Originally Posted by SirFlysALot
No it isn't. How many males of middle eastern descent between the ages of 17 and 40 have been caught at airport check points? Is it OK to single out dark skinned people who have lived here all of their lives? Or were here for an education? It is just plain silly. It is just a few middle eastern folks at this small point in time.
In the past it was France, Britain, Spain, Mexico, Germany, Japan, the Phillipines, Porter Rico, the American South, North Korea, North Viet Nam, Russia, China...... The list goes on and on... Are we still singling these people out? Why not? Did ANY of the Japanese Americans interred in WW II cause any problems?
As I said in an other post, we had a problem with about 25 Muslim terrorists most of whom are now dead. Considering how many millions of Muslims are here legally and have given us no problem, statistically it is not a very good predictor of behavior. In fact it is down right worthless.
Muslim extremists have very recently vowed jihad on the West, to either forcibly convert it to Islam or to destroy our polluted civilization. Given those warnings, isn't it imprudent to avoid paying more attention to individuals who meet the criteria (young males for Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, etc.) to avoid appearing insensitive? I know some Christians from the Middle East, and to be honest, would feel bad if they were selected for additional screening based only on their national origin. However, the alternative is to ignore known threats so that we do not appear to be insensitive. Look at what sensitivity and tolerance got Theo van Gogh, who had the gall to direct a film critical of some Muslim practices. Look at what is happening in France, which has allowed large numbers of Muslim youths to essentially get paid (with unemployment compensation) to attend radical mosques. If we in the West do not make some hard choices, the inaction will spell the end of our civilization, especially if nuclear devices are employed.