Why do you think that would do any good? What makes you think the "99%" have the slightest influence over the radicals? What makes you think they can actually compell them?

New Guy wrote: I beleive that there is a demonstrated significant percentage of Muslims, especially in the Mid-East, that contribute to the problems of the cause of Islamic terrorism ElCid Replies: I do not disagree with you. If you go on to read all your following qualifiers, I still do not disagree with you. I think your statements are measured and reasonable, and in some circumstances I could write the same sentences. Whatever I may have said about universal condemnation of Muslims was not intended to reflect any criticism of any opinion such as your own - if expressed in such a way. But note also that noting I said also contradicted anything you said. I have no clue why you think we are on opposite sides of any issue if these sentences represent your views. Either we never disagreed, or somehow you got associated with others who said things you do not believe. I hope this helps.

The problem of preaching hate is a serious one. In fact, I think we should consider making it illegal. {The British have moved to do just that - but while the subject of the new law is Islam - it is not, as I first assumed, the imam preaching hate. It is anyone preaching that all Muslims are the enemy, etc. The most interesting aspect of this debate was the research used to justify the law, indicating the proportion of Muslims who support terrorism. I suggest you contact Parliment - so you need not believe me what the research indicates.] I thnk both you and Parliment are right - make both the imam and anyone preaching hate Islam both outlaws. What good can come from tolerating either view? And that is a real question. Go ahead and explain why the policy now common in the USA, Canada and Europe - send observers to mosque to listen and identify who is radical - is inferior to just assuming they are all bad?

>>The problem of preaching hate is a serious one. In fact, I think we should consider making it illegal.<< Why not go the full mile and make it illegal to come up with sensible legislation? Hatred is a emotional state that can be both prudent and rational or unwarranted and irrational. Illegal or not, I'm still going to hate things that I feel righteously deserve hatred - slavery, totalitarianism, the New England Patriots, etc. The minute the Congress decides to codify acceptable political expressions is the day we should be strangling the last Democrat with the entrails of the last Republican. >>Go ahead and explain why the policy now common in the USA, Canada and Europe - send observers to mosque to listen and identify who is radical - is inferior to just assuming they are all bad?<< Because it is hampered by the very "anti-hate" PC crap you're advocating. On the one hand, you've got to sneak around mosques secretly watching for a "radical," and on the other hand you have to jump up and down swearing that you'd never monitor a mosque because you don't want to be seen as "profiling" potential terrorists. Or even worse - what we do now - "random" checks of obviously non-terrorist flight passengers while Arabs with expired visas board without delay - out of "sensitivity." Tell ya what. On September 11th, 2001, 19 Arab Islamic hijackers boarded planes, some without hassle, some with an extra pass through the metal detector, and none were screened as potential terrorists. The result? Over 3,000 dead. But at least no Muslims were offended.

So all you have is noise? You don't even have it right. People who are not Arabs but look like they might be are hasseled a great deal more than others are. Even Secret Service credentials - or Military Police credentials - vouched for by Airport Police - are not enough to save you. Since looking Semetic is very close to the average of the world - one might be Jewish, or Keltic like me - racial profiling is sweeping up a great many people who are not Arab and giving us a taste of what it is like to be an innocent Arab. I wish you had some of that experience. I find it curious you use the word PC with respect to me. I am the most un PC person you have ever read - and no one in the PC world would agree with that characterization. I don't care what is politically correct. I care what is just and what is effective. It is particularly curious that you lecture me about what happened on 911. As if perhaps I do not see it as a problem worthy of addressing? If you are going to start a revolution because Congress restricts political speech, you should call your first meeting. It is a felony to engage in certain forms of racial speech. The proposal (in the UK) was to add religious hate to the race hate laws. [I am not commenting on the laws per se - just noting they exist. If you think that is grounds for revolution - you should be a revolutionary now. In fact, if you were thought to really hate Arabs (a race) instead of Muslims (a religion) you might actually be in violation of the law already.] Finally, I must confess to confusion and mystery about why you are upset with me? If you really believe in free political speech, why is it wrong to say that each person should be treated as they diserve, as an individual, instead of prejudged on the basis of their race or religion? Is this really an argument that you wish to engage in? If so, is it new post 911, or did you always hate people based on similar reasoning? Either way, are you not handing victories (of the psychological and moral kind) to OBL et al? Are you comfortable with adopting his world view?

"Finally, I must confess to confusion and mystery about why you are upset with me? If you really believe in free political speech, why is it wrong to say that each person should be treated as they diserve, as an individual, instead of prejudged on the basis of their race or religion?" Because to various degrees, stereotyping is not only NOT wrong, but often right and useful. A reasonable person always bears in mind that every human is unique, and no single factor or small subset of factors within this huge world of 6 billion individuals means the same thing about every person. However, in the real world of limited resources it is perfectly reasonable to draw conclusions from the data, and tailor our responses to it. Past evidence shows old black women are not the terrorist threat, period. Therefore, if you're going to screen anybody at airports, but you're not going to screen everybody to the same level, then you don't need to screen old black women to the higher level. In fact, for the minimum amount of increased screening to return the maximum amount of increased security, you should just screen middle-eastern looking adult males. That's the facts. Hey, if that means some men who aren't from Saudi Arabia or Syria get scrutized a bit, oh well, at least it spares a whole bunch of other people. Thank you for making your contribution to the war effort, fella. Displacedjim

"Free speech does not mean you have the right to cry "FIRE!" in a crowded movie house."

"The problem of preaching hate is a serious one. In fact, I think we should consider making it illegal" We might as well elect President al-Zarqawi, if we're going to do that. Was not this country founded on hatred of tyranny? I don't think you can deny that with hatred, comes commitment to change. I firmly believe that OUTLAWING hate speech directed at any group, or all groups, will only allow those groups to trample us. Why is it that you feel a man or woman should be jailed for hating the religion of those who strive to kill us? I'll make a note for the record that I hate Islam, the Koran, Mohammed, Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Wahhabism, Hamas, and all associated fronts, factions, and liberation organizations. Moreover, they hate me. I am infidel swine to them. The point I'm trying to make here is that, until recently, most Americans had no opinion on Islam. That is, most of us did not hate it. This did not prevent terrorism. So, how would it do any good to ban hate speech towards it? If anything, we ought to have a constitutional amendment banning it, as that would be less of an infringement on our first amendment rights, and can be genuinely guaranteed not to affect the lives of the vast majority of Americans.

>>So all you have is noise? You don't even have it right. People who are not Arabs but look like they might be are hasseled a great deal more than others are. Even Secret Service credentials - or Military Police credentials - vouched for by Airport Police - are not enough to save you. Since looking Semetic is very close to the average of the world - one might be Jewish, or Keltic like me - racial profiling is sweeping up a great many people who are not Arab and giving us a taste of what it is like to be an innocent Arab. I wish you had some of that experience.<< I've had my share of unwarranted law enforcement harassment just by the fact that I wear my hair long and hippy-like. Perhaps there's a bit of locality to that - the only key difference between the St. Louis Police Department and criminal street gangs is one is allowed to be trigger-happy, drug-dealing menacing thugs and the other is not allowed to wear official government-sanctioned badges. But that's a bit off topic. My point is current US federal law prohibits "racial profiling" of airline flight passengers at security screening points. For example, security officials may not search more than 4 Middle Eastern passengers of the same flight during their "random" sweeps of passengers. I'm not sure if the "no more than 4" rule applies to all ethnic classifications, or if Washington, in their infinite wisdom, has decided that the appearance of vigilance towards terrorism constitutes "racism" and only 86-year old Caucasian grandmothers may be strip-searched with impunity. What I do know is that the terrorists probing our weaknesses laugh at the "no more than 4" rule as sets of 9, 10, 12, 14 Middle Eastern men board planes with expired visas laughing at the nun getting her shoes searched for plastique. My point is that we're deliberately "looking the wrong way" so as to not offend the people who want to kill us. >>I find it curious you use the word PC with respect to me. I am the most un PC person you have ever read - and no one in the PC world would agree with that characterization. I don't care what is politically correct. I care what is just and what is effective.<< So do I. But is it just, is it effective, to intentionally have the majority of people being rolled up by "random" airport security screening for additional searches be people who aren't likely terrorists-in-waiting to make the show that we're not scrutinizing those who meet the profile along racial or ethnic lines? To me, 3000+ dead is one helluva lot more distressing than Abdul al-Arabi getting his carry-on checked for a box-cutter. >>It is particularly curious that you lecture me about what happened on 911. As if perhaps I do not see it as a problem worthy of addressing?<< Surely you agree that when one goes rabbit hunting, you should aim to consider only those animals with big ears and cotton tails. Surely you'll catch more rabbits by foregoing the temptation to search under moss-covered rocks and do DNA testing on snails to make sure they're not rabbits. There are logical and comprehensive steps to take to guard against potential terrorists. These steps would include, somewhere, actually determining what is suspect and what is harmless. As long as we're doing everything we can to avoid appearing to hold suspect profiles under scrutiny, we're kidding ourselves. Which is one reason I won't fly on a US-origin flight unless I have on hand a signed letter from everyone from the ground crew on up certifying that no armed terrorist is aboard my flight. That's fine. There aren't many places outside the United States I'm interested in visiting. But for others, do you feel safe knowing Senator Snort's wooden leg is not a neutron bomb while the Syrian with the guitar case boarding the plane unchecked might have a weapon? >>If you are going to start a revolution because Congress restricts political speech, you should call your first meeting. It is a felony to engage in certain forms of racial speech. The proposal (in the UK) was to add religious hate to the race hate laws. [I am not commenting on the laws per se - just noting they exist. If you think that is grounds for revolution - you should be a revolutionary now. In fact, if you were thought to really hate Arabs (a race) instead of Muslims (a religion) you might actually be in violation of the law already.] Finally, I must confess to confusion and mystery about why you are upset with me? If you really believe in free political speech, why is it wrong to say that each person should be treated as they diserve, as an individual, instead of prejudged on the basis of their race or religion? Is this really an argument that you wish to engage in? If so, is it new post 911, or did you always hate people based on similar reasoning? Either way, are you not handing victories (of the psychological and moral kind) to OBL et al? Are you comfortable with adopting his world view<< I think the confusion lies in your ha

The problem with allowing hate speech is that there is no telling where it will end. If you hate Islam, that's your right--I doubt you go around burning mosques. By the same extension, however, a neo-Nazi could use that argument to say that it is his right to smash synagogue windows. Racial profiling isn't hate speech. It's sensible. Given the history of terrorism since 1950, searching young males bearing Arab passports, student visas, or with stamps indicating they've passed through known terrorist hideouts (Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, etc.) is just smart thinking. If the person has nothing to hide and the TSA person isn't being badge heavy, there should be no problems. I would rather be searched thoroughly (as I have been, twice, and unless AQ has opened an Irish branch, I bear no resemblance to one of their operatives) than risk getting blown apart in midair because someone decided to be PC.