Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?

[Silk]

Once again people i know here where i live complain about how those of the muslim faith are being targeted by security measures at airports and alike... I fail to see their logic.

I mean no offense but... Our enemy is a islamic terrorist group al-queda correct? So it would be a waste of manpower if we was to search every australlian bhuddist that went through customs as well right? You cant say about people being singled out of a single faith, when our enemy is of a single faith. And then complain about the lack of man power the next.

What are others veiws on this?

[Zeitgeist]

Be sure Al-Qaeda is counting on this very dilemma from distracting us. If we focus on Muslims, we are some how racist or bigoted. If we don't focus on the obvious and search everyone, we waste resources and time, and they get through eventually.

Either way, they win.

It is foolish, ignorant and naive to not focus on the likely suspects. To do anything else is playing right in their hands.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I dunno but wouldn't focusing on your search on specifics like that leave you open to deception?  Put all your guards on one wall, you leave the others vunerable. 

[Serephino]

Very true.  If I remember right they had a White American Muslim try to pull something.  And who's to say someone else won't decide they don't like us.  We'll never see it coming.

[Merlyn]

The problem isn't that Muslims are being targeted by security.  It's that Arab or Middle Eastern Muslims are being targeted. 

Muslim/Islam is a religion, not a race. 

And I just saw the perfect example of this for a movie today. Traitor, which I do believe was thought up do to all of the views and hatred toward the Muslim community, to open some eyes.

I would prefer stricter searches in many places.  It has been shown by many people that airports are still not secure.  You can still sneak many dangerous items on, what is being done is just an allusion of security.  Not the reality of it.  TSA is not effective in the least, their employee's are usually over worked and under payed.  They have a problem filling the spots they need because no one lasts very long, or wants the job.

It would really be more effective to have a single soldier on every flight, (with prefragmented ammunition) that would be specifically trained by experts as to how to handle a situation.  As opposed to just adding more security measures, and TSA personnel.  But then people would feel like there was more to worry about, having armed guards on their flight.

The US has a habit of feeling like they are invulnerable to any sort of danger.  Which is why 9/11 was such a tremendous scare to so many people.  What most people don't remember is that the twin towers had been attacked before.  It was I believe in 1990, and masterminded by Bin Laden (if my memory serves me).

And our major problem is the fact that they know how to fight a guerrilla war.  After all that is what we trained them to do.  So no matter what there is and will be problems.  Yet we have people who refuse to accept the measures that need to be taken to deal with all of this.  We are being forced to play by the rules, when we are the only ones that read the rule book.

Ok, sorry for the rant.  And if I sorta went off topic, but I feel very strongly about all of this as you can see.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I would have to agree that putting more into the sky marshals program would probably be best.  A sky marshal on those flights would have averted 9/11.

[Trieste]

Once again people here complain about how those of the muslim faith are being targeted by security measures at airports and alike... I fail to see their logic.

When you do this, you need to link to the original thread with the mentioned comments, so that they can be addressed. To do otherwise is to stir up needless fingerpointing and drama.

Thread will be locked until the original post is edited with this information. If locking it makes the post un-editable, Silk can PM me with the threads from which this sprouted.

[Lavaske]

I think that it's rediculous to target out a race of people, for any reason.  Back in WWII, the Japanese were interred in POW camps.  It didn't matter whether or not they were U.S. citizens, they were interred.  Their homes were taken away, sold, demolished, their possessions looted, their jobs lost- these people were left with nothing once they left concentration.

This sort of mentality, that those of Middle Eastern descent are our enemies, is the same sort of rage and paranoia that fuels events like the holocaust.

It is wholly unjust of the United States to single out a set of people because of their race.  In fact, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and suggests unfair treatment based on racial attributes.

It's true that many of our nation's freedoms are at jeopardy because of the attack of 9/11.  However, the threat is not external, but internal.  If we continue to over-react, we are in real danger.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." - Benjamin Franklin

[Zakharra]

I think that it's rediculous to target out a race of people, for any reason.  Back in WWII, the Japanese were interred in POW camps.  It didn't matter whether or not they were U.S. citizens, they were interred.  Their homes were taken away, sold, demolished, their possessions looted, their jobs lost- these people were left with nothing once they left concentration.

This sort of mentality, that those of Middle Eastern descent are our enemies, is the same sort of rage and paranoia that fuels events like the holocaust.

It is wholly unjust of the United States to single out a set of people because of their race.  In fact, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and suggests unfair treatment based on racial attributes.

It's true that many of our nation's freedoms are at jeopardy because of the attack of 9/11.  However, the threat is not external, but internal.  If we continue to over-react, we are in real danger.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." - Benjamin Franklin

Unfortunately our enemies are of, mainly Middle Eastern decent. So it's normal  and proper procedjure to profile on that basis alone for a start. Then the religion as you clear people off the suspect list.

[Lavaske]

Unfortunately our enemies are of, mainly Middle Eastern decent. So it's normal  and proper procedjure to profile on that basis alone for a start. Then the religion as you clear people off the suspect list.

You can make that same argument to justify the interment of Japanese Americans during WWII.  The reaction there is a little more extreme, but still, the mentality is the same.  It's a very thin line to walk between protection and persecution, and I suspect that we very well may have crossed it.

[Zakharra]

  It is a thin line, but it IS an accurate reason to profile because our enemies are Islamic Middle Easterners. To ignore that is utter foolishness.

[Rhapsody]

It's true that many of our nation's freedoms are at jeopardy because of the attack of 9/11.  However, the threat is not external, but internal.  If we continue to over-react, we are in real danger.

As my favorite ranting gryphon put it:

"What freedoms did you lose during this infamous attack? You can go to a Best Western and have sex with a hairy Samoan woman in a clown suit with a stuffed fucking badger!  And you honestly believe that some impoverished desert country halfway around the planet is trying to take that away from you?"

  It is a thin line, but it IS an accurate reason to profile because our enemies are Islamic Middle Easterners. To ignore that is utter foolishness.

No, it isn't an accurate reason to profile any race.  I live two doors down in an apartment building from an Islamic Middle Easterner and his family.  All in all, a really nice guy.  Do you know why he's in Canada?  Because he doesn't believe it's safe in his home country for his kids, and because he feels that extremists have taken their beliefs way too far.  Should he submit to official indignities and outright disrespect simply because of what others of his country and faith have done? 

And if so, where does that stop?  Should I, as a Catholic-raised person, automatically fit the profile of a pedophile because of the crimes some priests and clergy of that faith committed against children?   Should all Germans be marched down to police stations for questioning if a Jew or Romani is murdered in their community?   Should all black members of a neighbourhood be hauled out of their homes if a house on the next block was broken into? 

Do you see where I'm going with this?  Once you start citing stereotypes as valid reasons, it's nearly impossible to stop.  Maybe you're alright with the idea of profiling an entire people based on their ethnic or religious origins, despite its distinct lack of constitutionality, but I am not. 

[Zeitgeist]

There is a place for good police work, surveillance and intelligence. This is not the same as stereotyping or going overboard with profiling certain people. You cannot cast aside the fact, that of late the majority of terrorists have been Middle Eastern descent and of Muslin faith. To do anything else would be foolish.

Rest assured, our enemies are counting on us wringing our hands over this issue, leaving the door ajar just enough for them to wiggle through.

[Zakharra]

 

No, it isn't an accurate reason to profile any race.  I live two doors down in an apartment building from an Islamic Middle Easterner and his family.  All in all, a really nice guy.  Do you know why he's in Canada?  Because he doesn't believe it's safe in his home country for his kids, and because he feels that extremists have taken their beliefs way too far.  Should he submit to official indignities and outright disrespect simply because of what others of his country and faith have done? 

You are taking it the wrong way. By profiling at the start, you can eliminate 95% of the suspected  people. Which lets us concentrate on those who are suspicious.

  This is what I meant *points below*

There is a place for good police work, surveillance and intelligence. This is not the same as stereotyping or going overboard with profiling certain people. You cannot cast aside the fact, that of late the majority of terrorists have been Middle Eastern descent and of Muslin faith. To do anything else would be foolish.

Rest assured, our enemies are counting on us wringing our hands over this issue, leaving the door ajar just enough for them to wiggle through.

[Oniya]

There are other ways of profiling (in the investigative sense, rather than the pejorative sense) than by race.  Suspicious past behavior (people spending an inordinate amount of time investigating bridges/airport security/government building security, trying multiple times to get across a border after being turned away) is a far more reliable predictor of future behavior. 

The lack of any credible investigation involved in interment camps (like the WWII 'Nisei' camps) either before or after people are swept into them is what has made them a real blot on America's record.  Even acknowledging a mistake in a timely manner would have gone a long way in soothing ruffled feathers.

[Zakharra]

There are other ways of profiling (in the investigative sense, rather than the pejorative sense) than by race.  Suspicious past behavior (people spending an inordinate amount of time investigating bridges/airport security/government building security, trying multiple times to get across a border after being turned away) is a far more reliable predictor of future behavior. 

Middle Eastern men hijack planes to fly into the World Trade Towers. A radical Islamic group takes credit. It has been behind multiple attacks for the last decade. 99% of all members are men of Middle Eastern decent. All Islamic worshippers.

That sounds like a good place to start looking at. Start from the obvious (Racial and religions tendacies), then work down from there.

[Lavaske]

Middle Eastern men hijack planes to fly into the World Trade Towers. A radical Islamic group takes credit. It has been behind multiple attacks for the last decade. 99% of all members are men of Middle Eastern decent. All Islamic worshippers.

That sounds like a good place to start looking at. Start from the obvious (Racial and religions tendacies), then work down from there.

99.9% of Middle Eastern men are not terrorists!  To treat the whole group as suspects is entirely ridiculous!  If a murder occurs, and the police know that the murderer is white, they don't go round up every single white man and interrogate him.  Such a practice would be insane!  Look, the Columbine kids were both white, but I don't have to have myself searched every time I enter a school.

[Oniya]

Look, the Columbine kids were both white, but I don't have to have myself searched every time I enter a school.

Although a number of schools put in metal detectors in response to school shootings.

[Zakharra]

99.9% of Middle Eastern men are not terrorists!  To treat the whole group as suspects is entirely ridiculous!  If a murder occurs, and the police know that the murderer is white, they don't go round up every single white man and interrogate him.  Such a practice would be insane!  Look, the Columbine kids were both white, but I don't have to have myself searched every time I enter a school.

You missed my point, intentionally or unintentionally. Every one of the terrorists was of middle Eastern decent and an Islamist. I am merely saying that we use that as a starting point. It makes NO sense to nearly strip search Caucasian grandmas, young children, orientals when looking for radical Islamic terrorists. Start with those that fit the profile and  par it down from there. I'm not saying all Middle Eastern people are terrorists (which you are taking my statements as saying), or even supporting them, but there are some. It's the process of finding those people that we start with the profile.

[HairyHeretic]

I'd like to hope you had some kind of intelligence to indicate a person might be linked to terrorism beyond their appearance, or where they're from.

[Rhapsody]

You missed my point, intentionally or unintentionally. Every one of the terrorists was of middle Eastern decent and an Islamist. I am merely saying that we use that as a starting point. It makes NO sense to nearly strip search Caucasian grandmas, young children, orientals when looking for radical Islamic terrorists. Start with those that fit the profile and  par it down from there. I'm not saying all Middle Eastern people are terrorists (which you are taking my statements as saying), or even supporting them, but there are some. It's the process of finding those people that we start with the profile.

Of course, there are these pesky things like the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to prevent such idiocy.  Thank God.  Because you seem to be confusing racial profiling with criminal profiling.

[Trieste]

Easy, guys...

[Zakharra]

Of course, there are these pesky things like the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to prevent such idiocy.  Thank God.  Because you seem to be confusing racial profiling with criminal profiling.

I'm not confusing racial with criminal profiling. In this instance though, it starts out on a racial/religions base and gets narrowed down from there. I'm not advocating discrimination  racially, but to start the search for terrorists, it had to start out on several points. Two of which were race and religion.

What I'm saying and Lavaske  seems to be missing is that 99.9% of the terrorists are Middle Eastern Muslim men. I'm NOT blaming all  Middle Eastern men or Muslims by any means, but that is where we start looking.  Because of the actions of a small majority, suspicion has fallen on all of them. Unfairly, yes, but there is no discrimination on the size that happened in WWII. No Arabs/Middle Eastern people being put in concentration camps, lynched or otherwise put down en mass.

I'd like to hope you had some kind of intelligence to indicate a person might be linked to terrorism beyond their appearance, or where they're from.

Exactly. You start with the obvious (looks and religion) and work down to the more difficult. Removing people from the suspect lists to get to the ones you do want.  To ignore looks and relgion in this type of war, as a starting point for investigation, and use a shotgun approach in checking people is a waste of time and energy. At that time. Now it's been found Al-Qada is recruiting, or trying to, non Middle Eastern looking men, so it's smart to broaden the search now.

[HairyHeretic]

No, I'd say you start with the intelligent ... contact the intelligence services in the countries where such groups exist, and where the local intelligence organisations likely already have detailed files on them .. members, contacts, communications records and so on.

Going on ethnicity and religion is going to get you 10,000 or more misses for every hit, and who can afford to waste that much time and manpower?

Tell me, when Americans were funneling tens of thousands of dollars to white, christian terrorist groups (the IRA), was every white American with a set of rosary beads or an Irish sounding surname stopped flying into England?

[Zakharra]

No, I'd say you start with the intelligent ... contact the intelligence services in the countries where such groups exist, and where the local intelligence organisations likely already have detailed files on them .. members, contacts, communications records and so on.

Going on ethnicity and religion is going to get you 10,000 or more misses for every hit, and who can afford to waste that much time and manpower?

Tell me, when Americans were funneling tens of thousands of dollars to white, christian terrorist groups (the IRA), was every white American with a set of rosary beads or an Irish sounding surname stopped flying into England?

  Al I am saying is we  START the process by looking at demographics. Which include ethnic and religion.  The 9-11 terrorosts and Al-Qada were not white Europeans, not hispanic, oriental, but  Middle Eastern Muslims. THAT is the start, which you seem to be ignoring. I'm not saying you stay there, but if you ignore ethic and religious views, that is pretty stupid. WHILE using intellgence, you winnow it down further. According to what I'm getting from you, you'd toss out ethic and religious views/affiliation altogether.

Going on ethnicity and religion is going to get you 10,000 or more misses for every hit, and who can afford to waste that much time and manpower?

Guess part of the process that is used? Racial and religious profiling. ANY intelligence agency worth anything, will use that as a part of the process in finding intelligence. Why religious? Because there is only 1 major religious that is being used to promote the murder and violent killing (by any means) of it's enemies. Islam. THAT is why you look at the religious aspect.  RAcial, 99.9% of the terrorists are from the Middle East. THAT is why you look at the racial background as well. To ignore that is damned stupid.