Hmm, the words "star of David" come to mind, perhaps it's a useful idea.
Printable View
Hmm, the words "star of David" come to mind, perhaps it's a useful idea.
Good god man! We're not going to go rounding people up and start culling them for no reason, but like it or not there is currently a threat from islamic extremists. What would you suggest? We just wait for them to kill 5000 innocent people, then arrest them and put them away.
At that rate we should catch them after about 100,000 or so people are killed in terrorist attacks
I don't really know how to solve it, perhaps it cannot be solved because the people out there who hate us will keep finding new ways. I am not saying that we should rest on our laurels, just that we should be carefull in what measures we choose to take.
1st They should not confine the liberties of citizens.
2nd They shoudn't be discriminating in any way.
I am not a dove, but no matter how much whipped cream you put on it, I am not willing to swallow the idea that racial profiling is OK. It's hard to explain really, it's an emotional thing, perhaps it's just my upbringing (/indoctrination).
It's the slipperly slope that I fear, what will be the next step? That's why I posted that.
Nobody is suggesting Racial Profiling is ok, however, how do you not allow that scary thought to come to your mind everytime you see one of these guys boarding an airplane (just an example) with you? We're only human. I for one, not willing to believe that you can be totally "disconnected" and not think on similar grounds when in similar situation.
If an unknown number of Hard Core Red-Shirted Vulcan Eared Trekies got together with a single purpose, and a portion were caught red handed in the preliminary stages of blowing up several Babylon5 conventions, then I'm afraid that, due to their display of being organized, we would have to assume there probably are more of them out their involved with this terror plot, and unfortunately until the authorities could be convinced that the unknowns have either abandoned this course of action, or are truly non-existant, then the whole freaky trekie population would have to be a profile of who should be considered as a potential threat, until proven otherwise.
Set phasers to fun! http://www.vbforums.com/
Racial profiling is real and happens all the time. Just because it's not policy, it exists - including at the airport. Making it official would just eliminate the charade of "randomly" selecting the 2 1/2 year old and her 85 year old grandma for extra screening, which does nothing but cause delays.
If I go to a black neighborhood, I'll likely get pulled over just as a black guy will likely get pulled over in a white neighborhood. If middle eastern looking men go to the airport with a one way ticket to New York, extra screening. I have no problem with that, and if people would be honest about their real feelings, I think you'd find nobody really has a problem with that. But, we must maintain our politically correct appearence and pretend it offends us, happily ignoring the ongoing global war because it makes us feel yucky.
Nicely put, racial profiling happens all the time.
How can you not be suspicious of muslims when always the muslims are behind every non sense that goes on around the world???
Except you cant get a 1 way ticket to the US unless you are a US Resident ... :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
Quote:
Originally Posted by chocoloco
I don't believe this...unless you have me on ignore ;) ....you can list all the terrorist attacks committed in the US, and three posts later some guy comes on and says something that is utterly wrong.
KEEP THIS IN MIND: ALMOST ALL TERRORIST ATTACKS COMMITTED ON AMERICAN SOIL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY WHITE AMERICAN MALES!!!
Only TWO have been by foreign Islamic terrorists.
ill say this ... if i see someone that looks like a joneser (bum) i walkin the other way .. cause i aint got no change buddy ... just cause he looks like a bum doesnt mean he is ... but im just fed up with them jonesin for my change is all ... :wave:
What's your point? Should we wait for Islamic terrorists to catch up before challenging them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
[edit]By the way, US embassies abroad are classified as US soil[/edit]
"It cannot be solved"? So perhaps we should just let them bomb who they wish and just say, "well we couldn't have stopped them anyway"? - yeah rightQuote:
Originally Posted by grilkip
Racial profiling has existed for centuries, mostly as a threat that came from one place. As I mentioned before in the 80s the IRA was suspect and as such any unmarked white van (especially originating from Ireland) would instantly be searched.
I would have no problems in extra security being in place anywhere if it meant I was safer and the chances of stopping an attack was increased.
Ask yourself this. Would the passengers on the planes of the 9/11 attacks have minded extra security checks if it had meant catching those responsible? Or perhaps extra checks at train stations to catch those responsible for the Madrid/London bombings thus?
The greatest hindrance is political correctness. What a waste of time that is! We can no longer ask for black coffee as it's degrading to the ethinc minority groups!?! :ehh:
They must be stopped, and if that means that at airports asian passengers are more scrutinised so be it. I wouldn't mind if it were me as I have nothing to hide from them!
If they were to do extra security checks on American white males or, to remain in spirit of things, welsh people flying to american (for whatever reason) you'd all be up in arms, waving the Bill of Rights and all that frantically about.
I do not deny that there's a lot of muslim extremism, I do not deny that there's hatred towards the west and I do not deny that there are terror plots but either check everyone thorougly or no-one at all. This is no reason for discrimination. Everyone is a potential terrorists.
But you would never agree with that, would you?
I didn't say we shouldn't do anything. I just happen to have an opinion as to what should limit a state in its actions. Singling out ethnic groups is something I believe is wrong.That's a cheap shot, you don't know how, when and where the next attack will be so what shall we do? Stay at home? It also implies that I don't care for those lives lost, which I resent.Quote:
Ask yourself this. Would the passengers on the planes of the 9/11 attacks have minded extra security checks if it had meant catching those responsible? Or perhaps extra checks at train stations to catch those responsible for the Madrid/London bombings thus?
I agree that there are examples where political correctness has gone too far, your example is one. Actually since 9/11 much of it has fallen away, at least where I live. Believe me, the results aren't always pretty.Quote:
The greatest hindrance is political correctness. What a waste of time that is! We can no longer ask for black coffee as it's degrading to the ethinc minority groups!?!
they do, at least us white bahamians ,.. i got no problem with it, better safe then sorry, and if we dont like it, there's always the boat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Pipp
I agree that we all have emotional responses to certain situations and that might include being on a plane with a bearded man of dark complexion speaking a language we don't recognise. However, when you choose to act on that emotional response instead of considering it logically you become a bigot in my opinion. These men had passed through exactly the same security checks and were carrying exactly the same limited hand luggage as every other person on the plane - anyone in their right mind and who wasn't allowing themselves to be swept up in the general panic and fear that's currently pervading our society would have been able to conclude that these men simply didn't represent a threat.
Further, the result of this was not that the people who chose to get up and walk off the plane were inconvenienced and had to take a later flight. Instead monarch airlines decided that the two men being victimised had to take a later flight. The only possible reason I can think of for that is financial. The airline could limit their losses by removing two innocent men from the plane instead of removing those that didn''t like the fact they spoke arabic.
The argument that because racial profiling exists we should therefore consider it acceptable, not mention legal, does not hold water. The point of morality is that we, as human beings, can rise above our baser instincts. If we fail to do so, and even go so far as to justify that failure, we might as well give up on any concept of humanity as being separate from beasts.
On 9/10 Islamists weren't considered a threat so no amount of racial profiling would have made a jot of difference on 9/11. It would have missed the perpetrators entirely so frankly any argument that racial profiling will stop terrorist attacks to be laughable
...and this is the most dangerous attitude of all. To say that almost all terrorists are muslims is incorrect. Up until Iraq the most prolific use of suicide bombs was by the Tamil Tigers - who are Hindu (I'm actually not sure that the situation in Iraq has changed that fact but it's probably close by so I'll hedge my bets.) As Shaggy points out, more attackes have been carried out on American soil by Whites than Muslims. To add to that, more attacks on British soild have been carried out by Irishmen than by Muslims.Quote:
I don't mean to be mean here, but can you really blame people for this behaviour when a large (almost all) part of terrorists involved in bombings come from that ethnicity/countries. Its sad but inevitable.
Should we ignore the terrorist threat - YES, that's exactly what we (as the public) should do. The most effective measure against terrorism will not be for us to start ostracising large parts of our community - it will be for our authorities and domestic police forces to gather good intelligence and act on it (it's only a shame that they seem to have bee nso inept at this recently). Will some terrorist attacks get through? Yes. Will the deathtoll as a result of those attacks outstrip that caused by accidents in the home, railway crashes, cancer, smoking, or just about any other category you care to mention? No. Stop allowing irrational fear to inform your thinking
Can you be anymore stupid and ignorant?? Comparing deathtoll caused by terrorism to the one caused by smoking??? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Your kidding, right? :confused: Is this really considered politically incorrect now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Yes I can. I can have a world view like this:-Quote:
Can you be anymore stupid and ignorant??
Quote:
How can you not be suspicious of muslims when always the muslims are behind every non sense that goes on around the world???
What part of that do you find not being true??
How many times have you heard Tamil Tigers driving Planes into WTC??
So one act of terrorism on American soil links all muslims to all of the terror acts in the world?
Never knew the IRA, ETA and all the rest of the terrorists were muslim but hey, you live an learn.
I'm not kidding.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
No, we don't know when and where the next attack will be so we have to check everyone deemed a risk to security. If that were white males I would have no issue with extra checks as I have nothing to hide.Quote:
Originally Posted by grilkip
So what would you suggest? So that we don't offend anyone (god forbid) we should refrain from doing anything but the most basic of security checks (like metal detectors, and x-ray scanners - neither of which could pick up a nitro-glycerine explosive) and risk letting a bomber through? No, everyone should be checked thoroughly.
Going into a night-club I am asked to empty my pockets before they check my person for offensive weapons. If I do not comply, I do not get in. Why can this not be normal practice at airport security checks for EVERYONE?
No, but see which terrorism acts have caused most damage/lives/havoc and you will see what I'm getting at. Take india for example, kashmere issue. Its not white males from New york coming here and killing innocent civilians. Its terrorists funded by pakistan and middle eastern countries .... They must have lost at least 70, 80000 people in last two decades to terrorism and I am not even exaggerating right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Pipp
That quote is from Michael Tuohey, the ticket agent who gave boarding passes to Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz Alomari. Three hours later, they flew a jet into the WTC.Quote:
"I said to myself, 'If this guy doesn't look like an Arab terrorist, then nothing does.' Then I gave myself a mental slap, because in this day and age, it's not nice to say things like this," he said. "You've checked in hundreds of Arabs and Hindus and Sikhs, and you've never done that. I felt kind of embarrassed."
Had this guy gone with his instincts, who knows what would have happened. Well, we do know the ACLU would have eaten him alive.
Actually, I would say that it is views like these that lead to views like these. Human brains are very good at one thing and only one thing: Pattern recognition. Nothing else we do is particularly spectacular, but we can pick patterns out of almost any kind of data stream. This has obvious biological importance, but it leads to bad mistakes in civilization. Once the pattern is established "terrorists look like X", then our brains will remind us of evidence that supports the pattern, and suppresses evidence that contradicts the pattern. Thus racism. Once you believe it, your brain will strongly filter out contradictory evidence. There are plenty of interesting studies on this. It doesn't just work with one type of pattern such as race.Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
The news out here is all buzzing over a guy who was arrested with the intent of out doing McVeigh using the same general plan. He intended to use a follow-up bomb to get the first responders. He got caught, though.
Now, had he succeeded, what would people do? If the next major (hundreds killed and wounded) terrorist attack in the US was perpetrated by a white guy, would we simply start fearing all men, or would we discount that attack, and continue to focus on a different race?
The pattern of focusing on middle eastern men would leave us exposed to attacks by the groups who have committed the vast majority of terrorist attacks on US soil. By the arguments made here, we should focus on white, male, US citizens, because they are the group most likely to attack us based on the last twenty years of history. If you want to concentrate your efforts on the demographic that poses the greatest threat of committing a terrorist attack, it is THAT group.
Are there any members of this discussion that are not members of that demographic (white males, that is, not necessarily US citizens)?
The difference is simple .. one is an american, the other is a visitor ... they have every right to discriminate against everyone coming into their country that isnt a born and raised american. It happens to me when i visit the US, and i dont have a problem with it, so why should other people ..
Good argument :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
I also have to agree with rory. If you come into a country that country has every right to put you through whatever restrictions they deem necessary, it is their right as it is their country. I had to go through very strict security procedures when going to Orlando for two weeks holiday and I did not mind it one bit
I don't particularly see a moral problem with separating visitors from residents in the same way that I do with separating them by ethnicity but I do see a practical one. The guys they arrested recently for the failed plot that started this discussion were all British. So we'd have let them on the plane with no extra checks.
Also it's slightly confusing to discuss separating visitors from residents because that implies you'll be checking people as they arrive but actually you're checking them as they leave. "Should British security be relaxing measures against American residents boarding an American flight?" is a more difficult question than "Should American Security be relaxing measures against American residents exiting an American flight?"
I think Valleys Boy is about right when he says why aren't we applying these check to EVERYONE. To me the only arguments aganst that are ones of pragmatism (it's a lot of upheaval) and that it won't be particularly effective unless all countries adopt the same level of stringency. Neither of those is insurmountable though.
If everyone listened to my idea and travelled by catapult, we wouldn't have these problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
We have Pre Clearence here in the Bahamas for US Immigration .. so they get us before we even get on the plane .. ;)
Domestic terrorism is a completely different entity to international terrorism. And white guys who park a van or truck near a federal building are scrutinized, or profiled. Since Oklahoma, all kinds of steps have been taken to make federal buildings more secure. Try parking near one. Should we spot check 5 year olds visiting a federal building to give the appearence we're not just picking on white guys in vans? That's what's going on at the airport, and that's what I think is a waste of time and resources.
Airline workers have been trained for years to spot suspicious behavior or potential risks. Liberal conditioning preventing that ticket agent from acting on something his gut told him, correctly, was a problem. The oppresive blanket of political correctness needs to go back in the closet. It's ridiculous to the point of being a threat to the country. Profiling already exists, my point is that it wouldn't hurt a bit to make it policy and end the BS that it doesn't exist.
I agreed with most of what people said until that last one. Suicide terrorists have a rather unique point of view, as the end of their life is included in their actions. I would have to agree with the TSA official who pointed out that if we start not searching kids, then that would make a baby the ideal place to conceal a bomb. After all, why would we expect a person who intends to kill hundreds to be suddenly concerned about the life of a baby? The point of random searches is that they must truly be random. A child below the age of speech is actually an ideal medium for a person who desires to kill people.
In this case, profiling would more effectively close one door, but it will do so by lighting a flashing sign pointing to another door. You are saying to anybody watching: "If you want to get away with something, do this, because we are INTENTIONALLY not looking!"
As for blaming it on political correctness, or any liberal conditioning, that may well be the case. Of course, this country has a very strong history of violence towards various groups within it. It doesn't get talked about much, and plenty of it still exists. I feel that promoting tolerance of others is worthwhile, and if it gets some folks undies in a knot, tough. The Arryan Nation just got sued out of existence in this state, but we have plenty more like them up here. Some of them hate me because I work for the government, even though I'm just a fish biologist. I'm not thrilled with political correctness, I think it is silly, and can easily be taken too far, but I'm not so thrilled with the groups around me that are the antithesis.
It seems there is a bit of an over reaction to this plot.
http://www.theregister.com/2006/08/1...t_terror_labs/
An interesting article, but I'm not sure that it was entirely accurate. They list the Hawaii flight where the roof came off as an example of how hard it is to bring down a plane. However, there are plenty of examples where a plane crashed because of a fairly minor amount of damage to a very critical area. I forget the name of the crash in Florida (was it valujet?). There was no explosion, just a fire or something like that, and the plane hit the ground so hard it was hard to recover any pieces of it (they burrowed into the Everglades mud after a near vertical impact). Do you really need an explosive to crash a plane, or just a targeted fire? If so, there are plenty of simple and potent binary solutions to that.
The article is probably correct that the listed explosive would be exceedingly difficult to manufacture on the spot in such a quantity that it could create an explosion of sufficient force to bring down a plane if it were detonated in the cabin. However, is this indicative of the inadequacy of the terrorists, or is this indicative of the lack of imagination of the writer of the article. Has anybody specifically said that the terrorists intended to simply detonate the chemicals wherever convenient? Is there no possible way they could use a limitted explosion to do terminal damage?
I wonder if you'd think we were over reacting if they had actually succeeeded? Doubt itQuote:
Originally Posted by moeur
The point of the article is that they wouldn't have succeeded to the extent that the media is portraying.Quote:
I wonder if you'd think we were over reacting if they had actually succeeeded?
Nevertheless, I woudl prefer the security services overreact than under-react.
I don't recall any mention of the final chemical to go was TATP that was issued from a reliable source. This article clearly assumes that's what was mentioned. If you ever believed that TATP could be made in-situ in an aircraft then, I'm afraid, you are an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
If you believe the security services would reveal which two substances can make binary explosives to the public at large then, I'm afraid, you are much further down the line than an idiot.
Furthermore the process of creating, and handling dimethylmercury, as the article suggests as an even worse weapon, is likely to kill the person trying to do it.
I presume that you have some fashion of intelligence. I am confused by your decision to post this article, Moeur; especially with your kick-line.
hey hey! Our number one debater on the World Events forum is back! Welcome Back Yrywddfa :thumb: :D
No they're not. ANYONE parking a van or truck near a federal building will be scrutinized. I don't imagine the security services look at the driver and say "Hey, it's OK, he's black. If he was White we'd nab him" which is exactly what we're advocating doing to Arabs and Pakistani's in this thread.Quote:
white guys who park a van or truck near a federal building are scrutinized, or profiled.
I'm also pretty sure that a five year old parking a van near a federal building would recieve the same scrutiny - but that's admittedly unlikely :ehh: