It's only a symbolic gesture, but semiotics are very important to the enemy. The enemy believes that the kaffir harbi (infidels in the house of war) are weak and incognizant of their fate. This will inform then that this is not the case.

Where, exactly? Is anybody being sent to reeducation camps? Are there mutaween religious police breaking down your door because you utterred the wrong prayer according to some Hisbah bill?

All I see is some wine-soaked mediocrats whining about how their flights got delayed because the TSA frisked them.

I understand that you're making the "slippery slope" argument, but I do not believe it has reached that point yet, nor do I believe that this will happen in the forseeable future. There are enough checks and balances in society to prevent that.

Yes, I forgot about them. However, keep in mind that the South Asian situation would be worse if the Islamists were allowed to escalate further. The entire Levant (Israel-West Bank-Lebanon-Syria-Jordan) is smaller than some of India's states.

All of them were typically fighting tyranny or oppression (sometimes only perceived tyranny or oppression). They were not fighting complete, civilizational annihilation. Many of those freedom fighters would change their stance once they perceived an existential threat from their enemy. Marshall Tito, for instance.

There is a difference in degree here. Our very existence is in danger.

I'm willing to sacrifice SOME (not all) freedoms in order to protect and preserve my life, the lives of my family and the very core of our civilization which is in existential danger, yes.

He was not surrounded by enemies who wanted to wipe out his people off the face of the earth completely, no.

And 18th century Britishers did not have access to nuclear weapons. Pakistani Islamists do
.

I don't know about that, but it does send a message to a totalitarian and genocidal enemy (Pakistan) that they will have a tougher time in carrying out their goals.

I'd rather lose some freedoms than die in a nuclear fireball, or live in perpetual misery in the Dhimmitude of an Islamic theocracy. Pakistan means to destroy our country or, failing that, occupy it and subject non-Muslims to the dehumanizing oppression of Dhimmitude (fighting Islamic Jihad is mentioned in their constitution, as well as the motto of their Army).

It's easy for you to pontificate, sitting in a country surrounded by well-wishing allies. Not so for us, being the only democracy surrounded by Islamic theocracies and totalitarian dictatorships who mean to wipe us out (and have already tried to do so once: http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/).

No it does not. Absolute freedom is a pipe dream. A modern society has to have safety measures, particularly in vulnerable regions like aircraft. If there is reasonable cause to suspect some people of carrying out terrorism then they should be detained.

Peer-review isn't always what it's cracked up to be. Read about the Bogdanov controversy that erupted in my uni some years back that exposes some serious flaws in the peer-review process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair

Is that a fact? Then why are there so many Keralites desperately fleeing the state and migrating to those filthy capitalist scum-ridden havens like Mumbai and Delhi?

Nice try, but Dalits are as Hindu as any other. In Islamic Pakistan (where Hindus are a persecuted minority) Dalits brave discrimination from Muslim fanatics in order to go pray in temples:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7667850.stm

Oh really? Then explain how Muslims segregate their "Biradaris" and "Qaums" into "Ashraf" (noble ones) and "Arzal" (degraded ones, also called Dalit Muslims) and how Christians in India also practice against Dalits in Churches, schools and village communities.

My father was, and he's as Dalit as they come. Over 25% of India's Chief Ministers of state are Dalits. Try harder, Osama.