DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: _JS on October 29, 2007, 03:44:03 PM
-
Minister 'deeply disappointed' by US airport detention
Elizabeth Stewart and agencies
Monday October 29, 2007
Guardian Unlimited (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,331095723-110481,00.html)
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41370000/jpg/_41370865_malikpa203.jpg)
Member of Parliament for Dewsbury, Shahid Malik standing outside Number Ten.
Britain's first Muslim minister has described his disappointment at being detained - for a second time - at a US airport, where his hand luggage was analysed for traces of explosive materials.
International development minister Shahid Malik was returning to the UK yesterday morning after attending a series of meetings on tackling terrorism when was stopped and searched at Dulles Airport in Washington DC.
The MP for Dewsbury was detained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) - the same department whose representatives he had been meeting on his visit to the country.
Mr Malik said yesterday: "After a few minutes a couple of other people were also taken to one side. We were all Muslims - the other two were black Muslims, both with Muslim names."
Mr Malik said he was particularly annoyed, as a similar incident happened to him last year, when he was detained for an hour at JFK airport in New York by the DHS.
This was despite the fact he had been a keynote speaker at an event organised by the department, alongside the FBI and Muslim organisations in New York.
Following the episode last year, Mr Malik received numerous apologies and assurances from the US authorities.
But after his detention yesterday, which lasted about 40 minutes, he said: "I am deeply disappointed.
"The abusive attitude I endured last November I forgot about and I forgave but I really do believe that British ministers and parliamentarians should be afforded the same respect and dignity at USA airports that we would bestow upon our colleagues in the Senate and Congress.
"Obviously, there was no malice involved but it has to be said that the US system does not inspire confidence."
Guardian Unlimited ? Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
-
all this means is he should tele-conference all U.S. stuff and never bother going here.
it`s not like he can call ahead and we can arraigned for his arrival to be smother.
we are not set-up to handle visitors in the U.S.
maybe never.
-
it`s not like he can call ahead and we can arraigned for his arrival to be smother.
we are not set-up to handle visitors in the U.S.
maybe never.
\===================================================
I don't see why the US could not make an exception for this guy, since he IS a member of the British Parliament.
If we aren't "set up to handle visitors" in the US, there sure seem to be a whole lot of Germans, French and Brits running about Miami Beach lately, now that the dollar has dropped to the lowest point ever.
We need tourists. We need the understanding of officials from other nations as well.
Homeland Security is a major pain in the butt, and most of their restrictions are useless at preventing terrorism, like making a 70 years old granny lady dump the contents of a sippycup in a barrel twelve feet away from the main entry gate of the airport. If it were an explosive, it could kill several hundred people. But is isn't. And the only good this sort of bullying does is to make a HS officer feel really important, because he ruiles over grannies with sippycups.
-
Here of course we see the real face of Bush's "war on terrorism." Glad it's not really a war on Muslims - - BWAHAHAHAHA.
-
Here of course we see the real face of Bush's "war on terrorism." Glad it's not really a war on Muslims - - BWAHAHAHAHA.
How would thay know he was a Muslim?
-
I believe this incident would classify as irony, for those looking for real life examples.
Mr Malik said he was particularly annoyed, as a similar incident happened to him last year, when he was detained for an hour at JFK airport in New York by the DHS.
This was despite the fact he had been a keynote speaker at an event organised by the department, alongside the FBI and Muslim organisations in New York.
Do you think Mr. Malik is probably a little upset because of this?
Following the episode last year, Mr Malik received numerous apologies and assurances from the US authorities.
-
<<How would thay know he was a Muslim?>>
How many Episcopalians do you know named Shahid Malik? They made a lucky guess.
-
<<How would thay know he was a Muslim?>>
How many Episcopalians do you know named Shahid Malik? They made a lucky guess.
How many Episcopailians have been caught wearing shoe bombs?
How lcky do you have to be to make that sort of guess?
-
<<How many Episcopailians have been caught wearing shoe bombs?>>
So, you're admitting that it IS a war on Muslims?
-
<<How many Episcopailians have been caught wearing shoe bombs?>>
So, you're admitting that it IS a war on Muslims?
How do you make that connection?
-
First I claimed the war on terror seemed to be a war on Muslims, based on this guy's experience.
You seemed to be challenging my assumption that the guy was picked on because he was a Muslim, by asking me how they knew he was a Muslim. The only point to the challenge would be to challenge my original claim that the war seemed to be a war on Muslims, since if I couldn't show that they knew the guy was a Muslim, then I couldn't demonstrate that the "war on terror" was really a war on Muslims.
When I answered your challenge with a rhetorical question ("How many Episcopalians . . . ?") which really dealt with names and argued that the name identified the guy as a Muslim (and thus, if they knew he was a Muslim, my original statement remained uncontradicted) and so was consistent with the line of reasoning that goes: the war is on Muslims; this guy is known to be a Muslim; therefore this guy was treated as the enemy.
At that point, you seemed to give up challenging my theory by contesting the idea that they knew the guy was a Muslim; you no longer denied that the guy was easily identified as a Muslim. (Why you even bothered to take up such a silly and indefensible position is a mystery to me anyway.) Now you switched to a new tack: "How many Episcopalians did I know that tried to shoe-bomb airplanes?" Also a rhetorical question, the point of which was that it was not Episcopalians but MUSLIMS who shoe-bomb airplanes, therefore that Muslims are the enemy, therefore the war really IS a "war on Muslims."
This is why I deduced that you were finally ready to admit the obvious, that the "war on terror" really IS a "war on Muslims."
-
You know soething MT , I have been meaning to tell Sirs and you this same thing , the thread is visible , restateing the history of the thread is not really nessacery.
The war is on terrorists , who have declared war on us.
This fellow is welcome to be Episcopailian, as far as I know that Church would not deny him membership.
Which brings us back to how did they know he was Muslim?
-
<<You know soething MT , I have been meaning to tell Sirs and you this same thing , the thread is visible , restateing the history of the thread is not really nessacery.>>
?? - You asked how did I make the connection, I set it out for you as logically as I could. Tried to make it easy for you. Next time, maybe I should just answer a question like that with "Read the fucking thread."
<<Which brings us back to how did they know he was Muslim?>>
Read the . . . ahhhh, forget it.
-
<<You know soething MT , I have been meaning to tell Sirs and you this same thing , the thread is visible , restateing the history of the thread is not really nessacery.>>
?? - You asked how did I make the connection, I set it out for you as logically as I could. Tried to make it easy for you. Next time, maybe I should just answer a question like that with "Read the fucking thread."
<<Which brings us back to how did they know he was Muslim?>>
Read the . . . ahhhh, forget it.
You and I can read where he states his religious preferences .
I don't think that gets asked at a luggage inspection.
I wondr how this gets handled in Saudi Arabia where they have the sme problem with sabetours , but almost everyone has a "Muslim " sounding name.
So what was the clue that the inspectors at the airport noticed?
-
?? - You asked how did I make the connection, I set it out for you as logically as I could. Tried to make it easy for you. Next time, maybe I should just answer a question like that with "Read the fucking thread."
I think the point Plane was making is that if you just made an assumption based on name, most people would think that Barrack Obama would be Muslim as well.
And he's not, he's a Christian.
-
<<So what was the clue that the inspectors at the airport noticed?>>
The name, plane. They saw the name and figured he was a Muslim. Before he gets to luggage inspection, he has to pass through security. Some guy at security flags the guy or calls ahead and at luggage inspection or anywhere else along the line, the guy is signalled out for special attention. Actually, before he gets to security, he has to present his ticket and passport to get his boarding pass. From the time the guy gets his boarding pass, his name is in the system and anyone who encounters him can flag him for special attention.
-
<<I think the point Plane was making is that if you just made an assumption based on name, most people would think that Barrack Obama would be Muslim as well.>>
I'm not saying that every time someone makes an assumption, he's gotta be right. But that doesn't stop people from making assumptions. I'd say that making the assumption that Shahid Malik is a Muslim is gonna be right a lot more times than it would be wrong. plane asked how the guy knew Malik was a Muslim and my guess was, it was the name. Technically, he didn't KNOW that Malik was a Muslim, he just ASSUMED it, but in the event, he was correct.
-
Shahid Malik also does not look like an Englishman, does he?
They say they aren't profiling, but they do. They deny it, because it is less hassle to deny and do it anyway.
I suspect it is the same way with waterboarding and other forms of torture. They say they don't, and say waterboarding isn't torture, but they do torture and waterboarding is, of course, torture. It was once called just that" Chinese water torture".
One way to get away with sh*t is to do it, then deny it.
Muslims say that Islam is the religion of peace, but it isn't. Iswlam doesn't mean peace, it means submission.
-
I'm not saying that every time someone makes an assumption, he's gotta be right. But that doesn't stop people from making assumptions. I'd say that making the assumption that Shahid Malik is a Muslim is gonna be right a lot more times than it would be wrong. plane asked how the guy knew Malik was a Muslim and my guess was, it was the name. Technically, he didn't KNOW that Malik was a Muslim, he just ASSUMED it, but in the event, he was correct.
It is in the nature of a syllogism or a false syllogism.
If terrorists are Muslim and Malique is Muslim then Malique must be a terrorist.
Not so , even though most of the terrorists we are worried about are Muslim , there are plenty of Muslims who are not terrorists.
Episcopailians on the other hand have no terrorists at all in their ranks, so if his name is odbviously Episcopailian he must not be a terrorist.