Just ONE of the sources I used was about a demonstration by only hundreds.

Had you been open minded enough to read the others you would know that the others show such opposition and condemnation is widespread and overwhelmingly greater than any support the criminals and murderers such as ISIS receive from Muslims worldwide.

The 70,000 clerics for example. The thousands of Muslims, politicians, clerics, ordinary individuals, who have signed the open letter is another.

You will find many more examples if you could be bothered to look.

You have chosen the wrong person when it comes to truth. When I realise the truth that conflicts with a position I held then I change my mind.

Your remarks show this not to be the case. The truth does conflict with your position, but you are attempting to belittle and dismiss the truth; when you aren't actually ignoring it.

You can continue this discussion with others - as I said, I have no sympathy with Apologists or Sympathisers.

What, exactly, are you accusing me of apologising for and sympathising with?

You quoted TWO examples of Hundreds. Read your own post. "hundred's that "flooded" London's Streets and "hundreds" that came out holding placards one occasion.

Please, sir, don't waste any more of my time. I will not be responding to any of it.

Of course they should...they should receive the same airport screening that all passengers have to go thru...before being allowed into the airplane area...

Not all of Islam is full of hate and stupid like the Islamic terrorists...

Perhaps we can ban only the honest ones who would willingly tell us they are Muslims. The ones who lie and have dubious intentions should be allowed to work. :;

A lot of European airports use robots for the luggage handling.

I'm rather surprised to see such a point of religious discrimination.

Most of the airport personnel are North African Arabs/Berbers who don't even practice Islam.

As other posters mentioned, this absurd hard line should be extended to the Muslim nations too. And even beyond that, all services like catering should be included.

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1463906531.569621.jpg

Arab is a race not a religion

As Donald Trump would say " ban them all until we can find out what the hell is going on"

But you can't ban them in Saudi, UAE and Qatar et al

Irrational argument, Trump is in the USA from what I remember not the Middle East

The reason entire world has airport security, which costs billion each year not to mention

infringement of personal rights and inconvenience, is because of one group only, muslims.

As far as I am concerned they should be barred from flying.

I checked through Krabi security recently, and to my astonishment, all muslims running security. Like having

foxes guard the hen house.

And the bigoted paranoia runs wild...now lets see

1. World first in flight terrorist attack - 1976 - Cubana flight 455 - anti-castro exiles with links to the CIA

2. Air India flight 182 - 329 killed -1985 - Sikh extremists

3 1972 Japan Red Army - Lod Aitport massacre

Yes yes all this bloody security was put in place because of muslims

It is certainly, 100% without any doubt whatsoever the reason we have increased airport security to this day. Hijackings used to be common, but hostages were taken and set free in almost all cases. Muslim hijackers and bombers since 9/11 have changed that. Open your eyes.

Could we suggest the increase in muslim terrorist attacks may have something to do with the US bombing multiple muslim countries and killing various dictators who kept the more extereme elements in Check ?

Lets suppose 9/11 hadnt of happened, it follows then that Afghsnistan wouldnt have been invaded, Iraq wouldnt have been invaded and the crap wouldnt have bombed out of Libya...

so would be see the same level of extremism today if those events hadnt have happened ?...i would suugest we wouldnt have nowhere the problems that exist today

I don't believe I need to point this out but the invasions or Iraq and Afghanistan came AFTER Sept 11, 2001. Saddam, Gaddafi, etc all happened after Muslim extremists declared all out war on the West. Anyone who blames the West for subsequent terror attacks would be very wrong.

It is also very important to mention that over 90% of violent deaths in the Middle East since 9/11 have been from Muslim-on-Muslim violence. More specifically Sunni-on-Shiite. That has absolutely zero to do with anything the US or Europe has done.

Their culture is backwards. The way they treat each other or any other human being is backwards. If the West is to blame for anything, it is for not requiring immigrants from the Middle East to abandon their backward ways before being allowed to settle in their countries.

Islam (Religion of hate) is the threat of the western culture. Period.

Ban followers from any religion from working in security position, as any follower is by definition not fully connected to reality

Er - if you only employed atheists and agnostics, you'd be running short of employees.

This is a question relating to security requirements and not the straight jacket of inclusiveness at all costs which opposes any type of profiling. In Europe I would by far prefer no Muslims to be granted security clearance unless there was a far more comprehensive vetting procedure than was evidently used at Brussels or Paris CDG. Such a policy would not of course be flagged by the usual quota systems intended to enforce inclusiveness thus allowing any such policy to be unofficial.

Of course the liberal left who are so obsessed with data to monitor inclusiveness suddenly fight it tooth and nail if it's used to monitor rape stats, prison populations or anything that shows one of their protected minorities in a poor light.

Edited May 22, 201610 yr by Steely Dan

True Islam no problem.

True Islam is the problem, there is only one

Ive read this post and all the answers and reasons why and why not.All the statements for and against and it proves to me that this question will never be settled.

All i say is.Tell all this to the poor bastards that died and their families.And say a prayer for your families or kids that are flying soon.

Ban followers from any religion from working in security position, as any follower is by definition not fully connected to reality

Er - if you only employed atheists and agnostics, you'd be running short of employees.

Not a problem because I plan to hire hypocrites to fill the vacancies.

Should anyone be permitted to determine who can do anything based only on their religious beliefs?

I think not!

Let's ask a much more important question.

Should airport security be entrusted to unskilled, unmotivated, minimum wage workers,

or highly trained, well qualified, well paid security professionals?

How much are hundreds, or even thousands of lives worth?

Should anyone be permitted to determine who can do anything based only on their religious beliefs?

I think not!

But surely that's the whole basis of religion, restricting what people can do according to the dictats of the higher echelons of the specific religion. Consequently observant Moslems don't eat pork or drink alcohol, pray five times a day, exclusively wipe their behinds with their left hand, believe in angels, consider a holiday in Mecca an obligation, &c., &c.. To any rational person it's all ludicrous, but that is what their religious leaders determine.

Originally posted by 7by7:

Just ONE of the sources I used was about a demonstration by only hundreds.

Had you been open minded enough to read the others you would know that the others show such opposition and condemnation is widespread and overwhelmingly greater than any support the criminals and murderers such as ISIS receive from Muslims worldwide.

The 70,000 clerics for example. The thousands of Muslims, politicians, clerics, ordinary individuals, who have signed the open letter is another.

You will find many more examples if you could be bothered to look.

Originally posted by ChrisKC:

You have chosen the wrong person when it comes to truth. When I realise the truth that conflicts with a position I held then I change my mind.

Your remarks show this not to be the case. The truth does conflict with your position, but you are attempting to belittle and dismiss the truth; when you aren't actually ignoring it.

Originally posted by ChrisKC:

You can continue this discussion with others - as I said, I have no sympathy with Apologists or Sympathisers.

What, exactly, are you accusing me of apologising for and sympathising with?

You quoted TWO examples of Hundreds. Read your own post. "hundred's that "flooded" London's Streets and "hundreds" that came out holding placards one occasion.

Please, sir, don't waste any more of my time. I will not be responding to any of it.

A link to an article about one demonstration followed by a quote from that same article is not two examples!

Your desperation is showing, further proven by the fact that you are concentrating on this one example whilst completely ignoring the many, many others.

Such as the 46,000 plus young British Muslims who have so far joined the Not In My Name campaign.

Your final two sentences translate as "I have no way of countering your argument, so am running away."

(Edited to show who posted what.)

Edited May 22, 201610 yr by 7by7

Should anyone be permitted to determine who can do anything based only on their religious beliefs?

I think not!

But surely that's the whole basis of religion, restricting what people can do according to the dictats of the higher echelons of the specific religion. Consequently observant Moslems don't eat pork or drink alcohol, pray five times a day, exclusively wipe their behinds with their left hand, believe in angels, consider a holiday in Mecca an obligation, &c., &c.. To any rational person it's all ludicrous, but that is what their religious leaders determine.

I have no religion or religious leader.

But I do not believe anyone should be discriminated against solely because of the imaginary friend they choose to worship.

Not in my name, but in the name of Islam of course and that is the problem, followers of a religion that causes so many terrorist attacks cannot be trusted.

I have no religion or religious leader.

But I do not believe anyone should be discriminated against solely because of the imaginary friend they choose to worship.

Unfortunately the thousands of terror attacks carried out by Muslims since 9/11 are not imaginary.

Edited May 22, 201610 yr by thai3

The whole premise of this poll is ridiculous

You're absolutely correct.

if you don't like it don't vote, seems perfectly reasonable as is the outcome.

I have no religion or religious leader.

But I do not believe anyone should be discriminated against solely because of the imaginary friend they choose to worship.

Unfortunately the thousands of terror attacks carried out by Muslims since 9/11 are not imaginary.

No, not by Muslims.

They were carried out by radical Muslim extremist.

Most Muslims are not radical extremists.

I know a few personally and they are very good, non violent people who want the same safe, peaceful and productive life most people want.

Radical extremist of any sort should be identified and kept from any sensitive situation .

Even radical extremist Christians like KKK members.

Should we target all Christians just because of the horrible things the radical Christian extremist do?

Edited May 22, 201610 yr by willyumiii

I am amazed by the bigotry and ignorance demonstrated by many here.

Are you people saying that the "muslim world" must be isolated and that Etihade, for example, not be allowed to fly into Western Countries ?

Are all Western based Airlines to be barred from flying to Indonesia (the most populous "Muslim" country" ) and all other "Muslim" countries ?

I am glad I do not live in the same world as some of these TV "members"

Should Catholics, Jews and people of other religions also be barred ? Very few Muslims are fanatics and members of Islamic groups. Muslim peoples will be your neighbors all over the world very soon if they are not already. Get over it and welcome them as friends and neighbours.

Only people with narrow views and paranoia will disagree with me. Some of my best friends are Muslims, I was brought up as a Catholic. People are people, religion should not divide us.

But if you read or get out at ALL, you know that it does. Get over it? No. You deal with it! Muslims pass these "screenings", and then get turned/recruited/homegrown/whatever. It's not equitable that they should have to be scrutinized and treated differently, but it IS the world we live in. Those of us who AREN'T Muslims are certainly being treated differently by THEM! Apologists are quite fond of quantifying the miscreants as "very few", but somehow this violence is occurring everywhere, and in some countries groups like the Muslim Brotherhood win elections! Very few? Apparently not quite so few. No one ever wants to talk about what more "mainstream" Muslims should be doing to eliminate this scourge. It's not "PC". Well, too bad. Here and around the world they should be standing up to their clerics & screamers, and demanding, not asking, not pleading, not recommending, DEMANDING that the violence STOP, and refuse to set foot in any mosque or participate in any religious gathering where the monsters and Islamist leaders aren't loudly and openly condemned or where terms like "unbelievers" or "infidels" are even used. Until then, they should pay some price for turning a blind eye to what goes on in the name of their so-called "religion of peace".

B S ! It appears that you willingly subscribe to the current propaganda. Where be the screams of objection to the KKK, the Catholic clerical rapists, the psuedo Christian extremists who seclude deluded believers and subject them to dehuminized activities, mafia style gangs operating under the guise of business and defying law, Televized religious scammers, political genocides, Corporate aquisitions of individual rights ?????? In light of your statement why did not the Jews of WW2 rise against the oppressers in the knowledge of the very real probability of impending death???????

You choose to ascribe as fact that all followers of Islam are potential extremists.

Why not instead recognize the fact that the vast majority of Muslims have no contact with anyone they would know is a potential extremist and have no wish or desire to ! In fact they despise those that have brought hatred upon them by the deluded such as you !

I have no affiliation to any religion but I have Muslim friends who are as family. There is no tolerance factor in that.

Extremists who cite any dogma to justify their motivtion need be distinguished from those who have no interest or desire of it. And expectation that they should seek out on behalf of such as you would necessarily mean yourself would become the subject of such searching out of those who express singularly discriminatory dogmatic views. Who are the terrorists now?

Actually the question strikes me as ridiculous ... and very Trump-esque.

In many western countries banning someone from employment because of his religion would be illegal and in those countries where the majority of people are Muslim it would be impossible to ban Muslims.

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database

The question is about international airport security, not about terrorism on USA soil.

Maybe we should look at pie graph showing planes taken down (internationally) and the percentage breakup of which terrorist groups were involved.

It states in the koran that muslims should hack at the necks of none believers,that is advocating murder,so yes I believe muslims should be banned from airport security.

This is a question relating to security requirements and not the straight jacket of inclusiveness at all costs which opposes any type of profiling. In Europe I would by far prefer no Muslims to be granted security clearance unless there was a far more comprehensive vetting procedure than was evidently used at Brussels or Paris CDG.

The Brussels airport attack was not carried out by airport workers and occurred in the departure hall before any security checks. Security screening of airport workers, no matter how thorough, and even the extreme measure of banning the employment of all Muslims would not have prevented this attack.

The cause of this Egypt Air crash has yet to be determined, and even if it was a bomb there is no evidence that it was planted at CDG, let alone by someone working there. It is equally possible that the device, if any, was carried on board by a passenger or even planted at one of the aircraft's previous stops.

Not that you and your fellows at the Ministry of Truth are interested in simple facts such as these!

Such a policy would not of course be flagged by the usual quota systems intended to enforce inclusiveness thus allowing any such policy to be unofficial.

Perhaps you can give us a few, or even one, example of such a quota system?

Of course the liberal left who are so obsessed with data to monitor inclusiveness suddenly fight it tooth and nail if it's used to monitor rape stats, prison populations or anything that shows one of their protected minorities in a poor light.

More rubbish from the Ministry of Truth.

Certainly as far as the UK is concerned such statistics, broken down into race, religion etc. are readily available from, among many other sources, government sites!

Indeed, if memory serves, you, yourself have quoted these statistics in the past; if not you then one who shares your views.

Should Catholics, Jews and people of other religions also be barred ? Very few Muslims are fanatics and members of Islamic groups. Muslim peoples will be your neighbors all over the world very soon if they are not already. Get over it and welcome them as friends and neighbours.

Only people with narrow views and paranoia will disagree with me. Some of my best friends are Muslims, I was brought up as a Catholic. People are people, religion should not divide us.

My Bold! Funny that is what a religious extremist would say, whatever their denomination. If Catholics and Jews start bombing aircraft then yes, but as in-politically correct as some people think profiling is, so far all the acts of modern recent terror have been carried out by Muslim men between the ages of around 22-40.

In order to save innocent lives from terrorists then Political Correctness has no place. You will cry 'Discrimination', but I am heavily discriminated against in the Middle East/Saudi etc. There my be the argument in christianity to 'turn the other cheek', 'two wrongs don't make a right', all very nice and utopian but while they still bomb us and shoot us then there is no place for pleasantries. It is very well documented with compelling evidence (spend an hour or two on youtube) that there is no such thing as moderate or extreme Muslims. Islam is Islam, it is 'the word of God' as far as Muslims are concerned and interpretation is not permitted (same with Christian creationists). You may have good friends who are Muslim as I have many also BUT when it comes down to the crunch do you think they will risk their immortal soul and go against their religion if helping you means compromising their belief system?..........Not a chance.

All that said and done, the question in the poll is purely hypothetical, as we would make many young Muslims multi-millionaires in the subsequent class actions that would follow under EU law.

Edited May 22, 201610 yr by Andaman Al

Actually the question strikes me as ridiculous ... and very Trump-esque.

In many western countries banning someone from employment because of his religion would be illegal and in those countries where the majority of people are Muslim it would be impossible to ban Muslims.

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database

The question is about international airport security, not about terrorism on USA soil.

Maybe we should look at pie graph showing planes taken down (internationally) and the percentage breakup of which terrorist groups were involved.

Sorry, no pie graph...

Actually the question strikes me as ridiculous ... and very Trump-esque.

In many western countries banning someone from employment because of his religion would be illegal and in those countries where the majority of people are Muslim it would be impossible to ban Muslims.

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database

The question is about international airport security, not about terrorism on USA soil.

Maybe we should look at pie graph showing planes taken down (internationally) and the percentage breakup of which terrorist groups were involved.

Why is it that there is this avoidance of data from the USA ? Terrorism is not an Islamic monopioly. " Acts of terror" are common in the USA by individuals as well as "groups". How does USA data on terror acts compare with "international" or individual country data? Such data would necessarily ommit acts of civil war or political feuds because the USA is a peaceful democratic national entity. Right?

This survey is bent towards propoganda and as such I consider invalid.