Support NeoGAF

[fart]

Bah, I'm not even gonna go to that thread or I'll get mad.

iirc i was pretty much frothing at the mouth

 

[XS+]

No they don't, 'cause they're dead!



Whatever, you're still way off base. They're not muslims who are doing any of this. They're stupid kids who come from terrible places being coopted by influencial people. It so happens that the socioeconomic position of many places in the middle east makes this a great place to recruit impressionable people with little else to live for. Rich and fat America looks like great target, and thousands of poor youths are being brainwashed by these insane terrorist leaders to go out and commit these suicide bombings. Singlingout arab muslims is as absurd as locking up all the Japanese. The two or three countries with the largest muslim population aren't arab by the way (Iran, India & Indonesia I believe).

Again, as I told another, if there is another attack on an order of magnitude comparable to 9/11, will you still oppose these measures? How else can they be sure to prevent an attack?

 

[MIMIC]

Again, as I told another, if there is another attack on an order of magnitude comparable to 9/11, will you still oppose these measures? How else can they be sure to prevent an attack?

Uhh, these measures weren't necessary for the first attack.

It's called "connecting the dots." Again, I point to the massive "intelligence" failure.

 

[Xenon]

Yeah there is a lot of ignorance out there about the Muslim community. So the numbers don’t surprise me. Shit I bet the majority of people don't even know that Muslims believe in Jesus as a profit. I think Muslim groups in the US should maybe try to take out some ads or have an open house for their communities. This might help diffuse some of the fear. Because I dont see most Americans making an effort to understand on their own.

 

[Dilbert]

everytime i hit one of these threads i end up adding someone to my ignore list.

My only regret is that I don't have a "to be disappeared in the middle of the night" list.

XS+'s views are fucking disgusting.

 

[Azih]

t's lamentable, sure, but would you rather be secure in knowing that Muslims are granted access to our country, thereby ensuring against their ability to attack us

*There* is the generalisation. we want access to your country as it ensures our ability to attack you? Recognize your damn thoughts for what they are.

 

[fart]

oh look, xenon's posted! this thread is only going to get better.

 

[All Hail C-Webb]

Lemme guess, the same 44% voted red.

They also saw "Passion of the christ" multiple times.

 

[Drozmight]

Man, I can't wait until the second civil war, and we rampage through the south, raping and pillaging as we go. Yar!!! Bring me my hook!

 

[XS+]

My only regret is that I don't have a "to be disappeared in the middle of the night" list.

XS+'s views are fucking disgusting.

What is so deplorable about my views? I'm not charging that Muslims are inherently disposed to catastrophic violence -- how can they be? -- nor am I suggesting that we adopt draconian measures to meet the threat of terrorism. I am, however, saying that, should another attack on our shores, comparable to 9/11, come at the hands of Islamo-fascists, why shouldn't we take such measures? Another attack will provide the groundwork for policy that addresses a pattern exclusive to Islamo-fascism. Were the policy I propose instituted immediately subsequent to 9/11, I would have raised a voice of protest. There comes a point when the livelihood of Americans takes precedence over any encroachment on the rights of a class of people from which sadistic mass murderers have come. I'm not willing to turn the other cheek after yet another 3,000 people are senselessly murdered for a sick cause. I'm not a xenophobe.

 

[Azih]

nor am I suggesting that we adopt draconian measures to meet the threat of terrorism. I am, however, saying that, should another attack on our shores, comparable to 9/11, come at the hands of Islamo-fascists, why shouldn't we take such measures?

Contradicting yourself within two sentences. New record futami.

 

[Azih]

I'm not charging that Muslims are inherently disposed to catastrophic violence .... There comes a point when the livelihood of Americans takes precedence over any encroachment on the rights of a class of people from which sadistic mass murderers have come.

Completely different contradiction, but this one comes over the course of the paragraph.

 

[Phoenix]

Lemme guess, the same 44% voted red.

I know a handful that voted blue. Ignorance and insensibility isn't limited to Republicans. i know at least 2 democrats that have gone as far as to say that muslims are evil and we should kill them to protect our safety.

Ignorance and stupidity is and always will be multi-ethnic and span multiple political affiliations.

 

[Phoenix]

Your generalisations are astounding XS.

Thank God somebody said it.

 

[XS+]

Completely different contradiction, but this one comes over the course of the paragraph.

Where's the contradiction? Muslims aren't disposed towards violence. Islam is a religion. However, Islamo-fascists, the type of murderous thugs who commandeered two jetliners and careened them into the WTC, are MUSLIMS. A minority of those who praise allah commit despicable acts of terrorism. Sadly, should another attack occur, what choice will we have but to limit the rights of those who hail from that region? Why should Saudis and Egyptians not encounter restrictions that limit their access to our country? Why should the lives of Americans come after the rights of a class housing those who dispense terrific violence in the name of allah? Again, I'm not a xenophobe. I don't believe Muslim-AMERICANS should find themselves exiled from our country. If there is another attack, though, I do think that we need to shut our borders to immigrant Muslims in transit to our shores. Isn't that common sense?

 

[effzee]

i have nothing to add cept i like how "Allah" gets thrown around like its some seperate entity when it just means "God" in arabic.

 

[Phoenix]

You have young men and women willing to martyr themselves in the name of allah. In Chechnya, 300 people, many of whom were children, were blown up by so-called muslims.

You are aware that actions taken by US foreign policy in clandestine operations have killed muslims as well as well as a lot of other nationalities. It amazes me how people justify or ignore that 'our hands' aren't clean either.

 

[XS+]

Shit I bet the majority of people don't even know that Muslims believe in Jesus as a profit. I think Muslim groups in the US should maybe try to take out some ads or have an open house for their communities.

A lot of Christians look at Jesus as profit, too.

 

[Phoenix]

Where's the contradiction? Muslims aren't disposed towards violence. Islam is a religion. However, Islamo-fascists, the type of murderous thugs who commandeered two jetliners and careened them into the WTC, are MUSLIMS. A minority of those who praise allah commit despicable acts of terrorism. Sadly, should another attack occur, what choice will we have but to limit the rights of those who hail from that region?

If we have another bombing of a government building by white americans should we lock them all up as well or limit their rights? If we have another set of black snipers killing people for days should we start profiling all african americans who purchase firearms?

What you're saying doesn't make any sense and is the road to definite disaster.

 

[XS+]

You are aware that actions taken by US foreign policy in clandestine operations have killed muslims as well as well as a lot of other nationalities. It amazes me how people justify or ignore that 'our hands' aren't clean either.

I think there is a distinction. While I deplore our ignoble foreign policy, there is a difference between the collaterral toll of our militaristic jaunts and the cold, calculated movement of terror that targets innocent people.

 

[Mejilan]

You know, if the whole world was Jewish, we'd all be better off...


*runs away*

 

[Master Z]

Were there another attack on our shores, I'd agree that we should limit the civil liberties of Muslim-Americans who have been proven to be connected to terrorists.

Fixed.

 

[Phoenix]

I think there is a distinction. While I deplore our ignoble foreign policy, there is a difference between the collaterral toll of our militaristic jaunts and the cold, calculated movement of terror that targets innocent people.

Not all of our actions are militaristic - the CIA engages in a variety of 'actions' for domestic reasons.

 

[Azih]

That's right, start backing off Futami. That last post of yours was one of the only times that you bothered drawing a clear distinction between 'Muslims' and 'Islamo-fascists'. I don't give a damn whether the reason for that is ignorance, viscousness, or carlessness. Stop doing it. Don't use the two terms interchangeably because I will call you on it.

And even your brand new retrated stance isn't good enough.

Why should Saudis and Egyptians not encounter restrictions that limit their access to our country?

Collective punishment? Presuming guilt until proven inncocent? Painting all Saudis and Egyptians with the same brush? Take your pick.

Were there another attack on our shores, I'd agree that we should limit the civil liberties of Muslim-Americans

we should almost certainly refuse immigration from muslims -- principally arabs


we're at war with people who, because of their faith, wish to see a whole lot of Americans dead.


but would you rather be secure in knowing that Muslims are granted access to our country, thereby ensuring against their ability to attack us, or would you rather defend their "rights" at the expense of your loved ones?

 

[Azih]

You know, if the whole world was Jewish, we'd all be better off.

Too bad the rest of us aren't one of God's chosen people, huh?

 

[Mejilan]

Hey, we're all G-d's chosen people.*

*Unless of course you don't believe.

 

[XS+]

If we have another bombing of a government building by white americans should we lock them all up as well or limit their rights? If we have another set of black snipers killing people for days should we start profiling all african americans who purchase firearms?

What you're saying doesn't make any sense and is the road to definite disaster.

Again, it's the pattern. I look at the bombing of the Oklahoma federal building as an isolated instance of domestic terrorism. With Islamo-fascism, there is a clear and unequivocal industry of committing the most grievous kind of violence against innocents -- and that terrorism is bred by a fanatical devotion to Islam. Don't offer up strawmen to counter my position. Argue with substance, please.

If there is another 9/11 style assault on the American people, how should we respond? If the U.S. refused the migration of Middle Easterners to our shore, wouldn't that attack (the second hypothetical) likely not occur?

 

[Azih]

there is a difference between the collaterral toll of our militaristic jaunts and the cold, calculated movement of terror that targets innocent people.

Oddly enough the families and communites who have dead members because of the 'collateral toll' don't tend to see things that way. Funny how that works huh?

 

[Azih]

Argue with substance, please.

Argue with substance? You haven't given any foundation for your distinction between Oklahoma and 9/11!

Edit: Other than 'I look at the bombing of the Oklahoma federal building as an isolated instance of domestic terrorism.' This is your idea of substance?

 

[Phoenix]

Again, it's the pattern. I look at the bombing of the Oklahoma federal building as an isolated instance of domestic terrorism. With Islamo-fascism, there is a clear and unequivocal industry of committing the most grievous kind of violence against innocents -- and that terrorism is bred by a fanatical devotion to Islam. Don't offer up strawmen to counter my position. Argue with substance, please.

When you use something with substance that makes sense sure. What you're saying makes no sense. Someone attacked us, defeated the most 'capable' intelligence networks on the planet and because of that few - you want to place judgement on an entire people. Yeah makes sense.

If there is another 9/11 style assault on the American people, how should we respond? If the U.S. refused the migration of Middle Easterners to our shore, wouldn't that attack (the second hypothetical) likely not occur?

We should response against the people who performed the action. This ignorance about banning Middle Easterners doesn't make any sense. Not to mention that sealing off our borders is impossible - 100% impossible. If terrorists want in, they have a variety of ways of getting in. What you propose is about as stupid as RIAA attacking all filesharing everywhere due to the actions of a few.

 

[XS+]

Oddly enough the families and communites who have dead members because of the 'collateral toll' don't tend to see things that way. Funny how that works huh?

That's understandabe. By no means am I excusing the indiscriminate razing of entire communities by our warplanes. I disagree strongly with what's occuring in Iraq; I don't believe Iraq is the epicenter of terrorism that Bush and Co. would have us believe. Still, there is a difference between that and a suicide bomber deliberately bombing a bus filled with innocents.

 

[Azih]

Don't you dare ignore the other posts XS.

 

[XS+]

you want to place judgement on an entire people

Not so. As well, I have stated that I would oppose what I'm proposing, were it implemented AFTER 9/11. Everything I've stated is contingent on another attack. If that happens, I don't see how we have any choice but to limit access to our country from people that come from those countries. What would you have us do?

 

[Phoenix]

Not so. As well, I have stated that I would oppose what I'm proposing, were it implemented AFTER 9/11. Everything I've stated is contingent on another attack. If that happens, I don't see how we have any choice but to limit access to our country from people that come from those countries. What would you have us do?

If there is another attack (which there will be eventually, that's just the way of things), banning an entire culture from our country just because of the actions of a few and the inability of many others to stop it is just wrong. It is just as bad as the racial profiling that happens to black people in various portions of this country. Its just wrong.

 

[XS+]

Argue with substance? You haven't given any foundation for your distinction between Oklahoma and 9/11!

Edit: Other than 'I look at the bombing of the Oklahoma federal building as an isolated instance of domestic terrorism.' This is your idea of substance?

There's a huge distinction. 9/11 was a salvo in a war that Islamo-fascists have waged against this country for years. We're at war. Osama Bin Laden, and those he inspires, wants to see scores of us strewn about America's streets. The bombing in Oklahoma, while an act of domestic terrorism, had no precedent nor has it been succeeded by a similar act. Cumulatively, Islamo-fascists have killed thousands in the name of defeating the "Great Satan."

 

[xsarien]

Again, it's the pattern. I look at the bombing of the Oklahoma federal building as an isolated instance of domestic terrorism.

What about the Unabomber? The bombing at the Atlanta Olympics? Wouldn't the myriad abortion clinic bombings be considered "terrorism" as well?

what choice will we have but to limit the rights of those who hail from that region?

Funny thing about religion in general: It's something you join; it's something that you can leave. Your religious background is something you can love or dismiss as much as you like, unlike skin color or racial background. Limiting the civil rights of U.S. citizens who choose to practice one kind of religion is needlessly cruel, and it doesn't get to the heart of the matter. We weren't attacked for deep-rooted religious beliefs. Bin Laden couldn't care less about our freedom. He's angry at the U.S. policy towards the middle east, and the (uncounted) scores of civilians our bombs have killed both before and since 2001. I'm not defending his response - it was vile in every sense of the word - but to cling to the juvenile concept of "us vs. them," "Muslim vs. Judeo-Christian," is the wrong way to go about it.

Religion doesn't drive people to terrorism, perverting religion with politics (and vice versa) does/ Using your logic, we should be rounding up the Christians, too.

 

[Phoenix]

Religion doesn't drive people to terrorism, perverting religion with politics (and vice versa) does/ Using your logic, we should be rounding up the Christians, too.

And militias....

 

[XS+]

What about the Unabomber? The bombing at the Atlanta Olympics? Wouldn't the myriad abortion clinic bombings be considered "terrorism" as well?

Acts perpetrated for different reasons. Everyone involved has been dealt with accordingly.
BTW, the unabomber is a marxist. Regardless, these are domestic incidents that were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The perpetrators were apprehended and imprisoned. That doesn't mean that we should not reevaluate our lax immigration policy if another 9/11 occurs. That is ALL I'm proposing. If another 9/11 occurs, limit immigration.

 

[xsarien]

Acts perpetrated for different reasons. Everyone involved has been dealt with accordingly.
BTW, the unabomber is a marxist.

Which only proves how wrong you are in agreeing that the solution is limiting civil rights and/or immigration from middle eastern countries. Terrorists are created, not born. The next 9/11 could come from a militant Islamist in London, England or London, Canada just as easily as it could come from a right-wing Christian two blocks away from you. To filter by religion is, to put it bluntly, unamerican and the absolute worst way to go about it.

 

[Phoenix]

If another 9/11 occurs, limit immigration.

And if one happens after that? You're heading down a slippery slope if you start taking liberty or freedoms away because of actions of a few.

 

[XS+]

Which only proves how wrong you are in agreeing that the solution is limiting civil rights and/or immigration from middle eastern countries. Terrorists are created, not born.

I never said terrorists are born. I said that we're waging war against a group of people who commit the most heinous acts of violence against innocent people. It's a movement, the principals of which are in the Middle East. They wish to kill as many Americans as possible to further their goal. How do you combat terrorism on OUR shores? Are you willing to sacrifice thousands of innocents in our country to preserve the unfettered immigration policy that is weighing down American security?

 

[xsarien]

I never said terrorists are born. I said that we're waging war against a group of people who commit the most heinous acts of violence against innocent people. It's a movement, the principals of which are in the Middle East.

No, the principles are worldwide, radical Muslims aren't isolated to a few countries in the Middle East. Restricting immigration on those countries would do nothing.

 

[Docwiz]

Even though that Extremist Muslims kill Christians and Jewish folks and just about every other major religion in the world and hate Israel and the Western world, I think American Muslims that are far more tolerant and I hold at a higher regard, should have their civil liberties left alone.

 

[rastex]

And Americans still question why Canadians aren't particularly fond of their southern neighbours. Not saying that there are people here who don't share similar thoughts, it's just that their percentages are far lower (thank God). Regardless, into the maw of the Beast I go.

 

[Miburou]

XS+, you don't know what you're talking about if you don't think visiting the US has been made 10x more difficult for Middle Easterns, nevermind immigration, since 9/11.

BTW, this is something I've always wanted to ask, but how do they define a Muslim? Someone who's parents are Muslims? Someone who goes to mosque regularily? What if you're one in name only (like me), would they still have their rights restricted if it were up to XS+?

 

[Kobun Heat]

Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but certain individuals have attempted to justify them.

http://forums.gaming-age.com/showthread.php?t=9174

Thanks for linking to that thread; I'd totally missed how ridiculous and intolerant you guys got after I was banned for a swass pic in the Fable thread. Keep on insisting that anyone who disagrees with you must be a racist; that's how we learn and grow.

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

3,000 dead Americans disagree with you.

see, there's a point you're missing. Specifically, until Congress officially declares "war" there is no war. Honest question - did they ever declare war on Iraq?

My only regret is that I don't have a "to be disappeared in the middle of the night" list.

XS+'s views are fucking disgusting.

I feel for you mods/admins who have read everything and cannot put anyone on ignore. You have my condolences as I certainly couldn't handle it.

 

[XS+]

XS+, you don't know what you're talking about if you don't think visiting the US has been made 10x more difficult for Middle Easterns, nevermind immigration, since 9/11.

BTW, this is something I've always wanted to ask, but how do they define a Muslim? Someone who's parents are Muslims? Someone who goes to mosque regularily? What if you're one in name only (like me), would they still have their rights restricted if it were up to XS+?

Look, what do you all propose we do in order to stave off the threat? If another 9/11 occurs -- it will, sadly -- what other recourse do we have but to take measures that many will perceive as extreme? The Middle East is a breeding ground for the type of homicidal madness we witnessed on September 11, 2001.

 

[Triumph]

Ugh. Where's that crying purple thing? Yeah.

I'm going to mangle a Bill Hicks quote here: "If we took all the money we spend on guns, missles and other weapons each year and used it to feed and clothe the poor of the world- which it would pay for many times over- we could all live in peace together and explore space, inside and out, together."

But that won't get us oil, so I suppose it's ok to do what we're doing. Moral values and all.

 

[Miburou]

Look, what do you all propose we do in order to stave off the threat? If another 9/11 occurs -- it will, sadly -- what other recourse do we have but to take measures that many will perceive as extreme? The Middle East is a breeding ground for the type of homicidal madness we witnessed on September 11, 2001.

Not really sure what your reply has to do with my post (but you seem to be in a mood for generalizations today anyway), but I'll reply.

You don't seem to be focused with your opinion. If you're talking about visiting the US and immigration, then do whatever you want, it's your country. I consider going to a foreign country a privilige, not a right, so I accept the hassle I have to go through to go to Vegas this winter.

But what most of the people in this thread, including me since you asked, consider to be wrong is limiting the rights of AMERICAN Muslims, because a dozen NON-AMERICAN Muslims commited terrorist acts. Not all Muslims are created equal, and one should not suffer because of what someone else did, just because they share the same religion (eventhough their interpretation differ wildley). If someone in the US shows even the slightest support for those terrorists, then you can do what you want with him, but to have your rights as a CITIZEN curtailed, eventhough you might not even been a practicing Muslim, nevermind a fanatic, is just ludicrous.

Would this work? Probably. But limiting the rights of all dark skinned people in the US would probably work even better. Limiting the rights of every citizen would be even more effective.

PS: I'm not really against monitoring orginizations, mosques, churches, etc.