| Author | Message | ||
     Project 37 Citizen Username: Project37 Post Number: 239 Registered: 3-2006  |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/23/AR2005072300438. html http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/331264p-283131c.html | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 345 Registered: 1-2006 |
I'm not in favor of profiling Muhamad Ali because his great-grandfather came from County Clare, Ireland. http://www.boxing-memorabilia.com/aliirish.htm Cheers | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 347 Registered: 1-2006 |
August 13, 2006 The One Word Grand Strategy for Westerners and Muslims: "Disconnect" By Steve Sailer Last week, British authorities released the names of 19 British-born individuals arrested for plotting to blow up airliners by smuggling bombs onboard in sports drink bottles: Abdula Ahmed Ali, Cossor Ali, Shazad Khuram Ali, Nabeel Hussain, Tanvir Hussain, Umair Hussain, Umar Islam, Waseem Kayani, Assan Abdullah Khan, Waheed Arafat Khan, Osman Adam Khatib, Abdul Muneem Patel, Tayib Rauf, Muhammed Usman Saddique, Assad Sarwar, Ibrahim Savant, Amin Asmin Tariq, Shamin Mohammed Uddin, and Waheed Zaman. Notice a pattern? Yet, almost five years after 19 Saudi Arabian and Egyptian individuals with similar-sounding names hijacked four airliners and killed 3,000 people on 9/11, the United States government remains committed to not using ethnic profiling to raise the odds of airport security. During his second debate with Al Gore in 2000, George W. Bush, hoping to win the Arab vote in Michigan, promised to eliminate airport profiling: "Secondly, there is other forms [sic] of racial profiling that goes on in America. Arab-Americans are racially profiled in what is called secret evidence [sic]. People are stopped, and we have to do something about that. My friend, Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan, is pushing a law to make sure that Arab-Americans are treated with respect. So racial profiling isn't just an issue at local police forces. It's an issue throughout our society." Although Bush lost Michigan anyway, he began implementing this policy at airports in early 2001, a move which may have contributed to 9/11, although nobody seems interested in this question other than me. In January 2002, an 86-year-old former governor of South Dakota and retired brigadier general named Joe Foss, on his way to give a speech to cadets at West Point, was subjected to the third degree by Phoenix airport security for 45 minutes because the metal detector was set off by his dangerously pointy Congressional Medal of Honor. When I first heard this, I assumed that Bush's anti-profiling rules would be laughed out of existence. I was wrong. Bush has stuck with this plan in the post-9/11 world as adamantly as he has stood by his similarly discredited-by-events obsession with increasing immigration. Indeed, criticism of it has largely died out. Meanwhile last week, inconclusive fighting between Israel and the Hezbollah Shi'ites of South Lebanon inspired a frenzy of apocalyptic war fever among prominent commentators in America, with many lashing out in frustration at Israel's inability to kill satisfactory numbers of Hezbollah guerillas who have burrowed deep into their home turf. Excitable gentlemen claimed once again that we are on the brink of World War III with The New Hitler. (The precise identity of this imminent world-conqueror has varied over the last half decade, depending on the date and the obsession of the pundit, with the Muslim Fuhrer role being filled by bin Laden, Hussein, Zarqawi, Ahmadinejad, and Nasrallah.) The logic of more than a few of these diatribes appear to imply a pressing need for the nuclear genocide of much of the Muslim world. In other words, the Administration and its media shills remain committed to their Grand Strategy of Invade the World - Invite the World. Bomb them over there and indulge them over here. Obviously, when you stop and think about it, that makes no sense whatsoever. So, it's time for a new Grand Strategy to unify domestic and foreign policies for how Westerners should deal with Muslims. Because strategizing routinely fails due to too much Rube Goldbergish complexity, I'll boil it down to one word: Disconnect. Perhaps the most quoted social philosopher of our time famously asked: "Can we all get along?" Well, when it comes to Muslims and Westerners, the answer is: No, we can't. So, deal with it. When we get in each other's faces, we get on each other's nerves. It's time to get out of each other's faces. Westerners and Muslims don't agree on the basics of social order and don't want to live under the same rules. That shouldn't be a problem because that's what separate countries are for. We should stop occupying their countries and stop letting them move to ours. To paraphrase E.M. Forster: "Only disconnect." If we start disconnecting now, maybe in a generation or two we'll have forgotten what we've done to each other and can start afresh. Domestic policy: In the long run, as Robert Pape's study of 460 suicide bombings shows, there's a strong correlation between outside occupation and suicide terrorism, so cutting down our footprint in the Muslim world will slowly reduce terrorism against us. But that may take a generation to work itself out. In the meantime, we need to take rational steps to defend ourselves. First, do no more harm. North American and, especially, European countries should stop making their problem worse. It's time to cut off immigration from Muslim countries, with the possible exception of a few more rational places like Turkey and Malaysia. Implement ethnic profiling of Muslims. Treat them with suspicion. If they don't like it, they can leave. Enforce the laws against cousin marriage. Arranged marriages between young Muslim women in the West and their first or second cousins back in the Old Country are the main engines in Europe of de-assimilation and of immigration fraud. I recently received this email: My name is XXX. i'm YYYteen years old and am a muslim girl living in scotland and was wondering if you know of anything that will help me escape marrying an older first cousin from the middle east. I know i sound stupid but i got really freaked when my mum spoke to a relative telling them that she'd still give my hand to my cousin who is years older and tells the relative to wait because i haven't finished school and my other education. Also it is my mum's brother's son i'm supposed to marry and my uncle is really ill and my mum dotes on him. what if my uncle died and that was his dying wish, to have me married to my cousin? how disastrous is that going to be, i mean i don't even like the thought of inbreeding i think it's sick! Please do you know any loopholes in a XXX wedding that will stop me getting married to ZZZ? Please can you help i haven't even finished school or got a job so this has really blown me away! This situation is utterly common. Among married people in Britain of Pakistani background, 55% are married to a first cousin. Not surprisingly, Pakistani children in Britain have very high rates of birth defects. In particular, as I outlined last fall, Europeans need to begin a push-pull system to persuade Muslim legal residents to leave. Deport criminal immigrants, cut transfer-payment subsidies, and lengthen prison terms to push the destructive Muslims with legal residency out of Europe and back to their ancestral countries. Combine that with "buyout offers" paying $25,000 (or more, if necessary) to pull the less successful Muslims out. Foreign Policy: First, calm down, take a deep breath, and get some perspective. Contrary to what is being printed in the neoconservative fever swamps, we are in no danger whatsoever of being conquered by Islam's military might, such as it is. We don't need to nuke large swatches of the Muslim world. The United States is vastly more powerful militarily than all the Muslim-run nations put together. We account for either 48 percent or 49 percent of all military spending in the world. That's almost eight times more than that of all 44 or so Muslim-dominated countries combined. (Of course, in the real world, Muslim nations can seldom get themselves combined over anything.) We have complete air supremacy. We have twelve aircraft carriers, featuring more than 80 percent of the naval aircraft in the world. All the Muslim countries in the world have zero. One obvious reason for the military weakness of Muslims is that, despite much oil, they aren't very economically productive so they are mostly poor. According to the CIA World Factbook, Muslim countries account for just 8.4 of the global GDP, compared to America's 20.3 percent. Interestingly, the notorious Iranians devote only 3.3 percent of their GDP to military spending, while we allot 4.06 percent. The boring fact, one that won't get mentioned much on Fox News because it doesn't help ratings, is that the world became more peaceful and less threatening when the main engine of lethal mischief, the Soviet Union, broke apart. The bottom line is that America, as the lone hyperpower, can severely punish any Muslim state that hurts us, as we showed in Afghanistan in 2001. If necessary, we can conquer and occupy any one of them. That leaves the Muslims with the poor man's ways of war: guerilla resistance and terrorism. What we can't do is occupy them and make them: resemble us politically, socially, or culturally; love us for ruling them; or even merely submit to us, if they really don't want to and we're not willing to slaughter them en masse, as civilized nations seldom are these days. The Israelis found all this out when they invaded Lebanon in 1982. The Shi'ites of Southern Lebanon initially cheered Ariel Sharon's tanks because the Israelis were coming to drive out the Palestinian immigrants whom the Shi'ites hated. But being occupied gets old quick, and soon Hezbollah was organizing attacks. Israel held a strip in southern Lebanon until withdrawing in 2000. Occupying a Muslim country is like trying to teach a duck to sing. It just wastes your time and annoys the duck. This hard-earned realism isn't the end of the world. The oil exporting countries will still need to export oil to the world market—it's not like they have other ways to pay their bills. So, let's get out of Iraq. And invest some of the $87 billion wasted annually on occupation on, among other things, defensive technologies like anti-missile systems. Being a sensible, realistic idea, the Disconnect Strategy may lack the irrational emotional appeal of Invade the World—Invite the World. But isn't it time for common sense? http://www.vdare.com/sailer/060813_disconnect.htm | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4685 Registered: 12-2001  |
There are global problems that walls can't keep out. Isolationism didn't work when we were autarkic and it won't work today. Now, having said that, there is still a great deal of room for debate about just how much we should intrude into the affairs of others. | ||
| Illuminated Radish Citizen Username: Umoja Post Number: 52 Registered: 6-2006 |
Yet more proof that you can't fight terrorism with bullets. It wouldn't be so widespread if it were easily fought. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider  Post Number: 15303 Registered: 1-2003  |
Would you sit next to this man on a plane?  | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12393 Registered: 5-2001 |
Tom, that picture was taken when you were at the Afghanistan training camp, right? Yah know, before you agreed to be smuggled into the US as a sleeper and assume the identity of a mild mannered Jewish American computer programmer? Scary, very scary. LOL  More seriously, I can see a time, with aggresive profiling, where middle eastern terrorist types will assume identities of less suspicious semetic peoples. It would be hilarious to see Fact or one of the other more extreme posters here be mistaken for Ali Allawi, wanted terrorist, and remanded to Pakistan for interogation. In fact I am working on a script I will post when I get it straight in my head. | ||
| Dos_centavos Citizen Username: Dos_centavos Post Number: 16 Registered: 11-2005  |
Forget profiling because it’s simple to change tactics. IMHO….the most effective deterrent has been low tech….forbidding people from carrying on bags onto planes. Check everything and run them through the latest scanners, bomb detectors, etc and only carry on ID and medicine onto planes. It’s definitely not ideal, especially to business travelers like myself, but what else can you do? | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1438 Registered: 4-2006 |
I wish I could fly El Al instead this week.  | ||
| Ender Citizen Username: Enderw Post Number: 109 Registered: 4-2006 |
" THE Government is discussing with airport operators plans to introduce a screening system that allows security staff to focus on those passengers who pose the greatest risk. The passenger-profiling technique involves selecting people who are behaving suspiciously, have an unusual travel pattern or, most controversially, have a certain ethnic or religious background. The system would be much more sophisticated than simply picking out young men of Asian appearance. But it would cause outrage in the Muslim community because its members would be far more likely to be selected for extra checks. Officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) have discussed the practicalities of introducing such a system with airport operators, including BAA. They believe that it would be more effective at identifying potential terrorists than the existing random searches. " London Times, 15/8/06 | ||
| John Citizen Username: Jdm Post Number: 108 Registered: 3-2006 |
Anon wrote: 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. Profiling is not investigating. Profiling requires making a quick judgment about someone based on how they look or behave; investigating requires much much more. Substituting the latter for the former completely misses the point being made. Certain kinds of profiling make great sense. For example, profiling based on behavior. That's how the guy who was trying to sneak a bomb across the border from Canada was caught. The kind of process under question by some of us here is racial profiling, and it has its problems: 1. It doesn't catch people who don't fit the profile (e.g., a guy who actually did attempt to blow something up, Richard Reid). 2. It will result in actual bad guys changing their tactics to avoid it. 3. It diverts resources from other, more effective strategies (like investigating potential bad guys in relevant communities, like the men recently caught in Britain, or less recently in Brooklyn). 4. It causes political problems in the targeted communities, and these problems make effective prevention more difficult. Believe it or not, we don't have infinite resources to spend fighting terrorism and many of us oppose wasting the money we do have on ineffective measures (like random bag searches in a few subway stations). | ||
| Petal Citizen Username: Petal Post Number: 27 Registered: 4-2006 |
how is it possible to determine someone's religious background just by looking at them or their name? i have a muslim name, but i am not muslim. | ||
| SO Ref Citizen Username: So_refugee Post Number: 2094 Registered: 2-2005  |
To some [typically those who favor profiling and/or wear tinfoil hats], you're a muslim and will always be a muslim - only part of a sleeper cell. | ||
| John Citizen Username: Jdm Post Number: 109 Registered: 3-2006 |
From Schneier's latest "Crypto-gram": Banning box cutters since 9/11, or taking off our shoes since Richard Reid, has not made us any safer. And a long-term prohibition against liquid carry-on items won't make us safer, either. It's not just that there are ways around the rules, it's that focusing on tactics is a losing proposition. It's easy to defend against what terrorists planned last time, but it's shortsighted. If we spend billions fielding liquid-analysis machines in airports and the terrorists use solid explosives, we've wasted our money. If they target shopping malls, we've wasted our money. Focusing on tactics simply forces the terrorists to make a minor modification in their plans. There are too many targets -- stadiums, schools, theaters, churches, the long line of densely packed people in front of airport security -- and too many ways to kill people. Security measures that attempt to guess correctly don't work, because invariably we will guess wrong. It's not security, it's security theater: measures designed to make us feel safer but not actually safer. Airport security is the last line of defense, and not a very good one at that. Sure, it'll catch the sloppy and the stupid -- and that's a good enough reason not to do away with it entirely -- but it won't catch a well-planned plot. We can't keep weapons out of prisons; we can't possibly keep them off airplanes. The goal of a terrorist is to cause terror. Last week's arrests demonstrate how real security doesn't focus on possible terrorist tactics, but on the terrorists themselves. It's a victory for intelligence and investigation, and a dramatic demonstration of how investments in these areas pay off. And what can you do to help? Don't be terrorized. They terrorize more of us if they kill some of us, but the dead are beside the point. If we give in to fear, the terrorists achieve their goal even if they are arrested. If we refuse to be terrorized, then they lose -- even if their attacks succeed. Go have a read. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3886 Registered: 3-2004  |
Tom:  !!!! You look cool!!! | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3721 Registered: 5-2004  |
To profile based on religion, you would have to know the individual's religion. Currently, most passports do not include a person's religion. And here in the US, it is illegal to require someone to divulge their religion. If we were to profile based on race, what would that profile be? There is no way that anyone could have known, for example, that Richard Reid had converted to Islam. How could he have been profiled? There is no way to know whether the Arab sitting next to you is Islamic, Christian, or some other religion. If the profile point that is most pertinent is their religion, then profiling simply will not work because it is not a data point that security will have. To those suggesting profiling should be done and can effectively be done, are you in favor of requiring everyone to divulge their religion prior to boarding a plane? Should it be done based on the way their names sound? given that people can (and have) lied about their religious beliefs, how can this be successful? I'm truly curious how this would work. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1449 Registered: 4-2006 |
Rastro- Israeli airport rules help. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12404 Registered: 5-2001 |
Religion should be on everyones passport and drivers license. That way non-Muslim semetic people wouldn't be inconvienced by those pesky profiles. Heck I can't tell a Lebanese from an Israeli from a Jordanian, etc. I doubt the screeners can either. | ||
| SO Ref Citizen Username: So_refugee Post Number: 2097 Registered: 2-2005 |
What about folks from muslim-heavy countries located outside the ME - Indonesia, Malaysia, Azerbaijan - where the muslims don't look, um, muslim... [I'm being facetious about the "look" but hopefully you get the point] | ||
| Ender Citizen Username: Enderw Post Number: 114 Registered: 4-2006 |
Thought you might like this one… Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test. The events are actual cuts from past history. They actually happened!!! Do you remember? 1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by: a. Superman b. Jay Lenno c. Harry Potter d. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40 2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by: a. Olga Corbett b. Sitting Bull c Arnold Schwarzenegger d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by: a. Lost Norwegians b. Elvis c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 3. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by: a. John Dillinger b. The King of Sweden c. The Boy Scouts d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 4. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by: a. A pizza delivery boy b. Pee Wee Herman c. Geraldo Rivera d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by: a. The Smurfs b. Davy Jones c. The Little Mermaid d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by: a. Captain Kidd b. Charles Lindberg c. Mother Teresa d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by: a. Scooby Doo b. The Tooth Fairy c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by: a. Richard Simmons b. Grandma Moses c. Michael Jordan d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 9. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by: a. Mr. Rogers b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems c. The World Wrestling Federation d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 10. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers.Thousands of people were killed by: a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd b. The Supreme Court of Florida c. Mr. Bean d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 11. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against: a. Enron b. The Lutheran Church c. The NFL d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by: a. Bonnie and Clyde b. Captain Kangaroo c. Billy Graham d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 Nope, .....I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone because of profiling. Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds and other dunder-headed attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel doubly ashamed of themselves - if they have any such sense. As a writer of the award winning story "Forrest Gump" so aptly put it, "Stupid is as stupid does." Come on people wake up!!! Keep this going. Pass it on to everyone in your address book. Our Country and our troops need our support! Political correctness will get you killed! | ||
| Project 37 Citizen Username: Project37 Post Number: 256 Registered: 3-2006 |
You do realize that one could write a biased "quiz" that targets criminals of any given background, right? Or are you honestly that gullible? | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2358 Registered: 8-2003  |
the proponents of profiling are Exhibit A in the discussion of what's wrong with education in the U.S. it's a joke that our educational system regularly produces educated people who don't distinguish between a logical syllogism and a fallacious one. even if one accepts the premise that all dangerous extremists are Muslim (of course they aren't, but for argument's sake let's assume they are). how does that lead to the conclusion that we should profile all Muslims? it's stupid and illogical in the extreme. anyone making that argument should be ashamed of the weakness of their reasoning. | ||
| Project 37 Citizen Username: Project37 Post Number: 257 Registered: 3-2006 |
The End(er). | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1456 Registered: 2-2004 |
I love this. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3725 Registered: 5-2004 |
Actually, Dr., if all dangerous extremists are Muslim, then it does make sense to profile Muslims. The flaw in the logic is that not all dangerous extremists are Muslim, and profiling Muslims wastes effort and opens opportunities for the recruitment of non-Muslim cohorts. For example, if I know that the only people who are going to be terrorists are white teenagers with red hair, then it makes sense to give special attention to all white teenagers with red hair. It does not make sense to randomly search Black women with grandchildren, or middle aged Asian men. I'm not in favor of profiling based on religion (and I'm really hoping Bob K was joking above about religion being on everyone's passport - sometimes I can't tell), but there are times when profiling does make sense. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12410 Registered: 5-2001 |
Joel, I was making a point. How do you tell a Muslim person? At least two and maybe three of the British subjects were white anglo saxons, but Muslims. And I am dead serious about not being able to tell a Lebanese from a Israeli. I spent my youth thinking Danny Thomas was Jewish. LOL General Abizaid (sp?) of Central Command, a Lebanese American, looks more like an IDF general than most of the IDF generals I have seen. I think international terrorism has gone far behond 911. The days of 20 or so middle easterners overstaying their visas and hijacking planes are long gone. We are going to see more homegrown perps, or, more likely, people with truly excellent forged documents. Both Syria and Iran have excellent secret services to produce these. I was making a point, but if you are going to rely on profiling without specifying religion on IDs, you are going to have to profile all semetic people. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2360 Registered: 8-2003 |
rastro, it's totally flawed. here is the profiling argument: All extremists are Muslim Mohammed is a Muslim Mohammed is an extremist. It doesn't follow logically, and beyond that, as you say, there are others who are also dangerous extremists, not to mention that the % of Muslims who are potential terrorists is infinitesimal. So not only is the profiling argument logically baseless, its fallacious conclusion leads us to a completely inefficient deployment of resources. It's an argument that is stupid in the extreme. Unfortunately, the opponents of religious profiling have been reluctant to call it stupid. Behavioral profiling is absolutely fine. If somebody looks nervous, shifty, and tense, certainly that qualifies them for extra screening. But just having a "Muslim" name? That would be a waste of time, expense, and effort. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 15326 Registered: 1-2003 |
If I remember correctly, I believe all the people who committed those crimes also had two ears. Therefore, the perpetrators were all dogs. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12412 Registered: 5-2001 |
OK, did Joel pull his post? I am either going insane, some might say more insane, or he pulled the post that my 10:02am responded to. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3726 Registered: 5-2004 |
Dr., profiling is not an assumption of guilt. It is used to whittle down the number of people that must be checked. It is better shown as a Ven Diagram. Remembe, we're assuming the only people that are extremists are Muslim (please forgive my scale):  Given this, it makes much more sense to check Muslims than it does to check White Grandmothers. I am not saying that all Muslims should be checked. I am simply saying that given the assumptions we are working with, it makes sense to ONLY check Muslims. Not ALL Muslims. But this is really just an academic exercise, since we both agree that (at a minimum) 1) not all extremists (or terrorists) are Muslim, b) there is no way to successfully profile based on religion anyway, and iii)There are more effective methods to identifying dangerous people. Tom, I'm not sure what post yours in refering to. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 15327 Registered: 1-2003 |
Rastro, I was referring to Ender's post that listed crimes that Muslims committed. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10509 Registered: 4-1997  |
 | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3731 Registered: 5-2004 |
Love that overlap of dead and living people  How do we know who the maniacs are? I mean, I can recognize an Animaniac, but a regular maniac? not as easily. Part of the problem is that not all maniacs act like maniacs until the actually pull the trigger or push the button. Then there are some maniacs that are not likely to kill anyone. Are they being unfairly profiled? | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2361 Registered: 8-2003 |
rastro, if you reduce your pink "terrorist" circle by about 1000 times, you'd be closer to the real percentage of terrorists among the Muslim population. I agree if say, 10% of a given group were bombers, we'd need to stop all members of the group, regardless of the logical fallacy it would be based upon. But if one in a million are bombers, AND the thinking is fallacious, it's just ludicrous to use that group membership as a relevant profiling characteristic. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3735 Registered: 5-2004 |
Actually, Dr. I'd say 1000 times would still be too large. My point is not that we should check more Muslims in this case. It's that checking people who are not Muslim, when all terrorists in this scenario are Muslim, is just plain stupid and a waste of time. But again, it's an academic exercise. We agree that profiling based on religion or skin color is ineffective and simply doesn't work in the real world. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2363 Registered: 8-2003 |
agreed. | ||
| argon_smythe Citizen Username: Argon_smythe Post Number: 896 Registered: 5-2001 |
Timothy McVeigh. | ||
| argon_smythe Citizen Username: Argon_smythe Post Number: 897 Registered: 5-2001 |
John Walker Lindh. | ||
| shoshannah Citizen Username: Shoshannah Post Number: 1347 Registered: 7-2002 |
Sephardic Jews would be in trouble if official profiling started. Middle Eastern Jewish names like Hassin, Tawil, Hakim, Abadi, Hanoni, and Aboud would get you pulled aside! | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3738 Registered: 5-2004 |
They wouldn't be in trouble. They would simply be inconvenienced about as much as Muslims. And I feel again I have to say (because I appear to be defending profiling) that profiling based on religion or skini color will not work. |
