Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

Pretty simple. Blind poll, no names shown.

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

No. What happens when John Walker mkII shows up? While we are giving attention to the 6 people you fingered in the other thread, he waltzs through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Lets get real. The guy with the turban[i] 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[ii]. We all do it. Dont lie

---

[i] What have Sikhs done?

[ii]No. If I spent my life avoiding brown skinned folks I'd never be able to leave the house. The city I live in has about 35-40% Moslems living here.

Doesn't even have to look like John Walker Lind. If we start profiling Arabs (more than we already do) to supposedly catch terrorists, then the terrorists who do look Arab in any way will simply recruit fair-skinned dupes and have them dye their hair blonde. They'll end up looking like every other bottle-blonde West Coast surfer dude.

Person in first class seat A1: "Nice tan, dude!"

Person in first class seat A2: "Yeah, I was in Maui catching some waves, bro!"

Boom.

Racial profiling is a great way to let your target know who not to send!

I don't like the idea of racial profiling... But, the changes I would make in the current security system we have right now, is don't profile 80 year old ladies and 5 year old kids. The shocker is, the last time I was at LAX there was a couple in their seventies, who were selected for a random search, and right behind them were 5 dudes, with wicked looking tattoos and two had full grown beards and dark tans, and weren't checked... my first thought was, hmmm.... wouldn't it be more appropriate to check them? and then I thought... Nobody suspects ma' and pa', especially the old man who was wearing an 82nd PIR WWII Vet Cap. :inquisitive:

Why not, if it are mainly arabs doing boom it is just common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChewieTobbacca

Racial profiling is a great way to let your target know who not to send!

---

That's what I think. If we indulge in it then in the long run we'll leave ourselves open to some cleaver sod who choose the 16 year old blond gir who's actually a psychotic maniac

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...rieWarner1.jpg

Racial profiling upsets the moderate majority from whom we get intelligence, resulting in more recruits for the extremists and less useful information for us. AFAIK we cracked the latest bomb plot precisely because we tried to accommodate the moderate majority and they in turn warned us of suspicious individuals. Doing it secretly doesn't help either, as word will out, most will be upset that you're doing such profiling, and the remainder will be upset you're trying to fool them.

Insaneapache, I live in the city that was bombed last year, regularly going through the stations that were bombed last year. I admit I get a little tentative when travelling by train or tube and there are dark-skinned people carrying bags nearby. But then I remind myself, I am British, I will not let this get to me, I will live as I have always lived, terrorist or no terrorist, and I at least put on the appearance of behaving normally. There are old ladies around who lived through the blitz, who regard this as nothing more than a nuisance, who am I to worry myself to death over this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

[i] What have Sikhs done?

---

Terrorist? Or national hero?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Panesar

Come everyone, quit being a bunch of bigots. Talking about fair-skinned arabs, dying their hair. That just assumes it's Arabs in the first place. We all know that the leading source of terorism is 85 year old women who can't walk under their own power. That's why it's so critical for the TSA to deeply frisk each and every one at security checkpoints. :dizzy2:

Actually, there's plenty of rabid jihadists to be found in the Phillipines and in Indonesia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

You can be politically correct, or you can survive the Jihad on the West. You cannot do both.

---

How is scanning everybody, regardless of race or color, counterproductive to surviving the "Jihad"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

How is scanning everybody, regardless of race or color, counterproductive to surviving the "Jihad"?

---

Too much work, would be an unnecesity of epic proportions. Scanning everyone is like looking for kkk'ss at the black panters.

So white people don't hijack planes?

How about people from Spain or Southern Italy?

Bad, they'd just get the recently converted Blly Bob to carry the bombs while they distract attention by sending a few brown guys too.

I'm not saying we can't keep a closer eye on a Mosque than on a Methodist Church but when it comes to airport security and such, everybody should be seen as an equal threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

So white people don't hijack planes?

How about people from Spain or Southern Italy?

---

I think it's obvious that we are discussing a practical problem here, why make it a moral one?

edit! which is of course the heart of the discussion, my bad.

nevermind ^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I think it's obvious that we are discussing a practical problem here, why make it a moral one?

---

I am talking about practical issues here. Just going by "looks" creates a security hole, while at the same time feeding the trolls (i.e., adding to the "us vs. them" feeling).

The whole point of airport security is that everyone gets searched, so it isnt really a practical problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

I am talking about practical issues here. Just going by "looks" creates a security hole, while at the same time feeding the trolls (i.e., adding to the "us vs. them" feeling).

---

You are right, damn you :laugh4:

For intelligence gathering, one doesn't seek out potential terrorist plots in Lutheran Scandinavian churches.
So yes, Muslim communities, madrassa's, mosques, 'charity' organisations are the places to keep a close watch on. We need to be careful though not to alienate or infringe upon the dignity of the Muslim population.

For individual terrorists racial profiling doesn't work very well though.

I remember that one of the very reasons Richard Reid - the shoe bomber - managed to sneak through security was because he was of mixed British / Jamaican descent, was born in London, and travelled on a UK passport. None of which set of any alarm bells back in december 2001, when all eyes were focused on travelling Arabs.

Datamining can often come up with a decent profile, especially if there is a large amount of information that is provided to the engine.

Picking on everyone that's brown is not a great idea as it's too crude. Indeed there may be other determinants that are far more important and might come to light.

Criteria should not be provided, merely the ones to check should be checked. Then a random sample of everyone else, as you've only managed to get the most likely based on past evidence.

~:smoking:

Also commenting about airport security searches and simular. Isn't that also supposed to stop other crimes too? Or does it exist a special anti-terrorist unit on the "floor" so to say?

For intelligence services, sure, although most focus is supposed to be on radical groups more than race for best effect.

For the average cop, airport security etc it's not as effective.
It alienates the profiled group and gives a predictabillity pattern that can be abused.
Now I don't say that you have to search truly random, but being too systematic isn't good. If always search the arab dude, and never that small girl or elder lady, who do you think will be smuggling bombs/weapons/stuff after a while?

Good.

Everyone here prattles on about we wouldn't catch 5% of the terrorists using this method, as if for that reason we shouldn't try at all.

The obvious thing is-which opponents of this seem to ignore-is that you don't just use profiling. Ideally, you'd use a system like the Israeli airline uses, which involves a brief questioning of all passengers and longer questioning of suspicious individuals.

But our resistance to profiling is enourmously stupid. Becuase of some lefty dillusion, we think that we should stubbornly ignore the reality of our situation and that being blown up because we searched old women is better than *gasp* facing the fact that the terrorists are not white Christian John Smiths.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Ideally, you'd use a system like the Israeli airline uses, which involves a brief questioning of all passengers and longer questioning of suspicious individuals.

---

That should be standard procedure and has nothing to do with racial profiling.

EDIT to add:

Quote:

---

Becuase of some lefty dillusion, we think that we should stubbornly ignore the reality of our situation and that being blown up because we searched old women is better than *gasp* facing the fact that the terrorists are not white Christian John Smiths.

---

I don't know about you, but I have to fly quite frequently (including flights to the US about once or twice a year) and I am working in a major office building in the financial district of the city with by far the largest airport in Germany.
My opinion is certainly not driven by "lefty dillusions" but by concerns about airport security. Racial profiling does not provide this security, IMO but only serves as a populistic tool (just as tanks at Heathrow)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Good.

Everyone here prattles on about we wouldn't catch 5% of the terrorists using this method, as if for that reason we shouldn't try at all.

The obvious thing is-which opponents of this seem to ignore-is that you don't just use profiling. Ideally, you'd use a system like the Israeli airline uses, which involves a brief questioning of all passengers and longer questioning of suspicious individuals.

---

The main point of counter-terrorism is intelligence. Alienating the population which the terrorists live in, and on whom you're relying for information, is counter-productive. If keeping them onside means giving up the tool of racial profiling, so be it.

Quote:

---

But our resistance to profiling is enourmously stupid. Becuase of some lefty dillusion, we think that we should stubbornly ignore the reality of our situation and that being blown up because we searched old women is better than *gasp* facing the fact that the terrorists are not white Christian John Smiths.

Crazed Rabbit

---

Because it alienates the Muslim population on whom you rely for intelligence. If you want to see effective counter-terrorism at work, look at European police, who for decades before 9/11 have been dealing with terrorists who were racially similar to the target population, who weren't readily distinguishable by facial characteristics. Despite this lack of obvious tools, we managed to deal with them. Why not learn from our experience?

Quote:

---

But our resistance to profiling is enourmously stupid. Becuase of some lefty dillusion, we think that we should stubbornly ignore the reality of our situation and that being blown up because we searched old women is better than *gasp* facing the fact that the terrorists are not white Christian John Smiths.

---

Sure, now. We start using racial profiling and then the terrorists move. They stop using people who fit the profile. Or they change the way a person looks so they don't fit the profile. Then it's useless. I encourage profiling based on behavior, but based on race would work for a little while. Then Al Queda would stop recruiting in Saudi Arabia and move to the Sudan, Indonesia, and Chechnya.


And you can't see someone's religion. I put on a necklace with a cross and I look Christian, I put on a kippa I look Jewish, etc

yeah. I'm German-Irish but I have been accused as looking both Mexican and Jewish...

I posted this in the morning in response to Ecelctic in the Syria thread, and since it hasn't been moved here, forgive me posting twice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

Oh Great. Now I'm a bigot? Give me a little credit man. All I am saying is to focus a little more and not give people a free pass because of their looks, and perhaps, maybe, use a little rational police work in targeting people. Were the British terror suspects last week white anglos? This isn't exactly a nutter idea my friend.

---

Actually, at least one of the suspects is 'anglo' - white, middle class and a convert.

Link

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBC

Abdul Waheed, 21, was arrested at a house in Hepplewhite Close, High Wycombe.

He had changed his name from Don Stewart-Whyte about six months previously, according to neighbours.

---

Perhaps American security measures don't profile passengers, but European airports do. Racial profiling is very low on the list (as it doesn't really work) but one sees it all the time if you travel - those dressed in traditional garb are more often pulled over for questioning than white Europeans. Sadly, we have a long history of racism over this side of the pond and it doesn't fade away easily amongst the plods.

The real work however, is done through behavioural profiling honed over years of experience with drug smugglers, organised crime and yes, terrorists. You see, Al-Queda and the US didn't invent terrorism in 2001, we have been living with various forms for many years. A Basque, or Irishman, or Italian communist looks much the same if he is a normal citizen or a terrorist. Racial profiling doesn't help a jot.

What does help is observing the behavioural patterns of someone intent on a criminal act. Whilst it is possible to train out these behaviours, it is expensive and technically skilled.

A lot of the basic work at airports is to consider carefully who is coming through, match it to previous intelligence and watch. Effective security and intelligence work is low-key, diligent and unspectacular.

I would be surprised (but not greatly) if US airport security didn't already profile in the manner I described. Pulling over people who 'look Muslim' :dizzy2: in public view of the gallery achieves only the satisfaction of racial/religious stereotypes.

And now I'm off to the airport for a quick jaunt. Quick...erm. Well, I've got my plastic bag and I look real good naked :bounce:

The answer is obvious.......of course we should!


Who needs to be watched the most


The white middle class 78 year old grandma.

or

The 25 year old muslim who just came from iran?


Deep down all you bleeding heart types no the answer.

Well lets see....

We have arabs doing the majority of terrorist actions. So Tada! Watch out for arabs. Theres nothing wrong with watching out for someone we know is the enemy. Of course, only a small precentage of arabs follow the radical policy terrorists follow, but then again, I havent seen many white men blow themself up lately in the name of Allah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

The white middle class 78 year old grandma.

---

Yes, it's really those thousands of grandmas everybody here is talking about that keep the security staff so busy that they cannot take care of the real terrorists...

I think this will sum it up:

Racists on an Airplane

Let's just call it International Profiling of People who come from Countries that Terrorists Originate or that Support Terrorists, or IPPTOST for short. I can think of nothing more appropriate then to put the governments of such countries on notice that their people are no longer welcome if they continue to believe in the "nutcases who want to have 72 virgins when they die a martyr for the cause of Allah." If they no longer wish to let antone to travel to thier countries, no problem. I didn't lose anything there in any case. Count me in as a yes until these insane fools are finished trying to tell the rest of the world that they must believe in their way or else. Screw them! Why should my people be the ones to suffer and not their people as well. Let them pound camel dung as far as I am concerned. They are acting like complete maniacs and deserve every bit of what comes thier way. It's like dealing with an errant three year old, except this child wants to kill you. Maybe they should have thought it out a bit better. Now they've got all the negative attention they could possibly want. For those countries who are against the Terrorists, welcome any day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

Count me in as a yes until these insane fools are finished trying to tell the rest of the world that they must believe in their way or else. Screw them! Why should my people be the ones to suffer and not their people as well. Let them pound camel dung as far as I am concerned. They are acting like complete maniacs and deserve every bit of what copmes there way.

---

Are you finished with your rant?
Who are you talking about?
Do you know what this discussion is about?

Racial profiling is stupid and misses the point, profiling Muslims however is not. This does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists, merely that all our current terrorists are Muslims, or claim to be.

This avoids picking up my Arabian Christian friends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ceasar010

Deep down all you bleeding heart types no the answer.

---

I've been thinking over this for awhile, and I cannot quite understand. How is it possible to no an answer? I'm sorry, but I'm not God and I cannot simply invalidate something; you see, it must already be false or true prior to my coming to it and its validity is separate from anything that I could hope to do to it.:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Racial profiling is stupid and misses the point, profiling Muslims however is not. This does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists, merely that all our current terrorists are Muslims, or claim to be.

This avoids picking up my Arabian Christian friends.

---

But surely if this antagonises the general Muslim population, the side effects are worse than the benefits to be gained? Better to openly disavow such profiling, engage the Muslim communities, then profile extremist trends and individuals based on information thus gained. John Smith in MI5 isn't likely to be able to distinguish suspicious Muslims from ordinary Muslims. Meanwhile, Shazeer Mohammed in Barnsley might see an outsider distributing leaflets outside his mosque, and a regular group of kids who cluster around this outsider. Data-mining in central HQ might not reveal anything out of the ordinary, as each of these events is quite legal. However, Shazeer would be able to see this as unusual, and report it to the police via whatever channels he feels comfortable with, and the police will have something concrete to focus on.

Most advocates of increased surveillance miss the point that there is already too much data to practically deal with. When investigators don't already know what they're looking for, there is practically no chance of finding it until after the event. The only way they can make sense of it is if an insider gives them a lead that can focus their investigation. Therefore every effort should be made to cultivate such insiders, and moves that can hinder this should be avoided where possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Are you finished with your rant?
Who are you talking about?
Do you know what this discussion is about?

---

Yes I am finished with my rant. I'm sorry, but I had to get that off my chest. As for who I am talking about, why the Muslim extremists who claim to speak for all Muslims. You know, folks like Al Queda and Hezbollah, etc. These I call "the nutcases who want to recieve 72 virgins by becoming martyrs for Allah."
Correct me if I am wrong, but we are speaking of wether racial profiling is justified to aid in the war against the terrorists, are we not? I realize that I may have gone a bit over the top, but in all seriousness, don't you think it would be the easiest way to prevent these groups from further entering our countries to inflict harm on our citizenry?

I'm not talking about going after those muslim people who are currently law abiding citizens of the United States or the United Kingdom, but merely denying access and immigration to any more from the muslim world until the terrorists are defeated. I would make allowances for those who are on official business with our governments only. No other visas or passports would be approved! If this upsets the governments of such muslim countries or the sensabilities of non-muslims who feel that we ought to make it easy on the terrorists to visit our shores, than perhaps they should move to the muslim world and see how welcome they are.

PS: Just because a few wolves have made it into the pasture because our fences were damaged, doesn't mean that I should open the gates as well. I mean really!

Thanks for your concern,

So how many Saudi's were in 9/11?

Do you really want to stop all non-government business with them?

I understand what you mean, but what about arabs trying to escape their country?

Why base your judgements on the minority, there are more kinds of terrorists than just Arabs. The war on terrorism can't be won. There are terrorists in Europe, the Basque ETA are terrorists.

So that would make Muslims never able to enter the US. Though it would just mean that they would enter illegally. In my opinion it wouldn't solve the problem. And what about the Muslims in America already who can't get their families to the country, but can't leave because they won't be allowed back. It is an interesting thought but would it keep the American Muslims happy?

No, you would probably end up turning more Muslims already in America against the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

I've been thinking over this for awhile, and I cannot quite understand. How is it possible to no an answer? I'm sorry, but I'm not God and I cannot simply invalidate something; you see, it must already be false or true prior to my coming to it and its validity is separate from anything that I could hope to do to it.:shrug:

---

Yeah.... I noticed that:help: I'd edit it but I can't...it says my warnings are removed but I still can't edit:inquisitive:

Sun Tzu's Art of War: Know Thy Enemy ...well we know they aren't 80 year old war vets, and Grannies with a handbag...

I've been profiled by airport security before.... just not racially. I once commented to a screener that "I must look suspicious" since I had been selected multiple times for "random" screenings when boarding my flights during a business trip.

I was told by the screener that no, it wasnt that- it was just that my carry-on (a small duffle bag) was very easy to search, so they were selecting me. ~:eek:

Here is a twist!

Baby bombers and fanatical moms!

Quote:

---

By JOHN KAY
Chief Reporter
and SIMON HUGHES

HATE-filled mums willing to sacrifice themselves and their BABIES are being hunted in the war on terror.

Security sources confirmed last night that alleged “baby bombers” were among those arrested over the plot to massacre thousands by downing transatlantic flights.

Those being quizzed included a husband and wife with a six-month-old infant.

The discovery prompted fears that there were fanatical mothers in secret al-Qaeda cells in Britain ready to become suicide bombers — and to die with their tots in their arms.

And it emerged as the reason why women at airports were ordered to drink from their babies’ bottles before being allowed to board flights during last week’s massive alert.

One senior Government security adviser warned of a race against time to identify individuals who might pose a threat.

The adviser said: “It may be beyond belief, but we are convinced that there are now women in Britain who are prepared to die with their babies for their twisted cause. They are ruthless, single-minded and totally committed.”

The nightmare is that mums carrying tiny tots would provide “very good cover” and not raise suspicions among even the most alert security guards.

The threat was identified along with an additional warning that as many as two dozen terror cells may still be active in Britain.

The source added: “We believe all the known players involved in last week’s plot have been detained. Our biggest concern now is all the unknown players who may be out there.

“And that includes mothers who are ready and willing to see their little ones die. It is a race against time.” Women around the world have carried out suicide attacks in the past.

Two female Chechen terrorists blew themselves up on separate flights in Russia two years ago.

An intelligence source said: “Al-Qaeda specialises in attempting the unexpected. What could be more unexpected in Western eyes than women willing to die with their babies?”

---

Best argument I have seen yet against profiling. All your "civil liberty" arguments are poop. Now we expand the net to include muslim women and mothers. Crazy freaks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

Best argument I have seen yet against profiling. All your "civil liberty" arguments are poop. Now we expand the net to include muslim women and mothers. Crazy freaks.

---

Actually it disproves profiling. If only young Arab males was the profile target, then a married Pakistani couple with a baby would be outside the parameters and hence missed from that search.

Now if you search everyone, then everyone will get searched. Setup holes in a search program and the holes are what will be used. As anything that is not part of the profile is now a hole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

---

What's your next poll going to be - identifying badges for "undesireables"?

I think the answer to your question is quite obvious. When datamining and wiretapping of phones and email increases, terrorists will start making the attacks alone, without any communication at all, and their terror will remain, while the datamining has removed freedom, democracy and integrity from our countries. To use datamining and wiretapping against terrorists is the most contra-productive strategy ever suggested in any conflict in the history of mankind. In fact it's so stupid of an idea with so clear contra-productive consequences, that it makes you think that the real intention of it probably isn't anti-terrorism, but a gradual coup to transform our countries into dictatorship regimes just like what happened in the early 19th century where practically every country in Europe except France and Britain got dictators. This gradual removal of freedom and democracy has been going for about 4 years now, and our leaders have achieved just as much as Hitler, Stalin, or anyone else achievied in 4 years when it comes to removal of democratic rights and increasing of demonization and fear of protesting. So what can we expect in the coming years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

What's your next poll going to be - identifying badges for "undesireables"?

I think the answer to your question is quite obvious. When datamining and wiretapping of phones and email increases, terrorists will start making the attacks alone, without any communication at all, and their terror will remain, while the datamining has removed freedom, democracy and integrity from our countries. To use datamining and wiretapping against terrorists is the most contra-productive strategy ever suggested in any conflict in the history of mankind. In fact it's so stupid of an idea with so clear contra-productive consequences, that it makes you think that the real intention of it probably isn't anti-terrorism, but a gradual coup to transform our countries into dictatorship regimes just like what happened in the early 19th century where practically every country in Europe except France and Britain got dictators. This gradual removal of freedom and democracy has been going for about 4 years now, and our leaders have achieved just as much as Hitler, Stalin, or anyone else achievied in 4 years when it comes to removal of democratic rights and increasing of demonization and fear of protesting. So what can we expect in the coming years?

EDIT by Ser Clegane: last part has been removed to reflect edits in original post

---

Er....yikes? :anxious:

LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

wanna lay off the naziness amigo? Just cause I wanna cath te bad guys dont make me a ****ing nazi!!!!!

It makes me sick to be called abigot by complete strgangers. youuo dont knwo a damn ting about me. Yes I am drunk and posting but damn. I dont care fi you are a craker, a beaner, a nip, a negor, or a chink. I'll be your friend either way. That crap means nothing to me you arse. I care about the politicas of th matter, namely: are you coming to my country byt millios with nothing tooffer but poverty? Are you attempting to kill mt famiuly? Get a clue man. This never nevr never had anything to do with race.

I expect these knee-jerk racism accusations to stop. :stare:

If you disagree with the effectiveness of "racial" (or whatever) profiling please let us know why.
Simply accusing other patrons of being racist is not acceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

If you disagree with the effectiveness of "racial" (or whatever) profiling please let us know why.

---

Datamining and wiretapping can only catch terrorists who communicate. Terrorists working alone will not be caught. After a few cases of terrorists being caught, they will all change strategy and go alone, which means they can't be caught. Then you're back where you started - with no gains in the war against terrorism, but with one difference - you've made your country wiretap it's citizens, you've violated their integrity, and you've already created the hateful demonized feeling that has in history always ended with genocide. The end result is therefore the loss of something, without the gain of anything.

If you look at previous examples in history where datamining and wiretapping of the citizens was carried out, you'll see that that's something that has only existed in malfunctioning, violent and authoritarian societies - for instance Nazi Germany, Communist USSR, Mao Zedong's China, DDR, Mussolini's Fascist regime and The Khmers in Cambodia, to mention a few. Interesting also to note is that previously to the usage of datamining, wiretapping and controlling the citizens, these societies worked a lot better than they did after a few years of all the surveillance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So how many Saudi's were in 9/11?

Do you really want to stop all non-government business with them?

---

Absolutely! This means Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar, Iran, Syria, Lebenon, and let us not forget our dear friends, Pakistan. I would go as far as freezing the assets of the Saudis in this country until they were more forthcoming in helping to find their brother Osama Bin Killin' and promised the reforms that would help keep such groups as Al Kill Ya from being able to spread their brand of hatred.

As for racial profiling, it is something that their people brought on themselves. If they want my respect, then perhaps the muslim world could do more to reign in the nutcases who want to have 72 virgins by dying for Allah. I really mean our peaceful muslim bretheren no harm, and I have every respect for the Koran (praise be upon it), but this is war-a war the west did not ask for and if we must take a hard look at one segment of our population to find the wolves among us, then to do less is to lack moral courage. We are not talking about your standard criminal element here, but a highly sophisticated enemy who is completely dedicated to causing us misery and harm.

Regards,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Datamining and wiretapping can only catch terrorists who communicate. Terrorists working alone will not be caught. After a few cases of terrorists being caught, they will all change strategy and go alone, which means they can't be caught. Then you're back where you started - with no gains in the war against terrorism, but with one difference - you've made your country wiretap it's citizens, you've violated their integrity, and you've already created the hateful demonized feeling that has in history always ended with genocide. The end result is therefore the loss of something, without the gain of anything.

---

So you're arguing that we shouldnt catch terrorists because they might get wise to our methods and switch? That's like arguing against treating people with anti-biotics because the diseases may get resistent. Besides, they won't stop communicating- without planning and coordination it's impossible to pull off any large-scale attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

So you're arguing that we shouldnt catch terrorists because they might get wise to our methods and switch? That's like arguing against treating people with anti-biotics because the diseases may get resistent. Besides, they won't stop communicating- without planning and coordination it's impossible to pull off any large-scale attacks.

---

Is it the surveillance and racial discrimination profiling or regular police work that has stopped the latest two terror plots? You're putting words I never said into my mouth. Removal of democratic rights to fight a threat against democracy, is like murdering random civilians to fight murder.

To remove our democratic rights and using racial discrimination and concentration camps is no more a solution to any problem than murdering innocent Jews or Anti-communists was a solution to any problem for the nazis and stalinists.

Just to lighten the mood ...

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

The fun thing about Islam is that it's a religion. The fun thing about Scary nutter Islam is that it's a perspective. This means that the entire human race can be a member of both. If you single out Arabs alienate them and give the terrorists an opening to exploit. It's almost a cert that their are white people out their who could plausably be terrorists. Their's also also large numbers of black, pakistani and Asian muslims out their anyway not to mention the Eastern europian ethnic groups. This isnt 'bleeding heartism' (aka a buzzword used by mildy bigoted conservatisves to make their enemies look naive when it's actually they themselves who are naive) it's basic logic.

What!!???

You mean to tell us that terrorists drive black mercedesses? Are you insinuating that we should race-profile Germans!? :furious3:

Except that both Blair and Bush will be gone in a few years and as soon as the Muslim terrorist threat disappears the erosion of the state will start again. That said removing double jeopardy and trial by jury are rather worrying, since I don't see that getting reversed.

Blair has ground to a halt and he's a lame, duck. I'd shelve the conspiracy theories for a while if I were you.

On topic: While I agree that profiling can be counter productive you have to admit that all the terrorists are Muslims, thats the link. You can't get away from it. They're not all Arabs, or blacks, or white, they're all Muslim. So in Britain we can discount the 58.2 million people in Britain who are not Muslim.

Just as in the same way when they were looking for an IRA plot they could discount the protasant Welsman with no Irish relatives. These things don't need to be made public, they just need to be done. The idea that the public needs to know everything going in is stupid. Thats what we have the security services for, to take care of these things so that we don't have to worry about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

...*gasp* facing the fact that the terrorists are not white Christian John Smiths.

Crazed Rabbit

---

Right. They're white Christian Timothy McVeigh's.

The whole problem with this entire debate is that far too many people think Muslims = Arabs and terrorists = Muslims; therefore, to them, terrorists = Arabs. It just isn't the case. Not all Arabs are terrorists. Not all Arabs are Muslims. Not all Muslims are Arabs. Not all Muslims are terrorists. And most importantly, not all terrorists are Arabs or Muslims. So what freaking good does racial profiling do? If anything, it gives the terrorists an open invitation to recruit non-Arabs to be their suicide bombers. Meanwhile, the less than intelligent will feel safe because the geniuses we hire for minimum wage to work in airport security will think that some Hindi woman dresses like an Arab (even though she doesn't) and profile her for searching, or single out the Sikh in the turban, instead of the terrorist in the business suit. No thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

You mean to tell us that terrorists drive black mercedesses? Are you insinuating that we should race-profile Germans!?

---

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.

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.