sulawesigirl4
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
maybe the rounding up of middle eastern men and the continued racial profiling would have something to do with that perception.
Homeland Security--Get the Bastard!
- Thread starter deep
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
I was basing my comments on the level of anti-Muslim feeling in the US on more than simply the story posted in this thread. I regularly watch an American TV station, I regularly read the American press and I regularly speak to American friends. I don't claim this means I have the same perspective on the US as a person who lives there, but I believe I do have enough knowledge of the subject to comment. From what I have seen from those sources, there is a huge amount of anti-Islamic feeling in the US. I've read stories of Mosques being covered in racist graffiti and Muslim women being afraid to go outside wearing the Hijab in case they are attacked because of their religion. A friend of mine who attends college in the US said that there was a (unsuccessful) campaign to shut down the Islamic society/group on her campus in the aftermath of September 11th. I think that indicates a certain amount of anti-Muslim feeling. Are you suggesting there isn't a problem with Islamophobia in the United States?
As for whether the current administration contributes to anti-Muslim prejudice in the US, I think that when the Attorney General makes a comment like "Christianity is a religion in which God sent His Son to die for you, Islam is a religion where God requires you to send your son to die for Him" he contributes to Islamophobia. I think that when the administration rounds up and deports immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries and not from other countries, they contribute to Islamophobia.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Some of our politicians, including President Bush and Senator McCain, have felt compelled to condemn anti-Islamic statements and acts in speeches, town meetings and press conferences. If they didn't think this was a problem I don't think they'd be saying this stuff.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
verte76 said:
This is called leadership. The United States was attacked. All 19 attackers were Muslims. Backlash against the attackers was a natural reaction. Bush acted to cut off anti-Islamic backlash from day 1.
The underlying premise of the thread was that Homeland Security is responsible for such anti-Islamic actions (i.e., promoting anti-Islamic propaganda). I believe that is complete bull
it.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
FizzingWhizzbees said:
A certain amount or, as you earlier suggested, a general level? Sure, there are people who cannot state the basic history or beliefs of Islam. But is there a state sponsored general level of irrational fear of Muslims in the US? No.
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
Considering both the phrases "a certain amount" and "a general level" are entirely subjective, our interpretations of them no doubt differ. I consider both to be appropriate to express my opinion on the subject, no doubt you feel differently.
Also, I wasn't talking about "people who cannot state the basic history or beliefs of Islam" I was talking about people who believe Islam to be a "terrorist" religion and people who act violently or abusively to people they believe to be Muslims. Apparently the current Attorney General falls into the first category, so as much as I'm happy to see Bush condemn Islamophobia, I'd be a lot happier if he'd speak out against some of the bigoted rubbish which Mr. Ashcroft spouts every other day of the week.
*Fizz.
Also, I wasn't talking about "people who cannot state the basic history or beliefs of Islam" I was talking about people who believe Islam to be a "terrorist" religion and people who act violently or abusively to people they believe to be Muslims. Apparently the current Attorney General falls into the first category, so as much as I'm happy to see Bush condemn Islamophobia, I'd be a lot happier if he'd speak out against some of the bigoted rubbish which Mr. Ashcroft spouts every other day of the week.
*Fizz.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
nbcrusader said:
The underlying premise of the thread was that Homeland Security is responsible for such anti-Islamic actions (i.e., promoting anti-Islamic propaganda). I believe that is complete bull
I don't think Homeland Security itself is responsible for all of the anti-Islamic activity that's going on either. I *am* concerned about incidents like the defacing of mosques and campaigns to kick Islamic groups off of campuses. I'm more inclined to blame what they call "mass hysteria" for the attacks and hostility.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
FizzingWhizzbees said:
Ashcroft is certainly not helping the situation at all. I've never liked him and I'm not surprised he's saying
like this. But as far as the topic is concerned he has more influence over the FBI than he does the Department of Homeland Security. Maybe Bush should give Ashcroft a script.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
It has to do with fear. America has been taught that we're under attack, the war is not over and there can be a terrorist attack anyday now. We have orange terror alerts that are being put out and warnings being put out, but with never any resolution. In fact we have one here in Texas for this weekend. But the date will come and go and no one will ever tell us what happened. So the country is living in fear.
Bush speaks out against retaliation. Great but never speaks out against the words coming out of his own administrations mouth. Doesn't speak out against the racial profiling going on throughout the nation. Why, because everyone knows we're looking for Mid-eastern terrorist and not Irish, English, or Canadian terrorist.
We're being forced to live in a time of fear. We're offered no answers and have seen very little major victories(i.e. the capturing of Bin Laden). We're not being truly educated and the uneducated will always foolishly take matters into their own hands.
Bush speaks out against retaliation. Great but never speaks out against the words coming out of his own administrations mouth. Doesn't speak out against the racial profiling going on throughout the nation. Why, because everyone knows we're looking for Mid-eastern terrorist and not Irish, English, or Canadian terrorist.
We're being forced to live in a time of fear. We're offered no answers and have seen very little major victories(i.e. the capturing of Bin Laden). We're not being truly educated and the uneducated will always foolishly take matters into their own hands.
OP
OP
deep
Blue Crack Addict
nbcrusader said:
The underlying premise of the thread was that Homeland Security is responsible for such anti-Islamic actions (i.e., promoting anti-Islamic propaganda). I believe that is complete bull
Actually, I was imagining what their defense would argue.
Do any of you doubt that their attorneys will argue that their actions were influence by resentment of 9-11 attack.
As for the title of this thread,
The attackers never said, ?Get the bastard?
The marital status of the victim?s mother at his birth is not known.
If any of you were born to unwed mothers I do not believe you should be brutally attacked.
I do not believe the attackers work with the Department of Homeland Security.
Dread,
I have many friends who are first responders. They are concerned about future attacks, they are also concerned about members of the public taking Homeland Security too far.
Last edited:
I have been away for a week. NB Excellent Posts.
As to Boston being a racially divided city, I would say that the examples posted from 30 years ago and the history of the city itself in regaurds to the Irish/Italien problems alluded to in someone's post is name a city that did not have these problems in its past. Immigration contributed to many of the problems. The examples listed does not make Boston a bastion of hatred today. As to the Boston Latin issue I would say it is wrong to imply that because people believe affirmative action is wrong, it makes them racist.
Back to the thread.....the fourth person involved in the case has been captured:
[Q]Mr. Hansen was already on probation after being caught by police in two drug raids, said Mr. Hebert, who was convicted of heroin possession in the first and served jailtime. Mr. Hansen was later caught in a second raid at his father's house, Mr. Hebert said. [/Q]
Now, since no one commented on the criminal past of the other three defendants which I posted earlier I will make my point. The four individuals have criminal pasts. Almost all of them with prior arrests and jail time. These were not your average citizen. They were drug abusers and theives.
I am still sitting here shaking my head at this thread. Deep thanks for your response by the way, I still do not see your point with the title of the thread.
This had nothing to do at all with HOMELAND SECURITY. I am laughing at the thought that these four boys were sitting around watching Ashcroft press conferences while smoking their weed and doing their heroin. You really believe this? REALLY?
This fourth suspect, by the way, may very well have attempted to stop the HATE CRIME from occuring. Allegedly when things went from robbery to something else, he made phone calls to get some help there. Of course this could be defence BULLSHIT, however, it is corroborated with some police reports according to the newspaper.
Peacehttp://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/07-03/07-03-03/a01lo003.htm
As to Boston being a racially divided city, I would say that the examples posted from 30 years ago and the history of the city itself in regaurds to the Irish/Italien problems alluded to in someone's post is name a city that did not have these problems in its past. Immigration contributed to many of the problems. The examples listed does not make Boston a bastion of hatred today. As to the Boston Latin issue I would say it is wrong to imply that because people believe affirmative action is wrong, it makes them racist.
Back to the thread.....the fourth person involved in the case has been captured:
[Q]Mr. Hansen was already on probation after being caught by police in two drug raids, said Mr. Hebert, who was convicted of heroin possession in the first and served jailtime. Mr. Hansen was later caught in a second raid at his father's house, Mr. Hebert said. [/Q]
Now, since no one commented on the criminal past of the other three defendants which I posted earlier I will make my point. The four individuals have criminal pasts. Almost all of them with prior arrests and jail time. These were not your average citizen. They were drug abusers and theives.
I am still sitting here shaking my head at this thread. Deep thanks for your response by the way, I still do not see your point with the title of the thread.
This had nothing to do at all with HOMELAND SECURITY. I am laughing at the thought that these four boys were sitting around watching Ashcroft press conferences while smoking their weed and doing their heroin. You really believe this? REALLY?
This fourth suspect, by the way, may very well have attempted to stop the HATE CRIME from occuring. Allegedly when things went from robbery to something else, he made phone calls to get some help there. Of course this could be defence BULLSHIT, however, it is corroborated with some police reports according to the newspaper.
Peacehttp://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/07-03/07-03-03/a01lo003.htm
Last edited:
OP
OP
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Dread,
I hope you had fun on your week off.
Yes, these were and are criminals. Without 9-11 and Homeland Security this attack would have still happened.
They would not have said, ?Go back to Iraq?
I hope you had fun on your week off.
Yes, these were and are criminals. Without 9-11 and Homeland Security this attack would have still happened.
They would not have said, ?Go back to Iraq?
U2Bama
Rock n' Roll Doggie
deep said:
deep:
Defense attorneys will use any possible "excuse" available to draw a "not guilty" verdict for their clients. It's part of their job.
My thoughts on why "homeland security" was associated in the title of this thread was simple: for effect. People always do this in this forum. Not just on homeland security. Any topic. Take a bizarre quote from the article you're posting and make it the title of the thread. Or make an observation about primates eating each other as I did in my thread re: research on the sources of HIV awhile back. Soundbytes, assumptions, stereotypes, they all have (shock) value, but perhaps what matters is the ehtical use of those factors, and when I say that, I guess I am treading on "legislating morality" so I'll bow out on this one before somebody says something that "offends" me or makes me boo-hoo.
~U2Alabama
