CNN recently published an article entitled Study: Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S. exaggerated; according to a study released by Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “the terrorist threat posed by radicalized Muslim-Americans has been exaggerated.”

Yet, Americans continue to live in mortal fear of radical Islam, a fear propagated and inflamed by right wing Islamophobes. If one follows the cable news networks, it seems as if all terrorists are Muslims. It has even become axiomatic in some circles to chant: “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.” Muslims and their “leftist dhimmi allies” respond feebly, mentioning Waco as the one counter example, unwittingly affirming the belief that “nearly all terrorists are Muslims.”

But perception is not reality. The data simply does not support such a hasty conclusion. On the FBI’s official website, there exists a chronological list of all terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil from the year 1980 all the way to 2005. That list can be accessed here (scroll down all the way to the bottom).

Looks like you give good reason for two things.

 

1. The new law in Arizona.

2. The continuation of profiling.

Thanks, mcpapa. :thumb:

Looks like you give good reason for two things.

 

1. The new law in Arizona.

2. The continuation of profiling.

Thanks, mcpapa. :thumb:

 

Like I said, many of us see what we want to see and read what we want to read.:thumb:

Looks like you give good reason for two things.

 

1. The new law in Arizona.

2. The continuation of profiling.

Thanks, mcpapa. :thumb:

 

 

I'm sorry, RTS. But sometimes I think you're so intent on being "right" that you can't consider the wrong in the right.

I'm sorry, RTS. But sometimes I think you're so intent on being "right" that you can't consider the wrong in the right.

 

I kinda thought that what I was reading pointed to the fact that there are any number of types of people who commit acts of terrorism, not just one type. That's just me, though. I've been wrong before.

I would like to know what this study defined as terrorism? For example a left wing extremists terrorist act could be throwing blood on a fur trapper, while they Muslim extremists was blowing up a building??????? Both are terrorism? Easy way to bend the facts.

I kinda thought that what I was reading pointed to the fact that there are any number of types of people who commit acts of terrorism, not just one type. That's just me, though. I've been wrong before.

 

Should the authorities than be looking for the number of types or trying to narrow down and pinpoint as much as possible? Or just simply look for everhone?

 

Ironically, the number one group listed that makes up close to 1/2 of the attacks is similar/same racial group that is the argument for NOT racial profiling. Your graph depending how they define Latino COULD give support to the idea that Arizona should be doing what they are doing.

I kinda thought that what I was reading pointed to the fact that there are any number of types of people who commit acts of terrorism, not just one type. That's just me, though. I've been wrong before.

What you pointed out, rather you realize it or not, is that Latinos commit a lot of "terrorism" in this country. Seems like a perfectly good reason for Arizona to have passed the law they did. You know, since there is so much crime committed in Arizona by illegal Latinos....

 

All the others mentioned in the chart you provided shows perfect reason as to why the police need to profile.

 

By the way, you say "some see what they want". Like you apparently did when you assumed that I think only Muslims are terrorists. I merely pointed out why they are profiled. :thumb:

I'm sorry, RTS. But sometimes I think you're so intent on being "right" that you can't consider the wrong in the right.

Hello, pot.

There has been alot of talk about how a law like this would ruin the foundation that this country was built on of freedom and a person being able to walk down the street without being harassed.

 

I point out that those guys whom are held up to such high esteem about protecting colonists from the unreasonable searches from English gave NARY a concern about minorities and their problems as THEY OWNED THEM AS SLAVES.

 

So, to hold our Founding Fathers up as some unbelievable people is to close their eyes to the fact that the Founding Fathers were only concerned about themselves and not necessarily minorities.

 

Not a commentary on the law or today but rather a statement about the times I continue to hear about these wonderful Founding Fathers and how smart and great they were unless you were black or any other minority that might have been a slave.

There has been alot of talk about how a law like this would ruin the foundation that this country was built on of freedom and a person being able to walk down the street without being harassed.

 

I point out that those guys whom are held up to such high esteem about protecting colonists from the unreasonable searches from English gave NARY a concern about minorities and their problems as THEY OWNED THEM AS SLAVES.

 

So, to hold our Founding Fathers up as some unbelievable people is to close their eyes to the fact that the Founding Fathers were only concerned about themselves and not necessarily minorities.

 

Not a commentary on the law or today but rather a statement about the times I continue to hear about these wonderful Founding Fathers and how smart and great they were unless you were black or any other minority that might have been a slave.

 

 

Without the insight that these men had, and the form of government they designed it may have been much later or possibly never that slaves and minorities have the right in our country they do now. They paved the way, whether they had short comings in morality or not.

There has been alot of talk about how a law like this would ruin the foundation that this country was built on of freedom and a person being able to walk down the street without being harassed.

 

I point out that those guys whom are held up to such high esteem about protecting colonists from the unreasonable searches from English gave NARY a concern about minorities and their problems as THEY OWNED THEM AS SLAVES.

 

So, to hold our Founding Fathers up as some unbelievable people is to close their eyes to the fact that the Founding Fathers were only concerned about themselves and not necessarily minorities.

 

Not a commentary on the law or today but rather a statement about the times I continue to hear about these wonderful Founding Fathers and how smart and great they were unless you were black or any other minority that might have been a slave.

 

I always like the slave talk. Don't forget many times these Africans were owned by other Africans and SOLD to be slaves to the colonists. This is an important fact often overlooked.....their own people SOLD them. Isn't there a BIG problem with that, and why don't people march up and down about that? :confused: Could you imagine selling your own brother or sister or son or daughter? Those African folks must not have held human life in very high regard. Certainly there was a price they were willing to accept to never, ever see them again.

I always like the slave talk. Don't forget many times these Africans were owned by other Africans and SOLD to be slaves to the colonists. This is an important fact often overlooked.....their own people SOLD them. Isn't there a BIG problem with that, and why don't people march up and down about that? :confused: Could you imagine selling your own brother or sister or son or daughter? Those African folks must not have held human life in very high regard. Certainly there was a price they were willing to accept to never, ever see them again.

Something people also forget, or don't know, is that nearly half of all the people that first arrived in the American colonies were slaves, white slaves. They were slaves in this country long before there were black slaves here and they were slaves for life. Slavery was "hereditary" for them as their children were enslaved as well.

Without the insight that these men had, and the form of government they designed it may have been much later or possibly never that slaves and minorities have the right in our country they do now. They paved the way, whether they had short comings in morality or not.

 

So, it is okay to build a country that claims it is built on freedom at the slavery of others?

I always like the slave talk. Don't forget many times these Africans were owned by other Africans and SOLD to be slaves to the colonists. This is an important fact often overlooked.....their own people SOLD them. Isn't there a BIG problem with that, and why don't people march up and down about that? :confused: Could you imagine selling your own brother or sister or son or daughter? Those African folks must not have held human life in very high regard. Certainly there was a price they were willing to accept to never, ever see them again.

 

If there was no market in the US for slaves would there have been as big a market for slavery?

 

And, while the Africans that did this were horrible wrong and scums, that does not give our country in that time of our history a clean slate on our part in it.

Something people also forget, or don't know, is that nearly half of all the people that first arrived in the American colonies were slaves, white slaves. They were slaves in this country long before there were black slaves here and they were slaves for life. Slavery was "hereditary" for them as their children were enslaved as well.

 

Please explain, might be best in another thread.