[Kruger]

Originally Posted by CDB

I believe one draft of the Declaration actually read "life, liberty and the pursuit of property" too, not "happiness." Wonder where we'd be today had they kept that.

It was in the Declaration of Rights. I always wondered what they would think now if they saw how it was applied today.

[tsc]

While people have brought up some good points, the author of the article on the first page wrote this

"It's not racial profiling. It's not religious profiling. It's terrorist profiling. No ... not all Muslims are terrorists. But with only a very few -- and long ago --- isolated incidents, all terrorists are Muslims. Just about every terrorist that has hijacked a plane in the last 30 years has fit one, single description: Arab Muslim. That is the description of the suspect. The terrorists who blew up nightclubs in Bali, the terrorists who wanted to lop off the head of the Canadian prime minister ... Muslims. Every one. Every terrorist that planned to blow up airplanes over the Atlantic last week was an Muslim who, if not from the Middle East, was of Middle East decent. This isn't rocket surgery."""

a few isolated events a long time ago? Below is a reminder, something tells me they weren't that many irish muslims involved.

_ March 8, 1973: Two IRA car bombs explode outside London's Old Bailey courthouse and government's agriculture department headquarters, killing one and wounding more than 150.


_ Oct. 5, 1974: Two IRA bombs explode in pubs in London suburb of Guildford; five dead, more than 50 injured.


_ Nov. 21, 1974: Two IRA bombs in Birmingham kill 19 and wound more than 180.


_ July 20, 1982: Two IRA bombs in Hyde Park and Regent's Park in London kill 11 British soldiers and wound more than 40, mostly civilians.


_ Dec. 17, 1983: IRA car bomb explodes outside Harrod's department store, killing six and wounding about 100.


_ Oct. 12, 1984: IRA targets conference of ruling Conservative Party, killing five and wounding 24, but narrowly missing Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.


_ Sept. 22, 1989: The IRA bombs the Royal Marines School of Music in Deal, killing 10 soldiers and wounding more than 30.


_ Feb. 7, 1991: IRA fires three homemade mortar shells at No. 10 Downing Street, British prime minister's official residence in London. No injuries.


_ April 10, 1992: Massive IRA truck bomb in London's financial district kills three and causes hundreds of millions of dollars of damage.


_ March, 20, 1993: IRA bomb hidden in garbage can in shopping district of Warrington, northwest England, kills two boys aged 3 and 12.


_ Feb. 9, 1996: IRA ends a 17-month cease-fire with a massive truck bomb in London's financial district, killing two.


_ Feb. 18, 1996: An IRA bomber accidentally kills himself aboard a London double-decker bus, five injured.


_ June 15, 1996: For first time, IRA targets a different English city — Manchester in the northwest — with a massive truck bomb, wrecking the central shopping area and wounding about 200.


_ Sept. 20, 2000: IRA dissidents fire rocket-propelled grenaded at headquarters of MI5 security agency. No injuries.


TSC

[CDB]

Originally Posted by tsc

...

Well, when the IRA flies a plane into a building in the US we'll start searching red headed ladies and guys who wear too much green who like to drink too. And Notre Dame fans. But until then I think perhaps we can all agree that both the below statements are true:

It is possible for anyone of any skin color, nationality, religion, creed, etc., to be a terrorist.

The majority of the threat posed to US citizens comes from terrorists who are largely Arabs and Muslims.

I mean, technically any white guy can be a rabbid racist and lynch a black guy. But a black guy is going to be a hell of a lot more wary of a a guy wearing a white robe and conical hat that hides his face and who is standing near a burning cross, you know? I guess it's possible he could be a part of a street acting troop, but common sense has to override idealism sometimes.

[tsc]

Originally Posted by CDB

Well, when the IRA flies a plane into a building in the US we'll start searching red headed ladies and guys who wear too much green who like to drink too. And Notre Dame fans. But until then I think perhaps we can all agree that both the below statements are true:

It is possible for anyone of any skin color, nationality, religion, creed, etc., to be a terrorist.

The majority of the threat posed to US citizens comes from terrorists who are largely Arabs and Muslims.

I mean, technically any white guy can be a rabbid racist and lynch a black guy. But a black guy is going to be a hell of a lot more wary of a a guy wearing a white robe and conical hat that hides his face and who is standing near a burning cross, you know? I guess it's possible he could be a part of a street acting troop, but common sense has to override idealism sometimes.

agree with your two points, however the article refers to Britain while making the assanine statement that almost all terrorists are muslims. The country he is writing about has taken a much larger finacial, injury, and death toll from the IRA than from any of the muslim attacks on their soil. I was not referring to the US.

In theory, yes a black man would be more worried about a robed klansman. In reality, the racist that would most likely go after him (a kkk member or not) won't be dressed up in ceremonial clothing at the time. a tangent, but anyways. People with the intent to do something like this (referring to terrorists) aren't going to try to make themselves obvious. In case people have forgotten, Islam is a rapidly growing religion. Even the extremists aren't limited to arabs, there are groups in asia and africa for instance that are very "active."

I am not saying ignore the obvious threats to avoid hurting someone's feelings. The random checks in the US are retarded, I will definitely agree with it. Not too long after 9/11 I was stopped for a random check. I was one of 5 white americans on a plane of well over a hundred people (maybe 200 or so?. The majority of the rest were from the middle east, as well as several asians. It did seem stupid to pick me, as I was a US citizen coming into my own country, I had customs paperwork that I declared and had to present anyway (so they wasted a check on me regardless). Checks should be done, not randomly. Deliberate checks based on something more than skin color or religion is needed. Security workers at los vegas casinos can scan people and detect behavior patterns common among scammers. They are better at their job than anything the TSA has in place. A well developed system that was designed to single out suspicious peope with a good accuracy is needed. If we fool ourselves into believing that Muslims or arabs are the only threat, than our history is destined to repeat itself. We aren't very good as a country when it comes to making allies. We have made more and more enemies worldwide.

Will it take a major attack by a non-arab or non-muslim group to wake us up again? Having a lazerbeam focus on one section of the population leaves the door wide open for anyone else to step in. An effective system that would single out those that should be and allow me to go through security without taking my shoes off (or giving up extremely overpriced airport food and drinks) will work for me!

My main point is history shows us SEVERAL different groups and pretty much ALL races have been and still can be terrorists. Focusing on the actions and behaviors etc that they share makes more since than focusing on the flavor of the day.

TSC

[CDB]

Originally Posted by tsc

agree with your two points, however the article refers to Britain while making the assanine statement that almost all terrorists are muslims. The country he is writing about has taken a much larger finacial, injury, and death toll from the IRA than from any of the muslim attacks on their soil. I was not referring to the US.

You are correct, I was taking you out of context in that.

I am not saying ignore the obvious threats to avoid hurting someone's feelings. The random checks in the US are retarded, I will definitely agree with it. Not too long after 9/11 I was stopped for a random check. I was one of 5 white americans on a plane of well over a hundred people (maybe 200 or so?. The majority of the rest were from the middle east, as well as several asians. It did seem stupid to pick me, as I was a US citizen coming into my own country, I had customs paperwork that I declared and had to present anyway (so they wasted a check on me regardless). Checks should be done, not randomly. Deliberate checks based on something more than skin color or religion is needed.

I agree. Which is why we need to talk to the Israelis. They manage to pull out the trouble makers amongst a population that while certainly not homogenous has enough Arabs and Arab looking people to make singling out Arabs problematic.

Security workers at los vegas casinos can scan people and detect behavior patterns common among scammers. They are better at their job than anything the TSA has in place. A well developed system that was designed to single out suspicious peope with a good accuracy is needed. If we fool ourselves into believing that Muslims or arabs are the only threat, than our history is destined to repeat itself. We aren't very good as a country when it comes to making allies. We have made more and more enemies worldwide.

Private firms out doing the government? I never would have suspected. Not a jab at you, just a general statement as if you've read any of my posts you know I'm a free market wacko. I'm sure the casinos count their money very accurately too, while the government has been known for misplacing and out right losing billions in its accounting system. For some reason though most people think we need the government involved here though, so I just go along for the ride.

Will it take a major attack by a non-arab or non-muslim group to wake us up again?

Yes.

Having a lazerbeam focus on one section of the population leaves the door wide open for anyone else to step in. An effective system that would single out those that should be and allow me to go through security without taking my shoes off (or giving up extremely overpriced airport food and drinks) will work for me!

I usually bring water and wear loafers anyway, but I know where you're coming from. And that's only when someone manages to get me on a plane. Two bad experiences and I couldn't care if I never flew again.

My main point is history shows us SEVERAL different groups and pretty much ALL races have been and still can be terrorists. Focusing on the actions and behaviors etc that they share makes more since than focusing on the flavor of the day.

TSC

You are right, and in the larger context we should be using the ideas you mention. But in the larger context we should also not be attacking other countries without provocation and making alliances that will net us little more than enemies in the long run too. That's not likely to stop. Even were the security forces to focus on the flavor of the day, while not perfect, it would still be an improvement over our current approach.

[jrkarp]

Originally Posted by CDB

To be honest that makes no sense to me. Basically not requiring membership means you waive your property rights?

If the establishment is held out as open to the public, then yes, they have waived certain rights.

You might feel that the government should not have the authority to force waiver of those rights, but what I described is legally correct.

I know some people in my neighborhood who leave their front doors open in the summer to help get some air flowing on hot days, and kids who leave their bicycles on their lawns. Just because something is not under lock and key doesn't mean someone else simply has the right to access. Just because it seems like somone has free access to something doesn't mean they do have that access. Someone still owns those things and has full property rights over them. Technically if you don't lock your car it makes it easier for someone to steal it. Their access is easier. That doesn't make stealing an unlocked car less of a crime than stealing a locked one.

A restaurant or store, labeled and advertised as such, that is open to the public (i.e. requires no membership), is different from a privately owned home. Your analogy here is flawed.

The person on the side walk who wants to eat at someone else's restaurant. And that the door of the restaurant is unlocked is no more of an indicator of a right to use that property than an untended bike, an unlocked car or an open front door on a house is.

Again, a flawed analogy. As I have said, if you want to avail yourself of the benefits of being open to the public (more customers, more money, etc), you have to waive certain property rights.

[jrkarp]

Originally Posted by tsc

...

I counted (quickly) 63 dead on that list, 64 if you count the guy who blew himself up.

Compare that to the number of people killed at the Beiruit barracks bombing, Pan Am 103, and 9/11.

The IRA are terrorists, but they often phoned in warnings before the bombs exploded and they were looking to make more of a political statement than to kill as many people as possible. They did not deliberately target large numbers of people without regard to their combatant/noncombatant status.

[CDB]

Originally Posted by jrkarp

A restaurant or store, labeled and advertised as such, that is open to the public (i.e. requires no membership), is different from a privately owned home. Your analogy here is flawed.

How so? The difference is artifical. Someone own them. I accept people into my house all the time, that doesn't mean it's open to the public. What I'm trying to get across is I realize the legal distinction and I understand what you're saying about there being a 'difference,' but the difference really isn't there in the end. In the end all those pieces of property, a restaurant, a bike and a private home, are just that: private property. Whatever access might be implied by the way an owner handles the property is just that, implied. It is not a right or an inherent difference. In so many words it's like saying the kid deserves to have his bike stolen, and the theif has a right to it, because by leaving it out he implied some level of access was allowed. Just doesn't work in my mind. Private property is private property, be it a bike, store or home. Different degrees of implied access are irrelevant.

Again, a flawed analogy. As I have said, if you want to avail yourself of the benefits of being open to the public (more customers, more money, etc), you have to waive certain property rights.

You have to because the law says you have to. That doesn't mean the law is correct anymore than enacting sentencing guidelines for theft that hand out more lenient sentences to thieves who take things whose owners didn't take extra steps to protect from being stolen would be correct.

[tsc]

Originally Posted by jrkarp

I counted (quickly) 63 dead on that list, 64 if you count the guy who blew himself up.

Compare that to the number of people killed at the Beiruit barracks bombing, Pan Am 103, and 9/11.

The IRA are terrorists, but they often phoned in warnings before the bombs exploded and they were looking to make more of a political statement than to kill as many people as possible. They did not deliberately target large numbers of people without regard to their combatant/noncombatant status.

What is your point?

I WAS TALKING ABOUT ENGLAND. Your numbers are correct 64 dead, 779 wounded. I didn't realize "sensibly" killing and injuring people for your cause makes a better, more forgiveable terrorist?? Every attack by any group is a political statement. Did you look at the list? Government officials and civilians were both targeted. The severity of attacks elsewhere is no excuse to ignore history. The IRA phoned ahead to take credit, Al-queda takes credit afterwards is either excusable?

TSC

[jrkarp]

Originally Posted by tsc

What is your point?

I WAS TALKING ABOUT ENGLAND. Your numbers are correct 64 dead, 779 wounded. I didn't realize "sensibly" killing and injuring people for your cause makes a better, more forgiveable terrorist?? Every attack by any group is a political statement. Did you look at the list? Government officials and civilians were both targeted. The severity of attacks elsewhere is no excuse to ignore history. The IRA phoned ahead to take credit, Al-queda takes credit afterwards is either excusable?

TSC

Never said it was excusable.

And I know you were talking about England. Perhaps you are not aware that there has not been an IRA bombing since 2001and that the IRA are no longer considered a threat and were never a threat on the level of Al Qaeda.

I did look at the list. You obviously didn't read my post. I said "They did not deliberately target large numbers of people without regard to their combatant/noncombatant status."

Phoning ahead is a warning. It's not taking credit. Warnings can allow for evacuation prior to the actual explosion.

And finally, all terrorism is not equally political. The IRA actually had a tangible political agenda, that is the end of British rule of Northern Ireland. The ultimate goal of the Islamic fascists is the killing or conversion of all non-Muslims. There is a significant difference.

For the record, I do consider the IRA to be a terrorist organization. But their actions are nothing like those of al Qaeda.

[jrkarp]

Originally Posted by CDB

How so? The difference is artifical. Someone own them. I accept people into my house all the time, that doesn't mean it's open to the public. What I'm trying to get across is I realize the legal distinction and I understand what you're saying about there being a 'difference,' but the difference really isn't there in the end. In the end all those pieces of property, a restaurant, a bike and a private home, are just that: private property.

We're never going to agree on this, and our views aren't actually that different, but a restaurant is built, designed and intended to conduct business and serve large numbers of strangers. Your home was not.

Whatever access might be implied by the way an owner handles the property is just that, implied. It is not a right or an inherent difference. In so many words it's like saying the kid deserves to have his bike stolen, and the theif has a right to it, because by leaving it out he implied some level of access was allowed.

It's not saying that at all, because of the inherent and unavoidable differences between a piece of personal property and a piece of real property that is held out as open to the public.

You have to because the law says you have to.

Well, yes.

That doesn't mean the law is correct

Another lawyer at my firm always says

Law and justice go hand in hand
only in the courts of Fairy Land.

[CDB]

Originally Posted by jrkarp

We're never going to agree on this, and our views aren't actually that different, but a restaurant is built, designed and intended to conduct business and serve large numbers of strangers. Your home was not.

That would depend on my personal habits now wouldn't it?

And still, the number of people one expects to serve doesn't necessarily impart a right to service on any specific person to my mind. Just because my hot tub can hold eight doesn't mean I can't enjoy it with only one other person.

It's not saying that at all, because of the inherent and unavoidable differences between a piece of personal property and a piece of real property that is held out as open to the public.

There's the rub of it, because to my mind there is no such thing as "a piece of real property that is held out as open to the public." All property is private property, regardless of its location, purpose, design, etc.

Another lawyer at my firm always says

Law and justice go hand in hand
only in the courts of Fairy Land.

I'd agree in reality, but still insist on fighting for the ideal.

[jrkarp]

Originally Posted by CDB

There's the rub of it, because to my mind there is no such thing as "a piece of real property that is held out as open to the public." All property is private property, regardless of its location, purpose, design, etc.

You speak in such absolutes. It's true, all non-public property is private. You feel that there should be no distinction