More relevantly to the discussion, this article about government spy planes and spy drones is interesting. It also describes the government's response following the San Bernardino shootings, and the drone flight paths over the mosque. Generally, I dislike BuzzFeed as too click-baity, but that's some cool interactive maps they show.

Despite terrorist attacks of religious nature seem to often come with multiple coordinated strikes, people seem to have an (understandable) aversion to the government monitoring mosques (invasion of privacy).

If one Christian goes and bombs a building, or shoots up a mall, I think it's due diligence to quickly check out their house/apartments and silently observe their church for a month or so, as long as personally identifiable information about members of the church isn't permanently stored for longer than, say, 90 days.

Or, if the Irish Republican Army was still heavily active, if one IRA member goes and firebombs a government building, and he frequented a specific bar, monitoring that bar for additional activities for a month or two for followup attacks wouldn't seem overboard.

So for me, the problem is more: How do we limit the duration so it doesn't stretch on for years, and how do we ensure the government disposes of collected information of innocent people after the due-diligence is finished? (And how do we prevent the government from distributing the information beyond the one task force that's investigating it, prior to deletion?)

I think short-term monitoring bars/mosques/churches/clubs that were attended by confirmed terrorists is justified, but I don't trust the government to delete the data when finished. It's kinda the "who will guard the guards" thing. Yea, we need the guards, but we also need protection from the guards.

Well given we can't just simply do nothing, but at the same time, let's not forget the amount of surveillance the NSA already does (Edward Snowden told us a good amount about this) , along with the Patriot Act (correct me if I'm wrong, but there are still portions of that active today, yes?). Monitoring bars/mosques/churches/clubs in the short term certainly makes sense. I believe that law enforcement is allowed to do so.

The problem really becomes when people start getting into the Islamophobia mindset and start giving the government more and more powers to do things that aren't really justifiable, and maybe target a subset of people more than others. Where does it stop then? When we can guarantee that terrorists won't attack? How much will it take to do that?

I have nothing against doing things within reason to stop terrorism/combat crime in general, but there is definitely a point that it is no longer just fighting terrorism but basically just mass surveillance based on a fear.

I have nothing against doing things within reason to stop terrorism/combat crime in general, but there is definitely a point that it is no longer just fighting terrorism but basically just mass surveillance based on a fear.

I think the reasonable limitation is no surveillance of mosques or churches or bars or whatever, unless there is credible evidence of a real threat (as approved by a judge in some kind of court permission for that limited-geographic-scope-and-limited-duration-but-indiscriminate-and-unproven-mass-surveillance.

But who is responsible for limiting the government and enforcing them to discard irrelevant data afterward is a key problem I don't know how to solve.

For the folk having the little conversation in response to my use of Islamists, I understand that either Muslim or Islamist is correct. For the actual Islamist, there might be a Politically Correct reason or set of PC reasons for using the term Muslims instead of Islamists.

A believer and follower of Muhammad would tend to claim that the term Muslim means believer, from what I have heard and read. I like the term Islamist because it reminds the listener that the main issue for the Muslim is the promotion of Islam in the world. On the surface for many people, that might not seem too bad.

My view is that if Western Civilization is going to maintain its direction toward freedoms and human rights, importing many millions of high birthrate Islamists would work against the promotion of such Western Values. Although Islam has many things in common with The West, it also has many differences and direct opposites.

Europe is in big trouble politically, culturally, and in values with the Islamists which it now has. For example, in many places European woman can no longer walk the sidewalks freely with jeans and T-shirts without fear of being accosted by Islamic men and boys. This is not merely a cultural difference between The West and Islam, because The Quran rather looks degradingly upon western values. In my opinion, it emboldens the Islamist to oppose western values rather aggressively on many levels.

I stand by my previous comment that the conflicts of Islam and The West are only going to worsen. MASS immigration and NO Borders policies are like a supercharger upon this conflict.

I have nothing against doing things within reason to stop terrorism/combat crime in general, but there is definitely a point that it is no longer just fighting terrorism but basically just mass surveillance based on a fear.

I think the reasonable limitation is no surveillance of mosques or churches or bars or whatever, unless there is credible evidence of a real threat (as approved by a judge in some kind of court permission for that limited-geographic-scope-and-limited-duration-but-indiscriminate-and-unproven-mass-surveillance.

People would be very shocked about many of the verses in The Quran. For Islamists, they are all perfectly normal to them. A lot of them also believe in The Hadiths which might be even more shocking.

I believe that our USA Constitution and Federal Laws did not take into consideration the inevitability of an invasive civilization entering and growing in the USA - with the intent on world domination.

When a tribe lives by all the same rules, then all is well. Large numbers of infiltrators tend to make those rules, no matter how virtuous on their own, into a major vulnerability.

I am reminded how The Greek Empire and The Roman Empire were founded fundamentally on a primitive Democracy or democratic-like values. Those two empires were extremely powerful in every major way ( including military ) but one: Their governmental system (Senate / Monarchy) allowed for mass migrations which would eventually cause their downfall.

Alright, I'm not trying to resurrect this thread, but here's another story worth reading about: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/05/07/ivy-league-economist-interrogated-for-doing-math-on-american-airlines-flight/?tid=sm_fb

Another incident of a guy being suspected of terrorism, and this time for some of the stupidest reasons I've ever read about.

The politically correct adjective for describing something or someone as being Muslim is: Muslim / Islamic.

The noun describing a person who believes in Islam: is a Muslim.

The Adj+Noun describing Muslim fundamentalists: Islamists. These are people who intertwine Islam and Politics/Law.

On the same weight:

A Christian who votes for Christianity as federal law: A "Christianists"

Some Muslims would find being called an Islamist offensive.

A Muslim can easily be a liberal, while I find it hard to picture a liberal Islamist. ( I'm sure some exist )

The two preferred Politically Correct terms are "Asians" (particularly used by Far Left dominated European media) and "Muslims" ( used mainly in the USA media ). Islamists is far more honest and accurate.

I hate the dishonesty of Political Correctness and how it guards the Far Left agendas ( such as the move to kill national constitutions, make everybody adhere to a "one size fits all" set of values and laws worldwide, and move us against our will toward a single worldwide government - New World Order ).

Islam has the main goal of world domination and the civilization of Islam is massively colonizing Western Civilization. Islamists are what they are.

Let's start to be honest. Let's further expose the betrayers in education, media, and government who are lying to the Western public and concealing the realities about Islam.

well yeah, I mean the dichotomy that Islam establishes makes it a very "us vs them" religion, where we're looked down on for not having Sharia courts/banning alcohol etc.

There are over 100 technically illegal Sharia Law courts in Britain, over 120 in France, and over 180 in Germany. Berlin, Germany has over 1.5 million Islamists in the German capital. London just elected its first Islamist major. Half the suburbs of Paris are dominated by Islam. Islamists will be the majority in Sweden by 2030.

Traitors welcome invaders. Anybody choked on your Red Pill yet?

There are over 100 technically illegal Sharia Law courts in Britain, over 120 in France, and over 180 in Germany. Berlin, Germany has over 1.5 million Islamists in the German capital. London just elected its first Islamist major. Half the suburbs of Paris are dominated by Islam. Islamists will be the majority in Sweden by 2030.

Traitors welcome invaders. Anybody choked on your Red Pill yet?

Yes because God only forbid that a non Christian should hold a position of power right? Ultimately that's where this line of argument is going.