences like a wind pendulum. They can think; they’ve made the CHOICE of fascism. They are alone responsible.
The West has to enable democracy to develop in the ME.
The West has to publicize the statements and work of reforming Muslims.
All of this will shift the balance to show the Islamic world that fascism is not successful.
Another thing that will help – is Iran’s imperial ambitions. The Arab States of SA, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq don’t want to be under Iran. This split in the ME will actually, I think, assist the modernization of that area.