Racial Profiling for Terror Suspects

[Fighting American]

I found this on a blog..... What are your thoughts??


To ensure we Americans never offend anyone -- particularly
fanatics intent on killing us -- law enforcement and security
screeners are not allowed to "profile" people in public places or
security checkpoints. However, they will continue to perform
random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots
with proper identification, Secret Service agents who are members
of the President's security detail, 85-year-old congressmen with
metal hips and even Medal of Honor recipients. But targeting
Middle Eastern male Islamists between the ages 17 and 40
constitutes "ethnic profiling."


Let's pause a moment and review....


In 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by: (a) A salesman from
Utah (b) An construction worker (c) A college student on Spring
Break (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17
and 40.

In 1972, 11 Israeli athletes were killed at the Munich Olympics
by: (a) Your grandmother (b) A Midwest auto-parts dealer (c) A
mom and her 6-year-old son visiting from Indiana (d) Middle
Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by: (a) A
bluegrass band (b) Dallas Cowboy fans (c) A tour group of
80-year-old women (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the
ages of 17 and 40.

During the 1980's numerous Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon
by: (a) A family on their way to Disney World (b) Jesse Ventura
(c) A Boy Scout Troop (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between
the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by: (a)
A pizza delivery boy (b) The UPS guy (c) Geraldo Rivera making up
for a slow news day (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the
ages of 17 and 40.

In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked, and a
70-year-old disabled American passenger was murdered and thrown
overboard by: (a) A girls' choir (b) A hardware store owner (c) A
secretary (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of
17 and 40.

In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy
diver was murdered by: (a) A Marine officer with two weeks leave
(b) A plumber going to visit his mom (c) A Catholic nun (d)
Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by: (a) A college-bound
freshman (b) A cardiac surgeon on his way to Houston (c) A
waitress (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17
and 40.

In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by: (a) A starving
actress (b) A mom with a newborn (c) Twin six-year-old boys (d)
Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1995, a plot to blow up U.S.-bound international flights over
the Pacific was attempted by (a) Hawaiian school kids (b) An
decorated Vietnam Veteran (c) Twin sisters on their way to
Paducah (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17
and 40.

In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
(a) A local TV weatherman (b) A dad and his two sons on a ski
trip (c) A widower going to visit his grandchildren (d) Middle
Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2000, 17 sailors died in an attack on the USS Cole (DDG 67) in
Yemen by: (a) A child in a stroller (b) A high school class on
their way to visit Washington, DC (c) Newlyweds on their way to
Miami (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17
and 40.

On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked -- two flown into the
World Trade Centers, one into the Pentagon and one into the
ground in rural Pennsylvania. They were hijacked by: (a) A
retired police officer on a mission trip to Haiti (b) A
firefighter going to Maryland for training (c) An paramedic on
his way to vacation in Hawaii (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males
between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2002 the United States liberated Afghanistan from: (a) USAID
relief workers (b) Jewish Pilgrims (c) Christian missionaries (d)
Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl and other Westerners were kidnapped
and beheaded by: (a) The Peace Corp (b) Scottish clansmen (c)
Cuban refugees (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages
of 17 and 40.

In 2002, more than 330 hostages in Beslan and 130 hostages in
Moscow were murdered in sieges by: (a) Russian exchange students
(b) The Red Guard (c) Church planters (d) Middle Eastern Islamist
males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2003 the United States liberated Iraq from "The Butcher of
Baghdad," but most American military personnel were killed by:
(a) Iraqi school-girls (b) Street vegetable venders (c) Women
without burkas (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages
of 17 and 40.

In 2004, more than 200 Spanish civilians were murdered on trains
by bombs in Madrid, detonated by: (a) Morning commuters (b) A
three-year-old Chinese girl (c) Flamenco dancers (d) Middle
Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2005 more than 50 UK citizens were killed by bombs on trains
in London, detonated by: (a) Rail workers (b) Those unable to
hail taxis (c) Wheelchair-bound grandmothers (d) Middle Eastern
Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2005, there were hundreds of casualties, men, women and
children, killed by bombs in Jerusalem, Riyadh and Amman. These
innocent civilians were murdered by: (a) Construction workers (b)
Farmers (c) Christian missionaries (d) Middle Eastern Islamist
males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2005, the city of Paris, and other European cities experienced
an extended period of riots and destruction. The unrest was led
by: (a) "Youth" (b) Soccer fans (c) Catholic nuns (d) Middle
Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, more than 2,500
Americans have been murdered by terrorists. 35,000 Iraqi men,
women and children have also been murdered by terrorists. Most of
the combat and civilians casualties were the result of bombs
detonated in civilian population centers by: (a) Fruit vendors in
Baghdad (b) Disgruntled transit union workers (c) Iraqi
schoolteachers (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages
of 17 and 40.

In 2006, hundreds of Israeli civilians have been killed by
rockets launched by: (a) the Salvation Army (b) remnants of the
'Jackson Five' (c) the cast of 'Friends' (d) Middle Eastern
Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2006, a plot to blow up 10 U.S.-bound planes from the U.K. was
attempted by (a) members of the royal family (b) Japanese
tourists (c) groupies of the band 'Cream' (d) Middle Eastern
Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Since 2001, the FBI reports that there are major terrorist cells
still in U.S. urban centers. Several of these cells have been
uncovered and cell members arrested. In every case, the
terrorists cell members were: (a) Southern Baptists
Conventioneers (b) Lutheran Youth Groups (c) Presbyterian Elders
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

President George Bush said this week, "America is at war with
Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us
who love freedom, to hurt our nation." The Council on
American-Islamic Relations issued an immediate objection to the
President's reference to "Islamic fascists". Nihad Awad,
executive director of CAIR protested, "We have to isolate these
individuals because there is nothing in the Koran or the Islamic
faith that encourages people to be cruel or to be vicious or to
be criminal. Muslims world wide know that for sure." In light of
this objection, we are left to ponder why every Islamic leader in
the U.S., and the world, does not publicly condemn every terror
action being undertaken in the name of the god of Islam. Their
silence is deafening...

Between 1970 and present, there were more than 60 other notable
examples of terrorism perpetrated by Middle Eastern male
Islamists between the ages 17 and 40, but we think you get the
point. Singling out "Middle Eastern male Islamists between the
ages 17 and 40" is not "ethnic profiling," it's "terrorist
profiling" -- acting on prolific evidence.

Anyone for Terrorist Profiling?

http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/f/fightame.jpg

[SuperRyan]

After skimming through it, I have this to say.

Most terrorists that wish harm to the USA, the UK, Canada, etc. are Middle Eastern Muslims.

Anyone can be a terroist, yes. But odds are they are a Middle Eastern Muslim.

[Corporal Punishment]

Well, if we want to take that tactic:

Who shot Kennedy?
A) Uncle Sam on a bender
B) A white ex-Marine Corps crazy
C) The Queen
D) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Who was the Unabomber?
A) Your mother
B) An American mathmetician and academic
C) Robert Mitchum
D) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Who blew up a building in Oklahoma City?
A) My cousin Frank
B) A white Catholic
C) Tom Cruise's new baby
D) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Who bombed Brighton in an attempt to kill Margaret Thatcher?
A) My sister
B) Irish extremists
C) Jack Bauer
D) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Who bombed Olympic park?

A) My grandma
B) A white, conservative radical
C) Humphrey Bogart
D) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Who fired missiles at the nuclear center Superphenix?

A) My second cousin
B) Eco-terrorists
C) Nowhere Man
D) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Who shot Ronald Reagan?

A) You. You did!
B) A crazy man who grew up in Texas, belonged to an oil family and watched Taxi Driver too many times
C) Elves. Magical, magical elves.
D) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.


I don't know, it just seems to me that only including incidents where it actually was commited by Islamic males is incredibly biased and unscientific.

[The Question]

The sad thing is, while many terrorist organizations operate out of the middle east, not all terrorist organizations do. By concentraiting on middle easterns only causes us to ignore the non middle eastern threats.

[maxwell's angel]

Well, if we want to take that tactic:

Who shot Kennedy?
A) Uncle Sam on a bender
B) A white ex-Marine Corps crazy
C) The Queen
D) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Who was the Unabomber?
A) Your mother
B) An American mathmetician and academic
C) Robert Mitchum
D) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Who blew up a building in Oklahoma City?
A) My cousin Frank
B) A white Catholic
C) Tom Cruise's new baby
D) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Who bombed Brighton in an attempt to kill Margaret Thatcher?
A) My sister
B) Irish extremists
C) Jack Bauer
D) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Who bombed Olympic park?

A) My grandma
B) A white, conservative radical
C) Humphrey Bogart
D) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Who fired missiles at the nuclear center Superphenix?

A) My second cousin
B) Eco-terrorists
C) Nowhere Man
D) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Who shot Ronald Reagan?

A) You. You did!
B) A crazy man who grew up in Texas, belonged to an oil family and watched Taxi Driver too many times
C) Elves. Magical, magical elves.
D) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
To me, it

I don't know, it just seems to me that only including incidents where it actually was commited by Islamic males is incredibly biased and unscientific.

Also, SumofGod once bombed a jesus caviezel lookalike in the ***

[Corporal Punishment]

Also, SumofGod once bombed a jesus lookalike in the ass

You should probably know that CS! doesn't seem to take as kindly to these kind of posts as SHH! does.

And also, we all know that the Reptilian/Anunnaki power structure was responsible for that bombing, in order to justify the neverending, 300 BILLION dollar war on SumofGod's HETEROSEXUALITY, and supply money to the Homo/Industrial shebang for years to come.

[maxwell's angel]

change your post to *** dork.:angry:


(i really do not like these smileys)

[jaguarr]

Well, if we want to take that tactic:

Who shot Kennedy?
A) Uncle Sam on a bender
B) A white ex-Marine Corps crazy
C) The Queen
D) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Who was the Unabomber?
A) Your mother
B) An American mathmetician and academic
C) Robert Mitchum
D) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Who blew up a building in Oklahoma City?
A) My cousin Frank
B) A white Catholic
C) Tom Cruise's new baby
D) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Who bombed Brighton in an attempt to kill Margaret Thatcher?
A) My sister
B) Irish extremists
C) Jack Bauer
D) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Who bombed Olympic park?

A) My grandma
B) A white, conservative radical
C) Humphrey Bogart
D) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Who fired missiles at the nuclear center Superphenix?

A) My second cousin
B) Eco-terrorists
C) Nowhere Man
D) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Who shot Ronald Reagan?

A) You. You did!
B) A crazy man who grew up in Texas, belonged to an oil family and watched Taxi Driver too many times
C) Elves. Magical, magical elves.
D) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.


I don't know, it just seems to me that only including incidents where it actually was commited by Islamic males is incredibly biased and unscientific.

:thumbsupeventhoughthisboarddoesn'thaveathumbsupsm iley:

jag

[ip_guru]

Ahhhh, I love the smell of moral equivalency in the morning.

[Killgore]

What you call racial profiling I call "good police work".

[Ewok Droppings]

I've read both of those lists through pass-a-long emails. Personally I am not against profiling in airports, but I do agree that sometimes the terrorists are idiot copycats or wannabes so we should continue to screen all people as well. After all, since I get profiled AGAINST for all kinds of government grants and affirmative action programs by being a white male, why not at least use a little profiling to keep our world safer?

[Sock-Man]

I agree that there IS a type of person more likely to be a terrorist. And you'd be stupid to disagree.

The problem is that while stereotyping and picking out a specific race/culture your isolating and angering a whole community of the kind of people you want on your side to help deal with the problem.

And ofcourse there's no way you can rule out ANYONE for being a terrorist.

I can see both sides really.

[squeekness]

The problem with profiling is that sooner or later there will be a enw group to profile. While everyone is checking out teh Muslims, some scrawny white guy group will do something. Then while your looking for them, some big fat girl group will do something. You just never know what's going to happen.

[Killgore]

The problem with profiling is that sooner or later there will be a enw group to profile. While everyone is checking out teh Muslims, some scrawny white guy group will do something. Then while your looking for them, some big fat girl group will do something. You just never know what's going to happen.
And if you think that's going to be bad, just wait until the 87 year-old granny group comes to power.

[Corporal Punishment]

And if you think that's going to be bad, just wait until the 87 year-old granny group comes to power.

There actually IS a political group called "The Raging Grannies".

[squeekness]

And if you think that's going to be bad, just wait until the 87 year-old granny group comes to power.LOL. You never know! They'll be up in arms about no cost of living Social Security increases! :P

[jaguarr]

The problem with profiling is that sooner or later there will be a enw group to profile. While everyone is checking out teh Muslims, some scrawny white guy group will do something. Then while your looking for them, some big fat girl group will do something. You just never know what's going to happen.

Big Fat Girl Terrorists tried to eat the last plane I was on. :(

jag

[Killgore]

Big Fat Girl Terrorists tried to eat the last plane I was on. :(

jag
Jumbo Jet Eaten by Jumbo Girl

[The Question]

And if you think that's going to be bad, just wait until the 87 year-old granny group comes to power.

http://animatedtv.about.com/library/graphics/sp710_Grey_Dawn.jpg

[Corporal Punishment]

Let's get this thread back on topic. What was the topic again? Oh, right, Fighting American's passionate cry for racial intolerance:confused:

[Killgore]

I take it back. You're not a dolt. That episode was hysterical!

[Gamma Ray]

What's an Islamist?

[The Question]

What's an Islamist?

You're joking, right?

[JokerNick]

It will be funny in 30 years, we will be fighting against Jewish terrorists.......
just like now, Islamic Terrorists are our fault, we trained these guys, we gave them weapons.... once we called them freedom fighters, now they are terrorists...........


I honestly think that everyone should be searched, regardless of age and ethnicity...... 1 year olds too 101 year olds....... no carry on luggage....

as they said in Aliens, it's the only way to be sure...

[squeekness]

How can you profile for all Islamaists anyhow? The ones who just got caught in England were British citizens. A large number of Muslims in the US are African American. Islam is not restricted to race.

[ip_guru]

Are those of you opposed to profiling for terrorists also opposed to profiling, in all situations, or just in this specific situation?

[Corporal Punishment]

Are those of you opposed to profiling for terrorists also opposed to profiling, in all situations, or just in this specific situation?

I've never really come across a situation that, to me, justifies racial profiling.

[JokerNick]

How can you profile for all Islamaists anyhow? The ones who just got caught in England were British citizens. A large number of Muslims in the US are African American. Islam is not restricted to race.


here's the problem with profiling, okay, for all you conservatives out there, yes, it will solve the problem temporarly.... terrorists are not a military organization... they are a living breathing evolving entity.... if every single muslim person is being searched.... they will start recruiting.... lets say black people.... now a bunch of black guys commit an act of terrorism.... okay, we will profile muslim and black people now......... now they recruit asians....... it goes on and on... they will evolve there ways, they will always be one step ahead unless we start being serious about this terrorism threat..... for plane secerity, there should be NO EXCEPTIONS, everyone is searched... everyone is screened..... if it takes 5 hours to get through secerity, so be it.... would you rather have to wait, or possibly die...... and if you don't like it, take a bus, train, car, or boat.......

[JokerNick]

Are those of you opposed to profiling for terrorists also opposed to profiling, in all situations, or just in this specific situation?

general profiling is bad.... it solves nothing in the long term... it's nothing but masturbation,.... it's a quick fix..... there needs to be strict guidlines set, and everyone has to follow them, no exceptions....

[Gamma Ray]

You're joking, right?


Yes...

[Jason Martell]

I believe that profiling will only make it easier for them to get through, becaus they will specifically know what we are looking for, and they will then know how to look, how to talk, how to dress, and how to act, to avoid being detected.

[jaguarr]

I've never really come across a situation that, to me, justifies racial profiling.


Agreed. It's naive to think that targeting any particular group for closer scrutiny is going to reduce the risk of attack, and it's highly prone to flaw anyway. My brother in-law is in the Navy and got screened at the airport WHILE he was wearing his freakin' Navy Whites because the screener thought that he looked Middle Eastern (he's Dominican). Sheer idiocy. Meanwhile the white, para-military guy in front of him is probably packing C-4. Great screening, guys. :rolleyes: It's also a practice that promotes racism and stereotypes and I have issues with that as well.

jag

[squeekness]

here's the problem with profiling, okay, for all you conservatives out there, yes, it will solve the problem temporarly.... terrorists are not a military organization... they are a living breathing evolving entity.... if every single muslim person is being searched.... they will start recruiting.... lets say black people.... now a bunch of black guys commit an act of terrorism.... okay, we will profile muslim and black people now......... now they recruit asians....... it goes on and on... they will evolve there ways, they will always be one step ahead unless we start being serious about this terrorism threat..... for plane secerity, there should be NO EXCEPTIONS, everyone is searched... everyone is screened..... if it takes 5 hours to get through secerity, so be it.... would you rather have to wait, or possibly die...... and if you don't like it, take a bus, train, car, or boat.......Exactly. Profiling doesn't work, or it shouldn't be our only tactic against terror.

[ip_guru]

Profiling is used in almost every institution, to some degree or another. It is part of human psychology. Somehow, over the last 10-15 years we have associated the word profiling with negativity, much to the detriment of our ability to address core issues.

When you walk into a room, you profile for those you are attracted (in a general way) towards. Is that wrong? If there are 100 strangers in the room, you do not have equal odds of walking up to and talking to each of them. You are purposefully descriminating against those other people, even if it is on an unconscious level.

Affirmative action is profiling, banks using a credit score to give a loan is profiling, salespeople juding you when you walk into a store is profiling; when you go out looking for a date you are profiling, when you buy a house you profile the community/schools/etc, and so on...

It isn't limited to people either. Taxes are determined for a business based on their profile, individuals pay income taxes based on their profile, etc...

[Warhammer Zero]

Agreed. It's naive to think that targeting any particular group for closer scrutiny is going to reduce the risk of attack, and it's highly prone to flaw anyway. My brother in-law is in the Navy and got screened at the airport WHILE he was wearing his freakin' Navy Whites because the screener thought that he looked Middle Eastern (he's Dominican). Sheer idiocy. Meanwhile the white, para-military guy in front of him is probably packing C-4. Great screening, guys. :rolleyes: It's also a practice that promotes racism and stereotypes and I have issues with that as well.

jag

That same thing happened to me. (w/o the Navy thing)
A year or 2, I was at the airport and I got checked twice during the same day because they thought I was Middle Eastern. Everybody that passed me stared at me. My mom drove me to the airport and she was pissed that I got cheked twice, even when I was like 15 years old. I only had a backpack, btw.

[Warhammer Zero]

Profiling is used in almost every institution, to some degree or another. It is part of human psychology. Somehow, over the last 10-15 years we have associated the word profiling with negativity, much to the detriment of our ability to address core issues.

When you walk into a room, you profile for those you are attracted (in a general way) towards. Is that wrong? If there are 100 strangers in the room, you do not have equal odds of walking up to and talking to each of them. You are purposefully descriminating against those other people, even if it is on an unconscious level.

Affirmative action is profiling, banks using a credit score to give a loan is profiling, salespeople juding you when you walk into a store is profiling; when you go out looking for a date you are profiling, when you buy a house you profile the community/schools/etc, and so on...

It isn't limited to people either. Taxes are determined for a business based on their profile, individuals pay income taxes based on their profile, etc...

You're right that that kind of profiling is everywhere, and that is a form of racism.
Thats why everybody is a racist to some degree, and that will never go away. :(

[Corporal Punishment]

Profiling is used in almost every institution, to some degree or another. It is part of human psychology. Somehow, over the last 10-15 years we have associated the word profiling with negativity, much to the detriment of our ability to address core issues.

When you walk into a room, you profile for those you are attracted (in a general way) towards. Is that wrong? If there are 100 strangers in the room, you do not have equal odds of walking up to and talking to each of them. You are purposefully descriminating against those other people, even if it is on an unconscious level.

Affirmative action is profiling, banks using a credit score to give a loan is profiling, salespeople juding you when you walk into a store is profiling; when you go out looking for a date you are profiling, when you buy a house you profile the community/schools/etc, and so on...

It isn't limited to people either. Taxes are determined for a business based on their profile, individuals pay income taxes based on their profile, etc...

I thought we were talking about RACIAL profiling:confused:

[Fighting American]

Let's get this thread back on topic. What was the topic again? Oh, right, Fighting American's passionate cry for racial intolerance:confused:


When did I cry out for that? I found this on a blog...... I thought it would start the grey matter to thinking.....and it has.

What's your problem.

[Corporal Punishment]

When did I cry out for that? I found this on a blog...... I thought it would start the grey matter to thinking.....and it has.

What's your problem.

I'm just joking, mate. Have an ale on me:confused:

[Fighting American]

How can you profile for all Islamaists anyhow? The ones who just got caught in England were British citizens. A large number of Muslims in the US are African American. Islam is not restricted to race.

They were "Islamic" British citizens. Don't white wash over that piece of info.:nono: Of Pakistani descent no less....

[Fighting American]

Okay........

what is a profile? It's made up of a history of data and other background info on a group or person. Right?

Serial killers have always been "profiled" as white males. why? Because historical record has shown this group to be most likely. Is it always the case? No. The DC sniper proved that. But the profiles have been pretty darn accurate and are at least a starting place.

Isn't there enuff data and history for a profile on this group of people too?? If we can do serial killers, why not terror suspects??

Just askin???:confused:

[jaguarr]

Okay........

what is a profile? It's made up of a history of data and other background info on a group or person. Right?

Serial killers have always been "profiled" as white males. why? Because historical record has shown this group to be most likely. Is it always the case? No. The DC sniper proved that. But the profiles have been pretty darn accurate and are at least a starting place.

Isn't there enuff data and history for a profile on this group of people too?? If we can do serial killers, why not terror suspects??

Just askin???:confused:

Well, for starters, because EVERYONE is a terror suspect, going by the current stance of the government in this country. Excluding a large chunk of that demographic in order to target primarily people of Middle Eastern descent overlooks so many people that very well could be terrorists it's ridiculous.

jag

[Wilhelm's Cream]

The blog piece is retarded.

However, if, after Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah building, I started getting searched and asked questions all of the time, because I'm a young white dude like T.McVeigh...I'd have ZEro problems with it.

I'd prefer it that way. Psychos. Search everyone! Freaks!

[ip_guru]

I thought we were talking about RACIAL profiling:confused:

Profiling is profiling. It is difficult for me to accept the idea that some kinds of profiling are going to be accepted, but others are not. This is a misunderstanding of the core problem.

We allow racial profiling to be used in some situations, such as affirmative action, and we call that good. We have an entire Federal Government division dedicated to granting minorities business loans, using racial profiling, and we call that good. Now here, when discussing airport security we call the use of race in profiling bad. Why? Because we are discussing the tool versus the use of the tool.

Do you play basketball? I do, love it, I play every weekend. When we setup teams, why is it that most of the black guys are selected before most of the white guys? Going into picking teams, the guys don't even know each other. That means they are using racial profiling to pick teams, and you know what? They're right, in that context, the vast majority of the black guys are better than the vast majority of the white guys. Is this action somehow "wrong", is every guy on the court a closet racist? Of course not, but we allow this action while excluding it elsewhere.

Racial profiling is no more or less inherently "wrong" than any other profiling. Like any other tool, it can be used improperly, and when that happens should be exposed and/or prosecuted based on the situation. But, to selectively pick this one situation and give it the label of wrong, isn't any way to solve a problem.

[Wilhelm's Cream]

I noticed a lot of bags of fertilizer in the shack behind my mom and dad's house and I called the Freedom Defense Force to come ask them some questions.
I feel a lot safer.

[Me]

Wilhelm's Cream is good for cleansing your pores.

[Corporal Punishment]

Wilhelm's Cream is good for cleansing your pores.

Um, ew.

[jaguarr]

Racial profiling is no more or less inherently "wrong" than any other profiling. Like any other tool, it can be used improperly, and when that happens should be exposed and/or prosecuted based on the situation.


The real issue with racial profiling is that it's highly prone to abuse, and history has repeatedly demonstrated that. It's a great little tool for people who are racist to hide behind and abuse and persecute and harass those they are racist against, which makes it very difficult to identify, expose and prosecute for and only the most obvious who do so are ever caught at it.

jag

[JokerNick]

Okay........

what is a profile? It's made up of a history of data and other background info on a group or person. Right?

Serial killers have always been "profiled" as white males. why? Because historical record has shown this group to be most likely. Is it always the case? No. The DC sniper proved that. But the profiles have been pretty darn accurate and are at least a starting place.

Isn't there enuff data and history for a profile on this group of people too?? If we can do serial killers, why not terror suspects??

Just askin???:confused:

okay, to use your "murdered" example.... if the police, DA, or whoever else is envolved, used only racial profiling to solve their crimes, there would be so many problems, you stated that mostyl white males commit murders... so now the police will disregard all colored ethnicitys, because research and history has shown us that "most likely" the murderer is white...... and you know what, this might work 75% of the time... that the murderer was white, but what about the other 25%......

so lets say that Muslims know secerity is looking for Muslims..... so they recruit white people (and they are many, white, Muslim extremiest out there) to commit their acts of terrorism..... well, white people aren't screened as much as muslims, so there is a better chance that this white person can get on the plane and do whatever he's planing to do.... racial profiling didn't stop them there.....

fortunetly, with law enforcement.... they have time on their hands... the have time to incvestigate the crime scene, do background checks, do all their CSI stuff.... secerecty at airports do not....

[ip_guru]

The real issue with racial profiling is that it's highly prone to abuse, and history has repeatedly demonstrated that. It's a great little tool for people who are racist to hide behind and abuse and persecute and harass those they are racist against, which makes it very difficult to identify, expose and prosecute for and only the most obvious who do so are ever caught at it.

jag

You're right it is prone to abuse, I agree entirely. But, that shouldn't exclude it as a tool. There is a ton of abuse in affirmative action programs, there is a ton of abuse in minority loan programs, but we work with and accept those abuses because we feel that the overall goals are worthwhile. I feel that same level of acceptance should be afforded to security.

[JokerNick]

Profiling is profiling. It is difficult for me to accept the idea that some kinds of profiling are going to be accepted, but others are not. This is a misunderstanding of the core problem.

We allow racial profiling to be used in some situations, such as affirmative action, and we call that good. We have an entire Federal Government division dedicated to granting minorities business loans, using racial profiling, and we call that good. Now here, when discussing airport security we call the use of race in profiling bad. Why? Because we are discussing the tool versus the use of the tool.

Do you play basketball? I do, love it, I play every weekend. When we setup teams, why is it that most of the black guys are selected before most of the white guys? Going into picking teams, the guys don't even know each other. That means they are using racial profiling to pick teams, and you know what? They're right, in that context, the vast majority of the black guys are better than the vast majority of the white guys. Is this action somehow "wrong", is every guy on the court a closet racist? Of course not, but we allow this action while excluding it elsewhere.

Racial profiling is no more or less inherently "wrong" than any other profiling. Like any other tool, it can be used improperly, and when that happens should be exposed and/or prosecuted based on the situation. But, to selectively pick this one situation and give it the label of wrong, isn't any way to solve a problem.

i think "profiling" athletes and "profiling" terrorists, are different matters, apples and oranges....

were not talking about how high someone can jump, we are talking about someone setting off a bomb, or hijacking a plane.....

seriously, that was the worst example anyone could have wrote, comparing basketball to airport security......

[ip_guru]

i think "profiling" athletes and "profiling" terrorists, are different matters, apples and oranges....

were not talking about how high someone can jump, we are talking about someone setting off a bomb, or hijacking a plane.....

seriously, that was the worst example anyone could have wrote, comparing basketball to airport security......

I didn't compare basketball to airport security, I'm sorry you read it that way.

[JokerNick]

I didn't compare basketball to airport security, I'm sorry you read it that way.
that's what it sounded like to me....

[Corporal Punishment]

Meeeee tooooooooooooo.

[jaguarr]

You're right it is prone to abuse, I agree entirely. But, that shouldn't exclude it as a tool. There is a ton of abuse in affirmative action programs, there is a ton of abuse in minority loan programs, but we work with and accept those abuses because we feel that the overall goals are worthwhile. I feel that same level of acceptance should be afforded to security.


The trouble with racial profiling where security is concerned, though, particularly at the national level, is that the people conducting it are also empowered to detain someone indefinitely without charging them and aren't required to notfiy anyone they are being detained or grant them legal council. That doesn't happen when a loan gets denied.

The abuse of racial profiling in affirmative action or other actions isn't condoned and the checks and balances to keep that abuse at bay are largely ineffective. To the point that I don't think it should be allowed in those instances, either. Just because it happens in other areas doesn't make it any more acceptable in these instances, IMHO.

jag

[JokerNick]

I didn't compare basketball to airport security, I'm sorry you read it that way.

I'm just saying that complaining about racial profiling in a sport.... and complaining about racial profiling at a airport are different matters...

you pick a team full of black guys, and it turns out the white guys you didn't pick ae better, tough crap, but ya know what, your life isn't over

now choosing not to screen people because they are not muslim, well that can get you killed....

i have no problem screening every damn muslim that enters a airport.... i just want every black, white, yellow, purple, man, women or child screened along with them...... you can't trust anyone these days

[ip_guru]

that's what it sounded like to me....

Earlier it had been mentioned that all profiling is bad, and I was discussing the more broad subject of profiling. I was posting about the fact that we accept racial profiling in some sitautions, and that we do not accept racial profiling in other situations. That isn't comparing the objects of profiling, it isn't comparing basketball to security.

[jaguarr]

i have no problem screening every damn muslim that enters a airport.... i just want every black, white, yellow, purple, man, women or child screened along with them...... you can't trust anyone these days


Exactly.

jag

[JokerNick]

The trouble with racial profiling where security is concerned, though, particularly at the national level, is that the people conducting it are also empowered to detain someone indefinitely without charging them and aren't required to notfiy anyone they are being detained or grant them legal council. That doesn't happen when a loan gets denied.

The abuse of racial profiling in affirmative action or other actions isn't condoned and the checks and balances to keep that abuse at bay are largely ineffective. To the point that I don't think it should be allowed in those instances, either. Just because it happens in other areas doesn't make it any more acceptable in these instances, IMHO.

jag


plus, all that has to deal with is money..... not peoples lives being destroyed by a plane crashing into them...

[JokerNick]

Earlier it had been mentioned that all profiling is bad, and I was discussing the more broad subject of profiling. I was posting about the fact that we accept racial profiling in some sitautions, and that we do not accept racial profiling in other situations. That isn't comparing the objects of profiling, it isn't comparing basketball to security.


but racial profiling for basketball doesn't effect peoples lives...... terrorism does

they are different situations

why is it illegal to go 100mph on a city street, but cool to go 220mph on a nascar track.... different situations, different circumstances.... different consequences

[ip_guru]

The trouble with racial profiling where security is concerned, though, particularly at the national level, is that the people conducting it are also empowered to detain someone indefinitely without charging them and aren't required to notfiy anyone they are being detained or grant them legal council. That doesn't happen when a loan gets denied.

You're right, but now we are talking about a second point. Being empowered to detain isn't part of profiling, and should be dealt with on its own.

The abuse of racial profiling in affirmative action or other actions isn't condoned and the checks and balances to keep that abuse at bay are largely ineffective. To the point that I don't think it should be allowed in those instances, either. Just because it happens in other areas doesn't make it any more acceptable in these instances, IMHO.

I didn't mean to say we should accept the actual abuses, but I see how what I wrote can read that way. I mean that we as a society should accept the use of profiling in security the same as we accept the use of profiling in other areas.

[jaguarr]

You're right, but now we are talking about a second point. Being empowered to detain isn't part of profiling, and should be dealt with on its own.

But they aren't separate responsibilities and there are very few, if any, checks and balances. It's wrong, but that's how the system is constructed to date.


I didn't mean to say we should accept the actual abuses, but I see how what I wrote can read that way. I mean that we as a society should accept the use of profiling in security the same as we accept the use of profiling in other areas.

But I don't really accept the use of profiling in other areas, either, to be honest with you. Either everyone should be scrutinized, or no one should be.

jag

[ip_guru]

...
But I don't really accept the use of profiling in other areas, either, to be honest with you. Either everyone should be scrutinized, or no one should be.

jag

On a personal level, I agree with you. I'm a Libertarian, and I dislike the use of profiling if it is going to come into conflict with core freedoms. It is a conflicting issue for Libertarians, as there are realistic requirement that I recognize, and have to balance them with personal freedoms.

[JokerNick]

On a personal level, I agree with you. I'm a Libertarian, and I dislike the use of profiling if it is going to come into conflict with core freedoms. It is a conflicting issue for Libertarians, as there are realistic requirement that I recognize, and have to balance them with personal freedoms.

well then, according to your way of life, no one should be screened, because that conflicts with our freedoms...........

[Alonsovich]

well then, according to your way of life, no one should be screened, because that conflicts with our freedoms...........

You mean... that LAW named Constitution that FORCES you to be free...?

[JokerNick]

You mean... that LAW named Constitution that FORCES you to be free...?


it's a paradox.......

[Alonsovich]

it's a paradox.......

Absolutely.

[The Question]

The thing is, if we did everything possible to keep people safe, then society would be little more than a fascist dictatorship. There needs to be a balance. As Ben Franklin said "Those who would give up freedome for safety deserve neither freedome nor safety."

[Cash]

He told you he said that? That lier, I said that to him at his bachelor party.

[JokerNick]

The thing is, if we did everything possible to keep people safe, then society would be little more than a fascist dictatorship. There needs to be a balance. As Ben Franklin said "Those who would give up freedome for safety deserve neither freedome nor safety."

"give me a man who is willing to give up freedom for safety, and I'll give you a a man that deserves neither"

great statement, different time tho....

it's a sad time, that's forsure.....

[Corporal Punishment]

He told you he said that? That lier, I said that to him at his bachelor party.

He stole everything.

[The Question]

"give me a man who is willing to give up freedom for safety, and I'll give you a a man that deserves neither"

great statement, different time tho....

it's a sad time, that's forsure.....

Different time, yes. But it still holds true. There were alot of dangers in everyday lfe back then that aren't around today. We've still got to find the balance. We give up too many freedomes for our own safety, and we've basically resigned ourselves to lay down and die as a people in front of a major threat.

[JokerNick]

watch 1984.......... I think it holds true today.... Bush and Co. could take everything away from us, and 80% of people would go along with it because of the fear put in us by the Gov..... the other 20%, would be labeled as terrorists and unpatriotic.... Salem witch trails in a way....... it's sad... we our strong militarly, but our people are weak spiritaully.....

[The Question]

Personally, while I do realize the practicality of upping security after terrorist atacks or threats, I kind of feel like it's conformation for the terrorists that we'r afraid of them, and that what they're doing is in fact working.

[Fighting American]

okay, to use your "murdered" example.... if the police, DA, or whoever else is envolved, used only racial profiling to solve their crimes, there would be so many problems, you stated that mostyl white males commit murders... so now the police will disregard all colored ethnicitys, because research and history has shown us that "most likely" the murderer is white...... and you know what, this might work 75% of the time... that the murderer was white, but what about the other 25%......


First of all your straw man argument doesn't work for me, okay? So stop being silly. :nono: Did you see me say they should use "profiling only"? Did you? No. Go back and read or stop assuming. I said it's a starting point! They do it for serial killers. It has worked most of the time. Are we okay with offending white males and not middle-eastern ones?

so lets say that Muslims know secerity is looking for Muslims..... so they recruit white people (and they are many, white, Muslim extremiest out there) to commit their acts of terrorism..... well, white people aren't screened as much as muslims, so there is a better chance that this white person can get on the plane and do whatever he's planing to do.... racial profiling didn't stop them there.....


]That's why you start with the Muslim groups. That doesn't mean you still don't check others, too. They had some white recruits for this last scheme. But if you read the papers, if you read just half of that blog, I want some of that stuff you're smokin' if you can't see a pattern or profile. [/B]

fortunetly, with law enforcement.... they have time on their hands... the have time to incvestigate the crime scene, do background checks, do all their CSI stuff.... secerecty at airports do not....


That's why you go with the obvious. Limited time and money. You don't waste it on granny. :P

[JokerNick]

That's why you go with the obvious. Limited time and money. You don't waste it on granny. :P
and when they know that's your plan, they go with granny....

[The Question]

That's why you go with the obvious. Limited time and money. You don't waste it on granny. :P

.....celldog, right?

[Fighting American]

Well, for starters, because EVERYONE is a terror suspect, going by the current stance of the government in this country. Excluding a large chunk of that demographic in order to target primarily people of Middle Eastern descent overlooks so many people that very well could be terrorists it's ridiculous.

jag


Are you watching the same news as the rest of us? :confused:

[JokerNick]

Are you watching the same news as the rest of us? :confused:


yeah, because Timothy McVay was a muslim...... DC Sniper was a typical looking muslim...... hell even Oswald was a muslim

[Fighting American]

and when they know that's your plan, they go with granny....


That's why you still check everyone. But put special emphasis on the middle-eastern males.

[JokerNick]

First of all your straw man argument doesn't work for me, okay? So stop being silly. Did you see me say they should use "profiling only"? Did you? No. Go back and read or stop assuming. I said it's a starting point! They do it for serial killers. It has worked most of the time. Are we okay with offending white males and not middle-eastern ones?


because trying to capture a murdered and trying to prevent terrorism are TOTALLY DIFFERENT.... a murderer did his crime..... a terrorist has to be prevented.... it's like saying, hmmmm, mostly white makes commit murders, so lets ban them from buying guns... that will stop all murders then..... it doesn't work like that, you stop every muslim and search them, but don't stop every white person... who are the terrorist going to use, WHITE PEOPLE..... it's called evolution of tactics.......

[Corporal Punishment]

That's why you still check everyone. But put special emphasis on the middle-eastern males.

...:confused: Are you SERIOUS?:confused:

[JokerNick]

That's why you still check everyone. But put special emphasis on the middle-eastern males.

yes, you check everyone equally...... I want every muslim checked, and every other person checked... you can't trust anyone these days.... don't you get that....

[JokerNick]

...:confused: Are you SERIOUS?:confused:

that guy has no idea what is going on, he lives in his little world where he beleives everything the Bush Admin is telling him, yes, all Muslims are terrorists.......

****ing ignorance is what got us here in the first place, that's why people hate us...


it was people like him, who captured Japanese Americans in the mid 40s, and kept them captive.....

[The Question]

that guy has no idea what is going on, he lives in his little world where he beleives everything the Bush Admin is telling him, yes, all Muslims are terrorists.......

****ing ignorance is what got us here in the first place, that's why people hate us...


it was people like him, who captured Japanese Americans in the mid 40s, and kept them captive.....

Yup. Definately celldog.

[JokerNick]

celldog?

[The Question]

celldog?

Like myself, a poster on SuperHeroHype. Very much in the Ann Coulter/Bill O'Riley school of cultural ignorance and jingoism.

[Corporal Punishment]

Doesn't really seem like Celldog to me. He doesn't use bold or large fonts.

[The Question]

Well, he was using bold to respond to a quite. SOmething celldog does all the time.

[JokerNick]

Like myself, a poster on SuperHeroHype. Very much in the Ann Coulter/Bill O'Riley school of cultural ignorance and jingoism.

screening people is awesome..... but you can't limit it to one type of person... something history has shown us, is fanatics evolve, they change, if one thing isn't working, they change, they are always trying to be one step ahead. so if he stop every muslim at the security checkpoint, wouldn't the terrorists go the extra mile, and change the demographic of people who commit terrorism... it's not just the typical muslim who wants us dead... they are Americans joining them as we speak.....

these terrorists are well trained, we, the US trained them.....

we call them terrorists now, saying they use "cowardess" ways to kill us, but we are the ones who taught them this in the 70's, we called them Freedon Fighters

[The Question]

screening people is awesome.....

I really wouldn't call it awesome. Aqua Teen Hunger Force is awesome. Curly fries are awesome. The Rolling Stones are awesome. Screening at airports is simply a good idea. But I digress.

By the way, what exactly would your idea of screening entail? Checking identification? Thoroughly examining any and all items being carried on board? What?

[JokerNick]

I really wouldn't call it awesome. Aqua Teen Hunger Force is awesome. Curly fries are awesome. The Rolling Stones are awesome. Screening at airports is simply a good idea. But I digress.

By the way, what exactly would your idea of screening entail? Checking identification? Thoroughly examining any and all items being carried on board? What?


screening is awesome, if it's done to everyone

background check (FBI), state of the art x-ray machicines, bomb sniffing dogs, mandatory pat downs, no carry ons.......

flying isn't a right, it's a luxory

[The Question]

background check (FBI), state of the art x-ray machicines, bomb sniffing dogs, mandatory pat downs, no carry ons.......

The main problem with that is the background checks. Those can take hours. That would pretty much throw off most of the flight scheduels. Also, not sure about no carry ons. I don't see a problem with having carry on bags checked thoroughly, and certain carry on items like sharp objects and certai chemical products being banned, but something like a book wouldn't pose any danger to a flight.

[JokerNick]

The main problem with that is the background checks. Those can take hours. That would pretty much throw off most of the flight scheduels. Also, not sure about no carry ons. I don't see a problem with having carry on bags checked thoroughly, and certain carry on items like sharp objects and certai chemical products being banned, but something like a book wouldn't pose any danger to a flight.

if you want a book, buy it at the gift shop in the airport.... what do you need in your carry on? honestly.... I never need anything besides a magazine and some sleeping pills..... and that all can be purchased in the airport....

if it causes a few hours extra to do the check, so be it.... would the victims of 9/11 go back and wait an extra couple hours to have a FBI screening of the passengers, I guarentee they would....

just make it so, all tickets must be purchased 24 hours in adavance so a check can be done.....

[The Question]

if you want a book, buy it at the gift shop in the airport.... what do you need in your carry on? honestly.... I never need anything besides a magazine and some sleeping pills..... and that all can be purchased in the airport....

Truthfully, most people find flying to be bloody boring and want something to do, most commonly read something, on the flight. And really, instead of banning carry ons entirely, simply checking through them thoroughly and banning certain items would work better. A book isn't a threat to the plane's safety.

if it causes a few hours extra to do the check, so be it.... would the victims of 9/11 go back and wait an extra couple hours to have a FBI screening of the passengers, I guarentee they would....

But think about it: A few extra hours for every person getting on the plane. That would be well over 20 hours waiting to get on. In theory it would be good, but it just wouldn't work in practice.

just make it so, all tickets must be purchased 24 hours in adavance so a check can be done.....

Most people tend to buy tickets in advance anyway. So yeah, I guess that would work. Nevermind what I just said then.

[JokerNick]

Truthfully, most people find flying to be bloody boring and want something to do, most commonly read something, on the flight. And really, instead of banning carry ons entirely, simply checking through them thoroughly and banning certain items would work better. A book isn't a threat to the plane's safety.



But think about it: A few extra hours for every person getting on the plane. That would be well over 20 hours waiting to get on. In theory it would be good, but it just wouldn't work in practice.

right now a book isn't, but who's to say that they won't come up with something, like explosive plastique in the binding???

that's why they need to develop something to is faster... we live in a age, where info is easy to find... why can't the most developed country in the world develop a system that checks out passengers when they purchase tickets?

[The Question]

right now a book isn't, but who's to say that they won't come up with something, like explosive plastique in the binding???

I don't think that's even possible. But still, as I said, checking the items a person is carruing on thoroughly would be a better way to go.

that's why they need to develop something to is faster... we live in a age, where info is easy to find... why can't the most developed country in the world develop a system that checks out passengers when they purchase tickets?

The computers are plenty fast. But it still takes time to go through all of a person's background information. Although, doing that right after they purchase the tickets, as you said, would be a solution.

[JokerNick]

I don't think that's even possible. But still, as I said, checking the items a person is carruing on thoroughly would be a better way to go.



The computers are plenty fast. But it still takes time to go through all of a person's background information. Although, doing that right after they purchase the tickets, as you said, would be a solution.

you never know... who ever thought there would be a shoe bomb.........

but they can be faster... that's the thing... just make it a law that tickets need to be purchased X amount of time before departure.......

[The Question]

you never know... who ever thought there would be a shoe bomb.........

I mean that I don't think plastic explosives are stable enough to be put in a book binding.

but they can be faster... that's the thing... just make it a law that tickets need to be purchased X amount of time before departure.......

I just agreed with you on that.

[jaguarr]

Are you watching the same news as the rest of us? :confused:


My TV has channels other than FOX News, so I probably don't watch the same news as you. :)

jag

[JokerNick]

I mean that I don't think plastic explosives are stable enough to be put in a book binding.



I just agreed with you on that.

you never know tho..... gum stick expolsives, it's not impossible....

I know:cool:

[JokerNick]

My TV has channels other than FOX News, so I probably don't watch the same news as you. :)

jag


SNAP!

he may also get his info from the colbert report

[jaguarr]

SNAP!

he may also get his info from the colbert report

I actually know people who don't get that Colbert's schtick is a spoof that's meant to be funny. They think he's just awesome for "telling it like it is". Scary.

jag

[JokerNick]

^well, I think Ignorant American should have his own show...... it would be like American Dad most likely

[The Question]

I actually know people who don't get that Colbert's schtick is a spoof that's meant to be funny. They think he's just awesome for "telling it like it is". Scary.

jag

Wow. You know people who are idiots.

[jaguarr]

Wow. You know people who are idiots.

Yes, I do. I call them "co-workers". :(

jag

[Jason Martell]

and when they know that's your plan, they go with granny....


excellent point.

[Fighting American]

First of all your straw man argument doesn't work for me, okay? So stop being silly. Did you see me say they should use "profiling only"? Did you? No. Go back and read or stop assuming. I said it's a starting point! They do it for serial killers. It has worked most of the time. Are we okay with offending white males and not middle-eastern ones?


because trying to capture a murdered and trying to prevent terrorism are TOTALLY DIFFERENT.... a murderer did his crime..... a terrorist has to be prevented.... it's like saying, hmmmm, mostly white makes commit murders, so lets ban them from buying guns... that will stop all murders then..... it doesn't work like that, you stop every muslim and search them, but don't stop every white person... who are the terrorist going to use, WHITE PEOPLE..... it's called evolution of tactics.......


It's not that different dude! You have a enough documented evidence to show a pattern. You let the evidence be your guide. And right now it's guiding us to one main group. That blogger listed a lot incidents over the years and this year.

[JokerNick]

It's not that different dude! You have a enough documented evidence to show a pattern. You let the evidence be your guide. And right now it's guiding us to one main group. That blogger listed a lot incidents over the years and this year.

evolution... you still don't get it.... christ sake, you are ignorant... not everything is black and white, or muslima and white as you would like to see it

[Fighting American]

evolution... you still don't get it.... christ sake, you are ignorant... not everything is black and white, or muslima and white as you would like to see it


I can't possibly be as ignorant as someone so over-come with PC that he's willing to ignore what is clearly seen as a pattern.

[Whirlysplat]

Of course racial profiling is used. It would be foolish not to. It's not racist, it's expedient. It's saved lives in the UK recently.

- Whirly

[Fighting American]

Found another article of interest:

The Necessity of Profilingby Robert Spencer
Posted Aug 16, 2006


To profile or not to profile? On Tuesday, terrorism charges were dropped against two Muslims from Dearborn, Mich., who had been arrested in Ohio. Ali Houssaiky and Osama Sabhi Abulhassan had been stopped for a traffic violation a week before; in their car, sheriff’s deputies found $11,000 in cash, airline passenger lists, material about airport security procedures, and twelve cell phones. It turned out that they had bought 600 cell phones recently.

Cell phones can be used as detonators. They’re also a ready means of non-traceable communication, as well as an easy source of ready cash, as they can be resold to people who don’t want their calls traceable. But public defender Ray Smith, said of his client, Abulhassan, at a hearing: “If his name was Joe Smith, we wouldn’t be here. His origin and appearance and name condition us to (think), ‘Oh my gosh, he’s a terrorist.’” The dropping of charges will only reinforce this impression, despite the fact that prosecutor James Schneider said that he still might press terrorism-related charges against the pair. According to AP, “Relatives of the men said they were just trying to make money by reselling the phones and were targeted because of their Arab backgrounds.”

Of course, however unpleasant or politically inconvenient a fact it may be, young Muslim Arab males are responsible for the overwhelming majority of terrorist violence around the world today. Since 9/11 Islamic jihadists have perpetrated well over 5,000 terror attacks; no other group even comes close. Sane and courageous law enforcement officials will therefore subject young Muslim males to greater scrutiny, within the bounds of the law -- and political correctness can take the hindmost.

Profiling, of course, is imperfect. Islam is not a race. Adherents of the jihad ideology can be found among all races: as John Walker Lindh, Jose Padilla, Richard Reid, Ismail Royer, and Hasan Akbar can attest. All those men have in common is that they are converts to Islam -- a phenomenon that doesn’t necessarily have any outward signs. Nonetheless, the fact remains that young Middle Eastern males have committed a disproportionate amount of violent terror attacks in recent years. Accordingly, it is simply a waste of resources to subject all airline passengers, from grandmothers to toddlers, to equal scrutiny, while refusing to spend more time investigating passengers who come from the group from which most terrorists spring nowadays.

After uncovering the recent jihadist airplane plot in Great Britain, British officials have begun moving toward this. Yet Metropolitan Police Chief Superintendent Ali Desai declared: “What you are suggesting is that we should have a new offence in this country called ‘traveling whilst Asian.’ What we don’t want to do is actually alienate the very communities who are going to help us catch terrorists.” And of course, we don’t want to do that. But those communities themselves have to take responsibility for the fact that jihadists have lived and recruited and plotted in their midst, generally with no fear that their coreligionists would turn them in. While Muslim tipsters helped expose the latest airplane hijacking plot, and that is highly commendable, all too often the wrath of the Muslim communities in America and Britain has been focused on anti-terror efforts and the foreign policy of their governments -- when what is needed instead is an understanding of and tolerance for the need for profiling. But Muhammad Abdul Bari of the Muslim Council of Britain huffed: “If the profiling is done on the basis of race and religion, it will be wrong, it is not going to work.”

Why not? All the September 11 hijackers were Muslims. So were the July 7 London bombers. And the Madrid train bombers of March 2004. All the plotters in the recent hijacking attempt are Muslims. All were working on the basis of Islamic theology. Why must officials continue not to notice this? To ignore this is to give up voluntarily the one thing that may make it possible to spot the perpetrators of a terror attack before it happens, and head it off. In other words, it is suicidal.

Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)" and the forthcoming "The Truth About Muhammad" (both from Regnery -- a HUMAN EVENTS sister company

[SJBKAT]

Of course racial profiling is used. It would be foolish not to. It's not racist, it's expedient. It's saved lives in the UK recently.

- Whirly

Fraid you are right. And for the record, this isn't racial profiling. It's Terrorist profiling. Seeing as how most if not all the terrorists right now are muslims 16-40, then there is noting racial about it. Plain and simple fact. People (usually democrats) are always itching to place the race card during times like these.

[Fighting American]

This is disturbing...........

Give Us Shari'a, UK Muslim Leaders Tell Gov't
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
August 16, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - British Muslim leaders meeting with government representatives to discuss ways of combating extremism are calling for the establishment of Islamic law (shari'a) to govern Muslims' family life.

"We told her if you give us religious rights, we will be in a better position to convince [Muslim] young people that they are being treated equally along with other citizens," said Syed Aziz Pasha, secretary general of the Union of Muslim Organizations of the U.K. and Ireland.

Pasha was among some 30 Muslim leaders, described as moderates, who met with Ruth Kelly, the minister responsible for communities, amid raging debate in the country over what to do about the terror threat.

The government is appealing to Muslim figures to work harder to prevent extremist views from taking root in their communities, particularly among young people.

The campaign was accelerated after the July 2005 London bombings, and given new urgency in recent days after police discovered what they said was a conspiracy to blow up U.S.-bound aircraft, killing thousands of air passengers and crew.

As of Tuesday, police were holding 24 suspects, all reported to be Muslims.

Pasha stressed that he was calling for the introduction of shari'a codes covering marriage and family life, and not for criminal offenses.

Shari'a is controversial because it provides for punishments including limb amputation for theft and death for apostasy. The legal code is applied in varying degrees in countries including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan and Indonesia.

Shari'a in family affairs deals with issues such as dowry, inheritance and sharing of assets. In some traditions it also allows men to beat wives who refuse to obey them and won't submit to non-physical admonition, and to end a marriage by declaring "I divorce you" three times.

Pasha said Muslim leaders were ready to cooperate with the government, but wanted a partnership."They should understand our problems then we will understand their problems."

Other Muslim leaders, however, disagreed. Khalid Mahmood, one of four Muslim lawmakers in the House of Commons, said shari'a could not apply in Britain because it was not an Islamic state.

An ICM poll of British Muslims earlier this year found 40 percent of respondents supported the introduction of shari'a in predominantly Muslim areas of Britain, while 41 percent were opposed to the idea.

About 2.7 percent of Britain's 60 million people are Muslims. In another opinion survey of Muslims this year, by polling company NOP, 22 percent of respondents agreed that the London bombings, which killed 52 people, were justified because of Britain's foreign policies. Among Muslims aged under 45, the figure rose to 31 percent.

Exposure of the airline bomb plot led to the introduction of unprecedented security measures at British airports, causing major disruption.

Media reports say the government is considering introducing a system of "profiling," to ensure security staff focus attention on those considered more likely to be suspect -- because of behavior or ethnic/religious background -- and so ease congestion at airports over the longer term. The government has not confirmed the reports.

Muslim Council of Britain General Secretary Muhammad Abdul Bari said the proposal could have the effect of discouraging Muslims from cooperating with police. If profiling was based on race or religion, it would be wrong, he told Sky News.

In another meeting this week, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott met with Muslim lawmakers who earlier had put their names to an open letter saying the government's foreign policies were providing "ammunition to extremists."

The letter, whose signatories included representatives of all major mainstream Muslim organizations, sparked a strong backlash from ministers, who said foreign policy could not be dictated by terrorists.

Heritage Foundation scholar Nile Gardiner called the letter a wake-up call to the government.

"It shatters any illusions that the government's policy of engagement with leading 'moderate' Muslim groups since the 2005 London bombings has reaped any benefits," he said in a memo.

Gardiner urged the British government to "reject the message of appeasement" and for inquiries to be made into links between leading Muslim groups and radical organizations and individuals.

"Britain needs a new generation of Muslim leaders who are untainted by association with, or sympathy for, Islamic extremism and who are proud of their British identity," he said.

"They must be willing to condemn terrorism unequivocally and help root out extremists from Muslim communities."



Does this sound slightly like "extortion"? No one told this people to come and live in Western society. So now you want an Islamic form of law to keep your fellow Muslims in check?? What?? They can't obey the western law that already exists??? If they want Shari'a, then go back to the middle east!! Until then, assimilate like everybody else! :nono:

And what's disturbing to me is that this is type of thinking is coming from "moderate" Muslims???? :confused:

[squeekness]

Why would anyone VOLUNTEER for Sha'ria law? You would think in the counties that generally have a higher level of education that these things would be abhorrant. Especially among Muslim women...unless nobody bothered to ask them. :meanie:

[Fighting American]

Why would anyone VOLUNTEER for Sha'ria law? You would think in the counties that generally have a higher level of education that these things would be abhorrant. Especially among Muslim women...unless nobody bothered to ask them. :meanie:


Isn't that the law that says it's okay to beat your wife?

[Fighting American]

When Denial Can Kill

We Muslims must admit that our religion might be motivating the bombers
By IRSHAD MANJI
http://extremecentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/Irshad%20Manji.jpg



SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR
Posted Sunday, Jul. 17, 2005
I was surprised last week to learn how easily some Westerners believe terrorism can be explained. The realization unfolded as I looked into the sad face of a student at Oxford University. After giving a speech about Islam, I met this young magazine editor to talk about Islam's lost tradition of critical thinking and reasoned debate. But we never got to that topic. Instead, we got stuck on the July 7 bombings in London and what might have compelled four young, British-raised, observant Muslim men to blow themselves up while taking innocent others with them.

She emphasized their "relative economic deprivation." I answered that the lads had immigrant parents who had worked hard to make something of themselves. I reminded her that several of the 9/11 hijackers came from wealthy families, and it's not as if they left the boys out of the will. Finally, I told her about my conversation three years ago with the political leader of Islamic Jihad in Gaza. "What's the difference between suicide, which the Koran condemns, and martyrdom?" I asked. "Suicide," he replied, "is done out of despair. But remember: most of our martyrs today were very successful in their earthly lives." In short, there was a future to live for--and they detonated it anyway.

By this time, the Oxford student had grown somber. It was clear I had let her down. I had failed to appreciate that the London bombers were victims of British society. To be fair to her, she is right that marginalization, real or perceived, diminishes self-esteem. Which, in turn, can make young people vulnerable to those peddling a radical message of instant belonging. But suppose the messages being peddled are marinated in religious rhetoric. Then wouldn't you say religion plays some role in motivating these atrocities?

The student shifted uncomfortably. She just couldn't bring herself to examine my suggestion seriously. And I suppose I couldn't expect her to. Not when Muslim leaders themselves won't go there. Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general for the Muslim Council of Britain, is an example. In the midst of a debate with me, he listed potential incentives to bomb, including "alienation" and "segregation." But Islam? God forbid that the possibility even be entertained.

That is the dangerous denial from which mainstream Muslims need to emerge. While our spokesmen assure us that Islam is an innocent bystander in today's terrorism, those who commit terrorist acts often tell us otherwise. Mohammed Atta, ringleader of the Sept. 11 hijackers, left behind a note asserting that "it is enough for us to know that the Koran's verses are the words of the Creator of the Earth and all the planets." Atta highlighted the Koran's description of heaven. In 2004 the executioners of Nick Berg, an American contractor in Iraq, alluded on tape to a different Koranic passage: "Whoever kills a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind." The spirit of that verse forbids aggressive warfare, but the clause beginning with except is readily deployed by militant Muslims as a loophole. If you want murder and villainy in the land, they say, look no further than U.S. bootprints in Arab soil.
For too long, we Muslims have been sticking fingers in our ears and chanting "Islam means peace" to drown out the negative noise from our holy book. Far better to own up to it. Not erase or revise, just recognize it and thereby join moderate Jews and Christians in confessing "sins of Scripture," as an American bishop says about the Bible. In doing so, Muslims would show a thoughtful side that builds trust with the wider communities of the West.

We could then cultivate the support to inspire cross-cultural understanding. For instance, schools throughout the West should teach how Islamic civilization helped give birth to the European Renaissance. Some of the first universities in recorded history sprang up in 3rd century Iran, 9th century Baghdad and 10th century Cairo. The Muslim world gave us mocha coffee, the guitar and even the Spanish expression olé! (which has its root in the Arabic word Allah). Muslim students would learn there is no shame in defending the values of pluralism. Non-Muslim students would learn that those values took great inspiration from Islamic culture. All would learn that Islam and the West are more interdependent than divided.

Still, as long as Muslims live in pretense, we will be affirming that we have something to hide. It's not enough for us to protest that radicals are exploiting Islam as a sword. Of course they are. Now, moderate Muslims must stop exploiting Islam as a shield--one that protects us from authentic introspection and our neighbors from genuine understanding.


Page 1 of 2 1 | 2 Next


Where are more Muslim like this woman???

[squeekness]

People need to realize that not all Muslims are bad. In fact, it is only a slim minority that's causing the most damage. What I don't get is why more Muslims aren't trying to stop those that are perverting what Islam really stands for?

[jaguarr]

People need to realize that not all Muslims are bad. In fact, it is only a slim minority that's causing the most damage. What I don't get is why more Muslims aren't trying to stop those that are perverting what Islam really stands for?


Why don't more Christians try to stop the fundamentalist one's who are perverting what Christianity really stands for with their bombing of abortion clinics and protesting dead soldier's funerals and strongly advocating war in the Middle East because they think it's going to bring about the Rapture? :confused:

jag

[Fighting American]

Why don't more Christians try to stop the fundamentalist one's who are perverting what Christianity really stands for with their bombing of abortion clinics and protesting dead soldier's funerals and strongly advocating war in the Middle East because they think it's going to bring about the Rapture? :confused:

jag


Those things happen and are spotty at best. And when they are done, they are openly condemned by Christians. But it is no where the scope or magnitude of the Islamists. This stuff is happening all over the world. By the way Jesus never took up the sword against His enemies. Muhammad did. So are the bombers of those clinics truly Christians? The Islamists are definitely following Muhammads example.

[eclipsedman]

Why don't more Christians try to stop the fundamentalist one's who are perverting what Christianity really stands for with their bombing of abortion clinics and protesting dead soldier's funerals and strongly advocating war in the Middle East because they think it's going to bring about the Rapture? :confused:

jag

Probably because in all honestly most of the Muslims believe that way. I know about the Abortion clinic bombings and they are quite rare these days but I haven't heard of any Christian organization that advocates war to start the Rapture(not even mentioned in the Bible by the way).

[Fighting American]

Probably because in all honestly most of the Muslims believe that way. I know about the Abortion clinic bombings and they are quite rare these days but I haven't heard of any Christian organization that advocates war to start the Rapture(not even mentioned in the Bible by the way).


But Iran's president believes that he can usher in Allah's return by starting a war.

[Ewok Droppings]

But Iran's president believes that he can usher in Allah's return by starting a war.
He probably can - if it's against Israel.

[squeekness]

It's just truly sad that when most folks think of Islam, they think of terror and death when in fact Islam is normally a passive, peaceful religion. Islam is going to destroy itself by its bad reputation which is a real shame. These radicals want to spread militant Islam across the world, I can only hope that peoeple will be in such fear of it that that will never happen. I much prefer Jesus' message of peace and forgiveness and acceptance for everyone.

Probably because in all honestly most of the Muslims believe that way. I know about the Abortion clinic bombings and they are quite rare these days but I haven't heard of any Christian organization that advocates war to start the Rapture(not even mentioned in the Bible by the way).The most I have heard about this from Christians is one of the big Evangelical leaders (Pat Roberts maybe?)was saying that some of them were watching the war in Lebanon with great interest because if the Rapture does come, it will supposedly have its first signs in Middle Eastern conflict. I do not hold to these beliefs. When Jesus comes again He will come in his own way and in his own fashion and will most likely be in some way humanity could never have predicted. He did say that when he comes again, there will be no doubt of what is happening and it will be seen across the whole world. I don't think this petty exchange if missiles qualifies for that. :)

Isn't that the law that says it's okay to beat your wife?Yes, but the law isn't all about that. It has some good things in it about family responsibility, but some peoeple use the more radical aspects of it to control others. I read an article where it was said that most aspects of Shi'rai law came about becuase of extensive political corruption. This law tries to stamp out those flaws but it is sadly so legalistic that it can be used to exploit and harm the weakest citizens, mostly women and children. One man described it as creating laws to do away with all sin because men could not restrain themselves. They cover up women to avoid temptation. I think this isn't a good way to fight sin, not if it ultimately breeds hate and abuse.

[Fighting American]

It's just truly sad that when most folks think of Islam, they think of terror and death when in fact Islam is normally a passive, peaceful religion. Islam is going to destroy itself by its bad reputation which is a real shame. These radicals want to spread militant Islam across the world, I can only hope that peoeple will be in such fear of it that that will never happen. I much prefer Jesus' message of peace and forgiveness and acceptance for everyone.

Passive and peaceful? It didn't even start out that way.Muhammad converted by the sword. Jesus converted by a verbal message. Now I know you will bring up the "Crusades". But that was not the founder doing that. Even if it was done in His name, what does that mean if he wasn't there doing the killing? How do you think Northern Africa became Muslim? It was not by choice.


The most I have heard about this from Christians is one of the big Evangelical leaders (Pat Roberts maybe?)was saying that some of them were watching the war in Lebanon with great interest because if the Rapture does come, it will supposedly have its first signs in Middle Eastern conflict. I do not hold to these beliefs. When Jesus comes again He will come in his own way and in his own fashion and will most likely be in some way humanity could never have predicted. He did say that when he comes again, there will be no doubt of what is happening and it will be seen across the whole world. I don't think this petty exchange if missiles qualifies for that. :)


I'm not a Pat Robertson fan. He truly spouts off at the mouth too much. There are many "end-times" views. We all agree that Christ will return. We differ in "HOW" He will do it.

Yes, but the law isn't all about that. It has some good things in it about family responsibility, but some peoeple use the more radical aspects of it to control others. I read an article where it was said that most aspects of Shi'rai law came about becuase of extensive political corruption. This law tries to stamp out those flaws but it is sadly so legalistic that it can be used to exploit and harm the weakest citizens, mostly women and children. One man described it as creating laws to do away with all sin because men could not restrain themselves. They cover up women to avoid temptation. I think this isn't a good way to fight sin, not if it ultimately breeds hate and abuse.

You can beat your wife??? Your weaker vessell?? Your soul mate?? And it's really not about that?? You're a female and saying this?? I am continually dumbfounded by the kinds of people that continue to whitewash or give a pass to the some of the most vile things this religion brings to the table. If you can beat your wife for "ANY" reason, what can you tell me about "FAMILY"? Really. What can you say? :nono: Family starts with the Father and Mother. If he is giving the beat down (for any reason) that ain't a happy home.

[jaguarr]

You people really need to learn the difference between Islam EXTREMISTS and normal, average practitioners of Islam. They're not the same thing. At all.

jag

[squeekness]

You can beat your wife??? Your weaker vessell?? Your soul mate?? And it's really not about that?? You're a female and saying this?? I am continually dumbfounded by the kinds of people that continue to whitewash or give a pass to the some of the most vile things this religion brings to the table. If you can beat your wife for "ANY" reason, what can you tell me about "FAMILY"? Really. What can you say? :nono: Family starts with the Father and Mother. If he is giving the beat down (for any reason) that ain't a happy home. Look back and you will see that I was NOT agreeing with this. I think it is stupid to pass a bunch of laws to eliminate temptation instead of having the moral fortitude to beat it yourself. What I was trying to say is that in spite of many laws I do not agree with, the Shi'ria way of life does promote many family values that I think are lacking in today's society. I just don't get how they can say on one hand honor your wife and mother, and yet it also allows for forceful home correction. But hey, Abrahimic law is like that -- on hand God commands that you don't kill, but yet the Bible (Old Testament) says that gays and adulterers are to be stoned.

One of the things I can appreciate about Christianity is the overwhelming message of grace and forgiveness. We should not be judging anyone. This message of peace and forgiveness and grace is absent in Judaism and Islam and I think that's what lends to their militaristic viewpoints. "Get them before they get us" is a sign of a lack of grace and compassion for others. They have an "us and them" mentality where Christianity, when properly applied, has simply an Us, as in we are all one people. When we read John and see Jesus intervening on behalf of the adulteress that was to be stoned, insert any maligned person her place -- gay, black, Muslim -- and see that they are to be treated the same as that adulterous woman. Hate the sin, but not the sinner. That's the difference Jesus made and it's the only one I will follow because it simply makes the best sense to me. :)

You people really need to learn the difference between Islam EXTREMISTS and normal, average practitioners of Islam. They're not the same thing. At all.

jagExactly, I was trying to say the same thing myself. Extremists are giving Islam a bad name it does not neccessarily deserve.