@exbayern. I don't get why you are saying the Canadian government shouldn't be responding to acts that caused huge fatalities. Granted, Sikh extremism is probably way in the background nowadays, but the Air India attack does show how Canadian nationals can be targeted should support an anti-terror security effort. If all the bombings were by Chechens against Russians, I don't think we'd have a TSA. But jihaders have verbally said over and over they are out to kill as many US citizens as they can. So our government has to be active against them (not those of us who haven't desired the death of anyone ever).

I think Canada shouldn't even consider what the attitude of the US government is. It has little or nothing to do with the safety of Canadians.

Based on what I think you are saying, I conclude that you know nothing about Jihad and how Muslims incorporate the concept into their lives on a daily basis.

I reject any call for the government to be active against what you disparagingly call Jihaders for multiple reasons. First, I doubt you know what constitutes a "Jihader". Second, I'm not sure how one determines who is and who is not of this category. Third, there should be no link between one's beliefs and ones human rights, including the right to travel, freedom of speech and assembly. Why should someone of this category be the target of the government?

My interpretation of your post may be incorrect. Would you mind explaining yourself vis a vis your statement above and justifying it in light of the points I have brought up above?

When it comes to world events - many many americans are ignorant. It does matter what the subject is related to. Simple point - how many americans know a second language?

BTW I will admit that I do not remember the Air India Flight. Not sure why ... perhaps because I had just finished my undergrad. But PanAm 103 will be forever known to me because a friend was on that flight.

(bolding mine) AMEN brother! I agree with all you say.

Reject all you want. Activity against this group of people is what US voters WILL support. Not squeezing body parts of little old ladies who pose no threat to anyone. And did I really read that you think jihaders have the "right" to threaten American air travelers with death? As a First Amendment right? Does Bin Laden deserve the protection of the the US Constitution?

If you believe all that, you need to join the loonies who work for TSA.

Perhaps the "global conspiracy" has "failed so completely" because it's not as global as all that. If some group of people ("jihaders" or whatever) are so committed to killing so many US citizens, what makes you (or the TSA) think they are only capable of, or interested in, doing so by blowing up commercial aircraft? Every day, there are tens of thousands of places in the US where several hundred people are in the same place: schools, office buildings, theaters, shopping centers. Why aren't there attacks every day? It has been argued that attacking an aircraft has symbolic value that attacking a shopping mall doesn't, but if it's sheer number of casualties they want - as you claim, why pick such a difficult target?

For my part, I believe that (a) there aren't all that many people trying to attack the US, (b) they aren't as well-resourced as many fear, (c) they are interested in the symbolism of attack, not just in "killing as many as possible" - the goal of terrorism is to produce terror in the living, not just to kill, (draining the financial resources of the US is a related goal) and (d) the US gov't, through the TSA and DHS, is successfully promoting fear and wasting money at such a rate that the Bad Guys don't really have to try any more.

There's also an odd circular logic in discussing 9/11 in relation to other air-travel terror events.
TSA supporters: TSA/DHS procedures are justified because of 9/11.
TSA's critics: ... but the rest of the world doesn't have such extreme airport "security."
TSA supporters: ...but 9/11 didn't happen to the rest of the world, it happened in (and to) the USA. (And everyone knows that 9/11 is the Worst Thing That Has Ever Happened in Human History.)
TSA's critics: ... but there have been terrible attacks in/to other countries, for example, Air India, and other countries didn't go nuts with security in response.
TSA supporters: Oh, well, if other countries didn't implement TSA-style measures, their disasters must not have been as bad as 9/11. QED.

When people start treating jihader speech as protected, I had to go to law.com and look up a couple of things:

Now, to my knowledge, the speech part of assault is a felony. It isn't considered something one can say and then defend as a First Amendment right. Maybe there is case law where the Supreme Court has incorporated threatening words as "intended" by the writers of the Bill of Rights.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...st-threat.html

To me, this is really just some sort of refinement of assault. But again, it seems to me clear that, again, jihaders' tendency to shoot their mouths off makes them prima facie criminal's in western law. So it isn't like they haven't been told that they are in legal jeopardy. And it also isn't like I'm hatching new concepts in saying they are suspects by virtue of the groups they belong to.

No. It really isn't hard to find the details. Even wikipedia gets it right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Na...irport_bombing

I think PhlyingRPH has proved his point, as with this, and other posts, you demonstrate clearly that your understanding of the term "jihad" is sketchy at best and probably gleaned from the very limited and narrow definition disseminated by the mass media.

From Wikipedia:

In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular (though كفاح kifāḥ is also used). For instance, Mahatma Gandhi's satyagraha struggle for Indian independence is called a "jihad" in Modern Standard Arabic (as well as many other dialects of Arabic); the terminology is also applied to the fight for women's liberation.

The term 'jihad' has accrued both violent and non-violent meanings. It can simply mean striving to live a moral and virtuous life, spreading and defending Islam as well as fighting injustice and oppression, among other things. The relative importance of these two forms of jihad is a matter of controversy. A poll by Gallup showed that a "significant majority" of Muslim Indonesians define the term to mean "sacrificing one's life for the sake of Islam/God/a just cause" or "fighting against the opponents of Islam". In Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan, and Morocco, the majority used the term to mean "duty toward God", a "divine duty", or a "worship of God", with no militaristic connotations.

Just saying...

Thanks. However, upon re-reading my words in bold font as they are, I just want to be sure people understand that there is no insensitivity or malice intended. Mine is a purely clinical analysis, perhaps a little brusque, based on my experience in some uncomfortably close shaves in other countries around the world (as in four doors down from my own home in one instance and less than 1,000 yards in two city centres at other times)

The fact that you have to go to law.com to further clarify something you demonstrate zero knowledge of, while of great entertainment value, really, really, scares me.


Would you mind clarifying what you were trying to do, exactly, on law.com? Could you point us to the source of the spoken phrase you consider to be assault, please? Also, would you be kind enough to provide an analysis of how you consider the phrase you have chosen to be a threat? Finally, could you tell us why the rights of someone who may have said something you don't agree with should be suspended - in particularly the right to travel?

I said nothing of the sort!

I find it bizarre however that someone would start such a thread and overlook the vast majority of bombings, which are easily found via a Google search. One of the first to respond posted just such a list.

Yet at the same time I also believe that you represent a large cross-section of Americans who are so focussed on recent events that they fail to remember (if they ever learned about) events which occured around the world, and which continue to occur.

I also do not understand why you discount 'successful' ground attacks at airports.

After Lockerbie a number of measures were put in place regarding airline safety. I find it hypocritrical that even after 9/11 the US did not put similar measures in place, and large holes still exist today in US air travel, whilst other countries are being forced to violate the rights of their own citizens by that same US.

I do not understand the purpose of this thread, as the original premise that less than a dozen airline attacks were ever 'successful'.

I absolutely support what you are saying, especially since it arose from my original quote. I don't want to minimize or negate the horror of 9/11, nor do I suggest that anyone forget what occured that day.

However there are many millions of people who use 9/11 as a reason for their beliefs, all the while overlooking Air India and the many other attacks which occured elsewhere. Sadly, I also believe that there is ignorance of the facts, and that many who fear 'flying while brown' equate Sikhism to Islam.

9/11 was a horrible event; Air India was a horrible event. So was every other airline bombing, but fortunately the reaction to most was not the same reaction as to 9/11.

Yeh, yeh, I've heard that argument. But we know what the terrorists call jihad. Since we're not discussing the finer points of Muslim theology since the jihaders don't really practice the religion whose label they've hijacked, dragging in theology here is as relevant as dragging Christianity into the Crusades. Jihaders and Crusaders really are opposite numbers in that they think God authorized mass murder.