The assumptions she made regarding his terroristic potential were entirely reasonable considering the pattern of and words used in previous terrorist attacks. In fact, if GR had a gun and shot the man on the subway, she would, in my opinion if not in law, be completely justified. If I were in the situation, I would have feared imminent death. In retrospect, he was probably a nut-case (which doesn’t actually preclude him from a real attempt in the future), but a reasonably-assessed threat of imminent death is enough to justify self-defence.

To Yousaf: actually, if ANYONE (even those as pale as a Swede) yells Allah-u-akbar in a secular setting and mentions an allegiance to Osama bin Laden, one would likely take them at their word, despite looks. First, there HAVE been white terrorists (Muslim-converts) and there are probably more to come. Second, yelling Allah-u-akbar in a secular setting, in an aggressive tone, is not the same as yelling “Jesus saves!” or “Jesus is love!” Allah-u-akbar, in this context, is an identifiable threat. “Jesus saves” usually is just a crazy pronouncement. If we had a number of recent incidents where “Jesus saves” or “the end is nigh” was followed by a bombing, plus an existence of several Christian organizations that support and openly threaten such actions, many people would also fear white-faced Christian-crazies just as much. Most people are probably latent racists, but even racists would put their singular prejudices against brown faces and preferences for white faces aside, if they had reason to fear that the latter posed a greater threat to their life. Mentioning the Crusades also doesn’t wash; as a woman, a middle-easterner, and an atheist, I would have been terrified of encountering pre-Enlightenment Christians (but also of encountering their Muslim contemporaries by the way). This is now.

Unlike most leftists, I support profiling (not just accounting ethnicity and nationality, but also dress, behaviour). I even recognise that as an Iranian-Canadian, I would be, and have been, inconvenienced by this same policy (although I don’t visibly fit the terrorist bill (female, western dress, no accent)). If sociological profiles are important in identifying criminal suspects, why would we ignore noticeable patterns in preventing terrorism, when the stakes are usually higher?

I’ve, maybe imprudently, given a lot of fodder to right-wingers with this post, but I guess to compensate I’ll also mention that INP’s failed attempt at wit (above) regarding Iranians demonstates that s/he knows few of them and is probably just a racist. Iranians living in the West are proportionally more secular and westernised than people of other middle-eastern countries. For instance, sixty percent (60%) of university students in Iran are female. You may also notice that Iranian women you meet in Canada do not wear typically the veil. In fact, as someone who naturally knows many Iranians, I’m usually quite unpleasantly surprised when I see a veiled Iranian (unless they’re a VERY recent immigrant and still adjusting (even then, it’s a rare sight)). In fact, it’s likely that most Iranian women IN IRAN still would not wear the veil if they were not forced to do so. Iranian women mostly wore completely western dress (including mini-skirts) until the much-hated Iranian Islamic “Revolution” of 1979. Many Iranians would be insulted to hear them equated to their intensely Islamic neighbours. You should not confuse the majority of Iranian people with the Iranian government.

Re: “6th Century Mohammedan”, “Thew little Asian fellow appeared not to understand a damn word we were saying”, “Islamic madman”, automatically calling him “Mohammed” etc.

I entirely understand how scary this whole experience must have been. However, your choice of words is quite indicative of your bias and Islamophobia.

To INP,

Re:

“A riddle by ’southern quebec: “Question: What is the difference between this guy and some crazy Christian Fundy screaming the end of the world is near? Answer: One is brown and one is white.”

Uh, no. the difference is that Christians are not moving to Muslim nations and then committing mass murder there while shouting “jesus rocks”. ”

Throughout history (and contemporary times) nearly every faction in humanity has killed in the name or religion. Christians are not immune to this. For example:

- the KKK and other racists using the Biblical stories of Ham, Canaan, and the Tower of Babel to justify enslaving, lynching, subjugating, and assassinating people of colour;
- countless Muslims and Jews were exterminated at the hands of zealous Crusaders when Pope Urban urged Christians that they can reach salvation by killing nonbelievers; and
- some (not all) soldiers who are enlisting to fight in Iraq today are doing so on religious terms with the intention to kill Muslims.

But this doesn’t mean that all Christians see things the same way as those listed above. It just proves that people can do great injustice in the name of any religion when religion becomes twisted and politicized in the pursuit of hegemony. So, let’s not kid ourselves: human beings have a nasty history and present. Humankind has done atrocious things - be they “Christian”, “Muslim”, or whatever.

So where does this leave us?

We need to stop polarizing humanity. The Muslim world needs to realize that the vast majority of Christians are peaceful and have nothing against them. The Christian world needs to realize that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and have nothing against them. Both doctrines preach that killing even 1 person unjustly is like killing all of humanity, and that terrorism is forbidden. Now, regardless of any faith’s doctrine, at the end of the day, we all want the same thing: the reassurance to live in serenity and security, free from marginalization, exclusion, or oppression.. with hopes for better days for tomorrow’s children.

I am a visible Muslim woman. If I was there during that man’s insane rant, I would have spoken against him right then and there, and I would have called the authorities to deal with him. He does not represent me nor does he represent the vast majority of Muslims on this planet.

Peace out,
A Concerned Canadian

All the Iranians I know have zero love for the Iranian regime, or MA, or the mullahs.

Part of the terrorism ‘network’ is ad-hoc ie. some people (sometimes, those who are mentally ill or of abnormally low intelligence) are ‘inspired’ by the Islamic fundamentalists’ genocidal rhetoric to do something violent, even if they don’t belong to any ‘cell’ or other terrorist organisation. We’ve had such cases in England.

Can they be called terrorists? Maybe not in the classic sense.
Are they a “threat to the Security of the Western World”? They’re a threat to the security of individuals - isn’t that enough?

Also, balbulican, the aim of terrorism is to paralyse the enemy with fear, so that the terrorists’ demands are met.
If you notice, the reactions of Wendy etc. cannot be described as paralysis, but rather a motivation to confront and defeat the terrorists and their ideology.

So I don’t think Osama would be as happy as you think he would be.

By the way, this is the only post on this blog that I’ve so far read.
If your characterisation of Wendy’s attitude is correct ie. that she sees all Muslim’s as potential terrorists, then I will have to disagree with her. I can’t speak for Canada, but in England it’s generally recognised that a) the majority of the Muslim population is law-abiding, and b) there is a minority that is fundamentalist and hostile to the state, its institutions and culture.

I think the West’s general reaction, re: 9/11 and the Islamic faith, has been thoughtful, moderate and restrained - something to be proud of. Let’s keep it that way, but let’s not tolerate violence or genocidal ideologies either.

In particular, let’s examine these groups that purport to represent Muslims. In England, finally, the Labour goverment has recognised that the Muslim Council of Britain, which it consults, is actually quite radical, and is generally rejected by most Muslims as in any way representative of them. Sadly, it’s the left-wing newspapers such as the Guardian that have come to the defense of the self-appointed group.

Yousaf, you fool, I don’t think it’s the fact that he’s black that’s the issue, it’s the screaming about Allah and bin Laden that had people thinking ‘potential terrorist’.

What country in the world… etc………wipe every Jew off…. etc……….what religion ….etc.

Q: And how many people are here in Canada, do you surmise, who admire him and love Ira…(Opps sorry, almost gave it away) their homeland more than they love Canada?

You see, balbie, that’s the reason we fear.

OK, that’s two questions, but, hey, he’s an intelligent guy, it sould be no problem.

When I read Yousaf’s comments, I thought to myself that he sounds so much like Balbulican aka Balbul, etc etc in the infuriatingly insufferable smugness of his comments and lo and behold, Balbul appears on the scene. Must be a slow day at the office.

My two cents worth on the issue, it was just some loonie Muslim(mentally ill Muslims exist as well). But security should have hustled the loonie right out of there, no and’s if’s or but’s.

A real terrorist would have been more subtle. All quiet then KABOOOM!!!

LMAO. You go for it, Nick. Some of what you said made sense, a few posts back there. Kiss kiss. Nighty night.

Again: if you ever want to actually respond to any arguments that have already been put forward in response to your ahem, key points, then go right ahead and do so. It might be an idea to actualy read what’s been said to you first. Then sit quietly for a moment and try to understand what you’ve read. Then think about it. Then start typing. As I explained to you already, simply hitting your keyboard and clicking on a button is not really a response to what’s been put to you. It’s just (to use your word) speechifying.

You are dismissed.

Why don’t you come down heya to South Louisi-Yana and yell Allah Akbar in a Wal-Mart ?

Wendy, you owe me that $25.00. I TOLD you I could get your thread over twelve squared.

That’ll be the day, eh? If you really mean that, and you’re not just playing to your own imaginary audience of fellow fantasits, then go ahead and do so.

And what about the other points you tried to make, which you have quietly conceded are irrational? Let’s just let them slip by as if you never said them, eh …

Hilarious.

a) There was no terrorist and no terrorist threat, despite Wendy’s attempt to frame the episode that way, and the chorus of eager agreement. You haven’t introduced any argument to establish anything to the contrary, and Phantom, a smarter conservative blogger than you, has quietly conceded that this is simply a crazy person.

b) Wendy’s general loathing of Muslims (which she acknowledges), her tendency to hallucinate enemies (which she has described herself), her depression and medication (which she has described frequently and in depth) make her a somewhat less than reliable witness. Sorry, those are all things she has said about herself. Bummer, dude, but there you go.

I’ll cheerfully respond to any arguments you have that address those points. Otherwise…well, you know and I know you’re playing to the peanut gallery. And that’s fine, you amuse yourself - it’s just not very interesting to me.

You really have nothing to say for yourself, have you?

Well there you have it. That little debate didn’t take long. People like balby enjoy sounding off, but whenever you look closely at what they’re actually saying, and they’re oh so predictable btw, it quickly becomes clear that you’re dealing with an empty vessel. These people make a loud noise, but there’s nothing inside.