Close USA borders to Arab world?

It is incredible to me that there are intelligent people posting here who seem to equate denying entry to certain potential immigrants and visitors with the actions of Nazi Germany, the profiling of black US citizens, ethnic cleansing, et cetera.

There is no basic right to visit or relocate to the USA. Denying some group entry to the USA is not equivalent to putting them in jail, fining them, gassing them, making them wear an identifying label, et cetera.

How can intelligent people equate denying entry to the atrocities perpetrated by Nazi Germany? Initially, Nazi Germany was denying basic rights to citizens of their country, and later they were slaughtering millions. Posts to this thread imply that these policies are somehow equivalent to denying arabs entry to this country. Are there people here who really equate these policies? I have no respect for people with such a lack of critical judgment capabilities. In fact I have contempt for them.

Note that I too can use the fallacious ad hominem argument, which seems to be a popular strategy at this forum.

Stopping a black without probable cause is harassment and a denial of rights to citizens, which would be fundamentally wrong even if it were highly effective. Furthermore, most of the criminals in this country are Caucasian, and if you add to them the small number of Hispanic and Oriental criminals, you readily see that profiling blacks misses a huge majority of criminals. So profiling black citizens is fundamentally wrong as well as being counter productive and probably stupid.

Denying arabs and/or Islamics entry to this country does not threaten any basic right. While such a policy would deny entry to many peaceful people, there is reason to believe that it could be effective. Any peaceful people being denied entry by this policy are not being put in jail, fined, being denied freedom, or being denied property rights.

BTW: I did not advocate the total closure of our borders to all potential visitors and immigrants. There were some here who suggested that I was advocating such a policy. I see no reason to defend an idea I did not advocate, and consider such posts to have little or no merit.

Those who have brought up questions about the practicality and/or effectiveness of the policy have shown intelligence and some valid arguments against the policy. I would not call such arguments stupid or irrational. At least one such person complained that I ignored his post. I am sorry about that, but was more inclined to reply to the stupid irrational posts. Somebody objected to my overusing the word fallacious, so here I am substituting stupid and/or irrational. I still consider my view plausible, but admit to being impressed with those who consider it impractical. I suspect that the best argument against the policy is cost effectiveness, but I am not sure that any worthwhile policy is going to be cheap.

As for several who made ad hominem arguments, You are probably diseducated, nonintelligent, and not couth.

To those who use implied obscenities: May all of your sons be sterile and may all of your daughters give birth to the offspring of syphilitic camels who are both poor and ugly. I refrain from blasphemies and obscenities in favor of Arabic style curses. I consider this art form one of the few great contributions to civilization made by the arab culture.

Fair enough Guv. :)

:(

I refer you to my previous post:

Quote:

---

I heard yesterday that the US is denying right to trial to two Brits in camp x-ray. What rights do US citizens have over them? None, but they still get a trials.

Also in the news from a few weeks back, 94% of the Arab world and 73% of Brits are against military action against Iraq by the US.

And another few: the US pours over £9bn into Israel each year, compared with the £105m that Palestine gets from the United Nations.

Closing US borders to the Arab world would almost certainly not cause a world war, since most of that population aren't interested in what happens to the US, just that they get left alone by it.

To put it quite frankly, the Bush administration is doing a pretty bollocks job of keeping world peace. To this day American bombs still end up in civilian/public buildings in Afghanistan. The only good thing about Bush having won 18 months back is that he is a LOT more interesting to listen to than Al "I'm a boring old fart" Gore.

---

All I have to say is that tomorrow I leave for the US on a holiday (that's "vacation" to you), and I am looking forward to spending 3 hours queueing at US Immigration Control alongside hundreds of other people who are scrutinized because the US doesn't trust the words "British Citizen" on a passport. To be frank, the Arab world doesn't get scrutinized much more than we do, and that should be the way it stays.

Where in the US are you going?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee


If you think the terrorists threatened US by the 9/11 attacks, and if you think it's just to bombard "part of Afghanistan" or the Al Qaeda camps in a foreign country, why does your government advice the Indian government of exercising restraint? It has been proved that the militants operating in J&K and largely responsible for other violent acts are based in Pakistan. Why doesn't the US let India attack and destroy these bases? Or more importantly why doesn't the US back and help India in such attempts? This entire Afghanistan-Al Qaeda thing has convinced me finally that the US government is nothing but the worst kind of selfish people I can ever find. When it's the question of their honour, they don't hesitate in putting their troops in a foreign country, bully the president of the country into helping them, and then bombard another foreign country. As if they own the world. And when it comes to some other country's honour, they talk world peace and exercising restraint. Why, only the US has the right to protect herself. The rest of the nations should turn to US for their own protection, is it?

---

I think I can answer your first question. The reason they are asking the Indian government to exercise restraint is because both India and Pakistan have been at each other’s throats for a long time now. Any attack by India on Pakistan will only make matter worse and could escalate the conflict into a nuclear exchange. This is turn could destabilize the whole area and could possibly lead to another world war. Something I’m sure no one wants including you. So I highly doubt the US will advocate or back any attack on either side and will continue to push for peace between the two nations.

The US going into Afghanistan to topple the Taliban government for backing terrorists that have killed thousands around the globe is an entirely different matter. People seem to forget that the Taliban also oppressed its own people and were especially brutal to the women of Afganistan. The US has liberated the Afgan people, killed or captured many of the top leaders responsible for terrorist attacks, and has tried to foster a more democratic government while providing aide to help rebuild the country.

You seem to want the US to not defend itself against state sponsored terrorism that kills innocent civilians around the world and to not foster peace between India and Pakistan? And you want the US to let India attack Pakistan? Are you mad? You do realize all the innocent people that would be killed if war broke out between those two countries. I’m trying hard to understand your logic here but it’s making no sense to me. Let me try to envision Honeybee’s perfect world.

1) The US stays out of Afghanistan and Bin Laden continues to operate a full-scale terrorist organization backed by the Taliban government. In turn Bin Laden continues to kill more innocent civilians in the US and in other countries. The Taliban government also continues to oppress its own people much to the dismay of human rights groups around the globe.
2) The US stays out of the India and Pakistan conflict and lets them resolve it on their own. Eventually without a strong supporter for peace the two nations decide to go to war. A small nuclear exchange between both nations results in the deaths of millions of innocent people.
3) Honeybee is happy because the US is not trying to meddle in foreign affairs and not using its military to defend itself.

Sounds like utopia huh? At least you would be happy. To bad it has to come at the cost of many innocent lives.

Quote:

---

If the Japanese can produce better cars than the Americans and by using lesser steel, I think I would say Japan is technologically more advanced. Rather than focussing on big flashy and noisy cars, they seem to have concentrated on a more functional car. I don't know much about the US import and export laws, but I am sure we shall find some interesting facts out of them aimed at stopping the Japs taking over the US markets. I heard a few months back that the Japs control most major Hollywood studios.

---

Wow the US trying to protect its own business and jobs in its own country! Imagine that. And if I think if you look at the Japanese import and export laws I think you will find them much more strict as to what they allow in. Hollywood studios? Talk about coming out of left field. What does that have to do with anything?

Quote:

---

Coming to think of it, when the US is trying to disarm and de-nuke "other" countries under the pretext of making the world a safer place to live, I think Japan has actually presented a very good example of what a country can do by actually not spending a dime on military. And forget not, my dear friend, this situation is the US's own doing. If they hadn't nuked Japan, this would never have occured. The US didn't agree to protect Japan out of sympathy or world peace. They have been paying for their heinous act.

---

The US is the protector of Japan because after they surrendered the agreement stated that they were not allowed to keep a military. Protecting them and not letting them have a military is not done out of sympathy, its so the Japanese do not attempt to attack their neighbors again. As for dropping the two nukes, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than the nuclear blasts and that was achieved through conventional means. Historians also believe that dropping the two bombs brought a quick end to what would have been a very long and very bloody invasion of Japan that would have resulted in more loss of life on both sides. And if you want an account of truly heinous acts look into what the Japanese did to the nations they conquered during WWII or to the PoW’s they captured.

California, Utah, Wyoming.

War records have proved that Japan surrendered because they did not want to fight Russia, the Russians had just sent 2 armies to their eastern borders.

GlenW

Quote:

---

War records have proved that Japan surrendered because they did not want to fight Russia, the Russians had just sent 2 armies to their eastern borders.

---

Yeah, right! :rolleyes:

:(

The US had asked the Russians to enter into the war against the Japanese earlier to put pressure on them. The Russians chose to wait, as they didn’t want to commit their forces on a new front if they didn’t have to. The Russians heard about the American “super weapon” and decided to wait to see what would happen. After the US dropped both bombs on Japan the Russians finally declared war. The Japanese surrendered after the 2nd bomb was dropped. The Russian contribution on the Japanese front was almost nil.

The Russians also didn’t have the naval forces to support an invasion of the Japanese homeland. This would have been left up to the Americans. Most Historians believe it was the destruction of the prized Japanese Navy and the dropping of the 2 Atomic bombs that forced the Japanese to surrender, not the last minute declaration of war by the Russians.

:(

:(

Ahhh thank you for the correction.

Correctly stated would be the Russians finally decared war after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guv
The bolded comments are my reply to Ksin

[The above is a cheap condescending shot, intended to imply that you are so much smarter than I am that my opinions iare obviously ridiculous. This is a subtle version of the fallacious ad hominem argument, and I resent it.

---

Sorry Guv - I don't want this to be a personal grudge match - my VBForums traffic is a bit sparce at present owing to various things so its taken a little time to get back to this. It was certainly not meant as a personal shot but simply in the spirit of VBF - it was just banter. Actually you almost always benefit from the inverse of the ad hominem argument - i.e. when you say something that seems to be up to Kovan standard I think we still read it carefully and respond even if we would have just scoffed and added the poster to the bocked list if it had been anyone else.

Anyway - I'll try to address your points in the civilized way as soon as I can and keep the 'banter' down if it upsets you (wry but serious grin).

the u.s shud actully ban entry for muslims into their country , that wud help considerably and that doesnt count as racial discrimination

Wudn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by railroadroamer

the u.s shud actully ban entry for muslims into their country , that wud help considerably and that doesnt count as racial discrimination

---

if u ban muslims from the US, wouldn't that essentially be racial discrimination at its worst? I mean we aren't just banning a country, we are banning the entire Muslim population from entering the country. That would certainly turn muslims and muslim countries against the US

It would be a lot easier and cheaper to shoot them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by venerable bede
It would be a lot easier and cheaper to shoot them.

---

and then see the empire state building go up in flames

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
and then see the empire state building go up in flames

---

What do muslims do in mecca..........play bingo?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by venerable bede
What do muslims do in mecca..........play bingo?

---

lol... lets not get into this... too many muslims on the board.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
lol... lets not get into this... too many muslims on the board.

---

Im scared.

Will Jamie ban me for being politically incorrect:(

Please no .....no....no.................................aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrgggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

I will lick your boots Jamie........you know those latex ones.

;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by venerable bede
Im scared.

Will Jamie ban me for being politically incorrect:(

Please no .....no....no.................................aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrgggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

I will lick your boots Jamie........you know those latex ones.

;)

---

no.. that wasnt my point... i would refrain from bashing any religion except my own :)

ok.. where were we... bingo? i thought they have an international chess tournament there...

Being a good Catholic thees nothing I like better then a bit of Papist humour.

Wait a minute.........................

Just checking for lightning.;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
I agree with you 99% Gaffa. Iraq was soundly beaten strategically. I compare it to a football game where the score is 120 to 0 and both teams say screw it and walk off of the field. IMHO there is not "one country" in the world that could single handedly take out the US in a war.

---

The city of Newcastle upon Tyne formally declares war on the United States of America.

Be afraid........be very afraid.

Right lads get the broon ale bottles at the ready.;)

An entertaining argument. I particularly enjoy the politcal incorrectness of it all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by venerable bede
What do muslims do in mecca..........play bingo?

---

They "play" sex and do a lot of other things.:rolleyes:

Why don't you all find something better to do than go on a "Chit Chat Forum" and ask stupid questions then post stupid replies to them. It's kinda sad I even passed by this post while searching for Physics VB Code, but you queers need to get a life and stop being racist, skeptical, and cocky. None of you are any better than any of the terrorists from September 11. LOL it's kinda sad but true. BTW, I am an arab, no i'm not muslim, and yes I am a good citizen who contributes to society and thinks that people like you don't deserve to live because you are a waste of space in this country. What makes you think you have the right to say who to "ban" from this country when the country was originally filled with indians. You ain't better than any terrorist if you're all gonna be disrespectful and stereotypical!

Yea not all Arabs are bad, look at the guy in Office Space.
They shouldnt have let a whole $hitload come over though , what the hell was my goverment thinking?

INF3RN0666 At least I do not question the right to life or liberty: Only the right to come to the USA.

Quote:

---

I am an arab, no i'm not muslim, and yes I am a good citizen who contributes to society and thinks that people like you don't deserve to live

---

You set a fine example for the Arab world: If you disagree with me, you have no right to live.

How many people think that everybody in the world has the right to come to the USA?

BTW: I believe that the Indians got a raw deal, but they were not the only ones in the history of mankind that lost out to a more powerful (successful?) culture.

You will not stop terrorism by stopping arabs from entering the country. Terrorists could be anywhere - since this is largely a terror based on religion you would have to ban all muslims!
Not forgetting that the hijackers were afghani? What about the syrians? shall we ban al immigration from the middle east? Oh and then you have to think of the muslims/arabs that have attained citizenship elsewhere - what if they are flying on a swiss passport for example? As someone else said - you would have to ben all arab 'looking' people and that is racial discrimination.
My dad looks arab!!

Pardon me if this post is a little higgeldy piggeldy - i went to ben at 4 and cant think straight :)

post hoc, ergo proctor hoc

Quote:

---

Originally posted by evexa
...Pardon me if this post is a little higgeldy piggeldy - i went to ben at 4 and cant think straight :)

---

Sounds like you lap danced your brains out for ben!

;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guv
INF3RN0666 At least I do not question the right to life or liberty: Only the right to come to the USA.

---

Hello Guv. I see that the debate continues (although I must admit that I haven't followed it closely)!

I still view your original stated position as equivalent to 'banning all Irishmen from Britain' - inflamatory, divisive and falling into the aims of the terrorist - to disrupt the normal procedures and erode the ethical position of the nation under attack.

More recently its emerging that its possible that there may be serious issue that over the next few decades you *may* also have to ban EU citizens, Russians and South Americans as each of these contains a significant subset of hostile 'aliens'.

Currently these do not carry out armed attacks on the US but if the US plays into their propaganda by becoming more isolated and xenophobic this may be one form of response.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guv
INF3RN0666 At least I do not question the right to life or liberty: Only the right to come to the USA.

---

Hello Guv. I see that the debate continues (although I must admit that I haven't followed it closely)!

I still view your original stated position as equivalent to 'banning all Irishmen from Britain' - inflamatory, divisive and falling into the aims of the terrorist - to disrupt the normal procedures and erode the ethical position of the nation under attack.

More recently its emerging that its possible that there may be serious issue that over the next few decades you *may* also have to ban EU citizens, Russians and South Americans as each of these contains a significant subset of hostile 'aliens'.

Currently these do not carry out armed attacks on the US but if the US plays into their propaganda by becoming more isolated and xenophobic this may be one form of response.

All I see here are politically correct Pavlovian knee-jerk reactions with no critical judgement being applied.

First, I have yet to see any significant Arab or Islamic moderates condemn the actions of the terrorists. I have seen all sorts of Arab/Islamic approval and attempts to justify terrorists acts.

Second, closing our borders to Arabs and Islamics denies no one of any inherent right. It is not equivalent to denying life or liberty.

Third, the Irish in England have engaged in nothing like the type of activity that the Arab/Islamic terrorists do.

Quote:

---

I still view your original stated position as equivalent to 'banning all Irishmen from Britain' - inflammatory, divisive and falling into the aims of the terrorist - to disrupt the normal procedures and erode the ethical position of the nation under attack.

---

What ethics are being eroded? Do we not have the right to exclude any whom we consider detrimental to our society from entering out country? The Swiss deny entry to almost anybody who is not either affluent or possessing needed technical skills.

Fourth, as stated before, profiling of American Blacks does not even begin to be equivalent to banning Arabs & Islamics. If you look at crime statistics in the USA, Caucasian Americans commit more crimes than any other group, with Hispanics and some other ethic groups doing their share. Profiling blacks would not get a large percentage of the criminals, while denying some fundamental rights to innocent American citizens. Excluding Arabs and Islamics from any country of origin would target a majority of the terrorists without denying any innocent person a fundamental right, unless you believe that every body with the desire to come to the USA has a right to be admitted.

Fifth, many affluent and influential Arabs & Islamics want to come to the USA for jobs and/or education, especially education. The Arab/Islamic world has hardly any decent colleges, universities, or research centers, medical schools, et cetera. Banning entry might cause them to make some attempt to discourage terrorists acts. As of now, there is no downside to their failure to speak out against terrorist activities. The Arab/Islamic world needs our technology and educational facilities far more than we need their oil.

Sixth, the USA could afford to be very exclusive, allowing entry only to those with special skills or financial resources. We would still have many of the best and brightest knocking at our door, and would not have to put up with a large number of undesirable aliens.

There were a few posts mentioning it being impractical or ineffective to close our borders to Islamics and Arabs. Aside from those posts, I have seen no counter arguments with merit.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guv
All I see here are politically correct Pavlovian knee-jerk reactions with no critical judgement being applied.

---

I see that everyone who does not agree completely with your view is being bundled together under the same slogans. This is getting rather like a discussion with Kovan.

I entered this discussion thinking that Europeans could learn a lot from Dale Carnegie. I see that there are some Americans who might too.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guv

First, I have yet to see any significant Arab or Islamic moderates condemn the actions of the terrorists. I have seen all sorts of Arab/Islamic approval and attempts to justify terrorists acts.

---

This must reflect the media available to you. I see regular, daily condemnation by Arab leaders of the actions of terrorists on the BBC. Obviously you might say this is selective - they have just interviewed chosen puppets - but that applied both ways in the media.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guv


Second, closing our borders to Arabs and Islamics denies no one of any inherent right. It is not equivalent to denying life or liberty.

---

I certainly said nothing about *rights* - only about other nations perceptions of the United States. Of course any soveriegn country has the right to block national, companies or organizations from any country. If other nations (perhaps spearheaded by the French led EU) used this as an excuse to block free trade or expel US corporations that would also be their *right*. I don't think that that it is in US interests. This is not a knee jerk reaction - simply an observation of the extent of US international investment and trade and the level of long term investment that the US has put into world trade.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guv


Third, the Irish in England have engaged in nothing like the type of activity that the Arab/Islamic terrorists do.

---

I'm a very surprised that you are not better informed about this. Presumably this is something suppressed in the US press and education system. The casualties from the current troubles in Ireland are approximately 3500 - including many civilians - in the UK - a similar level to that the US has suffered from Arab terrorism (WTC Attack 2,792)

However the UK population is about one fifth of the US level.

Note also that they have had their autonomous homeland (which is what they deserved) for over 80 years now - the Palestinians haven't had theirs yet (I know - our fault under Balfour - and the wishy wash UNs fault too;)).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guv
The Swiss deny entry to almost anybody who is not either affluent or possessing needed technical skills.

---

Are we talking about closing borders or denying citizenship? You need to get this clear. I've often driven, walked, rode by train into Switzerland many times without even having my passport checked. There are no paranoid Swiss border measures.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guv
What ethics are being eroded? Do we not have the right to exclude any whom we consider detrimental to our society from entering out country?

---

Again I'm surprised that you can't see that if you screen, monitor or even restrict movements of people on the basis of intelligence information that consitutes a positive contribution to security.

Conversely if you block on purely racial grounds then it alienates any possible friends and builds up a justifiable hatred where none may previously have existed.

Yeah - let's ban all the Arabs because of Sept 11th. Also, while we are at it, can we ban all the Christians, after all, wasn't it a fundamentalist Christian who was responsible for the Oklahoma City Bombing.....

Personally, I agree with Kzin on pretty much all of his recent comments.

I live in America and can tell you that the media is tainted. In fact I try and get all of my news from BBC which I find to be the most objective of news sources out there.

NO immigrants should be allowed in the country. All current immigrants should be deported. Therefore, only Americans will be a threat to blowing up America and I doubt that'll happen.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WiKiDJeFF
Personally, I agree with Kzin on pretty much all of his recent comments.

I live in America and can tell you that the media is tainted. In fact I try and get all of my news from BBC which I find to be the most objective of news sources out there.

---

You mean the same BBC that was banned from going aboard any Royal Navy ships due to slanted and inaccurate reporting? The same BBC that had its own reporters complaining of slanting stories during the latest Gulf War?

I would find another source. The reason why you might feel the BBC is the most objective is they print exactly what you feel so you feel comfortable with it. My advice to you would be to check multiple sources to get your information and rely less on the obviously slanted and politically motivated BBC.

X

Of course I verify everything I read on BBC with the NY Times, C-Span, and sometimes MSNBC. If you have some other sources that you like I'd be happy to hear them. I'm always looking for new news outlets. I just like the BBCs format thats why I go to them first.

The only news agency that I don't use is Fox News for obvious reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
You mean the same BBC that was banned from going aboard any Royal Navy ships due to slanted and inaccurate reporting? The same BBC that had its own reporters complaining of slanting stories during the latest Gulf War?

---

A wide based balanced, non-partisan viewpoint designed to hook even your enemies into listening to you is not the sort of thing that is necessarily good for troop moral in a combat situation.

The requirements of the BBC and the Navy in a combat situation are different - barking out clear simple orders that need no reflection or consideration doesn't make good journalism and will convert no neutrals.

So yes - I understand the 'embedded' reporters were getting a hard time in the ward room. If I were a Naval Officer going into action I'd want ban them too :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith


I would find another source. The reason why you might feel the BBC is the most objective is they print exactly what you feel so you feel comfortable with it.

---

Comfortable? Not me. The reason why the BBC has such a widespread acceptance worldwide (about twice the worldwide viewer levels of CNN - which is number two in viewers worldwide) is that they aim to present a range of views and allow a voice to many different factions - which they then - admittedly use to shape their own conclusions (who wouldn't ;)). Of the mass media they therefore

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
My advice to you would be to check multiple sources to get your information
X

---

I would agree with that entirely!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by B-Rabbit
NO immigrants should be allowed in the country. All current immigrants should be deported. Therefore, only Americans will be a threat to blowing up America and I doubt that'll happen.

---

This will leave lots of room for the native americans who will find it a lot more spacious without all these beezers who have crowded them out since 1492 :cool:

Quote:

---

Therefore, only Americans will be a threat to blowing up America and I doubt that'll happen.

---

I'd have to disagree with both parts of this statement. :p

Well, I mean, if you're not a citizen of the country you should be deported.

Isn't it funny how the USA ignores the Ireland/UK troubles for decades but as soon as the US gets a bloody nose they take an interest in Terrorists?

As for closing borders to Arabs, that is known as racial discrimination. And in the end, if a terrorist wants to get into your country they will always find a way, no matter what security is put in place.

Just think, since the massively increased security on international flights (mostly due to paranoia), not one international terrorist has been caught going through. Interesting ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Isn't it funny how the USA ignores the Ireland/UK troubles for decades but as soon as the US gets a bloody nose they take an interest in Terrorists?

---

Isn't it funny how, when you read about how somebody got mugged, you just take another bite of your bagel, but when you yourself get mugged, you buy a shotgun and sit on your porch, just waiting for some rotten, stinking, slimey, theiven criminal to try to sneak up on you to rob you blind?

Quote:

---

As for closing borders to Arabs, that is known as racial discrimination. And in the end, if a terrorist wants to get into your country they will always find a way, no matter what security is put in place.

---

Yep. You're right. Lets get rid of all security. Absolutely no need for it whatsoever. It fails 1 percent of the time. Totally unacceptable!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotLKH

Isn't it funny how, when you read about how somebody got mugged, you just take another bite of your bagel, but when you yourself get mugged, you buy a shotgun and sit on your porch, just waiting for some rotten, stinking, slimey, theiven criminal to try to sneak up on you to rob you blind?

---

True, true. I just can't understand how people can hate someone that they have never met so much :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotLKH

Yep. You're right. Lets get rid of all security. Absolutely no need for it whatsoever. It fails 1 percent of the time. Totally unacceptable!

---

Chill dude! :ehh:
I didn't say anything about STOPPING security. Just implied that security at the moment is getting out of hand.
For example, I am going to Florida this year for a wedding. I am having to apply for a visa just to go on holiday!?! What's that all about!?!
Apparently though Bush had about 50 separate warnings about the 9/11 attacks but they never took any notice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

True, true. I just can't understand how people can hate someone that they have never met so much :confused:

---

Neither could 3000 + people that got killed for going to work a few years back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demotivater

Neither could 3000 + people that got killed for going to work a few years back.

---

I agree, it just doesn't make sense!?!
In the end we are all made of the same stuff so why all the differences? :confused: :ehh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Apparently though Bush had about 50 separate warnings about the 9/11 attacks but they never took any notice.

---

Too bad the supposed warnings weren't so specific as to mention the actual day/time/method/location/perp.

:wave:

True, but you'd have thought they would have upped security on internal flights :ehh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

I agree, it just doesn't make sense!?!
In the end we are all made of the same stuff so why all the differences? :confused: :ehh:

---

Indeed we are. But we are not all educated the same way.

...and that's the sad thing.
Most religion's teach that they are right and everyone else is wrong. This breeds misunderstanding and hatred for others, and that is pathetic.

It's all about respect, and not enough people respect others. :(