Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v.../terrorist.jpg

---

OMG that means Aussies must be the main suspects...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The likely Australian population (of camels) is now 600,000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Actually, I was getting paranoid about the blue Mazda in the background. Let's profile Japanese and French people.

In fairness, after the Oklahoma City bombing, police were profiling young white men with extremely short haircuts and paramilitary clothing. I remember they caught a couple of guys that way. Nobody raised much of a fuss about it at the time.

---

well thats because its profiling of white men ~:)

Thank GOD. I'm glad (*edit) western my government is not completely idiotic (Thanks Ghost, I guess the headline alone caught my eye):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...313135,00.html

Quote:

---

Muslims face extra checks in new travel crackdown
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

THE Government is discussing with airport operators plans to introduce a screening system that allows security staff to focus on those passengers who pose the greatest risk.

The passenger-profiling technique involves selecting people who are behaving suspiciously, have an unusual travel pattern or, most controversially, have a certain ethnic or religious background.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Lets get real. The guy with the turban gets more attention. We would be lying to ourselves anyway. The first thing you do when you get on a plane is look for the brown people. We all do it. Dont lie

---

Most Muslims don't wear turbans, as has probably been pointed out quite a few times in this thread, but it's true, there are a lot of people who connect turbans to Islam...

Anyway, racial profiling for Muslim terrorists is a horrendous idea. As a religion, Islam is probably the most racially diverse of them all. A Muslim terrorist could be any race you can possibly think of. According to the news, one of the people arrested in connection to the failed attacks was a Jamaican immigrant convert. There are even a lot of white Muslims. Racial profiling for Muslims would suggest that they are all genetically similar, which they aren't, quite simply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

Thank GOD. I'm glad my government is not completely idiotic:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...313135,00.html

---

E, you did see that it was the UK government? Are you moving? :wink:

Well, this just proves how governments manipulate opinion. The article gives the impression that these discussions are new in the UK.

The profiling outlined has been done for years and years. I was trained in it back in the early eighties. Utter propaganda.

I still think that racial profiling is a bad idea but I'm utterly mistified about the people here that refuse to accept that 100% of the potential Jihadists are Muslim and that that in tern means we can totally discount the other 58.2 million people here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

I still think that racial profiling is a bad idea but I'm utterly mistified about the people here that refuse to accept that 100% of the potential Jihadists are Muslim and that that in tern means we can totally discount the other 58.2 million people here.

---

Therefore openly discount general profiling of Muslims and court the general Muslim population to help profile their communities. The police can't cope with the amount of information they already have, why would giving them even more help? Dividing the country into regions and relying on the Muslim communities therein to help detect anything suspicious would be a better strategy. Adding a few dozen thousand profiles of individuals to the database would bring the police to a stop. Adding a few dozen profiles of communities would be a realistic project, and they in turn will help focus on the few individuals who may have jihadist links or sympathies.

The media often ask why the state has information on perpetrators but do nothing to stop the crimes. The fact is, unless we want to live in a police state with 50% of the country's resources directed thereof, there is only so much bureaucracy can do. The demand for more surveillance coupled with more bobbies on the beat (or variations of) only makes things worse, as there is even more data to deal with and fewer desk jockeys to deal with it. The police don't want more information, they want more targeted information. Indiscriminate profiling of Muslims reduces the pressure on the rest of the population, but it acts against gaining information from the Muslim population from which the terrorists spring. It makes the rest of us feel good, but it counters our goal of stopping terrorist attacks. I suppose this means Blair will be proposing it in the near future.

Its a very good idea i mean it seems a bit stupid searching a non muslim family say a white british family of 4, waste of time to be honest when a single muslim man poses the much greater threat....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Therefore openly discount general profiling of Muslims and court the general Muslim population to help profile their communities. The police can't cope with the amount of information they already have, why would giving them even more help? Dividing the country into regions and relying on the Muslim communities therein to help detect anything suspicious would be a better strategy. Adding a few dozen thousand profiles of individuals to the database would bring the police to a stop. Adding a few dozen profiles of communities would be a realistic project, and they in turn will help focus on the few individuals who may have jihadist links or sympathies.

The media often ask why the state has information on perpetrators but do nothing to stop the crimes. The fact is, unless we want to live in a police state with 50% of the country's resources directed thereof, there is only so much bureaucracy can do. The demand for more surveillance coupled with more bobbies on the beat (or variations of) only makes things worse, as there is even more data to deal with and fewer desk jockeys to deal with it. The police don't want more information, they want more targeted information. Indiscriminate profiling of Muslims reduces the pressure on the rest of the population, but it acts against gaining information from the Muslim population from which the terrorists spring. It makes the rest of us feel good, but it counters our goal of stopping terrorist attacks. I suppose this means Blair will be proposing it in the near future.

---

I agree but it in Britain people keep asking why the Police only target Muslims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

I agree but it in Britain people keep asking why the Police only target Muslims.

---

If the individuals we profile are as a result of concrete information or tip-offs from their communities, we can hardly be blamed if those individuals are exclusively Muslims. The public shouldn't have access to a list of exactly which individuals are profiled anyway, just a general description of the policy.

A Guardian comment on the subject, with discussion from posters. Article quoted, go to url for discussion.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...de_moraes.html

In writing this post I declare an interest. As a British Asian male travelling by air and Eurostar most weeks, I am stopped and searched regularly. Since 9/11 I've noted the frequency of these stops increase in comparison to my white colleagues, and have, as an MEP, taken up the cases of people who believe they have been unfairly targeted. And if you believe that this can be just a minor inconvenience, then ask one of my constituents who was strip-searched because they had been "profiled" - with nothing found.

However, it is not principally because of the potential unfairness of targeting particular ethnic groups that the current rush to profiling should be resisited; it is because it simply doesn't work - and can be counterproductive.

Where is the evidence that something which seems as logical as targeting "muslim" looking passengers does not work? In June of this year I convened a meeting of NGOs and senior EU figures - including the EU anti-terrorism coordinator Gijs de Vries - to hear exhaustive research from the Open Society Institute (OSI) showing that the implicit premise that race or religion is an accurate predictor of terrorist activity was a recipe for disaster. In short, good intelligence, community support, good policing and sharper aviation security were needed. Profiling on a large scale was not.

Alhough it has no consistant name, ethnic profiling has now become a major component of the fight against terrorism in several European countries including the UK, France and Germany. In the UK the proportion of "Asians" stopped by police under the new anti-terror legislation tripled in the 18 months following 9/11. To date, not one of these has resulted in conviction for a terrorism offence.

Massive data-mining operations in Germany from the end of 2001 until early 2003 collected sensitive personal information about 8.3 million people - but did not identify a single terrorist subject. Other manifestations of ethnic profiling in Europe researched by the OSI included invasive raids on mosques and mass identity checking - again producing no chargeable suspects.

So where have the relatively small number of captured and convicted terrorists come from? Virtually all have been the product of intelligence-based investigations over extended periods focused on time-bound and event-specific matters, not racial groups or stereotypes.

By branding whole communities as suspect, ethnic profiling not only legitimises prejudice amongst the general public: it can also engender feelings of humiliation and resentment amongst targeted groups. On a practical level, police and intelligence gained from communities can dry up through lack of cooperation amongst the overwhelming moderate majority.

Most importantly, profiling may divert attention from actual threats that fall outside the prescribed criteria. Before the 7/7 attacks on London, MI5 had come across the the leader of the bombers in connection with another plot - but had not pursued him because he did not fit their profile.

Finally, the more predictable law enforcement profiling becomes, the easier it becomes for terrorists to adapt. For example, the UK Government concluded in its report on the London bombings published this year that "there is no consistent profile to help identify who may be vulnerable to radicalisation".

The solutions to detecting terrorists lie in well-resourced intelligence work with communities of interest. As one senior Netherlands counterterrorism official observed in the OSI research, "community relations achieve results; stop and search does not". Most EU countries were also found wanting in their ability to monitor the effectiveness of their law enforcement agencies. The very secrecy of intelligence gathering should not preclude appropriate monitoring mechanisms.

Finally, at the airport the existing level of profiling which probably sees me being stopped more often than the now famous "family in flip-flops on holiday" should not be taken to extreme levels. Instead, for example, our UK airports should invest in hugely improving their technology - such as in the faster and more effective screening of hand luggage.

We must address the threat of terrorism effectively. It is possible to do this by avoiding a policy like ethnic profiling, which strikes at the heart of the social contract linking law enforcement to the communities they serve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

I still think that racial profiling is a bad idea but I'm utterly mistified about the people here that refuse to accept that 100% of the potential Jihadists are Muslim and that that in tern means we can totally discount the other 58.2 million people here.

---

So can you tell the difference between a Pakistani and an Indian?

Better still can you tell the difference between a non-Muslim Pakistani and a muslim one?

A non-Muslim Pakistani and a Muslim Sri Lankan?

A Muslim Pakistani of light skin who is dressed like any other university student?

A Muslim Anglo-Saxon dressed like a universtiy student and a Hindu Indian waiting at the airport. The Indian gets all the attention, Mr Shoe Bomber MK II walks past and causes a ruckus on the plane.

Creating profiles are useful for investigating, it shouldn't be used to screen at airports... everyone should be screened. Then based on body language others should be selected. Ones tan line is not a very good basis to figure out ones fundamentalist feelings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So can you tell the difference between a Pakistani and an Indian?

Better still can you tell the difference between a non-Muslim Pakistani and a muslim one?

A non-Muslim Pakistani and a Muslim Sri Lankan?

A Muslim Pakistani of light skin who is dressed like any other university student?

A Muslim Anglo-Saxon dressed like a universtiy student and a Hindu Indian waiting at the airport. The Indian gets all the attention, Mr Shoe Bomber MK II walks past and causes a ruckus on the plane.

Creating profiles are useful for investigating, it shouldn't be used to screen at airports... everyone should be screened. Then based on body language others should be selected. Ones tan line is not a very good basis to figure out ones fundamentalist feelings.

---

That is exactly my point, why are you picking on me.

At what point did I say Muslim=Arab, or Pakistani=Muslim.

If you look further back you'll see I actually made a reference to my Christian Arab friends.

Profiling is no good at airports because you're assuming you can profile on looks. If there is a serious risk you check EVERYONE.

Profiling is good in investigation and in investiagtion of Muslim terroism you can discount everyone who is not a Muslim.

Tariq Aziz, Saddam Hussein's one time Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, is a Chaldean Catholic.

The cognitive dissonance setting in among certain parties to this thread is going to be almost audible now.

Whats your point?

He unlikely to be involved in Jihad?

He's an Arab and a Christian?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Tariq Aziz, Saddam Hussein's one time Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, is a Chaldean Catholic.

---

In this context it might also be mentioned that Ibrahim Izzat Al-Douri probably also would slip through as he would not really fit the description of a Muslim Arab:
https://img259.imageshack.us/img259/...malduriby6.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Lets get real. The guy with the turban gets more attention. We would be lying to ourselves anyway. The first thing you do when you get on a plane is look for the brown people. We all do it. Dont lie

---

SAYS IT ALL!

'Guy with the Turban'.... So when was the last time Sikhs practiced any terrorism?!

You start with racial profilling, you finish with simple racism and injustice not to mention alienation of different cultures and people from different racial backgrounds. Racial profilling is the kind of thing which promotes, not diminishes terrorism.

.... So when was the last time Sikhs practiced any terrorism?!

Last week , and the week before that ..... I havn't seen any this week yet though :juggle2:

In this context it might also be mentioned that Ibrahim Izzat Al-Douri probably also would slip through as he would not really fit the description of a Muslim Arab:

But he's ginger , that an offence in itself .

Anyhow , instead of the question being ....racial profiling , good or bad ?
Surely it should be ....racial profiling , does it work ?

Question of practicality.

Ideal security would be to interview and search all persons using any form of public transportation or attending any public venue.

This is impractical in resource terms, as well as intrusive.

Lacking the practical capability to question/search/review all persons, what is the best means of focusing your efforts so as to screen the most likely source of danger?

Using "Race" as the primary basis for a threat profile does not strike me as very useful. However, developing a set of criteria that can provide screeners with a useful "profile" should be doable.

Would-be terrorists could, of course, learn the parameters of the profile and then work NOT to fit -- but at least it would require them to up their effort level and expend more time/treasure/talent to circumvent the authorities. I'm not inclined to make it easy for my opponents if I can see some means to avoid doing so.

Oh yes, the Nestorian Christians are based in Syria. They practice Catholicism but think Jesus was never man, just 100% divine. They are all darker than white people. My Grandfather was born in Iran, and he was a devout Christian, also he could've been mistaken for a Muslim. the point is, not all Arabs or people of a mid-dark skin colour are Muslim. Many Egyptian Christians too. I am also, quite dark myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishArmenian

Oh yes, the Nestorian Christians are based in Syria. They practice Catholicism but think Jesus was never man, just 100% divine. They are all darker than white people. My Grandfather was born in Iran, and he was a devout Christian, also he could've been mistaken for a Muslim. the point is, not all Arabs or people of a mid-dark skin colour are Muslim. Many Egyptian Christians too. I am also, quite dark myself.

---

While I agree that what you say is true, what way would you have of identifying someone such as your grandfather if you were not of the culture? Let's liken the terrorists to wolves, in this case Islamic wolves. Not all Muslims are terrorists, just as all canines (no offense intended by this) are not big bad wolves, but all wolves are certainly all canines. In what way does a peaceful farmer protect his flock from predators such as the wolf? Why he certainly would probably shoot any that he sees on sight....wouldn't anyone? Now suppose that these wolves could disguise themselves to look like ordinary dogs. How should the farmer then proceed? If he could find no reasonable way of identifying the wolves from the dogs, then he must take drastic action against either or risk losing his flock.

This is the dilemma that currently faces the leaders of the western nations. How can they make thier countries safe from the terrorists when it is so difficult to even indentify them? Some criteria must be established, but which one. Is it not just common sense to take the drastic step of severly limiting the ability of all Muslims from entering your country from those countries which support terrorism. In addition, would it not be irresponsible if they did not put certain racial groups, particularly those with similar backrounds as the terrorists, under closer scrutiny? I admit that it is highly undesirable, but it would at least make the job of your security forces easier to identify any possible suspects. Once again, I am not saying that all Islamic people are my enemy, but those that are are have made it difficult for my country to trust many Muslims because of the terrorists' cowardly way of hiding behind the innocent to avoid detection. I implore my Muslim brothers, what would the countries that you originate from do if it were a radical group of Americans or Europeans doing the same to your people, especially if not much was being done by the countries that harbored such attackers to aid you?

I have more respect for a coyote.

You speak of wolves, now name the most common animal a farmer would use to defend their flock...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

You speak of wolves, now name the most common animal a farmer would use to defend their flock...

---

Indeed, it must certainly be the dog, although I have seen a number of farmers employing a good Jack Ass or two in thier fields. It seems that they are very aggresive in taking the fight to the wolves and coyotes.

My point was in the identifying of the terrorists. Perhaps you could provide a better analogy?

Regards,

The best information is from the communities.

So if you alienate the entire community it will be a less effective strategy then one that can get them to help. Hence the dogs vs wolves analogy.

If someone is wearing a turban i honestly think it should be checked but not have the guy pulled out and it being called a "random selection". Sometimes i feel like a complete jack*** when saying this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Whats your point?

He unlikely to be involved in Jihad?

He's an Arab and a Christian?

---

I think Muslim and Arab are continually mixed up. The Arabs (Arabic: عرب ʻarab) are predominantly speakers of the Arabic language, rather than a pure ethnic group, mainly found throughout the Middle East and North Africa.
A Muslim (Arabic: مسلم, Turkish: Müslüman, Persian and Urdu: مسلمان) is an adherent of Islam. The feminine form of Muslim is Muslimah. Literally, the word means "one who submits to God". There are approximately 1.31 billion Muslims worldwide.

So muslims follow Islam and Arabs are explained above. Ive heard alot of generelazations of all Arabs being muslim.

Groups tend to view other groups as hamogenous. Many black people assume that whites all get on, and I had no idea the animosity between Africans and Carribeans. So of course everyone in the middle east must be best buds, right? :dizzy2:

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The best information is from the communities.

So if you alienate the entire community it will be a less effective strategy then one that can get them to help. Hence the dogs vs wolves analogy.

---

I haven't seen very much in the way of help coming from any Muslim communities in the United States or the United Kingdom. On the contrary, it seems that their is quite a bit of "Allah Aqbar" going on in many mosques any time that 9/11 is mentioned in sermons. What in the world is one to make of such an attitude? I guess I am just to overlook the fact that over 80% of Muslim s in those communities hate the west, and wish to see the restoration of the Caliphate. We might as well just start living in the middle ages again if that should ever happen. Trust such people indeed! I might as well invite a rapist to date my daughter or a thief to do my banking. Come on man! Are you really that naiive? Let's imagine that 9/11 happened in Austrailia. Do you think that the Australian people would have such restraint? Many of them understand exactly what it means to let a wolf in among your sheep. I doubt they would be so docile as you claim to be towards so dedicated an enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

I haven't seen very much in the way of help coming from any Muslim communities in the United States or the United Kingdom. On the contrary, it seems that their is quite a bit of "Allah Aqbar" going on in many mosques any time that 9/11 is mentioned in sermons. What in the world is one to make of such an attitude? I guess I am just to overlook the fact that over 80% of Muslim s in those communities hate the west, and wish to see the restoration of the Caliphate. We might as well just start living in the middle ages again if that should ever happen. Trust such people indeed! I might as well invite a rapist to date my daughter or a thief to do my banking. Come on man! Are you really that naiive? Let's imagine that 9/11 happened in Austrailia. Do you think that the Australian people would have such restraint? Many of them understand exactly what it means to let a wolf in among your sheep. I doubt they would be so docile as you claim to be towards so dedicated an enemy.

---

That's quite a hysterical post for a member who is usually quite reasoned. The hyperbole makes me think it's a joke, but I'm not so sure without any smileys.

Where do you get the 80% figure? What do you mean by 'hating the west'? How many mosques and sermons do you actually attend? Restoration of the Caliphate - who by and where are the facts to substantiate?

Australian citizens were blown up in Bali. :oops:

You will never defeat extremists until you get the community they live amongst on your side. The best intelligence comes from that community. Muslims certainly help the UK intelligence services - I can't speak for the US - but they tend to be quiet about it for the same reasons that one tends not to shout about informing on the Mafia. Many other moderates who don't support terrorism tend not to inform because they fear being accused themselves by over-zealous officers. These are the people we need to be reassuring as Pape noted.

Solid human intelligence is worth any amount of electronic sifting of emails or whatever.

If you were making a joke by exaggeration, then forgive me. :smile:

Profiling Muslims-Unfortunately an absolute neccessity, and remember 100% of the terrorists are Muslims.

Profiling the "Muslim Race"-Impossible no such thing exists

Why does everyone insist on equating Islam with a race?

So yes I am in for of profiling, however I am for religious, not racial profiling.

Most of the intelligence we here in the UK get from the Muslim Community comes from bugging mosques, or from under cover agents who blend in with the in crowd of the terrorists, the latter method not an anonymous phone call is how we defeated the most recent plot to blow up ten civilian jets.