| Author | Message | ||
     Dave Supporter Username: Dave  Post Number: 10458 Registered: 4-1997  |
What profiling would have worked? a) racial b) travel history c) age answer: b and c | ||
| Costanza Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1751 Registered: 8-2004  |
d) Muslim convert | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1377 Registered: 4-2006 |
Winston- As for "Reid" guess we would not profile a bearded,unkept guy, fidgeting and mumbling to himself and dressed inappropriately  . We need to : 1) limit visas of all sorts from muslim nations, 2) check passports to see where the holder has been, and 3) profile like crazy because it is MUCH HARDER to recruit westerners for suicide missions. Nothing is perfect, but if we can reduce our risk by any percentage it is well worth doing. Bob K- And yes Bob, being patriotic I would certainly let Heidi Klum strip-search me at the airport.  | ||
| Project 37 Citizen Username: Project37 Post Number: 234 Registered: 3-2006  |
 Try again. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2949 Registered: 6-2002 |
What do these suspects have in common? This is a hard one so please take your time. A) Male B) Under 30 C) British citizen D) Muslim sounding name The following I'm not sure about: E) Born in Great Britain F) Certain height? G) Certain weight? H) Not gay I) right handed? left handed? ( I read somewhere that left-handedness is statistically the most reliable determinent of criminality) J) Have never been to dinner at BobK's house. I guess I could go on for ever. | ||
| S.L.K. 2.0 Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1862 Registered: 10-2005  |
if a fox keeps breaking in to your hen house you don't go hunting a wolf... -SLK | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2950 Registered: 6-2002 |
fox = Al Queda wolf = Saddam Hussein | ||
| S.L.K. 2.0 Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1866 Registered: 10-2005 |
(sound of SLK's last post going right over anons head) | ||
| pcs81632 Citizen Username: Pcs81632 Post Number: 104 Registered: 6-2002  |
Sorry, SLK. anon gets it. | ||
| S.L.K. 2.0 Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1867 Registered: 10-2005 |
pcs- let me spell it out for you. If young, male, arab muslims keep blowing things up you hunt young, male, arab muslims... when young, white christians begin being the vast majority blowing things up you hunt young, white christians... simple enough for you? god that was tough... if you don't see any type of connection between the WOT and Hussein in all this then you are truly oblivious.... -SLK | ||
| John Citizen Username: Jdm Post Number: 105 Registered: 3-2006 |
Security experts (like Bruce Schneier) are in general agreement that this kind of racial profiling will simply cause terrorists to switch to new carriers. That is, if we start stopping every red-haired young woman who is getting on a plane, terrorists will stop using red-haird young women as bombers. It's a game of how to spend limited resources. In this case, spending them on checking every member of one group while allowing members of every other group to pass by is less efficient than other mechanisms. Schneier on profiling (This BTW is one of the reasons why the random searches on NYC subways is wasteful: not because it's random - that's the good part - but because all a bomber has to do when entering a station with a search is to walk a few blocks to the next stop where there isn't one. So these searches don't stop anyone with an ounce of determination, but they do cost a lot of money and time that could be spent elsewhere.) | ||
| pcs81632 Citizen Username: Pcs81632 Post Number: 106 Registered: 6-2002 |
SLK I'm all for profiling. If middle aged, German-Irish Americans attacked this country, then my brief case should be examined daily. I'm also in favor of eliminating any threat to this country, either foreign or domestic. You made the following comment, which anon caught you on: "if a fox keeps breaking in to your hen house you don't go hunting a wolf..." anon's comment was: fox = Al Queda wolf = Saddam Hussein A perfect simile. anon caught you and turned your own words back at you. anon get's it, and you don't. Following your own logic explain to me again why the United States is in Iraq. We were attacked by agents of the Taliban who resided in Afghanistan. As the 9/11 Commission concluded, and the Bush Administration admitted, Iraq had no connection to the attacks of 9/11. No one has been able to answer those conflicting facts. And if you can, then you're my candidate for President of the United States. | ||
| Costanza Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1752 Registered: 8-2004 |
Perhaps you can ask the same question of the many Democratics who signed this. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html | ||
| Aasif Citizen Username: Aasif Post Number: 2 Registered: 8-2006  |
Clearly the world needs to listen to people who hide behind photos of television stars on message boards. | ||
| Costanza Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1753 Registered: 8-2004 |
Aasif with two posts you are overdue for a Sona review. | ||
| Aasif Citizen Username: Aasif Post Number: 3 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thank you very much for offering to introduce me to your sister. When should I expect your call? | ||
| SO Ref Citizen Username: So_refugee Post Number: 2078 Registered: 2-2005  |
He had to choose "Costanza" because Dave and Jamie wouldn't allow "Grand Imperial Wizard" | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1400 Registered: 4-2006 |
John- Harder to find if you read about Al Queda, and those converts who have been hanging around the mosques or gone abroad to study islam are already being surveilled. Aasif- Suggest you use " Newman". | ||
| Ender Citizen Username: Enderw Post Number: 94 Registered: 4-2006 |
Richard Reid - Muslim convert " His son fell into a life of petty crime and in the mid-1990s was jailed for a string of muggings, for which he served sentences in a number of prisons, including Feltham young offenders' institution in west London. It was while at Feltham that Reid is said to have converted to Islam. " Project 37 writes: Aren't you cute? Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Eric Rudolph, John Walker Lindh (Muslim convert), Jose Padilla (Muslim convert), Ted Kaczynski. You can tell who's a bad guy, 'cause "they" all look the same. " FVF - it is great - you suggest racial profiling and they come back over and over again with 'mcveigh, nichols, rudolph, lindh, padilla, kaczynski.' two of the six were muslim converts. mcveigh/nichols worked together and struck a government building, not civilians - not defending it at all - but it's a different animal. So - let's try again - maybe some type of racial profiling might work as part of the overall terrorism deterrent? No - look at rudolph and kacynski - they weren't muslims therefore we should do no profiling whatsover. It is a stupid argument on the part of the anti-profilers. because two non-Muslims bombed innocent civilians while the rest were Muslims, that makes profiling politically incorrect. Until the looney left gets it that we are in a war, this will not go well. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1868 Registered: 10-2004  |
Costanza is an intelligent poster and raises legitimate issues (even if he is incorrect). When aasif gets some more posts under his belt we will see where his viewpoints are. OK Guy? The first thing that we should stop doing is calling it racial profiling. Its not. It is religious profiling. People named Muhammed can be Christian just as easily as they can be Muslim. Dave is far closer to uncovering a potential threat by looking at the persons travel history and age then by looking at their race. Racial profiling is a recipe for chaos. Fighting terrorism is only going to be successful when we eliminate the source of funding of the terrorists, eliminate the full leadership of the terrorists, change the educational system that teaches hatred. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1406 Registered: 4-2006 |
Hoops- You should be working for the New York Lottery: " a dollar and a dream". | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1872 Registered: 10-2004 |
I prefer my method to yours. Mine may be harder to accomplish but at least it guarantees success. Yours is indiscriminate murder. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1410 Registered: 4-2006 |
Awwww. Your politics are clear, your credentials less so. I don't give a cr#@ about repubs or dems, but protecting this country. "Indiscriminate murder" is pure bs and politically correct hooey. | ||
| hariseldon Citizen Username: Hariseldon Post Number: 441 Registered: 5-2001  |
Most Muslims are not terrorists. Most terrorists are Muslims. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1875 Registered: 10-2004 |
Your politics are clear as well. Your credentials? who gives a rats •••. I dont thing either party has a lock on how to protect America. The bottom line is Americans want to be both secure and free. Political correctness? If its not murder you are professing, then please recommend how you are keeping this country safe. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1414 Registered: 4-2006 |
Hoops- Ready for a reading list yet, or do you still want to just pontificate? | ||
| SO Ref Citizen Username: So_refugee Post Number: 2079 Registered: 2-2005 |
 Tell that to the families of the children like Baylee Almon who was at the daycare center [in that aforementioned government building] that was annihilated... | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2347 Registered: 8-2003  |
FVF, stopping a guy with that description is not racial profiling, it's behavioral profiling which is not only legitimate, it's virtually mandatory. are you purposely being obtuse? your arguments don't even hang together logically. | ||
| John Citizen Username: Jdm Post Number: 107 Registered: 3-2006 |
Hoops wrote:
Umm, I seriously doubt that latter statement is true, if what you mean is that men named Muhammed are equally likely to be Christian as Muslim. Also, some in this thread are quite clearly talking about racial profiling. E.g., SLK: If young, male, arab muslims keep blowing things up you hunt young, male, arab muslims... Never mind the choice of verb there. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2962 Registered: 6-2002 |
"arab muslims"? I thought the guys in the recent plot were British of Pakistani descent. I don't think there are any Christians named Muhammad or any Muslims named Jesus (or even Christina). | ||
| Project 37 Citizen Username: Project37 Post Number: 236 Registered: 3-2006 |
If you're trying to prove a point and look superior in the process, using phrases like "the looney left" earns you zero points. Racial profiling is pointless, but your mistake is that you're too quick to use that notion as yet another example of "how the libs don't get it." Stop. You are not as clever as you think you're being. As John pointed out above, if you focus your time and energy on singling out what seems like the obvious (i.e., physical appearance), the intelligent terrorist (and yes, they *are* intelligent) will switch to a new tactic. Looking for brown guys? They'll deploy more white/black/yellow/green ones. They'll change their names too. Conducting "random" searches at the 42nd Street station in Midtown? They'll board at 110th Street. Get off your high horse, stop looking for weak excuses to bash "the looney left" (  ), open your eyes, and see that it isn't about "being PC". It's about an effective use of resources. Saying "two non-Muslims outta six terrorists ain't bad" is naive at best and juvenile ignorance at worst. | ||
| Ender Citizen Username: Enderw Post Number: 103 Registered: 4-2006 |
I don't believe you when you say it is about effective use of resources. If we had limitless resources, you would still be against religious or racial profiling regardless of the situation we are in. Religious/racial profiling in a time of peace or for finding speeders on the Garden State Parkway, I'm sure we would agree is wrong. Where you and I differ is that when we are at war, we have to sacrifice some of our civil liberties. Many people think we are not at war. I happen to think we are. I may be wrong or right - too early to tell. Using race or religion or any other singling out strategy as a means to identify who might be trying to blow up our planes ahead of time makes a lot of sense to me, even if it is politically incorrect in a peacetime scenario. Project - I would agree I am not as much of a wordsmith and linguist as you are, I apogize profusely. And believe me, I am not trying to be 'clever'. As for the terrorists using green people once we start looking for brown people, I agree they would. And then we should start focussing on the new tactic. | ||
| SO Ref Citizen Username: So_refugee Post Number: 2081 Registered: 2-2005 |
I would assume that you do not fit the profile of your stereotypical "terrorist" so I'd hazard that you're probably not sacrificing as many civil liberties as the flyer with darker skin and harder to pronounce name suffering through a cavity search... | ||
| Project 37 Citizen Username: Project37 Post Number: 237 Registered: 3-2006 |
What are you apologizing for? As for "not trying to be clever", why else would you resort to childish namecalling (i.e., "the looney left")? You're never going to get someone to hear your side if you want to dismiss them with nicknames.
Of course I would. Limitless resources or not, it's still ineffective for the exact reasons outlined above. Reread them again. If you insist on continuing to profile based on what you *think* is the obvious, they will only use that approach to work against us. Your one or two "non-Muslims" will slip by and create unimaginable damage, yet somehow you're okay with that. What you don't seem to grasp is that the number of people that elude your profiling methods will only increase, making the whole profiling process even more worthless. The better strategy is to remain one step ahead of your enemy. Yet you say that you don't want to focus on the non-obvious until after they've struck? Look at the picture above from Oklahoma. Is that just "collateral damage"? Profiling distracts you from the bigger picture at hand. These are serious times, where we need to remain ahead of the game, and not get sidetracked with bogus screening procedures (not to mention shouting down your fellow Americans who are pointing out the strategic mistake you're pursuing). By playing into the myth of profiling's "effectiveness", you are underestimating the mind of the terrorist, and they are using that to their full advantage against you. Now tell me who's really not appreciating the realities of a wartime situation. | ||
| Ender Citizen Username: Enderw Post Number: 105 Registered: 4-2006 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Project - I would agree I am not as much of a wordsmith and linguist as you are, I apogize profusely. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What are you apologizing for? As for "not trying to be clever", why else would you resort to childish namecalling (i.e., "the looney left")? You're never going to get someone to hear your side if you want to dismiss them with nicknames. I wasn't calling you part of the looney left, why would you think that? Proj37 wrote: "Of course I would. Limitless resources or not, it's still ineffective for the exact reasons outlined above. Reread them again. " I'm assuming when you wrote 'of course I would', that you mean you would oppose profiling - religious, racial, all other types. However, above you said that you opposed it not because it is politically incorrect but rather because "It's about an effective use of resources. ". You suggested I reread them again, I did. You said what you said - I pointed out what you said - and now you are disagreeing with what you said. | ||
| Ender Citizen Username: Enderw Post Number: 106 Registered: 4-2006 |
Proj writes: "If you insist on continuing to profile based on what you *think* is the obvious, they will only use that approach to work against us. Your one or two "non-Muslims" will slip by and create unimaginable damage, yet somehow you're okay with that. What you don't seem to grasp is that the number of people that elude your profiling methods will only increase, making the whole profiling process even more worthless. The better strategy is to remain one step ahead of your enemy. Yet you say that you don't want to focus on the non-obvious until after they've struck? Look at the picture above from Oklahoma. Is that just "collateral damage"? " Proj - you suggest that I or anybody who is in favor of any type of profiling wants to only use that to stop terrorists and drop every other type of pursuit. That is nonsense and it is an attempt to deceive. I don't think anybody who advocates profiling wants to stop doing everything else. I think we all want to stay ahead of the enemy - you make it sound like you came up with that one yourself? You write "Yet you say that you don't want to focus on the non-obvious until after they've struck? I am pretty sure I didn't say that, mainly because I don't know what you are talking about. If you think that the FBI or police forces should have been able to catch McVeigh, then I think you are in favor of more surveillance of civilians than me or just about anybody I know. There are going to be crazy people out there, no matter what we do. | ||
| Ender Citizen Username: Enderw Post Number: 107 Registered: 4-2006 |
Proj - do you think any type of profiling is OK? | ||
| Project 37 Citizen Username: Project37 Post Number: 238 Registered: 3-2006 |
I read your posts and inferred that having an anti-profiling position = "looney left" in your book.
Okay, here's a refresher:
This reads as: "Once they start using different tactics, then we can worry about it. For now it's brown guys with funny names, so let's go with what we think we know." If you meant something else, please clarify.
This is where you are getting tangled up: Dismissing legitimate criticism of the process as "stupid." It is not a "looney left" angle to anti-profiling. It is questioning the effectiveness of the process in the first place. The point of citing guys like McVeigh, Rudolph, Kacynski (and there are more if you open your eyes) is to highlight the fact that terrorists don't all fit into one nice little box or one convenient basic profile.
I don't remember saying either of those things.
Yes. And they come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and creeds. Singling out one isn't going to protect you.
I question its effectiveness in the grand scheme of things. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2989 Registered: 6-2002 |
If you uncover a terrorist plot by males in their 20s, living in Britain, of Pakistani descent, of the Muslim religion, who are acting from a belief that their religion compels them to so act (whether true or not) it makes sense to "profile" or investigate persons meeting all those demographics. To react by investigating all males is sexist. To react by investigating all people, male and female, in their 20s is ageist. To react by investigating all those of Pakistani descent, whatever their gender or age, or religious beliefs, is whatever the word is for prejudice againt someone based on nationality. To react by investigating all Muslims, even all young Muslim males, including those from Indonesia, Nigeria or Albania, is anti-religious bigotry. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2990 Registered: 6-2002 |
To put the above in sound-bite form, Does anyone favor profiling Muhammad Ali? |
