Pat condells new video

[No Limit]

"Explain why?" Do you need someone to interpret it for you? Who are you going to ask the extremist or a "liberal" muslim.
Of course it's open to interpretation, we can both do it differently. We're really not getting anywhere if we're going to try to interpret the Koran, don't you think?
Even if they weren't, then they should have no problem taking it off in certain situations that demand it.
As of right now a lot (if i dare say most) interpret it as a requirement.

Right, but what you did is what Muslim men did for many centuries. You took a phrase out of context and said that the Koran says "women must be covered at all times" when in reality it never says that. Then you go to make the leap the as of right now most interpret it as a requirement. You didn't make that leap based on any facts, you made it based on prejudice. The last 2 leaps you made this way turned out to be factually wrong. Do you see a pattern starting to evolve here?

 

[No Limit]

Seing that Islam is a male fabrication does it really Surprise you No Limit?
IRRC without reading that article both women and men were supposed to be modest however this has perverted in to meaning that women must dress in this fashion.
But why I wonder do you insist on defending this religion I know you don't mind taking potshots at Christians (which I enjoy as well.)

I am defending this religion? Show me where? I am simply pointing out that a lot of shit is being made up here that is simply not factual.

Also, any time you wanna explain to me why it is our responsibility to defend Israel feel free to, I hope your brain didn't overload with that question since for a long time it has been accepted in this country that you simply defend them without asking any questions.

 

[Eejit]

There's no point No Limit, they're both hopeless.

 

[jverne]

Right, but what you did is what Muslim men did for many centuries. You took a phrase out of context and said that the Koran says "women must be covered at all times" when in reality it never says that. Then you go to make the leap the as of right now most interpret it as a requirement. You didn't make that leap based on any facts, you made it based on prejudice. The last 2 leaps you made this way turned out to be factually wrong. Do you see a pattern starting to evolve here?

There are other passages not just this one.


And besides...why is your interpretation anymore valid than mine?

 

[No Limit]

There are other passages not just this one.


And besides...why is your interpretation anymore valid than mine?

that's not the point (you can do your own research on the Koran asdie from googling "where in koran women must be covered"). The point is you said the Koran forces women to be covered and if they don't do that they aren't truly muslim. That's simply not true. You then said that most people interpret the Koran as you do, again you have no evidance for this assertion and I'm pretty sure you're wrong because with over a billion muslims I would have to see a lot more covered women out on the street, I don't. And for all the muslim women I have met in my life time (okay not too many, but a handful) I never ran in to one that covered herself. There were a few that wore the scarf on their head whatever it is called, but they did so by choice more as a fashion statement (as some jewish women do).

 

[jverne]

that's not the point (you can do your own research on the Koran asdie from googling "where in koran women must be covered"). The point is you said the Koran forces women to be covered and if they don't do that they aren't truly muslim. That's simply not true. You then said that most people interpret the Koran as you do, again you have no evidance for this assertion and I'm pretty sure you're wrong because with over a billion muslims I would have to see a lot more covered women out on the street, I don't. And for all the muslim women I have met in my life time (okay not too many, but a handful) I never ran in to one that covered herself. There were a few that wore the scarf on their head whatever it is called, but they did so by choice more as a fashion statement (as some jewish women do).

Your personal observations are worth shit in this debate.

Not even Islamic scholars can't agree if it is obligatory or not. You saying it is not is just as fallacious as mine.
However i must agree with you that by saying "they are not truly muslim" was somewhat imprudent. But your explanation doesn't hold any more water than mine.
It's just not solvable. If we must come to a compromise i suggest we should protect women from their abusive fundamentalist husbands. By protect i mean offer them some assistance if they need it, that goes for all women.

 

[Sparta]

The massive, massive flaw in your logic Jverne is that you believe that banning religion is the answer to it. It's the similar line of thinking that has led to the disastrous War on Drugs.

You cannot rid the world of fundamentalist thinking by saying "No, you can't do that, stop it" and physically enforcing it. If you really want to rid the world of dangerous fundamentalists of any kind the answer is in education and establishing that infrastructure for it while maintaining a seperation of church and state.

Banning religion will only empower that religious group to stand up and take notice.

 

[jverne]

Because i totally didn't support secularism the whole effing thread?! And because i totally demanded the ban of everything religious?!

God damn it people!

 

[No Limit]

Your personal observations are worth shit in this debate.

Not even Islamic scholars can't agree if it is obligatory or not. You saying it is not is just as fallacious as mine.
However i must agree with you that by saying "they are not truly muslim" was somewhat imprudent. But your explanation doesn't hold any more water than mine.
It's just not solvable. If we must come to a compromise i suggest we should protect women from their abusive fundamentalist husbands. By protect i mean offer them some assistance if they need it, that goes for all women.

What do you mean my explaination doesn't hold any water? You just agreeded with me that you were wrong to suggest that.

You keep changing what you are advocating on a constant basis. Now all of a sudden you aren't really for banning or restricting religion? And any kind of Burka ban would be voulantary to help the women? ****en please, this is complete backwards from what you were saying just a couple pages ago.

 

[Sparta]

Because i totally didn't support secularism the whole effing thread?! And because i totally demanded the ban of everything religious?!

I never implied you were talking about banning everything religious, I said banning religion, although I can see why you thought that. Here's some quotes to start off a more detailed response to you.

So you admit that most muslims don't cause any problems. And the one action you would take is to ban the religious symbol for ALL muslims? Is banning the burka going to make those fundimentalist muslims more moderate? because I thought that was the goal.

If done in an elegant way...such as not directly prohibiting, but just on public places or certain hours or sections.

When you talk about banning and restricting critical tennets of Islam or any other system of belief, you're talking about banning and restricting their religion. It's oppression. No matter how you spin it. It'd be like banning crosses for catholics/protestants (which, I assume you'd be ok with if they were fundamentalist). People should be free to practice whatever religion they want, as long as it doesn't interfer with governance.

Besides how does banning minarets and not wearing burkas in a certain hour solve anything?

They don't solve anything on their own, and people who are directly affected by these restrictions won't have their faith negatively affected by them at all because no one whose faith is oppressed suddenly decides not to follow that faith anymore because, hey, I can't wear a burka out on Sunday at 5pm, better not be a muslim any more. Banning burkas in public places won't make people become moderate. It will more than likely make those fundamentalist people you want to become moderate, instead, become petty criminals because of the misdemeanors brought against them by these ridiculous laws.

If you're talking about increasing those restrictions over time and adding them on top of each other (and I don't believe you are, but for anyone else reading who may think that's the answer), that will only lead to complete oppression of a religious demographic but wont entirely get rid of or deteriorate that demographics power. Unless it was a completely brutal and totalitarian assault on that demographic then it would more than likely ultimately lead to galvanizing the demographic into action against the regime that's restricting them. Even though the Falun Gong is totally repressed by China, they still gain international support purely because of their treatment by China. Can you imagine how the Islamic world will react if France bans wearing burkas in public? This is why banning and restricting religion in anyway simply doesn't work.

This is why what you're talking about doing is completely ineffective. This is why things like this (the banning on minarets in Switzerland, the on-going discussion to ban burkas in France) are widely ridiculed. I can see why people hate the concept of burkas and how they are perceived by Western cultures, and I completely understand the criticism of Islam and almost every other major religion as well, but banning and restricting religious beliefs in anyway shape or form wont work.

If people are to become more moderate, which is definitely an admirable and achievable goal, the impact won't come from government restrictions. It's far more likely to come in the form of better education and over the span of a number of generations. Parents have the greatest and most important impact on what an individual believes. A parent teaches their child to be catholic, muslim, jewish, whatever almost as soon as they're born thanks to their indoctrination into their parents religion. If you can make the children more open-minded and moderate through schooling and education, then there is a far greater chance they and their child will become agnostic or secular later on. This is really the only way to truly achieve what you're talking about without angering and inadvertently empowering religious demographics.

 

[jverne]

What do you mean my explaination doesn't hold any water? You just agreeded with me that you were wrong to suggest that.

You keep changing what you are advocating on a constant basis. Now all of a sudden you aren't really for banning or restricting religion? And any kind of Burka ban would be voulantary to help the women? ****en please, this is complete backwards from what you were saying just a couple pages ago.

I was talking about your interpretation of the koran is not any more valid than mine.

I am for restricting religion, where it interferes with our laws maybe even norms.

I told you that the burka was an issue i am not 100% sure what to do. I'm not for banning it neither for completely ignore it.

As for minarets, like they should be in line with our laws including architectural traditions of certain areas. I've mentioned before.

This is what you guys do:

A: hey, what do you say if we'd restrict speed on roads?
You: WHAT, YOU WANT TO RESTRICT PEOPLES RIGHT TO DRIVE CARS!

And now you even throw

And any kind of Burka ban would be voulantary to help the women?

How the **** did you interpret that from this

It's just not solvable. If we must come to a compromise i suggest we should protect women from their abusive fundamentalist husbands. By protect i mean offer them some assistance if they need it, that goes for all women.

Really???

 

[No Limit]

Ok, I get it. So you aren't for niether. You don't wanna ban the burka but you don't wanna ignore it. So what the hell do you wanna do because that makes absolutely no sense? All you have been trying to do this entire thread is have your cake and eat it too.

How the **** did you interpret that from this

Considering we were talking in the context of forcing women to be covered I really don't know what else you want me to interpret. You are making little sense as to what exactly it is that you wanna do. You couldn't be any more vague at this point. Yeah, no shit, women should be protected from abusive husbands. That's not what we were talking about, now was it?

 

[jverne]

Ok, I get it. So you aren't for niether. You don't wanna ban the burka but you don't wanna ignore it. So what the hell do you wanna do because that makes absolutely no sense? All you have been trying to do this entire thread is have your cake and eat it too.

I've said what i'd want...if it interferes with certain already established laws or if it is found as a security concern in some areas or if it poses some public health concern, it can be restricted for those specific occasions.
But overall? no

Considering we were talking in the context of forcing women to be covered I really don't know what else you want me to interpret. You are making little sense as to what exactly it is that you wanna do. You couldn't be any more vague at this point. Yeah, no shit, women should be protected from abusive husbands. That's not what we were talking about, now was it?

Wasn't i clear enough by implying we could end it this way or compromise or whatever? I have not mentioned any burka, if i wanted to mention it i would, don't you think?
And besides if i'm not mistaken i've already said something along the lines of "protecting women by offering help services" before in this thread. I wonder how it went ignored? hmm, i think i know

Just remember how many times i have said the burka issue is not my main issue nor do i have a perfect answer? And yet we somehow still end up with "WHAT, COMPLETELY BANNING RELIGION??? ARE YOU NUTS?????"

 

[No Limit]

I've said what i'd want...if it interferes with certain already established laws or if it is found as a security concern in some areas or if it poses some public health concern, it can be restricted for those specific occasions.
But overall? no

Cool, this was you 9 pages ago:

What am i doing about it? For one i criticize them openly we might say, i will vote any legislation, petition that is against the ideals of hardcore islam or even less brutal parts of it...such as the burka, which is IMO a symbol of oppression and subordination.

Do you not see how you have since totally shifted positions? And shifting positions is fine if you are willing to admit that's what you did, for some reason you aren't. You are trying to pretend that you have been consistent, you haven't. Sparta pointed to other examples and explained it better than I could.

 

[jverne]

Cool, this was you 9 pages ago:



Do you not see how you have since totally shifted positions? And shifting positions is fine if you are willing to admit that's what you did, for some reason you aren't. You are trying to pretend that you have been consistent, you haven't.

So by saying "You're not allowed to go in a government building dressed as a suicide bomber" completely negates "You can dress as a suicide bomber in general or other circumstances"?

Replace suicide bomber with anything you wish that is deemed a security concern. Gun slinging teenagers if you want.


For the burka issue i did at the beginning imply a gradual ban which would follow maybe a complete ban, but after our debate i did change opinion. Now i'm only offering a restriction in certain specific occasions. Is that still not enough? Or do you understand that again as completely banning it?

 

[No Limit]

So now wearing the burka is being dressed as a suicide bomber? jesus ****ing christ dude, never mind; you attention span seems to be way too short to comprehand anything that goes against your existing prejudices.

 

[jverne]

So now wearing the burka is being dressed as a suicide bomber? jesus ****ing christ dude, never mind; you attention span seems to be way too short to comprehand anything that goes against your existing prejudices.

I thought you'd interpret that as you did.

Didn't i said replace with whatever you want. Suicide bomber was just the first thing that came to mind.

Burkas might cause some security concern, didn't some iraqi women suicide bombers attack US outposts in iraq? And wasn't there an issue with soldiers not being able to search them because of protests from locals?
I'm not saying burka wearing women are suicide bombers, all i said burkas can be a potential security concern.

Of course you'd love i equate burka wearing women as suicide bombers, but sorry pall that's not what i think, despite how much you'd want it.

Would it help you if i quote my opinion on burkas through the whole thread? I don't think i'm the one with the short attention span.

 

[No Limit]

"I'm just saying that you shouldn't be able to walk in to a Kentucky Fried Chicken dressed as a n****r". What, dude? Why you offended? I know how you might interpret that so just replace n****r with whatever works for you.

Seriously dude, just shut the **** up.

 

[jverne]

"I'm just saying that you shouldn't be able to walk in to a Kentucky Fried Chicken dressed as a n****r". What, dude? Why you offended? I know how you might interpret that so just replace n****r with whatever works for you.

Seriously dude, just shut the **** up.

Do you even know what a security concern even means? The last time i've checked the burka isn't a living being, but only clothing. If i'd say muslim women you'd have a case, but now you're just making shit up.


oh and here's the quotes i mentioned (in spoiler so it doesn't clutter the page)

Spoiler

What am i doing about it? For one i criticize them openly we might say, i will vote any legislation, petition that is against the ideals of hardcore islam or even less brutal parts of it...such as the burka, which is IMO a symbol of oppression and subordination.

Page 3: Implying i'd ban burkas

Yes i see the burka as a symbol of oppression over women, submission. You see, in the west a women can decide if she wants to wear a hat or not. In Islam you have no such option.

Page 4: Saying burkas are demanded by islam, i did apologize for this imprudent statement later. However the issue of whether islam demands covering is open to interpretation.

The burka poses serious security threats in banks and other facilities.
Maybe we should reduce it to open scarfs in public places.

Page 4: Backing from my previous extreme statement and suggesting something more moderate.

I do agree that is not easy meddling with this particular issue.
The burka is a powerful object, easily seen. Crosses can be hidden under clothing. Point is that the more one object is visible the greater the effect on the surroundings and self.

Page 5: Stating that is not a simple issue.

The burka issue is not actually my main argument since it's not directly influencing politics. However i dislike it because i see it as a way to demean women. More of a personal issue than actually a legal one.

Page 6: Seems in line with the upper quote, don't you think?

I really don't want to punish all of them. Sure we got a bit out of hand with the burka thing i admit that. However some things must be upheld due to serious security consequences. Just as you are asking for trouble going in a bank with a pantyhose over your face. Not sure, is that actually illegal?

Page 6: Simmilar, i mention security concerns and not wanting to punish all of them

What would you say for the fact that if the burka posed some kind of health hazard for the wearer or the surroundings. Vitamin D deficiency. Or getting stuck somewhere.
If the woman doesn't have a choice to not wear it, shes basically handicapped.
I'll repeat again...i don't honestly know what is the best option for the burka but i do think in some cases it can be restricted. I've said that earlier. And i repeat i'm not for an outright ban! I've also explained that earlier. Stop being a prick

Page 7: Same

t seems no matter what i say you just keep hearing one thing "BAN THE BURKAAAAA!!"
God damn it, it's tough or almost impossible to argue with you.

Yes big part of my argument

Page 7: Same as page 6

We had some arguments around the smoking/burka issue where i tried to explain how banning burkas might work. And you did convince me that a complete ban in improper.

Yet now, we're still arguing of banning religion. Well at east Sparta does

 

[No Limit]

Yes, I do know what security concern means. To me it means if the face is covered surveillance cameras might not work well because obviously you can't see the face. To you security concern means someone looking like a suicide bomber. Of course if you think most suicide bombers wear burkas you're a ****ing moron, but you don't really think that. I get it, you were trying to be funny...haha (I would avoid doing that from now on because you fail at it).

 

[jverne]

Yes, I do know what security concern means. To me it means if the face is covered surveillance cameras might not work well because obviously you can't see the face. To you security concern means someone looking like a suicide bomber. Of course if you think most suicide bombers wear burkas you're a ****ing moron, but you don't really think that. I get it, you were trying to be funny...haha (I would avoid doing that from now on because you fail at it).

I didn't even thought about the face issue. What i had in mind was that under a burka you could hide alot of those types of bombs like the panty bomber used. But thanks for giving me additional reasons.

"To you security concern means someone looking like a suicide bomber." O rly, thanks for thinking instead of me, but sadly you're making shit up again. I never thought that and i especially never said that!

It would be beneficial if you presumed less and actually focused on what i've said. Hell, if you'd at least guess my thoughts i might protest less, but you didn't even come close.


I'm gonna make a presumption here (i might be wrong), but does it seem to me you're totally biased and the minute something isn't compatible with your view you accuse the opposing person the same shit you'd rehearsed on those who really deserve it?
I repeat, i might be wrong...it's just a feeling i get. You know, jumping to conclusions i never said and stuff like that.

 

[No Limit]

So why not ban trench coats too? Never mind, this is dumb.

 

[jverne]

So why not ban trench coats too? Never mind, this is dumb.

I'm sure going on a plane wearing a trench coat, wide glasses and a hat might raise some eyebrows.
I don't know why you think i'd make trench coats the exception? And of course i'm not implying i'd ban trench coats completely, maybe just make certain requirements for certain situations. Like taking your coat off if it interferes with established security measures.

Certain dresses might raise security concern it doesn't really matter what ideology they belong too.

Trying to board a plane dressed like

will inevitably (at least i think) get you some security personnel escort.


Now if you wanted to be smart you could argue that on airports burkas are not an exception and they are dealt with like all other clothing, thus getting no free rides.
I won't dispute that, i did noticed that time ago burkas were somwehat of a confusion as to how to deal with them. I don't really know how the situation is now, so i won't make any bold guesses.
However the fact is that they are a potential security concern (like many other things) and should not get any exceptions (i repeat, i do not know currently if they do or not).
May i suggest that burkas can pose a greater security concern than

, but i won't claim that 100%. A plastic tea spoon might be a lethal weapon in the wrong hands!

 

[No Limit]

So you are saying you don't think trench coats should be allowed in government buildings anymore, right? because that's the argument you made for the burka.

 

[jverne]

So you are saying you don't think trench coats should be allowed in government buildings anymore, right? because that's the argument you made for the burka.

If they posed some kind of legitimate security concern then they should be regulated within the premises. And government buildings are not a risky environment such as an airplane flying at 10000 feet, which means measures don't have to be so strict.

But i know what you're trying to do. You want me to say we should discriminate Muslims.
This is not one of my demands, however if i may play the devils advocate for a moment.
Disclaimer: For anyone too stupid to comprehend i'm just saying that for argument sakes please read this: THAT IS NOT MY POSITION ON THE ISSUE!

You think it's wrong to increase surveillance of a group who are a known security liability, am i right?
Is restricting passengers from entering, from a known disease outbreak area wrong if you don't have the means to determine if they are carriers or not on the spot?

Disclaimer: For anyone too stupid to comprehend i'm just saying that for argument sakes please read this: THAT IS NOT MY POSITION ON THE ISSUE!

 

[No Limit]

You're funny.

 

[jverne]

You're funny.

You have bad breath.


So we switched to personal insults have we? Well then i guess this wraps up the debate.
I quite enjoyed it to be honest.

 

[No Limit]

No, it's just that as I was writing I went back to check something and you completely changed your post. So before I even get to address something it gets edited.

And now it's got so bizarre I have to argue with both your personalities. The one that doesn't believe something and the one that then tries to defend what it doesn't actually believe. Have a good weekend, jverne; I have a few hours left at work and I'll find better things to keep me busy today; no longer feel like doing this.

 

[jverne]

No, it's just that as I was writing I went back to check something and you completely changed your post. So before I even get to address something it gets edited.

And now it's got so bizarre I have to argue with both your personalities. The one that doesn't believe something and the one that then tries to defend what it doesn't actually believe. Have a good weekend, jverne; I have a few hours left at work and I'll find better things to keep me busy today; no longer feel like doing this.

I do apologize for making minor adjustments to posts, normally i do 2 or 3 edits. But that's mostly like 2 minutes or something after i post. I agree that it's a bad habit.
However i have no idea what do you mean by "completely changed your post"? Are you making stuff up again?

Heh, you really don't think i'm sincere, do you? I guess you still believe in your preconceived notion that i'm a racist? I can easily PLAY both sides if i want.

 

[Sparta]

Yet now, we're still arguing of banning religion. Well at least Sparta does

Yes, because banning burkas and minarets no way impedes someone's ability to practice their religion as freely as they should have the right to.

Even without taking into context that you're talking about imposing restrictions on religion (which is stupid as I pointed out earlier, which for some reason you chose to completely ignore) you're talking about ethnic and racial profiling which even former Bush CIA Director Michael Hayden has said doesn't work because looking for terrorists isn't "a question of ethnicity or religion". Even former U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has said "relying on preconceptions or stereotypes is actually kind of misleading and arguably dangerous". These are the people who were actively trying to protect the U.S. from Islamic terrorists for years and they know what they're talking about, far more than you or I, and they're saying racial and ethnic profiling doesn't work.

Sources: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/03/hayden-chertoff-profiling/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emeHi9Ts0Kw&feature=player_embedded

Everything you're talking about, banning the burka in certain places/times/whatever, whether its to encourage people to become more secular or because of security threats, all of these solutions are completely and totally flawed and do not work.

 

[jverne]

Yes, because banning burkas and minarets no way impedes someone's ability to practice their religion as freely as they should have the right to.

Even without taking into context that you're talking about imposing restrictions on religion (which is stupid as I pointed out earlier, which for some reason you chose to completely ignore) you're talking about ethnic and racial profiling which even former Bush CIA Director Michael Hayden has said doesn't work because looking for terrorists isn't "a question of ethnicity or religion". Even former U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has said "relying on preconceptions or stereotypes is actually kind of misleading and arguably dangerous". These are the people who were actively trying to protect the U.S. from Islamic terrorists for years and they know what they're talking about, far more than you or I, and they're saying racial and ethnic profiling doesn't work.

Sources: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/03/hayden-chertoff-profiling/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emeHi9Ts0Kw&feature=player_embedded

Everything you're talking about, banning the burka in certain places/times/whatever, whether its to encourage people to become more secular or because of security threats, all of these solutions are completely and totally flawed and do not work.

Yeah, i'm so talking about racial profiling

It's obviously racial profiling if somebody searched these two. I mean come on, the trench coats mean nothing, the weapons...they can be fake and can't really hurt nobody, let them just step on the plane.
A british muslim convert woman wearing a burka should have no exception. If there are better ways of searching that don't need to interfere with the burka, then fine by me. Let them wear it as much as they want.

 

[Sparta]

Hey, another post where I ignore and don't bother to refute totally valid criticism of my argument, but instead I deflect it by saying I wasn't talking about one aspect of the other person's completely valid rebuttal against my position.

Haha, yes let's search all moody teenagers who wear trench coats and dress in black. For that matter, lets also search the rooms of all teenagers who listen to Manson and have played or made levels for Doom. We better profile them too. Clearly, those are contributing factors too, so, just to be safe, let's waste an enormous amount of valuable time and resources on law enforcement techniques that have been proven not to work.

Honestly, ask yourself this and apply some common sense to this question. If a fugitive who was last seen sporting a beard, glasses and a hat, do you honestly think that when that fugitive finds out people are on the lookout for a man with beard, glasses and a hat, that he's going to continue wearing the glasses, the hat and keep the beard, then just hope for the best?.

Richard Reed, the shoebomber, was Jamaican and British. So was Germaine Lindsay, one of the London 7/7 bombers. Timothy McVeigh was an agnostic ex-soldier with white supremacist ties and there have been more attacks on abortion clinics in the U.S. by white evangelical christians than there have been attempted terrorist attacks on the U.S. in the past decade. None of the terrorist attacks in the past decade (or even attempted terrorist attacks) on western soil have been done by people in burkas. Racial and ethnic profiling doesn't work and most criminal investigations in the U.S. don't even use criminal profilers as to provide expert witness testimony in court cases. All signs point to behavioural analysis being far more impressive in delivering results than any other kind of profiling, such as profiling based on what clothing they're wearing.

So once again, you're still wrong.

 

[jverne]

Haha, yes let's search all moody teenagers who wear trench coats and dress in black. For that matter, lets also search the rooms of all teenagers who listen to Manson and have played or made levels for Doom. We better profile them too. Clearly, those are contributing factors too, so, just to be safe, let's waste an enormous amount of valuable time and resources on law enforcement techniques that have been proven not to work.

Honestly, ask yourself this and apply some common sense to this question. If a fugitive who was last seen sporting a beard, glasses and a hat, do you honestly think that when that fugitive finds out people are on the lookout for a man with beard, glasses and a hat, that he's going to continue wearing the glasses, the hat and keep the beard, then just hope for the best?.

Richard Reed, the shoebomber, was Jamaican and British. So was Germaine Lindsay, one of the London 7/7 bombers. Timothy McVeigh was an agnostic ex-soldier with white supremacist ties and there have been more attacks on abortion clinics in the U.S. by white evangelical christians than there have been attempted terrorist attacks on the U.S. in the past decade. None of the terrorist attacks in the past decade (or even attempted terrorist attacks) on western soil have been done by people in burkas. Racial and ethnic profiling doesn't work and most criminal investigations in the U.S. don't even use criminal profilers as to provide expert witness testimony in court cases. All signs point to behavioural analysis being far more impressive in delivering results than any other kind of profiling, such as profiling based on what clothing they're wearing.

So once again, you're still wrong.

Yes let's profile ALL moody teenagers EVERYWHERE!
Let's write down their names and visit them regularly by the butt police!

I can't be bothered to answer you properly, because you're making the same mistake like No limit did at times.

 

[Sparta]

Yes that's it, when you can't win an argument, stop arguing. Nice work.

 

[Solaris]

As much as I hate to agree with hippo mouth. Jverne, you never make any sense. Ever. At all.
Please don't try to join in rational arguments.

 

[jverne]

As much as I hate to agree with hippo mouth. Jverne, you never make any sense. Ever. At all.
Please don't try to join in rational arguments.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it makes no sense.

And what exactly don't you understand?