Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on from the try-surveilling-this-can-of-worms dept.

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."

50 of 253 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

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

      Yup, exclusively christian. And also imaginary.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    4. 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

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

      Are you talking about Muslims or the Republicans?

    6. 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.

    7. 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});
    8. 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.

    9. 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.
    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.
    15. 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
    16. 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.'"
    17. 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
    18. 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.
    19. 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.

    20. 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.
    21. 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"
    22. 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."
    23. 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.

    24. 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?
    25. 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});
    26. 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.

    27. 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.

    28. 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});
    29. 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});
  2. 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
  3. 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.

  4. 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 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. 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 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
  6. 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?

  7. 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 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?
    2. 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.'"
    3. 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.
  8. 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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.
  9. 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...

  10. 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...

  11. 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.

  12. 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?
  13. Re: Surveillance beats bloodshed by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 2

    Did you fall asleep in history class?