Sieges and castles vs. terrorism and surveillance ... apples and oranges I guess.
You know ... despite of all the differences, I have to give you one thing. YOu never stop to amaze me.
The mass media is shit and lying. Except when you use them, then it's ok I guess.
The state is shit and you can never ever trust the government with anything. Except when it's about checking on muslims, then it's ok I guess.
Safe spaces and political correcteness are shit. Except when it's against Trump, then it's ok I guess.
Paying taxes is robbery. Except, when they are used to build a wall, to pay for thousands of backround checks and who knows how many other costly surveillance programms. Then it's ok I guess.
The whole old establishment is shit, with all the big money in politics. But when it's Pence or Giuliani, Republican old-timers with some good ties to the industry and certain lobbies, then it's ok I guess.
Lots of other people have thought of that, its just that people like you try to block them at every turn.
Yes, because they often cost a ton of money, are questionable - constitution, what's that? - And criminalize a whole group of people, regardless if they did something or not. After 9/11 a lot of measures have been put in to action, of which some are still there and also used against US citizens - see patriot act. Or do you need a second Snowden to realize that what ever you do against terrorists, could be also applied against normal citizens? But nothing to hidde, nothing to fear I guess ... and what harm can a few perverts watching you or reading your emails do?
But I guess profiling the 'normal' and 'typical' muslim, is alright, all while the family of Osama Bin Laden was allowed to leave the nation freely after the 9/11 attack. Unquestioned. Profiling of Muslims based on religion is very ineffective, if you simply don't go for the right people.
Not all terrorists have a Muslim-sounding name, and they don't all look Middle Eastern. Plenty of government officials, including Michael Chertoff, former secretary of Homeland Security under President Bush, have said that profiling would be a bad policy to employ. Chertoff recently pointed out on "Meet the Press" that Adam Gadahn, formerly known as Adam Pearlman, an al-Qaida figure originally from California and raised by parents who converted from Judaism to Christianity, would not have been be caught using the profiling method.
The U.S. government has made the determination, however, that all people from certain "countries of interest" should be scrutinized with increased searches prior to boarding a flight bound for the United States. So be it. But scrutinizing an in-bound foreigner is entirely different from scrutinizing American citizens who happen to be Muslim. We must keep in mind why being politically correct for American-Muslims was determined "correct" in the first place.
It is rightfull to be catious about the political Islam and Islamic terrorism, but we already saw a lot of measures, and we still see more and more put in place, but it seems they do not much in solving the problem.
