Source

Airport body scanners violate Islamic law, Muslims say

By Niraj Warikoo

Saying that body scanners violate Islamic law, Muslim-American groups are supporting a �fatwa� � a religious ruling � that forbids Muslims from going through the scanners at airports.

The Fiqh Council of North America � a body of Islamic scholars that includes some from Michigan � issued a fatwa this week that says going through the airport scanners would violate Islamic rules on modesty.

�It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women,� reads the fatwa issued Tuesday. �Islam highly emphasizes haya (modesty) and considers it part of faith. The Quran has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts.�

The decision could complicate efforts to intensify screening of potential terrorists who are Muslim. After the Christmas Day bombing attempt in Detroit by a Muslim suspect from Nigeria, some have called for the use of body scanners at airports to find explosives and other dangerous materials carried by terrorists. Some airports are now in the process of buying and using the body scanners, which show in graphic detail the outlines of a person�s body.

But Muslim groups say the scanners go against their religion. One option offered to passengers who don�t want to use the scanners would be a pat down by a security guard. The Muslim groups are urging members to undergo those instead.

Two members of the Fiqh Council are from Michigan, Imam Hassan Qazwini of the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, and Imam Ali Suleiman Ali of the Canton Mosque. �Fiqh� means Islamic jurisprudence.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has a chapter in Michigan, says it endorses the fatwa.

�We support the Fiqh Council�s statement on full-body scanners and believe that the religious and privacy rights of passengers can be respected while maintaining safety and security,� said Nihad Awad, national executive director of CAIR.

Currently, there are 40 full-body scanners at 19 airports in the U.S., including two of them in Detroit, said spokesman Jim Fotenos of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). There are plans for 450 more body scanners in U.S. airports, he said.

In a statement, the TSA said it is committed to keeping passengers safe and also protecting their privacy.

"TSA's mission is to keep the traveling public safe. Advanced imaging technologies are an important tool in a multi-layered security system to detect evolving threats such as improvised explosive devices. TSA's use of these technologies includes strong protections in place to safeguard passenger privacy. Screening images are automatically deleted, and the officer viewing the image will never see the passenger.�

The TSA stressed that the body scanners are �optional to all passengers.� Those who turn them down, �will receive equivalent screening that may include a physical pat-down, hand-wanding, and other technologies. Physical pat-downs are performed by Transportation Security Officers of the same sex as the passenger in a private screening area, if the passenger requests.�

Body scanners �do not produce photos,� the agency said. Rather, the images �look like chalk outlines.�

Body scanner images are available at www.tsa.gov.

Fiqh Council advises Muslims on Islamic law

The Fiqh Council is based in Plainfield, Ind., where it is affiliated with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and advises Muslims on sharia, or Islamic law.

An earlier version of the group started in the 1960s with the Muslim Students Association of the United States and Canada. The chairman of the Fiqh Council is Muzammil Siddiqi, religious director of the Islamic Society of Orange County in California and former president of ISNA.

In its fatwa, the council said the use of body scanners �is against the teachings of Islam, natural law.�

Anybody else see the disconnect here?

If the images are automatically deleted, then where did the images at www.tsa.gov come from?

Then keep their rug heads off the airlines. No scanners - no air travel. There is no right to fly. Let 'em take the bus or a camel.

Sounds logical. There is a "right to travel" protected by the U.S. Constitution, but it does not grant carte blanche privilege to all modes of travel.

Since reading your first post, the disconnect is huge......

Thanksgiving dinner must be a hoot at Barak's house between the terrorists, anarchists and rapists.

I understand the overall debate from both sides. Singling out this particular, isolated issue and not involving myself with the global debate, I'll voice this comment.

The Muslims can kiss my ass. I impose a Fatwa against Muslims thinking they can fly US airlines with bombs in their shoes and underwear while trying to dictate how we detect the pathetic pieces of schit.If their law opines Muslims are now prohibited from being body scanned in airports, it's one law of theirs I totally support and I will personally contribute to the placement of body scans in all airports. In fact, I would be cool if Muslims were the only folks singled out for the body scans in airports.

I also impose another Fatwa against Muslims thinking we should give a schit about their laws.

You say my pitch is emotional rather than rational and I say yeah, you're right. Fuggem and the carpets and camels they rode in on!!

Everything seems to violate Muslim Law that the Muslims don't like; for the most part they like nothing about us at all. Why we seem to care is another issue.

Of course there's a right to fly.

To be more specific, everyone has the right to conduct whatever consensual business transactions he likes with anyone he chooses. The Constitution pretends to give Congress the power to prohibit a very few well-specified business transactions, but it certainly doesn't give Congress any power, pretended or not, to tell airlines which fares they may carry and which they may not.

Therefore, it's flatly unconstitutional for the TSA to step between passengers and airlines the way it has.

If the airlines themselves chose to use all sorts of scanning equipment on their customers, that'd be a whole different story: it'd be part of the consensual business transaction. But the State has no authority to mandate it.

And shortly a couple more RPeeer's will chime in that they agree with Muslim religious rights...as allowed by the Constitution.

Easily led these RPeeer's....maybe Medina can chip in some advice? She seems to be having a little problem with Muslims at the moment.

first, i'm sick of their archaic laws and rules that ignore human nature and pretend everything is perfect in the real world.

second, i am waiting until our administration bends and says "oh well if you're a muslim you can opt out of the scanner" and we miss the exact group of people we put the damn scanners in for in the first place.

what we need in this country is a little more "tough $hit"

oh, you don't like hunting? tough.
want us to all be vegetarians? tough.
think we should ride a bike to work? tough.
you want to pretend no muslims look at naked people? tough.
you want to blow up a plane? um...let's see...no.

i cannot STAND the way we bend to the will of people without a true will to accomplish anything!

=============================

Anybody else see the disconnect here?
==============

Oh yeah....with each post.

At least on this issue they have bigger balls than the fundamentalist Christians who have similar reasons to object. You don't see any well-known Christian pastors denouncing the body scanners, do you?

I'm a Christian myself, and of course I think the Muslims are wrong about a great many things: but I respect courage when I see it, regardless of the source.

Courage??....LMAO.

PS....flying is not a right.

What exactly is couragous about bitching about everything?

Whatever you call it, you must admit that they seem to have a lot more of it than we do. We grumble to ourselves about the body scanners, but very few of us seem to be taking anything resembling a public stand against them; the ones who do, as far as I've seen, seem to be hair-on-fire radical libertarians.


Go on. How do you figure?

Where does the Constitution or Bill of Rights guarantee your right to fly?

More interesting would be your explanation as to why you erroneously believe it is a right. Indulge me.....your spins provide for a enjoyable escape from reality.

Barak

You have the "right" to choose to fly over another form of transportation, but you don't have a right to decide whether or not you will abide by the regulations attached to that form of transportation. The airlines have limits as well. Since they engage in interstate and international commerce, they can have restrictions forced on them due to the potential impact their form of travel has on multiple jurisdictions. The restrictions are stupid, but they are what they are. Real courage would be for the people in general to simply say, we're not flying anymore. But the idiot Americans just keep on handing over the plastic and boarding the planes.

Dan

And also explain why being put on a no fly list is not a violation of their rights.

Is it really courage or ''taking a couragous'' stand to speak out against something when you are part of a protected class and a group of people who are generally feared for what they may or may not do when agitated (right or wrong to think).

If everyone's scared you will blow them up and gives you preference over it, how much ''courage'' does it take to complain?

Of course we complain about body scanners, long lines at airports and anything/everything associated with flying since 9/11....don't want the hassle, don't fly.

I miss Lee24.....a respectable troll.

If memory serves General Westmoreland had a good plan for races America was at war with.Round up all the good ones and put them on ships. then bomb their countries flat,then sink the boats ..These people have no concept of a civilized war so [bleep] em all..

What rights are those?.. These people( muslims) are at war with USA, they should all be interned.

I read that in the paper this morning.. Aw, what a shame.. Well, then they can walk.. Or drive... Or stay in their own dang country..

If they don't like it,tough...........If they resist, jail them and serve them three squares of "PORK"!

You have the whole concept of the Constitution backwards.

Now all we need is for the Pope in Rome to declare Ex Cathedra that passing through nude body scanners is a mortal sin against public modesty, forbidden to Catholics under pain of excommunication.

Hindsite - +1000 They don't like it [bleep] them! They can walk or take a boat to whatever [bleep] they're going back to! Courage my arse..

Yep. They have to have a means of keeping the images.

I don't live in Barakistan.

I don't know: I'm not sure something so simple has enough meat to be interesting.

I have the right to fly simply because me flying does not violate anyone else's rights.

Of course, that assumes that I either have the wherewithal to procure and pilot my own airplane or to make a consensual contract with somebody else to procure and/or pilot one for me: I can't just flap my arms and fly, and I have no right to coercively conscript someone else's property or services. But I have the right to try to make that deal without interference from the State (again, because making such a deal doesn't violate anyone else's rights).

Do you have the right to go to a restaurant or a gun shop?

Same thing.

Yeah, but he won't, because he doesn't have the balls.

+1

PS These scanners are not actually meant for terrorists. Ultimately, they will be everywhere: train stations, government buildings, shopping malls, etc. They're putting them in airports merely to acclimate the masses to them. And the idea isn't so much security, as to strip the masses of their remaining vestiges of dignity.

SouthDakota!! dude thats Sturgis Country you can buy a Genuine USA. Harley with ur tax dollars. Not too many muslims at biker rallies.? go figur..

Yes I do. I just don't have a right to fly there.

I think we would have to run him through the scanner to determine that...

John

Actually, that turns out not to be the case. He was joking about it. He didn't say he was asked for autographs: he said he provided them voluntarily. Do a little Googling.

I think he was probably misunderstood simply because Indians don't generally joke, at least not in English, so some of the folks who heard it didn't recognize it as a joke. (Some of them, of course, may have recognized it as such, but used it anyway for its political value.)

Barakistan has no Constitution. The Constitution is one of the main reasons the US went so wrong. Barakistan won't make that mistake again.

Well, there's a point there, I must admit.

[bleep] the muslims. Let every damn one of them go back to the middle east where they belong.

Only the simple minded would assert there is a right to fly.

Barak...you stayed true to form providing a spin that gives one pause from the realities of the real world. Thanks again.

Everything is a right, short of those activities which violate the rights of others. That's what being free means.

Which mode of travel does it protect?.........


Casey

I'm agreeing with Issac here..

WTF??

Muslims say it is going to violate their religion to have to go thru body scanners, when they are the cause the rest of us have to go thru body scanners???

What the hell is with their religion, that expects the rest of the world to accommodate their religion's " needs and dictates", while they somehow justify that their inconveniences violates their religion...

you hear all this stuff about "Ugly Americans" being pompass and expect folks around the world to accommodate them...

well what about the "ugly Muslims" that expect the world to bend over for their 'needs and dictates'??????

I've had it with Islam's dual standards BS..

all they have to say is that something "violates their religion", and we are all suppose to just move out of their way???

well Islam violates " my religion of common sense"!!!!!

NO MUSLIMS ON US AIR TRAVEL... and then they shouldn't have issues with it..

they can take their 'FATWA' ass back to the Middle East, and stay there..

when is western society going to quit accommodating these jerks???

is it, that they are so brazen, or is it that our 'liberals' have made us all suppose to be so stupid???

and the way it is posted by 'Barrack' here, makes me think that he/she supports this Islamic Accommodation...

You're welcome, but you don't get off that easily.

I went first, now it's your turn. Dismissing your opponents by calling them stupid is a common rhetorical technique, but not a reputable one.

Why do you believe there is no right to fly?

For those who think citizens are here to serve government, then body scanners are no problem.

And there are plenty of alleged "conservatives" around who do just that......



Casey

This has nothing to do with rights and the muzzies whining about this know it. They know this will impede terrorist attacks. If the muzzies want their own airlines to not use body scanners then go for it. Muzzie bombs kill more muzzies than anyone else.

I too am issuing my own fatwa, any whining and I will make meatballs out of your intestines.

That's not the way the Constitution works. We don't only have those rights listed in the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't pretend to be a list of our rights. The Constitution is primarily a list of powers delegated by the states to the national government. The Bill of Rights is a list of only those rights which were thought potentially vulnerable to abuse by the delegation of the specific powers found in the Constitution. As for rights threatened by powers not listed, it was never imagined the national government would presume to exercise them in the first place, thus specific protections of rights threatened by non-listed powers were not included (non-listed powers were never meant to be exercised by the national government). The Ninth Amendment makes this quite clear.

There is a right to travel--therefore there is a right to fly. Simple--and simple minded to those who can make ANY idea or right into a convoluted mess.



Casey

Little thing called due process. You may remember that concept. It used to be applicable to all cases wherein the government singled someone out for rights interference.

Hey, I'd ride such an airline. I'd drive twice as far each way on each end to ride such an airline.

Problem is, the State has (unconstitutionally) made such airlines illegal. Provide aviation services under Part 121 without federally-mandated "security" measures and go to prison.

None of 'em are my neighbors, either..

BTW, I'll be in Butte County..and I cannot WAIT..

I don't have a problem with Muslims, until they open up and expect to turn the USA into a country that accommodates their every need, like they have managed to pull off in Europe.

they push it much more tho,

I am in FAVOR of the west adopting laws against Islam, the way that their nations have laws against Christianity.

for instance, the Koran is illegal, and ownership or possession of one, means that the Muslim having it loses a hand or his life..

Muslim Church or worship is forbidden under penalty of death..

Sure would eliminate the Muslims desires to live here..

and when they bitch about it, we point out that we just adopted THEIR laws..... see how they like the shoe on the other foot..

I'd like to see most Muslims rounded up and put on a plane for the Sandbox...one-way. I don't care whether they scan them or not, the plane could be all-Muslim, including the Captain. Just launch it from JFK and give it an escort of fighters until it's over Aghan or Iraqi airspace.

That would be nice. Actually, though, we should not have permitted them to immigrate here to start with. When we had a national government that actually still served the best interests of our nation (instead of constantly working to destroy our nation) we had immigration policies favoring those with cultures compatible with our own. That went out the window in the 1960s under the guidance of the Democrats.

================

Nice try. Absurd, of course, but still a nice try. How about the rights of host airlines excercising their rights in establishing their own rules for use of their airline? Or a restaurant asserting you can't enter the premises without wearing shoes?

Get outside of the limited comfort of school books and theory,Hawkie. There's an actual real life world with real life events going on outside of them!!

I'm thinking you mean, "Explain why being put on a no-fly list is a violation of their rights."

Being put on a list is no violation of anyone's rights.

If an airline wanted to keep a list of dangerous persons and refuse to do business with them, it would be perfectly within its rights to do so.

But if an airline and a passenger have decided that they wish to do business, it's a violation of both their rights for the State to prevent them from doing so.

Firstly, the fact that a Muslim is required to go through a body scanner before boarding a commercial flight doesn't deny them the right to fly. Their religion may forbid them going through the bodyscanner, but thats nothing to do with the Government.

Plus, the Government has provided an alternative choice of security check ie they can elect to be hand searched.

I also assume that should a Muslim not wish to under go these checks, they could still charter a private pilot and light aircraft and fly to their destination?

They have not been charged with anything - they are simply told that they can not fly. What right does this violate?

You don't understand what a right is. A right is not something that others are obliged to provide you with. For example, you have a right to eat, but no one is obliged to provide you with food. You have a right to fly, but no one is obliged to provide you with a piloted plane. By the same token, however, no one is permitted to interfere with your making arrangement to do those things either, absent specific due process.

They can hit the bricks.

As in walk their asses wherever they need to go.

No scannie, No flyie.

As an act of goodwill and understanding, I would eliminate the body scans. We could give them the option of being stuck in a large wooden box that would be towed 400 ft. behind the plane.

We could throw in some peanuts and porn to make them more comfortable.

================

You just proved that,Einstein.

And its not discrimination if we treat them all the same.

JD338

Good grief....you're not really that limited are you? You have a right to eat but I can't prevent you from eating in my restaurant without due process,huh??

You don't understand what a right is. A right is not something that others are obliged to provide you with. For example, you have a right to eat, but no one is obliged to provide you with food. You have a right to fly, but no one is obliged to provide you with a piloted plane. By the same token, however, no one is permitted to interfere with your making arrangement to do those things either, absent specific due process.

Being that airlines are private entities, I would imagine they can refuse service to whomever they wish.

I suggest they form their own airline, Allah Air.

We can then explode a few of their planes for schits and giggles.

I bet that would have the rest of them lining up at the [bleep] scanners a week ahead of time.

You're a lawyer and you're not conversant with the fundamental concept of negative rights?

Wow.

It's the equivalent of me calling myself a software developer without understanding the concept of a variable.

Maybe I'm in the wrong business.

It's a government interference with the right of private contract. Since it seeks to single out some individual over others for this rights interference, due process is required.

And I bet this guy is one of the ones who claims to advocate liberty and freedom.

You know, The_Real_Hawkeye, sometimes I am tempted to despair for the future of this people.

Nonsense. I never said that. I said just the opposite, i.e., that no one (including a restaurant) is obliged to feed anyone it chooses not to feed. If, however, the government established a "no feed list," or a "no eat list," then we'd have problems. Those placed on such a list would have some process due them.

They prolly wouldn't let you fly anyhoo, being a Christian.

i agree with you 100%, Odessa, but i do think it's a hoot that so many of the so called political conservatives on this forum line up in support of radical leftist government initiatives for their own security...

many here also proclaim that obama is both a liberal and a muslim... absurdity at best... obama is far to liberal to be taken seriously by any muzzie...
most of us have serious differences with the muzzies plans for world domination, but they are truly conservative, politically speaking...

aside from islam's quest to see sharia enforced upon their neighbors, any political conservative probably has more in common with them than they do with either the democrats or republicans in todays world...

But the Government hasn't prevented them flying; maybe their religion has, but not the Government.

Posting the exact same reply twice doesn't make it doubly foolish or twice as smart.Barak's and your comments dealt with the thread topic of Muslim's right to fly those airlines. If your back-pedalling towards a semantical word game and now asserting a man has a right to fly...like a bird, well.. OK. That's brilliant. But, when you go on to state that no one is obliged to provide you with a piloted plane, it puts you in full agreement with my comment there is no "right" to fly.

Please tell me you weren't playing the word games of a high schooler.

Precisely.

An airline can establish safety rules, as well as the FAA that apply to all.

The only right you have is to choose whether to obey them. If you don't, then you don't fly.

What is unconstitutional about that?

Apply that theory to a traffic stop because you weren't wearing a seat belt and see how far you get. "Sorry officer, my religion prohibits me from using a car seat for my baby". Here is your ticket.

Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. You have the right to travel as long as you do it in accordance with the rules and regulations of that mode of transportation.

Just let them try and see what happens. The same government that is mandating the body scanners will not allow them to discriminate.
Suppose United Airlines refused and muzzie, the screaming and gnashing of teeth would be tremendous. Now that's an airline I would fly.

So I can safely assume that Barack, living up to the Islamic name there... is part of the Islamic Cheer Leading Squad here on 24 Hour?

There are actually two different discussions going on. One has to do with placing individuals on no fly lists absent specific due process. This was the subject being addressed by the quote above.

first of all, the name "barack" is that of the infamous kenyan masquerading as the Commander in Chief...

"barak" is the name of the leader of the Hebrew soldiers in the book of Judges...
the muzzies religion hadn't been cooked up yet at the time this page in history unfolds....
ya ought to read about it sometime....

You fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of a right.

Furthermore, I have addressed two distinct issues here so far: 1) is there such a thing as a right to fly, and 2) may the government single someone out for rights interference absent due process? Try to keep up.

you do understand the difference between muslims and Jews, do you not?

I was thinking the same thing about you Barak. I don't advocate Liberty and Freedom for those who refuse to follow our laws, whether they be foreign or domestic.

Unlike you, I support the laws that try to keep POS from hurting or killing innocent people. You make a living defending these very types, all worried and concerned about their "rights" you are paid to protect. My concern is that law abiding people of this country have the right to live their lives in peace without being killed by a bunch of haters.

I am not sympathetic to the idea of letting people who may do us harm, by-pass our laws because it may interfere with their plans to kill hundreds of innocent Americans.

I haven't in this thread claimed that it was. I could make the argument, however, that I find no such power delegated to the United States Government in the Constitution. As for private airlines, they are free (according to our actual Constitution) to deny service to anyone they choose for any reason, or no reason at all, and they may set up whatever criteria for choosing they like.

Barak's name comes from the Christian Bible, specifically, the old Testament.

first, the FAA has no say about the scanners being discussed... the TSA, an absolutely ludicrous and unconstitutional agency has decreed their use...
this is the agency whose minions refused to let CMOH Recipient General Joe Foss to board a plane in los angeles, while wearing his Congressional Medal of Honor...

you gonna side with the libs, or the conservatives???

The right to fly is not derived from the right to travel. If it were, it could be reduced on the basis that there are alternatives to air travel.

The right to fly is a fundamental right derived from the fact that we have a fundamental right to do anything we want, as long as it does not conflict with the rights of other people to live as they please, but with a reciprocal respect for our rights.

Thanks John W...for the education from the Book of Judges..

John,

John, it sounds like you are siding with the Muslims, Are you an American or Muslim?


That has nothing to do with letting people by-pass scanners that are put in place for the safety of all those on board the aircraft.

Whether on religious grounds or some other BS.

I think I'll side with the law applies to everyone in this case.


I should have known that Muslims and those with tiny penises would come out against the scanners.

Sure a person has the right to fly, so long as he abides by the all the rules and regulations all the way from ultra-lights to jumbo jets. Out of line...no right to fly. Read the FAA rules and you'll see how rights to fly are impacted.

Over and above that, a pilot has the obligation to refuse to fly if he suspects that life or property may be in danger and can require all or a few be removed from the plane to rectify the matter.

My major objection to the general use of these scanners is that it will tend further to acclimate the general populous to consider it normal for the government to essentially strip search them at will. This kind of general acclimation cannot be good news for the future of privacy.

I have made no specific legal argument against them (though I did toss out that I find no authorization in the US Constitution for government regulation of air travel). My hope would be that so few people would be willing to go through them that the entire system of air travel would shut down, forcing their removal, but it looks like this is not going to happen.

Flying on a commercial airliner is a contract with a private company not a right. Read the conditions of carriage on your ticket. Don't like them? Find another means. I would think Barak would love that but apparently not.

Well, Okay...

How do theses dumb puckers seek medical attention???

Oh, I get it. That's different.


What we have here is a good old messycan stand-off. Muzzies have the balls to say the scanners violate their religion, now the government needs to have the balls to say you ain't flyin till you take the walk...

I'm not a pilot but I would guess there are a host of regulation you have to comply with before you start the engine on an airplane. Certainly you would need to demonstrate appropriate licensing to fly and comply with take off and landing instructions.

And how do you figure that a muslim flying without being properly and throughly searched to be sure they are not another suicide imbicilic fanatic does not violate the right of every person on the plane? It would.

Obviously the reason they are objecting is not courage or religion, but intentional and felonious obfuscation of techniques that might keep one of their jihadist brethern off the plane and prevent him/her from destroying innocent life for their foul demon "god".

I truly hope you are trolling with these posts of late.

It seems you share Isaac's confusion regarding the meaning of fundamental rights. The possession of a fundamental right creates no corollary obligations on the part of anyone else whatsoever. A right to eat, for example, doesn't create in someone else an obligation to feed you. A right to fly doesn't created in anyone else an obligation to provide you with a piloted plane, etc. It merely means that you are free to (i.e., no one may intentionally or negligently interfere) negotiate for those things, or in some other way work towards achieving them, so long as you don't interfere with the rights of others in the process. Understood correctly, therefore, all possess the fundamental right to fly on jet planes, but no air line is obliged to provide such a service to anyone, and may deny it to whomever it chooses, for any reason, or no reason at all, short of a binding contract to do otherwise.

I am an American Christian... and very conservative, politically...

i do not take the side of any religion though, in this discussion...
i take the side of liberty...
these so called "scanners" are nothing more than the millimeter wave radar technology sponsored by the various militaries at the behest of U.N. urban conflict resolution initiatives....

this aspect of the technology was designed to disarm a populace...
mm wave scanners and radar for this application were designed to be operated from military vehicles and squad cars....

can you cite the law that allows the use of these scanners???
a hint, there is none...

you peeked!!!

so long as you don't interfere with the rights of others
As a private enterprise, that can be anything chosen by that carrier. It's a service being provided and the customers are passengers. They have the right to refuse service to anyone.

I disagree and the argument is irrelevant to Barak's case. You have a right to free movement. This cannot be extended to the right to any particular method IMO.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer I'm an engineer, so I think siding with Isaac or one of the other folks trained in such matters is smart of me. That hasn't steered me wrong in the past.

actually...

i have no objection to any airline using such a scanner....

i have real objections with a government agency taking over an airports civil activities, and using overbearing technologies and tactics...

privatize airline security.....

Yep. We agree.

It was prior to 9/11 - TSA times. Didn't work then either.

the government is leveraging itself into our lives much too vigorously...

And why not ?

Not only we have a fundamental right to travel, but we can choose any method we wish and that is also a fundamental right.

The only limitations we must consider are those which are necessary to protect the rights of others, including in particular reasonable safety regulations e.g. to cope with air space congestion, to abate the nuisance of engine noise...

Not when it comes to discussions of political philosophy (e.g., the meaning of, and implications associated with, fundamental rights). Being an attorney confers no particular expertise in these matters. Attorneys are, by profession, technicians.

Now, an attorney who also happens to be a renowned professor in jurisprudence might be someone to pay particular attention to on a question like this. Are any of our attorneys one of these?

OK, both you and Hawkeye wish to argue philosophy and that's fine, go do it. That's the land that Barak's stuff belongs to anyway.

I have the right to do any damn thing I please but the laws of nature prevent it too.

With the real world, you do not have the right to get on an airliner without screening. I like it that way.

Seems strange to me how so many self-professed arch conservatives and big Gov't haters are so very willing to grant to that despised Gov't extraordinary powers that violate their own rights.

They also seem to be OK with denying basic rights to certain groups without due process.

It appears as though fear and ignorance are exceedingly powerful tools that are quite effective at making one overlook egregious violations of their rights.

All too true!

This acclimatization of the average citizen to constant (big) government interference(s) in his life is a major concern and does not bode well for the future of liberties and even for the future of LIBERTY itself.

People who do not understand this danger need to open their eyes and think more about what there is to be seen.

This whole topic get's filed under the "All Muslims suck and IDGARA" files...
Body scanning? BFD, if you seen one you seen 'em all. Some act like the human form is somehow special. Wake up, we are only a somewhat higher order clothed species of animals.

Bunch of stinkin, towelheaded, throwback assheads. Never trust a Muslim and the world will be a better place.

Much better yet, a world without Islam would be a better world.

I
Don't
Give
A
Rat's
Ass

Several misunderstandings here.

Neither "Barak" nor "Barack" is an Islamic name.

It's a word in both Hebrew and Arabic (the two languages are very closely related in just about everything but alphabet) that means "lightning." (It's kind of onomatopoetic, if you think about it.)

The English spelling is merely a transliteration. In Hebrew, the word is בָּרַך. (I don't know Arabic well enough to know that spelling.) Technically, any English transliteration is appropriate that makes readers approximate the sound of the word בָּרַך when they say it--"barak," "barack," "bahrock," etc.

Traditionally, though, there are transliteration conventions that have risen up. For example, if the word ended with a koof instead of a kaf-sofit, it'd traditionally be transliterated "Baraq"--but pronounced the same way in modern Hebrew.

Another tradition is that when it's transliterated from Hebrew, the spelling is "Barak," and when it's transliterated from Arabic the spelling is "Barack."

As to why it's my handle, that has nothing to do with either Barack Obama or Ehud Barak: I've been using it has my handle since long before anybody knew who either of those men were. It also has nothing to do with the word "lightning." It comes from the Barak in chapter 4 of the book of Judges in the Hebrew scriptures, and it's a tribute to my wife Penny. (I can tell you the story someday if you like, but it has nothing to do with this thread.)

As to whether I'm part of some Islamic cheerleading squad, I'll let other folks who know me and choose to respond address that.

And it appears you are another islamist or islamist sympathizer intent on seeing all suicide jihadists have free access to kill at will.

Don't mistake resolve for fear or understanding for ignornace. Time is fast drawing to a close for your islamist friends in this country. Even the weak minded liberals are waking up to their preverse so-called religion.

The constitution gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce and commerce with other nations. I don't see a constitutional violation, but I'm not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar like Barack (the community agitator).

I think that anyone who doesn't want to be scanned should be able to opt out, provided they submit to a strip search. We've progressed since the 7th century, Muslims have not. If they want to live by 7th century rules they can use 7th century transportation.

You may be confusing me with somebody else. I'm neither a lawyer nor a security guard nor a spokesman nor a pundit nor a columnist: I don't make a living defending anybody. I'm a professional software developer, and an amateur teacher of software development. (Well, technically I'm a professional teacher, but I gross less than a penny an hour at it (before taxes), so essentially I'm an amateur.)

+1

All that comes through are a bunch of numbers, semicolons, ampersands, and pound signs. What's up with that?

If the conditions came entirely from the airline, then yes, I'd love it. But they don't. Airlines have no freedom in choosing whom they will carry. It's illegal for them to carry somebody the feds say they shouldn't, and it's illegal for them to refuse to carry somebody the feds say they have to. Both of those restrictions are unconstitutional violations of the rights of the airlines and their prospective passengers.

Apparently there's an escaping problem with Unicode characters somewhere in the Campfire's software.

The word is spelled bet, resh, kaf-sofit. Apparently I can't actually show you how it looks without an image, which I'm too lazy to gin up.

The power to regulate interstate commerce means the power to make it regular, i.e., establish a set of universal commercial (trade) rules. It's what authorized, for example, the passage of the Uniform Commercial Code. When the exercise of this power bleeds into the area of crime prevention, it becomes a usurpation, and thus unconstitutional.

Where in the Islamic teachings does it say you can put explosives in your underwear and blow your nuts off, so they will be sticking to the ceiling for everyone to see.

It's probably in there somewhere.

And every single one of those regulations that doesn't come from the owner of the airplane or the company insuring the airplane or the airport from which the airplane is being operated or some other private entity is unconstitutional and usurpatious.


Apparently neither you nor isaac understands the fundamental concept of negative rights.


Regardless of their reason for objecting, they're standing up to the usurpations of an overreaching, tyrannical State; and for that I salute them.

If, on the other hand, it were the airlines, not the State, that were insisting that they be body-scanned before boarding the flight, and the Muslims were using the State to violate the rights of the airlines to self-determine with whom they would do business (which I would not hesitate for one moment to put past many of the Muslims I know), the shoe would be on the other foot and I'd be condemning the Muslims and defending the airlines.

But that's not the way things are this time, so I condemn the State and give attaboys to the Muslims.

It's not the carrier that's refusing the service. If it were, I'd have no objection. It's the State that's prohibiting the carrier from providing service. The Constitution doesn't even pretend to give the State authority to do that (and even if it did pretend to, that wouldn't give the State any such authority).

Exactly.

Sure it did.

It was the airlines' job to make sure nobody got on a plane with a knife having a blade more than 3" in length.

It was the government's job to make sure nobody got into the country without a valid visa.

The airlines did their job perfectly. The government screwed up royally.

Therefore, the government took over the job of the airlines, which is why now both jobs are being screwed up royally.

Isaac hereby nominated for Director of Homeland Security.

Don't call it courage, because issuing fatwas, starting court proceeding, and generally not contributing a damn thing is what organizations such as Fiqh and CAIR do. That CAIR is connected to terror organizations is not relevant, I guess.

That deserves a round of applause.

I don't care who or what religion you belong too, if you are on UNITED STATES OF AMERICA soil, you go by our rules--muslim or nor--STAY THE F--- HOME you bearded bast----.

Sure, if you think that this was the sole criteria that people were screened by it went just marvelous.

Some day I'll learn not to click on these posts. Actually, I'm better off leaving vice trying to ever inject reality here again on the fire.

After reading all these posts, I find the one by John Moses the most persuading. We should put them on planes of their own, funded my Muslims, and randomly shoot a few of them down. It is their religion that not only allows, but requires them to kill others. We should oblige them and adopt that part of their religion.

I've been around aircraft, airplanes, the regs, all of it my entire adult life.
There's one easy answer to air safety. Do as the Israelis do.
One problem.
That will never happen here.

That's some funny stuff, right there!

It's about time normal folk started calling out the muzzies for what they really are. A totally fuc*ed up fanatical religon. As far as I'm concerned as some other have said they can kiss my azz. Don't wanna play by the rule...can't play! Here is a video that is well worth watching.

http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplayer/cbnPlayer.swf?aid=11991

i hereby move that we petition congress to penalize jerks like abdulmutallab to watch "achmed the dead terrorist" at their daily prayer times for the rest of their life...

Barack,sorry,but your an idiot.

The fatwa just made air travel safer, no?

The TSA is not in the business of protecting people; it is in the business of bothering people.

We could do so much better by following the Israeli example. On a much larger scale of course, but at least it would be a step in the right direction.

you're a good guy pugs, but your grasp on reality is a bit shaky...
the U.S. government will always opt to limit liberties in the face of terrorism, rather than to give the American people the liberty to defend themselves....

so many here decry the nanny state whilst clinging to her skirts...
it's become inbred into most Americans.... even the ones who should see through it the most clearly.....

Probally not. It will just make em more determined to do us harm and they'll think up new ways of doing it. Only complete fools think this war on terror will just go away. It is here to stay until we defeat it completly. 163bc

you're a good guy pugs, but your grasp on reality is a bit shaky...
++++++++++++++++++++++++

LMFAO...

dang, it took you almost four years to realize that?

seriously, Barak is NOT an idiot, but he DOES live in an alternative universe. There are others from here, that share space there as well.

Don't be sorry!

Stand firm on the strength of your convictions!

Like a Muslim, I mean.

Were you refering to Barack or Barak? It is true for both, just wanted to be clear.

deersmeller

and the blowing up of airliners is not conflicting with the rights of others?

Wonder what would happen if Muslim Airways asked Americans fly nekkid or not at all? Seems ridiculous but so are some of the responses.

BTW, I am not a global citizen like some of the pinheads answering these posts. Based on religion? My phat arse.

Guess 9/11 was just religious expression by the Muslims involved. No? That's it. That's the ticket. We need more of that, then we can all get together and sing kumbaya. I'm OK and you are OK.....................

Yep. Common sense.Right, because common sense has been banished from American government.

I admit to being a little slow sometimes, but not that slow. So the gist of the argument from Barak, is it would be OK if the airlines mandated the screening but not OK for the government to mandate the screening? Hello...this is logic, can I come in?


Clyde

Right.

+1

Should the government decide who you can or cannot invite in your home, or what kinds of reasonable security measures you may or may not implement there?

Funny stuff there. muslims shop the koran, hadiths, fatwas, and probably Cairo want ads for rationalization to do the next horrendous act they feel inclined to do. Not necessarily regarding terrorism abroad, but more often to terrorize their families or others without sufficient legal standing under their perverse religious law to prevent it.

Your new heros are anything but.

I hate posting on this subject but I will force myself...

Explosives are chemicals, body scanners produce images, chemical detectors are more sensitive to chemicals than imaging cameras. Plastics can be shaped to conform to the body and glued in place, scanners will not see them or those inserted into the "orifices" of the body. Government bodies are like lemmings, they follow the lead of the lead lemming. After half of them are dead in the sea they figure out they made a mistake. Chemical detectors such as walk through Gas Chromatograph-Mass spectrograph portals will see any and all chemicals. Possibly even those insterted into body orifices.

If the mooslims get exempted from body scans, then we all need to start thinking about changing our religion. In some backwards way that makes about as much sense as anything else I have read here or anywhere else.

I have a degree in Organic Chemistry, and while I have not used it in a while, this plus a tad of common sense is the reason for my position.

Am I wrong?

just as welfare type financial entitlements are destructive to an individuals abilities and incentives to provide for himself, so are the FEDS nanny state security initiatives destructive to our liberties and inclinations to protect ourselves and our own...

we, the people, need no security welfare from federal agencies...

I'm not that naive to think that the government should ever tell me who I can have in my home. That being said, at what point does the govt. step in and say airline travel needs to be safer. Do we just say 10 plane crashes are a starting point before govt. intervention is needed? Or, as I think you and Barak would say, let the free market reign, and if the airline cannot protect its passengers, then they will go out of business. My question is how many lives need to be lost while you make that decision. Don't fly if you don't want to be scanned. Afterall, it's your "right" to fly or not to fly is it not? Same thing can be said of car manufacturers. Do we let an unsafe vehicle go on killing people until the people realize that we shouldn't buy that vehicle because it is unsafe? How many have to die before that conclusion can be made by the people? Don't want to be scanned, don't fly, it's as simple as that.


Clyde

excuse me for entering this conversation..carry on.

Curious as to when you received your Chemistry degree....did you by any chance study the RP phenomenon and perhaps found a chemical imbalance in the followers?

And, could this imbalance be detected, and could this imbalance cause their pea-brains to explode?

I haven't read every response & ain't about to...The govt. didn't just all of a sudden decide to bully passengers & search their luggage & subject their persons to scans/patdowns/searches on a whim...This is the govts. response to terrorists/hijackers/lunatics comandeering commercial aircraft for the sole purpose of killing innocent civilians...Geeze looweez. It's not like the govt. WANTS to do this to offend anybody...WTF is wrong with you jackasses that think this is all too intrusive???
Want to fly??? Guess what...they are gonna search your stupid ass for bombs, guns, etc.
You know what???
I'm glad as hell they do.

actually, the scanner will detect substances conformed to the body and glued into place... our tissues give off mm wave emissions that can be passively scanned... any alteration or addition is quite noticeable...



the nuclear powerhouses are upgrading theirs continually... they are a valuable tool, but not fully reliable....

Excuse me if I offended. Was not the intent. Maybe chemical detectors are a better way. I for one have no clue. The core issue is who should mandate what, the airline or the govt. I say it doesn't matter because I am making a consciouse decision to fly. No one is forcing me. And since I know that there will be scanning and what not up front, I can than use my right to refuse to travel in an airplane or to abide by the rules and then fly. All muslims may not be terrorists, but as of late, all terrorists are muslim.


Clyde

The problem is that the perimeter within which we may live free and avoid such violations of privacy will inevitably begin quickly to shrink if we do not fight it where it first appears. Soon mall entrances will have them, then police squad cars will be equipped with these, and will scan the pedestrians as they (the squad cars) drive by etc. Orwell's 1984 will seem like Disneyland in comparison before you know it.

That seems like a real far stretch Hawke. I don't like govt. intrusivness anymore than the next guy, but come on. By the way, I think I gave some examples in my earlier post you quoted. Would you care to talk to those?


Clyde

Of course, if the government is to follow the simple rules laid out for them. If it's a government owned airplane and airstrip and termiinal they can do as they please but a private enterprise is to be just that, private.

But government isn't going to follow the simple rules that govern them. They've made that abundantly clear.

And I'm not so sure the airlines can be called a private industry any longer. Are they not subsidized? Have they not received a number of "bailouts"? Would they even be in business today if not for a long series of taxpayer (governmenet) handouts?

Same as most any other business in America today. You cannot operate a free enterprise business if government is standing there dictating to you. The two do not mix. It is either a free enterprise business or it is not, there is no in between. Therefore, there is no free enterprise business... by definition.

Obviously, we need security checks at airports. Just as obviously muslims need watched closest of all. They're lunatic murderers looking for a place to die whre they can take out as many innocents as possible. The question remains should government entities be the ones doing the checking. They screw up every single thing they've ever gotten involved in, without exception. Seems silly to me to allow them any part of it other than advisory capacity. To give advice would be a service. To legislate their advice and force others to comply COMPLETELY changes it. It's no longer a service and they're no longer servants, they're dictators. Plain and simple. And are we any safer for it? Doesn't seem so, now does it.

Like everything else from education to commerce, from travel to marriage and family, government needs to be taken out of the equation. They're completely unable to remain within the boundries lain down for them and completely unable to do a competent job. Only reason they're able to continue on is because they either steal money the need to operate or print it. If not for that they'd never have been involved to bgin with and would never have so badly botched the job. Any job. All their jobs.

Government has proven time and again they are the single most incompetent bunch of people on this planet. To put the most incompetent bunch of people on the planet in charge of security to protect people from being blown up by muslims should seem like a pretty stupid idea to anyone and everyone. And that they overstep the bounds of the laws that govern them while botching the job should be the mother of all clinchers.

We're certainly no safer for it. And we're certainly no freer for it.

Sorry. It just looks to me like 10 pages of moot conversation.

Laffin'.

Perhaps you misread it. I wasn't referring to scanning cars, but pedestrians.

PS Technologies get inexpensive fast. Most folks would have laughed in your face if you told them in 1955 that in thirty-five years each squad car would contain a computer hundreds of times more capable than the UNIVAC (which cost over a million dollars a pop at that time - and that was 1955 money - and filled an entire room). A squad car installable version of the naked body scanner will likely be ready a lot sooner than that. Hell, in thirty-five years, each individual cop will be equipped with a pair of fashionable sunglasses with these capabilities, that is if we don't stop this trend in it's tracks while we can.

I disagree with you here Pugs, but I will give you this bit of wisdom. You can't win if you don't play.

At what?

As a semi-retired professional pilot, I can tell you what would likely happen if for some stupid reason this religious-exemption request were to 'fly' with the TSA.

The final authority on the airworthiness of an aircraft is the PIC (Pilot in Command). It will take off or not take off on that authority, and if said PIC decides that the equipment, he or any other crew member is deficient in any way, or any portion of the passenger or cargo are suspect, he is within his right to ground the aircraft.
I do not see any of my flying brethren pushing the throttles forward on any aircraft, private or commercial, knowing that there is a possibility that a passenger, especially a Muslim passenger, has boarded without proper security. Although that may not seem politically correct and would be classified as profiling, it is in the PIC's rights, and he can get out of his chair and walk off.
There will of course be repercussions to such actions, certainly against the PIC, but the airline, charter, cargo, or affected organization will be effectively shut down when they can't fly because of unwilling crew members.
Precedence has been set gentleman, and the flight crews DO know who the enemy is.

At the fact that, I thought, he figured we were gonna have scanners in our units that would scan operators/passengers in other cars as they went by. Hawk, apparently, meant scanners for pedestrians. That's more down-to-earth but still not gonna happen for quite some time.

Yeah, tech. gets cheaper realatively quickly. PERHAPS you might see them in the metro-big budget-get anything departments. Those agencies happen to be the "ones to worry about" IMO. With budgets the way they are due to the economy, agencies like mine are just keeping up. We're not asking for raises, we're dealing with what we've got for equipment and cars. Do you really thing we're gonna be looking to spend money on "naked scanners"?

My opinion on this has changed quite a bit thanks to Bob and Steve helping me to see the light.

If we can't declare a war because who do we declare the war against than it stands to reason that we have no idea of who we are fighting.

Therefore, Muslim have to be treated just like any other American citizen and be given their day in court. There is no constitutional foundation for body scanners of innocent citizen and everybody is innocent or at least not guilty until proven otherwise in a court of law.

There is of course the government-is-fundamentally-incompetent argument. I agree with that argument.

There's the there-is-no-Constitutional-authority argument. I agree with that argument too.

And there's the moral-hazard argument. I also agree with that one.

But the one that is most persuasive to me is the stakeholder argument. Who are the people that hold the biggest stake in ensuring the safety of airliners and their passengers?

Obviously, it's 1) the passengers themselves, who stand to lose their lives if the security answer is wrong, and 2) the airlines, who stand to lose millions of dollars in equipment and hundreds of millions of dollars to lawsuits if the security answer is wrong on the lax side. If the security answer is wrong on the tight side for a particular airline, then the increased overhead and higher costs will drive passengers to airlines that are closer to having it right.

That's why airline security should be handled first by passengers (carrying concealed weapons and other means of disabling attackers) and second by airlines (using magnetometers and/or sniffers and/or dogs and/or whatever other methods they come up with). That kind of arrangement would result in truly effective airline security.

What we have instead, though, is a bunch of complete non-stakeholders--politicians and bureaucrats, none of whom will lose even a night's sleep, much less their jobs, much less their lives, if an airliner is attacked and crashes with 300 souls on board--in charge of security policy. If they get the answer wrong on the lax side, people die, and they just shrug and go on about their business. If they get the answer wrong on the tight side, passengers go through all sorts of hassle and indignity and expense, and they just shrug and go on about their business.

There is absolutely no reason that politicians and bureaucrats should be in charge of airline security policy, except that it gives the State more control over its subjects, and absolutely no reason passengers and airlines should not be in charge of airline security policy, except that it gives subjects of the State more independence from it.

Therefore we--obviously!--must put airline security policy in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats.

I've been waiting for somebody to come up with that so i wouldn't have to myself.

Aren't police cruisers (at least some of them) currently equipped with cameras hooked to software that can scan, recognize, and run searches on every license plate that comes near enough to discern the numbers on, up to thousands per hour? I thought I read something like that.

Yes. License plate readers.

Essentially, the State regulated them practically out of existence, then subsidized them so they wouldn't fold completely, then further regulated them almost out of existence, then subsidized them again, and so on. Yes, they're basically government agencies now.

Truly private airlines would be much better, cheaper, safer, and more efficient.

They're out there, but I'm not aware of a single one in my AO. The closest agency that I'm aware of that has one is a larger city in Mass. You're also comparing grapes to watermelons.

You have the right to go to a restaurant if you're wearing clothes. Otherwise, no.

You have the right to go to a gunshop, but not a right to have a loaded weapon, if the owner objects to loaded weapons in his gunshop.

I'm quite certain Barak is not in favor of an exemption for Muslims. What he's hoping for is a collapse of the entire security state, starting with nonsense like naked body scanners. Naturally, it will prove impossible to justify the continuance of the program in the eyes of the public if the main target of the program (Muslim extremists) were exempt.

Maybe if we would just all walk around naked it would solve this problem.

Think of all the people you could catch "illegally" carrying the means of saving their own lives against criminal attack. Wouldn't it be worth it to your superiors if you could put all those people behind bars?

Also, consider the price of the computer system in your squad car today compared to fifteen years ago.

I totally distrust the government. While I don't really want somebody looking at me or my wife naked as we walk down the street, that isn't a concern to me. I consider you a good cop and know there are many others out there. That said, the ranks are being filled more and more with those who will obey orders without question. If times do get tougher, and it certainly looks like they will for some folks, crime will get worse. It also will get worse by definition. By that I mean, with the proliferation of laws, anybody can get got at any given time. It only matters who the powers-that-be want to get. Selective enforcement. The very people who the big boys want to control continuously clamor for their own disarmament and for the loss of their own freedoms because they've been convinced it will make them more secure. More cops are needed and are currently on the streets. No offense, but at this time, most of them are dammed nuisances at best and an outright threat at worst. The main threat comes from the willingness to carry the smallest infraction to the wall and utterly kill somebody in order to provide for "officer safety" and "remain in control of the situation". You know what I'm talking about. So when you put more of these folks on the street you have more trouble. Along with the willingness of the ruling class to spend more on manpower is the willingness to equip them with the best stuff. In my youth, cops were routinely outrun and stuff like that-but no more. There is a constant clamor to not only provide them with the best but also outlaw the usage of the best technology by Joe Sixpack if indeed said technology is not already denied to him de-facto, by its very expense. The military is the same way and has been used as a police force before, posse comitatus be damned.

So I don't see it as far-fetched to see scanners on the streets of "test cities" in the near future, looking for weapons in vehicles and on people. Seeing people nude would be a right folks have to give up for greater safety. There will be some on here that will argue that you have no right in the first place and others that you should willingly give it up in order that we all be safer-kinda like scanning every Jewish Grandma that gets on a plane and looks nothing like the profile of a terrorist.

There is a real solution for all who object to scanning - just don't fly.

Good analysis.

[quote=Barak][quote=Barak]“Screening images are automatically deleted, and the officer viewing the image will never see the passenger.

Anybody else see the disconnect here?



Yep! "Right between someones right and left ear." GW

Well at the very least with thongs. In the winter they would need to be fur lined.

Forgot to add that if you wanted to protest you could wear it backwards and get the nutlap going.

You misunderstand rights in relation to law.

You first.

What if you're a hot chick and your job is dancing naked on a little stage with a pole in the restaurant? Do you have the right to be unclothed in the restaurant then?

Of course.

What you have here is the interplay of a customer's right to patronize a place of business with the business owner's right to set limits and policies for what is allowed to happen on his property.

Shouldn't a cop, at least, understand the fundamentals of things as basic as individual rights as part of the requirements for his job? Or are you guys already nothing but muscle?

If anybody wants to bet that these types of scanners will be used in NH law enforcement before I end my career, step up and we'll talk.

I won't even get into the tech/cost issues as they're outside of my expertise. The fact is, they won't get by the NH Supremes and, I would guess, many others.

Fact: I can't simply Terry pat every person I come into contact with on the street. I need to articulate why I do so each and every time.
Fact: A scanner, like the one being discussed, is certainly more intrusive than a Terry pat.

If I can't Terry everybody, there's no way in hell that I'll be able to use such a scanner and that's as it should be.

The fact is, using such a scanner constitutes a search and will be governed as such by use by LEOs. NH has always led the way as far as restricting our cops in search and seizure, though to favor "Joe Sixpack". Again, as it should be.

George

I don't blame you George, I've seen pictures of those New Hampshire girls...

If you think the pics you've seen are bad, come visit and I'll take you north of the Notch where I grew up. Some of us have to leave the area to replentish the gene pool .

BTW, my folks originally came from the middle portion of the state and were NOT related.

Eventually, you'll be "free" to stay in your home as the only alternative to living inside the police state grid. That won't last long, though. Your house will be next.

Don't confuse "freedom" with "freedom without consequence". You see, the anarchist's dreams are a reality. You are free to do anything you are big, and bad, enough to do. The fact that indiduals have formed a syndicate, or government, to be the biggest and baddest really piss off those who think it is not fair.

Shouldn't a man who claims to cherish individual rights see there are limits on these rights? The 2nd Ammendment right to bear arms doesn't mean you can discharge those arms in a restaurant, or a gunstore.

Insisting that a restaurant ownder doesn't hve the right to require clothes makes no sense. Either find a restaurant that doesn't require clothes, or stay home./

Same with airlines. They have a right to self protection, and if they see that protection as requiring a body scan, then either go along, or find an airline that does NOT require a body scan.

It's an individual right to protect one's self. My gun shop doesn't allow smoking tobacco in their place of business. Which may "interfere" with your right to smoke, so either go someplace else, or don't smoke.

This is what we need

America, Canada , all of Europe need a President or Prime Minister like this.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd - Australia
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.

Quote: 'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.'

'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom. We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, Learn the Language!'

'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'

'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'

'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.'

'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'
Maybe if we circulate this , Canadian and American citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths.

Philosophically, we have a lot in common, but I still don't want to see you naked. And there are a lot of women who I would prefer not to see naked. Perhaps the solution would be to wrap everyone in pig skins.

You're confusing "fairness" with power. "Might makes right." Think about the ultimate consequences of that philosophy were it pursued to its fullest fruition and you will understand why some of us still seek to have some form of equity in everyday life.

Damn near everyone on this thread is missing the point. Government has put us in this position. Were the airlines free of government interference and free to make their own arrangements regarding security, you damn well bet we would be safer.

First, if government did not tell an airline whom it had to carry, then you can damn well be that most airlines would be following the Israeli model by now. And that is they would profile obvious suspects for enhanced security measures. As that Muslims are still a fairly small percentage of Americans, they might go so far as to prohibit Muslims from flying on domestic flights. Without government interference, as private entities they would be free to do so. They would inclined to do so out of fear of lawsuits should they fail to institute the proper security measures and have a terrorist incident on one of their planes.

Secondly, having created the problem by effectively hamstringing an airline's (or any business for that matter)ability to effectively screen and discriminate whom it carries, government presumes under the auspices of the Interstate Commerce Clause, to further interfere with contractual relations between a customer and an airline by making passengers go through these infernal devices. No airline, nor even private charters can bypass these devices. Thus, a passenger has no choice if he wishes to fly.

The same authority claimed by our government to regulate airline travel could be used to make everyone be screened before they used a taxi.

Get government out of the way, and it is quite likely that you could fly on an airplane where you were contractually guaranteed to only share it with white customers who carried American identification if that is what you wanted and we would all be much safer and freer to boot.

Even after all of that above, you and Hawke have still shyed away from the questions I posed in my comments. Since you claim it is a "right" to fly, tell me again how you're not going to be able to use that "right" just because you are being scanned? Your "right" to fly has never been infringed upon, just the crap we have to go through to get on a plane. Don't fly if you don't want to be scanned. You said earlier the muzzies could hire private planes and fly that way. There's your way out. Fly private and not commercial, and you will not be infringed upon.



Clyde

I'll bet you believe in the right to free speech, don't you? And you think that the State is justified in limiting that right because of the old yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater argument, right?

Now, I'll grant you that the assertion of a right to free speech has been beaten so hard into everyone for so long that it's a little unreasonable to expect the average cop on the beat--or most other people--to understand that it's fundamentally a ridiculous concept from bottom to top. They've been painstakingly trained to ignore the ridiculousness of it. So I think we're probably stuck with the majority of the populating believing in the superstition of freedom of speech for some time to come.

But it should be clear to anyone of average intelligence that the yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater argument is completely specious.

I mean, either there is a fire in that crowded theater, or there isn't, right?

If there is, then the guy hollering about it is doing everybody a favor, not violating any rights. And if there isn't, then the problem is not that he's committing an excessive exercise of his (nonexistent) right to free speech: it's that he's committing fraud--and as such an initiation of force against the people around him, which is justifiably actionable.

In the same way, discharging a firearm in a restaurant or a gun store is not an excessive exercise of the right to keep and bear arms (which does exist, by the way). It doesn't have anything at all to do with the right to keep and bear arms. The two issues being addressed are A) the rights of the person or persons at whom the firearm is discharged, and B) the rights of the property owner. If the person at whom the firearm is discharged is not guilty of an initiation of force, then said discharge constitutes such an initiation and is therefore a violation of his rights (not an excessive exercise of the rights of the gunman) and should be dealt with on that basis. (If he is guilty of an initiation of force, the discharge may be entirely justified.) And it's the owner of the property, not the State, who should set the rules regarding allowable and prohibited discharges of firearms on his property. Someone who infringes those rules should be dealt with on the basis of that infraction, not on the basis of an excessive exercise of rights.

And finally, one more time: it is not the airlines who are requiring millimeter-wave body scans. (If it were, I would have no objection.) It's the Feds. That's the problem.

Is that not what drives an anarchy? Absolute liberty through superior fire power. The self-proclaimed "anarchist" is typiclly a malcontented slave.

Here is my 30 second television advertisement for my airline if America were an actual free country:

The screen would show a spacious airline full of white upper middle class people being tended by very attactive female flight attendents.

A narrator would say something to the effect, "Freedom Airways, where your safety and comfort comes first. Yes, Freedom Airways is a little more expensive but its worth it because at Freedom Airways you can rest assurred that all of our passengers have been pre-screened by our security experts to guarantee that they are emotionally stable and religiously reliable. We spare no expense to guarantee your safety and comfort."

It is you who are confused. Freedom has more than one meaning. It can refer to the state of political liberty or, more fundamentally, the absence of hindrance. Depending on context, I use it both ways. For example, the state of political liberty is that state wherein one is free to do (i.e., not hindered from doing) all things he possesses an inherent right to do. When I say that I have a right to life, this does not mean that others are burdened with supporting me in my necessities. When I say that I have a right to eat, this does not mean that others are burdened with providing me regular meals. When I say that I have a right to eat in a restaurant, this merely means that no third party (including the government) may rightfully hinder me from doing so if the restaurant-owner and I mutually agree to a financial arrangement to this effect. Likewise, when I say that it is my right to fly with a private airline, this means simply that I and a private airline should be free to mutually form a similar financial arrangement, also without interference from any third party.

It is incorrect to view rights as having limits. Your example, rather than being one of a limit in the right to keep and bear arms, is a mere recognition of the fact that we are never within our rights to violate the rights of others.

No we haven't; you just haven't been paying attention.

Sorry, I don't have time to reiterate.

+1

And obviously, flying is a right and the government is the one who says that it is. Don't think so? Just let some airline say that it isn't going to carry Muslims or anyone else it deems a security risk based on their race or religion.

So you and others (some others) wouldn't have a problem if all private airlines required you to disrobe entirely in the view of others so long as the government doesn't require you to pass through a scanner???

Pardon me, but that's stupid.

It would indeed be stupid, but it would be stupid for the airlines, and therefore would not happen. Private airlines are in the business to make money, therefore they are inherently motivated to create conditions designed to draw customers.

That's right.

Because in such a situation competitors would spring up with much more reasonable and effective security measures, customers would choose them over Playboy Air, and Playboy Air would go out of business because it wouldn't be able to make a profit.

But the State is funded by extortion and isn't constrained by the need to make a profit; therefore it can mandate whatever it likes.

That would never happen because there one be at least one airline who didn't require that and it would very soon put all the others out of business.

And obviously, flying is a right and the government is the one who says that it is. Don't think so? Just let some airline say that it isn't going to carry Muslims or anyone else it deems a security risk based on their race or religion.
=========================

Thay have,of course. Very lame example if you attempting to prove a quackish theory that flying a private airline is a right. I mean,it was a witty attempt and all, but you really couldn't have meant that in all seriousness.

And no, government hasn't put us in this position. The hideous evil of man coupled with the idiocy of those who've lost sight of that evil have put the country in that position.

If the Muslim population wishes to exercise their right to defy the laws of the US in favor of their worthless laws, while in our country, then they'll need to exercise another of their rights of travel...like hitchhiking or taking the bus.

================

I sure hope you teach gym or home ec. If it's history you're teaching in the public schools, how's that right of yours to teach outside their curriculum in favor of your daffy theories working out for you??

It isn't a quackish example. A private business absent government intrusion could make any arrangements it wants. Thus, if American Airlines decided it was simply too risky to fly Muslims, it would be free to prohibit them. Muslims, of course, would be free to form Meccah Airlines and not carry infidel dogs if they wanted.

In so doing, we could all be spared more intrusive government regulations, expense, and bureacracy and be much safer to boot.

These competitors that would spring up with easier/more better screening.....how long do they stay in business if (when?), say a couple of freaking terrorists bring down a bird or two filled with Americans over an American city?

Terrorists are in the business of killing and terrorizing. Killing business would be gravy.

And it's the one that would get the terrorist trade. So it wouldn't last long before the planes were blown out of the air.

I'm amazed at how grown men can have such juvenile ideas. Comically dumb.

No, it wouldn't because free of government regulation to the contrary, it could prohibit those it deemed most likely to commit terrorist acts. It could ban Muslims, those of Middle Eastern heritage, or anyone it wanted for whatever reasons it wanted. And then, of course, there is the fact that anyone flying on said airline had made the conscious decision to fly on an airline that did not strip search them and therefore, had made the informed decision that whatever safety a strip search may offer, was secondary to their desire to fly without being strip searched. And finally, if an airline decided to dispense with the strip search, it would institute other measures as that one terrorist incident would likely result in it being sued out of existence.

I'm amazed at how servile, obsequious, and dependent grown Americans have become.

Simple question. How many on here in favor of all this screening and government action would pay a little more to fly on an airline that guaranteed that it would carry no one who claimed to be Muslim, no foreigners from so-called terrorist nations, and no Middle Eastern men between the ages of 15 and 50?

How many of you would always fly that airline if you had a choice?

Well, your government is the one you can thank for not being able to fly on that sort of airline.

I did not bother to read all the pages of replies, so this may have been covered already.

The amusing part is that these radical muslim pieces of schit hate Barak just as much as they hate the rest of us. They would, without hesitation, cut hs throat, chop his head off and put it on a stick. The same as the rest of us. Yet Barak continues to love these scum, and anyone else who hates America.

I guess that makes Barak, not only a traitor but a total chump.

I would be willing to escort Barak to downtown Nasseriya, and drop him off into the hands of the enemy. It would be fun to see the result. He loves them, he can live with them.

Not me, muslim women are just as capable of blowing up an airliner as the men are. If I'm on a airline that hasn't screened anyone, i'm getting the [bleep] of it.

So, you would invest in a company that guaranteed safety from Muslims? What if the act was committed by an American soldier in uniform? Think.

[quote=Mackay_Sagebrush]I did not bother to read all the pages of replies, so this may have been covered already.

The amusing part is that these radical muslim pieces of schit hate Barak just as much as they hate the rest of us. They would, without hesitation, cut hs throat, chop his head off and put it on a stick. The same as the rest of us. Yet Barak continues to love these scum, and anyone else who hates America.

I guess that makes Barak, not only a traitor but a total chump.

I would be willing to escort Barak to downtown Nasseriya, and drop him off into the hands of the enemy. It would be fun to see the result. He loves them, he can live with them. [/quote
_________________________



I'm proud of you. You have the courage of a Muslim.

My own preference would be for an airline that said, "Bring whatever you like onto any of our airplanes: knives, guns, bombs, whatever you need to make you feel safe, as long as you don't exceed the weight limit. Our prices are the best because we use no expensive security screening whatever."

Best hope the airline doesn't have a "whack-job" restriction.

What safety do these screenings proved? Absolutely none. How long is it before someone fills a colostomy bag full of sh-i-t and explosives? How long is it before some woman comes in with breast implants full of explosives? How long is it before someone has what looks like a steel plate in their head that is actually explosives?

These screening devices provide absolutely no security from anyone who is willing to die in the process.

The only effective security is the model of El Al. Which despite being the airline run by the No. 1 terrorist target in the world, has never had a terrorist incident. And that is precisely what our government will not let the airlines do, yet, that self same government makes us all parade through a damn machine while some undereducated ghetto rat oggles your wife or daughter's tits.

It doesn't take a genius to realize pretty quickly that none of this ridiculous schit is about security.

[quote=isaac
I'm proud of you. You have the courage of a Muslim.

[/quote]

Isaac, I am not sure what that means, but I suspect some dry humor.

Funny, I don't remember any airplanes being being flown into any buildings or being blown up over the US since 9-11. Other than the "Undie bomber", I'd say it's worked just fine.

lol What do I care what drives anarchy? I'm not an anarchist and have never claimed to be one. You seldom see me engage in pie-in-the-sky fantasy flights on philosophical underpinnings of governments either. I believe in limited government-the original Democratic Republic as envisioned by the founders.

Bob Dylan said everybody's gotta serve. I choose to serve God. Many don't.

I know this was meant as some sort of insult, but its nature is incomprehensible in light of what I've said in this thread thus far.

I think Barak would kindly decline your offer Mac...but I totally agree with your assessment of the guy.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here I am. Send me!" ISAIAH 6:8

Exactly. It's about acclimating the general populous to being routinely humiliated and degraded by agents of state.

And it never happened in the 75 or 80 yeasrs of commercial air travel prior to 9/11 either. So what's your point?

I'd think a coloring book would be incomprehensible to you. You'll never get outside that box,dude. You're utterly incapable.

Emphasis mine.

You've been here less than three years and posted less than 1300 times and yet you know what Barak is all about? I beg to differ and if you'd read enough of his posts to have your opinion on him rate, you'd know why.

And if that is what floats your boat, you should be able to get on such an airline if there are enough others who think that way to make it viable. At the very least with that airline, you can bet no one would ever hijack it and take it to Cuba.

So, you've been reduced to junior high level mud-slinging? I think I'll pass.

Cole,

I am scratching my head in regards to your reply. Can you give me a synopsis?

===================

Getting knocked into the lockers all day by the 8th graders is really start to make that paranoia of yours rather progressive in nature. Have dad send you some special pills, dude. Well,some more anyways with an extra Mg. or two!! BOO!

How many airliners were flown into buildings INTENTIONALLY before 9-11?? None that I can recall and what some of you fail to realize is that WE didn't creat this mess, the MUSLIMS did when they flew those airliners into the towers and killed over 3000 of my fellow Americans. You want to get on an airliner without anyone being screened then you might want to consider a move to another country that could care less about it's citizens. All this whining and crying about having to walk through a screener is pathetic.

My God, man! Did you stop maturing emotionally at age fifteen? What in hell is your problem?

Dude.....what ever brand of kool-aid you're drinkin, I'd suggest you quit.

That's a worthless reply. Did you graduate from the Isaac school of debating?

Cole,
Just an observation on my part, but Barak does seem (to me)increasingly irrational of late-between this thread and the one he commented on about the LEO that was murdered in Arizona, you have to wonder where Barak's head is lately.

And what you fail to realize is that this government doesn't give a [bleep] about you or any other of its citizens. Because if it did, it would allow airlines and its citizens to do things that might actually make them safer instead of engaging in pointless and ridiculous intrusions on civil liberties like walking though a damned machine that in front of a bunch of semi-literate bored [bleep].

I disagree with Barak on some fine, but definite points, on a routine basis.

Barak is a good man. He devotes a lot of his time ministering to prisoners. Many of them are scum, yet a Christian believes that all should have an attempt at forgiveness by God, if not by men. He also believes in freedom in a very real way. These are his strengths. These are his weaknesses. He doesn't love Muslims as a group. Barak likes to engage in long-winded philosophical discourse with many on here who lack understanding and don't intend to seek thereof. When you break down much of what he says, it makes very good sense. A few points lead the whole thing off the trail. That doesn't mean that he is an evil person deserving of torture and death. He's not. He also has some challenges that the average person doesn't. He has revealed these on here before or I wouldn't know about let alone speak of them. Barak is not a liberal and he is not a Muslim lover and he is only a traitor in the sense that he doesn't like the constant erosion of freedom and enactment of new laws by people who have only the interest of self at heart and who treasure America only as a place to hide out while they rip off the rest of the world.

Very nicely stated.

I apologize. While fueled by your comment, it was not you to which I was referring, though the malcontent part fits pretty well.

When somebody comes on the Campfire, a forum not known for what you'd term "deep thought" and posts a thread titled "Good for the Muslims" it gives me a pretty good idea of where his head is located in relation to other anatomical regions.

Well, i have flown many, many times since 9-11 and I am still here to talk about it, seems to me that their method is working just fine. Your use of the "N" word isn't really needed in this thread. If you don't like the way it's done here then move the [bleep] on.

No apology was necessary and I didn't take offense. As to the malcontent part...every day it seems to get worse.

I wouldn't consider my comment a debate...just a comment.

IOW MPH?

Well, i have flown many, many times since 9-11 and I am still here to talk about it, seems to me that their method is working just fine. Your use of the "N" word isn't really needed in this thread. If you don't like the way it's done here then move the [bleep] on. [/quote]

I'll thank you not to lecture me on calling it the way I see it, a spade a spade if you will. And presumably you flew many times before 9/11 and you were just fine. So nothing is proved except that now it is a lot more trouble and you routinely accept things that Americans should not.

Why not add a comment of value?

Sorry, I'm not a text expert so go ahead and say it.

IOW=In other words. Don't get your panties in a wad.

Lecturing you? That's kinda like calling the kettle black now isn't it??

Nice Smiley. Why don't we have cool smileys like that here at the Fire?

Don't get your gums blue.

OK. So you forced me to look up 'negative rights'. You didn't literally force me to, because you're a good anarchist!

Here's what wikipedia states:

Rights considered negative rights may include civil and political rights such as freedom of speech, private property, freedom from violent crime, freedom of worship, habeas corpus, a fair trial, freedom from slavery and the right to bear arms. Rights considered positive rights may include other civil and political rights such as police protection of person and property and the right to counsel, as well as economic, social and cultural rights such as public education, health care, social security, and a minimum standard of living. In the "three generations" account of human rights, negative rights are often associated with the first generation of rights, while positive rights are associated with the second and third generations.

Under the theory of positive and negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group. A government, for example, usually in the form of abuse or coercion. A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action of another person or group. In theory, a negative right forbids others from acting against the right holder, while a positive right obligates others to act with respect to the right holder. In the framework of the Kantian categorical imperative, negative rights can be associated with perfect duties while positive rights can be connected to imperfect duties.[citation needed]

Belief in a distinction between positive and negative rights is usually maintained, or emphasized, by libertarians, who believe that positive rights do not exist until they are created by contract. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights lists both positive and negative rights (but does not identify them as such). The constitutions of most liberal democracies guarantee negative rights, but not all include positive rights. Nevertheless, positive rights are often guaranteed by other laws, and the majority of liberal democracies provide their citizens with publicly funded education, health care, social security and unemployment benefits.

Now how does MPH= don't get your panties in a wad? I'm trying to have a conversation with someone who likes to throw around racist lingo, why do you care so much?

And only negative rights are authentically fundamental rights, and thus unalienable. When the Founding Fathers spoke of rights, they were speaking only of what we today call "negative rights."

Please....

MPH is a common malady around here, especially of those who want to tell others what is or is not appropriate to post...not that I'd ever do that.

"Don't get your panties in a wad" doesn't translate to "MPH". It was just friendly advice, freely offered. Take it or leave it. I'm good one way or the other.

What a nice thing to say!

Thanks.

Heyyy...nice job.

Actually, Wikipedia is wrong on two counts.

"Freedom of speech" is a positive right, because it requires the owner of the property on which the speech takes place to tolerate it. In a free society, there'd be no need for a "right" to free speech.

Also, the "right" to a trial by jury is a positive right, because it requires the forbearance and indulgence of a large number of people--jurors and witnesses--who are coerced on pain of imprisonment by the State into participating and in most cases compensated in a very [bleep] fashion for doing so. (Also, it imposes upon the taxpayers to provide court buildings, professional persecutors, and robed politicians, along with a host of well-paid extras, for the show.) The subpoena is every bit as much a form of slavery as military conscription. Citizens of a free society would be horrified by both.

Don't be too hard on him. He is right, of course, I shouldn't have said it. It's true, however, and that is a large part of what is wrong with the Federal government. Call any federal office and see with whom you deal. Try and get something done, and see what kind of attitude you get.

I'll relate a recent story. I was trying to get a client's Medicare problems resolved. After spending 45 minutes on hold, I finally spoke to an African American gentleman who was relatively helpful. We talked for 10 minutes or so and were headed to a resolution. Then, I kid you not, I heard what sounded like a fat African American woman in the background shout as if announcing to the whole office, "Hey ya'll we fixin eat up in here." Then, I kid you not the guy I was talking to said very quickly, "Uh, sir, we're having some computer problems and you'll have to call back tomorrow" as he quickly hung up the phone.

Now, what makes anyone think that less educated versions of these two people could ever do anything but make our lives more miserable running the TSA?

Well if I don't know what MPH stands for, then how am I suppose to know it's "friendly advice"? The way I read it didn't seem all that friendly but like I said, I don't read text enough to know what you were saying. I visit this site quite a bit and don't ever recall seeing the MPH being posted anywhere.

Hey, man, it's alright. We're all just normal people around here. None of us are tycoons or anything like that.

MPH is a fairly recent addition to the many acronyms a person must know to converse successfully on this here fire.

MY PUSSY HURTS.

BS.
I still have clients in Chicago, some owners, some that charter, that pull into gorgeous hangars in their Mercedes and Bentleys etc. Their bags are loaded in the jet, they climb aboard a multi-million dollar aircraft with their briefcases (or golf clubs), and off they go. No metal detectors, no wands, no x-rays, NOTHING.
Owning your own aircraft or chartering has its privileges, and NOT having to put up with ANY security screening whatsoever is only one of them.

Well, [bleep]. That didn't work.

It's ok, I was made aware of the acronym by a couple of other members. Appreciate the effort anywho.

The second one is a 30-06, and the fifth one is a 308. What are the others?

Well, then that obviously needs to be fixed. Considering that one can charter a jet for a few thousand dollars, there is nothing from keeping some nefarious Muslim from chartering a jet, filling it full of explosives and flying it into a building. I suspect that a lear jet stuffed with a ton or more of explosives would work better than even a loaded 757.

Obviously, if the government allows that, yet lets someone oggle my wife's t-its in the name of security, then the government isn't really all that concerned about security.

I can't believe the n word gets through the profanity program but [bleep] and [bleep] get bleeped out. That's just the [bleep]'s, ain't it...

lol

Grandad once told me the only way he'd fly is if they'd let him carry a parachute and a stick of dynamite. I said, "I understand the chute, what's the tnt for?"

"I might have to make my own door."

It's spelled like this......[bleep].

lol

It's what the post preview function is for, I guess.

Well, that's obviously because [bleep] is considered offensive and the other isn't.

+1

Yep. It sure does.

Post preview.

Yeah, but that takes all the fun out of it.

By the way, I had a real good laugh at your... um... uhhh... payscale reference, too.
Thanks.

Dude don't sweat it, if a dump [bleep] can rationalize that not verifying if a gun is loaded or not before a kid starts jacking rounds into it is 'practicing safe gun handling' he can rationalize anything.

In the past, the word [bleep] was blocked. Let me see if they've changed that.

PS Of course, it's not a racist word, and has nothing to do with race.

I should add to my prospective radio commercial: "Just don't piss off Helga, our burly, no-nonsense, ultra-efficient flight attendant, and you'll most likely make it to your destination in one piece."

(I would have used a more Slavic name, but the days of female Communist Olympians are so far behind us that it probably wouldn't register for most people.)

Ah, yes, the chief of the sanctimoninous idiots speaks.

Ah...I see the level of debate has eroded among those on Barak and TRH's side.

JOe, was that revealing statement really necessary?

Hawk.
[bleep] shouldn't be blocked, it's not even about the N word. Much older, I'm sure. Simply talking about low pay or stingy. It was just the timing of the use that cracked me up, something I'm sure was no accident

Perhaps, not but you know its true.

Just curious, I know that forums/Facebook/etc. have been used to impeach the testimony of LEOs. Do you lawyers ever worry about the same?

George

A few points- a few thousand bucks isn't going to get you anywhere, in anything turbine.
As far as there being 'nothing' from keeping a Muslim from piling on board with explosives, there is. It's a private aircraft with private owners. Even in a charter, they determine who flies and who doesn't with what on board. PROFILED!
Seen any problems to national security in this arena since 9/11? No, you haven't, and you won't.
The chances of a security breach are much higher in the commercial arena.

Ok, I been experimenting with the preview reply function.

It seems the n word is in fact blocked unless you're talking about more than one. Plural is allowed. Don't ask me why, though, because present tense for the past tense word shat is blocked whether singular or plural. And that's the [bleep]'s

Yes, I know, as I stated. But it was either this site or another gun related site that once blocked it when I attempted to use it correctly.

Lawyers generally don't give testimony. It's objectionable.

Open fuggin' season on Muslims, and on kowtowing, felon-azzkissin' knuckleheads.

Problem solved. Quickly.

Next?

Well, since you aren't one (yet), and I'm not currently practicing as one, that excuse doesn't fly.

Try again.

Just an oversight, I'm sure

They don't need to charter or rent. Many muslims are from oil rich nations. They've got plenty of money to fly their own jets and load down with whatever explosives they want and fly where ever they want.

What's to stop them? Certainly not money.

Exactly.

And if commercial airlines were allowed to exercise their Constitutional freedom of association the way charter owners are, the chances of a security breach in the commercial arena would be about the same as it is for charter folks.

I'm fairly certain I understand the Court process. I have probably spent MUCH more time in one than you both prosecuting and providing testimony.

I worded my question poorly, though, I'll give you that. I'm just curious if the lawyers are at all concerned about a judge, client, etc. seeing what they post.

George

NH K9 was asking about lawyers.

Yep, and that's why I stated my answer as such.

Scratching head.

Why would I worry about that. Surely no one on this board would object to something like that. I mean after all, "[bleep] muslims, ragheads," and just about any other derogatory term one could imagine is used, even cheered. So I'm sure no one THIS board could object, right. And no, attorneys don't provide testimony. We elicit it.

Yeah, no schit, I already stated it was worded poorly.

I was thinking along the lines of your local judges, etc. getting their hands on something you posted up using such terms. Just curious is all.

George

I live in Texas and most of the judges are lifelong Texas Democrats in their 60s. That should probably answer your question.

As I already said, I shouldn't have said it, but it is still a common term where I live.

Very well said, ColeYounger. I agree with Barak on a great many things, and have since before I became a member of the fire in late 2003. He's a good man.

No different than IR detectors picking out heat signatures in drug grow operations. Can't do it plain and simple.

And one more thing, it wouldn't matter about judges, but I would feel worse if some of my black friends heard it. It would be hurtful and that is the only reason one shouldn't say it.

Barak,

I'd like to make one small correction. Freedom of speech is not the same as free speech. Within certain limitations, we have freedom of speech, meaning free from government interference. There is no such thing as free speech. If you doubt that, try telling your boss where to go. All speech has a cost and "free speech" is an expression that has been misused for as long as I can remember.

Barak,

Mohammed's horse was named Barak or Burak, the one on which he " flew " to heaven; that being the topic here.

A prominent Old Testament personage was named Barak.

Did you know about the Muslim horse?

And THAT's the reason why I said what I said in my post. I know what you were getting at but you could have stated your case a bit better. I know plenty of white folks that fit that description as well so it ain't just a "black" thing.

And that's okay, you were right and I was wrong.

Never understood that. I can be called whitey or cracker or honky or whatever an it has no effect on me whatsoever. Never did, even when it's meant to be hurtful/insulting.

Furthermore, blacks can call each other the n word all day long and no one cares. Makes the concept of offense all the dumber.

Doesn't make sense. I don't get it. Just words, who cares. I think anyone ought to be able to call anyone else any damn thing they like. I don't often revert to name calling, myself, but that's just a choice and has nothing to do with it. It should be a free for all. Literally. What do all you dumbasses think of that (jk, of course)

You're an attorney? Is your partner Lee 24?

As for Barak being a "good man," I suppose he's good enough. I think he's filled with resentment and hate, regardless of his work with prisoners. Which probably fuels this resentment and hate.

It might be profitable to visit his program, Kairos, and then you can make up your mind if all the cookie-baking is worth it. I doubt Barak could get an audience that wasn't a bunch of prisoners.

Joe, there's no way you can have "black friends" and think of others as the N word. That's disgusting.

Okay, whatever.

The US Constitution doesn't even say that speech is a right. It merely prohibits the United States Government from making laws abridging free speech. It says "Congress," but the Founders never imagined the US Supreme Court would ever bypass Congress and usurp the power of enacting laws on its own, such as that enacted in Row v. Wade prohibiting states from passing laws against the murder of the unborn.

There certainly should be no law prohibiting name calling.

A truly valid point. The good folks in Savannah, GA would be the first to agree with you that their biggest customer base for Gulfstream aircraft are in the Middle East, most at $40 million a copy, or more.
What you may not realize is the folks that afford these aircraft, usually in multiples, are as seriously against the Jihadist movement as we are. They are businessmen with an agenda that has nothing to do with terrorist acts. The security they have on their aircraft and around them is absolutely awesome to behold.
The fact that private aviation is so discriminating is what keeps it so attractive to those that participate.
I've only been a pawn in the industry; believe me when I say that if I could own my own aircraft, I would. It's the only way to travel quickly without the intrusiveness of the TSA and DHS.

That's close to what should be meant by the expression "Freedom isn't free." (It's much different from the common colloquial understanding, which is more like "The politicians in power need the contents of your bank account and the blood of your children or else they might be pretty badly embarrassed.")

Exercising your liberties will always cost you something--sometimes money, sometimes more important things. Sometimes certain kinds of freedom are relatively cheap; other times they're relatively expensive.

I didn't know the horse was a Muslim, no.

Say, if you know more about Islam than I do, I have a question.

Are children born into Muslim families automatically considered Muslims, or do they have to grow old enough to be able to say "There is no God but God, and Mohammed is his prophet?"

Good idea, but you can't visit Kairos: it's not set up that way. However, you can connect with it in a variety of ways, from checking out the website to making posters or baking cookies to serving on a kitchen team to actually being part of a Weekend.

Of course, "visit" means visiting the website. Which is revealing. It revealed your name, among other things.

I don't hold it against anyone for making posters and baking cookies, hey, it's a free world. Well, maybe not free for those people subjected to the views.

But I do think you're full of resentment and hatred. No big deal, you're not the only one, but it seems ironic for a person supposedly in the business of teaching the religion of love.

Heh. I'm nowhere near big enough cheese in Kairos for my name to be on that website. I'm just a grunt. Biggest claim to fame I have is that I met the executive director John Thompson once at an annual conference. Seemed like a decent guy.


You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Allah-not God is great but Allah is the Greatest. They compare him to other gods and he is No 1 as opposed to Yahweh, the Hebrew god, their competition at the time of the creation of Islam by Mohammed. Then, they turn around and say ..there is no other god...One of the tenets or pillars of their faith is the worship of Allah only.

Islam doesn't necessarily guarantee anyone a trip to heaven except martyrs. It's not a religion of grace or mercy, but works and it isn't definitive as to what Allah will ultimately do with most believers, much less children. They have their heaven and hell which Allah will control as to the proper inhabitants.

Isaac and Ishmael, sons of Abraham-Ishmael in their faith received the blessing and not Isaac and therefore they own the disputed lands.

As I noted a few days ago, Islam borrowed somewhat from the Old Testament. Thus, Barak, the name of a man of the Hebrew judges era in the Old Testament is also a name in Islam but assigned to Mohammed's horse as Islam does recognize parts of the OT. Just cutting up about it being a Muslim horse-like it had a choice.

Not a big wheel, but that doesn't affect the fact that I know your name. Just saying...if you want to remain anonymous, don't join anything.

Your secret is safe from me, however.

That's going to keep him up for the entire weekend.

No man is an island.

Oh, not hardly. He's been poking me with that for years. Recent behavior tends to impugn his credibility, though: first he claims to have found my name on the website, and then when I tell him my name isn't on the website, he changes his story.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. Someday the State will track me down and incarcerate or kill me. Maybe Gene L will play a starring role; if he doesn't, it'll be somebody else. My preparations are pretty much in place; I have no reason to worry about it anymore.

back to the subject of scanners, Google "airport scanner images"

I hope this post does not indicate that you ever feel you could go "postal" someday.

He only dreams of the same.

Odds are, one of the low-life scum that he tongue-bathes in prison will find out where he and his lives (ain't that hard to do), and take care of the entire family while he sits there sucking his thumb, crying, and wondering what went wrong.

What--like the schoolteacher chick in Alabama?

Nah, 'course not. Be an initiation of force.

Against my principles, you see.

The next time you fly commercially, will you be as brave as the muslims and refuse to pass through the scanner?

Like her and dozens of others through the years; most of whom killed innocents, too.

Glad to hear that.

Naw, Barak will just fly his private little plane (private license) from Ohio to wherever, thinking that he's invisible the whole time.

Retards are like that.

D.W.?

Like you would know.

If your intent was to help, you failed miserably.

Think man,think!!

Newsflash: The State doesn't give two schits about you!

And neither do a whole lot of folks around here, you criminal coddling panzy-azz!

Are you glad as hell when they use shooting incidents to enact various prohibitions on firearms possession?

Oh, look, it's JasonB. The other resident troll for Barakistanism has shown up to explain to us nothing useful.

Well, the gang's all here. Y'all have fun stroking each other.

VA, I never used to consider you to be in the same category with Isaac and gang. I'm sorry to see you go so completely over to the dark side.

Nope, just that JasonB is a worthless turd.

Hey, Jason, defend this, and tell me why Muslims ought not be profiled or barred from flight:

Islamic terrorist attacks, 12/15/2009 to date:

Date Country City Killed Injured Description
2010.02.14 Iraq Kufa 4 10 A female suicide bomber murders at least four Shia pilgrims headed to a religious ceremony.
2010.02.13 India Pune 9 45 Five women are among nine innocents blasted to death by a Shahid suicide bomber at a bakery near a Jewish center.
2010.02.12 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A 38-year-old man is murdered by Muslim gunmen.
2010.02.12 Iraq Buhriz 2 0 A man and his son are blown to bits by Jihadi bombers.
2010.02.12 Yemen Saada 1 7 Militant Shiites ambush and kill a government soldier.
2010.02.12 Afghanistan Paktia 3 0 Three women are bound, gagged and executed by religious extremists.
2010.02.12 Somalia Afgoye 2 0 al-Shabaab Islamists shoot two civilians to death.
2010.02.11 Pakistan Bannu 15 24 Fifteen innocents are blown to bits in a double suicide bombing by Islamic militants.
2010.02.11 Philippines Cotabato 1 0 Muslim extremists shoot a man to death as he is riding a motorbike to work.
2010.02.11 Iraq Mosul 1 0 Jihadis murder a 17-year-old with an IED.
2010.02.11 Iraq Baghdad 1 0 An imam at a mosque is gunned down by sectarian rivals.
2010.02.10 Israel Nablus 1 0 A Palestinian policeman walks up to an Israeli soldier and stabs him to death.
2010.02.10 Somalia Hamarjajab 5 7 al-Shabaab militants take out five Somalis with a roadside bomb.
2010.02.10 Iraq Baquba 2 1 Jihadi gunmen take down two Iraqis in their own home.
2010.02.10 Pakistan Khyber 18 10 A teenage Fedayeen suicide bomber detonates along a highway, killing nearly twenty others.
2010.02.10 Thailand Pattani 2 0 Two men are shot to death by Mujahideen in separate attacks.
2010.02.10 Iraq Abu Ghraib 2 4 Two Iraqi cops are blown apart by Mujahideen bombers.
2010.02.10 Pakistan Khyber 1 2 The Taliban murder a member of a rescue team.
2010.02.10 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A Buddhist man at a bird singing competition is brutally gunned down by Muslim radicals.
2010.02.09 Sudan al-Baytari 4 15 Janjiweed militia attack a refugee camp and murder four residents.
2010.02.09 Iraq Baghdad 1 1 Muslim assassins murder a man in front of his wife.
2010.02.08 Thailand Pattani 1 0 Islamic radicals target a Buddhist teacher riding home on his motorcycle. He is shot and then set on fire.
2010.02.08 Somalia Mogadishu 10 20 al-Shabaab claims responsibility for a series of attacks that leave at least ten civilians dead.
2010.02.08 Thailand Yala 1 0 A 41-year-old man is shot to death in his own backyard by Islamists.
2010.02.08 Pakistan Khyber 1 4 A young girl is killed in a rocket attack by Sunni hardliners.
2010.02.08 India Sopore 1 0 A police officer is gunned down by Muslim militants.
2010.02.08 Iraq Baghdad 1 3 One civilian is killed by Jihadi bombers while crossing a bridge.
2010.02.08 Pakistan Rawalpindi 4 1 Muslim terrorists open fire on a vehicle, killing two occupants and two bystanders.
2010.02.07 Iraq Diwaniya 1 3 Jihadis bomb a minibus, killing one occupant.
2010.02.07 Iraq Mosul 1 1 A female veterinarian is shot to death by Holy Warriors.
2010.02.07 Afghanistan Mazar-e Sharif 3 1 Two Swedes and their interpretor are shot to death by religious extremists dresses as police.
2010.02.07 Pakistan North Waziristan 1 0 An Afghan refugee is kidnapped and murdered by Islamic hardliners.
2010.02.07 Afghanistan Kandahar 4 2 Islamists detonate a hidden bomb under a bridge, taking out a car full of local cops.
2010.02.06 Thailand Narathiwat 1 1 A local soldier in a moving truck is killed by a Mujahideen sniper.
2010.02.05 Afghanistan Helmand 2 20 Two civilians are incinerated by a Taliban roadside bomb.
2010.02.05 India Baramulla 2 0 A civilian and local cop are murdered in a Mujahideen ambush.
2010.02.05 Pakistan Malakand 1 0 A local soldier standing guard is gunned down in cold blood by Islamists.
2010.02.05 Pakistan Karachi 33 80 A Christian family and dozens of Shiites are blown to bits by Sunni bombers at two locations, one a hospital.
2010.02.05 Iraq Karbalah 41 154 A barbaric Sunni double car-bombing against Shia pilgrims at a religious festival leaves at least forty dead.
2010.02.05 India Sopore 3 0 Islamic terrorists approach a police checkpoint and open fire, killing a civilian and two officers.
2010.02.04 Iraq Baghdad 1 0 A man leaving a mosque is killed by a suspected Mujahid.
2010.02.04 Afghanistan Kandahar 3 17 Three people are dismembered by a Shahid suicide bomber.
2010.02.03 Pakistan Swat 9 115 Four children are among nine people killed when the Tehrik-e-Taliban bomb am opening ceremony at a girl's school.
2010.02.03 Germany Northrhein-Westphalia 1 0 A mother of four is beheaded and then has her fingers cut off in a suspected 'honor' attack by her husband.
2010.02.03 Iraq Baghdad 1 3 Sunni bombers send a Shia pilgrim straight to Allah.
2010.02.03 Iraq Karbalah 23 147 A Fedayeen bomber passes out fruit to children before detonating, killing nearly two dozen.
2010.02.03 Thailand Narathiwat 1 0 A rubber tapper working with his wife is shot in the back by Muslim militants with a shotgun
2010.02.03 Iraq Touz Khormato 1 0 A teacher is kidnapped and killed by Muslim radicals.
2010.02.02 Philippines Maluso 1 8 Suspected Abu Sayyaf militants plant a landmine that kills one local soldier.
2010.02.02 Pakistan Mohmand 2 2 Two members of a peace community pay the ultimate price when Islamic hardliners blow them up.
2010.02.02 Iraq Karbalah 3 21 Three Shia pilgirms are murdered by Sunni bombers.
2010.02.01 Ingushetia Nazran 1 3 Islamists fire five grenades into a building, killing at least one occupant.
2010.02.01 Iraq Baghdad 54 117 A female suicide bomber murders fifty-four innocent Shia pilgrims at a hospitality tent, mostly women and children.
2010.02.01 Ingushetia Nazran 1 3 A bomb planted in a kindergarten explodes, leaving one person dead.
2010.01.31 Somalia Mogadishu 8 55 A mother and her 4-year-old child are among eight civilians killed during an al-Shabaab mortar attack.
2010.01.31 Iraq Mosul 1 0 A young woman is shot to death inside her home by Muslim terrorists.
2010.01.31 Pakistan Mohmand 2 2 The Taliban take out two local troops with a landmine.
2010.01.31 Thailand Pattani 3 1 A 6-year-old boy and his parents are brutally shot to death by Religion of Peace advocates.
2010.01.30 Pakistan Bolochistan 3 7 Sectarian Jihadis fire into a bus filled with Shia pilgrims, killing at least three.
2010.01.30 Pakistan North Waziristan 2 0 The Taliban abduct two civilians, then shoot them to death in captivity.
2010.01.30 Somalia Mogadishu 12 25 A mother and her two children are among a dozen civilians burned or blasted to death when Islamists lob mortars into their neighborhood.
2010.01.30 Pakistan Bajaur 16 20 A suicide bomber at a market sends sixteen shoppers straight to Allah.
2010.01.30 Iraq Samarrah 2 20 Two people at a restaurant are blown to bits by a Fedayeen suicide bomber.
2010.01.30 Iraq Baghdad 1 4 Sunni bombers take out a Shia pilgrim.
2010.01.30 Afghanistan Uruzgan 1 1 A baby is killed when religious extremists use the mother as a human shield in an attack on Afghan troops.
2010.01.30 Thailand Pattani 2 0 A man and his wife are murdered by Islamic radicals while on their way to work at a rubber plantation.
2010.01.29 Afghanistan Lashkar Gah 1 3 At least one civilian is killed during a sustained Taliban assault on a commercial district.
2010.01.29 Somalia Mogadishu 10 35 An al-Shabaab ambush leaves at least 10 people dead.
2010.01.29 India Kishtwar 2 0 Two Indian troops are gunned down in cold blood by Islamic militants.
2010.01.29 Thailand Pattani 1 2 A bomb detonated at a mosque kills a local soldier.
2010.01.29 Afghanistan Wardak 2 0 An interpreter suddendly turns on two US soldiers, killing both.
2010.01.28 Ingushetia Nazran 1 0 Islamic militants fire on a car, killing the driver.
2010.01.28 Somalia Mogadishu 2 5 Two Ugandan peacekeepers die from shrapnel injuries suffered during an Islamist mortar attack.
2010.01.28 Iraq Mosul 4 3 Jihadi bombers take down four Iraqis.
2010.01.28 Iraq Adel 1 0 An imam is gunned down by Muslim rivals while leaving a mosque.
2010.01.28 Iran Tehran 2 0 Two people are executed for 'waging war against Allah'.
2010.01.27 Ingushetia Nazran 2 2 Two police officers die in the hospital from injuries suffered in a Islamic ambush.
2010.01.27 Pakistan Mardan 1 5 A drive-by attack by Sunni hardliners leaves one cop dead.
2010.01.27 Pakistan Dir 3 0 Three children are murdered by Taliban bombers while grazing their family goats.
2010.01.27 Iraq Mosul 2 0 Muslim terrorists shoot two people to death.
2010.01.27 Somalia Hiran 8 0 Rival Islamic groups Hizbul Islam and al-Shabaab go on a beheading spree, lopping off at least four heads apiece.
2010.01.27 Iraq Baghdad 2 5 A woman is among two people murdered by Mujahid gunmen.
2010.01.27 Somalia Mogadishu 1 0 Islamists assassinate a local official at a market.
2010.01.26 Iraq Baghdad 22 80 A Shahid suicide bomber murders over twenty people working at a police crime lab.
2010.01.26 Afghanistan Helmand 4 0 Talibanis ambush and kill four local policemen in the middle of the night.
2010.01.26 Somalia Mogadishu 5 3 al-Shabaab Islamists bomb a hospital clinic, killing at leat five.
2010.01.26 Thailand Pattani 3 0 Two Buddhist contruction workers are among three people gunned down Islamic separatists in two attacks.
2010.01.26 Pakistan Salarzai 1 0 A local tribesman is abducted and murdered by Sunni extremists.
2010.01.26 Iraq Mosul 0 1 A Christian shopkeeper is targeted by Muslim gunmen and seriously injured.
2010.01.25 Iraq Mosul 2 0 A woman and her daughter are shot to death in their own home by Holy Warriors.
2010.01.25 Iraq Kirkuk 2 0 Two cops sitting at a gas station are wasted by Sunni gunmen.
2010.01.25 Iraq Baghdad 41 102 Three horrific bomb attacks on hotels leave at least three dozen dead and many more in agony.
2010.01.25 Somalia Sool 2 3 Two police officers are killed by a bomb hidden in a mosque.
2010.01.25 Yemen Sanaa 3 0 al-Qaeda militants attack a checkpoint, killing three local soldiers.
2010.01.24 Iraq Mosul 6 2 Six Iraqis are killed in two Mujahid bomb blasts.
2010.01.23 Afghanistan Paktika 4 3 Islamic hardliners fire into a taxi, killing three women and a boy.
2010.01.23 Pakistan Orakzai 3 0 Three local soldiers are ambushed and killed by religious extremists.
2010.01.23 Afghanistan Helmand 2 2 Muslim radicals take out two children with an IED blast.
2010.01.23 Pakistan Gomal 4 11 Two children are among four people dismembered by a suicide bomber.
2010.01.23 Afghanistan Khost 1 0 A 16-year-old boy is sent straight to Allah by Taliban bombers.
2010.01.23 Pakistan North Waziristan 7 0 Seven civilians are kidnapped and executed by Sunni hardliners.
2010.01.23 Afghanistan Helmand 1 0 A young marine is murdered by a Fedayeen suicide bomber.
2010.01.22 Iraq Baghdad 2 0 Jihadi gunmen assassinate two police officers.
2010.01.22 Pakistan Pattar 2 0 Two tribal elders are murdered by Muslim militants and dumped under a bridge.
2010.01.22 Pakistan Lahore 1 0 A 12-year-old Christian girl is raped, tortured and killed by her Muslim employer, a respected lawyer.
2010.01.22 Afghanistan Ghazni 4 1 Four soldiers are sent to Allah by Taliban bombers.
2010.01.22 Bangladesh Netrokona 0 2 A Catholic humanitarian worker and his wife are attacked by a gang of Muslims.
2010.01.21 Iraq Mussayab 1 5 Mujahideen murder a cop with a roadside bomb.
2010.01.21 Thailand Narathiwat 1 0 A 42-year-old defense volunteer is gunned down by Islamic radicals while riding a motorcycle.
2010.01.21 Pakistan Bajaur 3 22 A woman is among three people blown to bits by an Islamic bomb.
2010.01.20 Pakistan Karachi 1 0 A woman 8-months pregnant is stabbed to death with an axe and dagger by her family for marrying against their will.
2010.01.20 Iraq Mosul 0 45 A suicide bomber injures over forty Iraqis, but manages to kill only himself.
2010.01.19 Somalia Mogadishu 19 30 Women and children are among nineteen killed when Islamists launch multiple assaults on 'apostates and Christian backers.'
2010.01.19 Pakistan Mohmand 2 2 Religious extremists open fire on a peace committee, killing two members.
2010.01.19 Pakistan Jandola 2 0 Islamic hardliners end the lives of two local soldiers with a bomb.
2010.01.19 Somalia Bosasso 1 0 Fundamentalists shoot a man to death inside his bookstore.
2010.01.18 Pakistan Mohmand 1 2 The Taliban attack a village, killing a defense volunteer.
2010.01.18 Iraq Mosul 1 0 Islamic terrorists gun down a Christian man inside a grocery.
2010.01.18 Iraq Baghdad 5 0 Muslim gunmen storm a humanitarian office, killing four workers and a mother in front of her 3-year-old daughter.
2010.01.18 Afghanistan Kabul 5 71 Fedayeen stage a massive suicide attack against government buildings in the capital, leaving at least five dead.
2010.01.18 Algeria Kabylie 1 0 Armed fundamentalists cut down a cop at point blank range.
2010.01.17 Thailand Pattani 2 0 Two civilians are gunned down by Islamic radicals in separate attacks.
2010.01.17 Afghanistan Chishti Sharif 6 0 Sunni hardliners open fire on a vehicle, killing six local occupants.
2010.01.17 Nigeria Jos 48 96 Muslim youth go on a rampage, hacking about 48 Christians to death after an attack outside a church. The victims include two pastors.
2010.01.17 Iraq Kharab 3 0 According to reports, three brothers are dragged out of their home and shot to death on their doorstep by Muslim terrorists.
2010.01.17 Iraq Mosul 2 0 At least one of two men gunned down in a targeted shooting is a Christian father of two.
2010.01.17 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A Buddhist woman is dismembered by a Muslim bomb thrown into a karaoke bar.
2010.01.16 Iraq Baghdad 5 3 Five Iraqis are murdered in various Mujahideen attacks.
2010.01.16 Philippines North Cotabato 3 3 Three civilians are machine-gunned to death in their village by Moro Islamists.
2010.01.15 Somalia Lasanod 1 0 Suspected Islamists assassinate a senior police officer outside a mosque.
2010.01.15 Somalia Mogadishu 1 2 Three aid workers are kidnapped by suspected Hizbul Islam. One is found brutally murdered.
2010.01.15 Kenya Nairobi 1 5 A Muslim gunmen fires into a crowd, killing one Christian and injuring five.
2010.01.15 Afghanistan Spin Boldak 5 0 A mother and her four children are successfully taken out by a fundamentalist bomb attack on their car.
2010.01.15 India Sopore 2 7 Islamic militants assault a police station, killing a civilian and one officer.
2010.01.14 Iraq Baqubah 2 10 Two people at a market are killed by a Mujahideen market blast.
2010.01.14 Thailand Pattani 2 0 A Buddhist couple is shot to death by Muslims while riding to work. Their bodies are then burned.
2010.01.14 Pakistan Mohmand 2 7 Two members of a peace committee are murdered by Taliban roadside bombers while on their way home.
2010.01.14 Afghanistan Uruzgan 20 13 Three children are among twenty civilians blown to bits at a market place by a Fedayeen suicide bomber.
2010.01.14 Ingushetia Nazran 1 3 Islamists shoot a cop to death outside a mosque.
2010.01.14 Iraq Najaf 27 111 Twenty-seven people are massacred by three separate bomb blasts at a Shia market.
2010.01.14 Afghanistan Helmand 1 4 A Shahid suicide bomber sends a local cop to paradise.
2010.01.14 India Uttar Pradesh 1 0 A 14-year-old member of the area's oppressed Hindu community is raped and killed by two Muslim men.
2010.01.13 Yemen Shabwa 2 0 Two local soldiers are cut down in an al-Qaeda ambush.
2010.01.13 Afghanistan Ghazni 1 6 An Afghan police officer is murdered by Sunni roadside bombers.
2010.01.13 Pakistan Hangu 1 0 A man is kidnapped and beheaded by Muslim militants, who then booby-trap the body.
2010.01.13 Pakistan Tank 1 6 A child is killed from an explosive planted by religious radicals at a playground.
2010.01.13 Thailand Pattani 1 4 Islamic terrorists ambush a group of electricians, killing one.
2010.01.13 Algeria Allaghane 2 0 Two security personnel are shot to death by Islamic extremists.
2010.01.13 Iraq Saqlawiya 7 6 A suicide bomber sends seven Iraqis to Allah.
2010.01.12 Iraq Mosul 1 0 A 75-year-old Christian is gunned down in his grocery story by Religion of Peace militants.
2010.01.12 Iraq Diyala 3 5 Terrorists murder three people with a brutal bomb blast.
2010.01.12 France Paris 0 1 An actress-playwright is doused with petrol and nearly set on fire by three Algerians angred by her negative portrayal of Muslim men.
2010.01.11 Dagestan Kizlyar 2 0 A moderate cleric and a former policeman are murdered in separate attacks.
2010.01.11 India Jammu 1 0 Pakistani terrorists shoot an Indian border guard to death.
2010.01.11 Pakistan Peshawar 1 5 One person is crushed to death in a Taliban rocket attack.
2010.01.11 Iraq Mosul 1 0 A 51-year-old Christian man is brutally gunned down while selling vegetables by the side of the road.
2010.01.11 Afghanistan Uruzgan 1 2 A policeman is cut down by a suicide bomber.
2010.01.10 Afghanistan Uruzgan 3 0 Three humanitarian workers die in a Taliban roadside attack.
2010.01.10 India Kulgam 2 1 Hizb-ul-Mujahideen gun down two former members who had renounced violence.
2010.01.10 Pakistan Mohmand 2 0 Suspected Islamists murder two tribal elders.
2010.01.10 Thailand Narathiwat 2 0 Two men sitting in a tea shop are blown away by Muslim terrorists with automatic weapons.
2010.01.09 Afghanistan Helmand 2 6 A British journalist is among two killed in a roadside Mujahideen bombing.
2010.01.09 Iraq Mosul 1 0 Freedom fighters kill a 16-year-old boy with a bomb.
2010.01.08 Pakistan Bajaur 2 2 Two people are blown to bits by a Taliban roadside bomb.
2010.01.08 Afghanistan Logar 2 0 Two Afghans are blown away at point blank range by a Fedayeen.
2010.01.08 Iraq Ras Al-Jadeh 2 0 Jihad bombers kill two local cops.
2010.01.08 Pakistan Khyber 8 11 Three children are among eight civilians murdered by a Lashkar-e-Islam suicide bomber outside a mosque.
2010.01.08 Pakistan Karachi 5 7 Five mourners at a funeral are shot to death by sectarian Jihadis.
2010.01.07 Afghanistan Uruzgan 8 0 All eight Afghan soldiers riding in a vehicle are killed by a Taliban roadside bomb.
2010.01.07 Egypt Nag Hamadi 7 10 Six worshippers and one guard are gunned down by Muslim radicals as they leave mass at a Christian church. A 14-year-old is among the dead.
2010.01.07 Iraq Khanaqin 3 15 Three Iraqis are cut down by a Jihadi bomb.
2010.01.07 Thailand Yala 1 0 A man is ripped in two by a Religion of Peace nail bomb.
2010.01.07 Iraq Hit 7 6 Women and children are among the dead when Mujahideen detonate planted bombs around the bedrooms of four homes.
2010.01.07 Afghanistan Nangarhar 9 44 Four children are among nine Afghans murdered by Islamic bombers in two attacks.
2010.01.06 Iraq Mosul 2 1 Two children are killed by a bomb in their home, suspected to have been stored there by their father.
2010.01.06 India Srinagar 3 11 Jamiat-ul-Mujahideen militants toss grenades and fire into a crowd at a shopping center, killing at least three people.
2010.01.06 Dagestan Makhachkala 6 12 A suicide bomber murders six Russian police officers.
2010.01.06 Somalia Bosasso 1 0 A lawmaker is assassinated by suspected fundamentalists.
2010.01.06 Pakistan Sudhanoti 3 11 Three local soldiers are incinerated by a suicide bomber.
2010.01.06 Egypt Rafah 1 0 Hamas snipers take down an Egyptian soldier.
2010.01.05 Pakistan Karachi 1 0 A 70-year-old leader of a religious minority is murdered while sitting in his store by Jihadi gunmen.
2010.01.05 Pakistan Mohmand 2 2 Two civilians are taken down by Taliban rockets.
2010.01.04 Iraq Kirkuk 3 7 Three Iraqis are murdered in a Mujahideen double bombing.
2010.01.04 Iraq Mosul 3 1 Sunni bombers blast three civilians into pieces.
2010.01.03 Pakistan Waziristan 2 5 A bombing and separate rocket attack leave two people dead.
2010.01.03 Pakistan Hangu 4 2 A Taliban roadside bomb ends the lives of four people.
2010.01.03 Iraq Tal Abta 3 0 Three road construction workers are gunned down by Muslim terrorists.
2010.01.03 Pakistan Bajaur 2 4 Two tribal elders are blown to bits by a Taliban roadside bomb.
2010.01.02 Pakistan Orakzai 3 0 Three civilian village guards are ambushed and killed by Islamic militants.
2010.01.02 Afghanistan Nimroz 5 6 Five civilians are killed when Sunni terrorists bomb their pickup truck.
2010.01.02 Somalia Dhusamareb 47 150 al-Shabaab Islamists assault a small town. At least four dozen people are killed in the fighting.
2010.01.02 Iraq Mosul 2 0 Two local cops are gunned down by Sunni terrorists.
2010.01.02 Afghanistan Kandahar 4 0 Four American soldiers guarding a road are murdered by a Taliban roadside bomb.
2010.01.02 Iraq Baghdad 1 21 Jihadi bombers take out a civilian and injure two dozen others.
2010.01.01 Pakistan Shah Hason Khel 105 100 Children are amply represented among over one hundred spectators massacred at a volleyball tournament by a Fedayeen suicide bomber.
2010.01.01 Somalia Hodan 1 0 Islamists murder a 41-year-old Christian convert and church leader.
2009.12.31 Thailand Yala 2 0 Two civilians riding a motorbike are shot to death by Islamic militants.
2009.12.31 Afghanistan Uruzgan 6 0 Six civilians are beheaded by Islamic hardliners.
2009.12.31 Pakistan Kalat 2 2 Two oil truck drivers are shot to death by Muslim radicals.
2009.12.30 Afghanistan Kandahar 5 0 A female reporter is among five Canadians killed by a Taliban roadside bomb.
2009.12.30 Thailand Pattani 2 0 Two volunteers guarding teachers are taken down in a Mujahideen bombing.
2009.12.30 Iraq Ramadi 27 105 Twin suicide blasts take down over twenty-five Iraqis and leave over one hundred others with injuries, including lost limbs.
2009.12.30 Iraq Khalis 7 25 Dedicated Sunnis bomb a Shia religious festival, leaving seven dead.
2009.12.30 India Baramulla 4 0 Hizb-ul-Mujahideen gunmen open up on four Indian cops at point-blank range, leaving all four dead.
2009.12.30 Pakistan Bajaur 1 0 A tribal elder is brutally murdered by the Taliban and dropped by the roadside.
2009.12.30 Afghanistan Khost 8 6 Eight American civilians are murdered by a Shahid suicide bomber at a gymnasium.
2009.12.30 Thailand Narathiwat 3 0 A Buddhist civilian is among three people killed in an Islamist drive-by shooting.
2009.12.30 Thailand Pattani 1 0 Muslim gunmen take out a civilian as he is driving home.
2009.12.29 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A 49-year-old man is shot to death by militant Muslims at a tea shop.
2009.12.29 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A 45-year-old man is gunned down in his pickup truck by Islamic radicals.
2009.12.29 Afghanistan Heart 1 2 A terrorist in an Afghan army uniform opens fire on three unsuspecting NATO soldiers, killing one.
2009.12.29 Pakistan Lahore 2 0 A man slits his daughter's throat, and stabs her lover to death, over a suspected illicit affair.
2009.12.29 Iraq Baghdad 4 18 Two woman are among four Iraqis murdered in two Jihad attacks.
2009.12.29 Iraq Tal Massoud 5 0 Four people are shot to death and one beheaded by suspected al-Qaeda elements.
2009.12.28 Iraq Mosul 2 0 Jihadi gunmen take down two cement workers.
2009.12.28 Nigeria Bauchi 3 12 At least three security forces are killed during attacks by a local Islamist sect.
2009.12.28 Afghanistan Badghis 2 3 Two local cops are murdered in a Taliban ambush.
2009.12.28 Pakistan Orakzai 9 6 Taliban hardliners assault a village, killing nine defense volunteers.
2009.12.28 Pakistan Karachi 45 82 More than forty people in a religious procession are sent straight to Allah by a Fedayeen suicide bomber.
2009.12.28 Pakistan Chamarkand 2 5 Two local soldiers are killed in a Taliban rocket attack on their checkpoint.
2009.12.28 Somalia Gedo 1 0 Islamic militia are suspected of murdered a humanitarian worker in his home.
2009.12.27 Pakistan Sadda 6 0 Islamic fundamentalists blow up a family home, killing six occupants, including five young children.
2009.12.27 Thailand Yala 2 1 Islamists shoot two men to death as they are riding a motorcycle.
2009.12.27 Pakistan Muzaffarabad 15 100 A Shahid suicide bomber blows himself up at a rival mosque, taking at least fifteen innocents with him.
2009.12.27 Iran Tehran 9 60 Basij militia and Islamic state police fire into a crowd of protesters, killing at least nine.
2009.12.27 Iraq Touz Khormato 5 25 Five Shia pilgrims are blown to bits by Sunni terrorists.
2009.12.26 Pakistan Punjab 0 2 Two young Christians are shot in the chest after refusing to convert to Islam.
2009.12.26 Pakistan Karachi 0 26 Shiite radicals are suspected of detonating a roadside bomb that injures some twenty-six people at a funeral.
2009.12.26 Iraq Baghdad 6 22 Two bombs, one near a tent distributing food to Shia pilgrims, leave six Iraqis dead.
2009.12.26 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A man is murdered in front of his home by Muslim separatists.
2009.12.25 Pakistan Kalar Kahar 0 60 About sixty Christians are injured when a Muslim mob attacks them during Christmas prayers.
2009.12.25 Pakistan Peshawar 2 0 Islamists gun down two local cops.
2009.12.25 Iraq Baghdad 10 51 Ten Shiite pilgrims are murdered in three separate bombing attacks by sectarian rivals.
2009.12.25 Iraq Mosul 3 0 Three unarmed census workers are shot to death in cold blood by Sunni insurgents.
2009.12.25 Algeria Tizi Ouzou 1 2 A local soldier is murdered by fundamentalist bombers.
2009.12.24 Afghanistan Kandahar 8 3 A Shahid suicide bomber on a horse car murders eight innocent people.
2009.12.24 Afghanistan Paktika 2 0 Two civilians are murdered by Jihadi roadside bombers.
2009.12.24 Iraq Baghdad 12 53 Jihadis murder a dozen mourners when they bomb two separate funerals.
2009.12.24 Pakistan Peshawar 4 24 A suicide bomber detonates near a Christian school, killing four others.
2009.12.24 Israel Einav 1 0 An Israeli father of seven is shot to death in his car by Palestinian terrorists.
2009.12.24 Iraq Kirkuk 4 0 Four Iraqis are gunned down by suspected al-Qaeda militants.
2009.12.24 Pakistan Rawalpindi 1 2 A 6-year-old girl is dismembered by a suicide bomber.
2009.12.24 Somalia Mogadishu 6 25 Six civilians are killed during an attack by Hizb al-Islam fundamentalists.
2009.12.24 Iraq Hilla 25 105 A crowded bus station is the target of Sunni bombers, who leave twenty-five Iraqis dead and nearly one hundred more in agony.
2009.12.24 Iraq Mosul 1 0 A Christian is gunned down in front of his home by Islamists.
2009.12.23 Afghanistan Helmand 3 4 Three civilians are killed when fundamentalists detonate a bomb at a bazaar.
2009.12.23 Afghanistan Spin Boldak 2 3 Talibanis take down two civilians with a roadside bomb.
2009.12.23 Afghanistan Helmand 3 5 Three innocents are cut down by a Taliban bomb planted on a bicycle.
2009.12.23 Iraq Baghdad 5 46 Sunni bombers murder five Shia pilgrims in three separate attacks.
2009.12.23 Iraq Mosul 2 0 A bomb placed near an ancient Christian church kills two people.
2009.12.22 Thailand Pattani 1 1 Islamic gunmen fire into a family home, killing a 3-year-old girl and seriously injuring her sister.
2009.12.22 Pakistan Peshawar 3 16 A woman is among three people at a press club blown to bits by a Shahid suicide bomber.
2009.12.22 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A 37-year-old father is shot full of holes by Muslim militants after dropping his children off at school.
2009.12.22 Iraq Iskandariya 1 4 A civilian dies from shrapnel injures after Jihadis detonate a bomb on a minibus.
2009.12.22 India Pampore 2 1 Hizbul Mujahideen militants shoot two local cops to death.
2009.12.21 Iraq Tal Afar 4 5 A Fedayeen suicide bomber takes out four Iraqis.
2009.12.21 Somalia Mogadishu 5 0 Five Somalis near a minibus are murdered by al-Shabaab bombers.
2009.12.21 Yemen Abyan 2 9 al-Qaeda militants booby-trap an area with explosives, killing two civilians.
2009.12.20 Iraq Mosul 2 0 Mujahideen gun down two local cops.
2009.12.20 Somalia Mogadishu 1 3 One Somali is killed in a mortar attack by Islamic militia.
2009.12.19 Thailand Narathiwat 3 2 Three Buddhists are incinerated when Muslim insurgents blow up a gas tank next to their truck.
2009.12.19 Pakistan Poonch 1 2 An Indian border guard is shot by a Muslim sniper from Pakistan.
2009.12.19 Iraq Mosul 3 1 Jihadi gunmen take down three Iraqis in separate attacks.
2009.12.18 Pakistan Lower Dir 15 28 Children are among fifteen people blown to bits a mosque by a Shahid suicide bomber.
2009.12.18 Somalia Mogadishu 2 4 Two civilians are killed when a mortar fired by suspected Islamic militia strikes a house.
2009.12.18 Pakistan Haripur 3 0 A man and his wife are among three killed in their home by suspected Islamic hardliners.
2009.12.18 India Pulwama 2 0 Two people are dragged from their homes and murdered by Mujahideen. One has his throat slit.
2009.12.18 Iraq Sulaimaniyah 1 0 A civilian is gunned down on his doorstep by Muslim terrorists.
2009.12.17 Afghanistan Kandahar 7 3 Five women are among seven people murdered by Taliban roadside bombers.
2009.12.17 Iraq Mosul 1 0 A 30-year-old Christian man is shot to death in cold blood by Mujahideen.
2009.12.17 Pakistan Bara Tehsil 3 5 Three security force personnel are murdered in Taliban ambushes.
2009.12.17 Iraq Baghdad 1 10 A pedestrian is killed by a roadside bomb.
2009.12.17 Thailand Yala 2 0 A 2-year-old girl is gunned down along with her father by Holy Warriors.
2009.12.17 Ingushetia Nazran 2 24 Children are among the casualties of a suicide bombing. A separate shooting leaves two dead.
2009.12.16 Afghanistan Herat 4 0 Four local cops are slaughtered by a Taliban roadside blast.
2009.12.16 Iraq Baghdad 2 5 Sunni bombers take down two Iraqis riding on a bus.
2009.12.16 Thailand Yala 3 0 Three men are shot to death in separate shooting attacks by Islamic insurgents.
2009.12.16 Pakistan Khyber 4 27 Fundamentalists throw grenades into a music concert, killing at least four people.
2009.12.15 Afghanistan Gardez 5 0 Five people are blown to bits by Jihadi bombers.
2009.12.15 Somalia Bossasso 3 8 Suspected Islamists blow up a pick-up full of local soldiers, killing three.
2009.12.15 India Shopian 1 0 A 21-year-old woman is gunned down in front of her family by Islamic militants.
2009.12.15 Iraq Nineveh 3 0 Muslim radicals throw grenades into a police patrol, brutally killing three Iraqis.
2009.12.15 Iraq Mosul 4 40 Four Christians are killed when Islamic bombers target a church and Christian school.
2009.12.15 Iraq Mosul 2 0 A woman is among two people incinerated by a thermal bomb.
2009.12.15 Afghanistan Helmand 2 0 Two British soldiers are killed by a suicide bomber as they are walking down a street.
2009.12.15 Pakistan Dera Ghazi Khan 33 60 Thirty-three shoppers at an outdoor market are blown apart by a Fedayeen suicide car bomber.
2009.12.15 Afghanistan Kabul 7 44 A suicide car bomber takes out seven people standing outside a hotel.

Of course the FFL is a Constitutional violation in and of itself anyway.

Rival those last three months with any other subset of humanity, and we've got a debate.

If you can't, concede the point that screening/scanning/flight bans (and, again, that's COMPLETELY CONSTITUTIONAL - Barak, you're delusionally retarded, again), are not only appropriate but likely necessary.

Ball's in your court Jason, and I'll give you overnight to try to fathom something.

Wrong, again. Par for the course.

That can't be right. It's the religion of peace.

(I left the first line there as it's oh' so true, he may have been the first person on my ignore list. )

We'll mark you down as a "yes" that you are pleased when the government uses a shooting incident to further infringe the 2nd Amendment.

Try again, you worthless incompetent POS.

How about addressing the questions directed to you?

Try to defend this one, Jason:

Islamic Terrorist attacks from 09/11/2001 to 2003:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2001-2003.htm

So you are in favor of a licensing system for the sale of new firearms. Damn, you are anti-gun to the core.

Or, this one:

Islamic terrorist attacks for 2004:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2004.htm

Ditto that for 2005:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2005.htm

How about 2006?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2006.htm

And you're a [bleep] idiot! At least one of those qualifications fits .

George

2007, perhaps?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2007.htm

Sickening.
And we are supposed to believe Muslims are basically peace loving people?

What are you guys fighting over?

That Muslims wanna' kill us or that the Constitution doesn't provide for FFL's?

2008?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2008.htm

Jason's a lie-beral. He can't stay on topic, because facts skew his agenda.

This one ought to REALLY twist Jason's arse:




In 2007 Islam and Judaism's holiest holidays overlapped for 10 days.
Muslims racked up 397 dead bodies in 94 terror attacks across 10
countries during this time... while Jews worked on their 159th Nobel Prize.

Variation from the Conservative Playbook, 2(A)

Airport screening?

I'm against it and think that everyone that isn't mentally incompetent or a felon WITH the suspension of their rights in place oughta' be REQUIRED to carry at ALL times...especially on a plane.

How about this, Jason?

Is this good parenting for obedient children?



Muslims tend to think so.

That rules out Barak, right there.

Nope, just don't care for having to jump through hoops to satisfy some elitist prick's whims. I see that you do favor such arrangements.

How about a few more facts for Jason, Barak, and the rest:

More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition)

Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years. (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingyear.html)

More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/death95w.htm)

In other words, Jason, facts continue to stymie your agenda, and you have no legitimate answer.

That is correct, isn't it?

If not, feel free to refute the posts directed SPECIFICALLY toward you, and with verifiable sources.

It would seem like a good idea not to live in nor support those countries. I wonder how much money political hacks you support have managed to send to those countries?

Now, please indicate where the Constitution states that it is a function of the federal government to develop business procedures for airlines (or any other companies for that matter) or (as some have already pointed out) where the Constitution states providing welfare to airlines (or other busineses) is a function of government.

So, you cannot refute the points as stated, correct?

Good to know.

BTW - "Commerce clause". Look it up, study it, and get back to us after you develop half a fuggin' clue.

Feel free to continue addressing the posts directed specifically toward you, if you can, as a justification as to why not to profile/screen a certain subset of the human population.

You've failed miserably in that attempt thus far, but I'll continue to give you the benefit of the doubt, if only to assist you in looking more like a fool.

Not that you need much assistance.

Tell ya what, Jason. I'm going to make this even easier on you.

I'm going to go have some fun with the wife for the remainder of the night.

That should give you PLENTY of time to obfuscate from the questions posed directly to you.

Have fun.

Please indicate where I have ever stated anything that demonstrates that I am unaware of bad people in the world that do bad things to other people. I have repeatedly stated that I am opposed to using negative human actions as an excuse for government abridging freedoms. Your arguments (and that of several others here) sound very similar to the "if it saves one child" idiocy and is why I find people who fly the conservative flag to be as dishonest as those who fly the liberal flag.

If you think I favor such arrangements, you're definitely a [bleep] idiot. I exist in the real world, though.

Well considering I was indicating my lack of support for such arrangements and you joined the pile on me, how else should I take it? I am not accustomed to various forms of "[bleep] you" being an indicator of being in agreement with someone.

You figure VA is anti-gun, you're a [bleep] idiot. You figure I agree with licensing, etc. you're a [bleep] idiot. The fact is, few here know my true politics. There's a lot of guessing and assumptions from some of the "brain trust" that like to set themselves higher than the rest of us and paint themselves "true conservatives". In the end it's just that, guessing.

George

Islam is a religion of violence. Conversion by the sword was their standard mode for spreading the "faith."

So you actually believe the Commerce Clause was intended by the Founders to establish the United States as a central government with unlimited powers?

I would agree ad infinitum on that.

Freedom at the governments' concession isn't freedom.

You haven't a clue. I don't know what happened to turn you from a reasonable person to a boitch.

Once again, if I state that I find various firearms laws onerous and someone else comes along and begins bad mouthing me over the statement I made it would reasonable to conclude that the person doing the bad mouthing does not find the various laws onerous. With the emphasis many add in the bad mouthing it would be logical to conclude that they are zealous in their support for those laws.

As for the conservative bit, pre-2000'ish I would have likely referred to myself as a conservative. After seeing several years of conservative views once they had their personnel in place (as opposed to the points in the 90s when the dems were in) I figured out I really wasn't a conservative (and as a result probably haven't referred to myself as such in 5 years or more) since issues such as gun control and foreign aid are wrong because they are inherently wrong, not just wrong when a democrat does it, but fine and dandy when the same acts are perpetrated by republicans.

Actually, I think it's probably not worth worrying about. I haven't flown commercially since...I think it was 1991; by the time I decide to fly commercially again, if I do, I'm sure everything will be all different anyway.

Barak why don'y you think about 9-11 for a minute and get a clue you frickin cracker jack..You are a real piece of work...

Can any of you folks direct a post at someone with whom you have a disagreement without trying to turn it into a rank-out contest?

Please be specific. On what am I supposed not to have a clue? Explain.

If a few of you want to cut down on the time it is taking you to voice your opposition to what Barak, The Real Hawkeye, and a few others have been saying (me included,) just cut and past "Ditto the Bill quote" and we will know where you are coming from.

"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it."

+1 But you could have still called yourself a conservative, even though many who did turned out not to be. Alternatively, you can be more specific and refer to yourself as a paleoconservative, to distinguish yourself from the neocons who dominate the Republican establishment.

Was Lee 24 your navigator?

Or people could just give up on the useless labels. paleoconservative, neocon, vanilla conservative, blah, blah, blah. Useless labels. They do serve to make some feel much better about themselves, though. Carry on.

George

Labels are words, and words have meaning. It is a strategy of some (who could not win a debate otherwise) to deconstruct the meaning of words in order to disarm their opponents. This is why the meaning of words (including labels) needs to be upheld by those who are capable of winning real debates (which necessarily requires that words continue to have real and valuable meanings), so long as words do have meaning.

At semi-regular intervals throughout my tenure here at the Campfire, various folks have come up with what they believe is my identity or my location or both, and have asked me if their surmises are correct.

(All of them but you, of course, have had the decency to do so in a PM.)

The obvious thing to do, it seems, is to treat each attempt as though it's successful and correct.

So: congratulations. You will, of course, do your worst, and probably at least a few people will be watching to see if you're successful.

I think I'll refrain from wishing you good luck. I hope you understand.

Well, apparently at least one agent of the State does. Since they're the ones with the guns, they're the ones I keep an eye out for.

What is it we're debating, again? I wasn't aware I was involved in one.

I understand. But your secret is safe from me, as I said earlier. Consider it an exercise in my craft.