Sorry, but I had to laugh at your comparison...

Submitted by sara (United States), Sep 2, 2009 at 18:33

Really, if you are in line at a bank and someone walks in wearing a full ski mask or womens hosiery disguising their face, you would continue to stand there without a care? I find that hard to believe. This is the same circular argument : A crime (or terrorist atrocity) is committed by Muslims who openly claim that they are commiting the massacre/murder/bomb/robbery in the name of their religion, Islam. They clearly connect the fact that they are fighting Jihad and the Infidel and Western Kaffir in defense of Islam. Yet when they use Muslim garb to commit crimes, they are able to re-allign the claim to suit them, and that is that they are being discriminated against or limited or persecuted because they are Muslim. But if the crimes and terrorist atrocities were committed by Muslims claiming that it was because they were Muslims, how can they expect no reaction?

It is the same situation with racial profiling for security. When 99 percent of terror attacks are committed by Muslim males, aged 20-35, all openly claiming that their Muslim faith is the reason for the attack, then how crazy are we to refuse to profile this sex/age group/religion cluster for protection and self preservation?? It seems insane to ignore the elephant in the room and search 90 year old grandmothers and small children in the name of political correctness. Wasteful, expensive and plain silly.

Stop willing equality under any circumstances. Be a realist rather than idealist. There are realities that interfere with this utopian thinking. It is like saying "War is never the answer" (yes, except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, War Has Never Solved Anything,"

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".