Slashdot Mirror


Court: Lawsuit Over NYPD Surveillance of Muslims Can Proceed (washingtonpost.com)

PolygamousRanchKid sends this report from the Washington Post: A federal court said Tuesday that a civil rights lawsuit accusing police in New York City of improperly singling out Muslims for surveillance could proceed, reversing a lower court's decision last year to dismiss the case. In its opinion (PDF), a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit rejected the city's call to have the case dismissed and brushed aside any suggestion that media reports about the surveillance, rather than the surveillance itself, caused any harm.

The lawsuit claims that surveillance of Muslim people in New Jersey discriminated against them due to their religion. It was filed by Muslim Advocates, a legal advocacy group, and later joined by the Center for Constitutional Rights, another legal organization, on behalf of several New Jersey Muslims who say they were unconstitutionally monitored by the New York Police Department. ... Last year, the NYPD disbanded the unit involved in the surveillance activities, a move that Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) praised in a statement at the time as "a critical step forward in easing tensions between the police and the communities they serve."

253 comments

  1. Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We get enough data from phones and social networks now. Please proceed.

  2. Kal Vas Flam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone wanna 5x?

    1. Re:Kal Vas Flam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vas Corp Por, Corp Por, In Nox, Kal Vas Flam, Corp Por, oOo O OOoO ooOo.

  3. sigh... by dejitaru · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I sometimes wonder if there will be a time when we (US Government... or any government) wont look at someones race or religion as a threat and start looking more at the individual's past actions instead. I guess the only way that could change would be if we got more diverse people into government leadership positions... or if people would stop being so scared at things they don't understand. Our fear is usually the result of our own downfall.

    1. Re: sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may hold true for TSA, but it centrally l certainly isn't true for the intelligence community. We think you're all criminals.

    2. Re:sigh... by linatux · · Score: 0, Troll

      And if your theology advocates beheading everyone who is not of your faith?

    3. Re:sigh... by cold+fjord · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So is your thinking that when facing the persistent long term threat of violent extremists Islamists (which are pretty much exclusively Muslim) dedicated to the overthrow of Western civilization that the proper course of action is to search for violent Buddhists, Lutherans, and atheists? Because, Diversity!??

      What "understanding" do you think people lack that causes them to opposed groups that intend to kill large number of your fellow citizens in the hopes of forcing either surrender or conformity to a foreign religion, and the overthrow of the current society and government?

      Do you think it is possible that the actual problem is people that don't acknowledge the danger and support reasonable means to oppose it? Do you think it is possible that the faulty application of a value such as diversity is leading people astray?

      How do the think the problem of Islamic extremists trying to overthrow your society and government gets better with more "diversity" in government?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:sigh... by Uberbah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because killing 2,606 in the WTC should just be forgotten.

      Hey. American Exceptionalist. If the rest of the world held the U.S. to that standard, the entire American population would have been exterminated decades ago. Because you can take the above number, add four zeros to it, double that number, and you have a good approximation of the number of deaths the U.S. is responsible for since WWII.

    5. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And if your theology advocates beheading everyone who is not of your faith?

      Silly islamafoe. If islam actually advocated that, the billion plus muslims would have slaughtered the entire rest of the world by now.

    6. Re:sigh... by kauaidiver · · Score: 0, Insightful

      And much of that is collateral damage, still wrong yes. Also U.S. intervention has only exacerbated the Sunni-Shia strife in the region. The U.S. is guilty yes, but of not understanding political Islam and how it plays a role in the M.E.

      Intentions matter, people killing or subjugating others because they are among the dis-believers is part of the ideology as stated in the Quran 9:29.

    7. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > the persistent long term threat of violent extremists Islamists (which are pretty much exclusively Muslim)

      Extremist islamists are exclusively muslim?
      Thank you Captain Obvious!

      Did you know that extremists catholics are pretty much exclusively Christian?

    8. Re:sigh... by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because killing 2,606 in the WTC should just be forgotten.

      Hey. American Exceptionalist. If the rest of the world held the U.S. to that standard, the entire American population would have been exterminated decades ago. Because you can take the above number, add four zeros to it, double that number, and you have a good approximation of the number of deaths the U.S. is responsible for since WWII.

      Actually you're an "American Exceptionalist" too. The difference is that you seem to think that the US is "exceptionally" bad and has had an exceptionally evil influence and impact on the world. In fact you think it is so bad that you're resorting to imaginary numbers to describe it. It is completely understandable that you turn to desperate measures if you want to deflect attention from the horror that the internationalist socialists called Communists wrecked on the world. They killed 100,000,000 people while visiting untold misery and torment on countless others. Their actions dwarf anything that the US actually did (as opposed to your imaginary numbers).

      The Black Book of Communism

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    9. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sincerely hope the rest of your worldview is not as simplistic as your "islamafoe" statement would seem to indicate it is.

    10. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting to see that the moderators here want us to forget 9/11.

    11. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got the quote wrong. It says "pretty much exclusively Muslim," not "exclusively Muslim."

      Wasn't that obvious to you?

    12. Re: sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is intent. The US kills to control people while communists had to kill to protect the people.

    13. Re:sigh... by Orgasmatron · · Score: 2

      Yup, exclusively christian. And also imaginary.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    14. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sigh ... what incompetent nonsense you post.
      Could you think before you post, or do some research before you drivel crap onto the page?
      This article is about people like you.

    15. Re: sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, why shouldn't we be suspicious of the people that killed so many of our friends and family members.

    16. Re: sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Defending terrorism?

    17. Re: sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      But the Republican's plan is to kill all minorities and subjugate everyone else.

    18. Re: sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know damn well that the Bush Crime Family did that.

    19. Re:sigh... by dejitaru · · Score: 2

      extremists anything is bad, but just because they are 'muslim' doesn't mean they are extremist. Is that honestly your way of thinking? That's like thinking anyone who's christian are instantly the same as the westboro baptist church

    20. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I wonder if there will come a time when idealists will cease being naive about the reality of religious zealotry and understand that religion is so important to some people that they actually follow the injunctions and commands of their religion.

    21. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Islamists (which are pretty much exclusively Muslim)

      Except for George Galloway and Robert Fisk.

    22. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, Northern Ireland has always been at peace. Anyone who tells you anything else is just spreading anti-Christian propaganda.

    23. Re:sigh... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Extremist Islamists is a small subset of Muslims; just like extremist Northern Ireland bombers were a small subset of Protestants and Catholic.
      If Extremist Islamists are a persistent long term threat then why only relatively recently has it become a problem? We have a rise in extremist hardline sectarians all across the board really, not just in one section.

      Our attempt at countering Al Qaeda has served to increase it's numbers. American goofups do more for recruitment drives than any cassette tapes that Osama ever created. Al Qaeda was originally focused on opposition to the Saudis. The Mujahideen in Afghanistan were provided assistance by the US since they were fighting the Soviets. The US invasion of Iraq essentially created ISIS.

    24. Re: sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you talking about Muslims or the Republicans?

    25. Re: sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That was Boeing's fault. They made all four of the weapons the Bush-funded terrorists used. Also, there is evidence Boeing designed the bombs that were used to take down the buildings.

    26. Re: sigh... by Pseudonym · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sounds like the GP wants us to just forget what they did.

      What do you mean by "they"?

      We have no evidence that anybody who "did" that was a US citizen, and almost everyone who was responsible is dead. The few who aren't will never set foot in the United States again.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    27. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It turns out that Tasmanian burglars are pretty much exclusively Tasmanian. What do you suppose the odds are of that?

    28. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      And if your theology advocates beheading everyone who is not of your faith?

      May I just step in for a moment and cite the Christian Bible:

      Deuteronomy 13:6-10

      If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

      Leviticus 24:16

      anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.

      The actual phrasing might differ depending on your translation.

      It doesn't directly answer your question, but anyone who claims that the Bible is holy subscribes to a religion that advocates killing people of other religions.

    29. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your entire premise is completely absurd. Seek medical attention before you gun down some Muslims for stealing your parking spot.

    30. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were heading off into the woods and could only afford one; bear repellent or rabbit repellent, which one would you choose? Only some bears kill humans and some rabbits have been able to kill humans too (through diseases). Would you leave it up to a coin toss or would you choose to spend your money on the option that is more likely to protect you?

      When limited funds are available, the wise thing to do is spend it where it counts first.

    31. Re:sigh... by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because killing 2,606 in the WTC should just be forgotten.

      No it should not be forgotten, because it was the excuse used to hi jack the U.S Constitution from the American people and initiate a cascade of legislative changes around the western world to protect us from something that wasn't a threat in the first place.

      This is a issue of structural democracy and how we've been tricked into thinking that democracy is so fragile that we need to destroy it to stay 'safe'. Islam extremism has always been used as an excuse to take away the freedoms that built western democracies. Nothing's changed except now we have terrorism *and* laws that are make us a police state.

      I don't care about being safe, I've never expected that, I expect to be free and now we are neither.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    32. Re:sigh... by kauaidiver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Old Testament my friend.

      The Quran goes in the opposite direction of the Bible getting more violent as it progresses, as Mohammed is denied as a prophet as he trekked north from Mecca to Medina.

    33. Re:sigh... by Lost+Race · · Score: 0

      Hmmm, take 2,606, "add four zeros" ... Gives you either 2,606 or 26,060,000 depending on what that's supposed to mean. I'll assume the latter. "Double that," and get 52,120,000. Deaths "the U.S. is responsible for since WWII." Really? Can you provide any justification whatsoever for that figure?

      If I were complaining about the evils of the USA, I'd probably go with slavery and the genocide of Native Americans. I wonder, what comparable atrocities the USA has committed since WWII?

      The 2,606 referenced above were killed in an act of cold-blooded, premeditated murder. Can you give an example of the U.S. committing such an act on that scale in the last hundred years?

    34. Re: sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Korea, Vietnam, Guatemala, Panama, Nicaragua, Chile... Umm... That's off the top of my head for now, and that doesn't count the War on Terror BS either.

    35. Re:sigh... by jandersen · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...which are pretty much exclusively Muslim...

      You mean, when high-ranking Christians in the US come up with things like 'Muhammad was a "demon-possessed pedophile"' (Jerry Vines) and "This man was an absolute wild-eyed fanatic. He was a robber and a brigand." (Pat Robertson, about Muhammed) - then they are not extremists? (from http://www.counterpunch.org/20...).

      Here, take some statistics: "Fifty-six percent of domestic terrorist attacks and plots in the U.S. since 1995 have been perpetrated by right-wing extremists, as compared to 30 percent by ecoterrorists and 12 percent by Islamic extremists. Right-wing extremism has been responsible for the greatest number of terrorist incidents in the U.S. in 13 of the 17 years since the Oklahoma City bombing." (http://www.soundvision.com/article/some-statistics-and-facts-on-right-wing-extremism-in-the-united-states)

      What "understanding" do you think people lack...

      Speaking of understanding, I think it is clear that you haven't got a lot of it. If you want to solve a problem - any problem - then you have to let the real facts guide you, not just the facts that suit your own bigotry. Whatever you may think a religious text has to say about anything, what really matters in the end is the person and the actions, good or bad, performed by that person. Take Buddhism, widely recognised as one of the most pacifistic religions in the world, yet in Myanmar and Thailand there are Buddhists that carry out violent attacks against those from other religions - mostly Muslims, in fact. Or look to the history Christianity for a list of the vilest atrocities you can imagine; all carried out in the name of Christ by men and sometimes women who were deeply sincere in their faith.

      This is clearly not a problem of Islam or any other, single religion; it is about people and what kind of background they come from. When you grow up to learn from day one that you are a nothing, a born loser who will never, ever make it, no matter how hard you work or how honest you are, because you are somehow the 'wrong sort' and never get a real opportunity, is it any wonder that you become bitter and hate the society so full of freedoms and opportunities that you can see, but which you can never reach? And when somebody - anybody - comes along pretending to give you the respect and the hope you crave, is it strange that you are willing to follow them, even if, in the end, it implies strapping a bomb-vest on and blowing up yourself and a load of innocent people belonging to the society that never allowed you in?

      We clearly can't just roll over and take it from the likes of IS, but if we want to really solve the problem, we have to realise that we, ourselves, play a major role in feeding the fire, because we are unwilling to accept the responsibility we obviously have when we let too many people at the bottom of society down.

    36. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " extremists Islamists (which are pretty much exclusively Muslim)"

      If extremist Islamists were actually buddist, now that would be suprising. Pretty much.

    37. Re:sigh... by Sique · · Score: 1

      So I would go for the lone white suprematist, as the mayority of all terroristic attacks on American soil were performed by white suprematists.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    38. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How many white Christians have been monitored due to the activities of the Westboro baptist chuch?
      How many Bostonians have been under surveillance because of their donations to the IRA?
      Should all mildly wealthy white people have indepth tax investigations because most fraud is perpetuated by people in that group?

      There are two problems in play here,
      #1 Is it OK to discriminate against an entire population based on the activities of a tiny fraction of it?
      #2 Is it OK to place people under surveillance without any real reason to do so? (The only reason they have is a common religion.)

      By the way, I think you'll find all Islamists are Muslim, in the same way you'll find all Christian fundamentalists are Christian.

    39. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Old Testament my friend.

      I'm not your friend, buddy.

      The Quran goes in the opposite direction of the Bible getting more violent as it progresses, as Mohammed is denied as a prophet as he trekked north from Mecca to Medina.

      Well, that's a great statement and all, but where I live the worst mass murders in the last 50 years have been done by Christian fundamentalists.

    40. Re: sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if you include the casualties on all sides of all of those conflicts, the sum is not even within two orders of magnitude.

    41. Re:sigh... by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      so what? its quoted and preached from when its convenient and nice. Perhaps suggest the old testament is torn up and thrown away so only the new testament is applicable. but i guess it can't be done

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    42. Re:sigh... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well usa sure wants bygones be bygones with the people of one south east asian mainly christian country so why not.

      besides if they apply 'surveillance' just to muslims it's only going to burn a lot of surveillance money on useless surveillance.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    43. Re: sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "we". lol

    44. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      If islam actually advocated that

      It does. Just because most muslims are secularised enough to ignore the nastiest parts of the book doesn't mean it's not in the book. In Christian countries we don't stone people to death - not because it isn't in the book, but because society has become more secular and therefore more civilised.

      Basically, we're lucky that most muslims aren't sufficiently devout to actually follow through on what it says in the book. And thank fuck really.

    45. Re:sigh... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Old Testament my friend.

      I don't see Christians lining up to throw out the OT. Too much juicy stuff in there that aligns with their existing prejudices (homosexuality, primarily).

      Besides, slavery is implicitly endorsed even in the NT.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    46. Re:sigh... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Aren't all "islamists" muslim? Sounds pretty redundant, regardless of whether it's qualified with 'pretty much'.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    47. Re:sigh... by Maritz · · Score: 2

      I'm familiar with that conflict. Religion is just along for the ride. It's really a cultural/political struggle. Religion is just in there doing its bit to fan the flames and eke out whatever advantage for itself that it can, as it has always done, and as any virulent and parasitic meme does.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    48. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the muslims are kinda brown. In the white American psyche, that's a Big Deal.

    49. Re:sigh... by Doc_Gamesh · · Score: 1

      This is a correct analysis.

    50. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Here, take some statistics: "Fifty-six percent of domestic terrorist attacks and plots in the U.S. since 1995 have been perpetrated by right-wing extremists, as compared to 30 percent by ecoterrorists and 12 percent by Islamic extremists. Right-wing extremism has been responsible for the greatest number of terrorist incidents in the U.S. in 13 of the 17 years since the Oklahoma City bombing."

      You're doing your statistics wrong. First, you have to treat every death as a separate incident, so you get appropriate weighting for severity. Bombing an unoccupied abortion clinic doesn't really count. Second, you have to include the suicide bombings in Israel, because an attack on Israel is an attack on the US. It may also be necessary to exclude some of the so-called right-wing events, because they were perpetrated by delusional maniacs adhering to a distorted, non-representative version of right-wing or Christian: you can't go blaming all of Christianity just because some crazy person says "Jesus" in his suicide note. With appropriate statistics, you will see that violent extremism is almost exclusively an Islamic phenomenon.

    51. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Havent you killed enough innocent civillians in Afghanistan , Iraq and Syria in their name yet?

    52. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, the militarist authoritarian tyrants pretending to be Communists caused a lot of harm.

      Go figure. They were lying about what they were and exploiting people for their own gain. Is this news to you?

      Lots of people do it, for lots of reasons, in lots of ways, at lots of time.

    53. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That will be the day a test will be developed for it and those 'mentally ill' people will be aborted.

    54. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's nice and all, but for Christians, the Old Testament is essentially "history". The laws in the Old Testament no longer apply, as in the New Testament, Jesus makes a new covenant with the people that overrides the old stuff. So, for Christians, it's the New Testament that matters.

      Nice try, but if you're going to slander Christians using their own book, you should understand it a little better.

    55. Re:sigh... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's not what the GP was arguing. They were saying that if you think those who died in the WTC attacks should not be forgotten and their deaths should shape current policy towards the entire group that the criminals were part of (Muslims), then you should hold the US to the same standard.

      Any by extension, you should hold the Communists to the same standard. If we do that, it's total war until everyone is dead. Fortunately most of us recognize that while the US has done bad things, every US citizen is not individually responsible or likely to be a threat to us. The US needs to recognize the same thing about individual Muslims, as this ruling does.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    56. Re:sigh... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Extremist Islamists is a small subset of Muslims; just like extremist Northern Ireland bombers were a small subset of Protestants and Catholic.

      Yes, but every Catholic shares the guilt for child molestation because they are still funding the church that's still only hiring unmarried priests, and then relocating them when they rape children. And every Muslim shares the guilt for promoting a religion which is unremittingly theocratic. It's not the religion of peace, it's the religion of submission, and promoting it is the same as opposing religious freedom.

      Muslims aren't any more culpable than Catholics. Both are shitheels.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    57. Re:sigh... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You're wrong. America is made up of individual Americans paying their taxes. Catholicism is made up of individual Catholics putting money on the plate, usually poor ones, the poor fuckers. And Islam is made up of Muslims who promote a theocracy, and such institutions oppose freedom. Every individual Muslim is a problem because they are not alone. And they're potentially much more problematic than Catholics because there's a shitload of them and there's more every day.

      By all means, if you want to live in a fascist theocracy, continue to promote religion. But frankly, religion is one of the few things left which it makes sense to be predjudiced against. I'm already prejudiced against other forms of bullshit thinking used to condone bullshit behavior. Why wouldn't religion be one of them?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    58. Re:sigh... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, it is difficult to take this piece of cold war propaganda for real when its numbers are often off by a factor 50 or so. Simple example: the guesstimates of Stalin's purges run up to 100 millions (would be half of the Soviet population, if one just stops and thinks about it). After the NKVD archives were released to the public in the 1990ies, it became pretty clear, that somewhat less than a million was executed and another 500000 died due to repressions. Still a huge number, but pales in comparison of how many Soviets were killed by Nazi Germany.

      Even more ironic is the fact that at any given time during Stalin's rule there were about 3 millions of Soviet citizens imprisoned, which is not really that far off the number of currently incarcerated Americans - 2.2 millions, currently the largest prison population in the whole bloody world. Land of the free my arse.

      But since you are usually as full of shit as a cesspit emptier, it is no wonder you spread that crap everywhere you can.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    59. Re:sigh... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      The thing is there is plenty of terrorism and violence from other groups as well. Christians, Buddhists, and even Atheists can be radicalized and be turned violent. To attack people who do not follow their views on life. Just take a look at the classic Flame wars between VI and EMACS. So much anger and hate for a FREAKING TEXT editor, that is usually both installed by default or both not at all on most systems. If you think it is any particular group of people who are the problem, you are seriously misleading yourself, and undermining the general safety of the nation.

      Yes there is an issue where Muslims are in dispute over some area that never seems to get any peace, and they are many groups who are getting overly violent about it. But it isn't the Muslims that is the problem, it is the idea that you need to follow the rules MORE strictly.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    60. Re:sigh... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      You have killed far more than that in retaliation. It is time to stop and finally get over it.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    61. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a fucking false flag. The communists are bad so it's okay we are worse? Fuck you, fucking capitalist pig.

    62. Re: sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every dead American hero is worth 1,000 foreigners.

    63. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately most of us recognize that while the US has done bad things, every US citizen is not individually responsible or likely to be a threat to us. The US needs to recognize the same thing about individual Muslims, as this ruling does.

      Who are you and what have you done with the real AmiMojo? The real AmiMojo is all about not recognizing individuality and judging entire groups of people over the actions of a few. Like say... him painting the GamerGate movement as being nothing but harassment and death threats because a few people on the -chans were orchestrating such (IRC logs! IRC logs!)

    64. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL at your blatant desire to genocide white people out of existence...
      "more diverse people" = "fewer white people" = genocide...

    65. Re:sigh... by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 1

      Would you describe Sufism as theocracy-promoting? Or secular Islam? The fact is that there is a huge amount of diversity within was particular Muslims believe and to try to paint large groups of people with broad strokes just leads to gross inaccuracy. If you use this overgeneralization to justify prejudice... well people have used bad information to justify prejudice for a long time. We usually call them fundamentalists (fundamentalist christians, fundamentalist muslims, etc)

      I'm an agnostic myself, but I appreciate diversity of thought and viewpoints that can exist in the world, and being prejudiced is not acceptable. I do agree that we should oppose intolerance. Ie if a particular Muslim (or group of Muslims), or the Militia, or the KKK, or the Westboro Baptist Church is preaching intolerance and trying to spread a message of hate, we should oppose that message. The people who get drawn into these ranks are likely stupid victims themselves, getting hoodwinked because of a need not being met by society (lack of opportunity, proper education, etc).

      Religions are like assholes, and everyones got one whether it's scientific research, reading Emerson and Thoreau, gambling and drinking, or participating in a Church (or whatever intentionally religious) community. Most people ascribe to more than one religion and it's all fine. It's only a problem when they teach prejudice, intolerance and hate. As long as we can respect the first amendment, there is no problem here.

    66. Re:sigh... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      So is your thinking that when facing the persistent long term threat of violent extremists Islamists (which are pretty much exclusively Muslim) dedicated to the overthrow of Western civilization that the proper course of action is to search for violent Buddhists, Lutherans, and atheists? Because, Diversity!??

      In the past decade, right-wing extremists have killed more Americans than muslim terrorists. Do you believe we face a "persistent long term threat" from Christian fundamentalists, gun nuts and "oath-keepers"? There's your "diversity", Johnny.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    67. Re:sigh... by gman003 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Since 9/11, the following non-islamic terrorist attacks have occurred inside the United States:
      2001 anthrax attacks
      2003 Ohio highway sniper attacks
      2008 ELF arsons
      2008 San Diego bombings
      2008 Santa Cruz firebombings
      2009 assassination of George Tiller
      2010 IRS kamikaze attack
      2010 Pentagon shooting
      2010 hostage crisis
      2012 Sikh temple shooting
      2013 ricin letters
      2013 LAX shootings
      2014 Kansas City shootings
      2014 Las Vegas shootings
      2014 Austin consulate arson
      2014 NYC police shootings
      2015 Charleston shooting

      Several of these were by radical Christian groups. Others had nothing to do with religion - white supremacist, anti-government and environmentalist groups seem particularly dangerous.

    68. Re:sigh... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Religions are like assholes, and everyones got one whether it's scientific research

      No. Scientific research is a system of belief, but it is emphatically not a religion. That you can still get this confused indicates you don't really know what you're on about, and it's sad to see this misconception in your summary paragraph.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    69. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of everyone getting their panties in a bunch, where's the raw data so we can decide this rationally? Enough with anecdotes and prejudices.

    70. Re:sigh... by Shortguy881 · · Score: 2

      Ah cold fjord, the fool's fool. I guess it doesn't mater that most crimes (violent or not) in the U.S. aren't committed by Muslims. But don't let facts and reason get in the way of your bigotry.

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    71. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then tell Christians to stop quoting it to justify their bigotry.

    72. Re:sigh... by Forgefather · · Score: 2

      And do you not think that the same could be said for most of the Muslim conflicts? Do you know anything at all about the tribal history of the middle east and how that has factored in to religious violence? There are many Arab tribes in that region using religion as a pretext for violence the most notable today is Saudi Arabian support of ISIS as a method of weakening Iraq which has been a regional rival for oil and political power. Your implication that violence in the middle east is solely due to religious influence betrays your ignorance.

      --
      "There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
    73. Re:sigh... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      It's only a problem when [religions] teach prejudice, intolerance and hate.

      In addition to drinkypoo's point, you're basically stating that Islam is a problem, then? Along with Westboro church and any other religion claiming to be the one and only way?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    74. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And every Muslim shares the guilt for promoting a religion which is unremittingly theocratic.

      Such bullshit. Islam has way more variety of interpretation than christianity does. Don't be one of those self-serving islamafoes who judges the religion by the way the saudis use it,.

    75. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most were also liberal and non-religious. So please let us kill all white liberal secularists. The muslims can wait a week.

    76. Re:sigh... by KGIII · · Score: 2

      You don't live on Earth? If we're limiting ourselves to 50 years and mass murder (not war) then I'd suspect the prize goes to Pol Pot and crew. They were atheists and didn't kill in the name of their religion or lack of religion. They killed for their ideology so it's not far off but it's still not specifically religious.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    77. Re:sigh... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      You would be better served by sticking only to what I say, and not what you decided I'm implying.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    78. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear, hear.

      But trying to argue with liberals is pointless - they are insane, and thus immune to FACTS and rational discussion.

      I'll throw this into the mix for the cretin you were replying to, but I can't imagine he'll read it:

      www.prophetofdoom.net

    79. Re: sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of imaginary numbers, 100,000,000 huh? Seems Legit.

    80. Re:sigh... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'm a Buddhist. Not a very *good* Buddhist and sure as hell not a monk but a Buddhist nonetheless. I think the government should definitely spy on and imprison extremist Buddhists! Every last one of those zealots! Especially the terrorist Buddhists! We generally run around blowing up everything and deserve to be watched. It's for your own safety that I'm suggesting we put a tail on the Dalia Lama. Also, we should make him some tea.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    81. Re:sigh... by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Not that I agree with the person you replied to - stereotyping Muslims for the actions of very few is wrong - but in what way is America responsible for ~52M deaths since WWII? How many lives did America save (through food, medical advances, etc.)?

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    82. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And to clear up any misconceptions about which parts of the Koran dictate, Islamic scholars have come up with the concept of abrogation, which says that all things are possible for Allah so that if he changed his mind on a topic, whatever the last word on the topic is is the FINAL word on the topic. Thus the later, more violent, parts of the Koran supersede (or abrogate) the earlier parts.

    83. Re: sigh... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Proof? Evidence? Oh. Non needed. Right. Hyperbole rules the day. Yah!!!

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    84. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The JEWS made up BOTH the 'jesus' and 'mohammed' fables, concocted from pagan myths, 'miracle birth', 'rose from the dead', all pagen myths many centuries before either was made up. The jews made up both religions to control and suicide other races, while the jews made up their own religion to take over the world for their race. Worked over and over. Jews do 911, blame muslims, christains and military dupes go die while killing muslims all over middle east. Now, the jew bogus 'govt' is going to turn the weapons on americans. How about jews are a Race, they are not nordic white, and, they have trillions in weapons, including bio viruses to kill by race. That's your clue. Chemtrails virus. Nano chips already done. But that's for the leftovers from the virus. Ignorance is costly. jewishcrimenetworkdid911 - thezog.info - leuchter report archive org

    85. Re:sigh... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      So, if you're opposed to people who advocate killing gays and atheists then you're opposed to people who advocate sharia law.

      And - what do you do with people who do want to promulgate sharia law AND who migrate to a society that does not want to live under sharia law?

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    86. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are pretty good odds. They're devils anyways.

    87. Re:sigh... by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      gotta love the tautology...

      "violent extremists Islamists (which are pretty much exclusively Muslim)"

      yep. Just like "violent extremist Christianists (which are pretty much exclusively Christian)"

      Or are you so stupid and uninformed that you don't understand the relationship between the words "Islam" and "Muslim"?

    88. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the frequency with which the Old Testament is quoted *by* Christians to justify enshrining their religious beliefs in law, or to 'explain' why someone else's personal beliefs are wrong-bad, you're going to have quite a bit of difficulty convincing anybody else that it is 'history', or that its laws 'no longer apply'. Especially since the New Testament includes Jesus telling his followers that the old laws *do* still apply.

      Nice try, but if you're going to try to excuse Christian hypocrisy, you should understand their books a little better.

    89. Re:sigh... by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      yes, and each individual "song" downloaded should be considered a separate offense.

      statistics don't lie, but they can be phrased in so many different ways that the same data set can be used to support diametrically opposed view points.

      Thanks, coward, for putting your bias up front that the data must be interpreted according to your needs to make your points.

      Reality is always more complicated, but despite the screed against "precrime" posted above the US has been quite successful in stopping rightwing religious terrorists with the most notable exception being Timothy McVeigh.

      Not that this is likely to penetrate your preconceptions and blindered world view, but the reality is that US law enforcement has been most successful against domestic terrorist attacks -- and yet we have still had a greater number of them. It may not be apparent to you, but it is easier to monitor and control domestic whack jobs -- that does not mean that they do not exist or that we should allow them to kill more people.

      In the end, which is more dangerous: a right wing christian nut job, or a muslim terrorist, or a secular anarchist? Or some other label? The proper answer is that they are all dangerous: they are all trying to kill and incite terror to further their cause. Any other answer betrays a willingness to accept crimes for their ideology. It isn't the ideology that is important, it is their crimes. And the crimes go to those who planned and executed, not to everyone who happens to have a somewhat similar ideology.

    90. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      . Simple example: the guesstimates of Stalin's purges run up to 100 millions (would be half of the Soviet population, if one just stops and thinks about it). After the NKVD archives were released to the public in the 1990ies, it became pretty clear, that somewhat less than a million was executed and another 500000 died due to repressions. Still a huge number, but pales in comparison of how many Soviets were killed by Nazi Germany.

      IIRC, the 50M are based on including the Russian famine under Stalin, and the Chinese famine under Mao. (Stalin's is counted because he intended to starve out the opposition, and Mao's famine is counted because it was a direct result of placing ideology over reality.)

      That said, the two takeaways I got from the Cold War were first, that authoritarian states based on mass surveillance tend to end very poorly for all involved. And second, that the average citizen of Earth is more likely to be killed by his or her own government than a random citizen. Both of these lessons strongly suggest that it is in the best interests of both the US government and US citizens to change its policy on domestic surveillance before we end up making the same mistakes for the same reasons.

    91. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, Christ is supposed to have re-wrote the law.

      http://biblehub.com/matthew/15-11.htm
      This is the verse that states that the prohibition on pork doesn't need to apply to Christians; I note that it is equally valid in the current homosexuality debate.

      As for stoning, Christ said, "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone." and after no one else threw one, he said, "Neither do I condemn you."

    92. Re:sigh... by ajzimm3rman · · Score: 0

      Indeed.

    93. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And "The Bible" doesn't contain some nasty bits? I'm relatively certain that many of them (as there are several version) still contain bits about keeping slaves and I recall a program under the Bush administration that was "encouraging" pastors to emphasize certain passages in their faiths about heeding governments "divine authority".

    94. Re:sigh... by butchersong · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that a militarily strong US hasn't been a source of stabilty for the rest of the world and that without it the number of total causalties would be less the total number you quoted -so any deaths from any US military action are more that would otherwise have occured. Many would argue that a strong US (perhaps demonstrated by the last decade of weakness from the USA and current state or world affairs) generally means good things for the world at large. Personally, I'm not sure where I come out on that. I will say that it is certainly disillusioning given how often people have criticized the US for supporting dictators in the middle east in the 20th century to see what those countries make of themselves without said regimes.

    95. Re:sigh... by Dusty101 · · Score: 1

      If we do that, it's total war until everyone is dead.

      Hans: An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

      Billy: No, it doesn't. There'll be one guy left with one eye. How's the last blind guy gonna take out the eye of the last guy left?

      -- Seven Psychopaths (2012)

      (j/k: Good post!)

    96. Re:sigh... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      well usa sure wants bygones be bygones with the people of one south east asian mainly christian country so why not.

      Do you perhaps mean the Philippians which is begging us to come back and protect them from mean China?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    97. Re:sigh... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Scientific research is not a religion. "Science!" can become a religion.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    98. Re:sigh... by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      Besides, slavery is implicitly endorsed even in the NT

      That statement needs some citations. I can't see Jesus advocating slavery.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    99. Re:sigh... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      just like extremist Northern Ireland bombers were a small subset of Protestants and Catholic.

      I would have to agree, any Protestant in Northern Ireland is a small subset, though I highly doubt the IRA would have anything to do with them as they are exclusively Catholic, and not Protestant.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    100. Re:sigh... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      How many people say they are blowing things up for Jesus?

      It takes more than being a Christian to be a Christian terrorist. Muslim terrorism is specifically in the name of Islam, you won't find too many Christians who claim they are blowing things up for Jesus.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    101. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...the billion plus muslims would have slaughtered the entire rest of the world by now.

      They are outnumbered 5 to 1 and not good at organized warfare generally, so the rest of us having that in our favor.

    102. Re:sigh... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      How many white Christians have been monitored due to the activities of the Westboro baptist chuch?

      Has the Westboro Baptist Church ever advocated violence? Are they considered a terrorist organization? They are surely despicable people, but they don't go around killing people they don't agree with.

      How many Bostonians have been under surveillance because of their donations to the IRA?

      https://answers.yahoo.com/ques...

      I am not sure if anyone was ever arrested in the US for supporting the IRA, but the IRA was considered a terrorist organization, and in the UK at least, you could be arrested for supporting them.

      In the particular incident being discussed, are we sure there weren't other triggers for the surveillance than that the people were Muslim? Has it even actually been discussed completely in court yet? There are billions of Muslims, if they were all being targeted for surveillance, it would be impossible to sift through the information, likely these people did something that got them on the police radar, it isn't like they just surveil all Muslims in New York.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    103. Re:sigh... by Travelsonic · · Score: 1

      Because killing 2,606 in the WTC should just be forgotten.

      Because brnging sanity to how we do things is sanity... because obsessing, and citing 9-11 as an excuse for unwarranted encroachment is remembering, and not unhealthy obsession...

      These mindsets are scary, and bloody idiotic to boot.

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    104. Re:sigh... by ememisya · · Score: 1

      ... start looking more at the individual's past actions ...

      How? Deep, deep surveillance? That's the topic of the day. Where's that Snowden guy?

      ... wont look at someones race or religion as a threat ...

      But then how do you categorize people at the top? Who's going to be the next asshole (those guys over there suck! We rule!)? Individuals? Puhleeeease, get back in your herd, you're not special. As a matter of fact, where are your papers? You seem to be approaching me in a threatening manner, I'm scared and it's your fault! Empty out your pockets!

      ... Our fear is usually the result of our own downfall ...

      And we usually fear new technology, we're still dealing with this .... Internet, and all these "smurt" phones. God knows what you'll do with your smurt phone, we can't let you own something you paid for, that's too much power for you criminals, erm citizens.

    105. Re: sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stalin and Mao sure protected a lot of people then. Please.

    106. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it hasn't. False. You don't even know what "fundamentalist" means, apparently.

    107. Re:sigh... by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Sorry, CLAIMED intentions mean nothing in the face of the Downing Street Memos and the PNAC call to remove Saddam by Invasion, dated 1999

    108. Re:sigh... by dywolf · · Score: 0

      Bigoted bullspit.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    109. Re:sigh... by dywolf · · Score: 0

      nope.
      still a moron.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    110. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not your friend, buddy.

      Okay got it then, so you are a douche.

      but where I live the worst mass murders in the last 50 years have been done by Christian fundamentalists.

      Sorry to hear that. Most of us live in reality. I would say you should visit some time, but I suppose we are all better off with one less douche.

    111. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see Christians lining up to throw out the OT.

      Maybe because the NT already says to throw out the rules in the OT? Hell, it's even highlighted in red.

    112. Re: sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of Sunnis an Shiites?
      How do you think the Islamist extremists managed to get radicalized? It's because they have a group of people they were trained to hate by their parents, and then a group of hate trainers realigned that hate on Americans or whoever else they felt like hating.
      It's exactly the same as northern Ireland. They are just better at the crazy parts.

    113. Re:sigh... by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      I'm not a moderator here (obviously, since I'm posting), but speaking for myself, I want you to remember what happened on 9/11, and forget what most of the talking heads with a barrow to push have said about it.

      Facts, not spin.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    114. Re: sigh... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      That's it, I'm flying Airbus from now on.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    115. Re:sigh... by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 2

      Islam is not a monoculture. Neither is Christianity. What two different Muslims of different traditions or backgrounds or personalities believe is radically different.

      I'm stating that fundamentalism is the problem, not Islam.

    116. Re:sigh... by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 2

      Same thing that you do when your neighbor is in the KKK. Tolerate them as long as they respect the law. If they break the law (ie violate rights of others), their beliefs are immaterial. They can believe they are superior to other races, women, other religions, sexualities, whatever, but in the eyes of the law we are supposed to be equal.

    117. Re:sigh... by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      Far be it from me to defend the GP, but this question has been settled for millennia, and as such, its use as a "gotcha" point is laughably out of date.

      Jews and Christians agree that if you are a Gentile, you are not subject to the laws of Moses. Instead, you are subject to the Noachide Laws (and presumably if you are a Christian, you also follow the commandments of Jesus, but that's a separate issue). This has been mainstream Jewish thinking since the Talmud, and was also affirmed in Christianity at the Council of Jerusalem (see Acts 15 for details).

      I don't know if the Noachide Laws were ever affirmed in Islam, but AFAIK everything is covered in Islamic jurisprudence. I presume it's similar story for Bahá'í. Apart from the possible prohibition against black pudding (and that's only a "possible" prohibition), there's nothing in them that's controversial for any brand of Abrahamic monotheist.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    118. Re:sigh... by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 1

      There are some metaphysical/religious assumptions that must be made to trust your senses. But that's not what I'm on about neither do I mean religion as science is a religion of having an empirical way of determining knowledge... in that sense science is just a logical way to go about your business. When I refer to science as a religion I mean it as a "what's the point of doing scientific research anyways?" type of religion.

      Some people get out of bed in the world with the idea of advancing human knowledge as having a noble purpose and a value even if it's not useful to me in my lifetime. I agree with the value of advancing human knowledge, but this is more of a religious belief. I could never "prove" to another person that there is value in doing any research that would not bear fruit in my lifetime.

      Linux is also a religion as is Windows and OSX. I don't think religion is so evil, just people who use it as an excuse to behave badly.

    119. Re:sigh... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      If you were heading off into the woods and could only afford one; bear repellent or rabbit repellent, which one would you choose?

      Where I live, we don't have bears (apart from drop bears, for which there is no repellent). But assuming that you're talking about the American woods, I would choose insect repellant. Statistically, the most likely creature to kill you in the American woods are insects (e.g. hornets, yellow jackets).

      Yes, we are still talking about terrorism here. Spending trillions on combatting the scariest-looking group rather than the actually-most-dangerous group is not security, it is theatre.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    120. Re: sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Foreign policy track record speaks for itself.

    121. Re: sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget to count all the deaths as a result of inciting unrest in other countries which leads to civil wars, or the deaths caused by sanctions unjustly placed on innocent people in countries where the US wants to depose of their leader.

    122. Re:sigh... by zugmeister · · Score: 1

      I'm not a moderator here (obviously, since I'm posting), but speaking for myself, I want you to remember what happened on 9/11, and forget what most of the talking heads with a barrow to push have said about it.

      Facts, not spin.

      That right there is a link well worth following. Wish I had mod points atm.

    123. Re:sigh... by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      yet more spin i'm afraid. these books are cherry picked for the good bits, they should rebind these books without the bad bits if they don't want to be charged with gross hypocrisy.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    124. Re:sigh... by Xest · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I find religion to be a profound waste of time, so I sympathise with your criticism of it, but I don't think this is a fair statement all the same:

      "And every Muslim shares the guilt for promoting a religion which is unremittingly theocratic. It's not the religion of peace, it's the religion of submission, and promoting it is the same as opposing religious freedom."

      This simply isn't true, by saying every muslim you're simply tarring them all with the same brush, yet Ahmadiyya muslims explicitly believe that religion should be a choice rather than something forced onto people. Their whole brand of islam is built around trying to compromise it's conflicts with other faiths with the goal of peaceful interaction between religions.

      You really can't just blanket paint everyone with the same brush, no matter how hard you may wish to try. You're allowing your understanding of a group of people to be based entirely upon the media image of those people- and of course the ones who make the headlines will be the ones who do things that are shockingly evil because "Guy goes about his daily business without interfering, hating, or planning to harm someone" just isn't newsworthy.

    125. Re:sigh... by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      So basically, you're advocating bowdlerisation.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    126. Re:sigh... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      It's as relevant today as it was on the day (12 November 2001) that it was published.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    127. Re:sigh... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that a militarily strong US hasn't been a source of stabilty for the rest of the world

      You're assuming I never stepped outside of the naivete cultured in elementary schools.

      Many would argue that a strong US (perhaps demonstrated by the last decade of weakness from the USA and current state or world affairs) generally means good things for the world at large.

      By overthrowing dozens of democracies around the world? Sending CIA death squads to murder socialists? Trying to start World War Three in Syria? The United States has been a force for stability as much as Ted Bundy had positive interactions with women.

  4. No religious protection by Murdoch5 · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's time to grow up as a collective society. Anyone still immature, irrational, childish, illogical and just down right moronic enough to believe that a God created everything and everyone and then told about it in poorly written, massively contradictory books, deserves to be mocked, and followed.

    Islam is the story of God as told by an epileptic, illiterate, schizophrenic, paranoid, delusional, diapered, cave man. Who married a child, raped that child, wanted humanity to enslave women, kill people who didn't believe his bat shit crazy view and then (according to Islam), flew to heaven on a magical horse. Now when that your belief system, how much respect do you really want?

    Islam is matched with Christianity and Jewish for all the time dumbest, most insane concepts on earth.

    Religion is studied and believed by those who are so childish and immature, they need to hold the blanket of irrationality, pray to a sky daddy, who has no evidence, all to make themselves feel like they matter.

    If I were the courts, I would said the answer is to grow up, stop acting like children, which is who religion is for, now lets grow up, you can start by taking the diaper off your head.

    1. Re:No religious protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad the United States constitution doesn't agree with you.

    2. Re:No religious protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Islam is matched with Christianity and Jewish for all the time dumbest, most insane concepts on earth.

      What's amusing about this statement is how related they actually are - all three (nearly-)linearly descend from each other, all rooted in the Abrahamic religion. Christianity's Old Testament is Judaism's Torah and other books; the Quran has very similar situations, oftentimes with names or small details changed (or sometimes not - "Mary" is a bigger deal in Islam than she is in Christianity).

      Similarly, all three have equal numbers of people who pretend the horrifying parts of their books don't exist, and those who take those horrifying parts literally.

    3. Re:No religious protection by kauaidiver · · Score: 1

      It was actually a donkey but anyway. Islam is defensive and it has a right to be because of these crazy ideas. At least with Christianity you have the New Testament which is reasonably sane.

      You could drop Jesus in almost any country in any century and he would bring peace, or try to dying. With Mohamed you'd just have a big perverted mess on your hands.

    4. Re:No religious protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, what does this have to do with a story of the violation of civil liberties of a visible minority?

    5. Re: No religious protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Compare the results of Islam arriving in lands throughout history with the results of Christianity arriving.

      I'll wait here while you do some research.

    6. Re: No religious protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're equating Islam with Arab. They're not the same.

  5. Discrimination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This kind of discrimination is perfectly logical and desirable.

    If these people had a non-religious ideology which included hating/killing/repressing Jews, Homosexuals, non-believers by violence, e.g. (Neo)-Nazism (Godwin's fallacy aside), then the Authorities would be allowed to be all over them.

    After all, only just a few Nazis killed Jews, Romas, and Homosexuals. The vast majority of Nazis were good law abiding folk. You can't judge all Nazis by the actions of just a small minority- that would be racist oh sorry, I meant bigoted
    Nazism is an ideology of peace! (eventually, for those who follow it)

  6. Muslims in Jersey? by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

    The lawsuit claims that surveillance of Muslim people in New Jersey discriminated against them due to their religion.

    What would a Jersey Muslim sound like?

    1. Re:Muslims in Jersey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NYPD wanted to find out who is the Snooki of the Muslim world. That's a perfectly acceptable reason to surveill the innocent!

    2. Re:Muslims in Jersey? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      which exit?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  7. How did the cops know their religion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, racism is one thing, what they're describing is something else. Do the cops know what magical elf I'm worshiping tonight? Perhaps my True Religion jeans gave me away.

    Also, there are hundreds of thousands of muslims in NY... it's hard to believe the cops singled out those folks for random harassment just 'cause they felt like it. There probably were suspicious indicators that they picked up. Yes, false positives happen... sucks for everyone involved (yes, the gov wasted our tax dollars on that false positive).

    It's kind of hard to claim religion of peace when the biggest refugee crisis of the world since ww2 is caused by folks trying to get away from groups enforcing the strict interpretation of that peaceful religion.

    1. Re:How did the cops know their religion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, there are hundreds of thousands of muslims in NY... it's hard to believe the cops singled out those folks for random harassment just 'cause they felt like it

      Why is it so hard to believe? It happens to black people all the time.

    2. Re:How did the cops know their religion? by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      Also, there are hundreds of thousands of muslims in NY... it's hard to believe the cops singled out those folks for random harassment just 'cause they felt like it. There probably were suspicious indicators that they picked up. Yes, false positives happen... sucks for everyone involved (yes, the gov wasted our tax dollars on that false positive).

      The point is that the government surveilled everyone who attended a mosque, because they had the narrative that some terrorists are Muslim, completely ignoring that few Muslims are terrorists. There were hundreds of thousands of false positives. There were so many false positives that they completely obscured any true positives. Profiling that way just doesn't work.

      Look, here's some numbers: in the past 20 years, approximately 60 acts of terror on US soil by Muslims, 140 by 'ecoterrorists,' and 270 by 'right wing' groups. Roughly 12% Islamic terrorism, even though Muslims make up only 1% of the US population. Surely, this means a Muslim is 12x more likely to be a terrorist than is a Christian or non-religious person. This means the incidence of terrorists in the Muslim population is 1/1,040,000, so focusing an investigation on Muslims results in approximately 1e6 false positives for every actual terrorist.

    3. Re:How did the cops know their religion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just looked at the Wikipedia article on terrorism on US soil. It doesn't list nearly as many as you cite. Can you provide a link to your list?

  8. Surveillance beats bloodshed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Islamists are dangerous far beyond their numbers, statistically. The problem is that you can't tell them apart from Muslims. There is a lot of overlap, and neither Islamists nor Muslims are willing to help us differentiate the two groups.

    A funny thing about people is that we tend to protect ourselves. If the peaceful means of protection are not available to people, the people will tend to use non-peaceful means. Attempting to identify and track a group that is a self-professed threat to us is a peaceful means of protection.

    The world will tremble at the building backlash, if the pressure isn't allowed a safe release.

    Posting anon. I can afford to burn the karma, but when something this obvious is pointed out, most people assume (even after I explicitly deny) that I'm in favor of it.

    1. Re:Surveillance beats bloodshed by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Islamists are dangerous far beyond their numbers, statistically.

      Citation Needed. The UK has had more anti-Muslim terrorist attacks since 2010 than Islamist ones. There's been nearly as many Irish Catholic terrorist attacks since my birth as there have been years (~30) and 4 by Islamic Extremists; but good old fashioned racism and fear of people who are different means that whereas we stuck our fingers up at the IRA, carried on with our lives and continued to trust white people even if they were Irish or Catholic, we completely lost our minds and openly discriminate against people for nothing more than being darker-skinned or Islamic.

    2. Re: Surveillance beats bloodshed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A funny thing about people is that we tend to protect ourselves. If the peaceful means of protection are not available to people, the people will tend to use non-peaceful means."

      So what say you about a religious group that has a 1.5 millennium history of leaving you the fuck alone and only being a problem when you send armies to displace their leaders, install jackass tyrants who provide commercial access to oilfields, expatriate profits leaving the population destitute, and then blame entire nations for bombing a country they couldn't collectively afford a ticket to travel to?

      If they fight back, that sounds a bit like the self defense you were talking about.

    3. Re:Surveillance beats bloodshed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      > we stuck our fingers up at the IRA, carried on with our lives and continued to trust white people even if they were Irish or Catholic

      (Northern) Irish Protestant here. The above statement isn't entirely true.
      All within my own lifetime:

      - White Irish Catholics were interned without trial (like Guantanamo) - citation
      - They were tortured - citation
      - They were falsely accused and imprisoned - citation
      - Their legal representation was targeted by state actors - citation
      - There was a "shoot to kill" policy in place for Irish terrorism - citation
      - Civil rights marches (that included protestants) were attacked by state forces - citation

      I'm not attempting to justify the IRA's campaign, nor even comment upon its legitimacy.
      I do want to point out though, that profiling is (and probably always has been) used in these sort of scenarios (for right or for wrong).

      Inter arma enim silent leges.

    4. Re: Surveillance beats bloodshed by Orgasmatron · · Score: 3, Informative

      Which religious group are you talking about that has a 1500 year history of "leaving you the fuck alone"?

      It sure isn't Islam.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    5. Re:Surveillance beats bloodshed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, you were just complaining the other day about people "cherry picking" AGW data for only using 18 years of cooling. Let's add 5 more years to your number and do the stats again.

    6. Re: Surveillance beats bloodshed by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 2

      Did you fall asleep in history class?

    7. Re:Surveillance beats bloodshed by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      There is a lot of overlap, and neither Islamists nor Muslims are willing to help us differentiate the two groups.

      It's true that there is an overlap; indeed, one is a proper subset of the other. However, there's a far bigger overlap between Muslims and "us". If you are killed by as Islamist terrorist, there is a roughly 90% chance that you are a Muslim.

      But here's the question I want you to answer: What could mainstream Muslims possibly do to help "us"?

      Well, they could report suspicious behaviour. Do you know what happens when they do that? The people who do do the reporting get surveilled and threatened with deportation for their trouble.

      Maybe this is not a case of "us" and "Muslims". Maybe it's all just "us", and we all have to work together on this one. It's called "community policing", and it's all the rage in civilised countries. The US should try it some time.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  9. Will NYC PD take a dive? by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have to wonder if Mayor de Blasio will force the NYC PD to take a dive on this suit to get a particular precedent into law like the Obama administration has done?

    The would seem to be as easy method of advancing the agenda in a way hard to reverse. Of course that probably won't work out well for everyone else.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:Will NYC PD take a dive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So basically you expect them to WIN the lawsuit, and you're already spinning it.
      Settling out of court wouldn't set a precedent, so you expect them to go fight it in court and lose.

    2. Re:Will NYC PD take a dive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh?

    3. Re:Will NYC PD take a dive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No expectation of victory is needed to take a dive, only a decision to either allow or seek defeat in one matter to attain an advantage or victory in another.

      You either don't understand or are spinning yourself.

    4. Re:Will NYC PD take a dive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you expected to win, you wouldn't be setting up the excuse for the lose.

      You either don't understand or are spinning yourself.

    5. Re:Will NYC PD take a dive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. They've done a poor job with other lawsuits in order to set a precedent.

  10. Like the sound of.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pumping iron and hairspray, both potential ingredients for IEDs!

    I think it's time we just wall up the entire state, because if those Muslims don't try and blow us up, the stereotypes in the reality TV shows probably will instead :)

    1. Re:Like the sound of.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you are a real piece of shit.

    2. Re:Like the sound of.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pumping iron and hairspray, both potential ingredients for IEDs!

      They make IUDs from hairspray? No wonder they have such a high birthrate...

  11. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's really news that someone asks the question "Hey, that maybe racially biased"

    Now we have a news story that says: "Hey, we'll might look into it. They might be human afterall. (Let's buy more guns!)"

    Not all muslims know bin laden. (I thought this was something you didn't know).

  12. The wrong judicial circuit by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

    The NYPD is WAY outside its jurisdiction here... it operates in NY under the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most well-respected in the country.

    1. Re:The wrong judicial circuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NYPD is WAY outside its jurisdiction here... it operates in NY under the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most well-respected in the country.

      In fact it's one of the top ten most respected Circuit Courts of Appeals in the whole country.

    2. Re:The wrong judicial circuit by Steve+Hamlin · · Score: 1

      Further, some background about why this case is in the 3rd Circuit (which covers NJ) and not the 2nd (which covers NY): "the Associated Press reported that the New York Police Department sent plainclothes officers to Newark (NJ) businesses owned or frequented by Muslim people, took photographs of 16 mosques and mapped them."

      The lawsuit, by New Jersey citizens over actions conducted in NJ by the NYPD, was filed in the 3rd Circuit District Court, and then appealed to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

      Some further background on the NYPD Intelligence Bureau and its extra-jurisdictional activities:

      - http://www.ap.org/media-center...
      - http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/...

  13. What do you expect? by chipschap · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is sort of like the Chinese complaining that counterintelligence focuses on them as being in a group that provides possible spies for China.

    What do you expect? Should counterintelligence focus on Swedes instead?

    Get real. You focus on where the problem is likely to be. Is that somehow "discrimination" or "unfair" or just common sense?

    1. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok... Who has the tech to make the most lethal weapon?

      So it's fair to watch people who can make pipe bombs vs people who can actually kill you?

    2. Re:What do you expect? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When you look at crime rates or acts of terrorism, Muslims don't account for a particularly large proportion relative to the size of the Muslim population. Some Muslims were the most successful terrorists ever in the US with 9/11, but that one-time event which was mostly developed overseas isn't a good reason to start suspecting all Muslims or adding extra surveillance. Aside from anything else it's drawing resources away from all the non-Muslim terrorists and criminals who are more of a threat.

      Saying to someone "hay, we need to watch you and your family and your friends because you are more like to be a criminal, it's just in your nature" isn't a good idea either. It doesn't exactly help integrate them or push them away from hating you and deciding to do something about it. People talk about Muslims hating the west and western freedom, but it's not like the feeling isn't mutual and those same people wouldn't have any qualms about treating Muslims as lesser human beings.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's add traffic incidents into it. Let's watch every new driver.

    4. Re:What do you expect? by tomthepom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is sort of like the Chinese complaining that counterintelligence focuses on them as being in a group that provides possible spies for China.

      Replace 'Chinese' with 'Asian-Americans' and you get an analogy a bit closer to the truth. And maybe then you'll see how disturbing that is, especially considering america's fairly recent history in that regard.

      What do you expect? Should counterintelligence focus on Swedes instead?

      No, but perhaps they should focus on white christians, whose extremists have killed twice as many in terror attacks in the US since 9/11. I'm not sure how compliant Christian churches would be with a little 'common sense' surveillance on their premises to weed out the extremists in their midst.

    5. Re:What do you expect? by DavidHumus · · Score: 1

      I expect that continuing to discriminate against a group will radicalize more members of that group. That's how terrorists work - by provoking over-reaction to sway the "fat middle" of moderates in their direction.

      Remember the London bombings of 10 years ago? Remember how the perpetrators were caught? Their families turned them in because they knew what the bombers had done was wrong and they knew they could rely on the British to treat them humanely in spite of their crimes.

    6. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://youtu.be/Rd8cRvZZv44

    7. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you believe it's okay to be biased against Muslims, because you personally are biased against Muslims. Got it.

  14. Comment Section is Pathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm finished with engaging with the Slashdot community. All I see are paranoid overzealous comments in what is overwhelmingly a a civil liberties story.

    It is worth mentioning that zero terrorist attacks were foiled through this surveillance program; those promoting xenophobic mistruths in the comments should be ashamed of themselves.

  15. Absolutely by Chrisq · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Islam is now the largest criminal prison gang in the UK. Muslim rape gangs run riot, and they openly target the military. Is it any surprise that we want to keep an eye on them?

    1. Re:Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Islam is now the largest criminal prison gang in the UK ...

      I think you meant criminal gang in prison. (Just read the headline: Yep, criminal gang in prison.) Is there another sort of gang in prison? Are you implying there wasn't a criminal gang before Muslim criminals were incarcerated? So what you're really complaining about, is the demise of the Christian criminal gang.

      ... and they openly target the military

      I don't know if one murder qualifies as "targeting the military". Would you prefer insurgents to work clandestinely?

    2. Re:Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually car drivers are the biggest killers in the UK, followed closely by people taking their own lives. We ought to closely monitor drivers, followed by everyone else. Especially those with two legs- by far the majority of criminals have two legs, and even taking into account proportions of various leggedness, two-leggers are by far the most criminal.
      Really any two legged driver ought to be locked up in advance. Sure the loony left will say it breaches "Human Rights" but they choose to drive and they make no efforts to remove any of their legs.

    3. Re:Absolutely by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      I'm calling bullshit on this one. Your link is to an article from 5 years ago about people's fears, with some dubious claims that have failed to come true. There are no "Muslim rape gangs running riot", there was a network of paedophiles and sex offenders that the police and social services failed to deal with, like they failed to deal with other prolific gangs of paedophiles and sex offenders of other religions and races.

      I don't see an open targeting of the military either. Secret targeting perhaps, but not openly, and mostly unsuccessfully.

      Islam is a problem, no doubt, but the idea that we are being taken over or overwhelmed or unable to deal with it is nonsense.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Absolutely by dave420 · · Score: 0

      You've not thought this through, have you? If you start to suspect people based on superficial qualities (as your fear seems to be making you do), those you actually should be scared of will simply hide among those who do not share these same qualities, then you're back to square one and have been a massive xenophobic douche in the process, alienating the very communities you should be working with to fix whatever problems need fixing.

      You have previously shown that you don't know the difference between Islam and Islamism, so I don't really think you're qualified to comment on this topic. You always pop up in the comments section in stories like this, spout some degenerate knuckle-dragging nonsense that condemns over 1.6 billion people with a single sentence, then flit back to your xenophobic life as if nothing happened.

    5. Re:Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      British soldier killed by white Irishmen are causality of civil war. Muslim gang assaulting British citizen are a invasion.

      If you want to disregard all context behind the killing then do it fairly; How many peoples were killed by any Muslim anywhere on the world this year? And then compare that with the death toll of the Spanish inquisition because that is what muslim apologist like you do.

    6. Re:Absolutely by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      .. spout some degenerate knuckle-dragging nonsense that condemns over 1.6 billion people with a single sentence, .

      You make it sound like there is a small minority when 7% on Muslims in the UK or about 200,000 support ISIS and 27% sympathised with the charlie hebdo and Jewish supermarket attacks. I suggest you read the Qur'an some day instead of just believing the lie that it is all love and peace.

  16. Crime before the investigation by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So is your thinking that when facing the persistent long term threat of violent extremists Islamists (which are pretty much exclusively Muslim) dedicated to the overthrow of Western civilization that the proper course of action is to search for violent Buddhists, Lutherans, and atheists? Because, Diversity!??

    I kinda' want to get back to the mode where the crime comes before the investigation, you know?

    Crime's been going down, we're currently at the lowest point it's been for decades.

    We're starting to get a handle on what causes crime, and it turns out to be completely unrelated to policing or enforcement or longer jail sentences or anything like that: it's things like tetra-ethyl-lead wearing out of the environment, access to abortions for unwanted pregnancies 20 years ago, economic security, and things like that.

    The police seem to think it's their job to prevent crime from happening, and they're bored because they have nothing else to do, and so they take great pains to try to predict who will commit a crime and take action before it happens.

    We're seeing this already in things like parallel construction, seeing which crimes can be extended to cover an action they don't like, and arresting people for "planning" to join ISIS.

    On that last one: people aren't attacking America, didn't join a group that attacks America, didn't go to the country where they *could* have joined the group that attacks America, and didn't have a *plane ticket* to go to the country where they *could* have joined the group that attacks America...

    and yet, posting "I'm going to join ISIS" on your facebook page is enough to get you thrown in jail in this country. It's "pre-crime" prosecution.

    I kinda' want to get back to the mode where the crime comes before the investigation, you know?

    1. Re:Crime before the investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're starting to get a handle on what causes crime, and it turns out to be completely unrelated to policing or enforcement or longer jail sentences or anything like that: it's things like tetra-ethyl-lead wearing out of the environment, access to abortions for unwanted pregnancies 20 years ago, economic security, and things like that.

      No, it's just the lead. That's it, that's all. The correlation between lower lead in the environment and lower crime is far too close for anyone's pet causes to have been anything more than a tangential influence.

      The police seem to think it's their job to prevent crime from happening

      It is, or it should be. I mean what?

    2. Re:Crime before the investigation by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      On that last one: people aren't attacking America, didn't join a group that attacks America, didn't go to the country where they *could* have joined the group that attacks America, and didn't have a *plane ticket* to go to the country where they *could* have joined the group that attacks America...

      and yet, posting "I'm going to join ISIS" on your facebook page is enough to get you thrown in jail in this country. It's "pre-crime" prosecution.

      Do you have any cases of this happening? I have heard of people being arrested because they try to provide material support to ISIS, when it is actually a FBI agent acting like ISIS, but not anyone being arrested for saying they want to join ISIS.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    3. Re:Crime before the investigation by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      I kinda' want to get back to the mode where the crime comes before the investigation, you know?

      I broadly agree, but with one important proviso. It's an axiom of modern policing that the best time to stop a criminal is before the crime happens. But the best time to do that is before they become a criminal.

      If you know of some community where there is a risk of young people entering a life of crime, what is the right thing to do? You don't wait for them to commit a crime and then nab them; that creates unnecessary victims. You could avoid creating the victim by entrapping them. That gets you a headline, but it also runs the risk of creating a criminal where there was none.

      Surely the right thing to do is divert them away from a life of crime? Maybe work with the community to help turn disaffected and disenfranchised young people into productive members of society?

      If this was any other kind of crime (e.g. think of most criminal gangs), we would instantly know that was the right thing to do.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    4. Re:Crime before the investigation by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      The police seem to think it's their job to prevent crime from happening, and they're bored because they have nothing else to do, and so they take great pains to try to predict who will commit a crime and take action before it happens.

      I don't think that is quite true. If what the previous NYC police strike demonstrated is true for the rest of the nation, it's that police have become revenue generation for the municipality. 95% of what police do is issue tickets and essentially put a stupid or unlucky tax on the general population. Only 5% is actually about dealing with reported crimes. That they get to push people around and be a force of authority seems to just be self-entitlement for the 5% or just a bonus in their eyes. Parking tickets, speeding tickets, fines, red light cameras, all are not there it even suggest possible behavior and limit damage and crime, but to actively collect money.

  17. Islam early history by Bruce66423 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the early years of the expansion of the Islamic Empire, during the last years of its prophet's life, the empire used the technique of hit and run brigandage on the surrounding territories as a way to soften them up for subsequent invasion. The reality is that Islam can reasonably be argued to be a moral legitimation for an expansionist empire; that the Arabs got to FRANCE before being turned back is not usually known.

    Of course there are some Muslims who are embarrassed by this history, and merely endorse Islam because that's what they grew up in. The problem is whether we should believe what they say, or realising that Islam regards itself at war with all outsiders, justifying deceiving them, treat all denials with great scepticism. And if so, do we argue that Islam is a criminal organisation? If not, why not?

    1. Re:Islam early history by N1AK · · Score: 0

      that the Arabs got to FRANCE before being turned back is not usually known.

      Probably because it is usually known that Vienna isn't in France, the French were Allies with the Ottomans, and... it isn't true.

    2. Re:Islam early history by Orgasmatron · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are off by nearly 1000 years, dude.

      Think Charles Martel at Tours in 732, not John III Sobieski at Vienna in 1683.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    3. Re:Islam early history by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And if so, do we argue that Islam is a criminal organisation? If not, why not?

      The Vatican is still relocating child molesters and you want to argue about whether Islam is a criminal organization? If Islam is, then Catholicism absolutely is; the vatican is still relocating child molesters. If we can't indict the Vatican, which is provably a single criminal organization, how the shit do you expect to convince people that all of Islam is one big criminal conspiracy?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Islam early history by Shortguy881 · · Score: 2

      To look at the misdeeds of Islam and ignore those of every other religion is obtuse. From your argument, Islam isn't the issue. Religion is.

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    5. Re:Islam early history by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      you are not going to get people in the US (which is also known as 'jesus land' since more americans blindly and TOTALLY follow the christian bible than believe in evolution) to fight against their chosen religion. they are blinded by brainwashing (most religious people are since they get you while you are too young to think for yourself and reject the BS) and even though you have a quite valid point - they'll never see it.

      all religions do more harm than good. but mankind so loves to think that he's immortal and religion 'promises' that mankind is somehow special in this universe (we're not, btw). you can't easily undo that kind of brainwashing.

      sadly, we're stuck with this mental disease that is world-wide. something about mankind's mind that makes the need to think of yourself as special in this universe - that seems to be something that we cannot fix. it will be our downfall and probably end our world, quite literally.

      we have had thousands of years to get better but we have not, as a whole. I don't think we can, to be honest. too many of us buy into the idea of a god creator and that he seems to favor one group of people over another (boggle!). until we fix this, we have no hope of moving up the evolutionary ladder. again, I don't think mankind can and I think what we see now is what mankind IS about and we just can't do any better than this.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:Islam early history by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      more americans blindly and TOTALLY follow the christian bible

      No, they usually follow what somebody has told them the bible says, or they cherrypick. Lots of them are against taxes, for example, after Jesus said, essentially, "Pay your taxes." (This is not always true. I had a next-door neighbor once who was that kind of Christian, was easy to get along with, and went to somewhere in Africa because he was a doctor and could really help lots of people there.)

      to fight against their chosen religion.

      To many of these people, Catholicism is not their chosen religion. There's been a LOT of violence that was at least officially religious between Catholics and Protestants.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  18. Focus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You could have said "well the 9/11 terrorists were men, so we'll spy on all men", .... what do men expect, that they should spy on women?!

    All of the terrorists were CIA trained or trained by terrorists who were CIA trained (Al Qaeda = the database or list, referring to the list of Mujahadeen trained by the CIA). So if you want to focus on a narrow set, the most obvious set was the people from the CIA list and their associates. That would have been useful.

    If you wanted a wider set, a set of people who've traveled to those hot spot countries in the last few years would have been useful maybe. But the more broad the list, the more noise and less signal.

    As the list gets wider and wider, it gets worth less and less. So NYPD wanted some big broad surveillance and chose a weak selector to give themselves an excuse for a mass surveillance. Essentially worthless.

    "Should counterintelligence focus on Swedes instead?"
    You realize they "focus" mostly on Americans? Co-Traveller for example. The surveillance is skewed by the quantity of data, so easy to get data (i.e. US and UK data) is searched while difficult to get data is not searched. Is it useful to do that?

    I put "focus" in quotes because blanket surveillance like that is not focus, its the opposite. Focus requires that you ignore noise and concentrate on signal, not build giant database of noise to swamp any signal on every search.

    1. Re:Focus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This got a 5 insightful (!) because you didn't think it through.

      Let's suppose everyone watches muslims. Do you even known what muslims even look like? So these muslims want to attack the US. How will they appear to you? The OP gave a perfect example. They would dress as swedes. Because swedes couldn't be muslims!

      A dye job, a shave and you have the perfect terrorist according to your 5 interesting comment.

  19. Thats gun holders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Actually, in the USA the biggest source of terrorism is from gun holders. You're far more likely to be killed from a nutter with a gun on a rampage than any foreign terrorist threat. So really they should spy on all gun owners and their households, since that's the biggest threat.

    But that is maybe too large a group, you'd be spying on too many people and many of those gun holders have a gun for self defense. So to focus on a narrower set more likely to be extremists.

    So you could spy on everyone who has a gun and follows that extremist religious preacher you see on TV, you know the guy who spouts hate, constantly makes Hitler references, and wants his followers to carry guns. The gunman who shot Senator Gabrielle Giffords was one of his disciples, radicalized to become a terrorist.

    I think the preacher is call "Bill O Reilly" or something and he's on the extremist Fox channel.

    1. Re:Thats gun holders by goose-incarnated · · Score: 0, Troll

      Actually, in the USA the biggest source of terrorism is from gun holders. You're far more likely to be killed from a nutter with a gun on a rampage than any foreign terrorist threat.

      And you're far far more likely to accidentally drown your swimming pool than be killed by a gun; do you advocate that swimming pools are the biggest source of terrorism?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    2. Re:Thats gun holders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, in the USA the biggest source of terrorism is from gun holders. You're far more likely to be killed from a nutter with a gun on a rampage than any foreign terrorist threat.

      And you're far far more likely to accidentally drown your swimming pool than be killed by a gun; do you advocate that swimming pools are the biggest source of terrorism?

      So you post that swimming is as easy as dodging bullets?
      You do realize that video games aren't real?

    3. Re:Thats gun holders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And you're far far more likely to accidentally drown your swimming pool than be killed by a gun"

      Actually gun deaths are second only to cancer as the cause of death, above even deaths in car accidents. Swimming pool accidents don't even rank as a major source of death.

      "do you advocate that swimming pools are the biggest source of terrorism?"

      Do the swimming pools kill people to try to cause political change? The way Bill O Reilly incites his gun toting followers to use their guns to achieve political change?

    4. Re:Thats gun holders by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      And you're far far more likely to accidentally drown your swimming pool than be killed by a gun; do you advocate that swimming pools are the biggest source of terrorism?

      That statistic in only true if you restrict your investigation to children under 14. The actual number of drownings in the US is about 3900/year (CDC), while the number of non-suicide gun deaths is around 12,000/year. (Gun suicides around 21,000/year)

      More importantly, the number of people murdered by swimming pools is about 15, so keeping special surveillance of swimming pool owners is not going to reduce the number of homicides very much. 15 drowning murders/10 million swimming pools = 1/670,000. 12,000 gun homicides/100 million gun owners = 1/8,300.

      And, relevant to the topic at hand, there's about 1 Islamic terrorist attack in the US per year. 1 Terrorist/3 million Muslims. You know, maybe we should keep an eye on those swimming pool owners.

    5. Re:Thats gun holders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually gun deaths are second only to cancer as the cause of death, above even deaths in car accidents. Swimming pool accidents don't even rank as a major source of death.

      You are an anonymous coward which means even logic won't help your case.

    6. Re:Thats gun holders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do you advocate that swimming pools are the biggest source of terrorism?

      I advocate that pools are treated as dangerous places, and steps are made to avoid deaths by drowning.

      Don't you?

    7. Re:Thats gun holders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do the swimming pools kill people to try to cause political change?

      Do firearms kill people to try to cause political change? No. Peoples empowered by sick ideologies kill to try to cause political change. Guns are just tool that can be use for good and evil.

      If you want to destroy gun ownership for safety you must be prepared to also remove violent ideologies as well. Repeal the first 4 amendments:

      • Nobody should be able to shelter his violent ideologies under the covert of religion (or fairies tale, myth, legends, etc)
      • Nobody should be able to own weapon. #AllLivesMatter
      • Everyone should have a military chaperon in their house, or the equivalent in electronic surveillance.
      • Everyone should be search and be detained as necessary for the safety of all.

      The first 4 amendments are the cause of all our troubles. Repealing them fix everything!

    8. Re:Thats gun holders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gun are dangerous tools and step ARE taken to avoid death. Going further, e.g.; banning gun, is not 'taking step' or 'taking a step further' but is akin to ban water.

  20. Koran 9:29 by zapadnik · · Score: 3, Informative

    Koran 9:29 is one of the last non-abrogated verses of the Koran and states:

    Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

    This aya replaces pretty much everything else in Islam. It is amazing that so many Slashdotters have so many opinions on Islam without understanding some of the fundamental doctrines of Islam (which Islamists try to keep hidden from you).

    1. Re:Koran 9:29 by fullgandoo · · Score: 1

      Koran 9:29 is one of the last non-abrogated verses of the Koran and states:

      Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

      This aya replaces pretty much everything else in Islam. It is amazing that so many Slashdotters have so many opinions on Islam without understanding some of the fundamental doctrines of Islam (which Islamists try to keep hidden from you).

      The context of this scripture can be deduced from the last part, "until they give the jizyah". Jazyah is tax from non-Muslims living under Muslim rule (Muslims are supposed to give a different type of tax to the state). So it in fact doesn't imply fight against all non-believers, only those who do not pay the "non-Muslim" tax to a Muslim government. But, please don't let facts or logic guide you. They are just minor inconveniences.

    2. Re:Koran 9:29 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it is only a matter of time before the Christians accept that there is no God of any kind. Similarly it is only a matter of time before Muslims accept that their scriptures, while being a source of cultural information, are not saying anything about the will of Allah, just like the book of Moses doesn't say anything about the will of God, but about the agreed laws of a single tribe in a hard place at a distant past.

    3. Re:Koran 9:29 by Jiro · · Score: 2

      So it in fact doesn't imply fight against all non-believers, only those who do not pay the "non-Muslim" tax to a Muslim government.

      The same can be said for the Mafia fighting people who don't pay protection money. I'm astonished that you think this is a defense of Islam.

    4. Re:Koran 9:29 by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      You mean like "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"?

    5. Re:Koran 9:29 by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      well, its pretty common knowledge that the tea party is against paying taxes to the US government and think that there should be no consequence for tax dodging so I'm not surprised that people would apply the same reasoning to any other tax authority.

      Of course, all of that has absolutely nothing to do with Islam, Muslims or the Koran and rather more to do with their unwillingness to be a productive participant in society. But whatever.

    6. Re:Koran 9:29 by fullgandoo · · Score: 1

      So it in fact doesn't imply fight against all non-believers, only those who do not pay the "non-Muslim" tax to a Muslim government.

      The same can be said for the Mafia fighting people who don't pay protection money. I'm astonished that you think this is a defense of Islam.

      I'm astonished that you think I'm defending Islam. Being the nerd that I am, only pointing at the inaccuracy of the parent's post.

    7. Re:Koran 9:29 by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 3, Informative

      This isn't any different from, well, the entire OT, or quite a bit of the NT, including Revelations.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    8. Re:Koran 9:29 by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This isn't any different from, well, the entire OT, or quite a bit of the NT, including Revelations.

      Yes, you're absolutely correct. But a significant percentage of the terrorism which happens within our borders today is already motivated by religion, and Christians have racked up some truly impressive body counts in the name of their allegedly peace-loving God. Is that really what we want to encourage? I'm very far from racist and I give a shit where someone comes from, it's all the same to me, it's what they believe that makes a difference in how they act and how they treat other people. I don't particularly care for anyone whose irrational belief system places them above people who don't believe what they believe. All I care about ultimately is actions, but beliefs lead to those.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Koran 9:29 by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      Sure, there's lots of religiously motivated violence, but then again, there's lots of non-religiously motivated violence.

      Somebody who's willing to blow up a building in the name of Allah, God, Jesus, or the FSM is just as likely to blow up that building in the name of freeing the proletariat, exposing the lies of the secret lizard overlords, or whatever. I think that religion is generally an excuse, rather than a causal factor. I could, however, be completely wrong.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    10. Re:Koran 9:29 by zapadnik · · Score: 0

      Actually you are wrong because you fail to account for the fourth-dimension, time.

      Judei-Christianity has been trending from barbarity (OT) to tolerance (NT).
      Islam, on the other hand, has been trending in the complete opposite direction. When Islam was weak it preached tolerance. As it become political and stronger the tolerant verses were "abrogated" for violence, intolerance and the commandment to conquer the World. Hence, ISIS, is 100% pure Islam once the doctrine of abrogation is taken into account.

      Again, so many Slashdotters comment on Islam (and draw false moral equivalences with Christianity), when it is clear they understand the actual doctrines nd historical development of neither.

    11. Re:Koran 9:29 by zapadnik · · Score: 0

      Why would you defend Islam by making out that Mafia-like "jizya" is somehow acceptable?

      Furthermore, it is clear you don't understand Islam at all. Jizya can only be paid unitl Al Mahdi (who Christians call, The Anti-Christ) comes, When Al Mahdi comes the choices of "convert to Islam, pay jizya, or die" changes to "convert to Islam, or die". The Iranians think that this point is very close (they are developing nuclear weapons to *initate* a final war to bring Al Mahdi), and the Sunnis think this is close too (which is why they decided to go for broke with the Islamic State).

      Note also that anywhere that Muslims reside becomes "Muslim territory". The Sharia then requires Muslims to overthrow all non-Islamic forms of Government and replace it with an Islamic government. It is you that is ignorant of further aspects of Islam so that your accusation of "don't let logic or facts guide you" should be an admonition to yourself.

      My question to you must become: why are you defending Islamic Supremacism by talking about some parts of Islam while suppressing others? hopefully it is just ignorance on your part rather than a deliberate attempt to aid Sharia-compliance on the globe (which Koran 9:29 is all about).

    12. Re:Koran 9:29 by zapadnik · · Score: 0

      I have butted your post. It is you that does not understand Islam. You know a little, but miss more. I hope you will actually be a "nerd" and read and understand my post. You will then understand that you know far less about Islam that you suppose, and are in-fact providing cover for Islamic Supremacism (although unwittingly, it would seem). Remember, some people on the web know a lot more than you do - and humility and an open mind is the path to wisdom.

      If you really do want to get up to speed with actual Islamic doctrine and how it pertains to the World today then I strongly recommend the following for you:
      "Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the face of jihad"
      http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...
      Or you can watch any of Stephen Coughlin's, or the Center for Security Policy's videos - they are condensed from briefings that he used to give to Flag Officers at the Pentagon. You cannot get a better source than that.

      Sorry to be so abrasive, but you make the mistake of so many Slashdotters in that because you are smart in one area you think that any point of view that is different from your own is "inaccurate", and use the snarky "please don't let facts or logic guide you. They are just minor inconveniences.". It never occurs to you that your own position might be based on correct but partial information and your interlocutor could know more than you do. If you use the Scientific Method you will stop making these errors and become a geek (skilled) rather than a nerd (wannabe).

      Islam is the greatest totalitarian threat to Free Society that were have ever faced. It mixes the racism and supremacism of National Socialism with the totalitarianism of Soviet Socialism. And now that Islamism is allied with increasingly totalitarian Cultural Marxism of Progressive Socialism the Free People of the World are in for a hell of rough ride.

      Fortunately Islam will be completely defeated because it is false and man-made (just like Scientology and Christianity - although Islam is far more deceptive and dangerous than either of those). To understand some of the evidence of how Islam's narrative is completely defeated by satellite imagery you can look at videos such as these (the Christians seem to be the only ones paying attention to this stuff - we atheists are too busy patting ourselves on the back to actually listen to Islamists or understand what is going on):
      "An Historical Critique of Islams Beginnings - Jay Smith"
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Stop defending Sharia until you actually understand ALL the Islamic doctrines, please.

    13. Re:Koran 9:29 by zapadnik · · Score: 0

      Not at all.

      Judeo-Christianity is a personal faith that has now be separated from the State, and these claim only to apply to believers (due to "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord").

      Islam is a totalitarian political system with some superstition sprinkled on top and asserts universality and eternal unchangeability. This means Islam applies to Muslims AND (here's the critical bit) non-Muslims alike - and Islam assigns the duty of *all* Muslims to work to advance Sharia over the whole globe and to cover all non-Muslims. This is what Koran 9:29 is all about.

      This is what makes Islam and Christianity so radically different from the perspective of non-believers.

  21. Don't confuse liberals with facts by Bruce66423 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At the heart of the Western liberal mindset are two basic assumptions: everyone has essentially the same beliefs as us, and it's all right to ignore all evidence to the contrary. This derives from an over optimistic reading of history combined with the propensity of modern theology to interpret all the difficult bits of the bible away.

    Such people therefore assume that everyone else does the same to their scriptures and end up with core beliefs just like them. When they find they don't, they are forced to conclude that these must be a small minority - because the alternative is to challenge their deeply held beliefs. And lo - they rate your contribution as a troll. Funny that...

    Now it can well be argued that conservatives are TOO pessimistic - but at least we don't get unpleasantly surprised...

    1. Re:Don't confuse liberals with facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now it can well be argued that conservatives are TOO pessimistic

      At the heart of the Western conservative mindset are two basic assumptions: that government is too big, and that government needs to be bigger. "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help" is the scariest sentence ever, unless it's said by a cop or a spook. The Constitution is part of the very identity of the United States of America, except when it's just a goddamn piece of paper. States and people have the right to do what the Republicans tell them to do.

      Just remember all of these powers you have given the government to pry into your affairs when the IRS uses them to decide if you're too conservative to be a nonprofit.

    2. Re:Don't confuse liberals with facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't you confusing liberals for conservatives?

    3. Re:Don't confuse liberals with facts by zapadnik · · Score: 0

      Very well put, Bruce.

      I would say that the Left is based on ideas from classical philosophy - start with some axioms and work from there. Ignore evidence as unreliable, This leads to dogmatism despite evidence, and because many Leftists are well-meaning they then assume the Right must be mean.

      In contrast the Right is based more on science. Start with a hypothesis and modify it on the basis of evidence. If something is a wonderful idea (unicorns for all, 'free' unlimited heath care for all, universal unlimited entitlements for all) but cannot work in reality then the Right ends up eschewing it. To the Left it seems that the Right is mean-spirited, despite the true reason being pragmatism based on evidence.

      So you could say the Left are idealists and Collectivists and the Right are pragmatists/realists and Individualists - and everyone is on a spectrum between these two (and their exact position on the spectrum varies on a topic-by-topic basis).

      Because of this idealism it means that the those on the Left are prepared to reject all evidence that shows that they can never reach their "Rainbow and Unicorns" visions of multi-cultural complete egalitarianism. Hence, they end up defending barbaric Sharia and opposing those who want to preserve Enlightenment civilization against 7th Century Islamist Imperialism.

    4. Re:Don't confuse liberals with facts by zapadnik · · Score: 0

      There are two kinds of "liberals" in US politics:
      Classic Liberals - who are Individualists against Big Government, and these are called "Conservatves" in US media. This forms the US political Right.
      Modern Liberals - who are Statist Collectivists who are for Big Government, and these are called "Progressives" in US media. This forms the US political Left.

  22. FBI statistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "So is your thinking that when facing the persistent long term threat of violent extremists Islamist" yeah except for a little fact : most terrorist activity in the USA are actually.... surprise surprise : domestic terrorist and from what I can tell mostly non Islamist. Here is an example from 2002-2005 : "Planned Attack against Islamic Center of Pinellas County Pinellas Park, Florida (Prevention of one act of Domestic Terrorism) On August 22, 2002, police in Pinellas County, Florida, responding to a domestic dispute detained Robert J. Goldstein after finding numerous weapons and explosives and a “mission statement” "
     
    In fact domestic terrorist is mostly white folk, and mostly white male, and a lot of it is related to white supremacist or anti federalist. So by the standard you set up... Looking at threats... NY police should watch over all those white male, not Islamist.

    1. Re:FBI statistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking at threats... NY police should watch over all those white male, not Islamist.

      They already do in the general population surveillance sweep of EVERYONE is a criminal but your not police and hence not one of our kind of criminal,.

  23. Politically Correctness will doom us by ruir · · Score: 2

    And I thought only Britain, Norway and Sweden were mad not talking about an epidemic of muslin gang rapes not be be labeled racist...

    1. Re:Politically Correctness will doom us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're more likely to die from right wing American terrorists than from a muslim boogymen.

      You're more likely to die from a cop pulling you over for a traffic violation than a muslim terrorist.

      You're far more likely to know these things if you learn to use the internets.

    2. Re:Politically Correctness will doom us by ruir · · Score: 1

      "“Easy Meat” Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery" http://lawandfreedomfoundation...

  24. Why pick on Muslim people? by nickweller · · Score: 1

    Why pick on Muslim people, just last week I was walking down the street and spotted this group of Nichiren Buddhists approaching in the distance, I had to cross the street and walk back the way I came from.

    1. Re:Why pick on Muslim people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because they do not blow shit up

  25. - Distraction from the - Jews - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 'muslim' / mass immigration is part of the Jews schemes to destroy. Dupe americans bought the 911 fraud, and allow the bogus military to destroy the middle east, the same time allow more immigrants to swarm here. The jews are the cabal that have directed all the destruction, while americans have been ignorant followers. Why, if 'muslims did 911', has so-called 'government' continued to let them in, along with over one hundred million other immigrants since '911'. Why, if the twenty trillion dollars 'bailouts' were such an 'emergency', have they since then, let in another 15 million immigrants. You See you are being swarmed, yet same time the bogus 'media' and 'government' yammer about 'terrorists', they lie about the mass immigration, they distract, they double talk, because it is all a giant act. The fact is most in bogus government, bogus media, are jews. Most trolls on the net are jews. They keep the distraction going, look this way look that way. They are spraying us with nano chip chemtrails. That is the terrorist problem. --- Search "jewishcrimenetworkdid911" and 'thezog' info also holohoax and Leuchter report archive org and 'who brought the slaves to america' by walter white at archive org also jewishfaces archive org . They are millions in the tribe. They are all the fake 'activist' groups fake 'privacy rights' the 'aclu' it's all jews they even run most 'jew truther' sites on the web, so dupes follow false fronts. - Over two thirds of comments on the web are jew trolls, extremely busy right now since their chemtrail virus is sprayed, all of them in the tribe in media/govt/on the web keep distraction going about muslims, religion, bogus elections, so people don't see the giant Jew tribe behind it all.
    The jew bolsheviks tortured killed over 100 million, russians, ukraines, poles. Same tribe that occupies 'govt', 'state govt', all 'media', 'colleges' etc., and who is behind every war. See washinton's face on the dollar and rest of the 'presidents'. The jews made up all the illusions, the bogus 'founders' didn’t 'found' anything, look at the dollar, washington's face, jewish, they were all cons, and dupes just went along. The consitution is a fraud. Freedom is not bogus scraps of paper bogus 'government' 'republic' 'democracy' jew communist schemes. It's making tribes, not paying 'tax' to cons. The jews are a tribe, but separate everyone else so no one makes tribes to stop the schemes, 'muslims' 'christians' 'blacks' 'whites' 'gays' 'men' 'women'. If people figured out to make tribes the jew schemes would be done. it is late now. Chemtrails. People have been very ignorant. Time is short. Do the searches, give the links/sites to others.

  26. RFID every muslim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would RFID chip every Muslim that can not assimilate to West standard but still insist to live here. Or let them go back where they came from without the tag. Sorry honey can't have it both ways: NEXT!

  27. - Distraction the JEWS did 911 - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bogus, posts about muslims but delete comments on the Jews. All bogus news or posts about muslims are to keep the nine eleven 'muslims' meme going for more 'wars' and to distract from the jews who control it all and cause the division. The jews are the cabal that directed all the destruction, americans have been ignorant followers. Why, if 'muslims did 911', has so-called 'government' continued to let them in, along with over one hundred million other immigrants since '911'. Why, if the twenty trillion dollars 'bailouts' were such an 'emergency', have they since then, let in another 15 million immigrants. You see we are being swarmed, yet same time the bogus 'media' and 'government' yammer about 'terrorists', they lie about the mass immigration, they distract, they double talk, because it is all a giant act. The fact is most in bogus government, bogus media, are Jews. Most comments on the net are jews. They keep the distraction going, look this way look that way. They are spraying us with nano chip chemtrails and virus, deadly danger and they cover it up. The Jews control it all and did 911 and also bring in all the muslims and mass immigrants so the rest of us have no power, the jews do all the division also, 'muslims' 'christians' 'gays' 'men' 'women', they keep everyone divided, so the jews the only tribe and no one else makes tribes for our own power. Their bogus 'government' was a jew scheme from the start look at washington's face on the dollar. So was the 'consitution' fraud, so everyone pays 'tax' to the jews so they could get trillions in weapons, and take over the world, and they have. Then they blame muslims. The jews are the cabal. --Search "jewishcrimenetworkdid911" and 'thezog' also holohoax, and colchestercollection, Protocols of Zion. They planned to blame every other group for what they do. Make wars, pit christians and muslims against each other, poison food, break up families, keep everyone focused on bogus schools bogus jobs, while they took over the world, now population control of everyone but themselves. They blame muslims for 911 when it was them the jews, they blame 'whites' for slavery when its was them 'who brought the slaves to america' by walter white you can see copy at archive org You can copy this so you have to re read. People have ignored too much too long. The jews control it all. They tell you themselves -

    I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, hollywood, wall street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them. - Joel Stein LA Times 2009

  28. another political story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am aware there are errors, but could slashdot cut down the number of political stories?

  29. # Lying Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Muslims don't control 'government' or media, Jews do, they're spraying us CHEMTRAILS.
    Jews are the problem. holodomorinfo.com

  30. Re:Citation needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a good place to start: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

  31. Violence inflicted by Americans by emil · · Score: 1

    The difference is that you seem to think that the US is "exceptionally" bad and has had an exceptionally evil influence and impact on the world.

    While good and evil are subjective terms, there is no doubt that the United States is the most violent nation on earth. When you consider that 90% of the indigenous peoples of the Americas died out as a consequence of European incursion, follow through the million dead of the U.S. civil war, then culminate in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there is no doubt that we have earned this status.

    Perhaps it is necessary to inflict violence on the world, and perhaps not. I would prefer a more congenial nation, but life is rarely about what we want.

    1. Re:Violence inflicted by Americans by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      By all estimates, the two nuclear weapons used saved more lives than they killed. It was the shock of that attack that forced a surrender that wouldn't have happened otherwise. The Japanese were willing to fight to the last man rather than surrender, and the sheer shock of the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused them to rethink that position.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:Violence inflicted by Americans by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      While good and evil are subjective terms, there is no doubt that the United States is the most violent nation on earth. When you consider that 90% of the indigenous peoples of the Americas died out as a consequence of European incursion,

      90% of the indigenous peoples of the Americas died out as a result of diseases of the Spanish by the time of Plymouth Rock.

      follow through the million dead of the U.S. civil war

      it's time for you to get some perspective there, sport

      then culminate in Hiroshima and Nagasaki

      I give you the firebombing of Dresden

      there is no doubt that we have earned this status.

      You're going to have to get a bit more recent to justify that, I'm afraid.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  32. Re: I think you should listen to Ayaan Hirsi Ali by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ayaan grew up Muslim then moved to the west. I think it is fair to call her an authority

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

  33. All religions have dangerous idiots but Islam more by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    The fact that a lot of dreadful things have been done in the name of religion - and in the name of atheism (thus Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot's suppression of religion) doesn't mean we can regard all religions equally. It is most appropriate to look at the earliest expressions of the religion, and decide whether its roots are flawed, or whether it's merely a minority within it that are a problem. On this basis Christianity gets a pass - though with a 'room for improvement' given the Vatican's record over child abuse, the Russian Orthodox inability to tear itself away from Putin's embrace, and some of the more obnoxious elements in Protestantism, including rank homophobia - condemning people for how they are tempted, not merely how they live - as well as the prosperity preachers.

    By contrast that nice Ayatollah Khomeni offers us his agenda for Islam:

    Islam’s jihad is a struggle against idolatry, sexual deviation, plunder, repression, and cruelty. The war waged by [non-Islamic] conquerors, however, aims at promoting lust and animal pleasures. They care not if whole countries are wiped out and many families left homeless. But those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under [God’s law].... Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless.'

    Barry M. Rubin and Judith Colp Rubin, eds. Anti-American terrorism and the Middle East: A documentary reader. (Oxford: OUP, 2004) 29

    'Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless.'

    Of course it's nice to be nice to Muslims. Being nice to poisonous snakes is also a good strategy... There are peaceful Muslims - and that's good. However opinion polls point to an awful lot who aren't - and those are the ones who admit their dangerous beliefs. https://muslimstatistics.wordp...

  34. Serious question: Is Islam even a religion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . subject to all the legal protections afforded to same?

    Or is it more just a corrupt and bankrupt sick ideology, more akin to Communism?