Ethnic Profiling

[JadeTiger 0]

Ok, let me make some points in this argument that I feel need to be brought up. First of all George Bush is not a terrorist and we weren't "lied to" prior to going to war in Iraq. George Bush never said there was a direct link between Al'Queda and Iraq. What he did say was that members of Osama's inner circle had been in contact with key members of the Iraqi government, which was true..they met numerous times in the 1990's.(http://www.hannity.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-3288.html) (Bill Clinton was president then wasn't he?) The thread he took was that since Iraq had a WMD program and was hostile to the US it would not be much of a stretch to envision a scenario where Iraq gave Al'Queda WMD's or money to purchase them on the black market. Second, As far as WMD's go....Iraq had them, we know Iraq had them, every country in the world (including Iraq itself) said they had them and had known about them for the previous 10 years. In addition if at any time Sadam had given complete and un fettered access to UN weapons inspectors (something he NEVER did) and complied with the 16 UN resolutions that were in place against his country he could have avoided all of this and would still be in power. That being said what we DID find in Iraq was 500 tons (that's a MILLION pounds folks) of yellow cake uranium and 1.8 tons of enriched uranium. (primary application of enriched uranium is making nukes) Both of these items were found in a building labeled WEAPONS RESEARCH on facilities diagrams. Centrifuge parts (needed to enrich uranium) and bomb diagrams buried in the back yard of a man known as the director of Sadam's Nuclear weapons program. Dozens of artillery shells loaded with Sarin and Nerve Gas. Yes, most of the agents were somewhat degraded but do you know what degraded nerve agent does.....IT STILL KILLS YOU...It just does it slower and it takes a larger dose to do it. We are also still digging up ammo dumps across the country that contain...guess what.... chemical weapons or munitions that are intended to deliver chemical payloads. There is also a great deal of intelligence that points to several large munitions shipments that went to Syria just prior to the beginning of the ground war in GWII. Was it a mistake to go into Iraq...No. Is it a mistake to fight the war like we are now? Yes. Politicians are running the war, not soldiers. We all remember the last time that happened...it was about 40 years ago and they still haven't learned anything. Being a terrorist is not about killing people..it's about how you kill people and why and the intent of the action. George Bush is not a terrorist because the orders he gives do not intentionally target civilians. Do they sometimes get caught in the cross fire...yes; it's an unavoidable consequence of war. Terrorist deliberately target innocent civilians (soft targets) in order to instill terror in a population...hence the word terrorist. If anything the restraint we have used in Iraq should be commended. Need an example? Look at the city of Faluja. It is a hotbed of insurgent activity. Tactically it takes too many men to control the city and strategically it's not that important so militarily it makes the most sense to evacuate the city and scour it from the face of the earth. Have we done that? No. Have we used tactics like we used against the Germans or the Japanese in WWII? No, if so we would have fire bombed every major city in Iraq like we did to Dresden and Tokyo. A guidance system malfunction on a smart bomb or cruse missile that causes it to over shoot its target and hit an apartment building is no less tragic but it is NOT a terrorist act. Driving a 2 1/2 ton truck loaded with explosives into the same apartment building and detonating it specifically to kill civilians is. Truthfully what the war in Iraq has done is show the world who (and what) the true enemy we face today is. Fundamentalist Islam. That religion has been hijacked by the fanatical wing that truthfully believes that the world needs to be united under the guidance of the Muslim religion. In addition they also believe that anyone who does not subscribe to their beliefs (including moderate Muslims) is an infidel and should be destroyed or enslaved. Our getting out of Iraq will not make the Islamo-facists any less hostile to us. We could completely pull out of the middle east, stop our support of Israel, and divest all interests in the region and they would still hate us because of the influence our movies, media, and freedoms have over the people in their countries and because we are not Muslim. This is a battle that we will be fighting for the next 20 years and unfortunately until the moderate Islamic countries and most of Europe grow a set and are willing to confront this enemy in their midst we (and the brits) remain the lone voices railing against the enemy that everyone sees but nobody wants to acknowledge.Erik

Im sure what you have to say is a good read because I got through the first few lines but then I couldnt take it anymore. Please use a 'return' every now and again. Multiple paragraphs rock my face off!

[ErikVegas 0]

Im sure what you have to say is a good read because I got through the first few lines but then I couldnt take it anymore. Please use a 'return' every now and again. Multiple paragraphs rock my face off!

Is that better

[DanielNegreanu 141]

I'm all for BEHAVIORAL profiling. That's a far cry from ethnic profiling. I'm all for doing it like the Israeli's do it. They spend their resources wisely.

[showstopper24 0]

The Isreali's do it well. I just came back from a trip to Israel. Before boarding the flight and checking in your luggage they ask you many questions. Then you have to go through more security at the gate. In the way back, they ask you more questions and they will no hesistate to stop and check you. I was with my grandma's 90 year old friend. When he told security that he didn't carry his luggage inside the airport but the taxi cab driver, they checked his suitcase even though he is 90.

[Yoda 1]

Ok, let me make some points in this argument that I feel need to be brought up. First of all George Bush is not a terrorist and we weren't "lied to" prior to going to war in Iraq. George Bush never said there was a direct link between Al'Queda and Iraq. What he did say was that members of Osama's inner circle had been in contact with key members of the Iraqi government, which was true..they met numerous times in the 1990's.(http://www.hannity.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-3288.html) (Bill Clinton was president then wasn’t he?) The thread he took was that since Iraq had a WMD program and was hostile to the US it would not be much of a stretch to envision a scenario where Iraq gave Al'Queda WMD's or money to purchase them on the black market. Second, As far as WMD's go....Iraq had them, we know Iraq had them, every country in the world (including Iraq itself) said they had them and had known about them for the previous 10 years. In addition if at any time Sadam had given complete and un fettered access to UN weapons inspectors (something he NEVER did) and complied with the 16 UN resolutions that were in place against his country he could have avoided all of this and would still be in power. That being said what we DID find in Iraq was 500 tons (that’s a MILLION pounds folks) of yellow cake uranium and 1.8 tons of enriched uranium. (primary application of enriched uranium is making nukes) Both of these items were found in a building labeled WEAPONS RESEARCH on facilities diagrams. Centrifuge parts (needed to enrich uranium) and bomb diagrams buried in the back yard of a man known as the director of Sadam's Nuclear weapons program. Dozens of artillery shells loaded with Sarin and Nerve Gas. Yes, most of the agents were somewhat degraded but do you know what degraded nerve agent does.....IT STILL KILLS YOU...It just does it slower and it takes a larger dose to do it. We are also still digging up ammo dumps across the country that contain...guess what.... chemical weapons or munitions that are intended to deliver chemical payloads. There is also a great deal of intelligence that points to several large munitions shipments that went to Syria just prior to the beginning of the ground war in GWII. Was it a mistake to go into Iraq...No. Is it a mistake to fight the war like we are now? Yes. Politicians are running the war, not soldiers. We all remember the last time that happened...it was about 40 years ago and they still haven't learned anything. Being a terrorist is not about killing people..it’s about how you kill people and why and the intent of the action. George Bush is not a terrorist because the orders he gives do not intentionally target civilians. Do they sometimes get caught in the cross fire...yes; it’s an unavoidable consequence of war. Terrorist deliberately target innocent civilians (soft targets) in order to instill terror in a population...hence the word terrorist. If anything the restraint we have used in Iraq should be commended. Need an example? Look at the city of Faluja. It is a hotbed of insurgent activity. Tactically it takes too many men to control the city and strategically it’s not that important so militarily it makes the most sense to evacuate the city and scour it from the face of the earth. Have we done that? No. Have we used tactics like we used against the Germans or the Japanese in WWII? No, if so we would have fire bombed every major city in Iraq like we did to Dresden and Tokyo. A guidance system malfunction on a smart bomb or cruse missile that causes it to over shoot its target and hit an apartment building is no less tragic but it is NOT a terrorist act. Driving a 2 1/2 ton truck loaded with explosives into the same apartment building and detonating it specifically to kill civilians is. What the war in Iraq has done is show the world who (and what) the true enemy we face today is. Fundamentalist Islam. That religion has been hijacked by the fanatical wing that truthfully believes that the world needs to be united under the guidance of the Muslim religion. In addition they also believe that anyone who does not subscribe to their beliefs (including moderate Muslims) is an infidel and should be destroyed or enslaved. Our getting out of Iraq will not make the Islamo-facists any less hostile to us. We could completely pull out of the middle east, stop our support of Israel, and divest all interests in the region and they would still hate us because of the influence our movies, media, and freedoms have over the people in their countries and because we are not Muslim. This is a battle that we will be fighting for the next 20 years and unfortunately until the moderate Islamic countries and most of Europe grow a set and are willing to confront this enemy in their midst we (and the brits) remain the lone voices railing against the enemy that everyone sees but nobody wants to acknowledge.Erik

Read this Vatche..

[sholden 0]

I'm all for BEHAVIORAL profiling. That's a far cry from ethnic profiling. I'm all for doing it like the Israeli's do it. They spend their resources wisely.

Yet you wrote: "Last time I got on a plane there were two dudes sitting near the front of the airplane. Combined, they had two eyebrows, and looked like absolute nutcases. They were probably two normal dudes, but man, I would have felt a lot more comfortable if their bags were searched instead of airport security spending all of their time looking through a six year old girl's Hello Kitty knapsack."Having two eyebrows between them and looking like nutcases doesn't sound like "behavioral" too me. Unless "looking like nutcases" is due to them looking nervious and fidgety rather than being browned skined, bearded, and having deep stares?Terrorists aren't completely stupid, if you don't perform random searches they will do a bunch of trial runs and work out which of their operatives don't fit the profile and hence have a better chance of making it through security and send them to do the job. They will also recruit people who don't fit the profile. See http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-b...5407701800.html for why searching the six year old girl's knapsack might be wise...Note that Israel does random searching and behavioural profiling and ethnic profiling. However, implementing El-Als security procedures in the US would bring the entire air system to a grinding halt - they have the benefit of a relatively low volume of passengers, Chicago O'Hare does not.

No, he means that for every 1 terrorist that isn't also a muslim, there are 5,000 terrorists that are also muslim.

So 99.98% then...

[DonkSlayer 1]

So 99.98% then...

Nope you still fail reading comp. Better luck on the ACT.

[sholden 0]

Nope you still fail reading comp. Better luck on the ACT.

Please explain for the dummies, I parse this statement:"for every 1 terrorist that isn't also a muslim, there are 5,000 terrorists that are also muslim."As: if there's a terrorist who is not also a muslim, then there are 5000 terrorists who are also muslims.Hence 5000 out of 5001 terrorists are also musim. Hence 99.98% of terrorists are muslim.And I don't need luck on the ACT, since I will never be doing it. But thanks anyway.

[nutzbuster 7]

How ironic.My wife and I just came out of the theater. We went to see World Trade Center.Good Lord. ...All I can say is go see it. It makes no political statement, but rather a very simple one about the human spirit.Is was both profoundly sad and inspiring at the same time.and it is an excellent film.Peace

[silkyjonson 1]

Bottom line no one should be singled out and mistreated. Go ahead and search anyone who has suspicious BEHAVIOUR, and anyone else randomly.

[blueodum 0]

...if Saddam was evil enough to justify a war, then how come we haven't attack Cuba or North Korea (again) or Venezuela? Oh yeah...we haven't fabricated enough evidence to attack them yet.Not to mention the dictator regimes that the US supports, such as Egypt and Saudia Arabia.***********Sholden's reading comprehension is fine, but I don't think donkslayer's is.And ErikVegas seems to have swallowed all the propaganda whole:What the war in Iraq has done is show the world who (and what) the true enemy we face today is. Fundamentalist Islam.Saddam Hussein's regime was secularist. It is he and people like him who the Wahabis consider traitors to Islam. Removing him has made Iraq a hotbed of terrorism and plunged the country into civil war, and given yet another reason for the mainstream population in the Muslim world to hate the US. And believe me, they do.Instead, why not try respecting the sovereignty of other nations, so that you can work with them to root out the extremist elements within their societies.Almost none of the Muslim countries in the world are governed by religious fanatics. The main exception being Iran, and formerly (and perhaps once again soon) Afghanistan. But the US didn't care about the Taliban before 2001, even though it was one of the most repressive regimes in recent history. The Muslim world sees this hypocracy: the US speaks of democracy, but either supports or does nothing about dictatorial regimes throughout the world.

[DonkSlayer 1]

The main exception being Iran, and formerly (and perhaps once again soon) Afghanistan. But the US didn't care about the Taliban before 2001, even though it was one of the most repressive regimes in recent history. The Muslim world sees this hypocracy: the US speaks of democracy, but either supports or does nothing about dictatorial regimes throughout the world.

A bit off-topic, but nonetheless:You're right about the US being inconsistent when supporting dictators. You can't have it both ways though. Respect sovreignity? Then we support dictators. Don't? Then wipe out all dictators. You'd have a lot more to worry about than Iraq after that one.And, check your current events knowledge. Billy Clinton shot Tomahawk's into Afghanistan before Sept. 11. I think the Taliban were around then

[Mikey Ravioli 0]

I am a fat, 40yo, Italian guy. The day a bunch of fat, 40yo, Italian guys blow something up or fly someplanes into buildings I will expect to get a little extra security check at the airport. Hell, I will more then expect it, I will welcome it. And in no way shape or form will it offend me.Fact of the matter is if one particular group is responsible for 99% of all of one type of activity then it is completely justified to screen that group a little more carefully if you are trying to prevent said activity. This country needs to worry less about being politically correct and offending people and worry more about protecting people. We need to get a little more prejudiced. Internment camps during WWII may have been embarrsing but they served their purpose. I am not advocating internment for Muslim or Arabs but giving them a little extra screening aint a bad thing. Given the choice between being embarrassed and being blown up, I'll take embarrassed

[ErikVegas 0]

...if Saddam was evil enough to justify a war, then how come we haven't attack Cuba or North Korea (again) or Venezuela? Oh yeah...we haven't fabricated enough evidence to attack them yet.Not to mention the dictator regimes that the US supports, such as Egypt and Saudia Arabia. ***********As far as Cuba goes.....no body cares about Cuba they arent a threat to anyone but themselves. North Korea....dont worry we will get to them later. Oh by the way read some history. The US NEVER attacked North Korea. US forces did in fact make up the majority of the UN forces that were called upon to defend south Korea from North Korea. Hugo Chavez and Venezuela? If they didnt have oil people would be going Hugo Who? Saudia Arabia is not a dictatorship...its a monarchy, there is a difference. And as far as Egypt goes it is an Arab Republic with democratically elected representitives. So your lumping these two countries in with what you call "dictator" regiemes is completly incorect.Sholden's reading comprehension is fine, but I don't think donkslayer's is.And ErikVegas seems to have swallowed all the propaganda whole:What the war in Iraq has done is show the world who (and what) the true enemy we face today is. Fundamentalist Islam.Saddam Hussein's regime was secularist. It is he and people like him who the Wahabis consider traitors to Islam. Removing him has made Iraq a hotbed of terrorism and plunged the country into civil war, and given yet another reason for the mainstream population in the Muslim world to hate the US. And believe me, they do. Yep I agree with you Saddams regime was secularist.....mostly. He still considered himself a Suni Muslim (heck he even considered the Iran-Iraq war the second battle of Karbala) I also agree with you that the Wahabis considered him a trator to Islam. But you also have to agre that there are additional forces working in Iraq that are NOT Iraqi and are fulminating most fo the insurgency. Iran wants to a pan Islamic state in the middle east that extends from southern Spain, across north Africa, through the middle east, up through Turkey, into the Balkins and west to the edge of Austria. In other words all the lands that Muslims occupied at one point in history or another. (this comes straight out of the mouth of the curent president of Iran)Iran is supplying the shia insurgents in Iraq with weapons and explosives and if you can't see that you are just as much a victim of propaganda as you say I am.Instead, why not try respecting the sovereignty of other nations, so that you can work with them to root out the extremist elements within their societies.We do but its not as easy as you might think...The Saudis, the UAE, and the Kwatis are terrified of the Wahabists in their countries. They are afraid that if they crack down on them they will fulment a civil war within those countries. I know this for a fact since I was a military advisor to the United Arab Emerates Army for 2 years and still consider several members of the royal family as close personal frineds.Almost none of the Muslim countries in the world are governed by religious fanatics. The main exception being Iran, and formerly (and perhaps once again soon) Afghanistan. But the US didn't care about the Taliban before 2001, even though it was one of the most repressive regimes in recent history. The Muslim world sees this hypocracy: the US speaks of democracy, but either supports or does nothing about dictatorial regimes throughout the world.You are right Iran and formarly Afghanistan are the ony two "theocracies" that officially exist in the middle east. But all middle eastern governments (except Turkey but thats more European than Middle Eastern)are run by a blending of secular law and the Sharia or Isalmic Law. So although they are not run by religious fanatics, relegion and govenment are hopelesly intertwined.The US had been interested in Afghanistan since 1992 and even attacked Al'Queda bases in that country on August 20th 1998. We did care about the human rights violations going on in Afghanistan prior to 2001 and were activly working with the UN to put pressure on them to change their policies. It was not untill the Taliban became a threat to the US by failing to turn over Osama after 9-11 that a military option was decided upon. You can call it Hypocracy if you like that the US deals with dictatorial regimes but when there are more dictatorial regimes than free regimes in the world (which there are...take a look at the UN. 2/3 of the member states do not have free elections or a representitive government.) your alternatives are work with dictatorial regimes or be an isolationist. Do you self a favor...learn this lesson...the world of international politics is a landscapes of shades of grey....nothing is black and white. What is hypocracy in one persons world is good foregin policy in someone elses.Erik

[EricOF 0]

That's a load of crap. Remember Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber". Was he Middle Eastern or Arabic? I guess you must have forgotten about Timothy McVeigh or Terry Nichols as well. I guess they weren't "Johnny White" either. You are either incredibly ignorant or have a selective memory.

No, THAT'S a load of crap. A perfect case of PC disingenuous tripe. One must actively refuse to see the forest for the trees to think this way. Tally up the number of terrorist who have planned to harm the U.S. Examine their racial and religious makeup. If you can tell me you don't see a trend, you're a damn fool. I have so little patience with egalitarians. Show them 1,000 examples of mid-Eastern Muslims who try to blow up an American embassy and one example of a white Christian who tried to do the same they shrug their shoulders and say "see, any race can participate in this kind of terrorism." You would think a poker aficionado would know better. If I show you an example of how 72o won a bit pot, can I convince you that this isn't a generally weak holding and that you should probably consider it just as likely to win as AKs? Maybe we should be fair-minded and start raising UTG with 72o.

[PairTheBoard 0]

I'm all for BEHAVIORAL profiling. That's a far cry from ethnic profiling. I'm all for doing it like the Israeli's do it. They spend their resources wisely.

I wonder if Daniel was watching the same News show I saw a few days ago where they made exactly this point about Behavioral Profiling and the success the Israelis have had with it. Might have been the Chris Mathews' "Hardball" show. Or maybe the NBC or CBS nightly News. Or Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Or maybe Squawk Box, Morning Call, Power Lunch, Street Signs, Closing Bell, Kudlow & Company, or Mad Money.PairTheBoard

[wilheldp 0]

Damn, Erik, did you get a special brainwashing session in Washington, or what? Have you ever stopped to take a look at the cause of terrorist attacks against "western" nations? The only reason that radical Islamists are pissed off at America and our allies is that we keep meddling in Middle Eastern affairs. The reason America has been targeted by Islamic terrorists is that we supported the Israelis in their war against the Palestinians. We did not have a dog in that fight, yet we still threw our support behind the underdogs anyway. So, now there is a Jewish population right smack dab in the middle of of a huge Arab, and mostly Muslim, population that has the support of America. So, not only do attacks continue against Israel, but America is subject to attacks because we are a supply line to Israel.Next, we got involved when Iran and Iraq got in a fight, which came back to bite us in the *** in the form of the Iran Contra scandal AND the fact that both of the regimes that took power in those countries after the war hated America.Then, Iraq invades Kuwait, and the US decides that our role as World Police must be implemented again. This time, we failed to topple Saddam.Now, all this **** combines together to create a very large anti-American sentiment amongst radical Islamists. One of them finally has the means, money, power, and balls to orchestrate an attack on American soil. Do we stop to take a look at what the root cause of this anti-American sentiment is, and attack that problem? Hell no. We just do more of the same, and invade Afganistan because they have an oppresive fundamental Islamic regime and Osama set up shop in the uncontrolled wasteland that makes up the majority of that country. Not only that, Bush decides that this is the perfect time to fabricate and pitch his case for going to war with Iraq and Saddam. So, our imperialism and World Police mentality has led to an attack on American soil, and we have tried to solve that problem by invading two more sovereign nations in the Middle East. Not the least bit surprisingly, the radical Islamic terrorist movement has had no shortage of new recruits because a new generation is growing up under American imperialism.Blueodem made a great point earlier. Iraq was a secular nation, and the only thing that kept fundamentalists from taking it over was an oppressive dictator. In comes America to remove that dictator, and all of a sudden, there is more terrorists than ever in Iraq. Saddam isn't there to keep them under control, and the new government is a puppet of their sworn enemies in America. Hmmm...didn't see that comin'.Americans, and especially the American government, needs to realize that spreading democracy and the overthrow of oppressive governments in the Middle East is none of our ****ing business. It's like a hive of honey bees over there. If you leave them alone, they will go about their business and their society will exist peacefully. However, if you go in there, try to steal their honey by force, or just whack the hive with a stick, they are going to get pissed, sting you, and/or follow you until you are no longer a threat.Get out of Middle Eastern affairs, and stay out of them, and terrorism will become a thing of the past.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Will, you made a couple of good points (secular dictators keeping the peace, etc) but you are so far off on some others, I have to think you didn't stop and read what you were typing. Damn, Erik, did you get a special brainwashing session in Washington, or what? Have you ever stopped to take a look at the cause of terrorist attacks against "western" nations? The only reason that radical Islamists are pissed off at America and our allies is that we keep meddling in Middle Eastern affairs.So, why haven't secular, Christian and pagan Arabs attacked us? Next.Next, we got involved when Iran and Iraq got in a fight, which came back to bite us in the *** in the form of the Iran Contra scandal AND the fact that both of the regimes that took power in those countries after the war hated America.Then, Iraq invades Kuwait, and the US decides that our role as World Police must be implemented again. This time, we failed to topple Saddam.Now, all this **** combines together to create a very large anti-American sentiment amongst radical Islamists.Oh? Why wouldn't the Iranians like us then? Why would radical islamists hate us for toppling their secular dictator? I know why, but not for your reasons. One of them finally has the means, money, power, and balls to orchestrate an attack on American soil.This of course was planned many years before we invaded Iraq. J/s. Do we stop to take a look at what the root cause of this anti-American sentiment is, and attack that problem? Hell no. We just do more of the same, and invade Afganistan because they have an oppresive fundamental Islamic regime and Osama set up shop in the uncontrolled wasteland that makes up the majority of that country.I agree we should spend more resources on attacking the anti-sentiment problem. I disagree that Afghanistan should not have been turned into a parking lot. You can figure out why the guy shot at you so he doesn't shoot at you again, but you still take away his gun if you can. Not only that, Bush decides that this is the perfect time to fabricate and pitch his case for going to war with Iraq and Saddam. So, our imperialism and World Police mentality has led to an attack on American soil, and we have tried to solve that problem by invading two more sovereign nations in the Middle East. Not the least bit surprisingly, the radical Islamic terrorist movement has had no shortage of new recruits because a new generation is growing up under American imperialism.Welcome to the Dark Side, my Young Apprentice. Americans, and especially the American government, needs to realize that spreading democracy and the overthrow of oppressive governments in the Middle East is none of our ****ing business. It's like a hive of honey bees over there. If you leave them alone, they will go about their business and their society will exist peacefully. Why are Sunni's, Kurds and Shiites annihilating each other in Iraq, then? Is this "Civil War" in Iraq happening because they all don't like us so much, they're killing each other?However, if you go in there, try to steal their honey by force, or just whack the hive with a stick, they are going to get pissed, sting you, and/or follow you until you are no longer a threat.Good point. Some bees think we are a threat by just being around, though. Other bees have invited us to take some honey. Sticky situation.

[wilheldp 0]

So, why haven't secular, Christian and pagan Arabs attacked us? Next.Because they weren't in power. Because we didn't directly attack their people. Because they are vast majority and they are damned if the do (Arabs suppress them) and damned if they don't (America kills indescriminately). Because they also didn't have a dog in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Because they aren't bat-**** crazy. I don't know...take your pick.Oh? Why wouldn't the Iranians like us then? Why would radical islamists hate us for toppling their secular dictator? I know why, but not for your reasons.The Iranians don't like us (well, the government doesn't, at least). The radical islamists hate us for BEING in Iraq...it doesn't matter the reason. But since you asked...they aren't necessarily pissed about us toppling Saddam, but they don't like the idea of being ruled by an American puppet government. It's all a power struggle now. Saddam is gone. Nobody is really happy with the replacement so everybody is posturing to be the dominant force if/when America ever leaves the area.This of course was planned many years before we invaded Iraq. J/s. Yes, but it was not planned before Israel-Palestine, Iraq-Iran, or Iraq-Kuwait. We have a long history of pissing of Muslims.I agree we should spend more resources on attacking the anti-sentiment problem. I disagree that Afghanistan should not have been turned into a parking lot. You can figure out why the guy shot at you so he doesn't shoot at you again, but you still take away his gun if you can. I might agree with you here if we had actually accomplished anything in Afghanistan before moving on to the Iraqi cluster****. We removed the Taliban from power (but they never attacked us...just like Saddam, we are probably better off without them in power, but removing them doesn't do us a lot of good). So what? The person actually responsible for planning the 9/11 attack lives to this day. The one and only goal after 9/11 USED TO BE killing Osama...MISSION FAILED!Welcome to the Dark Side, my Young Apprentice. Thanks...good to be here. Why are Sunni's, Kurds and Shiites annihilating each other in Iraq, then? Is this "Civil War" in Iraq happening because they all don't like us so much, they're killing each other?Again...they are unhappy about the puppet government and it is a huge power struggle. Also, the Kurds and Shiites were happily going about their business until the bat-**** crazy Sunnis started attacking them. The Sunnis are pissed because Saddam was their boy, looking out for his own, and keeping the minority Sunnis in charge. Now, they realize that they will be the minority in the government and they are trying to do something about it by inciting civil war.Good point. Some bees think we are a threat by just being around, though. Other bees have invited us to take some honey. Sticky situation.Who invited us into Iraq? It looks to me like we defied the will of the majority of the UN by entering Iraq, and I can guarantee that the majority of the Middle East wasn't thrilled with the decision.

[jles96 0]

Of late DN is showing himself to be someone with a rather limited grasp of general issues as evidenced by his comments on the merits of the WPT lawsuit. However, his casual advocacy of ethnic profiling with apparently no idea of the wider issues and that it may be controversial beggars belief (or maybe not given the now worldwide stereoptype of the blinkered American-he doesn't seem Canadian). I recall one piece he wrote where he admitted that his dedication to poker meant he had not managed to keep up with other issues (unlike previously) and he was unable to hold non-poker conversation. This problem seems to persist. Although, he would never express it in these crass terms, isn't what he is advocating essentially "if you're white you're probably all right. But if not...".I await to see if he would advocate segregated planes next.

Sorry to inform you of this but I haven't seen any white guys drive any hijacked planes into any major buildings in a little while so try to back off a little bit. Besides He didn't say lets segregate planes, he said Isrealis have there sh!t together and guess what MR. POLITICALLY CORRECT they do. Just look @ how F'ed everything is where they are and look @ how many terrorist have hijacked planes. NONE so I guess it worked.+1