Airport Security

I guess this isn't really a new topic, but I'm currently reading CRAZIES TO THE LEFT OF ME, WIMPS TO THE RIGHT OF ME, by Bernard Goldberg. I found his take on airport security very interesting.

Here it is:

On Ethnic Profiling at our Airports.

Yes, I'm for it.

I spend too much time at airports and when I see 85 year old grandmas getting the once over by security guys...I'm thinking: This is insane.

Why should a grandmother from Dubuque get the same scrutiny as a 20 year old male from Saudi Arabia? The guys who are trying to kill us fit a profile. They're young...Arab...men.

I know the argument: If we profile them they'll hand the bomb off to a blonde from Sweden. I'll worry about that some other time.

Profiling is a small price to pay for living in a free country during a time of crisis.

Yet the crazies on the Left are firmly against it...and the wimps on the Right won't implement policies that make profiling routine.

Because once again...everyone is afraid of being called a bigot.

This kind of political correctness could get us killed.

I was drawn to the title of this book because I'm left of center on some issues and right of center on others. I firmly believe that both extremes are nuts.

Thoughts?

Interesting.

Nonsense!! A small price to pay?? It is far too LARGE of a price to pay!! FAR too large!

Was Tim McVeigh a young Arab?? Was the Texas Tower shooter? Or Dylan Klebold?? These are ALL acts of violence, all acts of domestic terrorism!

Violence doesn't have a name or a face. It's the act of a madman. And to sacrifice our constitutional freedoms, to slay the liberties that this country was built on, is EXACTLY what the terrorists want!

A small price to pay? Puh-leeze!!!

Point well taken SB. Having just flown back and forth to Philadelphia, I was once again totally amazed at the whole airport security system. It is totally slipshod. When it gets hectic the TSA people seem to move people along faster, and at one point one TSA official had her back turned to the passengers and was hving a personal conversation with another TSA worker as TWO people ahead of me went right through without showing their ID's.

Some places have those blower things, some don't. SOmetime you have to take off your shoes, sometimes you dont. On the way up I inadvertently had a bottle of after shave in my carry on along with razor blades, which I usualy make sure are in what I check. I breezed right through and didnt realize I had brought liquids and sharp objects on board without anyone raising an eyebrow.

I don't think the problem is racial or ethnic profiling, the problem is that the system has to be consistent and thorough. The fact is, unfortunately, people of all colors shapes and sizes can be crazy enough to blow up an airplane.

BTW one os the women who was watching the X Ray machine was a muslim...she had her headscarf on.

I love Goldberg's books, and I too am in the middle of Crazies. Frankly, I think he's spot on with most of his stuff, and with airport security, there's no exception.

How many white guys have tried to blow up American flights again?

Of course, this is the standard argument - that there are nutjobs like Timothy McVeigh and the KKK too - and we'll therefore risk self-annihilation before we risk offending anyone.

I could care less about offending anyone. My opinion has absolutely nothing to do with political correctness.

On September 11th, the terrorists had no desire to simply blow up buildings and kill people. To believe that would be underestimating them. What they wanted to destroy was an ideal, a way of life. To concede to racial profiling, to give up those constitutional freedoms, is to hand it over to them.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

What we're doing, all this PC, ACLU-supported crap, is supporting the terrorists. They're laughing at us, and certainly planning another attack, exploiting the very weakness that our free society espouses in the name of "civil liberties."

We lost civil rights in the Civil War. We lost civil rights in World War II. Sacrifices have to be made, or we will be obliterated.

Why would you say "I could care less." That means that you still care. For once and for all, the correct saying is "I COULDN'T care less." Madonne!

Civil liberties were lost in World War II?? Like when we locked up Japanese Americans in camps? And is that a part of our history that we should be proud of? Or is it a lesson that we should learn from?

Sorry, I don't buy YOUR argument.

Olivant, I appreciate the correction. However, you could have tried to sound less like the Sister Mary Rose of my youth. I expected the yardstick!!

BINGO! That's exactly right Don T!

The authorities and those in charge of security are NOT consistent. As time goes on, the fear that was once fresh in these people's minds begins to slowly fade, and their sense of diligence begins to fade along with it. That is until the next attack is made ( GOD FORBID ) or the next attack is thwarted. Then all of a sudden the people in these positions wake up and are on the ball. Then time rolls on, things begin to cool down, the fear begins to fade away, and their diligence once again begins to fade away along with their fears. The key thing here, as you mentioned, is having them be consistent.




Yes they did. But there is more that goes along with what you say here. They also knew and still know how to work OUR system. They know that organizations such as the ACLU will scream and holler about racial profiling. There has been several cases already where middle eastern people have purposely made themselves appear to look suspicious. They've purposely went out with the intention of bringing attention on themselves in public places. Then when someone alerted law enforcement that this middle eastern person was acting very strangely and law enforcement detained them for questioning but found nothing, these middle eastern people turned around and filed a complaint with the ACLU. They have tried suing the person who alerted the authorities and also tried suing the law enforcement agencies who detained them for questioning.

Along with killing people, destroying our economy and trying to divide the people of this nation, they've also educated themselves as to how to use the system that is in place for us, against us.

I don't believe that this is racial profiling. It's who did it. It's who continues to threaten to do it. It what they are.

If 19 Italians had flown planes into our buildings, and an Italian organization declared war against the west, then it would only make sense to look more carefully at Italian people. More carefully at people from that region of the world.

Does that mean that we should only watch middle eastern looking people? Absolutely not. As you said, there are the Timothy Mcveighs of the world who are just as crazy. No, we need to watch everyone and anyone who appears to be acting strangely in an airport or a public place.

But this charge that we are racial profiling middle easterners is just pure crap. We're keeping a close eye on the people who continually threaten our country. The people who advocate Islamic Jihad. Unfortunately for those of middle eastern origins who are innocent and peaceful people, the people who have declared Jihad against us happen to be middle eastern also.

It's not profiling. It's what they are.

Sorry, DC. You can't convince me of that. If 19 Italians did something wrong, then why should you or I suffer for it? I've been a law-abiding citizen. I pay my taxes. I vote. I've never done anything wrong, and to suggest that I should be looked at more closely is absurd.

Let's say that the Attorney General is trying to make a name for himself in an election year. He starts to go after certain criminals who have names that end with vowels. Simply because you or I are of Italian heritage, does that give him the right to tap our phones?

The Middle East did not declare war on America. Muslim extremists did. Huge difference.

Both Babe and DC have points. But one problem is that we Americans (me excepted) believe that we only die in the name of liberty in a foreign country and that only soldiers die. To preserve liberty, I am quite willing to get blown to bits here in America on an airplane, at the mall, in a sports stadium, etc. in lieu of further erosion of my liberty by federal, state, or local governments. If you want to qualify the liberty that we have all become used to over the 200+ years of this Nation's existence, then chnage the US Constitution. Stop trying to work around it. Several people have said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Okay. What is it then? if you keep nibbling at it, it will eventually be devoured.

Keep in mind that the US Constitution's Bill of Rights was composed and ratified as a constraint upon government and an itemization of our rights in the face of potential government oppression. It was government that Madison and others in the late 18th century feared.

Jean Charles Demenezes was a brazilian who was shot dead by London police after the bomb-blasts, because he was looking like a Muslim and he came out of a building they were spying on. They even declared to the press that he was a pakistani. They made such ridiculous excuses to cover up such as, he was running away and was wearing a thick jacket and so on. That is the kind of tragedies that happen with racial profiling. Airport security check should be done equally on all travelers.

Lesson #1...never run from the cops.

We should learn from these generations that sacrifices are necessary for self-preservation.

Explain to me how the terrorists aren't winning when they still can blow up airplanes and buildings, because we refuse to crack down on their actions to avoid either a.) racial profiling b.) an impact on civil liberties c.) a combination of both.

I guess this is where I fundamentally disagree with you. You seem to really think that we can win by playing fair.

I don't.

Regards,
Double-J

My fundamental problem with racial profiling at airports, or anywhere else for that matter, is that it invites and legitimizes discrimination and prejudice under the masquerade of vigilance. While we must establish and provide safeguards for air travel, standards for safety should be applied, independent of racial considerations. The comparison was made between the 85 year old grandmother and the 20 year old Arab male. Well, how about the 85 year old Arab grandmother or the 20 year old skinhead?

I don't think that there is any evidence that racial profiling, as opposed to the more objective safety measures, is a strong tool in preventing terrorism on planes. Certainly, if we want to take an extra step, why not just deny air travel to people, who fit our preconceived notions of what a terrorist looks like.

Those, whom we would entrust with the racial profiling, would also have to scan passengers and visually distinguish passengers. Many Hispanics, Africans, Italians, Greeks, Jews, Indians, and Pakistanis can pass for Arabs. How broad do we make the net.

Finally, I found great irony in the line, "Racial profiling is a small price for a free society to pay in a time of crisis." We condemn this type of discriminatory behavior in totalitarian regimes, but when we perceive a crisis, we're willing to discriminate.

I think when it comes right down to it, racial profiling makes us less safe as a free society.

While I realise you meant "neo-Nazi" by the term skinhead, Klydon, it was a stereotypical term in itself. Not all skinheads are malicious in action or intent.

But I guess that stereotypical example is itself very telling of this kind of debate.

"Racial profiling" to me is some sort of system whereby people are measured or questioned by their race - but it's not really their race, it's just because their skin is browner than ours. Like Klyd says, how broad do we make the net.

Can we "win by playing fair"? I don't know. And win what, exactly? And what are we playing? What are we fighting/playing for?

I don't know; I think some people fighting "for" this thing are just as dangerous to the beneficial upkeep of democracy as the terrorists threatening it in the first place.

http://www.buffalonews.com/nationalworld/national/story/81262.html

Gee, another Muslim terrorist from within the United States? Pure coincidence.

I agree standards need to be increased at the airports - the problem I see is the NFTA/security is essentially bureaucratized and incompetent. Privatizing this industry may be a good way to ensure more efficient and effective methods, but the problem is that a company would probably face financial ruin if they fucked up.

However, all of this free society, civil rights, and comparisons to totalitarian regimes will mean extremely little when we're being blown to bits on an airplane, or are glowing particles of radioactive sludge from a dirty bomb. It's only a matter of time before it happens again, so long as the current system is in place.



But when race or country of origin both play a significant role in the likelihood of someone being a terrorist threat, doesn't that merit some sort of consideration? I mean, this isn't racism or xenophobia - we are at war with Islamic terror. The exceedingly vast majority of these people who perpetrate these acts are Arabs. I don't really see any way to rationalize not to scrutinize those passengers who are either originating from foreign countries (particularly rogue nations) related to Islamic terror or those passengers who are of Arab descent.



It's never been tried. Of course there is no evidence for it.

You start putting pressure on these Muslim communities and more inspections on those of Arab descent in the airport, and I guarantee you've made it more difficult for the terrorists to perpetrate their heinous act.

Need more proof?

How about 1 in 4 Muslim in the US supporting suicide bombers.

Does this worry no one else besides PB and myself?



Some sort of pre-screening may help, particularly with countries of origin, or, for domestic passengers, a revised passport system with more detailed information and background history.



As I've said before, Americans need to get off our high horse with moral victories in this war. We need victories in actuality, on the field of battle, not in our hearts and minds. Okay, we didn't piss off CARE today. Great. They just blew up a 747 heading into O'Hare.

I feel so much better now.



I think that what makes us a less safe free society is basically letting the terrorists play by their own rules, while we proclaim the blanket of free society, which they use to further their abhorrent goal of complete anarchy and murder. I think that the way things are right now is not deterring terrorists in the least.

I think, frankly, they find it particularly humorous that we talk about a free society, which they clearly exploit and use to their advantage, in order to kill more Americans.

Regards,
Double-J

Keeping your ass and mine and everyone else's alive and free in spite of conscious attempts by those who seek to exploit our free societies and destroy our civilization and way of life.



Oh, so philosophical. Once again, I'm always impressed at the ability to rationalize an argument based upon protecting freedom and democracy and analogizing it with murderers and terrorists.

No wonder the book is called Crazies to the Left...

DJ, I have no problems with more security procedures. I think that we need them and that we should have them. However, we don't. Anyone who has flown in the past few years can attest to that. I was flying home from Florida last year, standing patiently in the security line. All of a sudden, someone (I can't remember if it was an airport or flight company employee) came through with a huge crowd of people and pushed them through to the front of the line. They had just gotten off a cruise and the boat was late, so they were pushing them through to make their flight. Do you think that these folks were given a full security check? Not a chance.

Until we apply a standard set of security measures for EVERYONE, I agree that we won't be safe. However, I believe that you can't pick and choose when and where to use them.

Btw, are you saying that you agree that we should have put Japanese-Americans in camps during World War II?? These were American citizens, business owners, many of them born here in the US. How could that be right for a country to imprison their own citizens simply because of their ethnic heritage? And why only Japanese-Americans from CA?? Because they were more recognizable than the German-American or Italian-American citizens?? I think that the internment of the Japanese-Americans was a blot on our history, and in Korematsu v. US, the Supreme Court agreed.

Hey, I'm not "against standards being increased at the airports". But security measures based on race is a decidedly iffy way to go about it, don't you think?

Sure. But iffy for reasons like political correctness, which is crap, imho.

If it's a choice between offending someone and keeping people alive, I'd take the latter every time.

That statistic that says one in four AMERICAN male Muslims believe that, in the name of Allah, nothing is wrong with suicide bombings, is downright scary.

When I read it in the NY Post this morning, my skin crawled.

For the most part, we totally agree. I simply think that we have reached an impasse where we simply cannot ignore the fact that the vast majority of terrorists attempting to attack our country are Muslims of Arab descent. And our brains are preconditioned to discriminate and profile - certainly it would be worthwhile to at least consider it for airport security.

After all, it is a factor in plenty of other things - college admissions, jobs, housing, etc. - which is essentially a form of reverse discrimination through affirmative action.



Was it right? No.

But I don't crucify Roosevelt for his decision. His goal was the preservation and safety of the citizens of the United States from an enemy that was perceived to be attacking us from both outside and within.

A blot on our history? Debatable. Certainly I am sympathetic to the Japanese-Americans for what happened to them. But again, I am not going to sit here and lambaste Roosevelt for what was considered to be a legitimate security measure during the 1940's, unlike many of my colleagues.

No. It's not iffy for political correct reasons, it's iffy because of democratic reasons. But I'm gay like that; I class myself as on par with an Arab terrorist, because I'm in no position to doubt he doesn't believe in what he does.

Nobody should be offended or made uncomfortable in order to preserve the freedom of others. "Sorry, ma'am, I have to check you in order to preserve the safety of yourself and others" should apply to a Catholic caucasian nun as much as it should to a young Arab. I think everybody should be made uncomfortable, everybody should be offended. Everybody should be checked.

But then you'd probably argue against that and say it'd cripple our air traffic systems, up admin fees and taxes and whatnot. It'd be an intrusion upon your rights, simply because you were born to not physically fit the profile of an Arab.

You can't have it both ways.

I disagree. It's the way you've been brought up. I was brought up the same way. It's not a deficiency on our parents' part, it's just the sad, natural way people are nurtured. But I've made a conscious effort to get away from that.

Pre-conditioned? So you mean racism is inherent?

Yet, many still refuse to acknowledge that our enemy is attacking us both from the outside and within. McCarthyistic? Probably. But I'd say that radical Islamic infiltration and indoctrination is the biggest threat facing the United States today. This 1-in-4 poll, and the link I posted (and those like it) with homegrown terrorists, could be more deadly than the threat we faced from the Soviets.

Not racism. Pre-conditioned to memory.

For example, we taste something for the first time, it is bad. Our brain makes a subconscious note that this is bad for whatever reason - be it poison, be it toxic, etc.

Or animals - you are stung by a bee, the same sort of reaction.

I'm not talking about active conditioning of humans to be racist in the sort of "good 'ol boy, let's go shoot us some ni**ers" way. I'm talking of human prejudices based on experiences and natural defense mechanisms.

So what you mean is that, on a simple level, you remember 9/11 and now look at Arabs with caution?

Democratic reasons? Like what? That you have the unalienable right to get on an airplane no matter who you are?

Last time I checked, that isn't a civil right.



Yeah, you believe that. I'm sure the Catholic nun, the little white old lady, is packing some C-4 in her purse.



Blah, blah, blah. You're willing to sacrifice people's lives to uphold this sacred value of "democracy" which you haven't defined. Some ideal of civil rights that are nonexistent?

They could do a lot better than they are, and I've already discussed that (even though you've neglected to read that).

I don't want it both ways. I want security improved. Part of that is racial and ethnic profiling, particularly based upon country of origin.

Senseless destruction. That's what it's all about.

I would certainly agree that Roosevelt shouldn't be lambasted for his decision. It was a different time, and I sincerely believe that his intentions were to do what he had to do for the safety of the citizens in this country. However, I do believe that it is a lesson to be learned from and that it should never be repeated. Learning from the past is history's greatest gift.

Capo, be it nature or nurture, I agree with DJ that all people are racist on some level. We tend to stereotype and generalize. It's not a good thing, but it is a reality.

9/11?

Let's talk about the various domestic terrorist cells uncovered, suicide bombings in London and Madrid, and a slew of other attacks on civilians over the past decade by Islamic terror.

Hey, I kind of started this, so let me say this: I really am middle of the road, politically speaking. I detest the "good old boy" racist mentality as much as I hate pandering to extreme Leftist Liberals.

I grew up in a VERY segregated East Bronx, where if you brought a black kid into my neighborhood, you'd get the same dirty look from an 85 year old woman as you would from a 20 year old male. However, like Capo, I've tried to distance myself from that mentality, while remaining close to some unfortunates who still think that way. It's not inherent, in my opinion, it's really the old nature vs. nurture, heredity vs. environment argument.

If your brought up around racism, you have to consider yourself lucky if you have the opportunity to get away from that kind of thinking. I know I do.

If by "We" you mean the civilised, sophisticated, educated Capitalist West, I agree. Once we're nurtured beyond childhood into wanting to serve the state, make money and retire with profit and so-called happiness, we tend to have been corrupted also into a dangerous, ruthless and quite insane state of mind which tends to think about others more than the self.

But yeah, that entire paragraph could probably be met with a really great, extensive, convincing argument such as "Blah blah blah".


It isn't, no. But I don't see how anybody could have the right or be in any position to judge who gets on a plane and who doesn't based solely on skin colour. Next you'll be saying, "Woah, he smells of curry, he's not getting on this fucking plane." (Save the rant about the racist tones in that, I'm aware of them and used them for a reason.)

I don't, actually. But I have as much reason to believe she doesn't as I believe the Arab sitting next to me doesn't. And I think that checking everyone makes it more systematic, fair, and less of a lottery. Contrary to what your pal Goldberg says, I can't "worry about [consequences] later". Goldberg, you and others are like a small unit of police who run from place A, where you're killing off Soviets, then rest in the shadows and get bored, and then rush to place B to kill off the Arabs. The kind who scream "WAR!" when you see a plane going into a building and then rush off without really thinking about it. Self-proclaimed moral upkeepers.

It's horseshit. And your "blah blah blah" sarcastic hostility and extremist intolerance is outright fucking annoying. The only reason I'm posting this is that if I didn't, you'd probably be stroking your cock saying, "I won! I won! He doesn't have an answer to my profound way of thinking!!!!"

Well I do, just so you know if you respond to this, but I shan't even bother typing it out.

Actually, no, let's say 9/11. I said "on a simple level" for a purpose. Don't fucking ignore things I deliberately put in there to guard against that kind of reply.

The article or poll does not state that one in four Muslims in the US supports suicide bombers. But it is written in such a way as to heighten or inflame our fears against Muslims.

Reading these posts, it is so surprising to me that they contain no reference to the US Constitution. Some of you need to read (or reread) my post above. Also, your posts do not contain any reference to due process, reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or the 5th or 14th amendments to the US Constitution. That Constitution is not something we work around, or the provisions of which we skirt. In case you elect not to read my post above, let me reiterate: those who composed and ratified the US Constitution and its subsequent amendments feared government.

Alright, having just read Lead's original posts, and none of the replies, I think that guys thoughts are fucking ridiculous.

Here's a little antidote: my grandmother fell and broke her hip a few weeks prior to 9/11 (I know, I know, old lady breaks her hip, a bit of a humorous stereotype). So, then she had to get surgery on it. Now, my grandmother still works; She's 78, and refuses to retire, and I think that's great, seeing as its her choice. I don't think I'd make the same choice, but good for her. Part of her job involves a lot of traveling. So on one of the first few days after the 11th in which they began allotting commercial flights around the US, she had a plane to catch. Because of her hip she was in a wheelchair. And security stopped her, and did a thorough search for about a half hour. And I don't think a single member of my family blames the security. An old lady in a wheel chair at a time when terrorism threat is a possibility... It just makes sense to search her. I mean, an old lady is an easy decoy.

Not to mention the extreme racism implicated in this practice. If I were to meet Bernard Goldberg, I'd probably rape him. Right after asking him about some advice on my disproportional perspiration.

I'll bet raping an elderly fellow like Goldberg would hardly give you cause to even break a sweat, young man.

Speaking of Bernie, he calls himself a conservative, but imho, he's a moderate. He's pro abortion and stem cell research. He's actually a pretty bright fellow. I think you'd enjoy some of what he has to say, LLC.


"I don't feel I have to profile everyone, just my enemies. That's all."

Maybe so. But this passage just comes off really fucking arrogant.

"One in four younger U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances, though most Muslim Americans overwhelmingly reject the tactic and are critical of Islamic extremism and al-Qaida, a poll says."

Quotable?

And yet, as I've given examples (perhaps you should re-read mine), Constitutional rights can be suspended in dire times...

Except for Habeas Corpus, please cite that provision(s)of the US Constitution that permits Constitutional rights to be "suspended" and by whom.

Note that I said to re-read my post, not the Constitution...

Executive orders? I realize they aren't part of the Constitution, but they have superseded it. I mean, some of FDR's programs and measures (including #9066) were essentially beyond the reach of the necessary and proper clause, yet they were done through executive order. And if Martial Law is declared, if I'm not mistaken, "all bets are off," so to speak.

Either way, given the previous terrorist attacks, and also the overwhelming predisposition of certain ethnicities and countries of origin connected to terror, I'd say that's probable cause, at least in the case of airport security. I'm not saying a secret police. Not even illegal search and seizure. There is no right to travel, and therefore, I would think that airport security would certainly be subject to different measures than, for example, a typical traffic stop.

Only Jack Ryan can give out Executive Orders!

How about Harrison Ford?

FDR's programs did not violate the Bill of Rights or the XIV Amendment.

Your application of probable cause is also misplaced. To apply probable cause to racial profiling you have to establish that there is a probability or likelihood that each individual within the subject class is involved in planning to do harm. The fact that the September 11 hijackings were carried out by Arabs or Muslims does not make it probable that the 25 year old Arab graduate student getting on a plane in Kansas City is a terrorist.

And there is a Constitutional right to travel, guaranteed by the Interstate Commerce Clause. In fact, this right was critical in the Civil Rights movement as it was used to strike down racially discriminatory practices of restaurants and hotels because it inhibited the ability of Blacks to travel if they could not be provided food or lodging.

I re-read the original article posted. 85 year old american grandmas being searched in airports is such a big problem?

For all those going by statistics against young arab males, I want to ask: if you want to selectively remove certain groups from being scrutinized (at airport), what would be your decision on:

1) All American citizens
2) Muslim American citizens
3) Muslim American citizens of middle-eastern origin
4) Non-muslim citizens from friendly european countries
5) Muslim citizens belonging to those friendly countries above
6) All middle-east asian citizens
7) Non-muslims from a friendly Asian country
8) Muslims from a friendly asian country.
9) Women from anywhere.
10)All those who do not belong to any of the categories above.

Put R against an entry you want to remove from the scrutinized list.

Kudos Klydon. We need more erudite people like you. There is a paucity of knowledge about our Constitution, laws, and legal concepts among Americans. I'm glad that I have company on this Board when it comes to an understanding of Constitutional issues. It is frustrating to experience the alacrity with which some Americans regard the Constitution's provisions. I become very concerned when someone views executive orders as "supercedng" the Constitution. That betrays a mindset of which the Founding Fathers et al were quite wary.

As far as martial law goes, there is not any provision in the US Constitution for dispensing with any provisions of the US Constitution (except Habeas Corpus) regardless of the circumstances.

Forgive me for not being either a Constitutional scholar nor a lawyer...obviously in such matters I'd defer to more educated, thoughtful posters.

That being said, I hope we're ready for this again:



Though I suspect even that won't wake some people up.

I liken this racial profiling business to getting checked for knives and drugs in a nightclub over here. They've started to introduce it. Just last night, in fact, my mate was searched very, very thoroughly on his way into the club. He looked like a "thug" more than he did a student, I suppose, and I suppose I often do too. But he got checked because of the way he looked last night.

There's another nightclub nearby that checks everyone. It means the queues are long and entry is slow, but I feel much safer and better walking into that place knowing everyone's been checked, not just people who "look" dangerous, which is easy to do and easy not to do.

It's not a case of me saying, "Well, look, I don't have anything on me so I don't see why I should be checked." It's a case of, if I want to gain entry into the club, I've got to go by their profiling system - and I'd prefer an all-encompassing one, or none at all, than a lottery based bias(however you wish to base it on "probability").

Like I said, I think that the system needs to be increased across the board.

But it's also painstakingly clear that there is a better chance that someone who is a Muslim/Arab is more likely to blow up the plane than the 85-year-old white grandma, so we shouldn't be blind to that either. Not saying don't check them both - wouldn't be prudent at this juncture - just saying to use your head.

Certainly, I would agree that the grandma is less likely to be a terrorist, but I also think that the overwhelming majority of young Arab or Muslim males travelling on airlines is doing so for work or pleasure. Fortunately, without racial profiling we haven't had a commercial flight blown up since 9/11 (knock on wood). I think that because of the security measures implemented after the attacks, we have deterred, if not thwarted, some attempts at terror. I honestly don't fly much and don't know enough about the airline industry to suggest what more can be done to maintain and improve vigilance.

I too am not a frequent flier, but I have seen the security at big airports like Dallas and Chicago in US, London and Mumbai. The security check in India is pretty poor, with a lot of flagged stuff not being detected. But in US and London, it is amazing. You cannot take anything with you which they don't want you to. I have missed my connecting flights in Chicago twice flying from India, with all the elaborate security checks. They basically make you unpack everything in your hand baggage, separate the liquids and put in a separate cover, put your laptop in a separate tray, all metallic objects, cellphones, shoes, etc separately. On top of all this, the immigration guys take my finger prints when I leave and enter. Infact, even before i was granted visa as a student, they had my finger prints taken at the US consulate in India. That means even if they reject my visa and I were never to enter US, they would still have my finger prints recorded. Now talk of the statistics! How many Hindu males from India (the demographic I fit in) have blown up buildings in US? If I am not mistaken, a UK citizen neither needs a visa nor is he/she finger printed in US. Guys who worry about being extra poilitically correct, don't worry at all. Profiling is in place already. My room-mate's friend was called for separate questioning twice at airport because of his looks. My room-mate does acknowledge that his friend looks a little suspicious, but hey that is not his fault! I think the security at US airports is sufficiently elaborate. I personally don't mind being subjected to whatever security measures, if it makes other travellers comfortable. But passengers complaining to airline staff about some arab looking passengers behaving suspiciously (as it happened a couple of times) is a deadly combination of paranoia, prejudice and racism. If you look at them suspiciously, they are going to behave differently than normal The security should be left to airport authorities and not passengers and airline staff.

It was on the morning of September 11th 2001.

First of all, you haven't quoted me right, I am not even in favor of airline staff looking at security, I want only airport staff to do that.

Secondly, the security after 9/11 is way tighter than what it was before. So, you can trust the airport security now, even if there was a lapse before. At anyday better than some racist passenger who knows well that any alarm raised will definitely be attended to with utmost importance.

I misread that last part of your post. I corrected my quote.

However, security was left to "Airport staff" on the morning of September 11th 2001.

I am absolutely convinced that the 9/11 highjackers picke dup their weapons once they were admitted to the gate areas. I just cannot accept that 15 people were able to get through security with weapons and not at least one of them be detected. I welcome input on this.

If this system of racial profiling would be effective when it would be implantated in airport security, I would be in favor of it. If that is the cost of preventing acts of terror to happen, then screw political correctness.

However, I sincerely doubt the effectiveness of this system.
First of all, making such a system operational, actually carrying it out the way some people want it to, right now, looks quite impossible. What's more, even if operational, it wouldn't give the results that were planned.

Did you know that 100% of Caucasians smoke crystal-meth and watch NASCAR?

I need my fix! Go Dale!

I don't know about that. First, country of origin should be established as the first way to begin the process (which by default means we need to find better ways at preventing the falsification of travel documents). Passengers from rogue nations should be flagged right from the beginning for airport security. This doesn't excuse domestic passengers, but this would be a start in weeding out the type of hijackers that have succeeded thus far.

Yep. And all African-American's love fried chicken. Almost as much as all Mexican's go 28-a-car, and all Asian's are amazing at math, all Jews are cheap as bums, and so on.

I'm just saying, if we make it a point to check Muslims/those of Middle Eastern decent/a white guy with a tan/person of ambiguous decent in airports, we should make it a point to force our African-American citizens to slap special stickers on their automobiles, so we can perform racially-charged highway-side cocaine checks.

Show me a stat where white guys are committing acts of terror against American airplanes as frequently as Arab-Muslims are since 9/11, and I'll be the first one out there with the crack stickers.

So did anyone else see those raging white grandmas who were going to hit JFK?

Err...nevermind.

That these would be terrorists are of Muslim desceent is not surprising. But were they apprehended as a result of a thoughtful investigation, based on specific information, or was the arrest the product of random, racial profiling of airline passengers?

My point was directed more towards the fact that, once again, it isn't a bunch of white grandmas who were trying to hit the U.S., it was Muslims.

I think that says it all.

The bottom line is, saying we should randomly search Muslims in airports on the basis that more Muslims/Arabs commit acts of terrorism, statistically and generally speaking, is like saying we should be able to arrest African Americans randomly on gang-related charges, on the basis that more African Americans are involved in gang-related crime, statistically and generally speaking.

It's just absolutely... what's the word... Retarded. It's fucking retarded. You're just going to alienate Muslim-Americans and make our government look like more of a ridiculously pompous and arrogant College fraternity than it already does. If you're going to search one group, search them all.

Speaking on the basis of generalizations, more Latin and Hispanic people are going to attempt to smuggle drugs. Should we use the same method of racial profiling to make it a point to search all Latin passengers?

It's not random searching. It's very specific, frankly.

And furthermore, you still haven't shown me anything about how those white grandmas are even remotely as likely as a Muslim to try and execute a terrorist attack.

I've got my stickers waiting, LLC.

All Al-Qaeda and similar organizations are full of muslims. With some exceptions, all the terrorists (atleast the ones against US) are muslims. 9/11 was executed by muslims. What is the new information in all these? How does it justify searching a vast majority of muslims who are peaceful? If you have specific information (as with the latest case of conspiracy), search them, arrest them, punish them, whatever. And moreover the latest bunch of people arrested were American citizens, their religion notwithstanding. If it turns out(I am convinced that is the case, still) that the number of 'islamic american citizens' involved in any type of terrorism is ridiculously small, then you are going back to the cavemen era, by implementing arbitrary laws based on racial prejudices. I agree with LLC, the logic is totally retarded.

DJ, I posed a question in this thread regarding the demographics that you would want to remove from the present search category. I know it has a lot of questions, but it shouldn't take much time to answer them considering the length of posts that I usually see from you. I am just curious to know your opinion and also some other people who have quoted statistics in this thread and elsewhere. Mind giving it a try?

What the fuck are you talking about? If they want to get on an airplane, they should be more closely scrutinized. That's all. Nobody is going to their houses for an illegal search and seizure.

The only retarded logic here is trying to keep afloat a sinking ship argument that continues to ignore the fact that the overwhelming number of terrorist attempts (successful, failed, or thwarted by law enforcement) over the past decade or so have been executed by Muslims (citizens or not).

If this isn't a case for racial profiling, I don't know what is. Maybe when Bin Laden is fucking your daughter?

This doesn't require any great logic here. Like I've said countless times, security should be increased regardless of any race, creed, etc..

I doubt I'd remove any of those people from that list. But I'd scrutinize a few of them much closer than the rest, and for obvious reasons.

If you can't understand that, then I'm not sure what else I can do.

Frankly D. Roosevelt?

Nope, Harry S. Trueman.

Actually, that's not a bad idea.

Good. All the better. Than maybe the American Muslims, who are becoming alienated, will finally do something and step up, speak out, and help to expose those that are preaching a message of hate and extremism in their own communities.

And just because they have become American citizens means absolutely nothing. Their taking the time to become American citizens, rooting themselves in a community and establishing themselves as pillars in their community, is in itself proof of how they are patient and manipulate the system that we've built just to turn around and use it to destroy America's economy and murder it's people.

How many times have we seen, over the last few years, an extremist Muslim get arrested for being part of a terror plot, only to hear what a longstanding and upstanding citizen he was for so many years within his community?

It's all part of their strategy. it's what they are taught to do!

And a majority of the innocent Muslim people that live in those communities have continued to turn a blind eye to these people because in their eyes it is more honorable to protect one of their own then to go against their religion and protect the non Muslim infidel.

Why would we do that when we can just tap their phone lines?



It doesn't matter who's likely to do what, speaking on generalizations. Because that's what they are; generalizations. And it's so highly unconstitutional (you know, that whole "all men created equal" thing...) that I want to find a board of wood with a nail sticking through it, and do an headstand on it.

You know what? Fuck it. Let's just start racially profiling in airports so we can spend all our time and energy searching anyone and everyone of Muslim descent. Then we can allow the actual terrorists to scheme up more elaborate plans and decoys to work past our efforts, while we simultaneously feed them bullshit to brainwash their disciples with. "Hey, look what the Americans are doing! They're ridiculing innocent members of our community simply for belonging to that community!" Meanwhile, we'll just let the next Unabomber slip under our noses, while we're investing all of our time in wasteful and racist procedures. Then, when some whacked out Caucasian blows up a plane or building, I can say "told you so!" and laugh like a maniac.

Great idea.

If that happened you wouldn't laugh. You'd be both angered and sad just like the rest of us.

I think the kid is just being over the top in order to show just how ridiculously divided we are as a nation.

Cuz if he meant it, I'd drive up to Gooberville and kick his ass.

Loffles.

I know that the kid is just trying to make a point. And I also know, agree with him or not about certain things, that he is not that kind of person.

It's called a hyperbole.

Angered? No. What the fuck would that do? Angry is probably the worst/stupidest thing to be when involved in politics and/or war.

Sad? Perhaps.

Good to hear.

Well I don't know about you, but when I watched 3000 people get murdered, of course I was very very sad, but I'd be lying to you if I told you that I wasn't angry about it.

Well, I was 11 at the time... So I was a bit confused.

But even still. I never understood how one could be angered by a war-related attack. I can understand saddened. I never understood anger. Which is odd, I can become angered over some pretty stupid shit.

I can't explain it, really. I'm mentally exhausted right now, and my wit is almost nonexistent for the time being. I can just say my views on war are... I don't know. Strange? Unorthodox.

Well, that was a weak response... Sorry for that. My mind is far too focused on other matters for me to put together any sort of satisfiable answer to anything but what is consuming my mind right now. But, once I regroup, you can expect me assuming the role of a self-humored asshole yet again.

listen - let's say someone just committed a murder, & they jumped in their white jeep & fled the scene; police officers all over the city are looking for this criminal, so they start checking cars in the specific area he was heading in. now should every car driving in that particular vicinity be checked? yes - safety precautions for our wellbeing, always. should an emphasis be placed on checking white jeeps in that area? of course. at airports, should everyone have security procedures followed through on them? yes - safety precautions for our wellbeing, always. should an emphasis be placed on muslims, who are immensely more likely to commit a crime? of course.

this isn't rocket science, folks.

I don't think the two can even be compared. You're completely ignoring the entire notion of civil rights.

By searching I meant searching at airports. Even if all the terrorist who have been caught are muslims, it does not give you the complete picture. Number of terrorists found is a very small fraction of the number of muslims living/traveling in the country.
I'll give you an example. Assume that a particular fatal contagious disease is found 99% times in males and 1% times in females. But only 0.01% of all the male population has this disease. By just quoting the 99% figure you cannot justify screening the entire population of males alone, because as per your logic, males are 99 times more likely to have the disease than females. Since it is very rare disease (because of 0.01% number), it is a good idea to screen all the population. Plus it it contagious and fatal. OK this is the best I can do to logically explain my opinion.

Given the name of this BB, shouldn't the authorities be "stopping" Italians and finding out what they are up to?

and
Until you answer me without resorting to bullshit like "osama fucking my daughter", I can't understand your view. So can you tell me which groups (out of the list I provided) will you "scrutinize more closer than the rest" if you do not want to remove anyone out of it. I am asking you to choose from the list for a specific reason. I don't think it will take you too long to say , for example, "items 1,5 and 7 from your list should be scrutinized less than the rest".

I love Echelon. It helped take down the mob, it's helping take down terror.

Probable cause, bitches!



What about my fucking civil rights? Or the 3-year-old in seat 14-A, sitting next to his mother? Or the married couple just leaving for their honeymoon? The decent, hardworking American citizens who are getting on planes to go about their business and everyday lives?

No. Fuck those civil liberties. After all, we wouldn't want to "alienate" the muslim world, which recently has given our society so many blessings like...what's that again? Suicide bombing? Oh yeah.

And the actual terrorists, LLC? Once again, I'll ask you yet again, show me these white people who are allegedly just as likely to be committing these heinous acts as radical Muslims...I still have those crack stickers waiting.

And my opinion is this - if that particular disease showed a certain prevalence for appearing in certain kinds of people - i.e. Sickle-Cell Anemia, which is almost entirely exclusive to African-Americans. Would you screen everyone, just in case, during the normal course of health care? Sure. But it's the same reason why blacks are tested for this disease more often than whites - because they odds are they are more likely to have it.



Why? I don't think your list has any point. You want to trap me in some kind of racist/xenophobic/psychobabble where if I pick something it will take on a whole new meaning. Nope.

Once and for all - security should be increased across the board. Those who are Muslims - those who are of Arab descent - and those from a country of origin to be a known rogue nation - should all be checkstops that require intense scrutiny.

As I said, the little white grandma could be packing C4. But I highly doubt she is. And if Al Qaeda can get little white grandma's to start packing, then we're all in serious trouble.

Luckily, however, they've only been able to brainwash young malcontents and one-legged, feeble-minded old men who lack the intellect or common sense to avoid being controlled and lead to the slaughter by a warped ideology.

Do I have to trap you into something to prove that?

Common Sense ≠ Racism

Everyone knows you're a fascist anyway.

Could calling someone a facist be considered a form of profiling?

Not if they fit the description.

But this description isn't visual; it goes by character traits, not skin colour.

See this is my problem all together; You're completely ignoring their rights. And you and I both know the majority of acts of terror in the US are being committed by citizens and aliens alike of Muslim descent; but I think svsg made a great point in comparing terrorism to that of a disease that occurs mostly in men, but the percentage of men infected is still relatively small. There aren't nearly as many acts of terror being committed as we'd be left to believe, the media just flocks to the few committed like a pack of rabid ex-cons to a voluptuous sixteen year old girl. It's a business built on fear.

I prefer the term, "Yankee Imperialist," thank you.

So the civil rights of the Muslim community, a community which has yet to churn out these malcontents who want to attack our country, and has yet to stand up and reject these notions (by saying 25% of them support suicide bombers), has more important rights when it comes to flying on an airplane than the rest of the U.S.?

I guess I don't see your logic. I don't see how you can sit here and say, "you and I both know the majority of acts of terror in the US are being committed by citizens and aliens alike of Muslim descent," but then tell me that it doesn't happen often enough or that because the percentage of terrorists in the Muslim community is small, we should ignore that fact.

"There aren't nearly as many acts of terror being committed as we'd be left to believe." Really? So, what, after 9/11 (and before that, embassy bombings), that's like 3,500+ Americans killed. Maybe you're right, that's an insignificant number.

After all, 3,500+ decent, hard-working Americans died in vain so that Muslim terrorists could get on airplanes and blow up some more Americans.

Regards,
Double-J

Nah, let's call a spade a spade.

Sam Spade?

You getting this alright, son, or am I going to fast for you?

The small number is not in the context of victims, it was for the number of terrorists. 9/11 did not require thousands of terrorists, though those dozen odd guys were able to kill thousands. Don't quote some random survey about 25% supporting suicide bombers, I don't believe its authenticity, it may well be written by someone who shares your opinions. I, for example have a lot of muslim friends. NONE of them support terrorists. What percentage of muslims living in the country(citizens or otherwise) are directly or indirectly connected with terrorists. Does FBI/CIA or whatever have any numbers? Please show us those kind of statistics and you will have no difficulty in proving us wrong.

If the CIA/FBI had those kind of facts and numbers, then you guys wouldn't even be having this debate.

That's the best post on this subject yet.

I didn't realize the Pew Research Center and the Associates Press were not reliable, authentic sources.

Thank you, come again!

I wasn't having any difficulty without said statistics...

The real problem with this whole subject of security is that there are some people who just do not seem to understand that there is a big difference between "racial profiling" and "criminal profiling.

I just think that the closer you were to NYC that day, the less likely you are to care about civil liberties. I was on the Whitestone Bridge, heading out to Brookyn when the 2nd tower was hit. I heard it live on the radio, then turned my head and saw the fireball. The bridges were then closed and I couldn't get home until that evening. I live in Throgs Neck, with a clear view of the city skyline. I watched the smoldering for weeks from my rooftop. I have family in the funeral service business and saw many of the funerals first hand. Families burying a hand, a foot, in some cases a skin graft. In many cases, nothing at all. No closure. It's just much easier to scream about civil liberties when you're posting from a small town in middle America. I'm Italian and proud. If Italians were profiled as a result of something like this, as long as our children are safe, I could care less. And I mean that.

Though I still don't know anything about Pew or Associate Press,
this is what Pew had to say:

They conducted survey on about 1000 muslims:


---------------------------------------------------------------
Very few Muslim Americans – just
1% – say that suicide bombings against
civilian targets are often justified to defend
Islam; an additional 7% say suicide bombings
are sometimes justified in these
circumstances. In Western Europe, higher
percentages of Muslims in Great Britain,
France and Spain said that suicide bombings
in the defense of Islam are often or sometimes justified.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Now that is 1% as I suspected, not 25%.

There are a lot of normal people who fall into the additional 7% . For those who remember, in the Hiroshima thread, a lot of people here supported Civilian attack, because it served a greater good. Probably including yourself. The survey does not give the details of what justifications those additional 7% had. Or even what they actually said. These can be mis-interpreted or taken out of context. It is those 1% that needs to be arrested and punished.... not the 99% of peaceful muslims. I will look at the other source (associates press) later. But if this survey is authentic, I guess I should see similar results.

You need to get the facts straight.

25% of Muslims UNDER THE AGE OF 30 years old have said that they approve of suicide bombings in the name of their religion.

PB, I appreciate what you're saying. I understand the emotional context. However, I have to mildly disagree. How long would it take terrorists (of any race) to change their appearance if they knew what the security personnel were looking for?? It's not enough to target a specific group. You need to have effective and efficient security across the board. Right now we don't have that. We have all sorts of people slipping through security, and for any number of reasons. And THAT'S wrong.

It's not racial profiling. It's who did it.

First off, perhaps you should check into the AP and Pew, and you'll find they are quite reputed sources.

Secondly, DC has already pointed out the flaw in your conclusion.

---

SB - I don't think that would work. I doubt Al Qaeda would be able to find many Westerners outside of Muslims to support their cause.

It wouldn't work?? How?? Are all Muslims dark-skinned?? Are there none who could "pass"? Are there no cosmetics? Wigs?? Having spent time doing summerstock in my youth, I know how easy it is to make a 21 year old girl look like a 70 year old woman. I'm just saying, it would be simple for anyone who has the type of sick and twisted commitment to such a cause, to "fake out" the security personnel, if they felt that they might be spending their time looking for a certain physical type. Why not plant that physical type on a security line, but have them "clean" while the terrorist with the weapons looks like someone or something else? And walks onto the plane while "security" is busy?

Until tight security measures are put in place in our airports, and used in an effective manner across the board, then nobody is truly safe. Our security now is a joke. And profiling isn't going to make it any better.

I guess I don't have as much faith in their skills in cosmetics as you do.

After all, this is a race of people where in some parts, they keep their women fully clothed and behind veils, so...

[/joking]

---

This is why greater security is needed, particularly with documentation. You could turn Mohammed Atta into Mrs. Doubtfire, but if there are improved checks, it would yield nothing.

Plus, costumes only make it harder for them to carry bombs, etc.

I don't know about that. I would think that a fake pair of breasts would be a perfect place to hide some explosives, no??

I guess my fear would be that profiling, which I believe is wrong to begin with, would allow security personnel to be lax with someone who doesn't fit the profile. And that would allow too many doors to remain open.

I don't know if the report in Pew is "straight fact" or not. But that is what Pew reports.
This is what was the statistic for under 30 years:

-----------------------------
Among Muslims younger than 30, for example, 15% say that suicide bombing can often or sometimes be justified (2% often,13% sometimes),
------------------------------

That is again 2% (13% are subjective, like the 7% for overall population). Are you saying I am not quoting them correct or what? I did not see 25% in their report, which is HERE

Thanks for the suggestion, I will.


Such as? Please tell me where in the Pew report, it says 25%. I didn't bring this pew thing. Maybe it is 25% (I don't think/believe so, still for the sake of argument), but it is not mentioned in the report. I attached a link in my previous post. Please read.

http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=1002555

"That sentiment is strongest among those younger than 30. Two percent of them say it can often be justified, 13 percent say sometimes and 11 percent say rarely."

13
+11
+ 2
____

26%

So, one percent more, actually. Roughly 1/4th, or 25%.

I attached the entire report from their website . Why should I read (I read it though) it through some journalist's filter? Tell me how that 1 in 4 data comes from what is there in the actual report. It is exactly what LLC described - reporting to make things sensational.

Well, whether it's exaggerated or not, 1 out of a thousand is too many. They're living under our flag, not fucking Allah's!

Again those sometimes/rarely numbers don't mean anything. If I were to tell the partial truth quoting that Hiroshima thread that "5 out of 20 members in our board support civilian killings sometimes/rarely" it would be absurd. All the pages and pages of debate is required to understand what exactly people are saying. Only 2% of population under 30 and 1% of all population favored suicide bombing. That is still a small minority. It does not need a widespread racial action.

I know what you're saying svsg, and I could honestly go either way on airport profiling. It's just that this country has been very good to these people and it's ridiculous that even 1 percent of them think that way.

Good point (expletives notwithstanding). There is a small possibility that one in a million white christian american can be convinced/coerced/threatened to carry out a bomb blast in USA. That is the reason everyone should be checked at airports and not just that small minority of muslims.

If they are so dis-satisfied with America to the extent of killing people, they shouldn't be citizens of this country in the first place, because most of them are foreign born as per the survey. It is just ridiculous that these 1% people support killing civilians for religion. I agree, they should not have any place in a legal society, except perhaps in jails.

I don't put any credence in the poll and feel that it is kind of silly. If 1 in 4 American Muslims support suicide bombings, where are all the suicide bombings in the U.S.?

The poll is, as I've said before, meant to mislead and justify discrimination and fear against Muslim Americans, many of whom are not Arabs.

Refusing to subject them to special scrutiny, based on their ethnic origin or religion, without probable cause, is not a matter of political correctness; it is a matter of Constitutional mandate.

Thank you svsg, we fundamentally agree on this issue.

PB

With that being said, now I don't know if I've really met the real you!!!

I've seen some explosive breasts over the years.

Yes, but can you make a 40 something chick look 21?

Aw PB, that was just mean.

Truthfully Klyd, I don't put any credence in pollS period.

And I'm sure in the pure interest of public safety, you spent much time dismantling those explosives.

Obviously you've never had the honor of meeting SB.

She looks 21, naturally.

Kiss ass.

I'll take the job. But you can bet dollars to donuts that I'll be accused of profiling because I'll only check the breasts of those who fit this type of profile :

They'd kill you, DC. But what a great way to go.

Then I want to be killed!

I'm with you pal.

They're animals anyway, so let them lose their souls.

Now if these two ladies were stopped by airport security for scrutiny, you can bet that Osama bin laden and his 48 brothers could dance a Conga line onto the plane without getting a second look.

I don't think those are the virgins that Allah promised them.

Headless torsos do nothing for me.

But they do everything for my penis.

I don't even know how to comment on any of this!!

You? Speechless? You? Nothing to say?

Well, after the lovely compliment you paid me, what could I possibly say??

Well I did respect your wishes not to post your face on the internet. So I cut off your head from the picture (from Philly last year) that I posted of you and TIS above.

When did I say their rights are more important? The point I am trying to get across is that they deserve an equal right to transportation as any Caucasian-Christian American... Hence my exact words, "If you're going to search one group, search them all".



It's true the majority domestic terrorism is performed by those of Muslim decent. So, therefore, search any Muslim-descendants so long as probable-cause is involved. But the percentage of Muslims committing terrorism is rather low, in retrospect. When the majority of those of Muslim decent begin committing terrorism, I'll support your creepy, elitest methods of searching completely based upon race.



"Act" and "casualty" are not synonymous.



I wouldn't say that. Hard-working? Alright, maybe most of them, but you're counting the ones that were probably sitting around, procrastinating and neglecting their work when all of a sudden--bam--the local air-transit is stuck over in corporate accounting.



Oh, come on, don't try to insult me by throwing in a formality.

I'm gone for a day and all these guys start jumping all over SB

How is it that I miss out on all the fun?

Well there's jumping all over her, and then there's "jumping ALL OVER her."

Right Boy Toy?


Me, all I did was throw her compliments in this topic.

You were either peeing in the street or busy cleaning the bird shit off of your car.

Cardi,

You make me laugh

Ah, I was waiting for that one.

The traditional "the biggest threat in this country is the White right-wing Christian lunatic" terrorists.

I wondered how long it would take before someone in the thread put the Bible Belt on par with Al Qaeda.

---

For the study:

ALL US MUSLIMS:

13% say suicide bombings are "ever" justified. This combines "often" and "rarely."

US MUSLIMS UNDER 18-29:

26% say suicide bombings are "ever" justified.

US MUSLIMS OVER 30:

9% say suicide bombings are "ever" justified.

You bring in the "all men are created equal" and how racial profiling would be unconstitutional, as if we have done Muslims a great wrong by simply acknowledging the fact that their community churns out anti-American malcontents the way Wal-Mart does lower prices.



No one is denying them the right to travel.

But like I said, the baby, the grandma, the mother, etc., don't they all have a right to travel safely? Again, I'm tired of essentially putting innocent lives at risk so we don't piss some group of people off, even though that's exactly what's happening.

And furthermore, taking an airplane is a privilege, not a right. Yes, you pay for your ticket, but if you're a fucking lunatic and airport security stops you, you won't be flying. It's not an entitlement.





Foreign AND domestic.




Compared to what? Rather low? So what, 3500+ people dead since 2001 is an anomaly, an aberration?

Or, it could be just plain fucking retarded, which I suspect.

Creepy, elitist? No. Common sense? Yes. Did I say we were giving white people passes, and only searching Muslims? No. So go back, read, and you'll see my "methods" are not "completely based upon race."



So the JFK plot that just was taken down - because nobody died, we should just, you know, ignore it, right? Because, after all, it was only an "act" of terrorism that wasn't executed.




What the fuck are you on about?

Best,
Double-J

I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to f**kin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?

That's absolutely true. You can be denied your right to travel for cause. Bizarre behavior, drunkenness, overt belligerence and disorderly conduct among other things, hav gotten people of all races kicked off planes, trains, and buses, as well as diners, bars, and sports arenas.

But to subject Arab Americans or Muslim Americans to additional scrutiny on the basis of their origin without a belief, supported by specific knowledge, that they pose a likelihood of mayhem is constitutionally impermissible.

While it may be de iure unconstitutional, I'm sure racial, ethnic or religious profiling exists on a de facto basis among many law enforcement and governmental agencies.

This isn't just for Muslim/Arab-Americans, it's for all travelers, and like I said, country of origin should be one of the biggest factors.

Secondly, we have specific knowledge - we are at war with radical Islam. If you have nothing to hide...

I have no problem with subjecting all passengers on planes to scrutiny. Then it would not be racial profiling.

The specific knowledge, to which I was referring, involved something specifically known about the individual traveler that would be detained beyond the normal course of inspection.


That we are at war in Iraq, battling an insurgency, comprised almost entirely of those adhering to radical Islam, is true. We are also fighting this war shoulder to shoulder with Iraqi Muslims as well.

I said "samll possibility that one in a million". You are comparing it with "the biggest threat in the country". Dude, looks like you were really waiting to prove a non-existent point. Please don't bother. How desperate


I didn't. Maybe you are. I have nothing to talk about it.



OK we are now talking of "ever" and "rarely" people, right? Everyone here knows that you support the Hiroshima attack, where you said civilian attack is ok if there is a greater cause. You had you chance to explain your "greater cause" in great detail over several posts. We don't know what these people had to say in in their justification. Since we are neglecting the context altogether, I will follow the same and say that you support attack on innocent civilians ever/rarely. So you are no better than the 1 in 4 muslims. So you should be the one subjected to EXTRA scrutiny in airports.

Scenerio :

Two middle eastern travelers purchase one way tickets, using cash, to board a flight.

Should they be pulled aside and scrutinized by security?

If they are, is it considered racial profiling?

If they do that to all foreign passengers with one way tickets, then it is not racial profiling. If they do it only for middle-eastern passengers, it is profiling. I don't know about cash though. In many countries, credit cards are not popular. When I came here two years ago, I had bought a one way ticket to america with cash. I wasn't expecting to return within a year, so I did not buy a return ticket. I also did not have enough credit limit on my card to buy the international ticket. There are thousands of people like me who travel with genuine reasons with your scenario. If you think that is a high risk group, then the check should be done on everyone, including europeans, australians, asians and africans, not just middle-east asia.

Point taken. However, it was not 19 African Americans, 19 Italians, 19 Hasidic Jews or 19 Chinese people who hijacked tose planes and declared Islamic Jihad. It was 19 middle easterners. And therefore I believe that at this point, if a middle easterner purchases a one way ticket with cash, and he is scrutinized because of it, it is not racial profiling. It is criminal profiling. It's part of the M.O. of those who attacked this nation. Should others of other races who purchase a one way ticket with cash also be scrutinized? Absolutely. At this point in the game we don't know who really is a radical Muslim or who is a sympathizer.

If the middle easterner fits the M.O. of how things were done by former middle easterners who attacked this country, then he should be scrutinized based on criminal profiling. It's not racial profiling.


On the morning of September 11th 2001, Michael Tuohey, a ticket agent at Portland International Airport, notices that both Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari have $2,500 first-class, one-way tickets. He later comments, "You don’t see many of those. I thought they looked like two Arab terrorists but then I berated myself for the stereotype and did nothing."

So it's the MO of the 9/11 hijackers. That, in my opinion, becomes grounds for criminal profiling and is in no way racial profiling.

What is MO?

It's not racial profiling if the same would be done for anybody else purchasing a one way ticket for cash. And I think it should be. What you describe, to me anyway, is suspicious. No matter if the person paying cash for a one way ticket (especially one not checking luggage) is green with purple polka dots, they should be considered suspicious, and should have been LONG before September 11, 2001.

It also might just be a man or woman who is flying to their new home and all their belongings are in the moving van, so they don't need any luggage, and they don't need a round trip ticket, and they paid cash for their ticket because they accidentally packed their credit cards.

HOWEVER, I would not want to take that chance.

I'll give you an analogy.

For 6 months straight the New Jersey Turnpike State Troopers have been making arrests where drugs were being smuggled through the state.

In every arrest, the driver was an African American and would drive UNDER the speed limit thinking that he would stay under the radar by going slow.

Now let's say tonight there are 5 cars driving in the right lane under the speed limit. 4 of those cars have white drivers and one has a black driver. You can only pull one of the cars over. What is the MO here? Who do you pull over first? Which car detained will give you the best odds of catching the drug smuggler?

The way to figure out the best odds of catching the right guy is to go by past intelligence. Go by the MO of those arrested in the past 6 months.

It's not racial profiling by any means. It's using your common sense and putting ALL the facts together about who and how past crimes were committed in this same scenerio, and going on those facts.

It's called Criminal Profiling.

Modus Operandi or way of operation.

Thanks Klydon.

DC, I agree if you can identify high risk group on a well formed criterion(well is the keyword IMO), then you can criminally profile them.
Are you saying that being arab/muslim male of certain age is the only way to describe the terrorists? That is certainly not true. That is a ill-formed criterion. I am not sure if you are aware, but the Visa process for all middle-eastern countries routinely takes 6 months or so. The US embassy does a thorough background check and only then grants visa. This is not true for all countires. BTW I am talking about post 9/11 not when Atta came in. I was given Visa across the counter in 2005, but my Iranian friends have several months of waiting. This includes grandmas, parents, everyone, not just under-30 males. After doing all these checks, now imagine the humiliation of an innocent person if some passenger were to report to the airline staff that they feel suspicious because he has a turban or beard or some such ridiculous thing. And FYI, they don't allow anyone to come to US to study nuclear engineering, space, aircraft related degrees etc after 9/11. Whosoever enters US now with a valid Visa has already undergone huge amounts of checks (with exhaustive profiling -racial or otherwise). There is no need for common public to take up investigation based on thier prejudices. Or for that matter even airport authorities, unless they have some specific information about the person. If they want to play safe, then check everyone. That is really safe.

Not at all. Where did I imply that?

I am sorry, it seemed from your 9/11 example.


OK, then what are your criteria for a reasonable criminal profiling for probable terrorists? Something that will work on a majority of the criminals and rarely cause inconvenience to the innocents?

It is unconstitutional to single out any person solely based on their race or ethnicity. It is, however, permissible to use race, in conjunction with other information, if race is one of a number of characteristics used to describe a particular suspect.

In the case of trying to prevent future terrorist attacks by middle eastern Muslim exstremists, who HAVE already attacked the western world on numerous occassions, who've continued to try and attack the western world, and who have openly declared Islamic Jihad on the western world, I think that race has to be a consideration, along with other factors, i.e. one way ticket buying, etc., in determining if someone may be a risk to the security of others.

That is where the problem is. Terrorists can buy two way tickets with credit cards. Not a rare possibility. Infact, I can't think of any criterion that will work well on a majority of criminals and exclude majority of innocents. Though I don't agree with you, let us keep race as one factor. What else, please list. Because avoiding this list is avoiding the important question. Do we have any objective criteria today? Remember that all the middle eastern visitors have been background checked (after 9/11) before they are granted visa. They don't get multiple entry visas either if they belong to middle-east. Again please list your criteria.

There is no question that profiling is going on, and to some extent it should be allowed, even if it is not the stated policy of the TSA. The real danger I foresee is that the idea of blowing up airplanes is going to spread like a cancer, and expremists of all stripes could start using the tactic. Unfortunately there are some reallly crazy people out there (take that idiot who flew all over the place with a case of TB) who may do harm.

I would think there should be some kind of psychological profiling as well....you can tell a lot by someone's body language.

I say we bite the bullet and get a database of eye scans and fingerprints for those of us who are frequent fliers and who don't want or need the hassle of removing shoes etc. we really have no privacy left anymore anyway, so whats the difference?

You've also made it a point to say that its a small minority of the Muslim community that would participate in terrorist attacks, so I don't believe it is nonexistent. Desperate, no. Accurate, yes.





Naturally.



"Ever" and "rarely" are, by the study's own definition, people who support suicide bombings, according to their own totals. It's not like I made it up.

I support Hiroshima. Totally different situation, fwiw. Just because you don't agree with my argument, which I had supported with facts and evidence, doesn't make it a 1:1 situation, nor does it mean I advocate suicide bombings, because they are completely different. You want to have another Hiroshima debate? Revive the thread.

Furthermore, I'd like you to explain to me the "justification" in blowing up some innocent civilians on an airplane, thanks.

And your spin isn't going to work, but thanks for trying.

Bottom line question (for those who disagree with me): Would racial profiling not make it more difficult for Muslim terrorists to carry out plots against American flights? If not, why?

Never did I say "the biggest threat in the country is white/christian....." So inaccurate.



good. I didn't make that comparison.


I didn't say you made it up. But the context or detailed reasoning is not presented


We agreed to disagree in that thread. I agree that it is not a 1:1 situation. But I just gave you an example to tell you how wrong things will look when presented out of context. ,that the "1 in 4" number is grossly incorrect.


Sorry, I don't need to give you any justification because I was not one of them who responded in the survey for "rarely/ever" option. Infact, I don't support suicide bombings for any reason, not even for any greater good. If you remember my argument in hiroshima thread, I said that killing civilians is not justified even if it serves a greater good. I only said that those who responded to the survey might have a justification, like you have for the hiroshima case. And those justifications, if any were not published. Don't twist the argument.


I didn't spin anything. It is just that when I put you in the same category as those who responded for rarely/ever, you started giving a spin on all arguments. Stop that and respond to logic.


I am one of those who disagree with you on racial profiling. So I'll answer your 'bottom line' question.

Yes I agree that racial profiling will make it difficult for terrorists to do any harm. But it will also make it difficult for vast majority of innocent people belonging to those races to lead a dignified honorable living with racial profiling going on. It is racist and unacceptable in a tolerant society.

Uh... Equal Rights Amendment? Racial profiling is (as in, factually) unconstitutional. This is basically a mild and masked form of racial segregation. We are segregating the effort for saftey. I actually think your point was a bit weak, you can't really stir up enough racial bias to divert us from the preamble, especially when its foundation so deeply overtones this subject.



No, just making it a hassle to access that right.



I've always been in favor of not pissing someone off when they are holding a weapon... I'm pretty sure that guy doesn't appreciate members of his race being singled out based on variables they have no control over.



It's a right, but like any right, it can be abused. If that right is abused, action must surely be made. But the right to freedom of speech is probably the easiest right to abuse; all you really have to do, in terms of textbook example, is go into a crowded theater and yell "fire!" Now, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the majority of people going into crowded theater's and yelling "fire!" are 12 year old girls who listen to My Chemical Romance. But, is there any sort of crackdown on 13 year old girls? Are we cutting their tongues off? It'd be an over-reaction to do such. And an unjust one, at that.



Most certainly. America seems to be getting the most carried away in this racial profiling business. Kind of like we assumed all socialists to be enemies during the bulk of the 20th century, or the Japanese-American's to be tyrannical during WWII, or all Southerner's/Northerner's in the Civil War, all British during the Revolution, and so on. America seems to have a problem in generalizing and type-casting in times of war and distress.



Again. You're confusing "acts of terrorism" with "casualties". And don't give me some sort of bullshit spiel to the likes of "acting on terrorism means creating casualties!" I'm talking acts of terrorism. This entire thread is talking acts of terrorism. Not casualties. Is the United States trying to decrease the number of casualties from say, 5,000 in a given period of time to 3,000 in a given period or time, or are they trying to eliminate the number of acts of terrorism? Casualties are casualties... It'd be preferable to eliminate ALL possible casualties. But we're going straight for the jugular... Eliminate ACTS of terrorism and you eliminate CASUALTIES of terrorism. We're just not going about eliminating terrorism in a very civilized or intelligent manner.



It's just as retarded as racially profiling when we've seen court case after court case dealing with civil liberties in regards to race, and we've spent decades working for racial equality, have had to watch some of the greatest activists in the history of time die for these rights (Ghandi, Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcom X, etc, Robert Kennedy, etc.) and so on.



Ok, so, we're seperating one racial group from another, and treating them differently in a public facility... How is this not elitest. And it totally is race related. If the majority of terrorists were black, we'd be treating blacks differently. If the majority of terrorists were Native American, we'd be treating Native Americans differently. It's RACIAL PROFILING. PROFILING based on RACE. How is it not RACIAL? The statistics add up, but not all Muslims are terrorists. So, statistics or no statistics, it is most deffinately in relation to race. There is no probable cause to back these searches up other than social generalizations, and these generalizations happen to be based upon race and religion.



When did I say we should ignore it? I said that there are actually few acts of terrorism per quota, and you retorted by restating the figure of casualties lost on 9/11. This was totally irrelevant. How many acts of terror occurred on that day? If we want to count each plane, four? five? And those all stem from the same plan of action, so we could easily count them as one act, but for your sake, we'll count each plane that crashed. So, four planes or so, roughly 3,500 dead. Those are two different figures relating to two very different things. 34 students died in the Columbine school shooting. There were two shooters, both acting upon the same whacked out "cause". So that's one act. But by your standards, this is like saying there were 34 different shooters, 34 separate acts of school shootings. On September 11, there were a few planes and thousands of casualties. Not thousands of planes. If we had stopped one, or two, or five, or ten terrorists, we would have stopped one act, and saved thousands of lives. But that's still one act. I'm sort of droning, I know, but I just want to make sure we're all clear on the definitions of very basic and casual vocabulary.

The JFK terrorists should be tried (for their crimes, not their race), sentenced to life, and made an example of--even though we'll be complete hypocrite and give them the death sentence. But oh well, such is life.




Never mind, I'll try not to use clever satire.

No one said you did. You did however point out that, like I said in my last post, that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists.

Then, you bring up Christian fundamentalists, to then say that there is a small percentage that could commit terror.

What was your point if it wasn't to infer that Christians, or some other group, is just as likely to commit an act of terror, even if that is contrary to what we've established in this thread?




Not directly, but inherently.



I would think sometimes = sometimes, and rarely = rarely.

I didn't think we needed a huge definition for those terms.



But its not! You asked me to show you where in the Pew study it said 25%. I did.

It isn't out of context, it is accurate.



I'm not twisting the argument. I WANT YOU TO TELL ME WHAT POSSIBLE JUSTIFICATION YOU APPARENTLY SEE FOR BLOWING UP THE PASSENGERS ON AN AIRPLANE.



I'd respond that way if there was any.



Then we agree.



If they want the system changed, start giving up those who are spreading hate in their communities, those who are planning attacks like the one at JFK, etc.

It isn't racist. It's based on the fact that radical Muslims have committed the most heinous acts of terror against America since the USS Cole bombing. We're using common sense, not racism.

For the record, I could care less about tolerance.

Uh, yeah. I guess I forgot when that one got ratified.

Oh, it didn't? Whooah.




So I just want to be clear here - you'd rather see people die than inconvenience a few people getting through baggage check, right?



You're right, we wouldn't want to offend, nay, stop the people who are trying to kill us.

Feel free to slit our throats, rape our wives, because, after all, we don't want to piss you off.




I fail to see how we can put freedom of speech on par with suicide bombing airplanes, but whatever floats your boat...



Yeah, not pissing off Muslims.

How's that working out for France right now?

Oh, yeah. Silly.



So by what you've said above...we should eliminate casualties by not pissing off the gunmen when they point the gun at our head?

Am I following you here?



We're not going to start putting Muslims in camps, Christ. This is airport security.



Airplanes are private companies (not counting the recent federal bail-outs). The NFTA and airport security aren't, but again, I don't see how you can say that we don't have the right to screen people based upon this system.



Congrats on finally reading the first post in the thread.



Bingo! Give the man a cigar!



Err...yeah.

Except for all terrorist attacks against the U.S. since 2001.

Not much of a trend though, right?



Personally, I'd line them up outside the airport, and televise them being executed by firing squad.

Or, better yet, behead them, and distribute DVD copies of it across the globe.




I'd settle for a logical argument, but it doesn't look like I'll see any of that either...

Now you're splitting hairs.

Look, anything is possible. There have been many documented cases of foreigners that have come into this country legitimately, established themselves in the country and in their community, and then 10 - 15 years later they were part of a terrorist organization.

You know what, let's cut the bullshit here and call a spade a spade. OK?

Middle eastern extremists have been responsible for many attacks against the western world over the years. Without looking up statistics I'll go out on a limb and say that in the last 20 -30 years or so, a majority of terrorist related attacks or incidents were carried out or planned by terrorists who are or were middle eastern.

For land's sake, they attack and kill people right in their own countries! They carry out suicide bombings in their own middle eastern nations.

I don't remember the last time that I turned on the news and saw that an Italian from Brooklyn walked into the market and blew up the place. I don't recall picking up a newspaper recently that wrote about a Jewish man walking onto a bus in Queens and blowing up the bus.

Yet you cannot deny that these types of terrorist acts are almost a regular occurance in many middle eastern nations.

But I did witness two planes, overtaken by middle eastern men, driven into two skyscrapers. I did turn on the TV and see that a middle eastern television network had a kid's show airing with a Mickey mouse look alike telling the children that they should hate the Jews and the Americans.

I haven't seen any of those kinds of shows on American television.

Does this mean that ALL middle eastern people or that ALL Muslims are bad people, or are terrorists? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

But unfortunately for those people, others from their region of the world have continually carried out acts of terrorism against their own nations as well as other nations. And unfortunately for those inoccent people of the world that are Muslim or of Middle Eastern decent, their own kind, on a very large scale, have declared war on the rest of the non believers and continue to try and attempt to devistate our country and destroy our children and thier future.

Do I hate ALL middle eastern people because of what a sect of their kind have done over the years and continue to try and do? OF COURSE NOT.

But, if I'm in an airport and a middle eastern man starts praying in the middle of the terminal, or decides to use his cell phone as we are getting ready to take off, or walks around the the building that I may be at taking photos of the entrance, you bet your sweet ass that I'm going to profile him and inform the authorities of what I am witnessing.

Call it whatever you want. Racial profiling, discrimination. I don't care.

I call it survival. I call it common sense.

DJ - Your responses are getting really weak, and you're just starting to completely overlook comparisons and contradict yourself. I'm debating with myself whether or not its worth picking that last post apart.

Terrorist Attacks within the United States or against Americans abroad over the last 27 years. How many were carried out by middle eastern extremists and how many were carried out by non middle eastern extremists? :

______________________________________________

1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration.

1982
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.

1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.

Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.

1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.

1985
April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.

Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.

Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.

1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.

1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.

1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly 2 years earlier.

Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.

1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.

2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.

2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)

2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.

2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

2004
May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.

2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.

2006
Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy was foiled.

_____________________________________

Not just as likely. It is clear that muslims are more likely to be terrorists against America than other groups. I have told this several times. But I also gave you the disease example to show that 99-1 number can be misleading. I also said that a white/christian american could be convinced/coerced/threatened to to an act of terror. It includes the possiblity of an Al-quaeda guy threatening the lives of entire family of a person, if he were not to do a specific act indirectly leading to terror - say like photographing some building/bridge without being suspected as a terrorist. I am not saying it happened. I am saying it is possible (remember 12 angry men?)


It is clearly out of context to me. If I were given a multiple choice question, with rarely/sometimes as one of the options, I should also be given a column to describe that option as is customary with surveys that have such subjective answers. Even if the survey had it, it wasn't published. So as credible and prestigious the survey is, the information we have to draw such stock conclusions as that one journalist did, is woefully insufficient.


I don't know. I didn't even think that anyone could justify Hiroshima (whether or not I agree with them) until recently. None of my islamic friends think suicide bombing is justified rarely/sometimes. So I don't have a way of knowing what muslims in general think. And a survey like this (or atleast the news item based on it) is so carelessly worded to add to the existing misconceptions.




Giving up?
You are saying as though Al-qaeda discusses their plans with ordinary muslims like my friends that I mentioned. What can a muslim american citizen do to improve the situation without having to give up his/her civil liberties and undergoing needless humiliations? First of all some are trying to club the innocent muslims into the same category as the terrorists, by asking them to undergo extra hassles because of race. On top of that, you accuse them of not giving up terrorists, as though they are actively involved in all criminal activities. It is just the image of muslims as some kind of barbaric race, that is making people imagine that they cannot lead a decent, hardworking life like any other race. Prejudice in its peak.

Now that I pointed out that all the statistics you have been quoting are all exaggerated and out of context, you want to go back to your argument without dealing with specifics? I asked you a list that will catch criminals and not trouble innocents. You know what, you have given a lot of bullshit. Let's cut that first. An arab man praying in terminal or talking on cellphone before take-off are suspicious behavior? All devout muslims pray wherever they are in the direction of Mecca, 5 times a day. There are muslim students in my research lab who pray in the lab at university. I am an athiest, so I don't care. But I don't think they should be treated with suspicion for that. And talking on cell-phone before takeoff? That should be the silliest point? Please, let us call a spade a spade. Yo are talking bullshit and I don't want to continue this with you. Draw whatever conclusion you want. I can only fight some amount of irrationality at a time. Such gross racism/xenophobia is beyond my patience to deal with. Enjoy your sweet little success with DJ.

Of course they don't discuss their plans with the average Muslim person. But you cannot deny that there have been many cases in the past several years where some teachers in Mosques were arrested because of their ties to terrorist organizations. Does that mean that the other Muslims who went their to serve Allah are also guilty? Not at all. TRhe only thing that they may be guilty of was turning a blind eye to what was being taught right in their houses of worship.

So please don't sit there and tell me that some of these radical teachers who were proven to have terrorist ties were NOT preaching extremism in those Mosques! People of the Muslim communities that were subject to having these extremists removed from their Mosques have admitted themselves, after the fact though, that they were being taught extremism by some of these teachers. If that was the case then why not come forward and turn in the teacher who is preaching fanaticism and extremism?

The Al Farouq mosque in Brooklyn helped raise millions of dollars for al Qaeda. Omar Abdul-Rahman, the blind shiek, was preaching hatred and extremism for many years at three mosques in the New York area. Yet no one from those Mosques went to the authorities to report what was being said by him in those Mosques.

Surely there were innocent Muslims who went to those Mosques. Where were they in defending what their religion is really supposed to be about? Where were they in turning in a guy like Rahman because of the distorted teachings that he was preaching in their Mosques?

I think that's what DJ is talking about.

AHHHHH. And it happens again! What looked to be a respectful and decent debate is once again turned into a personal attack and a pissing contest. It's a shame. I had hoped that those days were gone and thought that I could once again get back into some mature, intelligent and respectful debates.

Obviously, by your last post, I was wrong.

Pissing contests are fun if you have a plate of jalapenos next to you.

A pissing contest is useless without a Keg of beer.

Or cheesefries from Outback

Grand, grand suggestion. I'll bring the straws and jalapenos, you provide the keg (you're richer than me).

Here's a photo of Capo when he finally comes to the states and let's me buy him a Keg :



And me after paying for Capo's Keg!

And I won't mind a bit.

Capo,

Don't forget to pledge you're ever-ending loyalty to Don Cardi.

I actually just had a pissing contest with myself.

I lost.