Ahmad Khan Rahami wanted in connection to NYC bombings

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: introvert

Nope. Neither. They raided the house and chicken shack. Maybe they are hiding out in an undisclosed location in Virginia with Mateens Wife...

Are they looking for his Dad and brother as well?

I hope so - all his family, friends and associates should be questioned to find out what they know and more importantly whether there are further threats.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: introvert

Nope. Neither. They raided the house and chicken shack. Maybe they are hiding out in an undisclosed location in Virginia with Mateens Wife...

Are they looking for his Dad and brother as well?

I haven't seen anything in regards to the family, only a rumor that the 5 folks detained could have been members of his family trying to leave the country. That is unconfirmed, but I don't doubt that the FBI would love to have a talk with anyone associated with Ahmed, considering it was his fingerprints found on that pressure cooker device found in NYC Saturday..

a reply to: theantediluvian

Anti, it has nothing to do with Trump or the birther issue.

I think the infiltration into the US happened pre-9/11 and the current administration is also nothing to stop it. We are funding ISIS while fighting ISIS. We are giving billions to Iran who is one of the largest state sponsors of terror this side of Saudi. We will not release documents that tie Saud to 9/11. Why protect these people? That is where 'conspiracy' kicks in.

Our 'response' to terror attacks on US soil should not be about let's do another drone strike or put boots on the ground in Syria. We need to pull back and let those angry at each other kill each other over whatever they want to claim. I want to rebuild my nation with whoever wants to be here to progress it further according to the US constitution which is something that Islamic Fundamentalism does not allow. You have to follow their laws. Islam is to convert nations. We are not in Iraq to convert people to Judaism or christianity we are there as police and should pull out of the MIddle East.

Video...

He is alive and hope he will be singing soon....

twitter.com...

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Then apparently you're having reading comprehension issues again. Matafuchs and I were talking about a Muslim shop owner of his acquaintance. That was the basis of the reference you chose to chime in on, and the point of what I was saying.

I'm trying to change your question? LOL. That's rich.

No attacks on Muslims? 210,000 or more civilians deaths and casualties disagree with you. Source

Why not keep the focus on radical terrorists? Why keep bringing the name of Islam into this?

There is no war on Islam. There is only a war against Radical Islamic terrorism. It's wrong to extend radical Islamic terrorism to all Muslims, but some people keep doing it. Like I said, the very same people who seem so offended by naming radical Islamic terror as a threat.

Didn't say there was a war on Islam. There's no "war against Radical Islamic Terrorism™" in any conventional sense, because no one can figure out who we're for and who we're against. It's wrong to extend Radical Terrorism to Islam, I can agree with that. I have no issue with naming terrorism as a threat, again, I have a problem with implying it's controlled, directed, encouraged, maintained, etc. by Islam.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
It's quite telling that many of you can't make your points without grossly misrepresenting what others say.

Islam is a religion practiced by 25% of humanity.

Target terrorism, not religion.

Why?

do you somehow believe that religion has a monopoly, or even special access to the divine and thus moral truths? Religion is the greatest threat that mankind has ever faced, it is lazy, inaccurate, demeaning, supporting of genocides and slavery, it truly is in every way bull# and dangerous. If religion is not what it purports than it should be targeted and done away with.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thats reasonable.

I think you are confusing "attacking" with profiling.

If you come from a war torn area of the world with several states sponsoring terrorism,

belong to a religious group that currently is being radicalized in an effort to carry out said terrorism, .......

then perhaps that criteria merits a more concerted effort to make sure you arent a potential terrorist.

If england has mad cow disease, we check all imports of beef from there.

If apples from Mexico have disease carrying worms we check all fruits from Mexico or all at least apples from there.

If most terrorists are coming from ME backgrounds which includes Islam as a cultural practice then guess what....

I'm confused?

Sure, why not?

A sledgehammer to the face is SOP in profiling then?

Come on, Tada ... don't weasel ... you're weren't talking about building a criminal profile earlier.

A criminal profile would look at known associations, arrest records, travel histories, etc.

Being Muslim would be about as important as the fact that he is male, except to those promoting an agenda.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Then apparently you're having reading comprehension issues again. Matafuchs and I were talking about a Muslim shop owner of his acquaintance. That was the basis of the reference you chose to chime in on, and the point of what I was saying.

I'm trying to change your question? LOL. That's rich.

No attacks on Muslims? 210,000 or more civilians deaths and casualties disagree with you. Source

Why not keep the focus on radical terrorists? Why keep bringing the name of Islam into this?

There is no war on Islam. There is only a war against Radical Islamic terrorism. It's wrong to extend radical Islamic terrorism to all Muslims, but some people keep doing it. Like I said, the very same people who seem so offended by naming radical Islamic terror as a threat.

Didn't say there was a war on Islam. There's no "war against Radical Islamic Terrorism™" in any conventional sense, because no one can figure out who we're for and who we're against. It's wrong to extent Radical Terrorism to Islam, I can agree with that. I have no issue with naming terrorism as a threat, again, I have a problem with implying it's controlled, directed, encouraged, maintained, etc. by Islam.

Your linked source was about civilians dying in war, which has zero to do wth Islam or attacking Islam. Muslims are not under attack because of their faith (except by radical Islamic terrorists ironically). Radical Islamic beliefs are the problem, just like radical white supremacy beliefs are a problem. It's OK to name them without implying all Muslims are terrorists, or all whites are racist.

Right now it's radical Islam that is the big terror threat, hence the correct focus.

a reply to: TechniXcality

No. You're barking up the wrong tree on the religious thing, Tech. We're in agreement (as noted many times before) on religion.

I'm saying that in America, it goes against our Constitution to single out a religion or the followers of a religion for government action, restriction, or discriminatory treatment.

I'm saying that world-wide, it's diplomatically stupid to keep arguing that Islam itself is the problem, when one of the greatest points of radicalization is the claim that the West (Christendom) is against Islam itself.

Hope that makes what I'm saying a bit more clear.

a reply to: UKTruth

Zero to do with Islam? Tell that to the families of the people who died. They can't afford your fine distinctions.

Terrorism is the threat. Tagging it with Islamic is perpetuating the problem.

a reply to: Grambler

Where are people suggesting to attack this man or anyone because they are Muslim?

Fortunately, we in modern American society are no longer given to the barbaric behaviors we once were and that many around the world still are. We won't see large groups of men putting Muslim neighborhoods to the torch and men, women and children murdered in the street by angry mobs.

What we're not beyond is taking actions that while not as bloody, are in fact damaging to the lives of millions, damaging to ourselves and no less the product of irrational thinking.

So while we don't see a lot of folks (though we do see some) demanding blood (domestically), there are a disturbingly large number of people who are calling for other sorts of attacks on millions of our countrymen. Just look at the things people are saying in this thread:

"merits a more concerted effort to make sure you arent a potential terrorist"

Would you like to cut through the veneer of BS there? What's being implied is nothing short of denying the protections of the US Constitution to citizens based on their religion. How can we call them rights if they can be taken away on a whim because of a handful of assholes engaging in terrorism? That's not even to mention the rights that the fearful are having snatched begging to be stolen from every single one of us. Secret courts? Unconstitutional search and seizure? What has any of it gotten us? When will it end?

In fact, now that I'm looking, there are calls for exactly the sort of thing that I just got done saying was in our past:

"That's why Israel blows up their family home. Not a bad idea in a way."

I didn't even have to navigate away from the page to find it.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Zero to do with Islam? Tell that to the families of the people who died. They can't afford your fine distinctions.

Terrorism is the threat. Tagging it with Islamic is perpetuating the problem.

Right, as you mentioned before, the fact that ISIS kills Muslims proves that it can't be about religion.

I again ask you to tell the shiites that have been killed by ISIS that they are bigots for claiming that ISIS did this for religious reasons.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Zero to do with Islam? Tell that to the families of the people who died. They can't afford your fine distinctions.

Terrorism is the threat. Tagging it with Islamic is perpetuating the problem.

Right, as you mentioned before, the fact that ISIS kills Muslims proves that it can't be about religion.

I again ask you to tell the shiites that have been killed by ISIS that they are bigots for claiming that ISIS did this for religious reasons.

So, if it's not about religion, we gain nothing by tacking on the adjective "Islamic" do we?

We're in agreement then.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No, the guy that tried to kill MY PEOPLE, yeah sledge hammer.

People who fit into the same profile criteria as him, check them out. Chances are if a radical terrorist is going to follow his foot steps, a Muslim man from Afghanistan might be a likely perpetrator over a polish gay woman, or a Canadian christmas tree salesman....and so on.

But yeah, the one guy that we know tried to kill MY FELLOW NEW YORKERS, I have no civil thoughts towards. He lost that privilege IMO.

We kind of earned our right to sledge first....9/11 and all.

And it is a courtesy to trust them at this point as far as I am concerned....one I would extend to others of his background, but not at the expense of being mindful of reality.

Benefit of the doubt does not mean golden ticket in my book.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Zero to do with Islam? Tell that to the families of the people who died. They can't afford your fine distinctions.

Terrorism is the threat. Tagging it with Islamic is perpetuating the problem.

I'll repeat - no war has been initiated or carried out as a war against Islam in a very long time. I am sure the families do care about the distinction. I am sure it is important for them to know why their loved ones died. The answer to the recent mess and millions of deaths in the ME is not because they were Muslims. The answer is actually that politicians falsely accused the IRAQ leader of having WMDs, made up lies and then invaded Iraq, leading to a devastating domino effect across the region that ultimately created the current expanded problem of ISIS.

As families of loved ones get their answers, they will know that it is, in fact, radical islamic terror groups that have killed more of their loved ones than anyone else. I am sure they'll have no problem calling out the evil interpretations of their own religion and when these radicals are brought to justice they won't cry for them or be offended in any way.

a reply to: tadaman

"People who have the same criteria as him"? Criteria as in economic status? Or as in religion?

I don't blame you for venting outrage on the INDIVIDUAL who did these crimes and endangered those people, or his accessories.

It's the "others of his background" who may be as innocent as you or your New Yorkers I have a problem with targeting.

It's not a courtesy for Americans to be treated equally under the law and not be targeted because of their religion ... it's a right.

a reply to: UKTruth

I don't think the folks who had family who died see it that way.

I think that's part of our problem.

And insisting on targeting Islam as equivalent to terrorism is another part.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't think the folks who had family who died see it that way.

I think that's part of our problem.

And insisting on targeting Islam as equivalent to terrorism is another part.

Islam is not equivalent to terrorism. You are the one spreading that by attacking a view hardly anyone holds.
Radical Islam is being targeted.

a reply to: theantediluvian

First let me say that we should strive to be better than our enemies. This means I am against torture, am for due process for any accused person, and I am definitely not for retaliating against a group based on the actions of a few. One of the things I am most disgusted with in this country is our treatment of prisoners, regardless of their crimes.

The problem I have is when we go so far out of our way to avoid these things that we censor or refuse to see the truth. I am not expert on Islam, and I have known many awesome people that practice that religion, but it seems clear to me that there is a significant group of people carrying out attacks in the name of Islam. The fact that the President of our country is afraid to admit that is unbelievable, and shows the mindset of many people.

How can we ever solve this problem if we can't even identify it? If we talk about the problem factually, and people start trying to lynch all Muslims, then we prosecute them to the full extent of the law. But we don't hide facts out of fear of these people, that just empowers them even more.

Look at some of the countries in Europe. Sweden for example was considered to have the most welcoming population almost in the world. They have become some inundated with Islamic migrants that they are now becoming bitter. All of the peoples calls for the problems that were arising were ignored by their officials, and all complaints with the immigrants were considered racism, no matter how factual they were.

Now the people are changing from wanting to be welcoming to a reasonable degree to immigrants to actively hating them. Why? Because political correctness would not allow for the problems to be idenified or dealt with.

This is what is starting in the US. People see these terrorists attacks happen in places like San Bernadino and Orlando, and they know the attackers say they did it in the name of Islam. The president and many on the left including much of the media is more concerned with a possible backlash from people than the actual attackers or victims. As a result, more normal people are seeing through this and becoming pissed, and will end up hating Muslims even more.

The proper way to deal with this is to be open and honest with the facts. Avoiding saying Islamic terrorism, or acting like some interpretation of Islam is not contributing to these attacks makes the country more vulnerable to these type of attacks, and makes the bigots even stronger.

Do you have a problem with men being profiled as more violent criminals? If a murder happens, investigators start with the belief that it was probably a man. Most of the time this is correct. Should they stop this, because it could lead to a backlash against men?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Nope, like I said

If there are male Muslims from active war zones where radical Islam has roots, They need to be checked out

THOSE criteria.

They need to prove themselves. I dont care what you people say. I live in a target area.

F the law if it means my people will suffer. You got me there.

Male Muslims from war zones are not trust worthy.....too many have killed too many of my people. I dont even care.

And I am friends with some, THEY EARNED my trust and understood why I was careful with them.

Its common sense. If you cant see that then what ever.

I dont trust them and I have every reason not too.

Most terrorsists seem to be like them.

The good ones can bear with us while we sort this out, or go to hell if that is too much to ask.

Talk about rights while we are at war in their home countries and prevelant groups there have declared intent on doing exactly what this asshole did. *Move here, kill us.....

please man. What ever. This New Yorker has had enough. F the law if it protects the wrong ones. The good ones get plenty of protection like the rest of us by the law....And they do understand.....its common freaking sense. The bad ones are the ones who protest about profiling.

Muslims from warzones where radical Islam is practiced.....F U until I can trust you. I dont even care if you understand. AND I dont care who agrees with me, the law, everyone else, or God himself.