This movie was pre-9/11. Even though some Islamic extremist attacks had occurred up until that point, none (for the US) were very devasting in their scope and spectacle. The failed WTC bombing from the early 90s was totally eclipsed by the OKC bombing.
You cannot look at this movie through a post 9/11 lens. We weren't thinking about those things then and therefore you cannot make the argument that the movie was setting an agenda that need not have been set yet. Does that make sense?
I don't know how old you are, but if you were old enough in the 90s, you'll remember that radical Islam didn't come up all that much - on the news, in public commentary, whatever. There were some attacks through the decade, but again, mostly small in scope AND/OR not on our soil. Thus, terrorists in movies tended to vary widely. The IRA still factored in to films, so did nostalgic, disaffected Soviet villains, militia men types, Central American drug lords, rebel without a cause madmen types, and yes, your occasional Jihadist group (True Lies comes to mindcannot think of another, maybe Hot Shots Part Deux?).

". . . there is no valid argument to take away the rights of many individuals to seek out a handful."
Depends: If we're talking about general citizenry, then I agree. But if we're talking about ideology, then I think you're wrong.
Let's use an analogy. If there was a neo-Nazi movement perpetrating numerous acts of terrorism, it would make perfect sense for the government to monitor and investigate those who identify themselves as Nazis or are known to sympathize with that ideology. Moreover, if there was an actual crisis-in-progress, as depicted in this film, it would likewise make sense to temporarily round up local neo-Nazis in an effort to flush out the ones actually carrying out the current terrorist plot.
The key factor here is
ideology
not race, background, profession, gender, etc.
And my point is that Muslims in general share ideological common ground with Muslim terrorists. In regard to this movie, I didn't have a problem with the temporary roundup in the local area.

Because there is no valid argument to take away the rights of many individuals to seek out a handful.
Statistically men are more likely to be violent towards their wives. Shall we therefore arrest and torture all men to find out which ones are involved in domestic violence? No. That would be absurd.
The problem is you seem incapable of discerning individuals from the whole. Yes the reality is anyone can do bad things, that's exactly why you can't just target everyone who fits a certain demographic marker and treat them like they could be the ones doing the wrong thing, cos by that logic we need to target everyone for something.

The movie undermines itself by having Samir turn out to be the final bomber. His big reveal merely demonstrates thatjust as the army (in this film) and their supporters had believedso-called "peaceful" Muslims can't be trusted. There's no reason to assume that any of the rank-and-file Muslims depicted in this film couldn't have turned out to be terrorists just like Samir.
It's an excellent, legitimate point. The same thing occurred to me after watching the film tonight. You're merely reflecting on aspects straight from the movie and ignoramuses here are jumping on you for supposedly being a "bigot" and "racist"!
My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/

Yusef: Please tell me what I said that was racist.

the movie is racist like you but unlike you they try to cover their track.
i mostly will not be able to answer your reply, since marissa mayer hacked my email, no notification

You said in an earlier post
Two problems here: (1) It's not the same issue. Interning the Japanese was wrong because the government was pouncing on them only because of their ethnic heritage. To be fair, using the same logic the feds should also have interned anyone of German descent.
http://www.foitimes.com/
It is probably not as widely known because America didn't join the war at the start and was more Geographically Isolated from the War in Europe where as Canada Australia, New Zealand, India and the other Commonwealth Countries were (for want of a better word) Dragged in from the start due to our ties with the British Empire.
And also the Attack on Pearl Harbour Bought the war to the states in a most dreadful and Bloody manner making it a very personal war for the Americans.
And not wanting to get in to too much on the horrors of war, but the Japanese treated their Prisoners Of war Horrendously, Starving, beheading and in the Fall Of Singapore (I think) not accepting prisoners at all. This helped to demonise an entire race because of a few Zealots in command Just as not every German solider was a Nazi
The Government of any of the Allied Countries were very paranoid )this does not justify the conditions or abuse) but were desperate to prevent acts of sabotage and destruction so guilty until proven innocent prevailed. So yes Ethnicity is a factor but not as much as the skin Colour as you would think, As Germans looked more like the Allied troops than the Japanese.
Hell is other People

Well, that's Australia, and this is a movie about a fictitious incident in the U.S., so.

Um Germans were rounded up in to camps during WW2
http://naa.gov.au/collection/snapshots/internment-camps/index.aspx
Hell is other People

Wow, I'm being called an "ignorant bigot" by a guy whose username is "ReligionIsForIdiots." You know what? It's always possible my argument is just plain wrong - but what it's
not
is "ignorant" or "bigoted." How about you instead show me where my reasoning is off-base? If you do, then you'll be doing me (and anyone reading our exchange) a favor.

In other words, you're an ignorant bigot who has no idea what you're talking about. Thanks for making that clear, Islamophobe.