The reason is very clear and simple: because he is a Muslim and terrorist attacks by Muslims are very common nowadays. The real question is how far are we willing to go to prevent terror attacks. Are we willing to let innocent people get harassed on a regular basis?
You don't seem to be surprised by the content of the article. May I ask what your stance is on the issue of further marginalizing Muslims living in America? I am a Tunisian-American Muslim by the way.
It like saying you have to eat only at Mcdonald's and its unhealthy for you. Everyone would like to complain about that, unless there is no food and you're starving...then McDonald's seems like a more reasonable solution.
The biggest problem I see with this kind of argument is that once you enable the explicit and outright marginalization of a particular group, it becomes essentially impossible to ensure that it stays limited to said group. See: "First they came...".
There are two other problems with this mindset. The first is that objectively quantifying the benefit vs. downside of marginalizing a particular group doesn't happen. Instead, feelings and opinions seep in -- a fear of the "other", if you will. The second is that, by marginalizing a group, you more often that not end up making your problem worse.
The "other way" is to try to understand the root causes behind such attacks, and work with the communities that are closest; in this case, Muslim communities around America. It's quite known by now that American Muslims are very willing to cooperate with authorities when the need arises.
"Of the 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in death since September 12, 2001, far right wing violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 (73 percent) while radical Islamist violent extremists were responsible for 23 (27 percent)."
It speaks the volume that the clear majority of terrorist attacks in the US aren't perpetrated by Muslims, if that's what you mean. Recall the context of the thread: the parent commenter is responding to a challenge that there are no American Christian terrorists.
To everyone in this thread: This entire topic is incredibly contentious and as such requires even more care and benefit of the doubt when engaging in discussion. Please ask yourself, what is your goal in discussion here? To understand the others you're talking with? To express your opinion? To convince the "other side"? If you're not here for useful, constructive, civil, and respectful discussion, please just refrain from commenting. Shouting louder than every one else is not helpful, and as the mods repeatedly point out, HN is not the place for ideological flamewars.
If that were the case - and the government position is that they do not discriminate on religion - then how did he get his airport job, security badge, and global entry card in the first place?
As written, your statement comes across as simple bigotry, and US laws make that sort of simple bigotry too hard to carry out on an institutional scale. (Complex and subtle bigotry is a different issue.)
You wrote "prevent terror attacks". Some of the terror attacks in the US which are not caused by Muslims include the 2017 Charlottesville attack, the mosque bombing in Bloomington, MN, the stabbing of Timothy Caughman, the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers, and the 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting.
What should we do to prevent future terror attacks like these?
> If that were the case - and the government position is that they do not discriminate on religion - then how did he get his airport job, security badge, and global entry card in the first place?
The government does not discriminate based on religion. That's why he got his security badge and job. This is not about discrimination at all. It's about anti-terrorist investigations and checks. It's a bit like you searching how to make bombs and then buying explosive chemicals in bulk will put you in a list. No discrimination has occurred.
> As written, your statement comes across as simple bigotry, and US laws make that sort of simple bigotry too hard to carry out on an institutional scale. (Complex and subtle bigotry is a different issue.)
That term is meaningless here. As I said, there is no religious persecution. It's just investigative agencies doing their job. I think they are being over-cautious in a lot of cases to the point of harassment of a significant number of innocent individuals. But I'd rule out any "bigotry" or discrimination.
> You wrote "prevent terror attacks". Some of the terror attacks in the US which are not caused by Muslims
Not relevant. The vast majority of international terrorist attacks are perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam. That's what I meant. Other terrorist attacks exist and must be protected against, but that is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about this particular method.
> What should we do to prevent future terror attacks like these?
There are many ways. Even though it's irrelevant here, I'll try to mention something. There are few patterns in a lot of mass shootings in the US. All of these can be used to initiate pre emptive investigations on a suspected individual, even though she hasn't done anything yet. Similar to the case mentioned in the article, this can also lead to harassment of a large number of innocents.
"It's about anti-terrorist investigations and checks. It's a bit like you searching how to make bombs and then buying explosive chemicals in bulk will put you in a list. No discrimination has occurred."
You write "checks" but checks need balances. Where is the balance here, and is it effective? Was he denied his due process rights? I think so.
"No discrimination has occurred."
How would you know if discrimination has or hasn't occurred? None of this information is public and there's very little oversight.
The State of Texas said that its voter ID laws were not discriminatory. A judge, after receiving far more information than we know about the various US watch lists, disagreed, and granted a permanent injunction against it.
> He voluntarily associates and culturally identifies with a group of people who are culturally incompatible with the country (Sharia, triple talaq,festivals which involve cutting goats on the road,etc) and are a threat to national security (a lot of terrorist attacks are after all funded by Muslim countries).
According to this logic, by being a conservative american protestant, you culturally associate with westboro baptist church.
Also, by being a strong believing hindu, you obviously culturally associate yourself with the massacre of muslims, and vice versa.
>strong believing hindu, you obviously culturally associate yourself with the massacre of muslims, and vice versa
Hindus dont have religious literature (and Hindu countries dont have laws) against other religious. Muslims do, Muslim countries do. I dont know anything about Christianity though, but yes, I guess you do culturally associate with all churches if you are openly Christian and wear a cross at work,etc.
> Hindus dont have religious literature (and Hindu countries dont have laws) against other religious.
But hindus have the same culture. Going by your logic, every hindu culturally associate with the other hindus.
> but yes, I guess you do culturally associate with all churches if you are openly Christian and wear a cross at work,etc.
Then let me give you a more extreme implication of this logic:
By calling ourself openly human beings, we culturally associate with every other evil man since they are also human beings. Therefore, we are no better than the most evil man on earth.
>But hindus have the same culture. Going by your logic, every hindu culturally associate with the other hindus.
There is no text which codifies it, unlike Islam. So Hindu culture is much more fluid than Muslim which is written on paper
>By calling ourself openly human beings, we culturally associate with every other evil man since they are also human beings. Therefore, we are no better than the most evil man on earth.
Unlike religion, its not voluntary.
I would say a better analogy would be a white man associating himself with black gang culture by getting gold teeth, gold chains, tattoos,etc to a job. Which would probably get him rejected from the interview itself
> There is no text which codifies it, unlike Islam.
Each sect has a different Quran, different Sharia, different precepts. There are massive differences in the way Islam is practiced across the world.
> Unlike religion, its not voluntary.
Imagine then someone who openly claims to be an artist and that creating art is a part of them. Would you say this person culturally associate with a murderer who kills "for art"? Both call themselves and associate with the artistic work.
> I would say a better analogy would be a white man associating himself with black gang culture by getting gold teeth, gold chains, tattoos,etc to a job.
I don't think that it is a good analogy, as that white man associate concretely to black gang culture.
A better analogy would be, a man who associate with black culture in general but gets rejected because his employer consider him to associate with black gang culture although he claims he doesn't.
Muslim countries considered as allies by the same government prosecuting this guy? IIRC the USA makes billions of dollars selling weapons to those exact countries.
So, give them weapons with one hand, and prosecute citizens for some vague connection with the other hand!
>Why do I get the feeling that you just read an article about "creeping Sharia in America"?
No, I live in India and have seen the stuff they can do when they become a majority (and dont forget they did try imposing SHaria in UK a while ago) https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/mar/01/inside-britains-... . I say tried because, as the article mentions, their rulings have no legal standing. It is still however a parallel legal system they choose to adhere to.
>Citation, please.
They do inevitably turn out to be Muslim most of the time, though I admit its anecdotal and I have not collated data
>Are you implying that a regular Muslim is equivalent to a KKK member? Have you ever even spoken to a Muslim?
Muslims are below 5% of the American population... which is why they are not vocal. Talk to a Muslim from Saudi\UAE\Pakistan to know how Muslims actually are. Talk to them about something a bit uncomfortable, like maybe religious freedom, alcohol or womens liberty.. and see how fast they shut down.
How about if you talk to Hindu people for example and see how they answer similar questions? Would repeated attacks from Hindu people warrant prosecuting people from Indian origin?
