Fox Expert: Strip Search All Muslim Men Between The Ages of 18-28

Retired Lt. General Tom McInerney appeared on Fox News to offer his own proposal for making air travel safer: strip search all Muslim men between 18 and 28. That’s right, strip search every Muslim male at the airport.

Here is how the General explained how we need to “be very serious and harsh about the profiling:” “If you are an 18 to 28-year-old Muslim man then you should be strip searched. And if we don’t do that, there’s a very high probability we’re going to lose an airliner.”

I think that the General has the right thought but the wrong conclusion. What does every airline bomber have in common? Clothes. No clothes means by definition no shoe bombs, no underwear bombs, no explosive vests. People could appear naked at security points and be given those paper gowns used by hospitals.

Of course, Osama Bin Laden could still fly without stripping as would Richard Reid. It would delay things for such athletes as Ramzee Robinson (Cleveland Browns), Abdul Raheeda Hodge (Cincinnati Bengals), Usama Young (Saints), Husain Ibn Muhammed Abdullah (Minnesota Vikings), Kareem Brown (Jets), and others. Congressman Keith Maurice Ellison and Elias A. Zerhouni (Director of the NIH) made it over the line and can keep their clothes on.

150 thoughts on “Fox Expert: Strip Search All Muslim Men Between The Ages of 18-28”

  1. “Mike,
    Actually you weren’t included in the three.”

    Gyges,
    I now get that was your point, especially after re-reading you.
    My problem with this was by my mildly defending AY and Buddha I
    was then painted with the same brush, which made me then an interested party.

    Now let me be honest about this so that I can be judged, or not, based on the gamut of my thoughts and emotions. In the original battles between Patty and Jill I felt that much of Patty’s critique had merit, especially in terms of the political criticism.

    Unfortunately, Patty seemed to become obsessed with Jill and her critiques became intensely personal and off the wall. Even though Patty and I agreed on much I was forced to then admonish her and to defend Jill. Patty pretty much withdrew for months before she finally stopped posting because I think (don’t know for a fact) that she was frustrated by most regulars defending Jill.

    I discovered, during this time to my chagrin, that Jill’s barbs spread beyond argument into a mischaracterization of my disagreements with her and a claim to being victimized by my “ruthlessness” which I believe was terribly unfair and untrue.
    The first time this happened I commented and then withdrew. After the last election, with the article about a black group possibly interfering with voting in Pennsylvania, Jill again played the victim and accused me of personal attacks, which they weren’t. Many people became angry with me, including a strong denunciation from FFLEO. Recognizing a lost cause and feeling my defense was on the record I again withdrew and left the field to Jill.

    I write this not as a rehash, but as an admittance that since that incident I have harbored anger against this tactic that Jill has used time and again, with some success. None of us here are victims, since anyone with staying power (including bdaman)is well-equipped to present their viewpoints in argument.
    Jill has attacked others persistently and has also patronized those who don’t agree with her. When the response comes she then complains she is being victimized. I find this to be dishonest and I reacted to it here.

    I’ve devoted a good deal of my life to self critique and into being ruthlessly honest with myself. I know that I am not a sexist and curiously the women in my life, friends, family, employees and even ex-lovers I think would back that up. I have a long history here alone that shows my interest and caring about woman’s issues. The logic used by Jill to call me sexist was in itself deeply flawed and came down to if you believe AY and Buddha aren’t sexist, then you are sexist.

    I take no pleasure in Jill’s announcement of leaving, but I must say that this seems to me to be yet another game she is playing and frankly I’m weary of these games. Think of me what you will, but understand that I write this to bring my feelings and possible biases out in the open and to be judged upon them.

  2. Gyges 1, January 6, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    AY,

    My position is that it’s not o.k. for Jill to attack anyone,

    (We agree on this.)

    but that if the offended party was willing to let the thing slide, those not directly involved should defer to their wishes.

    (I was willing to let it go, until)

    You may disagree, and that’s fine. I understand why you defended SmM, and that was noble.

    (Thank you and if it were you I’d do the same.)

    What wasn’t (in my opinion) was then using it as an excuse to turn this into an airing of grievances against Jill.

    Sir, once the Hate Speech Propaganda started, how could I turn back? Would you?

    Only one person started this, but more than one escalated it.

    (I presume that this was me? Reread the initial posting that started this. I disagree with you on this.)

    My comments were about the tone of the comments here in general, not about this specifics of this instance.

    (Once the flood gate was opened the dam broke. And again, if I am responsible, I apologize. I have yet to see where the initial aggressor has even hinted towards an apology. Did I miss that memo?)

  3. Empirecookie,

    Are you talking about my family again? I keep telling Dad to come home. But does he listen? Not to me.

  4. Two guys are sitting on a bar stool. One guy starts to insult the other one. He screams, “I slept with your mother!”

    The bar goes quiet as everyone listens to see what the other guy will do. The first guy again yells, “I SLEPT WITH YOUR MOTHER!”

    The other guy says, “Go home, dad, you’re drunk.”

  5. Mike,

    Actually you weren’t included in the three. I’m really trying to stay out of this particular squabble, but count the current discussion between you and Jill as a (mostly) separate conflict. Sorry if that was unclear, I was trying very hard to be neutral in my language, and may have erred on the side of deleting too many specifics.

    I don’t think BDAman will win, just that he’s currently winning. You and I have both been here and seen several trolls and other unhinged individuals. We recovered every time, and I have faith in our ability to do so this time. Each time I recall loosing regulars in direct proportion to the length of the incident, so I’m simply trying to keep this one as short as possible. I figured recognition of the cycle might cool things down.

  6. “There have been several instances where any of the three (I exclude SmM, because she did walk away) primary parties could have all just walked away, and it would have died down.”

    Gyges,
    It is admirable that you might walk away from a given slur and it would fit in with the fairness you constantly display. However, I think it is apparent that that is not my wont. Being called a sexist, especially unfairly, is akin to calling me a racist. Also too I have spent a lifetime standing up to Bullies, often getting the crap kicked out of me and so to be unfairly characterized as one, as was done, could not be overlooked. I have walked away from Jill’s mis-characterizations often in the past and it seems to me that it only gave her license to continue to play the same game and in doing so really become the bully.

    As to your fears that bdaman is winning I think they are unfounded, although your point that he at times sets the tone has merit. This is the tension that any site, such as this, must deal with. Since this is a site that believes in freedom of speech, dealing with people who are propagandists will always be a problem. I don’t want them banned and yet they will continue to exist as an ongoing annoyance. In truth if you look at other sites such as Huffpost, their threads are awash with the likes of bdaman to a degree that makes the most heated discourse here pale by comparison.

  7. Thirty-Percenter,

    I didn’t say you were calling me anything. I said “If you want”. Precision.

    Your perception is noted though. I am not this direct all the time either. I have both an iron fist and a velvet glove with many intermediary toolsets. I had been using the glove until I was brought back into this by being attacked a second time – supposedly after olive branches were exchanged. If you’d seen the Patty exchanges, you’d know that I went way out of my way (for months) before changing to the hard tactics with her. This time? I’m not being as lenient or as patient in my response. Double-standards are bullshit. And that’s what was desired here by some: a double standard. You call me a sexist? I’ll jump you. You call me a racist. Same thing. Call me a homophobe? I’ll set you straight. You not meaning you specifically but the generic you.

    I have plenty of faults and I own them all. I’m often impatient with stupidity, but only willful stupidity. Ignorance is usually a choice. Not being able to process information for physical reasons is another. I’m can be merciless in attack, which may be a flaw to some but to others simply a tactical advantage (ask the attorneys). I don’t particularly like children, but I didn’t even as a child. I didn’t have friends (with one or two exceptions) close to my age until I was almost out of high school. I’m bigoted against bigots and zealously against fundamentalism – also a flaw to some but not all. I can be relentless. I have little tolerance for those who perpetually ask for help but are unwilling (not unable, important distinction) to help themselves. I like people until they cross the Rubicon, but once that threshold is met, I can be unforgiving. This is hardly a comprehensive list of my flaws. That is my karma to bear. No one else’s.

  8. I didn’t call you anything. I was just noting that your “arguments” seem to be more bullying and brow beating and personal insults and attacks than actual arguments about any issue or topic. But your point about allowing you to deal with it your way is well taken. I stuck my nose into something I was not involved in so I’ll butt out.

  9. Thirty Percenter,

    If you want to call me a sexist too, I’ll be glad to get on your case too. I’m equal opportunity. I argue for sport but argue I do. How about this: you deal with people who attack you your way and I’ll deal with it my way. If you don’t like the way I do it, ask for me to be banned or don’t read my posts. Either way, it won’t hurt my feelings. I promise.

  10. Oh shit Thirty Percenter, now he’s probably gonna breakdown concrete for you and the use of it as a skin. He’s an expert.

  11. “I don’t care about your opinion of me. I have skin thick as a wall and made of concrete.”

    Not doubting you but if that’s true then wouldn’t your thick concrete like skin give you the maturity to not feel the need to insult and brow beat others?

  12. Re-read that part about respect and earning it. Then guess what list trolls don’t make.

  13. I wouldn’t be as good at argument as I am if I didn’t.

    Pat yourself on the back MR. I I I I I I I I I I

  14. I didn’t complain about a post – as if the Professor takes cues from me. I’ve only ever asked one person be shown the door and that was only when their actions went way beyond the pale – and it wasn’t in an attack on me either (and there were some savage ones too) but rather because of a totally inhumane attack directed at another related to the death of a child. I’ve only asked for editing once when the comments were absolutely anti-Semitic. Other than that I’ve never requested removal even of troll garbage.

    Say what you like about me. Xenu knows the trolls do. The list of opinions about me personally that matter to me is a narrowly defined list. You earn respect and if I don’t respect you, I don’t care about your opinion of me. I have skin thick as a wall and made of concrete. I wouldn’t be as good at argument as I am if I didn’t. I didn’t see the comment in question. I don’t give a damn if I’m attacked. I do respond if I feel like it though. I’ll continue to do so. I would think that should be abundantly clear. Choices. Actions. Cause and effect.

    I’ve stated my position with clarity. Stay, go, her choice. I’m indifferent at this point.

  15. AY,

    My position is that it’s not o.k. for Jill to attack anyone, but that if the offended party was willing to let the thing slide, those not directly involved should defer to their wishes. You may disagree, and that’s fine. I understand why you defended SmM, and that was noble. What wasn’t (in my opinion) was then using it as an excuse to turn this into an airing of grievances against Jill. Only one person started this, but more than one escalated it.

    My comments were about the tone of the comments here in general, not about this specifics of this instance.

  16. Ok, last thing I’ll say about this but it all seems a little juvenile. Like a bunch of really smart kids, arguing.

Comments are closed.