Muslims should expect to be stopped....

Originally Posted by Ramrod

.....and they should be helping us stop terrorists......but they don't appear to be very enthusiastic about doing so.

Want to back that claim up with any cites or proof?

Or is it just what you've seen reported in the Tabloid Media (those noted bastions of impartial reporting...!) about a minority of Muslims??

But they would look pretty f'kin stupid if the four were terrorists and the police hadn't stopped them because they looked like muslims

And once again the presumption of innocence goes out of the window...

So far all we have is a "group of four men... near an airport". Should *ALL* Muslims near airports be stopped and searched "just in case"...?

Maybe we should stop Muslims living anywhere under the flight paths to Heathrow et al...
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

How many do you want? And how many does it take for you to perceive it to be a threat? Answer: None. And none. Wait for it to happen and it's no longer a threat.

How many do I want? None.

Do I want to violate the civil rights of an entire religion *just in case* one of them may be planning such an attack? Hell no!

But you seem to think that such an action is justifiable based on nothing more than fear and suspicion.

What is being proposed are "preventative" measures, not punishments. Punishment comes after the act. I know which I would prefer to happen.

And we could do more to prevent this from happening by kicking all Muslims out of the country or locking them up "just in case"...

Ever read 2000AD? Ever heard of Judge Death...?

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

Now consider you're one of those people. "Hello, sunshine, we think you're a terrorist". "Why?" "Because you look like a Muslim..."



Oh ye gods, you really don't get it, do you?

QUESTION: *WHY* are they having a look inside the vehicle and asking questions?

ANSWER: It's *not* because they thing they're innocent...!!

Police work is not a science. It's hit and miss. There is something in law called the "balance of probability"; there is also "reasonable doubt"; and finally "on suspicion of...". None of these things are definite, a lot of it is to do with judgement.

By the way, what would you think if a spot check caught a terrorist with a bomb? Would you still think his civil rights had been violated, as long as he hadn't detonated it (yet)?

Originally Posted by me283

How? If one suspects that Muslims intend to perpetrate a crime in the name of Islam, do you not think it sensible and logical to question Muslims? Or would you rather the police raided the local synagogue?

Do you genuinely think its sensible and logical to target all muslims because of the beliefs of a tiny minority? Christian extremists get up to all sorts around the world but I wouldn't advocate indiscriminately targeting Christians in the territories in which they operate (such as the US).

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Graham

Oh ye gods, you really don't get it, do you?

QUESTION: *WHY* are they having a look inside the vehicle and asking questions?

ANSWER: It's *not* because they thing they're innocent...!!

It's not because they think they're guilty either.

It's perfectly possible to asked a few routine questions as a matter of security.

I used to go to nightclubs (a few years ago now) and I was searched before I was let in.

Not because they thought I was a drug dealer, or had a weapon. Just a routine security check. Thats all

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I don't know if you where ever in Northern Ireland before the cease fire. (no doubt Bifta will concur)

I had friends that lived in Strabane, when we used to go out to Derry or just about anywhere there was a good chance you would be stopped by a mobile patrol, asked questions, possibly searched.

As matter of routine, it wasn't nice but it was fact of life. so in answer to your question yes everyone in N.I. was targeted.

There was a time, not that long ago, where you had to have your bags searched before you went into any shop in Belfast city centre.

And your right the army did put regular checkpoints up where they stopped people at random or people who looked suspicious and questioned them on their movements.

I've been stopped by these a few times its usually of a case of "can I see your license sir", "where are you going to tonight" etc

Originally Posted by me283

Police work is not a science. It's hit and miss. There is something in law called the "balance of probability"; there is also "reasonable doubt"; and finally "on suspicion of...". None of these things are definite, a lot of it is to do with judgement.

By the way, what would you think if a spot check caught a terrorist with a bomb? Would you still think his civil rights had been violated, as long as he hadn't detonated it (yet)?

There wasn't much judgement shown in the application of the SUS laws in the 70s. The result. Widespread civil disorder. Nice tactic!

What would you think if a terrorist attack took place because of the ill thought through, indiscrimate and ineffective policing methods used?

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

Do you genuinely think its sensible and logical to target all muslims because of the beliefs of a tiny minority? Christian extremists get up to all sorts around the world but I wouldn't advocate indiscriminately targeting Christians in the territories in which they operate (such as the US).

But nobody has said that ALL Muslims will be targetted. It's common sense to increase focus in areas where there is a perceived threat.

[punky]

I probably only agree with about 20% of what you say on this subject Graham, but I do admire your determination, if nothing else.

Originally Posted by me283

And I suggest you think of a better way to prevent terrorism.

I have already *said*, the better way is to get the Muslim world *on* our side and get them to *help* us instead of treating them *ALL* as potential terrorists!

If you want to sit there and wait for an aeroplane to fly into a skyscraper before someone is considered a danger, then more fool you.

If you can find anything, anywhere, to imply that I have said this, I hereby invite you to quote it in big letters.

When you can't, please, feel free to apologise for implying that I *would* ever suggest such thing.

I think you will find that not everyone who is a Muslim will be persecuted; I think you will find house arrest to be a little harder to apply for and put in place than an ASBO; and I think you are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land if you believe that "Innocent Till Proven Guilty" is an active concept of English Law.

If it is not, then it is *because* of people like you who seem to consider that rights are something that can be taken away at a whim whenever it is convenient for the powers that be.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

As opposed to the smell of burning liberties...???

How? If one suspects that Muslims intend to perpetrate a crime in the name of Islam, do you not think it sensible and logical to question Muslims? Or would you rather the police raided the local synagogue?

Again you completely miss the point. You appear to think that it is ok to question *ALL* Muslims based on the actions of a minority.

That *IS* discriminating against an *entire* group and is short sighted and foolish.

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

There wasn't much judgement shown in the application of the SUS laws in the 70s. The result. Widespread civil disorder. Nice tactic!

What would you think if a terrorist attack took place because of the ill thought through, indiscrimate and ineffective policing methods used?

I hate to point this out, but the 70s were about 30 years ago. That's a very tired argument.

And do you really think the latter is likely to happen? Fundamentalist groups cite things like "Capitalist Greed", not "imbalanced police suspicion".

Originally Posted by Graham

Oh look, the second Straw Man.

(I really should have had a sealed envelope with predictions of all these in so I could open it and tick them off as they turned up )

Oh look, Graham's on his high horse again slinging out the insults to anyone who doesn't agree with him - the second surprise of the day ..... not

Well surprising as it may be to you, the fact that you post huge posts spouting off with lots of *shouting* does not make your views right and everyone elses wrong. Once again you seem to think that if you force your views on people long enough and loud enough then you win the "debate". Well to answer your neg rep comment, I don't want a reasonable debate (or an unreasonable one) I'm not interested in a debate at all - I agree with the home office, end of story. If you can't deal with that then tough - it's no surprise to me and certainly isn't going to change anything.

[me283]

Quote:
Wake up and smell the coffee.


As opposed to the smell of burning liberties...???

As opposed to the smell of burning bodies.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word "injustice"...

.................and perhaps apply that to what happened in New York, Spain, Bali.......

Originally Posted by Pierre

[...] Nor did she imply that they were going to stop and search everybody either.

She said later that because the current threat came from people masquerading as Islamists, police would have that in mind when using stop-and-search powers. †œThat is the reality. I do not think it should go unsaid.ââ‚à ‚¬Ã‚ÂÂ�

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...507174,00.html

[/quote]

Is's disporportionate in so far as if you are an islamic asian then you are more likely to viewed with suspicion in a given circumstance - that is a fact, there's no wrapping it up in sugar.

That is racist. Or, if you prefer, religionist. Whatever you want to call it, it is *discriminatory* based on nothing more than fear and innuendo and *that* is most definitely an *unacceptable* fact.

Words in mouth time, much like what's happened to the minister.

I'm not implying that. However, I do believe that not all those that speak out are genuine.

But that's *NOT* what you said!

Let me quote exactly what *was* said:

Two words "Lip - Service"

You have dismissed *ALL* of the words of "the Islamic Council of GB and other major Islamic bodies" condemning terrorism as merely "lip service". You didn't even make the *attempt* to suggest that "not all those that speak out are genuine."

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by graham

Want to back that claim up with any cites or proof?

Or is it just what you've seen reported in the Tabloid Media (those noted bastions of impartial reporting...!) about a minority of Muslims??

As I have said twice already......my muslim receptionist told me this.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

The fact remains that a muslim has told me that many other muslims that she knows would be reticent about reporting 'subversive' activity to the authorities.