EI, your "profiling" take is pretty much on the money.

Refer to my take on the post listed below.

http://www.cigarbid.com/auction/forum/forum.cfm?action=list&forumID=9&messageDisplay=0000000031861 

THEY DON'T CARE.

If we can save another mass murder in the name of extremeist muslims, then profile them! I am sorry, but the ACLU would have protected Adolph Hitler's rights had they have been around in 1945! All the negativity tossed at the Attorney General because he wanted to assure the saftey of all Americans was uncalled for and supported greatly by those in Congress who always seem to stand against what is right and anything that seems to lean against a minority group!

Charlie

Skatty2hotty

You're still full of crap. Read what you wrote. It's not true any way you qualify it. The numbers aren't even close.

It's only a religious war to them. They want to kill Westerners, no matter their faith, whom they see as servants of Satan. We'd like to discourage that. No one is advocating wholesale killing of Muslims. Just the ones that mean us harm and their helpers. For you to try to turn this into a Christian vs. Muslim issue is misguided.

interesting site

http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/vic_chris.htm 

I'm not trying to turn this into a Christian vs. Muslim thing. I simply chose to make a point involving Christianity because of the familiarity it holds with most people on the boards. Similar to the fashion that Adroomi introduced the "Black Male" test. I assume his motivation is to demonstrate that it is very easy to find faults with any group of people. This topic originated around negativity toward Muslim males. I am only trying to point out that profiling is prejudice. Were the roles to be reversed, complaints of personal freedom violations would be unending.

==========================================

Author: Skatty2hotty Date: 01/27/2005 04:31 PM

"profiling is prejudice"

==========================================

That's pure unadulterated bull**** ...

Prejudice is an uninformed opinion that is not based on fact ...

Profiling is based on KNOWN FACTS ...

I know this is repetitious, but if a group of people matching a particular description is known to have perpetrated a crime, only a stupid fool (f'ing idiot) would go blunder about looking into folks who didn't match the description in any way ...

"yeah, I know ... the suspects were all described as being being athletic men who were more than 6'6", but we it wouldn't be PC to just go around checking tall guys ... we need to check sub-5' grannies over at the rest home as well"

Sorry to have been short with you SkattyHotty(sp?), but don't have much time while on the job...

So what do you propose we do to catch terrorists who tend to fit a certain "criteria"?

Should we subject a Scandinavian 80yr- old grandmother to the same scrutiny as a 30yr- old middle-eastern "student"?

It's amazing how some "westerners" agonize over this issue & yet the Egyptians don't think twice about torturing to death a muslim who has converted to Christianity, OR the Saudis who'll flagellate a woman who has been caught in public reading a bible.

People who make the moral equivalence between religions raise my hackles!

Skatty2hotty was Pol Pot a Christian?

how about the hundreds of thousands murdered by Sadam in Iraq in the last 30 years. Are you saying he is a Christian?

Oh and that well loved Christian Adolf Hitler Lets not forget about him

And his name escapes me at the moment but the ruler of Uganda in the 70's that ate some of his victims, was he a Christian? oh yeah Idi Aman thats his name not sure on the spelling

Steve, I'm sorry, I guess I should have elaborated my point. When profiling involves characteristics such as blonde hair, big feet, short stature, etc. then it is smart to profile. The discussion is about profiling Muslim Extremists. The suggested way is to profile Muslims aged 17 - 50. We're signalling out entire races of people. After 9/11 I remember talking to graduate student who had just received a slanderous comment about being a "raghead" or "camel-jockey" or something of the type. He looked at me and said, "I'm from India, and a Hindu, what do those have to do with me." That's the kind of profiling thats being suggested.

EI, I don't know what you're getting at, but No, none of them are Christian.

" Were the roles to be reversed, complaints of personal freedom violations would be unending."

and they haven't been through-out history??

who has a better chance at a good job position here in America with the very same qualifications??

Caucasion Female?

Ethnic Female?

Caucasion Male?

Ethnic Male?

Disabled Caucasion Female?

Disabled Ethnic Female?

Disabled Cauc. Male?

Disabled Ethinc Male?

Lets move on to. Who here in America has a better chance at being listed for Government Assistance?

Caucasion Female?

Ethnic Female?

Caucasion Male?

Ethnic Male?

Disabled Caucasion Female?

Disabled Ethnic Female?

Disabled Cauc. Male?

Disabled Ethinc Male?

There already is a stereotyping going on in this country... and religious prefrences don't really come into play (or Do they?) when you fill out a job application or rather anything to do with something of this nature.. assistance for college etc... all these questons are on the "TEST" all this information is Stored in a "System"

But to get back to this Policically Correctness of this Thread....

Christians through-out history have been a minotity and looked down upon and shunned maimed or killed.... so be it... that is also Gods test... I say as a minotiry because they do speak out.. but at the same time have always had their speech stripped out for a PC world... they cannot pray in school but the federal government has now acts in congress to allow Muslims their hour or two through the day for their prayers??? why is America going backwards?? they already allow this Prayer set aside in Prisons??

The Muslim world doesn't want to be Racialy Profiled (StereoTyped) then maybe they should change the way of thinking and get on board with the rest of the world rather then the way they teach and America go backwords...

I've got freinds and have had friends who are muslim... I've even made friends through the years...I don't view them any different then I would my brothers and sisters in the christian ways... but if I knew they were up to no good and was acting on something brought by their teachings that would lead to innocent deaths of other people... our friendship would end abrutly with options of violence in the long run...

Vigilance Gave America it's Birth and Vigilance is needed to keep it!!!!

Hog

Author: Skatty2hotty Date: 01/27/2005 05:05 PM Reply

EI, I don't know what you're getting at, but No, none of them are Christian.

Thats the point . You just don't get it.

All of those people I just mention killed more people than those Christians you accused of killin in the name of their religion

From the 1500s to the 1900s over 150 million Native Americans (north and south) died. Two thirds of that number was from disease, the rest was slaughter. The crusades saw the death of tens of millions of non-christians. The death of the Cathars numbered one million.

Maybe there has been some psycho who has killed over 100 million people pushing Christian wars into second. Whatever. My point wasn't about who killed the most it was merely that they've killed plenty.

This Christian Attrocity vs. Muslim Atrocity issue has gotten out of hand. Numbers aside, it is a comparison of apples and oranges. The inquisition; the Albengensian (sp?)Crusade, and many of the other crusades were about increasing the church's (and aligned royalty's)land holdings and wealth by unscrupluous means. While far from honorable in it's implementation, we can understand the motivation behind these campaigns.

Muslim fundamentalist Jihad, on the other hand, is not rational to me. They are not seeking wealth or power, they are seeking glory and grace of god by the bloodshed of innocents...........thats weird man.

Killing for wealth and power are no more justifiable than any other reason. Innocents were slaughtered for what they believed in. Whatever the reason, it's wrong.

Threadjack On:

Skatty2hotty;

The Cathars were christians too! It is just that the "dominant" christian force at the time was the roman church. Representatives of the Roman church were sent to investigate reports of the Cather "heresy" and their findings were that the Cathers were many times more "pious" that most roman christians and that the only problems were that the roman endorsed churches in the area were irrecovably corrupt. During the crusade against the Cathars, a captain asked the pope's representative "How can we tell the catholics from the heretics?", he was told," Kill them all, God will recognize his own".

The roman church killed thousands of other christians as well, but the Roman Church was a political power; not a religious sect.

It just doesn't seem right to call these "killings in the name of Christianity". Wanna blame the catholic church? Go ahead......they certainly haven't gone through any great efforts to dismiss or justify their violent history, but catholic christianity DOES NOT advocate these sort of actions, whereas Islam does (according to the Koran).

The crusades/inquisition were politically motivated; they had no basis in scripture, so the only ones who were killing "In God's Name" were the ones doing the lying, and the ones who believed the lies.

"From the 1500s to the 1900s over 150 million Native Americans (north and south) died. Two thirds of that number was from disease, the rest was slaughter. The crusades saw the death of tens of millions of non-christians. The death of the Cathars numbered one million."

Who say's these Native Americans where not Christian in their ways and values??? History of the politically correct world??? they had them labled as savages during the time your refrencing... but it is also said even in their beliefs today that they saw Jesus walking on this land we now call America... so who is to say they were not enacted with Christian Values from Jesus and God himself??? we could learn allot from the Native Americans... and many times we have over the decades...

we can keep on pointing fingers also at who is responsible for this bloodshed or that one... but then when you really look at it... it brings us right back to the original post!!!!

At this present time this is the bloodshed we are dealing with and if it comes down to the death of a politically correct Muslim Fanatic or the death of Innocent civilian People... you damn sure betchya who I'm going to have a bead on!!!! and will not hesitate to drop the hammer!!!!!

Hog

I'm familiar with the Cathars. Like the them the Aryan were also Christian. Christians killing Christians, Protestants killing Catholics, Catholics killing Visigoths. It's all the same. You call it "polical", I call it killing due to differences in belief. As for the Crusades, it was a holy war. They were all killing in the name of God.

you said...

"The roman church killed thousands of other christians as well, but the Roman Church was a political power; not a religious sect."

The Roman Church was both polical and religious. It killed millions of other Christians.

Hog, you really nailed the cyclical nature of this thread.

I'm not debating the values of those killed.

...At this present time this is the bloodshed we are dealing with and if it comes down to the death of a politically correct Muslim Fanatic or the death of Innocent civilian People... you damn sure betchya who I'm going to have a bead on!!!! and will not hesitate to drop the hammer!!!!! ...

Drop the "Muslim" in that statement and I couldn't agree more. My problem is that too many people focus on the Muslim and not the Fanatic part.

"Innocents were slaughtered for what they believed in"

I ain't against you skatty but you are misinterpreting my points;

As far as the inquisition/crusades go, innocents were slaughtered because the pope wanted to take all of their stuff!!!!

Your original reply (to me anyway) indicated that our opinions should be tempered by the fact that people were wiped out by Christians. This is true, but my point was that he motivation was very much less than holy; it was more akin to war (invade a country and take all of their good sh@t).

I think we can agree on this;

The Islam doctrine of faith (in scripture) actually suggests that the non-believer be killed. Fundamentalists (literalists) believe that this is their sacred charge.

While Christian fundamentalists may be a little out there, at least most of them trust god to do the killing. The Christian doctrine does not advocate genocide or terrorism. It is based on love and righteousness. It's unfortunate that it was the prevalent religion in Europe when these whacked out popes and kings did all these bad things.

"Drop the "Muslim" in that statement and I couldn't agree more. My problem is that too many people focus on the Muslim and not the Fanatic part."

Very True... timmothy mcveah(sp) wasn't a muslim...

but the bottom line still remains America and Americans have to maintain a vigilance to their surroundings... we take to many things for granted and at the same time give up that bit of vigilance to maintain a politically correct status quo...

Hog