Name one terrorist since 2001 who wasn't a radical muslim. Now even their doctors are trying to kill people. Isn't it time we do a liitle profiling to keep our world a safer place from these radical muslim whack-jobs?
2007-07-05 06:17:29 · 11 answers · asked by raci_tracey 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
yes ,take ur world and leave the planet
2007-07-05 07:41:47 · answer #1 · answered by hasafer 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
i'm a Republican myself and an excellent sort of Muslims do would desire to be profiled through fact plenty are in contact in Terrorism. Now once you talk approximately elected officers, there are individuals of Congress on the two factors of the aisle that are in complication with the regulation. Heck in 1999 a Republican contained in the Republican controlled State Senate in my State replaced into unquestionably expelled for criminal interest (36 out of 38 Senators votes sure, each Democrat and maximum Republicans which includes my Senator on the time voted sure, the expelled Senator and yet another Republican have been the only 2 contained in the State Senate that voted No).
2016-09-29 03:21:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whilst I have to commend snipe monkey on the time he has spent answering your question, I believe you asked for "one terrorist since 2001 who wasn't a radical Muslim". I think we should look at ALL possibilities. It wont happen of course until we dissociate from Europe and silence all the bleeding hearts out there who have turned our government against their rightful people. Labour should put British born subjects before people who simply want to come here. If profiling protects us, then so be it.
2007-07-05 07:10:03 · answer #3 · answered by Enoch Returns 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Er, no.
If you define 'terrorist' as 'radical muslim' then you are okay with profiling.
A lot of people consider dropping bombs and invading countries to be terrorism. With those criteria, who gets profiled?
2007-07-05 07:02:10 · answer #4 · answered by nora22000 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
yes profiling needs to be done, only liberal aholes say no to it. Democrats are all against as well, which is why in the up coming election it should be highlighted to show how weak they are on national security.
2007-07-05 07:16:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
NO! it is morally wrong! i can't even believe you are suggesting it! Profiling means that ANY AND ALL MUSLIMS will be at risk of being wrongfully accused of being a terrorist. do us all a favor and do some research before ever suggesting such a thing because it is not only wrong but i think it is racist.
2007-07-05 06:20:50 · answer #6 · answered by VoteMo 3 · 3⤊ 6⤋
allejuliah!
at last a good idea,
now watch all the muslims get abusive and deny any wrong doing ever,
praise be to jesus
2007-07-05 06:51:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
ter·ror·ist (ter'er-ist) n. 1. One who engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
2. One who leads an armed group that kills civilians as a means of political intimidation -- unless he terrorizes Haitians while on the CIA-payroll, as did 1990s death squad leader Emmanuel Constant, in which case the U.S. refuses to extradite him to Haiti, even after Sept. 11, 2001.
3. One who targets civilian airliners and ships -- unless he blows up a Cuban civilian airliner, killing 73 people, and fires at a Polish freighter, like Orlando Bosch, in which case he is coddled and paroled by the Bush Justice Department in 1990, and his extradition is blocked.
4. One who leads a group that engages in kidnapping and murder -- unless the victims are Hondurans attacked by CIA-backed death squad Battalion 316, in which case Battalion architect Gustavo Alvarez becomes a Pentagon consultant, while the then-ambassador to Honduras who downplayed the terror, John Negroponte, is appointed U.S. ambassador to the United Nations days after Sept. 11.
5. One who uses rape and murder for political purposes -- unless the victims are four U.S. church women sexually assaulted and killed in 1980 by members of El Salvador’s U.S.-backed military, in which case excuses and distortions pour forth from then-U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick (“these nuns were not just nuns; they were also political activists”) and Secretary of State Al Haig (the nuns “may have tried to run a roadblock”).
6. One who designates civilians as “soft targets” to be attacked in the cause of political transformation -- unless the targets are Nicaraguans killed by Contra guerrillas armed and directed by the U.S who, according to Human Rights Watch, “systematically engage in violent abuses…so prevalent that these may be said to be their principal means of waging war.”
7. One who facilitates a massacre of civilians -- unless the victims are 900 Palestinians shot and hacked to death in the Sabra and Shatila camps by Lebanese Christian militia as Israeli soldiers stood guard, in which case Israel’s then-Defense Minster (now Prime Minister) Ariel Sharon remains a U.S. “War on Terrorism” ally after being censured as indirectly responsible for the massacre by an Israeli commission of inquiry.
The world as a whole never has been, and never will be a safe place.
2007-07-05 06:22:48 · answer #8 · answered by Snipermonkey 2 · 6⤊ 3⤋
It's helped Israel for the last 2000 years. i've been an advocate for it since..... as long as I can remember.
Good question Raci..... blow the rest off
2007-07-05 06:23:00 · answer #9 · answered by The Forgotten 6 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Yes, I would say immediately.
2007-07-05 06:41:24 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋