Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xaccers
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
The point is, Xaccers, I am *not* going to answer that question.
My response of answering another question was to *demonstrate* that the question you asked is unhelpful to the debate because it makes assumptions about the answer and I'm not going to fall into the (obvious) trap.
|
You won't answer my question because it helps point out the flaw in your argument doesn't it? |
No, it is because a ridiculous question.
Quote:
Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are most likely to be Asian.
Now, that is not the same as saying "All Asians are islamic fundametalist terrorists" but then, no one believes that.
|
Sorry, "no one believes that" you say, but you immediately continue:
Quote:
Now, being a muslim, you're more likely to come into contact with terrorist suspects than say a middle class white person, through no fault of your own.
For instance, you may unwittingly share a mosque with a terrorist suspect, and socialise with them.
As such, it is understandable that the security forces would be interested in you and may even bring you in for questioning.[...]
It is not the case that a muslim going about his business with no links at all to terroism, is going to be dragged off for interrogation just in case they're a terrorist.
|
The only "link" you have is entirely specious.
This is *NOT* "understandable" at all, this is simply "guilt by association".
You have no proof, no evidence, no *reasonable* grounds for supposing that someone may be a terrorist, yet you consider it "understandable" that someone should be dragged in for questioning simply because they have been seen *next* to a suspect and you seem to think that *they* should be *happy* to be questioned in this way!
Justice? Presumption of Innocence? Not in Xaccers' country!!!