hugo

I believe this storm was started by Hamza and his cell.

Nah, not really. Odds are still pretty damn low. More likely to get killed by some dumbass on the road.

You ignore the fact there is as much sectarian violence and other internal violence amongst Muslims as there is conflict with the West. The labeling of Islamophobia is quite ironical considering the level of xenophobia in the Muslim world. Actually, post WWII history consists of the West giving up power to dumbfucks who can't handle independence.

The only force that can defeat radical Islam is moderate Islam. I know builder, with his loony left view of the world, will disagree, but you do not see any more Christian crusades. The ME missed out on the Enlightenment. Now we have a medieval culture with the potential to possess modern weapons of mass destruction.

Rational people recognize that there is a strain of Islam that is at war with the Western world and that terrorists are in our midsts. Of course, they should also recognize you are much more likely to be killed by a street thug.

Rational concerns are not phobias.

The Muslim World: At War with Western Civilization by Walter Williams (June 24, 2004) The Muslim world is at war with Western civilization. We have the military might to thwart them. The question is: Do we have the intelligence to recognize the attack and the will to defend ourselves from annihilation? Their intent is clear, but let's refresh our memories with a bit of history. At the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, several athletes were massacred. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Tehran was taken over and 52 hostages held for more than a year. In 1983, U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up, killing 241 U.S. soldiers. In 1988, Pan Am flight 103 was bombed, killing 270 people. In 1993, there was the first bombing of the World Trade Center, and in 2001, it was reduced to rubble, killing more than 3,000 Americans. In 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed, resulting in more than 200 dead and 4,000 injured. Who are the people responsible for these and other wanton murders of innocents, including the recent barbaric beheading of two innocent men? They were all Muslims. You say, "Williams, you can't make an indictment of a whole people and their religion!" I'm not, and let me clearly state: By no means are all Muslims murderers. But on the other hand, I've never heard broad Muslim condemnation of their fellow Muslims' murderous acts committed in the name of their God. If anything, there has been jubilation and dancing in the streets in the wake of Muslim attacks on Westerners. Contrast their response to the widespread Western condemnation of the, mild by comparison, behavior of a few coalition forces in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. Muslim atrocities, and the collective Muslim response to those atrocities, might be better understood knowing their belief system as spelled out by a few, among many, passages from the Quran: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah" (Surat At-Taubah 9:29). "I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them" (Quran 8:12). "The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures" (Quran 98:1-8). "Fight against those who believe not in Allah, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (Islam), until they are subdued" (Surat At-Taubah 9:29). Phil Lucas, editor of the Panama City, Fla., News Herald, in his April 4, 2004, editorial "Up Against Fanaticism," asks, "Can anybody name three ongoing world conflicts in which Muslims are not involved?" Lucas says, "They can't get along with their neighbors on much of the planet: France, Chechnya, Bosnia, Indonesia, Spain, Morocco, India, Tunisia, Somalia, etc., etc., etc." My colleague Dr. Thomas Sowell observes, "Those in the Islamic world have for centuries been taught to regard themselves as far superior to the 'infidels' of the West, while everything they see with their own eyes now tells them otherwise." He adds, "Nowhere have whole peoples seen their situation reversed more visibly or more painfully than the peoples of the Islamic world." Sowell adds that few people, once at the top of civilization, accept their reversals of fortune gracefully. Moreover, they don't blame themselves for their plight. For the Muslim world, it's the West who's to blame. History never repeats itself exactly, but we might benefit from the knowledge of factors leading to the decline of past great civilizations. Rome was one of those advanced civilizations. Rome was so caught up in "bread and circuses" and moral decline that it couldn't manage to defend itself from invading barbaric hordes who ultimately plunged Europe into the Dark Ages. The sooner we recognize the West is in a war for survival, the more likely we'll be able to escape the fate that befell the Roman Empire.

I don't think I have hardly ever seen a Muslim working anywhere but a convenience store.

Go back to blowin' your bulls.

I drink beer. I don't do it at work. It is possible to repress taking action, based on a feeling or desire, when loss of your livelihood is at stake.

Ain't much changed in 3/4ths of a century.

Looks like Lebanese terrorists were involved.

You have demonstrated your ignorance quite clearly to all. No need me going on with this. The fact is marijuana should be legal, heroin should be legal, suicide should be legal. Adults should have the freedom to pursue happiness however they choose, regardless of how stupid a tyrannical majority think they are.

Yep, we got politicians that suck up to Farrakhan when the Nation of Islam is simply a mirror image of the Klan.

From the majority decision NAACP vs. Alabama 'It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the 'liberty' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. . . . Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.'' As I have already stated, but let me repeat for the benefit of some, government employees are protected by the 1st Amendment. The officer should not be fired for his association with the klan on constitutional grounds.

I don't waste my time on fools who are incapable of following a thread. Short-term memory problems are quite common with dopers such as yourself. You are incapable of even reading your own links.

They should be allowed to, angie. This does not mean they should. Without laws few employers would fire a good employee for being pregnant. Pinko liberals do not understand the power of the free market in reducing odious labor practices.

Once again you have proven you are an idiot. Try reading your own thread on EEOC laws. The fact is businesses with less than 15 employees are exempt from most anti-discrimination laws. Try growing a brain, jhony. Yes, an employer should, in the absence of a contract, be able to fire at will. Sorry I ain't a pinko liberal like you.

Let me repeat my quotation of JS Mill for those who cannot follow threads. The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

You are truly dumber than toast.

Are you saying children are dumber than rodents.

I cain't help it you have a low level of comprehension. Why do Chinese restaurants get to hire all chinks? Of course my original argument was public employees have 1st amendment protections that private employees do not have. This case has nothing to do with discrimination, it has to do with the 1st amendment. Folks, what this comes down to is rights of association which are derived from the 1st Amendment. Most of the relevent, for this case, rights of association USSC rulings were made in favor of civil rights organizations, such as the NAACP, that were being harrassed by state and local governments in the '50's. Somewhat ironically, these decisions also protect members of the Klan. People exercise their free speech through organizations.

Give credit when you quote, pedoboy.

Someone needs to learn to follow a thread.

No, they do not. Ever been in a Chinese Restuarant and notice all their employees were chinks? Just confess you are a dumbfuck.