I agree with you that a discussion about terrorism is not political, but this thread is a discussion about our government’s policies in dealing with potential terrorist acts and that makes it political. Get it? Politics-Policies?

But for the record, regarding this profiling policy, I agree with Barefoot and Redwitch.

Originally Posted by EdVinMass

Get it? Politics-Policies?
.

No, I'm sorry, "I don't get it." Policies that deal with national security are not necessarily political. What I do get is that there are those who attempt to push everything into a political sphere. That way they can either embrace it or hate it.

Is the thread in this forum about Elizabeth Edwards death a political discussion? After all her husband is a politician. That's the only way we know about her.

Originally Posted by EdVinMass

I agree with you that a discussion about terrorism is not political, but this thread is a discussion about our government’s policies in dealing with potential terrorist acts and that makes it political. Get it? Politics-Policies?

But for the record, regarding this profiling policy, I agree with Barefoot and Redwitch.

I agree with them too and with TH for talking about it. It is HIS forum and he can put it whereever he wants.

I am sick and tired of not being able to make some kind of judgement on repeated terrifying behavior for fear of someone saying...No Fair...you are not politically correct.

Here is what I am saying...All Muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists seem to be Muslims.

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I agree with them too and with TH for talking about it. It is HIS forum and he can put it whereever he wants.

I am sick and tired of not being able to make some kind of judgement on repeated terrifying behavior for fear of someone saying...No Fair...you are not politically correct.

Here is what I am saying...All Muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists seem to be Muslims.

I try to abide by the rules too. I don't put threads where I want them if they violate our policies (OOOPS POLICIES.....That means POLITICS). If this is proven to be political, that's where it will go.

Originally Posted by Talk Host

No, I'm sorry, "I don't get it." .....

I know, in spite of my attempts to educate you on the subject.

And your Red Herring regarding the Elizabeth Edwards thread is not relevant because it is about a hate group attempting to disrupt the funeral of a prominent person in order to get free national attention. But if the thread was a discussion about the merits of their cause, it would be political.

And as for “pushing everything into a political sphere”, remember, you were the one that made the political forum in the first place, not me.

Originally Posted by Talk Host

I try to abide by the rules too. I don't put threads where I want them if they violate our policies (OOOPS POLICIES.....That means POLITICS). If this is proven to be political, that's where it will go.

I thought from the start of this that it's the link, containing the news channel source often accused of "reporting only lies", that puts some in a "political" frenzy.

I, however, think this article is factual, and it's good to hear the administration is getting tougher on those who make it so clear they want all of us "infidels" wiped off the planet. This is one threat ALL of us should be together on.

Just curious. Practicing the Islam religion is a religous conviction. How does a TSA person know if I am a practicing member of any religious group? I am Catholic but there is nothing on my driver's license or passport that indicates that conviction. I think the issue here is profiling based on national origin or race. I am not taking a position on whether it is appropriate in the effort for national security, just that we may be dealing with a misnomer here. I know of US citizens, both white and African Americans, who practice the Islam religion and I do not think they would be part of the TSA effort.

Originally Posted by EdVinMass

I know, in spite of my attempts to educate you on the subject.
.

Please remember, now and always, you are not my educator.

It is a concept that allows deviating from right and wrong to avoid offending someone or a group.
I prefer to continue to teach my kids, my grand children and great grand children...doing what is right is never, EVER a problem. It only becomes a problem when one tries to water down or wander from doing what is right to please a few.

I also agree this thread is not a political issue. It is one that could affect your daily life like running red lights or stop signs.
The Elizabeth Edwards example is an excellent one.

btk

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Here is what I am saying...All Muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists seem to be Muslims.

Sorry, Gracie, but I strongly disagree with this statement. Terrorists come in many forms -- White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis, gangs, the IRA offshoots, and so on. It was not Muslims that tried to bomb Oklahoma City federal building or the first attack of the World Trade Cenger. Right now, Muslim extremists are the most prevalent, but certainly not the only. Bader-Meinhoff still exists. There is still a terrorist group in Japan and so on. Hate comes in many forms. Some are just more visible and vocal about that hate.

That doesn't mean we should ignore that our biggest terrorist threat today is the Muslim extremist. It does mean that we need to be vigilant against many, not just some.

Originally Posted by redwitch

It was not Muslims that tried to bomb . . . or the first attack of the World Trade Cenger.

From Wikipedia (MAY OR MAY NOT BE FACTUAL):

"The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993, when a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,500 lb (680 kg) urea nitrate–hydrogen gas enhanced device[1] was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into the South Tower (Tower Two), bringing both towers down and killing thousands of people.[2][3] It failed to do so, but did kill six people and injured 1,042.

The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal A. Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh. "

Those don't sound like Irish, German or Japanese names to me.


.

Canary Wharf bombing of 1996 by the Provisional Irish Republican Army. Killed two and injured many more. Pure terrorism. Only 14 years ago. Terrorists were white, Irish, and Catholic. Terrorists come in all makes and sizes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Docklands_bombing

Originally Posted by redwitch

Sorry, Gracie, but I strongly disagree with this statement. Terrorists come in many forms -- White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis, gangs, the IRA offshoots, and so on. It was not Muslims that tried to bomb Oklahoma City federal building or the first attack of the World Trade Cenger. Right now, Muslim extremists are the most prevalent, but certainly not the only. Bader-Meinhoff still exists. There is still a terrorist group in Japan and so on. Hate comes in many forms. Some are just more visible and vocal about that hate.

That doesn't mean we should ignore that our biggest terrorist threat today is the Muslim extremist. It does mean that we need to be vigilant against many, not just some.

Red...that is kinda what I was sayin'.

Originally Posted by Talk Host

I try to abide by the rules too. I don't put threads where I want them if they violate our policies (OOOPS POLICIES.....That means POLITICS). If this is proven to be political, that's where it will go.

Well, it can't be "proven" to be political. That's a judgment call. Of course, it is your judgment call-- so you get to decide.

I agree with you that a Wikipedia definition is not definitive and not necessarily accurate. However, I think this particular Wikipedia explanation of the term seems well reasoned to me. What's your definition of the term, TH? I know you have moved things to political that didn't start there. I can remember if in all cases when you've done this a political party was named. But surely, if I named a political party right now, you wouldn't have to move this to political. I don't think it would have been inappropriate to have posted this in political. In fact, I too am surprised you didn't post it there.

All that said, hmmmmmmmmm. Our government sets up a sting due to Muslims behaving suspiciously? Thank goodness for that!

Too bad!!!!! I see this stuff all the time where I work. !We have got to do something different at our airports!