STORM2K

Muslims may not have to undergo sniffer dog checks in UK


The Muslim prophet, Mohammad, didn't like dogs.

LONDON: Muslim passengers may not be touched by sniffer dogs of the British Transport Police after complaints that the practice is against Islam. According to the religion, dogs are deemed to be spiritually “unclean”.

Since the IRA and its offshoots have been quiet the last few years, I'm not sure who else has been bombing London transport the last few years.

On July 7, 2005 fifty-two London commuters and four suicide bombers were killed in a coordinated bombing attack. All four suicide bombers, including their leader, Mohammad Sidique Khan, were fundamentalist Muslims.

Interesting. To be fair, I think they should search everyone, regardless of race. It would cause waiting times to increase, but at least no-one could be accused of racism.

I was in London on holiday the other week, and all the times I used the tube (2 - 3 times per day) I never even had my ticket checked, let alone had my stuff searched.

I'd prefer to be searched, I think I'd feel safer.

Yeah thats true Cryomaniac. The problem is this is the group that has to be checked more then others simply because of past problems, I'm all for tolerence but really is the sniffer dogs such a big deal?

KWT wrote:Yeah thats true Cryomaniac. The problem is this is the group that has to be checked more then others simply because of past problems, I'm all for tolerence but really is the sniffer dogs such a big deal?

What's to stop groups like Al Queda recruiting non-muslim women, or other "safe" groups though? I'm sure that they are trying to do that. I think all groups of people are as much of a risk as anyone else.

Cryomaniac wrote:

KWT wrote:Yeah thats true Cryomaniac. The problem is this is the group that has to be checked more then others simply because of past problems, I'm all for tolerence but really is the sniffer dogs such a big deal?

What's to stop groups like Al Queda recruiting non-muslim women, or other "safe" groups though? I'm sure that they are trying to do that. I think all groups of people are as much of a risk as anyone else.

A non-Muslim is probably not willing to die for Allah.


There are Muslims, converts, Chechens, Bosnians, etc, who don't look "Middle Eastern". Which is why all people need to be sniffed, but if one excludes the people most likely to be suicide bombers from sniffer dog checks, what point is having sniffer dogs.?.?

Ed Mahmoud wrote:

Cryomaniac wrote:

KWT wrote:Yeah thats true Cryomaniac. The problem is this is the group that has to be checked more then others simply because of past problems, I'm all for tolerence but really is the sniffer dogs such a big deal?

What's to stop groups like Al Queda recruiting non-muslim women, or other "safe" groups though? I'm sure that they are trying to do that. I think all groups of people are as much of a risk as anyone else.

A non-Muslim is probably not willing to die for Allah.


There are Muslims, converts, Chechens, Bosnians, etc, who don't look "Middle Eastern". Which is why all people need to be sniffed, but if one excludes the people most likely to be suicide bombers from sniffer dog checks, what point is having sniffer dogs.?.?

I suppose I meant non-arab looking, rather than non-muslim. I didn't say exclude anyone, I said that I'd rather them search everyone than be worried about racism.

I'm really against racial profiling.

Ed Mahmoud wrote:Muslims may not have to undergo sniffer dog checks in UK


The Muslim prophet, Mohammad, didn't like dogs.

LONDON: Muslim passengers may not be touched by sniffer dogs of the British Transport Police after complaints that the practice is against Islam. According to the religion, dogs are deemed to be spiritually “unclean”.

Since the IRA and its offshoots have been quiet the last few years, I'm not sure who else has been bombing London transport the last few years.

On July 7, 2005 fifty-two London commuters and four suicide bombers were killed in a coordinated bombing attack. All four suicide bombers, including their leader, Mohammad Sidique Khan, were fundamentalist Muslims.

who cares if Muhommad hates dogs!

If they want to lvie by his law, they need to leave the west. Muslims should have ZERO special considerations

And why would anyone even consider giving them the exemption? THEY ARE THE TERRORISTS! Makes no sense to no screen the terrorists

Woah Derek muslims aren't terrorists, extremists who simply claim they hear the word of Allah are the terrorists, true Muslims are just as against the actions of the extreme nutters as most of us are.

I don't think you can have such a broad sweep though.

Cryomaniac wrote:Interesting. To be fair, I think they should search everyone, regardless of race. It would cause waiting times to increase, but at least no-one could be accused of racism.

I was in London on holiday the other week, and all the times I used the tube (2 - 3 times per day) I never even had my ticket checked, let alone had my stuff searched.

I'd prefer to be searched, I think I'd feel safer.

I've only ever had my ticket checked once in several years and that was at about 8pm one evening! To be fair it would be impossible to do so on packed trains in the rush hour. You can't get in or out of a tube station without swiping your Oyster Card on the reader on the gates anyway.

I don't care what people believe, everyone is the same and should be treated the same way. The threat of terrorism is far more important than any religion.

I would be one unhappy camper if one of my family was killed by a terrorist because they were allowed to bypass securtiy because we were conserned we might hurt their feelings. Everyone must be treated equally without reguard to your ethnicity, religion ect. I'd make all get sniffed, pass through metal detectors to ensure the public safety. Personally, I don't think we do enough security screening in America. It is only a matter of time before the terrorists slip though again.....MGC

MGC wrote:I would be one unhappy camper if one of my family was killed by a terrorist because they were allowed to bypass securtiy because we were conserned we might hurt their feelings. Everyone must be treated equally without reguard to your ethnicity, religion ect. I'd make all get sniffed, pass through metal detectors to ensure the public safety. Personally, I don't think we do enough security screening in America. It is only a matter of time before the terrorists slip though again.....MGC

I AGREE FULLY!!!!!

I would be willing to bet that there are already terrorist cells up and running in several areas of the U.S. and probably more slipping through on a regular basis. Unfortunately, IMO, it is just a matter of time till they strike on our soil again.

Funny how some tend to make it seem that the only terrorists in the world are Muslims.What's even funnier is how everyone is so afraid of the terrorists when there are far larger and more dangerous factors to be worried about.Gang activity kills far more people over a period of 10 years than terrorists do (In the U.S), and they aren't foreign or Muslim.You stand far more chance of getting shot while in your house than you do of being killed by a 'terrorist', yet for some reason a Muslim who will blow up a bomb and kill 5 people will get far more attention and general hate towards him than a serial/spree killer who kills the same amount of people.

Of course I don't condone terrorism,but I don't condone racism and slamming a religion based on ignorance.Not all Muslims are into extremist views and many actually oppose them.I also think that the whole thing about the dogs is rubbish and totally taking advantage of a situation.No special treatment must be provided to anything where religious views are the reason.But one must also realize if Muslims deserve no 'special considerations' neither do Christians or any other religions

Meso wrote:Funny how some tend to make it seem that the only terrorists in the world are Muslims.What's even funnier is how everyone is so afraid of the terrorists when there are far larger and more dangerous factors to be worried about.Gang activity kills far more people over a period of 10 years than terrorists do (In the U.S), and they aren't foreign or Muslim.You stand far more chance of getting shot while in your house than you do of being killed by a 'terrorist', yet for some reason a Muslim who will blow up a bomb and kill 5 people will get far more attention and general hate towards him than a serial/spree killer who kills the same amount of people.

Of course I don't condone terrorism,but I don't condone racism and slamming a religion based on ignorance.Not all Muslims are into extremist views and many actually oppose them.I also think that the whole thing about the dogs is rubbish and totally taking advantage of a situation.No special treatment must be provided to anything where religious views are the reason.But one must also realize if Muslims deserve no 'special considerations' neither do Christians or any other religions

Which is exactly what I said with my statement.

Somehow, I don't think that treating Muslims with religious disrespect is going to go down well with the extremists. Surely they would then use the fact that sniffer dogs are forced on them as justification for attacks? Forcing it on them would just play into their current story of "the West disrespects Islam and Muslims".

Everyone should be checked, profiling them won't make things any better.

If one goes back to the 1990s, one can find a terrorist, Baruch Goldstein, who was motivated by his Judaism to enter a mosque and shoot several Muslim worshippers at prayer.

There have been a few abortion clinic snipers/bombers who may have been motivated by their interpretation of Christianity to do what they did.

But one religion far outstrips the others as far as religiously motivated terrorist attacks. To point this out shouldn't be labelled as racism or bigotry.


BTW, the IRA, not particularly active now anyway, are nominally Catholics who commit terror crimes. The original IRA was a nationalist group, and an early IRA member and later Lord Mayor of Dublin from 1956 to 1957 and later 1961-1962, Robert Briscoe, was Jewish.

The later incarnation of the IRA from the 1960s on, was motivated by nationalism and increasingly by Marxism.

I just mention that, because every time I have an internet discussion, someone always mentions the IRA. They are a terror group, but they don't bomb pubs and veteran's parades in the name of Jesus and the Pope, so I don't think they meet the definition of a Catholic or Christian terror group.

Indeed you have three main Muslim racial/ethnic groups; Arab, African, and Asian (Indonesia for example is the most populace Islamic country). You also have many smaller ethnic/racial groups including some Eastern Europeans. The problem is HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT TO LOOK FOR? Especially if the operatives attempt to blend in/appear assimilated to Western (or another friendly) culture. Simple answer, you don't. As such the best bet is to check EVERYONE sadly.