Replies

I agree, Ari...I was taken aback by the hostility I found in the thread, even back in #26 ("This is not an unexpected knee-jerk response from one of the few people I've come into contact with who apparently has a "snooze" button for his brain"). But even when I tried to keep it light, I think I hit nerves. Admittedly I'm not the best comedian in the world, but I didn't think that the response fit my crime... and I realized it is a brave new world since December.

Then, I found that instead of staying on the topic of the thread, or answering why fingerprinting lawful American citizens is a good thing, we get 2400-word posts that have spurious claims (that have to be refuted, only to be excused as "I got it from PBS," etc...), demonstrating a lack of respect for other FReepers' time and efforts. I let my irritation creep into my responses.

Maybe I'm taking it too seriously, but even if I don't recall the evils of Stalin's rule, and (dare I say it) Hitler's rise to power, I have known those who survived them and have seen how easy it is that degraded protections can lead to injustice.

Do I think we are about to become 1940s Germany or USSR? No...but I do think that putting more information into the hands of Hillary and her ilk is not a Good Thing^TM. It chills me to think that supposed conservatives are leading the charge to encourage the government to invade privacy based on religion. Who do they think these powers can also be used against, if not lawful Jews and Christians or anyone else?!?

On top of all this, we get use of words like "muzzies"...as if the use of similarly hostile terms for Jews would be welcome.

Bottom line: Just as there are Christians who believe that abortion clinics should be bombed, there are Muslims who believe in terrorism; just as the vast majority of Christians believe there's NO justification for such behaviour, an unknown number of Muslims do not support terrorism. What do we call the ones who believe there is no support for intolerant violence in their Islamic religion, if not Moderate Muslims?

To any who feel anything I said has been a personal attack, I apologize; I mean to address debating techniques and claims.

Finally, I not only tip my hat, but give a deep bow, to Jan in Colorado for her post of this topic again. Without this thread, I wouldn't have gotten to know many of you, and the rhetoric here probably conceals the genuine affection I feel for my fellow FReepers... I just wish you'd all keep the Constitution strong!!! ¬that was some humour...ok? <grin>

>"On top of all this, we get use of words like "muzzies"...as if the use of similarly hostile terms for Jews would be welcome."<

Hmmm...

It was actually just a neutral plural diminutive (sort of like calling ten guys named 'Robert' a bunch of Bobs...), and not an insulting, inflammatory pejorative. Honestly.

Unless it was promoted overnight in conjunction with the (apparent) demotion of the dynamic cultural meaning of 'bigot'.

Any Jewish folk out there care to observe whether 'muzzie' carries the same vitriolic sting as (words I never use) 'y*d' or 'k*ke'.

Any African americans feel that it is equivalent to the 'n' word?

I doubt the Irish among us would find it as charming as 'm*ck'

Certainly not comparable to calling a Catholic a 'papist'.

As an American of Italian heritage, I do not believe it is at all like d*go, guinea, or w*p.

BTW, digressing briefly on a previous issue:

"Under authority of Executive Order 9066, which first authorized the internment of the Japanese, General DeWitt began relocation and internment of Italian Americans in California. Over 10,000 Italians deemed enemy aliens were forcibly evacuated from their homes and over 52,000 were subject to strict curfew regulations...During World War II, an estimated 1.5 million Americans of Italian descent served in the U.S. military, constituting one of the largest segments of the US combat forces of about 12 million."

(Source: commdocs.house.gov/)

Black men made up 7.91% (or between 57k and 58k) of the enlisted men in the Army in WWII, meaning there were about 733,250 enlisted men.

40% of that would be 293,300. If it is reasonable to extract that with five branches of the service, approximately 1 in 5 were in the US Army, then the assertion stated as fact in the PBS documentary looks very plausible.

Plainly, they were not only definitely 12.5% of total US combat forces (1.5 million out of 12 million), but also of high probability, 40% of Army enlistees.

(Math is my own, double-check as you wish.)

A.A.C.

Thanks for the clarification. Humor can be a delicate science. I've had to apologize in the past for not putting a "(sarcasm)" at the end of my sarcasm.

I've worked with Muslims and the younger adults are more open to sharing opinions than the older folks. Most of the the youths I met didn't give a squat about pan-Islamic politics (in other words, they didn't hate Israel or Jews). But these were well traveled guys who knew the difference between hype and reality. They didn't base their opinion on information from the MSM.

What I think will draw fanatical forces away from Muslim nations is the call to Jihad in Iraq. While foreign fighters comprise a portion of the chaos in Iraq, it's strength that isn't recruiting from the rest of the Muslim world. Coalition troops won't have to move out of Iraq since Jihadist with the romantic idea of martyrdom will travel to the Coalition forces. We may always have casualties, but Iraq's own police will perfect their methods of finding and capturing such foreign fanatical fighters. It may even draw Palestinian "freedom" fighters (terrorists and criminals) out of Israel giving Israel/Palestine the opportunity to finalize their peace process.