world

Trump says U.S. should consider profiling Muslims

129 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

129 Comments
Login to comment

Republican Donald Trump said on Sunday the United States should consider more racial profiling, - article

End of.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Did he actually say "racial" profiling? The article quotes him as saying just "profiling".

4 ( +7 / -3 )

I hate the concept of profiling

Sure you do, Donald.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

“You look at Israel and you look at others, and they do it and they do it successfully. And you know, I hate the concept of profiling, but we have to start using common sense,” he said when asked if he supported increased profiling of Muslims in America. - article

Brevity is the soul of wit, however, taken in whole, "America: the Israel of the West", oy vey, another interesting sales pitch from the 'University' of Monsieur Trump?

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

The article quotes him as saying just "profiling".

Profiling in this context means to scrutinize someone based solely on their appearance. In this case, if a person looks like they are of Middle Eastern descent, then they get a closer look. That, by definition, is racial profiling.

Again, replace every utterance of the word "Muslim" made by Trump and replace it with "Jew" to better understand just how eff-ed up a human being he truly is.

2 ( +12 / -10 )

You look at Israel and you look at others, and they do it and they do it successfully

Most of the planet might not agree with you on that sentiment.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Yes, lets not do anything effective. PC even if it kills us.

5 ( +13 / -8 )

@albaleo. Nice catch! No he didn't say racial profiling but many on the left 1.) still think religions are a race and 2.) never miss an opportunity to smear Trump when they have a chance.

3 ( +12 / -9 )

Profiling white, single men with multiple guns would probably be effective, too. But I guess we are just too PC.

3 ( +15 / -12 )

f profiling includes closely scrutinizing those dozens of millions of US American citizens who own assault weapons of any kind and who continue to add to their private arsenals, I’d fully support it. If it includes looking more closely at those who shriek ‘come and take it’, especially while holding an assault weapon in their hands, I’d fully support it. If it includes looking at those who are members of one of the many armed militias (of any ethnicity), I’d support it.

The only right I’ve ever heard extremists in the gun hobby community mention is their ‘right’ to bear arms - of any sort. They’re among the ones saying they don’t trust the government and want the ability to overthrow it.

I’ve yet to hear one of them mention that they’re losing their personal freedoms by having the federal government monitor their phones and emails, among other things. So it goes without saying they should see no problem with further checks on themselves and their fellow gun hobbyists.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Profiling white, single men with multiple guns would probably be effective

It would save significantly more lives than profiling Muslims would.

0 ( +12 / -12 )

Profiling? The guy had already been profiled by the FBI, CIA and was on the watch list. The problem has nothing to do with needing more profiling and everything to do with inaction of knowledge we already had.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

It depends on the context in which he meant it. My understanding was religious profiling by law enforcement to monitor some mosques (which will most likely drive the activity underground). Racial profiling is basically illegal except for federal agents allowed to consider race and ethnicity when stopping people at airports, border crossings and immigration checkpoints.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

I'm not sure more profiling would necessarily work. The FBI had this jerk in for questioning twice and let him go. Of course they completely missed the 9/11 plot too.

Now, if somebody in that club had the means to take the jerk out that might have helped. Heaven knows the government isn't going to help you.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Definitely not politically correct.... but realistic.

It happens everyday in every household, every society, every culture and even in every religion. It is rampant in Japan, our host country. It happens because we do not know enough about the other person to feel comfortable and safe. It is a part of basic survival instinct and also a skill. I happens because we cannot know everything about every individual that do not associate close with us.

It happens because cultures and race are often identified together just as geographic regions are identified with certain personality traits and work habits. Racial prejudice and profiling has been in existence since man first realized that there were differences.

Here religion and race are being identified together for profiling. Logically and rationally that makes sense as far as identifying "possible" threat based upon the "frequency" in which injury has been inflicted by a portion of that group.

Definitely there is no data to say exactly what percentage of the total population which can be enfiladed as part of that group are actual threats or have actually done damage or injury. It takes that entire group to identify and present those threats to be dealt with or for that group to deal with the threat before that threat goes outside that group.

Until that is done with certainty and as long as there id doubt and possibility of ta threat, others would assume and presume that the group is unable to handle their own, therefore must be "monitored" in some form, some way, somewhere, somehow, etc.. In order to do that the threat must be "identified". That means some form of "profiling" can and will occur whether we like it or not.

In fact we have already "profiled" everyone we relate with already, be it racially, culturally, sexually or otherwise. Here in this discussion you have profiled each other by our attitude and our beliefs and even the way we write.

It is not a matter of right or wrong, good or evil, or even legal or illegal. It is a matter of being able to look at the world realistically and be able to identify something by their "characteristics" as we would identify a kind of dinosaur by the teeth and and footprints. Without that we cannot deal with anything in life meaningfully and effectively.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

@Strangerland and Superlib - The profiling of folks you mention has been going on since 2009 (probably prior to that).

http://www.constitution.org/abus/le/miac-strategic-report.pdf

The U.S. has become quite the surveillance state (not only under President Obama. This is a real bi-partisan effort! spying on U.S. citizens)

https://www.wired.com/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

I am kind of in agreement with gelendestrasse. The FBI questioned the perpetrator of the Orlando slaughter twice. What did they miss?!

Trump has already self destructed and he is finished. It is amazing how many people I talk to here in Japan that have similar feelings....are these 2 the best we can do?

If I was a gambler (which I am not) I would certainly put money down in Ms. Clinton being the next President.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I don't think profiling in itself is a bad thing, we do it whether we want to admit it or not, the way Trump lays it out is a bit rough sounding. But to profile people from countries that follow a radical form of the Islamic faith that have been known to kill infidels is something we should do. The one thing I respect about Trump is, he gets it that we are at war with radical Islam and the threat of homegrown violence is growing. The proper question is, how should the profiling be initiated and executed? Either way, with radical jihadism growing, there is no way around it and as the terror attacks increase there will be more demands from people to profile the Islamic faith, that means more infiltration so of mosques, interviewing people that have been known to have ties or people that follow radical jihadism. This is not a call to put tabs on all Muslims living in the country, just the ones that have sent red flags and should be on the Federal governments watch list.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

That maybe an effective measure to keep homeland America safe. Profiling is not harming anyone. It is a good preventive measure. Prevention to save lives from cruel hate death is good. ISIS and other Islamic Jihadists have been declaring war and hatred against Americans and will kill many more Americans if status quo of more immigrants from Middle East and illegals continue to pour in. Likewise some curbs on purchase of guns for certain people are also wise preventive measures for safety. Not philosophy, but simply common sense of care.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

I'm not sure more profiling would necessarily work.

They need to at least try. The FBI also went out of their way to minimize the uncomfortable fact that the killer might also be gay. Just following instructions in the Homeland Security Advisory Council report released days before the attack stressed the importance of combating extremism by avoiding terms that might offend Muslims. Officials should not use the word “jihad.” Officials should not use the word “sharia.” Officials should not use the word “takfir,” which is done when one Muslim accuses another of apostasy.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Trump is a racist. He goes through the world racially profiling everyone. His comments about Judge Curiel, for example. Trump sees everything through the lens of race: "Look at my African-American over here!"

If it weren't already obvious, the Republican base REALLY didn't take to having a black President. Sorry guys. We assumed you were grown-ups. Guess not.

1 ( +11 / -10 )

And after the inevitable massacres officials ( and everyone else) must emphasize how it has nothing to do with islam.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

@Strangerland and Superlib - The profiling of folks you mention has been going on since 2009 (probably prior to that).

I wonder if it's even effective then - maybe it's a waste of time and effort that could be better focused somewhere else.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

I might add that the only reason why we ourselves do not like any racial or religious profiling is because we ourselves do not want to be profiled and group together with a ground we do not identify with or dislike, while we don't mind doing for ourselves personally.

As far as the USA and every other nation is concerned, it is being done, often not openly. All countries in their immigration laws include a process of evaluating and determining entry into that country. Inevitably they include race and often religion.

This matter is for public safety, the police are now openly being asked to keep and share a "record" based upon race and religion to identify "prospective threats", which was already being done, though not officially. By making it official, it can lead to misuse as a well as open a way to better identify threats. Compared with personality profiling for suspects in rape and murder cases which also consider religious beliefs and sexual orientation, this is not much different. The only problem is that it includes a much larger number of people.

Unlike the situation with the Japanese Americans during WWII, where most already identified with the USA, too many now from certain countries, do not identify with the USA or want to identify themselves as Americans. That includes certain Muslims, Mexicans, Chinese, and others that has already been identified.

That is an immigration and assimilation issue which will certainly come into discussion soon.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The TSA is conducting profiling at airports, anyway. This isn't really a big deal. Other politicians would be too afraid to mention it, which is the real story here.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

"The one thing I respect about Trump is, he gets it that we are at war with radical Islam and the threat of homegrown violence is growing." - comments

"We are at war" - really?

"radical Islam" - a death of a thousand cuts?

"threat of homegrown violence is growing" - really?

Any excuse for racism is a justification of racism.

How far is Mr. Donald J. Trump willing to carry that message?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Here is a government website that explains the problems with racial profiling (which includes religion in its definition, for those who insist that they are different):

http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/legitimacy/pages/racial-profiling.aspx

Perhaps the most important point is that profiling creates a mistrust of law enforcement by the entire group, including those who are law abiding, and they are less likely to cooperate. As many readers point out, the most efficient way in finding radicalized terrorists is to have family members and friends inform law enforcement of potential dangerous people and situations, and profiling is extremely detrimental for this.

Surveillance to monitor known groups (and mosques) that promotes dangerous and hateful rhetoric may be appropriate, and, indeed, necessary. Profiling an entire race/religion is not appropriate.

Not to mention, I am more likely to be killed by a white dude or gang members anyway.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Yes, lets not do anything effective. PC even if it kills us.

My god, can you really not see the difference? Speaking out against racial profiling hasn't got a damned thing to do with being "politically correct." It's about protecting our the civil rights of ALL Americans, not just those of scared white males who still haven't learned that this nation isn't theirs. It belong to all Americans. Black, white, Asian, Native, straight, gay, liberal, conservative, Catholic, Episcopalian, Sikh, Moony, 7th Day Adventist, agnostic, and yes, no matter how much you disagree with it, Muslim.

The real crisis here is that those supporting Trump and his insanity not only possess a woefully piss-poor understanding of the actually US Constitution, but also the cognitive ability to see how so much of the garbage they consume makes no logical sense.

Anyone who would link investigating Americans because they look like Middle Eastern with PC-ness is obviously suffering from profound cognitive dissonance, and have no idea what racism actually looks like.

Guess what? Tump's proposals are 100% racism staring you, me, and the rest of America squarely in the face.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

That maybe an effective measure to keep homeland America safe. Profiling is not harming anyone.

Exactly. As foreigners in Japan, we get profiled most of the time. I'm so used to it, it doesn't bother me and remember, there is a reason why Japan is so safe.

It is a good preventive measure. Prevention to save lives from cruel hate death is good. ISIS and other Islamic Jihadists have been declaring war and hatred against Americans and will kill many more Americans if status quo of more immigrants from Middle East and illegals continue to pour in.

Precisely, the only way to make inroads is to take a stronger and more resolute stance and be on the offensive against radical Jihadism at the same time, we have to show the law abiding Muslims that we are standing behind them 100%. Again, there is No problem with profiling, however Trump just hasn't conveyed that message well.

Likewise some curbs on purchase of guns for certain people are also wise preventive measures for safety. Not philosophy, but simply common sense of care.

If they meet that criteria, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I think it's a reasonable and sensible solution

-6 ( +8 / -14 )

The right doesn't realize they have their own 'politically correct' (PC) phrases that they speak religiously, that are just as politically correct to the right, as not wanting to profile is to the left:

-- Cars and alcohol kill people more than guns

-- If guns were illegal, people would find other ways to kill

-- The president should address violence in places like Chicago first

-- The BLM movement is racist

and so on and so on.

Any political talking point is PC. If the right really doesn't like the left being so PC, the right should stop being so PC.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Nonesense, the right are never worried about speaking truthfully and directly, it's just in the company of liberals do they need to be careful of the manner in which they speak, out of fear being labeled something by the left and being hit over the head with a bogus frivolous lawsuit.

"We are at war" - really?

The Pentagon is saying it, as well as Brennan form the FBI.

"radical Islam" - a death of a thousand cuts?

"threat of homegrown violence is growing" - really?

From San Bernadino and what happened in Orlando, how many months between them, these attacks? How many terrorists attacks have been thwarted because of surveillance and prevention methods? Over 40 of them, that's a lot.

Any excuse for racism is a justification of racism.

If that were the case and anyone doing it is wrong, but the same can be said, anyone using race as a tool to avoid complying with law enforcement is racist

How far is Mr. Donald J. Trump willing to carry that message

As long as he can since Obama won't and if Obama is so sure, then once he retires, he shouldn't take anymore of our money for his security, he should get his own private security company and pay for it with his own money, after he leaves the White House, he'll have as much money as Trump.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

"Common sense” over “political correctness." Exactly. This is why I'd vote for him.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

So wait. The entire country is under surveillance 24/7 by the NSA (Obama changed nothing) nobody gives a squat and now they are complaining about Trump suggesting profiling as a safety measure. The hypocrisy is maddening.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Nonesense, the right are never worried about speaking truthfully and directly

I was talking about the right saying things that are politically correct to the right. This is a separate issue to truthfulness and directness, which I will leave for other debates. The fact is that the right is just as PC, if not more so, than the left.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

"according to an AP-GfK poll conducted March 31 through April 4.

Forty-nine percent of respondents said they favor surveillance programs aimed at predominantly Muslim communities in the United States to obtain information about possible radicalization. Forty-seven percent of those surveyed opposed the practice."

There you go. More people agree with Trump than disagree. The other 4% apparently couldn't care less, lol.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

What I find quite troubling is now Loretta Lynch (the U.S. Attorney General) has now come out and stated that they will only release limited transcripts of the 911 call relative to Orlando and that all references to Islamic terrorism (statements by the perp) will be removed. I am not making this a Democrat vs. Republican issue - that is not my thing in any issue - However, regardless of how you feel about surveillance or even the motives behind the shooting, the scrubbing of the 911 transcript is troubling and reminiscent of what was done in the good old USSR. I find this extremely unsettling!

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/19/politics/orlando-shooting-transcripts/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/19/lynch_partial_transcript_of_orlando_911_calls_will_have_references_to_isis_cut_out.html

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Forty-nine percent of respondents said they favor surveillance programs aimed at predominantly Muslim communities in the United States to obtain information about possible radicalization.

Might does not make right when fundamental human rights are at risk. Forty-nine, 50 or even 100 percent support for a noxious idea doesn't make it less noxious. See Nazi Germany for an example of what I mean by this.

The fact is that the right is just as PC, if not more so, than the left.

Absolutely. What else is the phrase "radical Islam" but conservative political correctness? The GOP constituency demands from their leaders that they use this phrase to lend legitimacy to their assertion that Islam should be vilified wholesale.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

"We are at war" - really?

Yes. There is a war in Iraq. There is another in Afghanistan. Those countries are in two different regions of the world but they do share the same creed, and it's a creed the enemy troops -- to a man -- are devout followers of.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

i am sure the US, my country, already uses profiling based on algorithms. i am sure they also monitor date on facebook and other sites...

2 ( +3 / -1 )

When you enter Japan at Narita, they have a big sign up that asks if you have been to certain areas in Africa that you need to visit the Health Consultation Desk to get screened. Are they profiling, why yes. Are they racial profiling, and asking everyone who looks "Black" or "African" to go to that desk no.

Like it or not, profiling occurs everyday in every country. You sometimes have to have a tool that takes a look at people to determine if they are meaning harm. Would it be ok to say that if your trip origin began in say the Middle East that you are given an extra look? No I don't think so. That would include both Muslims and Christians and all persons whose flights originated from those areas. After all, the Tsarnev brothers from the Boston bombing looked white, and were Chechen Muslims who had an intense hatred for the USA (even though they grew up there) and went back to Chechnia to get more radicalization. If Customs were doing their jobs at the time, and paid closer attention to where they were coming from maybe we might have prevented that disaster.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

uh, nice clutching at straws, but radical islam is a reality not some manufactured euphimism. But do please tell me what it should be called.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

radical islam is a reality not some manufactured euphimism

It doesn't change the fact that it's a political talking point on the right, which they need to use in order to be correct to their side. That's political correctness, particularly since neither the usage of the word, nor the lack of usage, changes or fixes anything.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

kcj:

" Republican Donald Trump said on Sunday the United States should consider more racial profiling, "

Earth to kc: islam is not a race, it is an ideology.

Would you equally scream racism if Japan profiled Aleph members? (They do, actually.)

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

The term "radical islam" isnt confined to "the right", much as you would like it to be. Again, what would you suggest instead of that term?

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

The term "radical islam" isnt confined to "the right"

It's only the right that is demanding that the president use the term.

It's most definitely PC talk, much as you would like it not to be.

Again, what would you suggest instead of that term?

"The enemy".

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Or 'terrorists'.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

strangerland, here you go again with the PC disease. "The Enemy" doesnt narrow the field much. Inevitably, people will respond, "which enemy?". And then what are we allowed to tell them?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

"The Enemy" doesnt narrow the field much.

It doesn't need to. We know who we are fighting. Anyone who doesn't is an idiot.

Now tell me, how does using the term 'radical islam' make things better? What does it improve? Will it bring world peace?

Sorry, but you are even more guilty of this accusation than I am:

here you go again with the PC disease

These constant demands for the president to use the term 'radical islam' is right-wing PCness. The PC disease as you call it.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Strangerland, So you do admit that terrorists pretty much equals radical islamists.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

There are all sorts of terrorists.

If you are going to ask questions, you should probably answer them too:

Now tell me, how does using the term 'radical islam' make things better? What does it improve? Will it bring world peace?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

"The Enemy" doesnt narrow the field much.

What's wrong with the term jihadists?

Does that narrow the field too much?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Is "jihadists" ok, strangerland? You ok with the words islamic implications?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Strangerland, often I agree with you and trump is well trump and this looks a lot like grandstanding... however on this one I think the left or more liberal types do have to be careful.

Dogmatic edge beliefs be it religion, political or economic view points, are not races, nor should they be sheltered or protected, they can be dangerous, they can force human against human, often victimise the less fortunate or empowered and promote disharmony.

Some interpretations of Islam, just like some of Christianity, has many ideas that simply aren't compatible with enlightened society.

Cue someone saying, "such and such religion is about love", trust me give me 2 mins and I will find someone who puts themselves under the same label saying or doing atrocious things. "But they aren't a real such and such religious follower", to which I say, who is the arbitrator, there isn't one.

People always say, why do you care what other people believe, its because its important, and has very serious real world consequences.

Simply, believe what you want but keep it to yourself and we would all be better off. If you choose a label which comes with a ton of baggage then that is something you must bare.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Now that we have advanced to a more rational consideration of the proposal, take a look at what RNC and Ryan is saying. Ryan is saying exactly what Clinton and Obama is saying. He is saying that Trump is dangerous because he is saying all Muslims are to be banned. I am not sure if Ryan is really listening to what Trump said and meant.

Does that make sense?

All I can say is that the Republican party is messed up.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Is "jihadists" ok, strangerland? You ok with the words islamic implications?

Again, if you are going to ask questions, you need to answer them too. I'll answer the above question after you answer these:

Now tell me, how does using the term 'radical islam' make things better? What does it improve? Will it bring world peace?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

No more bickering please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trump once again is running his mouth on stupid. While he assumes profiling the people instead of deconstructing the ideology will somehow "fix" the problem. A Muslim can stop being Muslim at any time any where of their own free will. But Islam is what it is and would need a gargantuan effort to change it's ideological dictates proposed by it's founder and is the source of the problem we're having today.

Knowing Trump and his cronies though, they'll just start profiling anyone who has skin darker than theirs. Cos' as I said before, some people still don't understand that it is a "religion" not an "ethnicity". People of any race can follow a religion.

I'll never forget the uneducated idiots in the US that started assaulting those of East Indian descent and the Sikhs because they "though" they "looked" Muslim.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

One question regarding Trump's "suggestion" is how it would work out legally. The Supreme Court has previously ruled on three cases that local law enforcement often utilize to profile:

In Terry v. Ohio (1968), the “reasonable suspicion” standard (also known as the “stop-and-frisk” rule) was okayed, so if you're not white and in the wrong part of town, be prepared to be patted down.

In United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975), the Court ruled that “Mexican appearance” is a “relevant factor” in pulling over a vehicle.

In Whren v. United States (1996), the court okayed “pretext stops,” wherein an officer pulls over a motorist for some traffic violation whereas their unstated but main purpose is to search the car.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gunar-olsen/how-the-supreme-court-aut_b_9061838.html

These activities are still somewhat frowned upon and are often challenged in court. However, a Trump presidency would, it seems, give the green-light to law enforcement across the country to stop pedestrians or drivers for an on-the-spot search simply because they are not white.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.". Amazing how some are so willing to sacrifice the ideals that make America great on the alter of a flawed interpretation of the Second Amendment.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

strangerland, "why should the field be narrowed? ". seriously? How about so we know who we are dealing with? Im not talking about the government identifying the culprits for their private edification, Im more concerned with the public being informed of what is going on and informed accurately. "terrorists" or "the enemy" - frankly it smacks of disinformation and cover ups. They are terms used in totalitarian countries to label those they are opposed to. Democracies other than the US have no problem with the term "radical islam". What is the problem?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Now tell me, how does using the term 'radical islam' make things better? What does it improve? Will it bring world peace?

Obama said something similar, yet before he was forced to make such a statement, he refrained and has directed government officials to not use the term. If the name isn't that bad now, then why go though all the trouble not to say it in the first place?

The term needs to be used, so that the rest of the Islamic world understands that no one is at war with Islam. I personally don't care what they practice and how they practice it. If I go to Tony Roma's in Bahrain, I fully understand that instead of pork baby back ribs, I will get beef ribs. But, they also need to understand that if you come to places like the USA, where one can practice their religion of choice, that doesn't mean that your religious laws will apply to those who don't follow your religion.

Those more radical elements of Islam, the same ones that are fighting other Muslim nations like Jordan, etc. need to be called just that. Those are the ones, bent on waging jihad against any who don't follow their brand of Islam (including fellow Muslims like King Hussein of Jordan) that we should target and focus our efforts on finding and denying them access to the USA. That's not being racist, that's being prudent.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Well, we can fix all this debate by having dear President Obama say "a terrorist attack perpetrated by a jihadist", "terrorist attack done by a white supremacist", "a terrorist attack by a radical right-wing anti-Brexit nutjob". Because I agree with Strangerland on one thing: terrorist attacks of all kinds, regardless of the source, should be condemned equally.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I think we all agree that terrorist acts should be condemned equally regardless of who the perpetraters are or what they represent. Im frustrated - and so are millions of others - by the pc hoop jumping we have to go through to get the truth, and the very real threat that if some have their way information is going to become even more obscured and blurred.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Next, taken by trains to internment camps... once the Muslims have been 'dealt with' Trump can then turn to Mexicans... then whatever other minorities he feels are a threat to the Fatherland...

Do Americans not get it? A country which sometimes feels lost, and up pops an enigmatic ranting right wing loony with strange hair. Change the Reichsadler to the American Eagle and there you have it.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

How about so we know who we are dealing with?

We know who we are dealing with. ISIS and other terrorist groups.

Im more concerned with the public being informed of what is going on and informed accurately.

The public is more informed than it has ever been at any time in history. The internet has made that possible. 24-hour news has made that possible.

"terrorists" or "the enemy" - frankly it smacks of disinformation and cover ups.

So you are saying they are not terrorists? Or are they not the enemy? Which of these is incorrect?

They are terms used in totalitarian countries to label those they are opposed to.

The USA is using these terms now - is the USA a totalitarian country? And yes, the terrorists and the enemy ARE the ones they are opposed to.

Democracies other than the US have no problem with the term "radical islam". What is the problem?

The problem is that the term becomes exclusionary. It creates disenfranchisement of the 1 point some billion people who are Muslim, and not terrorists. These are the people we want working with us, creating exclusive policies that alienate these people isn't going to make them inclined to work with us. On top of that, it's going to do the opposite of what it intends to at times - which is to create disenfranchised Muslims who hate the US more than like it, and want to cause problems.

There is zero benefit to using the term, and many problems with using the term. Usage of the term does not change the enemy, nor does it make it easier to fight them. Non-usage of the term does not prevent us from fighting the enemy, nor does it create new enemies.

The term needs to be used, so that the rest of the Islamic world understands that no one is at war with Islam.

Look how many people on this site alone say the west is at war with Islam. And Trump is only furthering that belief.

Im frustrated - and so are millions of others - by the pc hoop jumping we have to go through to get the truth

So you are instead using right-wing PC rhetoric. If you don't want the left to use PC terms, then you should refrain from using them on the right as well.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Newsflash, governments worldwide already do this.

European governments already track those entering their country from those areas on their watch list, and Canada, the US monitor everything.

I don't get why people are surprised by these headlines.

Every country spies on each other, watches each other like a hawk, and trusts each other like you would a snake in your grass.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I think we all agree that terrorist acts should be condemned equally regardless of who the perpetraters are or what they represent

All terrorists are equal, but some terrorists are more equal than others

Analysis of conflict anywhere shows that political violence doesn't emerge in a vacuum.

Duping the world community to take revenge on Iraq for 9/11, with a body count of 250,000 souls was terrorism par excellence.

That the main perpetrators enjoyed a financial bubble at the height of a war speaks only too vividly of how reliant these entities' economies were on war. Hardly cause for pride.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

European governments already track those entering their country from those areas on their watch list, and Canada, the US monitor everything.

Harvey, Trump did not stipulate that profiling would be restricted to non-citizens. If anything, due to the context (an American-born Muslim citizen), I would guess his intentions would be to track Americans*.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Hi, @Laguna!

Yeah, I know. Every country tracks as many citizens as they can already. It's not new. China watches their people, Europe watches their people and this has been going on since governments were established.

During the French Revolution, spies were used everywhere to track their people, the Americans and Russians still track their citizens because they both know the intelligence war and that hidden threat amongst it's people is real.

How do you think those terrorist plots stay plots and not carried out acts? Because your government is watching you.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If the name [radical Islam] isn't that bad now, then why go though all the trouble not to say it in the first place?

Because you and people like you desperately want official sanction to discriminate against Islam in its entirety. The thick-witted, ignorant meat-heads that form the backbone of Trumps support would seize upon any official recognition by the government as some sort of twisted, convoluted admission that Islam itself is the issue (which its's not) and embark on a scared white man's version of Jihad by accosting, assaulting, and in ever increasing cases murdering anyone who looks even the least bit Middle-Eastern.

Thanks to the more than 200 acts of racial profiling leading to the harassment, assault, and even murder of dark-skinned Americans in the aftermath of 9/11 by "God-fearin' patriots," I have absolutely no faith whatsoever that these same "God-fearing' patriots" would know a terrorist if one came up and bit them on the heinie. And mired in this goop of irredeemably willful stupidity, they would just accost any darker skinned person unlucky enough to come across these morons' paths.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

"Might does not make right when fundamental human rights are at risk. "

What about the human lives at risk?

1 ( +7 / -6 )

you hush now, serrano. PC beats human lives anytime!

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Strangerland:

" We know who we are dealing with. ISIS and other terrorist groups. "

OK, and what is the ideology that ISIS is based on? And should that not be monitored?

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

What about the human lives at risk?

That is the exactly what the people who say "fundamental human rights are at risk" want.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

PC beats human lives anytime

Republicans go on about being so non-PC, while constantly spouting right-wing PC lines.

We know who we are dealing with. ISIS and other terrorist groups. "

OK, and what is the ideology that ISIS is based on? And should that not be monitored?

What does that have to do with the usage of the term 'radical islam'?

You can't blame all Muslims for the actions of a few psychos. Bit like saying all Americans are red neck hicks who wander around with AR 15s, drive pick up trucks and believe in a zombie apocalypse because a small number do.

Exactly. Just because all A are B, does not mean all B are A.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

you hush now, serrano. PC beats human lives anytime!

Aren't you cute. Equating political correctness with the Bill of Rights. Lucky for the rest of America, that logic is just as impotent as the folks who peddle it.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

In case anyone is wondering about my earlier post, the original headline contained the expression "racial profiling". It has been altered since.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

...the original headline contained the expression "racial profiling"

Gee, albaleo, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what Trump was referring to, explicit usage of the word "race" notwithstanding. At any rate, neither "Muslim" nor "Hispanic" is a race.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Do they mean (((Trump))) ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trump and the NRA have been disagreeing lately.

Trump: People at the Orlando bar would had been better off carrying guns.

NRA: No, guns and drunk people should not mix.

Trump: There should be legislation preventing people on terror suspect list from buying guns.

NRA: No.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I'm pretty realistic and understand the interest the powers that be have in keeping us safe. I know that they could be rifling through my Google docs and my email and tracking my Website use (porn?), and frankly, I don't give a damn - nothing but work and some innocuous personal stuff there as they'd notice within a minute if they ever bothered to look (which they may already have; I had an interesting experience lasting over a year a while back as I counseled an Iranian scientist student as he was clumsily being recruited by the CIA).

What I do not want to happen is to be pulled over in traffic, stopped while walking, separated out in some security line just because of my background. Not only are such actions terribly inconvenient, they are dangerous: amongst the hair trigger attitude of today's American security services, a wrong move could leave you dead.

Normalizing such actions would set a very, very bad precedent. On the other hand, Trump has always admired Putin's Russia.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Next, taken by trains to internment camps... once the Muslims have been 'dealt with' Trump can then turn to Mexicans... then whatever other minorities he feels are a threat to the Fatherland...

Internment camps? ROFL Whatever....I have to give Trump credit, he's doubling down on his position and good on him. We know the left with their racist agendas care only about political self interests and again as the poll stated 49% of Americans agree with Trump on this and think he would be a more effective leader when it comes to foreign affairs.

This is absolute nuts! To the point Alphaape was saying earlier:

The term needs to be used, so that the rest of the Islamic world understands that no one is at war with Islam. I personally don't care what they practice and how they practice it. If I go to Tony Roma's in Bahrain, I fully understand that instead of pork baby back ribs, I will get beef ribs. But, they also need to understand that if you come to places like the USA, where one can practice their religion of choice, that doesn't mean that your religious laws will apply to those who don't follow your religion.

BINGO!

King Abdullah of Jordan said that radical Islam is a cancer that needs to be cut out. Now you have a devout Muslim identifying, realizing and is willing to take necessary actions to combat it, that's a real leader and a man without hesitation will star evil in its face and realizes, the war is not and NEVER was with Islam itself.

Do Americans not get it? A country which sometimes feels lost, and up pops an enigmatic ranting right wing loony with strange hair. Change the Reichsadler to the American Eagle and there you have it.

Trump is a direct anger responsive to Obama and the GOP elite that have been incognito for over 4 years and NOT living up to their promise to stop Obama from implementing his disastrous policies.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

It doesn't need to. We know who we are fighting. Anyone who doesn't is an idiot.

So I'm curious.......did you know the US is active in Yemen against the Houthis? Be carful of that mirror.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

I just read the DOJ will release the transcripts from the phone calls made during the attack. They plan on scrubbing any reference to Islam.

Dropping bombs isn't working. Let's trying dropping the truth. See how that works.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Do people actually believe the muslims aren't already under racial profiling after 911? The Patriot Act already made profiling against its citizens legal and the NSA and fbi cia guys make sure it is enforced. The guy who shot the club wasn't a jihad, he's just a gay hater, which is probably why he didn't trigger the system.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

that doesn't mean that your religious laws will apply to those who don't follow your religion.

Kind of like an atheist gay couple being told by a Christian that they should be denied basic goods and services.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Anyway, tomorrow comes to the Senate the vote on whether to delay for 78 hours gun purchases to those on the terrorist watch list so that the FBI can look into them. My guess is that the Repubs will reject it. It's one thing to end up on a list; it's completely another to be an American*.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The guy who shot the club wasn't a jihad, he's just a gay hater, which is probably why he didn't trigger the system.

Witnesses were saying he was screaming Allahu Akbar as he was shooting people, if that isn't a clear sign of radical Jihadism, then I don't know what is. As far as gay hating is concerned, he was definitely without a doubt.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

too many now from certain countries, do not identify with the USA or want to identify themselves as Americans. That includes certain Muslims, Mexicans, Chinese, and others that has already been identified.

For Asian-Americans, the issue is they are perceived as not Americans by the public...no matter how many generations their families have been in the US. They're stereotyped as "perpetual foreigners" for this reason.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The problem is that anti-gay hatred is far more widespread than the usual "radical" Muslim nations like Iran or Saudi Arabia. Polling shows that more than half of Muslims in the UK think that homosexuality should be illegal! 30% of American Muslims agree that violence against those that insult Mohammed is OK!

These are values that are completely unacceptable in any modern secular democracy. Trump is right to be cautious.

Laguna: the bill on the Terrorist Watch List will fail. It is incomprehensible that a legally protected constitutional right will be superseded by a bureaucratic decision.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Superlib:

" They are fighting for the right to deny homosexuals basic goods and services. They're moving on to healthcare next. It tends to cross my mind when those same people tell us that someone else's religion isn't compatible with our laws. "

So which is it? Is it a problem if a religion comes complete wiith a set of laws that it wants to put above the existing laws of the country or is it not? If it is, surely you have to admit that there is a special problem with radical islam, which wants to put Shariah above secular law?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The Americans failed to notice that 9/11 was carried out by Saudi Arabians since Iraq was subsequently invaded. Profiling people before they fly might lead to innocent people in unconnected countries not being murdered.......!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

inkjet **

I just read the DOJ will release the transcripts from the phone calls made during the attack. They plan on scrubbing any reference to Islam. Dropping bombs isn't working. Let's trying dropping the truth. See how that works.****

Sad isn't it? People died winning these hard-fought for rights to know the truth. And as long as these same rights get frittered away under a "progressive" president every things ok with the "Left".

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Islamist Jihadists are consistently killing and bombing many people, and causing terror around the world. And they had declared their intention as war. Of course profile such proclaimed or linked suspects, track them, exposed them and take action to restrict them, jailed and even capital punishment placed on them if proven they had committed murder.

Let's not confuse ourselves; other groups of people whatever their race or religion are not doing that to the world at large. So obviously there is no need to profile or restrict others. Of course you will have a nutcase here and there among us.

Forget about political correctness. Common people, families and individuals want to live in peace and not be killed by terrorists in their daily lives.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@superlib

"They are fighting for the right to deny homosexuals basic goods and services. They're moving on to healthcare next. It tends to cross my mind when those same people tell us that someone else's religion isn't compatible with our laws."

Who is doing this? Specifics please.

I support a country where individuals are allowed have and express stupid ideas. When those with these stupid ideas start acting out in violent ways I see a problem. When the majority of a country or culture support those crazy ideas I see a very serious problem.

I used to buy into the idea of the overwhelmingly moderate Muslim majority. I'm having serious doubts. Im beginning think it's a myth created by progressives.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@inkjet I used to buy into the idea of the overwhelmingly moderate Muslim majority. I'm having serious doubts. Im beginning think it's a myth created by progressives.

You're not the only one.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

So I'm curious.......did you know the US is active in Yemen against the Houthis? Be carful of that mirror.

Those aren't America's enemies. They aren't attacking America. In this case, the enemy is America.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Do Americans not get it?

Do Mexicans not get it? -they can wave their flags and thrash police cars in Mexico. Not in the US.

A country which sometimes feels lost, and up pops an enigmatic ranting right wing loony with strange hair.

We're lost because the whole pc thing and "tolerance" has blinded us. Allow in more illegal Mexicans. Open the US up to islamic refugees. . . this is NOT common sense. It's craziness. Building bridges with other is okay, but once "they" start to dictate and take over. . . someone has to step in.

Change the Reichsadler to the American Eagle and there you have it.

Or put islamic prophets on US Currency. Or change the American Eagle to an "aztec eagle" clawing a snake and there you have it. No thank you. . . NOT in my America -

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Sam Harris has a some very cleary comments about the Orlando massacre and the politician`s reaction here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auAWT0TNcfg

Sam Harris, fwiw, a few weeks earlier said he would vote for Hillary, although with little enthusiasm.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

WilliB: So which is it? Is it a problem if a religion comes complete wiith a set of laws that it wants to put above the existing laws of the country or is it not? If it is, surely you have to admit that there is a special problem with radical islam, which wants to put Shariah above secular law?

I have zero support for Sharia law here, there, or anywhere. But to think we've had 7 US states pass laws to ban it shows just how stupid decisions are made by people out of fear. There is no chance of it happening here. None. It's silly that legislators took even a second of time banning it; these people are peddling sheer paranoia of a non-existent threat to American law.

An actual, real life threat to our democracy is coming from Christians in the US deciding that their religious laws trump our secular laws. That's something that's actually happening here, in my country, that impacts me. Right now in Louisiana they are teaching creationism in schools under the guise of "religious freedom", the same state that decided they needed to ban Sharia law because, you know, just not compatible in a democracy that promotes separation between church and state.

If you want to talk about terrorism, then let's talk about terrorism. If you want to talk about religion taking over parts of the state, then let's talk about Christianity. Sharia in America is a red herring.

5 ( +6 / -2 )

I used to buy into the idea of the overwhelmingly moderate Muslim majority. I'm having serious doubts. Im beginning think it's a myth created by progressives.

Well if you read something enough times, you start to believe it's true. This is how fox "news" is so successful. They keep repeating the same things over and over, regardless of the facts, and people begin to believe it's fact. Then the more people that begin to believe it, the more justified people feel in their beliefs, since they aren't the only ones who believe it. So then people go and look into the things they are hearing and believing, and they find information that backs it up, and support their confirmation bias.

The way to the real truth is not just to research what you believe, but also fact check yourself and research the opposite as well.

Very, very few people (on both sides) do this however.

For example, I had believed that Trump had declared bankruptcy multiple times for himself until today. Someone mentioned that he had only committed chapter 11 for four of his companies, so I researched it, and found out that my beliefs were mistaken.

Until you research that which is the opposite of what you believe, you can't be assured that what you do believe is correct.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

An actual, real life threat to our democracy is coming from Christians in the US deciding that their religious laws trump our secular laws.

Oh, please. The ONLY thing that is a serious threat to American democracy is over the top liberal progressive PC.

Right now in Louisiana they are teaching creationism in schools under the guise of "religious freedom", the same state that decided they needed to ban Sharia law because, you know, just not compatible in a democracy that promotes separation between church and state.

Here is the problem, the entire education system is haijacked by liberals and these educators are teaching and forcing a one-sided POV. Now I'm not going to get in what's right or wrong when it comes to what a person believes but the schools have no diversity. We have always been a Judaeo-Christian society. We can go line by line what Sharia calls for. How many Honor killings are allowed in Christian or Jewish societies or throwing gays from buildings? You seriously want to make a comparison between Sharia and Judaeo-Christian values? That's like comparing a glider to a Space Shuttle. This whole idea that the left is trying to make this about guns and attack on Islam is a smokescreen and the people are not falling for it anymore. Again, there is a war on Jihadism, NOT Islam and now the White is scared because the people are finally waking up to how dishonest this admin. is.

If you want to talk about terrorism, then let's talk about terrorism. If you want to talk about religion taking over parts of the state, then let's talk about Christianity. Sharia in America is a red herring.

Sure, let's have a talk. You don't see a Huckabee or a Carson as the head candidate. There is NO wave of Christian supremacy on the rise, now in the South you do have a lot of Evangelicals and as it typically always has been in the South, let these people worship and believe whatever they want to believe, Athiests do, in fact, one could argue Athiesm is a growing threat to our democracy, it just depends on who you are asking.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

You seriously want to make a comparison between Sharia and Judaeo-Christian values?

Sharia law and religious exemption from laws are the same thing. Basing law on religious values.

If you are against one, you should be against the other, or you are just being hypocritical.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Here is the problem, the entire education system is haijacked by liberals and these educators are teaching and forcing a one-sided POV.

Earlier political association. I'm not saying libs are stupid, but I think most inquisitive, innovative learners are the ones rejecting the one-sided pov and digging out other views.

Again, there is a war on Jihadism, NOT Islam and now the White is scared because the people are finally waking up to how dishonest this admin. is.

Is Obama too PC to say, "Jihadism" too?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

bass4funk: We can go line by line what Sharia calls for. How many Honor killings are allowed in Christian or Jewish societies or throwing gays from buildings? You seriously want to make a comparison between Sharia and Judaeo-Christian values?

Obviously my point went over your head. Just move on, it's not worth explaining to you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Strangerland,

And in the meantime MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, Daily Beast, Vox, Huff Post, and many others. Fox news isn`t the problem.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Fox news isn`t the problem.

Fox "news" is not truly news (hence the quotes). It's news-entertainment. Something like 1/3 to 1/2 of what they say is shown to be incorrect to some degree between 'slightly' and 'entirely'. Right-wingers watch this "news" and the more times they hear the same lie repeated, the more they believe it's actually true.

Fox "news" is most definitely the problem. It's teaching the right-wingers that it's better to be divisive than inclusive. It's teaching the right-wingers that it's better to be partisan, even when that harms the country, than it is to be non-partisan, when it will benefit the country.

Fox "news" is probably the biggest scourge in America right now. Moreover, Fox "news" must be destroyed.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The problem is that the term becomes exclusionary. It creates disenfranchisement of the 1 point some billion people who are Muslim, and not terrorists.

I think it is pretty "paternalistic" for people to think that the rest of the billion Muslims and the rest of the world will get offended just because when we say "Radical Islam" we are talking about the ones use Islam as a basis for committing their acts of terror. I know full well that not all Muslims may hold those beliefs. So when I say radical, I get the fact that some are not and will not discriminate against anyone because of their religion. But, if I met someone, and all they said that the US must pay and I am part of the "Great Devil" then I have a clear indication that this is probably a person who may be radicalized, and wishes to do the rest of the non-believers some harm. Does that mean I can just call to have them locked up, no since if they are in the US they are still allowed free speech, but if they are coming from another country, then we don't have to let them in.

Using common sense is not that hard.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Using common sense is not that hard.

I agree, and yet so many keep spouting the right-wing PC line that there is a problem with not using the term 'radical Islam'.

Using common sense shouldn't be that hard.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Strangerland,

I listed numerous left wing media outlets that design news for their followers. Not sure why you can`t admit they are no better.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I listed numerous left wing media outlets that design news for their followers. Not sure why you can`t admit they are no better.

Because they are better - why would I 'admit' otherwise? You're trying to create a false equivalency. No one is as bad, with a lack of facts, as Fox "News". The equivalency you are trying to create doesn't exist.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I would be against Judaeo-Christian laws vehemently if Jews and Christians in our we're going imposing their religiosity beliefs or death as an ultimatum, imposing a tax or anything violent infringing on a persons life to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't have a problem with anyone practicing the Islamic fate, so why is it that liberals always try, so hard to make the same comparison and they can't, because they know there hasn't been an epic wave of Christian-Jewish terrorism on the rise. If anyone can show an equal amount of violence in the most horrific way over the last 15 years by Jew or Christians compared the carnage that radical Jihadism has caused, I'll give an apology right now.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

If anyone can show an equal amount of violence in the most horrific way over the last 15 years by Jew or Christians compared the carnage that radical Jihadism has caused, I'll give an apology right now.

I'm surprised that the press hasn't brought up the Catholics and Northern Ireland. Even though that conflict had some religious aspects to it, the main reason was that N. Ireland didn't want to be under GB anymore. The IRA did their share of bombings, but, they had specific purpose and targets, namely to get away from GB. Never did I see them afterwards proclaim that they did that so that the rest of the world would convert to Roman Catholicism.

No one is as bad, with a lack of facts, as Fox "News". The equivalency you are trying to create doesn't exist.

@ Strangeland: I think you are wrong with this statement. Just take a look at the released transcripts of the shooter's 911 calls. At first the Obama admin said that they were going to edit them so that they wouldn't give any credit to ISIS, and then that blew back in their faces. Then they released them, and when you read them, he calls out the name of God why he was doing this, but in actuality, Muslims don't use the term God but Allah. Again, the Obama admin is sending out a false narrative. After the AG went on all the news shows Sunday and said that they weren't going to release the full transcripts, they had to back track just like when Susan Rice went out and said the Benghazi attacks on the embassy were the results of a Youtube video, which we all know was false. So I think you are wrong in your assessment. The rest of the media has tried to cover this as a "gun issue" instead of what it really is. That's what I would call a lack of facts.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Strangerland:

" I agree, and yet so many keep spouting the right-wing PC line that there is a problem with not using the term 'radical Islam'. "

Well, what else do you want to use? I would agree that there is a problem inhererent in islam, period. But if you ban the term "radical islam" you disregard the fact that there are also islamic reformers and non-jihadist movements in islam, such as the Alevites, the Ismailis, etc. Is that what you want?

Likewise, do you also want to ban the term "fundamentalist christians"?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

No one is as bad, with a lack of facts, as Fox "News". The equivalency you are trying to create doesn't exist.

@ Strangeland: I think you are wrong with this statement. Just take a look at the released transcripts of the shooter's 911 calls.

Your whole thing about the 911 calls has nothing to do with the fact that fox "news" makes things up all the time, and is incorrect on their facts all the time.

And I'm not wrong:

46 percent of the claims made by NBC and MSNBC pundits and on-air personalities have been rated Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.

At FOX and Fox News Channel, that same number is 60 percent. At CNN, it’s 18 percent.

Link: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2014/jul/01/introducing-scorecards-tv-networks/

As you can see, Fox news is only correct with 40% of the 'facts' the espouse. That's not even half. And it's much worse than the other networks.

As I said, it's a false equivalency to try to say the other networks are as bad as fox "news".

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Strangerland,

Include all the left wing media. Done by left wing politifact.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Well, what else do you want to use?

The administration is doing just fine with what they are using.

I would agree that there is a problem inhererent in islam, period.

And if the government made comments like that, it would alienate the Muslims that we should be getting to work with us. It's counter-productive.

Likewise, do you also want to ban the term "fundamentalist christians"?

Where has the term 'radical islam' been banned? That's a strawman.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Strangerland,

You keep telling us that Obama was great. Why then, long after Bush, do we still have the same issues with Islam? Where is the progress with the current government?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Include all the left wing media. Done by left wing politifact.

Exactly, the point is Politifact tries to pass itself as being in the middle and while I believe that, it has nothing to do with many of their pundits who are NOT. That's the kicker.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/03/18/pew-study-finds-msnbc-the-most-opinionated-cable-news-channel-by-far/#7e757170734c

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/382851/how-stupid-happens-kevin-d-williamson

The point is, the far left as well as most of the left MSM hate the fact that there is one network that keeps them on their toes, another reason why the DOJ had to do an about face on the transcripts of the Orlando shooter and the White House can't spin it. When you have the head of the FBI and the senior Pentagon officials debunking the president, it's clear this guy is losing the battle of hearts and the public hopeful dimwits. 5 more months to go until this madness with this guy is over.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

You keep telling us that Obama was great. Why then, long after Bush, do we still have the same issues with Islam?

I'm not seeing the connection between your first sentence and your second.

Where is the progress with the current government?

When you have people working doubly hard to push you back, you have to work doubly hard just to stay where you are. The right-wingers have doubled down under Obama. The fact that the current government hasn't regressed says something. That said, they should have pulled out of the middle east years ago. They've definitely wound down operations to some degree, but still too many drone strikes, and too much meddling.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

It is just mind-boggling that Trump has lasted thus far in the primaries.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Even more mind-boggling that Clinton has lasted thus far. Part of the blame goes to the Department of Justice taking their time to indict her for her crimes.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Strangerland,

This has nothing to do with Republicans. What progress has Obama actually made in dealing with extremists in the muslim world? Nothing. Because he`s not interested. 8 years and no change. Only worse.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

For example, I had believed that Trump had declared bankruptcy multiple times for himself until today. Someone mentioned that he had only committed chapter 11 for four of his companies, so I researched it, and found out that my beliefs were mistaken.

So instead of going bankrupt himself, he scuttled the companies, bilked the investors and kept the profits. I don't see how that's any better.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

So instead of going bankrupt himself, he scuttled the companies, bilked the investors and kept the profits. I don't see how that's any better.

It's not really, but my point is about fact checking yourself, rather than just looking for data that fits your confirmation bias.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Strangerland

In re: confirmation bias

You are making an distinction without a business. Trump coned investors, raided and then scuttled the company he controlled,

As a so-called businessman, he went bankrupt.

Four times,

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Trump does not care about this or his campaign, he is in Scotland today on a business golf trip trying to save yet another business venture of his that is going bankrupt. Hilarious. His campaign is tanking, running out of money, top managers leaving or being fired, polls dropping and he takes a golf holiday in Scotland. Can even the deluded right wing nutters deny their candidate is a huge joke? A joke on you. And yes of course he is a racist. That is why he is 100% supported by the KKK. They love Trump cause he is one of their own, or so they think. Trumps Dad was a KKK member so the apple does not fall far from the tree it seems.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Hey Zurch.

Long time. In truth, I don't know or much care whether Trump is a racist or not. The thing that matter is he is playing one on TV. In fact, he is playing a certain kind of racist: the bigoted, tribal, white-supremacist kind of racist.

That is the problem.

Most everyone I know -- black, brown, yellow or white, Jew, Gentile, Muslim, atheist, or Jain, gay, straight or bi, what ever -- including myself, has screwed up ideas in our head about different types of people. Its just human. Said another way, racism isn't a matter on or off; its a sliding scale from someone like Gandhi on one end, to good 'ol Adolf on the other.

I know you know this. I just wanted to point out that Donald J. Trump is flirting verious seriously with a kind of bigoted white supremacy that really has hurt my country. A lot. And continues to hurt it.

It is further, IMO, more than that. It is proto-fascist. As liberal, as a humanist, as a Jew and first and foremost as an American, that is why I hold that no responsible person could possibly vote for Donald J. Trump.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Like do people really believe that he's going to profile "only" Muslims? What's to stop him from doing the same thing to other minorities?? That is how Hitler started, but it seems the people that support Trump, have forgotten that or are blind to that fact.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So as not to deviate from the topic and the discussion, lets stay away from the "What IF's" and uncertain "predictions".

Already the situation, circumstances and the environment has changed with Brexit and its economic as well as political impact. However, the "risk" and "danger" of more recruiting of Islamic terrorists and terrorist action is something no one wants.

To prevent any more harm, the practical method is the scientific method. First one must identify the problem, then "define" the problem by "identifying" the various elements, factors, players, etc. and the location, size, strength, etc. of that problem. Simply put, we must have the who, what, when, where, how, and why of the problem.

The key to it all being to "identify". The identity is known as the Islamic terrorism with radical people. Now we must find out as with any disease, where it exists, how, under what circumstances and conditions, etc.

Profiling is nothing more than "properly identifying" something or some person. It is a simple practical and scientific method of meaningfully describing and naming chracteristics useful in identifying something. It has nothing to do with "personal rights" or "race" or "religion" or even "sex" unless it directly relates and is a part of that description.

Islam whether one may like it or not, believe in or not, is an integral part of that description and identifying process. Sadly, the people of Arabic background whose religion is dominated by Islam, also becomes a part of that description. Now it also includes the territorial origin of those people from places where such radicalism by population demographics indicate; such as Syria and Iran, even Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Afghanistan.

The question now is how best to implement a way to better identify such threat to the rest of the world. It is now very obvious that this is not just a regional or minor effort by a simple terror group, but a serious religion based war with racial, economic and other overtones, fueled by jealousy and hatred of far reaching magnitude going back millenniums.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I was once questioned by British paramilitary police over possible links to a terrorist organization (Irish Republican Army) on the basis of profiling: surname associated with an area noted for IRA activists, visits to that area , American passport. I did not particularly like being questioned but I was happy to cooperate because in the 90s IRA terrorists were a very real threat in Britain. I missed being at the locus of a major bombing in Manchester by exactly 24 hours.

I can well understand why the British police were using profiling and if it stopped even one killing, it was worthwhile.

The issue is, of course, keeping the profiling from degenerating into harassment.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites