Close USA borders to Arab world?

**Guv** · Jul 18th, 2002, 03:49 PM

Perhaps USA should drastically reduce visits and immigration from the Arab world until the threat of terrorism goes away.

I recently read an article which claimed that there are nearly 100,000 people from the Arab world coming to the USA each year. Some on temporary Visas, some as students, some as tourists, and some as immigrants.

If we shut our borders, it should motivate many Arabs to aid us in tracking down terrorists. Obviously, it would make it more difficult for terrorists to operate inside our borders.

Our government was willing to incarcerate American citizens of Japanese ancestry during World War two, which was outrageous in the absence of any evidence that they were potential spies or saboteurs. If we did that, why not get rid of Arabs who are not citizens?

**simonm** · Jul 18th, 2002, 03:52 PM

What are you going to base it on?

Ban all arab "looking" people from entering or just those who come from arab countries? Because that's the problem. There are many sympathetic arabs who are citizens all round the world. You might have to ban anyone that looks like an arab and that could lead to accusations of racial discrimination.

It's dodgy ground, for sure.

Jethro · Jul 18th, 2002, 04:10 PM

Now this is just stupid .., l'm in agreement with Simonm ... yes l may need to take a serious look at myself

Oz has a large ex - Arab community, and some of those guys aren't muslim, do you also ban Australians from the US....

BG · Jul 18th, 2002, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Jethro

Oz has a large ex - Arab community, and some of those guys aren't muslim, do you also ban Australians from the US....

I vote yes. Those damn auzzies keep coming over here bringing their bitter beer and kangaroo porn. Enough is enough already.

**Guv** · Jul 18th, 2002, 05:51 PM

Maybe just ban anybody not willing to say that Mohammed is a piece of s**t and Allah is not the true god.

There is a history of unjustified racial profiling in the USA. Much of it is based on sterotypes which have more to do with poverty than race. Stopping a black for no reason on the Jersey turnpike is outrageous and has some, but very little, evidence that it is a good idea.

On the other hand, the Islamic terrorists fit a very definite profile. It is true that many who fit this profile are innocent of terrorist activity. However, almost 100% of the terrorists do fit this profile: 17-40 years old, Arab, Islamic.

Note that it cannot be claimed that almost 100% of those fitting the black profile are criminals.

It bothers me that the unjust black profiling is being used as a reason for not profiling potential Arab terrorists.

**Pickler** · Jul 18th, 2002, 06:07 PM

The stupidest thing I have heard all day...it is still early though

Besides...surely the current system of having a checkbox on your immigration cards saying 'Are you a terrorist' works

**gaffa_reborn** · Jul 25th, 2002, 08:10 PM

Guv,

Re-read that last post of yours and tell be if you can see the logic flaw...

You claim that middle eastern terrorists are between 17-40 years old. Ok, so there's a profile. Can you prove that because most arab terrorists are in that age range then ALL middle eastern people is that age range are terrorists. Not f***in likely.

Grab some stats about the US prison population, and follow your logic through there. Hmmm, suddenly, if you're black and between about 17-40, then you're a criminal....

- gaffa

**Spetnik2** · Jul 25th, 2002, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by gaffa_reborn
Hmmm, suddenly, if you're black and between about 17-40, then you're a criminal....

- gaffa

No, but the chances are higher. (at least according to the way I learned probability and statistics

)

**crptcblade** · Jul 25th, 2002, 08:21 PM

Perhaps there's some merit to state-wide genocide. But no profiling, just kill everybody. We'll go in alphabetical, to be fair of course. Long live Mizzorah!

**Guv** · Jul 25th, 2002, 09:17 PM

Gaffa_Reborn: Perhaps you should reread my previous post more carefully. I do not have to reread it, because I remember and understand what I posted.

You posted the following

Can you prove that because most arab terrorists are in that age range then ALL middle eastern people is that age range are terrorists. Not f***in likely.

I never said that all 17-40 year old Arabs I terrorists. I see no reason to attempt to prove something I neither said nor believe. I also see no reason to use implied or actual obscenities, which are the hallmark of those poorly equipped to converse intelligently.

There really is a difference between profiling USA Blacks and foreign Arabs.

First: It is true that neither all 17-40 year old blacks are criminal nor are all 17-40 year old arabs terrorists.

Note however that not all USA criminals are blacks between the ages of 17 and 40. It cannot even be said that most USA criminals are blacks between 17 and 40. In fact, the USA has more Caucasian criminals than black criminals.

Hence, profiling 17-40 year old blacks would not result in finding a majority of the criminals. Furthermore, USA blacks are USA citizens with constitutional rights (A fact often ignored by our law enforcement personnel).

So far our experience has been that almost all terrorist activity against US citizens and property has been committed by foreign arabs between the ages of 17-40. We have good reason to expect more attempts at terrorism by this class of people.

If we did not allow 17-40 year old arabs into this country and deported all non US citizens fitting this profile, we could reasonably expect to prevent a lot of future terrorist activity.

It is true that we would also deport and exclude a large number of harmless people. However, these are not US citizens. Frankly, I do not think that any foreigner who wants to come here has a right to come here. Deporting or excluding them would violate no fundamental rights. Nobody faults Switzerland for exclusionary immigration policies. Nobody should fault any country for exclusionary policies when there is a war or a potential war.

As an atheist, I always viewed religion as an interesting academic subject. I used to think of Islam as just another major religion. Recent events have encouraged me to do some research into that faith. Now I think of them as being more like barbarians who are not yet civilized. Now I associate modern Islam with the barbaric religions which went in for human sacrifice, the Salem Witch trials, the Spanish inquisition and other barbarian uncivilized behavior.

Islam was born with a Jihad flavor, and set out about 1400 years ago to conquer the world for Islam. I am grateful for Charles Martel who defeated them soundly in Tours France back in 732. I have recently become aware that it is a common Islamic concept that believers need not treat infidels with honor, and are allowed to lie and deceive them. I see no reason to have more respect for Islamics than they have for me. A culture that breeds suicidal fanatics is a culture I want no part of. It is incredible to me that parents would rejoice over the martyrdom of their children. It is insulting and threatening to me to see Palestinians celebrating over the 9/11 destruction. I never had much sympathy for Palestinians. Now I have none.

BTW: The suicide in the name of Allah mentality is not new. There was an individual who ran a protection racket 800 or so years ago. He brain washed young believers into being suicidal assassins.

**SoCalled** · Jul 25th, 2002, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Pickler
The stupidest thing I have heard all day...it is still early though

Besides...surely the current system of having a checkbox on your immigration cards saying 'Are you a terrorist' works

Well it's work downunder Pickler, at the immigration desk they ask "Are you a flamin mongrel terrorist mate", since no major terrorist attacks in Oz, l give this the big thumbs up...

**Spetnik2** · Jul 25th, 2002, 10:08 PM

An American Airlines flight enroute from Los Angeles was diverted to Kansas City yesterday when a passenger was noticed attempting to light a fuse protruding from his rectum.

Flight Attendant Bunny Miller said she noticed the man seated in an aisle seat leaning forward and holding a cigarette lighter behind his legs. "I though he was just trying to light a fart," said Miller, "like our pilots are always doing on layovers. Then I saw this string-like thing hanging from his ass, and I got scared." She immediately called for assistance. Several male passengers subdued the man before he was able to light the fuse.

The passenger, Mohammed Bin Ali El Batout Nabeel Sin Abba Rahim Mansour Ali Baba, Age 25, was carrying fourteen passports from various countries throughout the middle east. Asked why he had stuffed himself full of plastic explosives, Ali Baba stated, "I was planning to blow the chit out of the plane. I wanted show that we are a peace loving people."

Airport security agents in Los Angeles remembered seeing Ali Baba as he boarded American flight 90. They were a bit concerned because his name would not fit on the front of the ticket, he was wearing a checkered tablecloth as a hat, looked like he was ready to kill someone, was reading an Al Quaeda
training manual and had on a 'F**k America' teeshirt.

According to Federal Airport Security standards, however, individuals cannot be profiled for additional security simply because they are young, middle-eastern men.

The security supervisor, Leroy Jackson, said he was somewhat concerned with the way Ali Baba walked. "Hell, man, the guy waddled like he had a stick of dynamite up his ass! Had I not been on the phone with my probation officer, I might have checked this guy out some more. But, we want and need complete diversity in our passenger screening," stated Jackson.

Federal officials are now referring to this latest terrorist attempt as a 'butt bomb'. "I'm not sure how were going to check for 'butt bombs'," stated Jackson.

**Pickler** · Jul 25th, 2002, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by SoCalled

Well it's work downunder Pickler, at the immigration desk they ask "Are you a flamin mongrel terrorist mate", since no major terrorist attacks in Oz, l give this the big thumbs up...

Exactly Jello, with such rigorous immigration requirements, its easy to keep terrorists and American rednecks out of the country.

**SoCalled** · Jul 25th, 2002, 10:32 PM

Have noticed the large Irish population in this country, clearly they have been worded up to answer "No wuckers mate"...

This information is of course to be keeped under wraps in case in falls into the hands of extremists and people from missouri..

**crptcblade** · Jul 25th, 2002, 10:36 PM

We don't hire Irish...they scavange all the potatoes.

**rjlohan** · Jul 25th, 2002, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by simonm
What are you going to base it on?

Ban all arab "looking" people from entering or just those who come from arab countries? Because that's the problem. There are many sympathetic arabs who are citizens all round the world. You might have to ban anyone that looks like an arab and that could lead to accusations of racial discrimination.

It's dodgy ground, for sure.

Impossible, plus, as one guy pointed out recently - what happens to people like that guy who had 'bombs' in his shoes on that aeroplane - he was as non-arab as they come. It's just racism, nothing more. And banning all 'arab' people from entering the country would only cause more trouble anyway. You wouldn't get more people helping find 'terrorists' - really, what is some poor IRanian farmer gonna do about massive terrorist organisations, anyway? - just more people out to 'get you back' for being arseholes.

**rjlohan** · Jul 25th, 2002, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by gaffa_reborn
Guv,

Re-read that last post of yours and tell be if you can see the logic flaw...

You claim that middle eastern terrorists are between 17-40 years old. Ok, so there's a profile. Can you prove that because most arab terrorists are in that age range then ALL middle eastern people is that age range are terrorists. Not f***in likely.

Grab some stats about the US prison population, and follow your logic through there. Hmmm, suddenly, if you're black and between about 17-40, then you're a criminal....

- gaffa

Furthermore, I'd be interested to see the relative life expectancies of some of those poorer 'arab' nations - chances are, 80%+ of the population don't live past 40 anyway...

**rjlohan** · Jul 25th, 2002, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by SoCalled

Well it's work downunder Pickler, at the immigration desk they ask "Are you a flamin mongrel terrorist mate", since no major terrorist attacks in Oz, l give this the big thumbs up...

And when they answer 'Yes', we give them the second chance "Well, OK, but do you drink beer?" option.

**SoCalled** · Jul 25th, 2002, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by rjlohan

And when they answer 'Yes', we give them the second chance "Well, OK, but do you drink beer?" option.

Ahhh that'll explain all the Irish getting into the country

**Dillinger4** · Jul 25th, 2002, 11:04 PM

I don't mind Arabs living in this country as long as they are willing to lend a hand in the effort. I think that some are starting to by helping the FBI by bridging the language barrier that exists between "non-arabs" and arabs. The people who i can't stand seem to fall in an age bracket of 18 - 25 who go to college in this country and then feel the need to bash by spurting out their political views. Im a white middle class citizen of this country and i can't even get into college because habib and his buddy hashmal get first dibs.

**SoCalled** · Jul 25th, 2002, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by rjlohan

Furthermore, I'd be interested to see the relative life expectancies of some of those poorer 'arab' nations - chances are, 80%+ of the population don't live past 40 anyway...

And 10% of those that do become either Game Show Hosts, or play soccer in France apparently....

**crptcblade** · Jul 25th, 2002, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by rjlohan
And banning all 'arab' people from entering the country would only cause more trouble anyway.

Good point. I think we should ban everybody from coming here. However, you could get in by allowing yourself to be subjected to a federally regulated ass-whoopin'.

**Dillinger4** · Jul 25th, 2002, 11:08 PM

I think that we should ban anyone from this country that drinks $hitty beer.

**simonm** · Jul 26th, 2002, 04:15 AM

Guv

Maybe just ban anybody not willing to say that Mohammed is a piece of s**t and Allah is not the true god.

That's not very helpful. I'm sure that would only discriminate against ordinary law abiding muslims and the dedicated terrorists would say whatever they needed to to complete their objective.

It bothers me that the unjust black profiling is being used as a reason for not profiling potential Arab terrorists.

It's called: "Learning from your mistakes". We learn from our mistakes in the past and set about to avoid them in the future.

So far our experience has been that almost all terrorist activity against US citizens and property has been committed by foreign arabs between the ages of 17-40. We have good reason to expect more attempts at terrorism by this class of people.

Ah, but America hasn't actually caught that many people has it? I heard that, so far, only one guy has been charged for his involvement in the tragedy of Sep 11th.

And let us not forget the Oklahoma bombings that was carried out by a red necked white American.

The problem with all this is that it is a myth that only Arabs are muslims. There are many muslims who are also black or white. Is it any wonder that mainly arab "looking" people have been arrested for terrorist acts in America so far? Is it because the authorities are mainly targeting arab looking people? Will thatt not just continue to perpetuate the myth?

It is true that we would also deport and exclude a large number of harmless people. However, these are not US citizens. Frankly, I do not think that any foreigner who wants to come here has a right to come here. Deporting or excluding them would violate no fundamental rights. Nobody faults Switzerland for exclusionary immigration policies. Nobody should fault any country for exclusionary policies when there is a war or a potential war.

Yes, many countries reject incommers but that is usually based on nationality and not racial characteristics.

When I went to Israel, certain nationalities were banned but even they would not discriminate against a purely arab looking person.

Perhaps it is reasonable to subject suspicious looking people to more rigerous searches but to have an outright ban based on racial characteristics is just down right wrong.

As an atheist, I always viewed religion as an interesting academic subject. I used to think of Islam as just another major religion. Recent events have encouraged me to do some research into that faith. Now I think of them as being more like barbarians who are not yet civilized. Now I associate modern Islam with the barbaric religions which went in for human sacrifice, the Salem Witch trials, the Spanish inquisition and other barbarian uncivilized behavior.

Most of that barbaric behaviour you outlined happened in Christianity only a few centuries ago.

Why do you let the actions of a tiny (but vocal) minority of muslims tarnish your whole attitude towards Islam? Do you let the actions of the Klu Klux Klan tarnish your attitude towards Christianity?

Islam was born with a Jihad flavor, and set out about 1400 years ago to conquer the world for Islam.

That simply is incorrect. Islam started in an, albiet expansionist, yet peaceful fashion. Initially, Islam existed quite happilly side by side with other religions and people were not forced to give up worship of other faiths. It was only later that they became more war like.

**Jim Brown** · Jul 26th, 2002, 04:30 AM

Guy at the immigration counter somewhere in Oz gets asked by the official: "G'Day, Mate. Streuth, Blue. Tie me kangaroo down Sport (...and other Oz type epithets) D'you have a criminal record?"

And so the guy says "No. Didn't know you still needed one"

Alternative ending "Yes- I have a copy of 'Singalonga Max Bygraves' in me bag."

**Gaffer** · Jul 26th, 2002, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by Guv
Perhaps USA should drastically reduce visits and immigration from the Arab world until the threat of terrorism goes away.

Now there's a thing - let's ban all Americans from the UK. The amount of money funded to Noraid justifies it....

**Kzin** · Jul 26th, 2002, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Jim Brown
Guy at the immigration counter somewhere in Oz gets asked by the official: "G'Day, Mate. Streuth, Blue. Tie me kangaroo down Sport (...and other Oz type epithets) D'you have a criminal record?"

And so the guy says "No. Didn't know you still needed one"

OK guys - so who is going the break it to Guv:

(1) Last time anyone tried the stunt that you were talking about was in Germany in the 1930's.

(2) America is sliding into a depression. Just what everone needs to have all US middle-east holdings seized and the US driven out of the middle east.

(3) Countries like Kazakhstan still have nukes http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/kazakhstan/ . If Islamic countries start to go down one by one to any foriegn power who is betting that these are not going to get handed out to other counties.

Hands up who wants to try to be more irrational in a tit-for-tat with these people?

PS. Guv - as you were asking my screen-name is named after Larry Niven's 'Ratcats'

**rjlohan** · Jul 28th, 2002, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by simonm

Do you let the actions of the Klu Klux Klan tarnish your attitude towards Christianity?

No, I let it tarnish my impression of seppos though.

Jim - that's a pisser joke, surprised I haven't heard it before.

**mendhak** · Jul 28th, 2002, 10:20 AM

Yes, close off the borders to all the Arabs.

That'll be the first step towards a Hitler-Germany type USA.

Wouldn't it be wonderful? We can then start rounding up all the resident Arabs and confining them to concentration camps. I like the way you think.

[non-sarcastic mode]
Easier said than done. Countries today are too intricately involved with each other for this to happen. Especially the US. The effects of the 'cut-off' would be huge, and sudden. And don't forget who has all the oil. (for now)
[/non-sarcastic mode]

**Guv** · Jul 28th, 2002, 09:39 PM

The bolded comments are my reply to Ksin

OK guys - so who is going the break it to Guv:

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.

(1) Last time anyone tried the stunt that you were talking about was in Germany in the 1930's.

Try being a bit more specific about the above. Mentioning Nazi Germany without a semblance of explanation to connect it to the discussion at hand is another fallacious argument. I do not remember Germany in the 1930's being forced to cope with terrorist activity. do you remember such circumstances? I forget the name of this one, but it involves fallaciously associating the other person's point of view with some obviously evil concept.

(2) America is sliding into a depression. Just what everone needs to have all US middle-east holdings seized and the US driven out of the middle east.

Oddly enough, in spite of the current drop in stock prices, the US economy itself is not in bad shape and is still the strongest economy in the world. The Arab world would have a lot to lose if they tried to drive us out of the Middle East and/or tried to start an economic war with us. They know this. They need our technology as much or more than we need their oil. Furthermore, the OPEC nations have never been unified enough to deny oil to the US. The US is a huge market for them, which would result in there being always be defectors from any attempt to embargo us. Just the worry over an advantage to be gained by somebody else defecting make the alliance shakey. Remember that we have reserves and sources other than the Mid East. We could not do without Mid East oil forever, but we could do without it long enough to cause some defectors.

(3) Countries like Kazakhstan still have nukes. If Islamic countries start to go down one by one to any foriegn power who is betting that these are not going to get handed out to other counties.

While some terrorist might try (or even succeed) to deliver a Nuke to the USA, no nation would dare. A nuke would have to be delivered without our being able to identify the source. They would have to be absolutely certain that we could not figure out the source. Otherwise, we would decimate the culprit. Rightly or wrongly, no US president or political party would be willing to stand the heat if we were hit with a Nuke and did not retaliate. They would lose the next election, which (to a politician) is worse than the sun going nova 5 years from now.

BTW: No matter what we do, some terrorist is likely to try (and perhaps succeed) to deliver a nuke, dirty bomb, or biological weapon.

Hands up who wants to try to be more irrational in a tit-for-tat with these people?

Nearly 100,000 people from Arab countries come here every year. Since we have good reason to suspect that some are likely to be terrorists, I do not consider it irrational to want to stop all arab visitors, or at least cut down drastically on arab immigration. Visting the US is not a basic right. As for Tit for tat, I do not think Americans would be hurt if not allowed to visit arab countries.

Mendhak: Another fallacious argument.

Wouldn't it be wonderful? We can then start rounding up all the resident Arabs and confining them to concentration camps. I like the way you think.

I never suggested putting resident arabs in concentration camps. I suggested not allowing arabs into the country and deporting arabs who are not citizens. You are arguing against what I suggested by claiming that I said something else. I agree, putting people into concentration camps without due process is evil.

For a site frequented by intelligent and well educated people, I am constantly amazed at the number of fallacious arguments presented. The above is a variant on knocking down a strawman. I wonder if those with intact critical judgment capabilities merely read controversial posts and laugh without ever posting.

This sort of subject matter is neither black nor white, but some shade of gray. Perhaps I am wrong, but you folks have yet to provide a convincing argument against my ideas.

**rjlohan** · Jul 28th, 2002, 09:50 PM

The most obvious argument against your proposal is that it is completely racist, and won't stop the problem. Case in point #1: The Oklahoma bombing (mentioned above). Case in point #2: John Walker (mentioned above). Neither of these two terrorists were in any way Arab, and at least one of them wasn't even a Muslim.

As for the nuke thing, nukes don't necessarily need to be brought into the country to be a workable attack. 1) it's conceivable that a well-prepared group could steal one from the US. You've got enough of the bloody things... 2) Air defense systems against a guided missile attack are hardly 100% accurate anyway, although granted, it would be conceivably difficult to move a strike unit close enough in the first place, but keep in mind, arrogance is the first step to downfall, or some such thingy like that...

Truth is, it will be a retarded bigot 'leader' who ever puts a move like this in place.

**gaffa_reborn** · Jul 28th, 2002, 10:29 PM

I don't think I've ever seen anybody use "fallacious" so often is a single post...

I don't think the reference to Nazi Germany was made in connection to terrorism. Think more along the lines of mass generalisations about a group of people, and you'll be about there.

I'm not so sure that the Middle Eastern countries need US technology more than the US needs Gulf oil. Most of the middle east is still pretty agrarian/tribal. They don't have the reliance on modern technology that the Western world does. But believe me - to lose the oil that the gulf states provide would cause severe issues in the US (as it would in most developed countries). Probably outcomes would be reduced industry, resulting in job losses, which it turn lead to increased dependence on welfare and on it goes.

Funnily enough, OPEC actually is reasonably unified. Whether it is unified enough to stop delivery is debatable. But then again, it really only has to increase the price per barrel to have an economic impact...

If a nuke is delivered by a terrorist, then it matters not where it came from. I think the point is not that a nation-state will deliver that nuke, but that sufficient material could obtained from some of these countries to stage such an attack. An in terms of decimation of the culprit, it's not that simple. If you know who your opponent is, and they have a country, a la Iraq, no problem. Bit harder to track down groups of people. Hell, almost a year on, you've still got no idea if you've beaten Al Quaeda - simply cos they are very difficult to pin down.

Nuclear retaliation is a step that would (hopefully) not be taken likely by the leader of any goverment. In doing so, it opens up a whole new can of worms.

And as pointed out before, the US probably has more terrorists coming from Ireland every year than it does from the middle east.

We are living in very interesting times... we haven't seen a similar level or terrorism since the mid 70's, and this time they seem a whole lot more organised, and with the introduction of suicide missions, far more dedicated and difficult to stop.

- gaffa

**crptcblade** · Jul 28th, 2002, 10:36 PM

I, for one, welcome that killer asteroid.

**simonm** · Jul 29th, 2002, 10:24 AM

Guv

This sort of subject matter is neither black nor white, but some shade of gray. Perhaps I am wrong, but you folks have yet to provide a convincing argument against my ideas.

Well, I noticed in your last post that you completely overlooked my most recent remarks. Either you missed my post or you believe my comments to be unworthy of a response.

However, I believe I have made a perfectly valid critisism to your proposal in that appearance is an unreliable way of determining a muslim faith, let alone terrorist intentions.

My main objection to your ideas are that it would hurt and inconveniance innocent muslims while the one's intent on terrorism will circumvent such a blunt mechanism anyway.

Not that you believe that there is such a thing as an innocent muslim. Judging by your remarks, I would say that you are intrinsically biased against the Islamic faith anyway:

I used to think of Islam as just another major religion. Recent events have encouraged me to do some research into that faith. Now I think of them as being more like barbarians who are not yet civilized.

**Merrion** · Jul 29th, 2002, 11:28 AM

I'm suprised that, following the conviction of Timothy McVeigh, the US government didn't immediately instigate a policy of rounding up all caucasian males under 30 years old - in the public interest, of course.

**chrisjk** · Jul 29th, 2002, 11:34 AM

looks to me like we need to open a can of whoop ass

**TheVoid** · Jul 29th, 2002, 02:46 PM

Rounding up individuals based on race creed or color, closing borders to those individuals is not the answer.

Set aside all the immoral and general bad karma that comes along with sterotyping and justifying that ppl of such religion are more likely yada yada, you miss one aspect.

Such acts would only encourage these activities. we are talking about a small minority who WANTS us to shun their kind, it aids in recruitment. If we start disriminating against individuals for what others have done, you only drive those ppl to join the side of the terrorist, Afterall if one organization shuns you, you only have two choices start your own or join another. So if the US says "STAY OUT" or deports someone of arabic decent to their home country and keeps them from ours. Well what would be easier, for them to start their own government, country, organization, or to just join one that is already functional and also powerful.

Now keep in mind that is very short and very broad, you obviously can't open your borders wide, or give complete freedom to everyone in your country, there is a middle ground that must be reached, but you get the general picture. The more you persecute a race, group, religion, the more members of that group will turn on you in defence. Therefore to maintain law etc.. you are forced to work your arse off to narrow it down to the individuals who have commited the crimes and act upon them and only them to the best of your ability.

Whether we like it or not, the US lives and breaths on trade and economy. We have to keep that in mind when we act also. It would be nice to say "It's not about money" but we would just be lieing, cause its always about money.

**OrdinaryGuy** · Jul 30th, 2002, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by Guv
Maybe just ban anybody not willing to say that Mohammed is a piece of s**t and Allah is not the true god.

There is a history of unjustified racial profiling in the USA. Much of it is based on sterotypes which have more to do with poverty than race. Stopping a black for no reason on the Jersey turnpike is outrageous and has some, but very little, evidence that it is a good idea.

On the other hand, the Islamic terrorists fit a very definite profile. It is true that many who fit this profile are innocent of terrorist activity. However, almost 100% of the terrorists do fit this profile: 17-40 years old, Arab, Islamic.

Note that it cannot be claimed that almost 100% of those fitting the black profile are criminals.

It bothers me that the unjust black profiling is being used as a reason for not profiling potential Arab terrorists.

Ok... firstly, I feel the idea of barring anyone on the basis of race from entering the US totally ridiculous. This comes down to nothing but racial discrimination and I would be against any such law if it ever came up to the senate (which I doubt it ever will). The US has already taken several steps to prevent terrorists elements from entering in. However, if the US are going though a period of considerable threats, I would see a more better alternative in banning any tourist from entering the country rather that selecting or targeting a certain race. I am not a Muslim so do not even ask but I do have strong feeling for the thought of introducing laws framed at targeting a community

**TheVoid** · Jul 30th, 2002, 08:40 AM

adopting a "mind your own business" policy only encourages terrorism, since it proves to the terrorists that their methods work. "Give them an inch, they will take a mile", is the old saying i believe. That type of policy isn't the answer, no matter what the circumstance. I am not saying that interfering with foreign affairs is right or wrong, its a case by case basis, you can't lay a blanket on all of it; however, adopting that form of policy will only encourage terrorists because you are giving them what they want. A mind your own business policy will encourage terrorism and increase the occurances of it. Does anyone think individuals with this mentality will just stop these acts and go open up a corner drug store, or buy a farm when you give them what they want? I doubt it, instead they will find something else they want and use these tactics to get it. Next they will just want a small state, say california, then maybe a small shipment of arms, say a nuke.

To cover our eyes and mind our own business is impractical, there is a whole world out there and believe me it doesn't want to be shut out

**OrdinaryGuy** · Jul 30th, 2002, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by TheVoid
adopting a "mind your own business" policy only encourages terrorism, since it proves to the terrorists that their methods work. "Give them an inch, they will take a mile", is the old saying i believe. That type of policy isn't the answer, no matter what the circumstance. I am not saying that interfering with foreign affairs is right or wrong, its a case by case basis, you can't lay a blanket on all of it; however, adopting that form of policy will only encourage terrorists because you are giving them what they want. A mind your own business policy will encourage terrorism and increase the occurances of it. Does anyone think individuals with this mentality will just stop these acts and go open up a corner drug store, or buy a farm when you give them what they want? I doubt it, instead they will find something else they want and use these tactics to get it. Next they will just want a small state, say california, then maybe a small shipment of arms, say a nuke.

To cover our eys and mind our own business is impractical, there is a whole world out there and believe me it doesn't want to be shut out

so whats your point? The US government should pass a law in favor of racial discrimination

Thread: Close USA borders to Arab world?

Thread Tools

Display

Close USA borders to Arab world?

Coiincidentally, someone just emailed me this

Time for an old joke....

Re: Close USA borders to Arab world?

Re: Time for an old joke....

Posting Permissions