"Routine" male-on-male genital "fondling" displays won't go over too well -- unless the "leaders" and "Members of the Party" are exempted.

We had a big VFW rally here and everyone was given an inert grenade. Although they called ahead about guidance, the word never made it to everyone that attended. Needless to say, the Police Department was very busy that day.

All of the individuals you mentioned have a few things in common. They converted to Islam, but more importantly they traveled to countries in the Mid-East, or at least to countries where Muslims are the majority, and consorted there with terrorists that many with common sense recognize are Islamofascists. By checking passports, it should be possible to distinguish those potentially dangerous individuals from the overwhelmingly vast majority of American travelers who are not threats.

The Chechen "Black Widows" are wives of Muslims killed fighting Russian forces in Chechnya. Perhaps this BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3081126.stm
will clear up questions about these female Islamofascists.

Not all suicided bombers fall into your above description. The one's that have killed the highest profile targets -- so far -- certainly have not.

And most female suicide bombers have not been motivated by religion. Nationalism-run-amok.

Correct - Mohammed Atta and the other 18 9/11 Islamofascists were all Muslims born outside the U.S. who did not convert to "the religion of submission".

You seem to have perhaps missed something I wrote:

Rajiv Gandhi -- head of government -- was killed by a muslim? Nope.

"Islamofascist". Sounds "good" and helps keep it simple for those whom find it challenging to deal with complexity in the world. But the term's use fails to note that the plurality of 9/11 hijackers -- including Mohammad Atta -- were less "Islamofascists" and more pan-Arab chauvinists. The majority were not even orthodox muslims -- including hiring prostitutes and drinking alcohol and being fans of McDonalds.

Someone asked about lighters. Although the ban went into effect in April, before that lighters that looked like weapons and torch lighters were banned. So alot of those lighters were taken well before April.

Depends how "highest profiled targets" are defined. Personally I think 9/11 trumps Rajiv Gandhi, especially with respect to travel in the United States.

Describing the 9/11 terrorists as "pan-Arab chauvinists" rather than Islamofascists is a distinction without a difference. They acted at the behest of Osama bin Laden, leader of al Qaeda, a fundamentalist Islam group seeking to topple the impure West. The facts are that these 19 thugs managed to kill almost 3,000 innocent people. These 19 terrorist thugs were not born in the United States and were not Christian, Jewish, Buddhists, Hindus, but were Muslims. We ignore the fact that much of the world's terrorism, especially that directed against the West, has for decades now been perpetrated by Muslims at our own risk. Finite security resources for more intensive scrutiny should be allocated to those most likely to be risks, not wasted on Americans with tools, scissors, or other pointy items. Millions of these objects were on airplanes without incident until Mohammed Atta and his minions used boxcutters. To paraphrase the NRA slogan, "Boxcutters don't kill people, (Muslim) people kill people."

Most all of the victims of 9/11 were popularly unknown before 9/11 -- or even 4 years after -- to most all besides their families, friends and colleagues. Face-/name-recognition would generally be very low -- especially internationally -- for the victims of 9/11.

I would not refer to the 9/11 victims individually as "highest profile targets".

It's a difference nonetheless and an important one -- especially if one has any SERIOUS interest in counter-terrorism and not peddling dangerous fictions that provide false comfort and clouds clear thinking. Clear thinking is needed to confront trouble(s) or we end up finding ourselves in messes born of foreign adventures.

Talk about mixing fact with fiction. Fact: They (at least some of them ;) )acted at the behest of OBL. Fiction: Al-Qaeda is "a fundamentalist Islam group seeking to topple the impure West". (Simply not true.)

Al-Qaeda -- contrary to popular misperception -- is not a fundamentalist Islamic group seeking to "topple the West". It would not even be accurately characterized as a fundamentalist Islamic (or even Sunni) group given their objectives, targets, means or even religion relationships.

Al-Qaeda is better described as a chauvinistic Arabo-Islamist counterimperialistic/anti-statist movement which uses terrorism and other forms of violence globally to attempt to achieve certain objectives to eradicate that which they perceive to be persistent colonial legacies.

OBL & Co. certainly have no interest in toppling Sweden's king/PM and forcefully converting christian Swedes to Islam; and they have no interest in "purifying" "the impure" in Iceland or Bolivia.

Yes, at least in name they were muslims and not born in the US. (That said, M. Atta apparently held a grievance against being born and raised in what he perceived as a US colony.) But that fact's relevance is akin to saying that Nazis were Christians and Hitler was born in Austria. A fact with similar relevance: whether muslims vis-a-vis 9/11 or christians vis-a-vis Nazi atrocities.

"We"? That doesn't speak for me.

"Much of the world's terrorism .... has for decades now been perpetrated by Muslims"? Well, it depends on how you define "much". If you define "much" as equating to "even a minority of the world's terrorism acts", then yes. Otherwise, it's an assertion that is misleading and incorrect.

For decades, the plurality/majority of terrorist attacks in the Americas -- all of the Americas -- have been perpetrated by individuals who were neither Middle Eastern nor muslim. And, for decades, for Europe, the majority of terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by individuals who were neither muslim nor Middle Eastern. (Of course, "we" don't care about all the world's victims of terrorism -- especially when "we" don't identify with "them". :eek: :( )

The "Islamofascism" you refer to was the offspring of our government's own beastly acts too. "We" gave it birth, nurtured it, encouraged it, and held its hand so that it may kill. And what did the US government want it to do? To kill muslims -- especially Shias (Iran) -- and communists and socialists who were in our way. Not surprisingly, it just ended up being a Frankenstein that neither we Americans, the Saudis nor the Pakistanis could reign in. And most of OBL & Co's victims -- even inclusive of 9/11 -- have been muslims, including fundamentalist muslims.

Can you count the terrorist attacks "in the West" not perpetrated by those identified as muslims? Can you name terrorist attacks not perpetrated by those identified as muslims "in the West"?

Think of some; it's not that hard. (The number of terrorist attacks perpetrated by those identified as muslims or "Middle Eastern" in "the West" -- save EASTERN Europe -- is far more finite than the number of terrorist attacks perpetrated by non-muslims/non-Middle Eastern males "in the West" these past few decades.)

Wanted: An advocacy for RACIST/TRIBALIST profiling.

For Sale:

Transaction complete. :eek:

Sorry Pat, but I gotta call you on several of your points. If the 'West' means America since the 90's, then I guess Timothy McVeigh nonwithstanding you are right. If the 'West' includes Europe, then you are wrong. Ask anyone in the UK which group has perpetrated the most terrorism. It ain't the Muslims.

What makes you think that our finite security resources are not allocated to the highest risk areas? The TSA is NOT a security resource. The FBI, CIA, NSA, etc are our security resources and they are absolutely targetted in the right areas.

Stop and think about what you wrote for a minute. Inserting 'Muslim' is wrong on sooooo many levels.

Actually, the 9/11 commission reported that anti-terror funding was being diverted to low risk areas due to politics instead of being directed to where it is most needed. I believe that the former members of that commission reiterated that point when they made their follow-up comments as private citizens last week.

I don't bother to know what is happening on political commissions, however I have friends in the Bureau and other places and I can assure you (for what that's worth) that they are very, very focused where we need them.

I think the biggest cooncern was with funds that are designated for local governments. I don't remember the particulars of the formulas, but there was some concern that too much money was going to cities that were very unlikely to experience terrorist attacks and that not enough was allocated to cities such as New York where attacks were more likely. I am going purely from memory here (and I'm the first to admit that I do not follow this stuff closely) but I believe there were also comments that coordination between agencies was insufficient and that various organizations used a mixture of emergency radio frequencies that created chaos instead of allowing a coordinated response. I think last week they reiterated that none of those concerns had received any real attention. Again, I'm not an expert on any of this. I'm just repeating what I think I heard. Someone with more direct knowledge can jump in here if need be, but as a casual observer I have to say that what I heard makes sense to me regardless of what individuals in the FBI might say or believe.

It wasn't more money - but more money per capita was going to Wyoming and North Dakota than New York and Los Angeles...

But that's typical - red states generally recieve more federal spending and blue states pay more in federal taxes (how ironic!).