Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    john doe. is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    US
    Posts
    2,850

    Gatorade Is Not The Problem

    Toiletries don't commit acts of terrorism. Muslims do.

    So why can't I take my toothpaste on the plane? How is it that Gatorade is forbidden? Why can't I have a bottle of water?

    Because we aren't really fighting a war with terror, we are losing a struggle with political correctness. It is not so much the evil of outsiders; it is the cowardice of Americans.

    The cowardice that won't let us call a spade a spade, the makes us all live in an alternate reality, that puts survival secondary to servility. We are fighting World War III with one arm tied behind our back. The event in England of several weeks ago was a good example.

    A group of two or three dozen fascist Muslims in England and Pakistan plotted to blow up 10 or 12 passenger-laden airliners in transatlantic flight. The purpose was to celebrate and reprise the attacks of September 11. The means was the detonation of explosive liquids disguised as common liquids like Gatorade or shampoo. The plot was discovered, followed, and hopefully foiled by British intelligence with an assist from Americans and Pakistanis. Immediately, new restrictions were put on airline passengers.

    Because the plotters planned to use liquids, passengers were forbidden to bring liquids onto airplanes.

    Not medicines, not creams, not drinks, not nothing. Untold hundreds of thousands of airline passengers immediately and indefinitely lost the right to carry liquids or pastes on themselves or in their carry-on luggage.

    Which is stupid. Gatorade's not the problem; Muslims are the problem.

    Can we be honest enough to just admit that for a minute? The plotters uncovered in England were all Muslims. They all had Muslim names. Sll but one or two were of Pakistani descent. They were motivated by religious bigotry. They wanted to kill because they were Muslim and they wanted to kill the people they wanted to kill because they weren't Muslim.

    Yet political correctness forbids us from mentioning that, much less acting upon it.

    In fact, on the ABC network news over the weekend, the plotters were called "British Extremists" as if somehow the fact they were in Great Britain was defining their extremism. The fact is, they were Muslim extremists, but the American media is so in bed with the diversity-training crowd that that fact can't be mentioned.

    Also on American newscasts over the weekend, the story was told of three men buying thousands of disposable and untraceable cell phones, an activity with possible terrorist linkages. Not surprisingly, very few accounts noted that the men were Muslims with Muslim names.

    Political correctness has sanitized this fight to such an extent that we are not allowed to even identify the enemy.

    Which is not toothpaste.

    It is Islam. An Islam practiced by tens of millions of people around the world and which repeatedly and consistently puts armies and cells of terrorists in action around the world. No doubt there are peace-loving Muslims, it's just that they have an amazing capacity for keeping a low profile or demanding that people respect their religion.

    Our desire not to offend Muslims and their culture admits great potential to cost American lives - countless American lives. Let's lay aside political correctness for a moment and use scientific analysis. Let's use reason and logic for just a minute. Here's what I mean:

    Question: How many terrorist acts have been committed by liquids carried onto airplanes by passengers?

    Answer: Zero.

    Second question: How many terrorist acts involving airliners have been committed by Muslims?

    Answer: All of them.

    Third question: Why are we focusing on liquids instead of Muslims?

    Answer: Beats me.

    Why is it that the protection of our airline industry is focused on products, not people? Why is it that we go to such extreme lengths to screen materials, but purposely avoid screening the people who carry them?

    Wouldn't we be safer if we focused our security efforts largely on Muslim passengers? Especially young, male Muslim passengers? Is the fact that every single act of airliner terrorism involved a young, male Muslim, not even relevant?

    Does it make sense to take away a mother's bottle of Children's Tylenol and a grandmother's can of Coke while at the same time purposely not profiling likely terrorists?

    Can't we be honest enough to admit that profiling potential terrorists by religion, national origin, gender and age is a good idea? Aren't we bright enough to understand that asking a few extra questions of a young Muslim airline passenger is not the same as pulling over a black man just because he's driving in a "white" neighborhood?

    A group of people were arrested last week for plotting a terrorist attack. They were young Muslim men. Just like the group before that and the group before that and the group before that.

    And the group before that.

    So, naturally, you can't take ChapStick on an airplane.

    Toiletries don't commit acts of terrorism.

    Muslims do.

    Maybe if the government spent less time looking at your carry-on bag and more time looking at young male Muslim passengers we'd all be a lot safer and a lot less inconvenienced.

    This isn't about Gatorade, this is about jihad. It's time to stop focusing on products and start focusing on people.

    People who happen to be Muslim.

    - By Bob Lonsberry 2006

  2. #2
    2400's Avatar
    2400 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,744
    +1

    excellent post

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •