Muslim 'must pay for visa checks'

by Righteous pragmatist Mon Apr 24, 2006 19:36

We live in the 21st century. English guys named George dont like to try and kill us anymore - except for George Galloway who sucks up to Palestinian terrorists and tyrants like Saddam while he's not purring like a kitten on live television.

The nineteen hijackers were all Middle Eastern and Muslim and I believe one of them was called Muhammed - Muhammed Atta, who by the way bluffed his way past immigration, got a fake drivers licence and got enrolled in a flight school before he flew a civilian airliner into the World Trade Centre.
The FBI and CIA were not allowed by law to share information about terror suspects so they could not join the dots and round those bastards up before they could get within sniffing distance of Boston's Logan Airport and we had no armed Air Marshalls who could have told them to put their carpet cutter away.
President Bush was being told of vague threats of terrorists using planes against public buildings but they couldn't tell him and he couldn't act or understand the big picture because by law they were not allowed to watch the people they should have been allowed to clap in irons. President Clinton also sat on his hands when he got undeniable evidence of Al-Qaida's motives - the 1993 attempt to tobble the WTC towers into each other with a car bomb, the bombing of the US embassies in Africa, the attempted sinking of the US Cole and the bombing of the Khobar towers in Saudi. Meanwhile in the 1990's American public were more interested in school shootings, Y2K (remember that load of baloney) and Special Agent Mulder and Scully hunting ET rather than terrorist cells.

The Patriot Act means that federal and intelligencies can now pool their resources, that Middle Eastern Muslim suspects can be monitered and that terrorist attacks can be twarted before they are carried out. There has not been a single terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 and that series of anthrax letters.
Meanwhile Al-Qaida terrorists have been dying in their tens of thousands in the Pakistani and Afghan mountains and in Fallujah and Al-Anbar provence.
Lets face it Pat - these terrorists are usually not named Todd, white, middle class and fanatical about American sports rather than Islam - those kind of guys such as a certain Todd Beamer were left on their own after their intelligence services and government failed to protect them. Todd Beamer and his fellow passengers overpowered the hijackers and saved Capitol Hill or the White House or Three Mile Island or the UN headquarters or where ever the plane was heading.
That can never be allowed to happen again.

Nobody likes to limit the freedom of innocent visitors to the United States and we wont have to for much longer if continue to hunt down and capture or if need be kill the terrorists who threaten our citizens in their countries of origin before they can kill thousands or get their hands on WMD from co-opted Arab governments or friendly tyrants or mullahs with nuclear ambitions of their own.

by PragmatistWatcher Tue Apr 25, 2006 02:03

I've read your posts.
Surely You mean "Right Wing Pragmatist"

If I were to listen to you, we have nothing to fear from:
nuclear power,
nuclear weaponry,
global warming,
US foreign policy,
globalisation.
overpopulation
peak oil

If I were to listen to you:
The US invaded iraq to wipe out terrorists and to bring democracy.
They had little interest in the oil or the attempt by saddam to trade oil in euros instead of dollars

you would have also have us believe that :
carter was the worst president the united states ever had
there were no US sponsored death squads in el salvador or other south american countries

Now, either you are smart or very stupid. The way you put your words together makes me think you are not completely stupid. Your spelling is pretty good and you seem able to form an array of annoying arguments. Why then would someone like you defend all these daft points of view? One or two perhaps but ALL OF THEM???

Either you are a perverse troll delighting in watching others take your bait or else you are a nasty right wing shill spreading confusion and misinformation.

Either way, I would like to say

BEGONE FROM HERE YOU EVIL BASTARD

by Deciso Tue Apr 25, 2006 03:24

To Pragmatist (Right Wing or Daft Brush)

Terror has a name and his name is Mohammed.

Thank God for that. Now we all know where it's at and can feel safe. The state trooper who stopped "Tim" McVeigh thankfully was not operating this well-tried and tested anti-terrorism method. And aren't you not giving these terrorists any credit for ingenuity. I'd put money that a suicide bomber would call himself Todd or George rather than Mohammed if he were intent on doing any missions. If all it requires is to change one's name then the system can't really work can it..!

Naming terror for what it is is different from discriminately labelling whole groups like Muslims as potential terrorists. The British labelled the Irish in London in a like manner during the Birmingham bombings. Remember 'no blacks, Irish or dogs'? And I guarantee you if your name was Todd it still wouldn't have protected you from discrimination!!

Racists and scaremongerers will always justify their intolerance, ignorance and fear with simplistic totem devices such as scapegoating, labelling and catagorising those it percieves as 'other' or 'non-national' or 'suspect'. It could be Mohammed today or it could be Brendan tomorrow. No social group or community is safe from such tactics as intolerance knows no boundaries or borders. But it must be fought against and international human rights upheld 'at all costs'. The universal right to freedom from racial discrimination is a non-derogable ius cogens norm of international law. Racial profiling in an attempt to defeat terrorism will only undermine international rights that terrorist seek to undermine in their quest to destabilise.

Any state or state agency that does its business based upon racial profiling will never succeed in defeating terrorism. Such behaviour only institutionalises and strengthens the intolerance that breeds terrorism in the first place.

But well done Pragmatist. Maybe you could self-appoint yourself as a terrorist profiler at Dublin airport if you have spare time. It's an easy job. Just look for anyone who looks threatening and whose name isn't Todd or George. Particularly those wearing Islamic-style dress. Sure we all know what they're hiding underneath their robes.... And if they say their name is Mohammed ... well just run...

by Mr. T. Tue Apr 25, 2006 20:58

So the question I have is: anyone aware from other news reports if Mohamed is a British or EU citizen? And is there no discussion of it in the article referenced in the link?

The US has since 911 adopted special visa and immigration rules for those born in certain countries who later naturalised in a friendly nation. Mohammed's nationality (birthplace, actually) would have a tremendous impact on the immigration protocols and security vetting process he would be subjected to.

And there are all sorts of additional fees associated with non-immigrant visas too the USA - anyone, even the Todd's out here, get screwed by the US beurocratic fee culture.

I still say, anyone who don't like paying the extra fees has the option of staying at home. Fees, bribery and major hassles are part of immigration and international travel wherever you go. Anyone ever had to get a visa stamp in Egypt, or need to extend a travel visa to Malaysia? I have on both counts and I can tell you those beurocratic pricks made up all sorts of fees right on the spot. Baksheesh isn't extracted just from those with first names of Mohammed.

So I say to Mohammed, if you don't like the hassle of foreign travel and immigration, then you have the option of staying at home. It's not like his life or even wellbeing hinges on some idiotic summer camp job.

by Tony Wed Apr 26, 2006 12:12

Pat C is obviously correct, and Mr T., as usual, parades his Islamophobia

by Mr. T. Wed Apr 26, 2006 15:07

Apparently the security screening process is publicly published on the US Immigration visa application instructions website:

During the visa application process, usually at the interview, a quick, two-digit, ink-free fingerprint scan will be taken. Some applicants will need additional screening, and will be notified when they apply. Also, because each student’s personal and academic situation is different, two students applying for same visa may be asked different questions and be required to submit different documents. For that reason, the guidelines that follow are general and can be abridged or expanded by consular officers overseas, depending on each student’s situation.

So Mr. Khan should not have been surprised to learn that there was a probability of additional screening when applying for his visa.

Personally I have no objections to the US, EU or Ireland screening everyone named Mohammad who applies for a visa. In Mr. Khan's case it would appear he was intending to work at a US children's summer camp. If it were up to me, I would far rather offend a handful of law abiding muslims than let a single islamist psychopath slip through who could perpetrate another Beslan - type atrocity.

My suggestion to Mr. Khan is if he takes offense at paying a small fee to process his visa, then he's probably going to have a pretty frustrating experience in the States. Not because he'll be targeted as a muslim (although there's no guarantees against this either), but because he seems to have a pretty short fuse and living and working in a different culture requires a large degree of patience, good humour and tolerance. Whinging to the press about a lousy 45 quid fee to prove that he hasn't left his fingerprints behind at islamist terrorist training camps would suggest Mr. Khan possesses none of these character qualities.

by jacko converted Wed Apr 26, 2006 20:58

But surely if he is of a different culture, then he should respect other cultures too in the countries he visits that are of a different culture? If a non-muslim woman goes out to Iran or other countries alike, she is 'required' by their law to cover her head with a scarf and would it not be more logical if Khan launched a complaint to the appropriate department? Just to add on the scarf issue, why any muslim woman would take it into offense when she is asked to remove her veil in the classroom is beyond me.
In a post 9/11 athmosphere, muslims have not shown all their full commitment into fighting the fundamentalists that are among their people. We've seen this in Britain. At the recent protests of the propher 'Mohammad' in London, a guy dressed himself up as a would be suicide bomber. Incidentally, I never saw the Muslim council of Britian taking diciplinary action against this person. Back to the point, the U.S authorities can be successful a million times in preventing another attack by screening some visa passengers who are on a watchlist but all it takes is just once to fail on this one and it could have far greater consequences. Prevention is better than cure.