If you speak Arabic, you're a terrorist.

POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 23:13
VIEWED: 9317
PAGE 1 of 1

CITIZEN

Sunday, August 20, 2006 9:17 PM

Quote:
Passengers on a Manchester-bound flight have described how two men were removed from the plane because other travellers thought they were speaking Arabic.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5269106.stm

So it's clear, if you look like a Muslim, and you speak Arabic, you must be a Terrorist.

Luckilly we're not the racist ones that judge people on looks language and religion...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, August 20, 2006 9:24 PM

Historically, progressive attitudes have generally taken a back seat to getting blown up.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Sunday, August 20, 2006 9:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Historically, progressive attitudes have generally taken a back seat to getting blown up.

So do you agree that people who look Muslim should be banned from aircraft? Mob rule?

Is Xenophobia okay if we're the one's doing it?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AGENTROUKA

Sunday, August 20, 2006 9:31 PM

But seriously, what are you supposed to do if Arabic is the language you speak? Be quiet and not say anything or else you're thrown out of any transportation system you want to use?

They obviously got through all the check-points safe and clear.

Progressive ideas such as "don't burn people alive as witches" have also taken backseats, historically, to fear, yes. Doesn't mean it's right.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, August 20, 2006 9:34 PM

To be fair and realistic, if I were of Arab descent, I would be speaking english on an English or American plane these days, for my own saftey.
There's a lot of nuts out there, on both sides of the fence.

Alladinisall

EMPXENU

Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:06 PM

It's a "progressive attitude" to allow people to move freely and not arbitrarily curb that right because of paranoid stereotyping?

----
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light of meaning in the darkness of mere being" - Carl Jung

DINALT

Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:07 PM

Where's it all going to end, this is almost as feeble as the story a few days ago about the claustrophobic woman who made a flight turn back.

Unfortunately, this type of incident does the terror mongers work for them.
Of course, people are going to be on edge - that's understandable. But it doesn't mean passengers can start demanding the removal of other passengers.

I'm guessing that Spanish airport security is as tight as any other western airports, so why would people feel nervous ?

What next ? People refusing to get on trains or buses, or any other form of public transport ?

It's a worrying sign for the future, although I do agree with chrisisall. With the current climate, I'd also be speaking English on a UK or American plane.
Not saying that's right or wrong, but people will be understandably nervous, and that might go some way to alleviating fears.

That said, what would these passengers have done if it had been 2 English speakers, who just appeared nervous ?
Could be that someone's just nervous about flying (there are a few around - me included). If they saw someone sweating, or gripping the seat with white knuckles, what would they have done ?
Or someone so nervous they were trying to control a panic attack - it happens. Are we so far down the paranoid road, that anyone who looks suspicious gets removed from a plane ?

But I'm guessing that the real criminals are rubbing their hands with glee, as they are creating such a state of paranoia in the transport systems of the world.

Wholeheartedly agree with Empxenu - paranoid stereotyping isn't a progressive attitude.
If we start down the road of paranoid xenophobia, it's a slippery slope to intolerance and hatred - so let's hope these incidents stop.

MISBEHAVEN

Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Historically, progressive attitudes have generally taken a back seat to getting blown up.

I think you're missing the point. Charles Krauthammer, neo-conservative talking head and Fox News political analyst, wrote a column in the New York Times, "Politically Correct Screening Won't Catch Jihadists," advocating the practice of using ethnicity, nationality, and religion as the determinate factors when screening for potential terrorists at U.S. airports. This position is so flawed, it's hard to know where to start.

First off, this is a racist, bigoted idea that will do nothing to enhance security. Think back to London after the bombings there. A police officer, obviously on edge after the recent bombings, chased down and put seven bullets into a Brazilian electrician. Why? Because the Brazilian panicked and ran from the officer, and the policeman thought he looked like an Arab Muslim. I mention this, because of Krauthammer's answer: security officials should concentrate on "young Muslim men of North African, Middle Eastern and South Asian origin." Krauthammer doesn't say how authorities should go about identifying "Muslim men" or how to distinguish non-Muslim men from Muslim men entering a subway station. Probably just a small detail easily overlooked.

The flaw in Krauthammer's methodology, is that his system includes huge numbers of men of color. How, just by looking, can security personnel identify a Muslim male of Arab or South Asian origin goes unexplained.

Reportedly, after Sept. 11, 2001, some "good" citizens of California took out after members of the Sikh community, mistaking them for Arabs. Oh, well, what's a little political incorrectness in the name of national security. Bang, bang -- oops, he was Brazilian. Two young black guys were London bombers: one Jamaican, the other Somalian. Muslim, too. Ergo: Watch your back when around black men -- they could be Muslims.

So while advocates of racial profiling would have authorities subject men and women of black and brown hues to close scrutiny for criminal suspicion, they would look right past:

· White male Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh, who killed 168 people, including 19 children, and damaged 220 buildings.

· White male Eric Rudolph, whose remote-controlled bomb killed a woman and an off-duty police officer at a clinic, whose Olympic Park pipe bomb killed a woman and injured more than 100, and whose bombs hit a gay club and woman's clinic.

· D.C.-born and Silver Spring-raised white male John Walker Lindh, who converted to Islam and was captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban.

· The IRA bombers who killed and wounded hundreds; the neo-fascist bombers who killed 80 people and injured nearly 300 in Bologna, Italy; and the truck bombings in Colombia by Pedro Escobar's gang. Bombings carried out by Basque separatists, Germany's Red Army Faction, and France's Action Directe.

But let's get really current. What about those non-Arab, non-South Asians without black or brown skins who are bombing apartment buildings, train stations and theaters in Russia. They've taken down passenger jets, hijacked schools and used female suicide bombers to a fare-thee-well, killing hundreds and wounding thousands. They are Muslims from Chechnya, and would pass the Krauthammer test for terrorists with ease. After all, these folks hail from the Caucasus; you can't get any more Caucasian than that.

What the racial profilers are proposing is insulting, offensive and -- by thought, word and deed, whether intentional or not -- racist. And just as importantly, ineffective. But don't take my word for it. Ask the Israelis. El Al, the Israeli airline, doesn't now nor has it ever used racial profiling as a means for detecting potential terrorists. What do they do? They use a more thorough and direct approach:

"When El Al passengers arrive at Israel's Ben Gurion airport or any other airport that services the airline, they undergo an extensive interview by trained security personnel.

They

USBROWNCOAT

Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Historically, progressive attitudes have generally taken a back seat to getting blown up.
So do you agree that people who look Muslim should be banned from aircraft? Mob rule?

Is Xenophobia okay if we're the one's doing it?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

Only when I'm on it..What Finn said.

CITIZEN

Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
To be fair and realistic, if I were of Arab descent, I would be speaking english on an English or American plane these days, for my own saftey.
There's a lot of nuts out there, on both sides of the fence.

It's not sure whether they were speaking Arabic, all that's known for sure is they were 'Muslim looking'.

Would you only speak Spanish in Mexico?

CITIZEN

Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
Only when I'm on it..What Finn said.

So its okay for us to label people based on religion and ethnicity, but when they do it, it is a product of their hateful culture, hateful religion and hateful language.

You have double standards, I get it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

USBROWNCOAT

Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Historically, progressive attitudes have generally taken a back seat to getting blown up.

I think you're missing the point. Charles Krauthammer, Neo-conservative talking head and Fox News political analyst, wrote a column in the New York Times, "Politically Correct Screening Won't Catch Jihadists," advocating the practice of using ethnicity, nationality, and religion as the determinate factors when screening for potential terrorists at U.S. airports. This position is so flawed, it's hard to know where to start.

First off, this is racist, bigoted idea that will do nothing to enhance security. Think back to London after the recent bombings there. A police officer, obviously on edge after the recent bombings, chased down and put seven bullets into a Brazilian electrician. Why? Because the Brazilian panicked and ran from the officer, and the policeman thought he looked like an Arab Muslim. I mention this, because of Krauthammer's answer: security officials should concentrate on "young Muslim men of North African, Middle Eastern and South Asian origin." Krauthammer doesn't say how authorities should go about identifying "Muslim men" or how to distinguish non-Muslim men from Muslim men entering a subway station. Probably just a small detail easily overlooked.

The flaw in Krauthammer's methodology, is that his system includes huge numbers of men of color. How, just by looking, can security personnel identify a Muslim male of Arab or South Asian origin goes unexplained.

Reportedly, after Sept. 11, 2001, some "good" citizens of California took out after members of the Sikh community, mistaking them for Arabs. Oh, well, what's a little political incorrectness in the name of national security. Bang, bang -- oops, he was Brazilian. Two young black guys were London bombers: one Jamaican, the other Somalian. Muslim, too. Ergo: Watch your back when around black men -- they could be Muslims.

So while advocates of racial profiling would have authorities subject men and women of black and brown hues to close scrutiny for criminal suspicion, they would look right past:

· White male Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh, who killed 168 people, including 19 children, and damaged 220 buildings.

· White male Eric Rudolph, whose remote-controlled bomb killed a woman and an off-duty police officer at a clinic, whose Olympic Park pipe bomb killed a woman and injured more than 100, and whose bombs hit a gay club and woman's clinic.

· D.C.-born and Silver Spring-raised white male John Walker Lindh, who converted to Islam and was captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban.

· The IRA bombers who killed and wounded hundreds; the neo-fascist bombers who killed 80 people and injured nearly 300 in Bologna, Italy; and the truck bombings in Colombia by Pedro Escobar's gang. Bombings carried out by Basque separatists, Germany's Red Army Faction, and the French's Action Directe.

But let's get really current. What about those non-Arab, non-South Asians without black or brown skins who are bombing apartment buildings, train stations and theaters in Russia. They've taken down passenger jets, hijacked schools and used female suicide bombers to a fare-thee-well, killing hundreds and wounding thousands. They are Muslims from Chechnya, and would pass the Krauthammer test for terrorists with ease. After all, these folks hail from the Caucasus; you can't get any more Caucasian than that.

What the racial profilers are proposing is insulting, offensive and -- by thought, word and deed, whether intentional or not -- racist. And just as importantly, ineffective. But don't take my word for it. Ask the Israelis. El-Al, the Israeli airline, doesn't now nor has it ever used racial profiling as a means for detecting potential terrorists. What do they do? They use a more thorough and direct approach:

"When El Al passengers arrive at Israel's Ben Gurion airport or any other airport that services the airline, they undergo an exte

USBROWNCOAT

Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
Only when I'm on it..What Finn said.
So its okay for us to label people based on religion and ethnicity, but when they do it, it is a product of their hateful culture, hateful religion and hateful language.

You have double standards, I get it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

I am fine with that Especially when it comes to AIR travel.

AGENTROUKA

Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:

If I were in the area, and an APB come out and I fit the description, I would not care if the police "questioned me". If they didn't, they would not be doing due diligence.

But they were already in the plane.
Past all the checkpoints.
And it wasn't official security personell suspecting them, it was other passengers.

Basically, it's as if you were being picked up by a mob for questioning for resembling a suspect, not by the police. After having been officially cleared of suspicion by the police. (read: airport security.) That'd be a more fitting comparison.

CITIZEN

Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
I am fine with that Especially when it comes to AIR travel.

Yes you should strike the infidel down, they have the wrong colour skin and everything.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

MISBEHAVEN

Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:

How is this racist? You know what a terrorist(THAT IS AN eminent THREAT..THE ONES WE ARE AT WAR WITH) looks like. To catch him you profile his "look".

No we don't always know what they look like. That's the point. If you focus exclusively on "looks," then your going to miss them. A person's looks can be altered, another language can be used, a religious preference can be concealed. I think you're underestimating the terrorists if you think they're unable to adapt to racial profiling. And if you don't see how ostricizing and demonizing people of another ethnicity, nationality, or religious group is wrong, after all that I already listed above, then I doubt I can explain it to you.

Quote:
If I were in the area, and an APB come out and I fit the description, I would not care if the police "questioned me". If they didn't, they would not be doing due diligence.

If security personnel recieved a description to be on the lookout for i.e.: "a 6"5' man, dark complexion, arab dress, bearded, wearing Muslim prayer beads, walking with a cane, and possibly hooked to a kidney dialysis machine etc.," then, yes it would obviously make sense to search for and question anyone matching that description. Again, the terrorists are malicious not moronic. It's resonable to expect that they will do everything within their ability to foil any attempts made at apprehending them using a racial profiling system.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

USBROWNCOAT

Sunday, August 20, 2006 11:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:

If I were in the area, and an APB come out and I fit the description, I would not care if the police "questioned me". If they didn't, they would not be doing due diligence.

But they were already in the plane.
Past all the checkpoints.
And it wasn't official security personell suspecting them, it was other passengers.

Basically, it's as if you were being picked up by a mob for questioning for resembling a suspect, not by the police. After having been officially cleared of suspicion by the police. (read: airport security.) That'd be a more fitting comparison.

My apologies, My comment was more about this idea we shouldn't profile. It just makes no sense to me. If the "Intelligence (USED WITH CAUTION)" comes in that a threat is from BLANKITY..BLANK, we should look for BLANKITY, BLANK. Not blankity, blank.

USBROWNCOAT

Sunday, August 20, 2006 11:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:

How is this racist? You know what a terrorist(THAT IS AN eminent THREAT..THE ONES WE ARE AT WAR WITH) looks like. To catch him you profile his "look".

No we don't always know what they look like. That's the point. If you focus exclusively on "looks," then your going to miss them. A person's looks can be altered, another language can be used, a religious preference can be concealed. I think you're underestimating the terrorists if you think they're unable to adapt to racial profiling. And if you don't see how ostricizing and demonizing people of another ethnicity, nationality, or religious group is wrong, after all that I already listed above, then I doubt I can explain it to you.

Quote:
If I were in the area, and an APB come out and I fit the description, I would not care if the police "questioned me". If they didn't, they would not be doing due diligence.

If security personnel recieved a description to be on the lookout for i.e.: "a 6"5' man, dark complexion, arab dress, bearded, wearing Muslim prayer beads, walking with a cane, and possibly hooked to a kidney dialysis machine etc.," then, yes it would obviously make sense to search for and question anyone matching that description. Again, the terrorists are malicious not moronic. It's resonable to expect that they will do everything within their ability to foil any attempts made at apprehending them using a racial profiling system.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

Like what plastic surgery? Every time a plot is "foiled" they look like Arabs.

MISBEHAVEN

Sunday, August 20, 2006 11:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
Like what plastic surgery? Every time a plot is "foiled" they look like Arabs.

Did you even bother to read the first post I made? The one listing all the other terrorists acts that have been committed by "non-Arab" looking indivduals. And what about the plots that aren't "foiled." Ever notice how the pictures that are released don't always fit into your "Arab" profile.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

USBROWNCOAT

Sunday, August 20, 2006 11:19 PM

Yes I'm talking about lately.

AGENTROUKA

Sunday, August 20, 2006 11:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:

My apologies, My comment was more about this idea we shouldn't profile. It just makes no sense to me. If the "Intelligence (USED WITH CAUTION)" comes in that a threat is from BLANKITY..BLANK, we should look for BLANKITY, BLANK. Not blankity, blank.

I apologize if I misunderstood you before.

But isn't this sort of racial profiling a limit we impose upon our own awareness? It makes us blinder to the threat that doesn't fit the profile, and it only fosters this sort of paranoia directed at innocents in the population.

People merely speaking Arabic had passengers scared enough to have them removed. After they were past security. That's not normal vigilance, that's being crippled by paranoia. People should be able to trust security in a way that reassures them. Meaning, they should have checks and tests in place that ensure the harmlessness of every individual so that people don't feel a helpless panic at the ones who merely share a physical resemblence to a possible threat.

MISBEHAVEN

Sunday, August 20, 2006 11:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
Yes I'm talking about lately.

"Two young black guys were London bombers: one Jamaican, the other Somalian. Muslim, too. Ergo: Watch your back when around black men -- they could be Muslims."

"What about those non-Arab, non-South Asians without black or brown skins who are bombing apartment buildings, train stations and theaters in Russia. They've taken down passenger jets, hijacked schools and used female suicide bombers to a fare-thee-well, killing hundreds and wounding thousands. They are Muslims from Chechnya, and would pass the Krauthammer test for terrorists with ease."

"· D.C.-born and Silver Spring-raised white male John Walker Lindh, who converted to Islam and was captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban."

Again, I think you need to look at the Israeli screening system. They're obviously surrounded by more than a few Arabs and Persians (Iranians) who would love to highjack/blow-up an El Al aircraft, and they don't use racial profiling. The reason being, IT DOESN"T WORK.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

MISBEHAVEN

Sunday, August 20, 2006 11:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But isn't this sort of racial profiling a limit we impose upon our own awareness? It makes us blinder to the threat that doesn't fit the profile, and it only fosters this sort of paranoia directed at innocents in the population.

Well said, AgentRouka.

Edit: To say nothing of the fact that it alienates the very segment of the population from which we need the most help and cooperation.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, August 20, 2006 11:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So do you agree that people who look Muslim should be banned from aircraft? Mob rule?

Is Xenophobia okay if we're the one's doing it?

If you had to choose between Xenophobia and the threat of getting blown up, which would you pick?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, August 21, 2006 12:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
I think you're missing the point. Charles Krauthammer, neo-conservative talking head and Fox News political analyst, wrote a column in the New York Times, "Politically Correct Screening Won't Catch Jihadists," advocating the practice of using ethnicity, nationality, and religion as the determinate factors when screening for potential terrorists at U.S. airports. This position is so flawed, it's hard to know where to start.

I haven’t read Krauthammer’s paper so I’m not going to respond to this, except to say that I think you’ve missed my point. And also there is nothing inherently bigoted about racial profiling. In the same way that there is nothing bigoted about arguing that more African-Americans comment crimes then White Americans. This is a statement of fact. Much as it is a statement of fact that the majority of terrorists we are dealing with are of Middle Eastern ethnicity. So if you want to prevent terrorism and your choice of suspects is an old English woman or a young Middle Eastern man, who do you choose to interrogate, if you can choose only one?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

DREAMTROVE

Monday, August 21, 2006 12:04 AM

Let me stick my nose where it doesn't belong

I would take Xenophobia, personally. But I don't think that's the contest, even if Citizen does.

I think it's a test between relatively empty threat, and the countermeasure which is an eye for an empty threat against an eye.

We shouldn't be taking pre-emptive action, it's morally wrong, violates the idea of minimum death, and totally undermines any attempt at diplomacy.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, August 21, 2006 12:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
We shouldn't be taking pre-emptive action, it's morally wrong, violates the idea of minimum death, and totally undermines any attempt at diplomacy.

Once someone has decided to get on a plane with a bomb, diplomacy becomes a secondary issue to preventing the explosion, I think. And we are already taking pre-emptive action, with regard to screening passengers, we are simply now doing it with no clear methodology for choosing likely suspects, which leads to strip searching old women.

Also everyone's nose belongs on this board.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

AGENTROUKA

Monday, August 21, 2006 12:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If you had to choose between Xenophobia and the threat of getting blown up, which would you pick?

Basically, anyone who dares to speak Arabic in your presence is automatically a terror suspect and you can point at them and demand that they be banned from your flight(/bus/train/building/whatever)?

Because, those people had been through the same security measures everyone else had. Their only crime was looking and speaking Arabic.

At some point, the racial paranoia has to stop. There needs to be a point of reassurance, because you cannot make belonging to a certain race a crime.

So what is it that you propose Arabic-speaking and -looking innocents do to take a plane ride without getting thrown off the moment someone hears them talk?

MISBEHAVEN

Monday, August 21, 2006 12:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I haven’t read Krauthammer’s paper so I’m not going to respond to this, except to say that I think you’ve missed my point. And also there is nothing inherently bigoted about racial profiling. In the same way that there is nothing bigoted about arguing that more African-Americans comment crimes then White Americans. This is a statement of fact. Much as it is a statement of fact that the majority of terrorists we are dealing with are of Middle Eastern ethnicity. So if you want to prevent terrorism and your choice of suspects is an old English woman or a young Middle Eastern man, who do you choose to interrogate, if you can choose only one?

You're right. African-Americans statistically commit more crimes than White-Americans, or at least they have a higher conviction rate. However, that's a whole other debate. As for your choice between an old English woman and a young Middle Eastern man, that's a false choice. But the Bush administration has been giving Americans those ever since 9/11.

I think that we must be careful to respect people's civil liberties. To suggest there is a trade-off between security and individual freedoms - that we must discard one protection for the other - is, again, a false choice. You do not defend liberty to forsake it.

When you design systems that are targeted to one group or another, you justifiably can anticipate a reaction that you are profiling and that it is discriminatory. In order for us to continue to be the kind of country we want to be, we need to design a system where nationality, ethnicity, and religion is not the element that drives any kind of screening method. A system that respects the liberties of every individual.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security."
- Benjamin Franklin

I realize you're not willing to give up your liberties, you're just asking the government to restrict the liberties of others, so that you will have your false sense of security.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, August 21, 2006 12:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So what is it that you propose Arabic-speaking and -looking innocents do to take a plane ride without getting thrown off the moment someone hears them talk?

If you really want to know, I suggest that we consider airport screening processes that don’t use random methodology, since strip searching old women is not likely to give anyone on board much piece of mind. I suggest that we consider evaluating potential suspects based on a broad spectrum of characteristics including behavior. And yes, we should more closely examine Muslim passengers then old women. Then maybe they went "through the same security measures everyone else" will mean more then it does right now.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, August 21, 2006 12:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
Your right. African-Americans statistically commit more crimes than White-Americans, or at least they have a higher conviction rate. However, that's a whole other debate. As for your choice between an old English woman and a young Middle Eastern man, that's a false choice. But the Bush administration has been giving Americans those ever since 9/11.

This isn’t a false choice at all. In fact, there’s every reason to believe that this is a choice that screeners in the US have likely faced.

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
I think that we must be careful to respect people's civil liberties. To suggest there is a trade-off between security and individual freedoms - that we must discard one protection for the other - is a false choice. You do not defend liberty to forsake it.

It’s not a false choice at all. In fact it is a choice that everyone has had to make when faced with a war. It’s a choice most people in the world make. In fact, only people in the rich, relative safety of the Western world can afford to forego that choice.

Claiming that these are “false choices” is just a way of avoiding a difficult issue. But the issue is real. People want to be safe, and if they cannot have confidence in our airplane screening they will evidentally do their own screening attempts, with much less consideration for fairness, I imagine.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

MISBEHAVEN

Monday, August 21, 2006 1:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If you really want to know, I suggest that we consider airport screening processes that don’t use random methodology

Ah...common ground. With respect to this part of your post, I'm in complete agreement with you. Random searches are ......well, random. They're a waste of valuable time and limited resources.

But that's all for me. It's time for Deadwood. Whores, alcohol, and throat-cuttin' ....a good time for all.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, August 21, 2006 1:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
But that's all for me. It's time for Deadwood. Whores, alcohol, and throat-cuttin' ....a good time for all.

Never got into Deadwood, really. But anything with whores, alcohol and throat-cuttin’ can’t be too bad.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Monday, August 21, 2006 2:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
To be fair and realistic, if I were of Arab descent, I would be speaking english on an English or American plane these days, for my own saftey.
There's a lot of nuts out there, on both sides of the fence.
It's not sure whether they were speaking Arabic, all that's known for sure is they were 'Muslim looking'.

Would you only speak Spanish in Mexico?

If Americans had pulled a 911 in Mexico, you couldn't even pay me to go there. I value my existance too much.
I already plan to never visit the ME for 'similar' reasons.

If I were of ME descent, I would be so tetchy about air-travel right now, I probably would never use it.
And if I lived in the ME, and had no relatives in the west, I'd never go there.

These are crazy times, and the best defense is not being where you can get hurt.

For my own part, I can usually sense potential violence when it's near me, and two ME-types on a plane with me would pose no interest to me, unless I sensed a cold hatred from them- then I'd keep a watchful eye.
But then I'd keep a similar watchful eye for any couple or group I sensed it from, unless they were children, I guess.

I say similar, but I admit, the ME look would add some edge to my attention if I sensed anything- so I probably would be guilty of profiling, even if only in that small way.

Only human Chrisisall

KANEMAN

Monday, August 21, 2006 2:48 AM

My dearest CiTz, what a joke you have become. Why don't you stop playing around and fulfill your trollish destiny. You have nothing but hot air and flame. Stop pretending.

ERIC

Monday, August 21, 2006 3:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And yes, we should more closely examine Muslim passengers then old women. Then maybe they went "through the same security measures everyone else" will mean more then it does right now.

I take it you never saw 'Mrs. Doubtfire.'

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, August 21, 2006 3:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
I take it you never saw 'Mrs. Doubtfire.'

If Robin Williams decides to become a cross-dressing elderly suicide bomber, we’re just all screwed.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

ERIC

Monday, August 21, 2006 3:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If Robin Williams decides to become a cross-dressing elderly suicide bomber, we’re just all screwed.

Exactly. If you only target Arab-looking men, they'll just dress up as old women. A random system means there's a chance you'll get caught no matter how you appear. And there have been a few female suicide bombers in Palestine and Iraq. Bomb sniffers that everyone has to pass through is crucial, but it won't happen, because that would require technology development and time. And politicians only get credit for instant-gratification appearances of action.

BTW, if I really wanted to make some quick money, I'd get a tan, grow a beard, then get on a plane and start talking some ME-sounding gibberish. After I get kicked off for no good reason, I'd sue the airline for what little profit they're making. That's Homeland Security. USA!!! USA!!!

KANEMAN

Monday, August 21, 2006 3:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If Robin Williams decides to become a cross-dressing elderly suicide bomber, we’re just all screwed.

Exactly. If you only target Arab-looking men, they'll just dress up as old women. A random system means there's a chance you'll get caught no matter how you appear. And there have been a few female suicide bombers in Palestine and Iraq. Bomb sniffers that everyone has to pass through is crucial, but it won't happen, because that would require technology development and time. And politicians only get credit for instant-gratification appearances of action.

BTW, if I really wanted to make some quick money, I'd get a tan, grow a beard, then get on a plane and start talking some ME-sounding gibberish. After I get kicked off for no good reason, I'd sue the airline for what little profit they're making. That's Homeland Security. USA!!! USA!!!

You are a babbling fool. When they dress as old women we will search everyone. till then... why go random when we can narrow it down a bit. doesn't that make sense idiot? Well, it's true.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, August 21, 2006 3:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
Exactly. If you only target Arab-looking men, they'll just dress up as old women. A random system means there's a chance you'll get caught no matter how you appear. And there have been a few female suicide bombers in Palestine and Iraq. Bomb sniffers that everyone has to pass through is crucial, but it won't happen, because that would require technology development and time. And politicians only get credit for instant-gratification appearances of action.

This is common fallacy. It’s used often in the abortion debate. But in the end, it is a fallacy, and we are not at risk of being blown up by old women.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

ERIC

Monday, August 21, 2006 4:23 AM

Well I don't know what part of that you think is fallacious, but it seems clear to me that someone willing to die and take lots of people with him can beat any system, given the time and resources. If they know you're looking for 'X,' they'll simply become or appear to be 'not X.' Say you get someone with olive skin but with the name Gonzales on their passport. Arab with fake ID or hispanic? There are a lot of people on the campus here where you really can't tell. The only way you could protect air travel that comes close to effective is universal bomb detectors, and armed air marshals on every flight. Racial profiling simply can't work in countries like Spain, where so many people have dark skin and many Arab countries are close by. Too many people.

Of all the lies and bullshit that's come out of W's piehole, he's right about one thing: they only have to succeed once. There's gotta be a way of staying a step ahead of them that works and doesn't make a terrorist out of someone who wasn't one before they got harrassed for speaking the wrong language. Making enemies faster than we can kill them isn't a viable strategy.

AGENTROUKA

Monday, August 21, 2006 6:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

You are a babbling fool. When they dress as old women we will search everyone. till then... why go random when we can narrow it down a bit. doesn't that make sense idiot? Well, it's true.

Here's a funny idea.

Instead of going random or narrowing it down, how's about they search everyone? Hire more people for security, make sure every single passenger has been checked out.

Random searches just strike me as so stupid in this scenario.

Muslim radicals are not even the only kind of terrorism out there in the world. Who knows when some perfectly Caucasian-looking creep decides to impose his own little moment of power for whatever other reason, simply because he's inspired by the techniques he's seen on the news?

DREAMTROVE

Monday, August 21, 2006 1:03 PM

Finn,

I meant so called pre-emptive military action. ie. invasion of other sovereign lands to change them to our liking, whether it is as you believe to make them not terrorists, or as I believe, to make them subservient to our will, the will of israel, make a one world govt., and take their natural resources. But regardless of the motivation, it's morally wrong.

I just meant I was getting in the middle of a spat, not the on the boardness so much that I thought my nose was not belonging.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, August 21, 2006 1:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
Well I don't know what part of that you think is fallacious, but it seems clear to me that someone willing to die and take lots of people with him can beat any system, given the time and resources.

And your strategy then is to make it easier for them by focusing on people who aren’t a threat? Every old woman that we search in a random search means that someone who might be a real terrorist might get by without notice.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, August 21, 2006 2:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Historically, progressive attitudes have generally taken a back seat to getting blown up.

Yeah, during WWII, this sort of fear led to Japanese internment camps.

I don't know what is more disturbing, that some people practice racial profiling, or that others try to justify it.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CHRISISALL

Monday, August 21, 2006 3:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
during WWII, this sort of fear led to Japanese internment camps.

Well, around that time a radio show had folks believing we were being attacked by Mars. Peeps were a little wackier back then, I think.

But I may be wrong Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Monday, August 21, 2006 3:33 PM

Quote:
So if you want to prevent terrorism and your choice of suspects is an old English woman or a young Middle Eastern man, who do you choose to interrogate, if you can choose only one?

Why only one???

Finn, you keep posing false choices as if they wer real. I recall many threads ago the scenario where the choice was "If you knew a terrorist was going to blow up Los Angles in a couple of hours would you resort to torture?" You watch WAAAAY too much 24. In reality, these aren' the choices we face.

The reality is that the only things that your narrowed choices reveal is your own limited mentation.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

CHRISISALL

Monday, August 21, 2006 3:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In reality, these aren't the choices we face.

In my experience the choices we face either come up on us so fast we have almost no time to choose, or they are so varied as to force us to hyper-focus just to make one.
If 24 was like real life, it would be confusing as Hell.

2 sheckles Chrisisall

DREAMTROVE

Monday, August 21, 2006 3:53 PM

Signym,

I agree. This is not the choice we face.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Monday, August 21, 2006 4:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
So if you want to prevent terrorism and your choice of suspects is an old English woman or a young Middle Eastern man, who do you choose to interrogate, if you can choose only one?
Why only one???

I think it's a question of numbers. If the airports were to completely screen all air passengers, prepare to show up to the airport several days before your departure time.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

CITIZEN

Monday, August 21, 2006 4:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If you had to choose between Xenophobia and the threat of getting blown up, which would you pick?

So all brown people are trying to kill us and every brown person must be treated with fear.

Quote:
Once someone has decided to get on a plane with a bomb, diplomacy becomes a secondary issue to preventing the explosion, I think.

Or going on a plane committing the serious crime of traveling while Asian, it would seem.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGNYM

Monday, August 21, 2006 4:17 PM

Well, what I get out of the discussion is that we value airport security... just not enough to spend more money on it, or inconvenience passengers or to interfere with airline profits.

Situations that seem immutable are often choices or assumptions that we've made further upstream. We can sometimes solve problems more effectively if we open our scope of options, rather than narrowing them (as Finn does). So looking at airport security for example, why doesn't the Federal government simply require searching each passenger? Take too much resources? Kill the airline industry? Well then- re-regulate the industry. If you don't want to do that, kick in more Federal bucks. That would increase the deficit? Then stop reducing taxes. Pull out of Iraq. Eliminate $100 billion of porkbarrel spending. This problem really is better solved without hysteria.

Narrowed options is a sign of fear. "Awfulizing" (dreaming up the most horrible result possible) is a sign of fear.

People who want us to think of only one option- people like Finn or Bush- are either living in fear or trying to induce fear in others, or both. (Frightened people are often convinced that they are the only ones who "really" know what's going on. Everyone else is living in denial as far as they're concerned.)

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Well, around that time a radio show had folks believing we were being attacked by Mars. Peeps were a little wackier back then, I think.

They didn't have enough experience with emergent technology and mass media to know you can't believe everything coming over the airwaves. Nowadays, people are more skeptical, given their abundant exposure to media entertainment and special effects.

But less wacky? I dunno. I see people believing government despite all evidence to the contrary, and believing conspiracy radio talk show hosts despite all evidence to the contrary. When you take mass media outside the fictional realm, people seem as gullible as ever.

If you're saying internment camps can't happen anymore, I am not so sure. I'd like to believe they can't happen. But then I see all these posts by relatively well educated people and seemingly reasonable people defending racial profiling and touting the imminent dangers of Islamofascist hordes. That's after one attack that I find dubiously attributed to Al-Qaeda. Internment camps may not happen again, but kicking innocent people off planes is a step in the same direction.

What do you think will happen if another major attack occurs?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

DEEPGIRL187

Monday, August 21, 2006 6:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
What do you think will happen if another major attack occurs?

1984.

**************************************************

"Oooh, synchronizers!"

CHRISISALL

Monday, August 21, 2006 6:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

What do you think will happen if another major attack occurs?

More psuedo-cons in charge, more war, dwindling quality of life, recession, repression.
Basically Dark Angel without the angel.

Gotta blaze Chrisisall

NVGHOSTRIDER

Monday, August 21, 2006 6:52 PM

So I skipped all the discussion in favor of incessant laughing.
Thats F-ing hilarious!

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, August 21, 2006 10:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So all brown people are trying to kill us and every brown person must be treated with fear.

If you want to believe that racist crap, you go right ahead, but don’t expect me to agree to it.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Or going on a plane committing the serious crime of traveling while Asian, it would seem.

If you say so.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Monday, August 21, 2006 10:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If you want to believe that racist crap, you go right ahead, but don’t expect me to agree to it.

You're question was Xenophobia or being blown up. Either treat everyone who looks Asian as a terrorist or be blown up. How am I misconstruing your statements exactly?

Quote:
If you say so.

You are defending taking people of a plane merely for looking Asian, it's your say so, not mine.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, August 21, 2006 11:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Don't ask me ridiculously stupid questions in the hope I'll answer them with an affirmative and back up your defence of racism then (I'm not calling you racist, but you are defending a racist attitude)....You are defending taking people of a plane merely for looking asian, it's your say so, not mine.

When faced with this kind of distortion some people might collapse in a fit and say:

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
... I'm not going to lie down and take you painting me as this or that ...

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Monday, August 21, 2006 11:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
When faced with this kind of distortion some people might collapse in a fit and say:

At least you now admit you were trying to paint me as a terrorist supporter.

Obviously there is nothing that can be said to you which is not going to be construde as an insult.

And lets get one thing straight, assuming someone is a terrorist because they look muslim is racist, you're supporting that position, you have your reasons I'm sure, and I doubt those are racist (hey look I'm making it clear I'm not saying you're racist, which is more than you did for me when I made that other quote).

So maybe if I ask the question again you'll stop the fit and answer it:
How is the question "Xenophobia or be blown up?" not implying we should treat anyone different as a terrorist?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, August 21, 2006 11:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You're comparing me not calling you a racist with you calling me a terrorist supporter. What do you want? Do you want me to call you a racist?

You should have asked that before you implied that I'm racist, and I have never called you a terrorist supporter.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
And lets get one thing straight, assuming someone is a terrorist because they look muslim is racist, you're supporting that position, you have your reasons I'm sure, and I doubt those are racist .

So you should assume they are a terrorist because they are an old lady? Is it racist to suspect that white men might have been behind the bombing of a black church?

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
How is the question "Xenophobia or be blown up?" not implying we should treat anyone different as a terrorist?

Because it’s not implying what should happen at all.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NVGHOSTRIDER

Monday, August 21, 2006 11:38 PM

I just don't get why no one gets Citizen. He's probably the funniest F'er on the entire board.
But then again I rarely found Seifeld funny. Seinfeld SUCKED!!!

As for the brown people thing, I still can't stop giggling. Having a menacing skin tone all I can say is this, Kiss my light brown ass. All folks who have become too scared of their own F-ing shadow and are ignorant enough to persue such ill informed persuits can wallow in their fear. I may even stir up a small ruckus the next time I fly, just to see the looks on their sheepish faces. Should brush up on the Arabic just to see how many wet spots materialize.

Thanks Citizen for the chance to tell the cowards of the world to pucker up. I rarely get the chance to do so.

CITIZEN

Monday, August 21, 2006 11:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You should have asked that before called me a racist, and I have never called you a terrorist supporter.

I never said you were a racist. I categorically said you were not.

And no, you're right you merely implied I was a terrorist supporter.

Quote:
So you should assume they are a terrorist because they are an old lady?

I don't think we should assume anyone’s a terrorist, assumption of terrorism on no evidence is what you are defending, not me.

Quote:
Is it racist to suspect that white men might have been behind the bombing of a black church?

If the only things known is that it's a church and black people go there, yes it is.

Is it racist to arrest a white guy for walking past a black church because they might bomb it because they're white and it's a black church?

Quote:
Because it’s not implying what should happen at all.

Your question: either be a xenophobe or be blown up. This is a clear implication that everyone who's different should be treated as a terrorist or you will be blown up.

If that is not what you intended why did you ask the question?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

MISBEHAVEN

Monday, August 21, 2006 11:45 PM

Finn ol' buddy, I see you're still trying to make your case for racial profiling. I think it's time to just concede defeat, or maybe just "crawl away like a bitty, little punk." Just joking. But seriously, there's no rational defense for racial profiling. Your proposal is going to exacerbate the tensions that already exist, and simultaneoulsy alienate the people we need to help us the most. Don't let fear be a reason for sacrificing the liberties of others, because next time it may be your liberties that are taken.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, August 21, 2006 11:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
And no, you're right you merely implied I was a terrorist supporter.

I didn’t even imply that you were a terrorist supporter. I’ve never used the term ‘terrorist supporter’ in reference to you, so this is purely your imagination, and nothing else.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I don't think we should assume anyone’s a terrorist, assumption of terrorism on no evidence is what you are defending, not me.

Then you believe we should get rid of all airport screening?

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
If the only things known is that it's a church and black people go there, yes it is.

And in the case where the bombed black church is in a series of church burnings that the KKK members were known to have committed?

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Is it racist to arrest a white guy for walking past a black church because they might bomb it because they're white and it's a black church?

No one is talking about arresting anyone.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Your question: either be a xenophobe or be blown up. This is a clear implication that everyone who's different should be treated as a terrorist or you will be blown up.

It doesn’t imply what should happen at all. And I didn’t intend it to.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:12 AM

Quote:
Then you believe we should get rid of all airport screening?

Now you've taken a leap off the deep end. Airport screening doesn't assume everyone going to the airport is a terrorist. It's also metted out evenly to all comers, not given only to those with a certain ethnic look, so really you comparing airport security with assuming someones a terrorist because they look a bit like a muslim is laughable.

Quote:
No one is talking about arresting anyone.

You do realise what thread your on, right? My example is infinatly more pertinent to the issue we are discussing than yours. Namely that people were assumed to be terrorists cause they looked a bit muslim.

Quote:
And in the case where the bombed black church is in a series of church burnings that the KKK members were known to have committed?

Well I could cop out here like you did and say "we ain't talking about black churches" but I actually can answer this

.

You suspect that the KKK had something to do with it. What you don't do is what you suggest, suspect every white guy of being a mad church bomber.

Quote:
It doesn’t imply what should happen at all. And I didn’t intend it to.

I see, so you weren't trying to get me to endorse your side of the argument by answering 'xenophobia' to your question. You didn't ask a question that gives only two choices: either get blown up or distrust anyone who's different. Because It sure looks like you did.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
Finn ol' buddy, I see you're still trying to make your case for racial profiling. I think it's time to just concede defeat, or maybe just "crawl away like a bitty, little punk." Just joking. But seriously, there's no rational defense for racial profiling. Your proposal is going to exacerbate the tensions that already exist, and simultaneoulsy alienate the people we need to help us the most. Don't let fear be a reason for sacrificing the liberties of others, because next time it may be your liberties that are taken.

That’s kind of a mischaracterization, isn’t? I never used the term “racial profiling.” What I did say was:

Quote:
I suggest that we consider evaluating potential suspects based on a broad spectrum of characteristics including behavior. And yes, we should more closely examine Muslim passengers then old women.

Note that I didn’t refer to race at all. Nor did I say that all Muslims were terrorists. What I said and do think, and what is quite defensible, is that a Muslim from Saudi Arabia (for instance) is more likely to be a terrorist against American interests then an old women from Vermont. So it simply makes rational sense that if you wish to prevent a terrorist attack against American interests you should pay more attention to a Muslim from Saudi Arabia then an old women from Vermont. That’s just common sense, not racism. But I never made the claim that race or even religion should be the backbone of intercepting would-be terrorists. I said “a broad spectrum of characteristics including behavior” instead of random methodology, which is quite commonly employed by law enforcement everywhere else, except airport screening.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Now you've taken a leap off the deep end. Airport screening doesn't assume everyone going to the airport is a terrorist. It's also metted out evenly to all comers, not given only to those with a certain ethnic look, so really you comparing airport security with assuming someones a terrorist because they look a bit like a muslim is laughable.

As opposed to assuming a random sample are terrorists.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You do realise what thread your on, right? My example is infinatly more pertinent to the issue we are discussing than yours. Namely that people were assumed to be terrorists cause they looked a bit muslim.

You do know that no one is arrested for being screened at the airport, right?

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You suspect that the KKK had something to do with it. What you don't do is what you suggest, suspect every white guy of being a mad church bomber.

How many black people are there in the KKK? If you suspect the KKK, does it make sense to suspect a random sample of the population (which is likely to include African-Americans), or rather to limit the sample by assuming that KKK member will be white?

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I see, so you weren't trying to get me to endorse your side of the argument by answering 'xenophobia' to your question. You didn't ask a question that gives only two choices: either get blown up or distrust anyone who's different. Because It sure looks like you did.

I asked a question that goes to the state of mind of people who might suspect that someone is a terrorist based on their choice of language.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

MISBEHAVEN

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:35 AM

I thought that you were implying we should screen people based, at least in part, on ethnicity, nationality, and religion. Oh wait, you did: "And yes we should more closely examine Muslim passengers than old women." But if I'm reading this the wrong way, then I apologize. Nevertheless, I still think you could use a break from this thread. Try my crop circles thread. It's bound to be more fun than debating this ad nauseam.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

GOAT

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 1:41 AM

DEEPGIRL187:
Exactly. I think that 1984 is one of the scarier books I have ever read just becuase I think thats the direction we're headed and it scares me

I wish I had it in digital form, but I cut out a comic from a school newspaper that was talking about racial profiling shortly after 9/11. It starts off with FDR talking about how the Japanese people are a danger to our nation and for our own safety, they would be relocated to internment camps. The last frame was W saying "What he said, except for the towlheads".

There exist dogs who bite people and of those dogs a few of them have rabies. Therefore, for the protection of my fellow citizens I propose that all dogs that aren't muzzled and leashed at all times or any dog that barks or grawls for any reason be confiscated by animal control for confinement and/or euthanization. However, since everyone knows that cats don't bite or attack people ever, they will be allowed to go about their business.

*** No, I'm not serious about the dog thing. Just trying to make a point ***

CITIZEN

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cuhmal:
As opposed to assuming a random sample are terrorists.

You assume people are terrorists all you want, I'll just live my life if it's all the same to you thanks.

Quote:
You do know that no one is arrested for being screened at the airport, right?

All you had to say was no, you don't know what this thread was about.

Let me enlighten you: Two men were removed from a plane and questioned by Spanish police because the passengers refused to fly with people who looked Muslim.

So a question that is more pertinent to the thread would be:
Is it racist to drag a White guy off the street and question him because he walked past a black church?

Maybe we can learn from the past? How about we have special train’s planes and busses for Muslims only? Then we don't have to worry about all those Muslim terrorists blowing us up because they'll just be blowing up each other. I'm sure I've heard this idea before, just can't seem to put my finger on it...

Quote:
How many black people are there in the KKK? If you suspect the KKK, does it make sense to suspect a random sample of the population (which is likely to include African-Americans), or rather to limit the sample by assuming that KKK member will be white?

Apparently to you it makes more sense to suspect every white person in the world is a member of the KKK. Good luck with that.

Quote:
I asked a question that goes to the state of mind of people who might suspect that someone is a terrorist based on their choice of language.

The Nazis suspected the Jews were trying to take over the world, better Xenophobia than let the Jewish conspiracy win?

What I mean is I fail to see how you could even think the question supports your position if that was your purpose.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

DEEPGIRL187

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 3:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by nvghostrider:
As for the brown people thing, I still can't stop giggling. Having a menacing skin tone all I can say is this, Kiss my light brown ass.

Having a medium-brown skin tone myself, I second that motion.

**************************************************

"Oooh, synchronizers!"

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:13 PM

im sure this was mentioned elsewhere...but under the Patriot act, violating ANY state or federal law vaguely defines someone as a terrorist; this is in anticipation for the day that FEMA and Homeland Security start throwing dissenting Americans into concentration camps