Comment by coolestuk | Hacker News Reader

Comment by coolestuk | Hacker News Reader

There is an elephant in the room.

The threat to US/Western Europe/Australasia is coming from muslims. They are by far the biggest terrorist threat to these areas. So we should have a 'no-fly' rule for muslims. A minority of current flyers would suffer inconvenience. As it is, the majority of flyers suffer both inconvenience and the possibility of being murdered.

I hardly fly any more because it is such an awful experience. It is only a matter of time before another plane comes down - in September Abdullah Asieri stuck a bomb up his ass and passed through 2 sets of airport security AND the Saudi security services, which shows us that there is no way to stop someone getting a bomb on board. Dealing with suicide bombers is the most difficult thing to do. They have no fear of any punishment, and they can take their deathly payload anywhere.

People should start reading sites like www.jihadwatch.org or www.thereligionofpeace.com instead of believing the politically correct media. Islam is the oldest form of totalitarianism.

I'm no racist (I don't believe there are races). For 15 years I have lived in the heart of the most muslim area of London. I've seen most non-muslims leave the area, and watched as the muslims have become more and more radical. I'm married to an asian, and I've had two muslim boyfriends in the past.

As it is, the majority of fliers suffer both inconvenience and the possibility of being murdered.

Similarly, I think cars should be limited to 5mph, because if they can go faster, a drunk (or just plain incompetent) driver could easily kill everyone on the road. So what if drunk drivers are a problem that only affect 1 in a million people, we need to take action at any cost! Any risk of death is unacceptable.

I've had two muslim boyfriends in the past

Clearly you are a terrorist sympathizer and should be added to the no-fly list. If you want to leave your country, apply for an exit visa and swim across the Channel. (It's too risky to allow you to take the train; you would probably blow it up given your tendencies.)

Pretty intelligent sounding, huh...

This sort of logic is why I'm glad I don't live in the UK.

Treating people with suspicion based on the fact that they are perceived as being in a particular demographic category is unacceptable. Essentially, it means that these people are having their rights infringed - freedom of movement and freedom of expression - in an ineffectual attempt to stop a very rare event (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/odds-of-airborne-terr...) from occurring.

This sort of treatment is afforded only a few special categories of people: minors and people with criminal records. I don't agree with denial of rights in those cases, either.

You may not be racist, but you're a bigot. No matter whether or not Muslims tend to bomb airplanes more than anyone else, preventing Muslims from flying is both unethical and inconsistent with the principles of Western democracy.

But only Muslims commit terrorist attacks. Remember the Oklahoma City bomber? Muslim. Remember the Unabomber? Muslim.

Oh wait... they were both Regular Old White Guys.

"But only Muslims commit terrorist attacks."

I sympathize with your outrage when confronted with blatant bigotry, but this isn't what was implied. If you take a random sample of a 1000 terrorist attacks in the world, I suspect you'd have well over 85 % of them committed by Muslims.

Now, this in itself doesn't imply that you can (or should) discriminate against Muslims, because that is a very very small percentage of the total Muslim population, but there is some truth to the old saw "Most muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim".

I am not sure what the correct conclusion to draw is, but as a proto truth, perhaps just like Communism is a dangerous and suboptimal way to run a society, maybe a religion with millions of followers that advocates eternal war and subjugation of the Infidel should be carefully watched. In the Middle Ages this would be Christianity. In the 20th century, this would probably be Islam.

I also submit we may never be able to have rational discussion of this topic, except among very close friends, because it would veer rapidly into divisive topics and useless hairsplitting - a prime example of "things you can't say" (or discuss rationally). Besides this is politics - something that should rarely be on HN in any case.

100% of terrorist attacks are committed by terrorists. That sounds like a better filter than religious beliefs.

You have to look at it the other way. 0.00% of Christians commit terrorist attacks. 0.00% of Muslims commit terrorist attacks. Therefore, it doesn't seem too valuable to discriminate in this way.

a prime example of "things you can't say"

You can say it, but legalized discrimination goes against every value a Free society has. Liberty is more important than a little bit of temporary safety. It's that simple.

"You can say it, but legalized discrimination goes against every value a Free society has."

I completely agree. I was careful to make the point that discrimination is NOT ok even if 100% of terrorist acts in the world were by Muslims because the number of people who are decent citizens far outweigh the terrorists, just as the number of decent communists far outweighed the Red- Terror-kill-all-capitalists folks and McCarthyism was not an acceptable solution either.

I was reacting to your "But only Muslims commit terrorist attacks." That is an exaggeration of the claim made by those who would advocate legal discrimination. Mischaracterizing your opponents' arguments (no matter how distasteful their ideologies are) isn't the right way (imo) to refute their ideas. You do it again with

" 0.00% of Christians commit terrorist attacks. 0.00% of Muslims commit terrorist attacks. "

Most muslim terrorists are educated in madrassas where they study their religion for a long time. Saudi Arabia and Iran (and to a lesser extent, Pakistan), where much of Islamic terrorism originates are the terrorism originates are theocracies or hevaily theocratic. Their motivation, training, goals and methods are all influenced by religion are religious. To deny that there is a religious element to Islamic terrorism is an extreme position not justified by facts. You could argue that this isn't "True Islam", but that is a different argument.

Again I completely agree with your idea that "Muslims must NOT be discriminated against" idea. Such discrimination is against everything Western Democracy (and human decency) stand for.

I am still disturbed by Islam as a political and social ideology dictating how others should submit to the "true believers". I guess I just don't go to extremes in either direction. Some social visions are dangerous.

All that said, I will now follow my own advice of keeping politics off HN! Peace!

And how do you suggest that we go about identifying muslims?

By requiring them to register and wear an emblem on their clothing at all times. We can have the police visit everyone's house to see if the people living there have any literature sympathetic to the Muslim cause.

History has shown that this is a great idea.

Even if this were ethical or politically viable, which it's not, how would you carry it out? How do you identify Muslims? By name? Skin color? Clothing?

Every attribute can be spoofed or mis-directed by someone motivated to do harm.

It's as impossible as it is unpalatable.

http://crookedtimber.org/2009/12/28/political-correctness-go...

All the terrorists are engineers too, they are clearly ingenious and totally unmanageable. People should start reading sites like this one -- engineering is obviously the oldest form of prescriptivist demagoguery!

You can always opt-out of civilization, just relocate yourself to the middle of nowhere, and nobody will bother you or be bothered by your racist rant. I doubt you'll have to worry about terrorists crashing at your place ever again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com