Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does anyone see the irony in Muslims, especially Muslim women insisting that they be allowed to opt out of both the full body scans and only permitting a pat down of their heads and necks? With virtually 100% of the terrorists being Muslim, in what universe does this seem a viable option for Muslim women who wear hijab? They could hide a virtual arsenal under those garments. But the worst of it is that the "victims" of any terrorism are being subjected to the over-the-top intrusiveness of the scans and pat downs but yet we are supposed to be "sensitive" to the very group who have made it necessary in the first place.
(I made no implication that all Muslims are terrorists, only that all terrorists seem to be Muslim - a clear distinction.)
Does anyone see the irony in Muslims, especially Muslim women insisting that they be allowed to opt out of both the full body scans and only permitting a pat down of their heads and necks? With virtually 100% of the terrorists being Muslim, in what universe does this seem a viable option for Muslim women who wear hijab? They could hide a virtual arsenal under those garments. But the worst of it is that the "victims" of any terrorism are being subjected to the over-the-top intrusiveness of the scans and pat downs but yet we are supposed to be "sensitive" to the very group who have made it necessary in the first place.
(I made no implication that all Muslims are terrorists, only that all terrorists seem to be Muslim - a clear distinction.)
Does anyone see the irony in Muslims, especially Muslim women insisting that they be allowed to opt out of both the full body scans and only permitting a pat down of their heads and necks? With virtually 100% of the terrorists being Muslim, in what universe does this seem a viable option for Muslim women who wear hijab? They could hide a virtual arsenal under those garments. But the worst of it is that the "victims" of any terrorism are being subjected to the over-the-top intrusiveness of the scans and pat downs but yet we are supposed to be "sensitive" to the very group who have made it necessary in the first place.
(I made no implication that all Muslims are terrorists, only that all terrorists seem to be Muslim - a clear distinction.)
They should not be accommodated and yes, I agree it is ironic.
I also think it's quite sad that we even have to use disclaimers on CD. It would be great if people would just read instead of going out of their way to make trouble if there is not a disclaimer put on the post, and even then, it's still up for debate.
[quote=Redrover;16671959]Does anyone see the irony in Muslims, especially Muslim women insisting that they be allowed to opt out of both the full body scans and only permitting a pat down of their heads and necks?
I find it no more "ironic" than a gentleman yelling "don't touch my junk."
As for an exception of Muslim women, no, I would not agree to such an exemption.
Does anyone see the irony in Muslims, especially Muslim women insisting that they be allowed to opt out of both the full body scans and only permitting a pat down of their heads and necks? With virtually 100% of the terrorists being Muslim, in what universe does this seem a viable option for Muslim women who wear hijab? They could hide a virtual arsenal under those garments. But the worst of it is that the "victims" of any terrorism are being subjected to the over-the-top intrusiveness of the scans and pat downs but yet we are supposed to be "sensitive" to the very group who have made it necessary in the first place.
(I made no implication that all Muslims are terrorists, only that all terrorists seem to be Muslim - a clear distinction.)
First all terrorist are not Muslim, there are Basque separatist in Spain, FARC terrorist in Colombia, and still a small number of terrorist in Northern Ireland, just to name a few.
Now in relation to Muslim women being scanned let's keep in mind people pay to fly. If they don't like the security rules and procedures related to flying then they shouldn't fly. The security procedures in place are to protect EVERYBODY that flies, therefore everybody should be subject to the same type of security procedure. If Muslims think the security procedures in some way violate their religious practices they should work in conjunction with the airline industry and government to develop security procedures that still allow a woman to be searched yet address the security concerns of the airline industry and governments around the world.
On another note in Afghanistan female soldiers are used to search Afghan woman at checkpoints and other types of searches. I see no reason why the same thing can't be done to accommodate Muslim women who fly.
Does anyone see the irony in Muslims, especially Muslim women insisting that they be allowed to opt out of both the full body scans and only permitting a pat down of their heads and necks? With virtually 100% of the terrorists being Muslim, in what universe does this seem a viable option for Muslim women who wear hijab? They could hide a virtual arsenal under those garments. But the worst of it is that the "victims" of any terrorism are being subjected to the over-the-top intrusiveness of the scans and pat downs but yet we are supposed to be "sensitive" to the very group who have made it necessary in the first place.
(I made no implication that all Muslims are terrorists, only that all terrorists seem to be Muslim - a clear distinction.)
The tentacles of Islam entagle everything. Neverf make the mistake of confusing an organization with it''s members/captives.
Does anyone see the irony in Muslims, especially Muslim women insisting that they be allowed to opt out of both the full body scans and only permitting a pat down of their heads and necks? With virtually 100% of the terrorists being Muslim, in what universe does this seem a viable option for Muslim women who wear hijab? They could hide a virtual arsenal under those garments. But the worst of it is that the "victims" of any terrorism are being subjected to the over-the-top intrusiveness of the scans and pat downs but yet we are supposed to be "sensitive" to the very group who have made it necessary in the first place.
(I made no implication that all Muslims are terrorists, only that all terrorists seem to be Muslim - a clear distinction.)
Tim McVeigh was a Muslim? Wow - completely unaware of that. I know I was young when it happened, but I could have sworn he was white.
Tim McVeigh was a Muslim? Wow - completely unaware of that. I know I was young when it happened, but I could have sworn he was white.
What, there can't be white Muslims?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
