4 Terrorists try to blow up Temple in New York

[rheno]

Such harsh words, can't we all just be friends?!

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Such harsh words, can't we all just be friends?!

Being nice only works for so long. After a while, the gloves do have to come off.

 

[dong20]

actually what is sounds like is that some of us would rather follow the postulates of an ideology, that all people are the same, that values and beliefs are irrelevant

so it becomes necessary to reach a conclusion required by that ideology in total disregard of any FACTS, or factual basis

so without knowing anything about a particular ideology, we can disregard whatever ideology is held

so whatever any people may think, believe or act upon, they are "just like us"

any one of us could have done it -- my Episcopalian blue-haired granny, my Presbyterian ultra-WASP sailing & SCUBA buddy, my Roman Catholic Hispanic FB, my Lutheran mixed race niece (still a toddler)

oh, my

fortunately the law enforcement authorities are not on this wavelength, and do take steps to monitor along factual, realistic profiles

Dress it up and rationalise all you like, but the above is among of your most insightful ... in that it reaffirms what I have long thought about you.

As for the underlying premise behind your post, it's primarily nonsense.

Ideology [or religion] is learned. Behaviour based upon that learning is conscious and deliberate. That you would seek to exclude your granny [et al] on the same grounds you would condemn others is no different than assuming anyone of [for example] Muslim faith is automatically worthy of suspicion.

Unless you have compelling evidence that elderly female Christians and SCUBA divers don't commit crime?

I'm not saying that one's [personal/religious/political] ideology stands apart from other aspects of one's person [age/gender/ethnicity etc.] or that these are of necessity in any way linked other than through choice and of course the latter are beyond personal control anyway - but that it's dangerous [to say the least] to formulate risk assessments, or reach character judgements based on either in isolation.

Profiling (or in this case judging) based on actual behaviour I have less problem with, but profiling solely on the basis of ethnicity [or religion] is rather different. Of course it's not just you, there are plenty like you ... and therein lies a root cause of so many of societal problems.

That said, I'm not ignorant of the fact that the line between the two is often blurred, but I maintain that it's important, vital in fact to distinguish between the person and the ideology, or to recognise when one has failed to do so.

In other words, it's not what what we are that defines us, and renders us worthy of suspicion (or not) but what we do. This is a vital distinction.

Stereotyping has value, in many respects it's intrinsic to our nature, but it should not when used as a blunt instrument when formulating policy or legislation.

 

[B_Nick4444]

In other words, it's not what what we are that defines us, and renders us worthy of suspicion (or not) but what we do. This is a vital distinction.

what we believe and perceive will guide what we will do -- as my granny and my SCUBA buddy are not Muslims, one cannot rationally expect them to go engage in Islamic jihad

stereotyping?

so, in your world a Smithy from one of our finest WASP Atlantic seaboard families is just as likely to strap on a belt of explosives underneath her cap and gown in a pursuit of jihadist martyrdom, as is a Pakistani villager?

interesting world you live in -- I'm glad I'm not in there.

 

[dong20]

what we believe and perceive will guide what we will do -- as my granny and my SCUBA buddy are not Muslims, one cannot rationally expect them to go engage in Islamic jihad

stereotyping?

so, in your world a Smithy from one of our finest WASP Atlantic seaboard families is just as likely to strap on a belt of explosives underneath her cap and gown in a pursuit of jihadist martyrdom, as is a Pakistani villager?

interesting world you live in -- I'm glad I'm not in there.

Of course.

As for your ridiculous inference, anyone with even half a brain would understand that's neither what I wrote, nor came within a million miles of meaning. I'd advise you not to make yourself look an even bigger fool than usual for suggesting I did, but it's clearly too late.

What I meant, and what I wrote was that there is a clear distinction between making reasonable assumptions (yes, even those based in stereotypes) and simple prejudice - even if the thought processes leading to a conclusion are based on the same criteria - age/gender/ethnicity/religion etc.

In actuality, as you could tell (or so I assumed of anyone with basic comprehension could) I was speaking to a broader context than just 'terrorism'. With hindsight, I should have narrowed my focus to meet your perception.

Still, it's interesting how it's almost always about muslims or ethnic minorities for you, isn't it (when it isn't 'liberals' of course) - the presumption of guilt or blame I mean. I wonder why that could be ... and yes that's rhetorical. Well, it's a problem you must resolve, not I.

I'm also glad I don't inhabit your world, albeit for very different reasons.

 

[B_Nick4444]

With hindsight, I should have narrowed my focus to meet your perception.

my post was narrowly drawn -- hence, it stated, by way of emphasis, the religions that the individuals I referenced were adherents of, to underscore the point being made

it takes a follower of Islam to engage in Islamic jihad

likewise, my response to your flight of fancy, was again to narrow the focus back to the original narrowly drawn statement

 

[B_Nick4444]

Still, it's interesting how it's almost always about muslims or ethnic minorities for you, isn't it (when it isn't 'liberals' of course) - the presumption of guilt or blame I mean. I wonder why that could be ... and yes that's rhetorical. Well, it's a problem you must resolve, not I.

there you go again -- so anyone can commit acts of Islamic terrorism?

 

[ZOS23xy]

Such harsh words, can't we all just be friends?!

Not if you're trying to injure or kill me.

The four were not very bright. But I'm amazed they let them continue as long as they did, after selling them fake bombs. That would have been a good clear signal instead of pushing the limits.

Part catching them, and part set up.

 

[dong20]

my post was narrowly drawn -- hence, it stated, by way of emphasis, the religions that the individuals I referenced were adherents of, to underscore the point being made

On the contary, your post (which I cited and responded to), was cast far and wide. It was in no small part the very lack of specificity that I objected to, the implied presumption of innocence, or guilt by association, gender ... ideology etc.

It made no mention of any specific ideology or religion, not a single one. Perhaps you should re-read it?

there you go again -- so anyone can commit acts of Islamic terrorism?

In the sense that anyone can be [or purport to be] a muslim, yes.

But since that wasn't what I said, and being a follower of Islam (or any other 'faith') neither precludes nor implies an intent to perpetrate terroristic acts, I fail to see the relevance of the observation.