UK: Muslims face extra checks in new travel crackdown


PDA






Desertdog
August 14, 2006, 11:45 PM
To me it sounds like the right thing to do.

Muslims face extra checks in new travel crackdown
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C2-2313135%2C00.html



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.

The system would be much more sophisticated than simply picking out young men of Asian appearance. But it would cause outrage in the Muslim community because its members would be far more likely to be selected for extra checks.

Officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) have discussed the practicalities of introducing such a system with airport operators, including BAA. They believe that it would be more effective at identifying potential terrorists than the existing random searches.

They also say that it would greatly reduce queues at secur-ity gates, which caused lengthy delays at London airports yesterday for the fifth day running. Heathrow and Gatwick were worst affected, cancelling 69 and 27 flights respectively. BAA gave warning yesterday that the disruption would continue for the rest of the week.

Passengers are now allowed to take one small piece of hand luggage on board but security staff are still having to search 50 per cent of travellers. Airports have also been ordered to search twice as many hand luggage items as a week ago.

BAA was criticised yesterday for failing to commit itself to recruiting more security staff and for claiming that its existing 6,000 staff at seven airports would be able to handle the extra searches. Tony Douglas, the chief executive of Heathrow, said that X-ray screening of hand luggage would be much faster under the new rules on size and contents, leaving staff free to carry out more searches.

The new measures, which include a ban on taking any liquids through checkpoints, are expected to remain in place for months. A DfT source said it was difficult to see how the restrictions could be relaxed if terrorists now had the capabil-ity to make liquid bombs.

The DfT has been considering passenger profiling for a year but, until last week, the disadvantages were thought to outweigh the advantages. A senior aviation industry source said: “The DfT is ultra-sensitive about this and won’t say anything publicly because of political concerns about being accused of racial stereotyping.”

Three days before last week’s arrests, the highest-ranking Muslim police officer in Britain gave warning that profiling techniques based on physical appearance were already causing anger and mistrust among young Muslims. Tarique Ghaffur, an assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: “We must think long and hard about the causal factors of anger and resentment.

“There is a very real danger that the counter-terrorism label is also being used by other law-enforcement agencies to the effect that there is a real risk of criminalising minority communities.”

Sir Rod Eddington, former chief executive of British Airways, criticised the random nature of security searches. He said that it was irrational to subject a 75-year-old grandmother to the same checks as a 25-year-old man who had just paid for his ticket with cash.

Philip Baum, an aviation security consultant, said that profiling should focus on ruling out people who obviously posed no risk rather than picking out Asian or Arabs.

A DfT spokesman refused to make any comment or answer any questions on profiling.

AIRPORT UPDATE

British Airways plans to cancel forty short-haul and four long-haul flights from Heathrow today as well as eleven domestic flights from Gatwick. Other airlines expect to operate near-normal schedules.

All airports will allow passengers to carry one small piece of hand luggage, but no liquids are allowed through the security search point other than prescribed medicines and baby food.

If you enjoyed reading about "UK: Muslims face extra checks in new travel crackdown" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
cassandrasdaddy
August 14, 2006, 11:48 PM
how do you determine someones religion by looking. i know of one government that did it before. end of the story didn't work out well

oldfart
August 15, 2006, 12:11 AM
I don't know, cassandrasdaddy, but something has to be done. The well worn adage that 'all Muslims aren't terrorists but all terrorists are Muslim' is still true and ignoring that fact to avoid hurting somebody's feelings could leave a lot of other 'somebodys' very dead. I'm sure the security people would welcome a viable alternative but I don't have one. Do you?
FranklY, I'm more worried that this whole mess will degenerate into some sort of bloodbath where Christians and Jews declare open season on any and all Muslims. It's happened before...

Oleg Volk
August 15, 2006, 12:22 AM
These friends of mine are Muslim:

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/1479-2/eva2.jpg

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/906-2/derek.jpg

These aren't:

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/7680-2/gamini3.jpg

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/3099-2/vandy0099.jpg

Even if you wanted to ID people by headdress or other overt characteristics, don't you think that anyone on the warpath might omit those items for the expediency?

cassandrasdaddy
August 15, 2006, 12:30 AM
i wish i had a decent answer. i have a couple visceral ones that are effective but not really viable in real life. and i fear that the wrong responses will hasten rather than prevent that blood bath.play their cards riht the chines can sit back let the round eyes do most of the work and inherit.i'd rather see no carryons on flights and real serious security. but i find it odd that folks would fight to keep the convience of carryon luggage rather than embrace something that would help save their bacon.

you count muslims recently? short of some real serious options open season could turn into the bear hunting us.
the closest idea i can come up with is hunt leaders. i mean really hunt em. no quarter . i am a guy with a kid and i would be willing to do a lot to keep her safe. and if i thought jacking folks up at security based on how they look i'd be all over it. i just don't see it doing much for real security.it might assuage the uglier side of somefolks nature but long term it just allows em a free shot when they use some blue eyed blond "believer to rack us up.

Desertdog
August 15, 2006, 12:31 AM
I think the airlines should not allow carry on luggage unless it is essential for health welfare and personals such as purses.

Health and welfare examples would be baby supplies, including formula and medical necessities.

Let everything else be sent in checked luggage or shipped ahead of time.

Something I would like to see is an express line for anyone that is not carrying anything or just a small item such as a purse.

Lupinus
August 15, 2006, 12:38 AM
I am all for profiling.

I'm not saying round them up or put them through hell, not by a long shot. But it comes down to odds.

A 25 year old arab here on a student visa with a one way plane ticket is more likly numbers wise to be planning to bring down the plane then an 80 year old grandmother with knitting needles. The same is more likly to have a bomb in his shoes then is the four year old child.

White black orange green or yellow with red polka dots people shouldn't be given a pass. But when it comes down to the odds game arabs are more likly to be the threat. Always is? No. Is a person automatically more likly to go crazy and blow himself up then another of a different race? No. But members who share his race might be more likly to.

In a neighborhood with a high amount of black gang activity has a robbery, it might be a good idea to look at the black kids in their late teens early 20s with gang tats. Same for hispanic or white gangs. Focused? No. Logical starting point? Yes. And when a plane is in danger of being blown up keeping an extra eye on Arabs over 80 year old grandmothers is logical too.

tellner
August 15, 2006, 01:30 AM
As pointed out earlier, 40% of Americans in the latest Gallup poll wanted special ID cards for Muslims. When we get to the point of yellow stars we've destroyed whatever was worth protecting, and America is lost forever. If anyone wants to make my wife carry a special "enemy alien" ID or deny her her civil rights because of her Faith this Jew will be standing there ready to defend her rights to the death if necessary.

Croyance
August 15, 2006, 01:38 AM
"All terrorists are muslim"
Well I suppose Ireland has cooled off for now. And the Basques confine their actions to Spain. They are talking independence again. I suppose world events may have made the association with Muslims through bombing unpalatable for both. Well, until they decide it is time for action.
And those guerillas in South America tend to limit their field of activity.
And certainly there are no off-kilter Caucasians that have an ax to grind that can be manipulated or used for such a purpose.

The tip for this binary explosive case and I would bet those other two dozen cases being investigated in the UK came from Muslims also.

feedthehogs
August 15, 2006, 07:05 AM
Funny how people are more worried about being a victim of a terrorist act than being a victim of a robbery which is much more likely to occur.

If you support profiling of one sort, then you support any type of profiling.

Most child molesters/killers are middle aged white.
If a child dissapeared in your area, would you support the police stopping, retaining and searching every middle aged white guy?

How many people got upset when it was discovered that a Bushmaster was used in the beltway shootings and how law enforcement went after and confiscated Bushmaster rifles in a search for the killers?

Profiling of any sort won't work and never ends on a good note.

I'm sure everyone remembers the statement about sacrificing freedom for security.
Well it goes for everyone.


Border security and visa limitations are the answer.
But as usual, that old decrepid Uncle Sam keeps trying to fix the barn door after the animals get out.

Fosbery
August 15, 2006, 07:48 AM
This is stupid for two reasons.

Firstly, it's completely impractical and will not work. If there is a black man who murders some people and he escapes from prison, until he is caught, black people are likely to be checked more than white people, and quite rightly. You're looking for a specific person of that description and it's a pruident thing to do. In this case, there is no specific target however. So what will be the result? Extremists who are old, female, black as opposed to asian or who look (or indeed are) caucassian will become a valuable commodity for terrorist cells. Why risk sending a young asian man who will get searched when you can send his girlfriend who won't?

Secondly, if it serves no practical purpose then it smacks of racism. Combine this with ID cards and soon they'll be asking Muslims to put their religion on their ID cards...then on their shirts...

Pushrod
August 15, 2006, 08:57 AM
Desert Dog, With the way the airlines treat our luggage at this time, I would not support a policy that didn't allow us to carry on luggage. Some of my dive gear is expensive and fragile, and to trust it to get through the TSA screeners and baggage handlers without getting stolen or broken is playing agains the odds.

agricola
August 15, 2006, 09:24 AM
Racial profiling is an utterly flawed policy, as many have noted; it doesnt take into account terrorist groups like the IRA (who of course have killed far more British civilians than the jihadists), it doesnt take into account of people who look similar to the "target" population (Britain of course has a large Hindu and Sikh population), and it doesnt take into account the numbers (Jermaine Lindsay, one of the July 7th bombers was one) of non-Asian converts to Islam who might be used for attacks.

ilbob
August 15, 2006, 09:57 AM
Generally, racial profiling is a bad idea.

As a practical matter, I would prefer to see a list of risk factors drawn up and weigh each passenger on his/her risk factors.

It is unquestionably true that people from certain countries and certain religions are more of a risk than an 80 year old white, Christian grandmother from rural Illinois, and to pretend otherwise is foolish and will get more innocent people killed.

The fact that 100% of all terrorists involved in the current problems are Islamic ought to tell someone what one of the risk factors is.

Fosbery
August 15, 2006, 10:04 AM
That last sentence made no sense :confused:

tellner
August 15, 2006, 10:12 AM
ilbob, that is quite simply not true. Operation Rescue, the Klan, Army of God, ETA, and the whole raft of Reconstructionist groups are terrorists by any definition. They are also entirely Christian.

ilbob
August 15, 2006, 10:20 AM
ilbob, that is quite simply not true. Operation Rescue, the Klan, Army of God, ETA, and the whole raft of Reconstructionist groups are terrorists by any definition. They are also entirely Christian.

None of them are trying to blow up aircraft. We are talking about airport security measures. Nothing wrong with adding membership in these groups as a serious risk factor. Although I think calling Operation Rescue a terrorist group is a very serious stretch. I don't recall they ever killed anyone or blew up anything.

shootinstudent
August 15, 2006, 10:27 AM
100 percent of shootings are committed by people with guns.

Therefore, it's simply natural to go around checking every gun owner when a crime is committed

Henry Bowman
August 15, 2006, 10:45 AM
How do you know their religion? Simple. Worshiper registration. The First Amendment is not unlimited, you know. It doesn't infringe your rights just to have registration ... and it would help solve or prevent so many violent crimes. Or so goes the argument from those who dislike the Second Amendment. :rolleyes:

Coming next: Limits on high capacity churches/mosques/synagogues; 5 prayers a day limit (what honest person needs to pray more than that?); etc.

Fosbery
August 15, 2006, 10:54 AM
Evil black assault-Mosques :D

SuperNaut
August 15, 2006, 11:08 AM
It would be a lot easier if muslims were required to wear an identifying badge of some sort. Maybe an armband or patch on their clothing with a red letter "I" or a representation of the crescent and star.

Wouldn't that make everyone feel safer?

Art Eatman
August 15, 2006, 11:09 AM
You can profile "out" as well as "in", can't you?

That is, some old white guy with a southern drawl or a Noo Joisey accent isn't likely to be a bomber. SFAIK, most Latin accents are good indicators of non-threat.

A Girl Scout troop most likely oughta get a wave-by. (Thinking back to the story of three random checks among a 17-girl group, plus chaperones.)

That general style of profiling folks out of further checks allows more effort to check IDs and then followup on the more probable-cause serious checks.

Ain't no easy answer...

Art

FireBreather01
August 15, 2006, 11:14 AM
Like many discussions, if you take the extreme positions - religious and/or ethnic ID cards, stopping everyone with a dark complexion, or ignoring 13 middle-eastern men that are all wearing heavy, baggy clothing in the middle of summer and trying to board the same plane - then nothing will be solved because the extremes are ludicrous.

The answer lies somewhere in the middle, if you fit a certain profile then you might have to endure a little more screening and questioning. I have a dark complexion and black hair and could easily pass for Iranian, Jordanian, etc - when I have a 70 year old white-haired lady using a walker that goes through security ahead of me and she is wanded, bags are opened and searched, shoes are removed, etc and I and my carry-on just walk through without so much as a glance - gimme a break!!! I should be looked at with just a little more suspicion - leave grandma alone!

You can argue all you want about the IRA or whoever but the reality is we're facing a fairly well-defined threat right now and we need to stay one step ahead. If the Islamo-terrorists change tactics and use blond South-Africans then we pay more attention to them as well. I would rather force their tactics to constantly change, and thus possibly lead to more mistakes on their part and more opportunities for intel by us, than have them easily exploit our self-induced, politically-correct weaknesses.

Action beats reaction.

SuperNaut
August 15, 2006, 11:26 AM
PC my ass.

I'm a professional musician and I used to have long hair. I've been stopped by cops more than any black person I've ever talked to. I know all about profiling and its "efficacy."

I don't do drugs and drink in moderation and I've been in the back of more cop cars than I can count because Mr. Protect and Serve couldn't accept the fact that I blew .000 and did cartwheels around the squad car. There have been numerous studies that have shown that profiling works 50% of the time. IOW it is identical to a coin toss. IOW it is identical to random events.

How many asian muslims are there? Millions?

karaya
August 15, 2006, 11:57 AM
You can profile "out" as well as "in", can't you?


True.

"For instance, every airport in Britain is in chaos over the plane bomb-plot alert as every passenger is subjected to rigorous security checks. Why? They take lots of time, lots of staff, and are extremely expensive.

I'm a white 62-year-old 6ft 4ins suit-wearing ex-cop—I fly often, but do I really fit the profile of suicide bomber? Does the young mum with three tots? The gay couple, the rugby team, the middle-aged businessman?

No. But they are all getting exactly the same amount and devouring huge resources for no logical reason whatsoever. Yet the truth is Islamic terrorism in the West has been universally carried out by young Muslim men, usually of ethnic appearance, almost always travelling alone or in very small groups. A tiny percentage, I bet, of those delayed today have such characteristics.

This targeting of airport resources is called passenger profiling—the Israelis invented it and they've got probably the safest airports and airlines in the world. "


http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/lordstevens.shtml


BTW: Muslim leaders in the UK themselves demand a special treatment
(special rights of course and Sharia law).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=400605&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

Fosbery
August 15, 2006, 12:01 PM
Ah, the Daily Mail. The source of all truth in the world. Sorry, did I say truth? I meant hyperbole, sensationalism and more often than not, downright lies.

SuperNaut
August 15, 2006, 12:13 PM
To answer my own question of how many asian muslims there are, here is an approximate number of just the muslims in China.

At present, according to official statistics there are 28 million Muslim in China but in 1936 it was estimated that the Muslim population was 48 million. By this time total population has increased 3-4 fold. So we can conclude that the total Muslim population has increased minimum by that same proportion. Therefore, now the total Muslim population is at least 150 million.

From here (http://www.islamicpopulation.com/china_muslim.html).

karaya
August 15, 2006, 12:56 PM
Ah, the Daily Mail. The source of all truth in the world. Sorry, did I say truth? I meant hyperbole, sensationalism and more often than not, downright lies.

Do you think the cited articel of the Daily Mail is a downright lie? :what:

DRZinn
August 15, 2006, 08:53 PM
100 percent of shootings are committed by people with guns.

Therefore, it's simply natural to go around checking every gun owner when a crime is committed.Straw man. No-one has advocated going around and rounding up Muslims, or Arabs, or people we think look like Muslims, or Arabs. What has been advocated is in an instance where people are already going through a security checkpoint, look a little closer at those who are a little more likely to be the ones you're trying to stop.

Fosbery
August 15, 2006, 09:28 PM
I think that's a logical exaggeration though. Sure, now it's just checks at airports. Then it will be towerblocks, banks, busses, trains..then it will be special ID cards, then badges, then the 'Westernisation Camps' then the 'Community Work Camps' and finally the death camps.

Sure that takes it a long way but large things come from small beginnings. We never suspected in 1920 when lisencing was introduced for guns in Britain, that 100 years layer we'd be in the practical dictatorship we are now in. The Jews never thought that when Hitler came to power, they'd be systematically exterminated.

FireBreather01
August 15, 2006, 09:29 PM
I'm a professional musician and I used to have long hair. I've been stopped by cops more than any black person I've ever talked to. I know all about profiling and its "efficacy." I don't do drugs and drink in moderation and I've been in the back of more cop cars than I can count because Mr. Protect and Serve couldn't accept the fact that I blew .000 and did cartwheels around the squad car.

You were just driving down the street, minding your own business, when Mr. Law & Order suddenly pulled you over, slammed you against the car and threw you in his back seat - for no reason other than your long hair? The civil rights violations must have been legendary in your town.

This Libertarian approach of 'leave me and everyone else alone, free from any interference' is a grand idea, and I'm more libertarian than anything else, is great until it becomes an irrational adherence to an ideal and morphs into just sticking your head in the sand and refusing to acknowledge an obvious problem. Strict adherence to those ideals actually serves to create more threats to freedom. By identifying a problem and preventing a threat from coming to fruition, we're all freer than if a violent event actually happens.

When these incidents start occurring at places we frequent, how are you going to feel when you have to go through check points to buy food and other staples, Christmas presents, etc? We're going to be holed up in our homes, ordering everything off of the net and waiting for the deliveries. Was NY freer right after 911? If we had paid attention to obvious signs then we wouldn't be in half the mess we are now. You think more selective profiling is bad? Wait until every bus and train empties out every time a dark-haired guy with a knap-sack gets on board, how does that make us a better, freer, society? Stop him and check him before he gets on - even if it's me:uhoh:

Asian Muslims? Sure it could happen, but let's pay attention to what the threat is right here and now. If you observe just the Middle Eastern Muslims alone you're still eliminating a majority of the current threat. If we don't at least keep an eye out for them, they'll blind us with their violent zealotry and our freedoms will be a distant memory as this country gets more and more militarized with every terror incident.

Fosbery
August 15, 2006, 09:43 PM
You want to preserve our freedoms by getting rid of them?

A novel idea, I'll give it that...

carebear
August 15, 2006, 09:49 PM
The strawman rebuttal to profiling includes "How do you identify Muslims? neener neeener" Who cares, you don't really have to.

I'd be happy if they'd give extra attention (which does NOT equal "ignore everyone else" :rolleyes: ) to younger folks, especially men, who are flying on passports and residency cards reflecting original national origins of Pakistan, Saudi, Iran, Iraq, maybe Malaysia etc. As known terror suspects with original origins from elsewhere become prevalent, add those countries of origin to the list.

You know, just in case the Basques or the IRA suddenly decide to start taking down aircraft because they suddenly hate America and Western civilization as a whole. :rolleyes:

Will it work against 2nd generation Western or US native-born converts? No, but until those groups become the majority it will add extra attention (again, which doesn't mean less rational attention to others) to the most likely suspects.

As far as uniformed US military travelling on orders, grey-haired old ladies from Minnesota named Jorgensonson and Medal of Honor winners go, I think I'm willing to sacrifice a little perceived safety to gain some commonsense liberty (as Franklin would say).

Skeptic
August 15, 2006, 09:50 PM
I can understand why those fitting a certain profile will be looked at harder than others.

Here's a hint... It's not my 82 year old grandmother in a wheelchair that's killing folks and blowing up planes, trains and automobiles. Nope not her, but she is the one pulled over to the side at BWI and given a hard time by those (IMHO) that couldn't find bin laden if he was sitting on their lap.

I fly out of Reagan and Dulles all of the time and I am pulled over to be searched and frisked. How many white, govt employees with dip passports on official orders are blowing up planes?

For the most part, it's middle eastern appearing (dark skin/hair) young males that have in the recent past been causing a lot of hate, discontent and death all in the name of a religeon.

People are understandably scared and they want something done about it. If "profiling" keeps bad guys off airplanes.... I'm all for it. Profiling seems to work, why not use it?

SuperNaut
August 15, 2006, 09:55 PM
You were just driving down the street, minding your own business, when Mr. Law & Order suddenly pulled you over, slammed you against the car and threw you in his back seat - for no reason other than your long hair? The civil rights violations must have been legendary in your town.

Yes, everything but the slamming me into the car part. Why, do you think it doesn't happen?

This Libertarian approach of 'leave me and everyone else alone, free from any interference' is a grand idea, and I'm more libertarian than anything else, is great until it becomes an irrational adherence to an ideal and morphs into just sticking your head in the sand and refusing to acknowledge an obvious problem. Strict adherence to those ideals actually serves to create more threats to freedom. By identifying a problem and preventing a threat from coming to fruition, we're all freer than if a violent event actually happens.

If profiling worked demonstrably better than random checks, I'd be all for it, too bad it doesn't. Pretending that it does is truly "just sticking your head inthe sand."

When these incidents start occurring at places we frequent, how are you going to feel when you have to go through check points to buy food and other staples, Christmas presents, etc? We're going to be holed up in our homes, ordering everything off of the net and waiting for the deliveries. Was NY freer right after 911? If we had paid attention to obvious signs then we wouldn't be in half the mess we are now. You think more selective profiling is bad? Wait until every bus and train empties out every time a dark-haired guy with a knap-sack gets on board, how does that make us a better, freer, society? Stop him and check him before he gets on - even if it's me

You believe that your local grocery store is a terrorist target? Please explain to me how profiling would have stopped the 9/11 murderers?

Asian Muslims? Sure it could happen, but let's pay attention to what the threat is right here and now. If you observe just the Middle Eastern Muslims alone you're still eliminating a majority of the current threat. If we don't at least keep an eye out for them, they'll blind us with their violent zealotry and our freedoms will be a distant memory as this country gets more and more militarized with every terror incident.

If I were an al-Qaida leader and I noticed that my middle-eastern looking radical muslim suicide bombers kept getting caught, I'd look for asian radical muslim suicide bombers. My confidence in the ability of the airlines and government to protect the airways evaporated when I flew on private plane last month. I could have dragged a nuke up the flight stairs and crowbarred it through the hatch and nobody would have said a thing. I walked straight from my rental car right onto the plane.

mordechaianiliewicz
August 15, 2006, 10:07 PM
The funny thing is that no one seems to know why the terrorists attack us.

According to Bush, it is "Because they hate freedom."

That is hogwash. They don't care about the fact that there are Jews, gays, and Christians in New York. They don't care about the fact that women are people here.

What they care about is the fact that we are over there. They think that the Arabian peninsula is holy (why I'll never know, it's a desert people. God cares about your beliefs, not certain places).

We attack a war technique instead of discovering the real reason they are waging this war on us.

Until we admit to why they are fighting us, and let those there live backwards lives until they've had enough, and rise up against their leaders, we'll have terrorism, and there ain't a thing we can do about it.

Chaotic Mind
August 15, 2006, 10:31 PM
If you single out Muslims, then those like the Muslim that gave the tip to the British police about this latest plot may not come forward. If you step on a persons neck they don't feel like helping very much. When the FBI rounded up thousands of Arab and Muslim men after 911 in a panic it was one of the stupidest things they could have done. Isolating the community that can help you is stupid.

I will tell you this. There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. If Islam was a violent faith then the "war" would already be over and we would have all lost. If Islam taught to just go out and kill all non-Muslims then we would be up to our waists in blood.

Just imagine 5 million suicide bombers. Now imagine that only half are as successful as those on 911. Bye bye Western world. But it's not like that thank God. Muslims have different views than what we in America generally have, and thats their right. Who are we to tell them how to live. Our way is not the only way.

FTF
August 15, 2006, 10:44 PM
I know one time that a goverment profiled one particular ethinic/religious group. They were Jewish and it was not just 70 years ago. The end result was mass murder on a horrific scale.

I don't know if profiling makes me "safer" or stops terrorist attacks, but honestly, I would rather run the risk of being blown up than trample on the civil liberties of those Americans who may look a little bit different... who knows, as a Caucasian, I may be one of the minority before too long myself.

Desertdog
August 15, 2006, 10:55 PM
What they care about is the fact that we are over there.We could pull all American citizens back to the states and it would not change anything as far as the Islamist Facist are concerned.

IMO they will not stop until the world is all Fundamental Islamist, they are totally wiped out, Jesus returns, whichever occurs first.

roo_ster
August 15, 2006, 10:58 PM
There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. If Islam was a violent faith then the "war" would already be over and we would have all lost.
Not quite.

Most of that 1.5B don't have a pot to p!$$ in, let alone access to anything that could be an existential threat to Western Civ.

You may have noticed the trend in terrorists who operate in the West: they are more & more likely to be 2nd-gen immigrants. Citizens, IOW. These folks are the growing threat because:
1. They are citizens of some western civ country
2. They speak the language better than some schlep picked up off the "Arab Street."
3. It is much easier to operate a terror network in a free country than one that routinely savages its own citizens.
4. Being citizens of a decent, western country, they are much more likely to have the resources to implement their plan.

cassandrasdaddy
August 15, 2006, 11:07 PM
"This targeting of airport resources is called passenger profiling—the Israelis invented it and they've got probably the safest airports and airlines in the world. "

focusing on the arabs is what let the red army pull off this hit.

wingman
August 15, 2006, 11:10 PM
Being citizens of a decent, western country, they are much more likely to have the resources to implement their plan.

Bingo:

cassandrasdaddy
August 15, 2006, 11:13 PM
"Most of that 1.5B don't have a pot to p!$$ in, let alone access to anything that could be an existential threat to Western Civ."

i thought all that oil money ended up over there.

carebear
August 15, 2006, 11:41 PM
i thought all that oil money ended up over there.

But it ends up in the hands of the leadership, not the individuals. Those who sign on board the terror train may get a cut in the form of training and wages but the average peasant (99% of the 1.5 Billion) don't have the scratch, know how or desire.

That's why most of these attacks are on local Western targets. Even the attacks on Western targets in the West are best committed by locals. Importing non-local talent was tough logistically before every security service started actively looking, heck we interfered with several of the original 9/11 hijackers almost by accident.

In a good sense, it's now a bit harder to get Western converts to the terrorism screed in-depth training since the safe zones are now war zones and travel is so closely watched. I'd rather deal with bomb makers who have mostly book larnin' rather than those who have been away to school and set a few off for real.

cassandrasdaddy
August 15, 2006, 11:46 PM
"I'd rather deal with bomb makers who have mostly book larnin' rather than those who have been away to school and set a few off for real."

yea the learning curve is steep. remember john wayne in the fighting seabees explaining to the kid how theexplosives expert got to be an expert

jeepmor
August 16, 2006, 01:29 AM
We have the technology to screen every passenger with a thermal camera. It is a proven scientific fact that nervous and agitated people, like those that are about to perpetrate a terrorist act, have elevated facial temperatures, particularly around the eyes.

Perfect, by no means, the newlyweds who just couldn't wait to be intimate and did the deed in their car before entering the airport would be suspect by these means also. However, there are few people about to commit suicide and take a bunch with them that aren't the least bit nervous.

We're not talking about seasoned killers here, just people naive enough to believe that eternal life and 100 virgins will be waiting for them on the other side. While their superiors recruit more like them since they are, after all, expendable. If these masterminds aren't willing to join the suicide brigade with their followers, then they don't beleive as their followers do.

There are other ways. But then again, when you put all the pictures together of the extremists that we have caught or know they were involved, you end up with some pretty convincing statistics of what nationality the jihadists are and their "profile." But then again, they are a minority in their own nationality also, sticky stuff this topic. I don't have any answers.

jeepmor

Chaotic Mind
August 16, 2006, 02:26 AM
I think people get hung up on the whole virgins thing. Whether this is because they are too blind to see that facts or just like to use that whenever this subject comes up I don't know. The reason some Muslims want to kill us is because of things that we have done, not because we allow gay pride parades or because people go clubbing or even because they just want to get laid. That is fairly stupid, imo. No offense meant.

Chaotic Mind
August 16, 2006, 02:27 AM
As for that thermal imaging thing, I think that sounds great.

Cuda
August 16, 2006, 02:47 AM
If the shoe fits!!! Maybe if we profile the muslims and pull them out of the lines in airports etc. and put them through a bit of *****, maybe then they will start to denounce the radical sects of islam and help us win this war. At this point until they start becoming part of the solution, they are part of the problem..

C

roo_ster
August 16, 2006, 06:26 AM
Some folks do not understand the nature of the hate directed toward the West, despite our enemies trumpeting it--repeatedly--through every form of media.

It is not about how many troops we have stationed in Arabia or our foreign policy. With a grand total of zero troops in Arabia (before GWI), we were already the object of terrorism. Securing the safety of Bosnian muslims brought no relief; same for Somali muslims.

Many in the West have a difficult time undersanding motivations based on religion and ideology. They think Islamic terrorism has to be a reaction to what we, America or the West, does. As if the entire world has no ability to think/believe/act on its own and can only react when America acts.

This conflict has been ongoing since 632AD and has had several stages:
1. Muslim conquest (632-732): Islam swept out of Arabia to conquer an empire from the Pyrrenies in the west to Afganistan in the east, blasting through half of the lands of Christendom.
2. Islam/West at Loggerheads (732-1095): Islam bangs on the West & the West is in a holding action.
3. Western Reaction/Crusades (1095-1291): The West finally tried to take back what was taken from it & takes the fight to Islam.
4. More Loggerheads (1291-1571): More holding action by the West & gradual loss by hte West (Byzantium chief among the losses)
5. Western Revival/Muslim Backpedalling (1571-1683) Bookended by two Muslim defeats (Lepanto & Vienna), Islam is knocked back on its heels & is no longer an existential threat after this period
6. Western Dominance/Muslim Regression (1683-1948) Islam falls behind hte West in every conceivable metric and does not have the ability to threaten the West
7. Muslim Resurgence (1948-now) The land where Islam reigns is still a sink of corruption and villainy, but the technology & know-how of hte West becomes easily transferable and useable by its enemies. Islam is now, again, an existential threat to the West. The Islamic (nuclear) bomb combined with means of delivery (missile, cargo ship, etc) is merely the most overt sign of this.

Folks had best be prepared for a long, hard slog, if history is any guide.

Marshall
August 16, 2006, 08:14 AM
Gee, it took long enough. Kind of like when they announced a new food study that showed fat causes fat. Who would've thunk?

wingman
August 16, 2006, 08:27 AM
Many in the West have a difficult time undersanding motivations based on religion and ideology

Excellent and until we all understand, forget the pc crap we will lose............
and in my opinion we have now lost enough in term of freedom and money.

trueblue1776
August 16, 2006, 08:31 AM
sounds ok to me, teenage boys pay alot for car insurance because they wreck the most, so it seems fair that Muz's get searched more because they blow up more planes than anyone else.

PS, everyone tries to explain the religeon of peace thing to me, I understand what they are saying, I just read to much to believe them. Why if I wrote a book saying I was all about love and peace and harmony then went out and captured a elementry school in Beslan? Would I be a peaceful man? If I went to any country that was predominantly run by the religeon of peace, what are my chances of being beheaded?

.41Dave
August 16, 2006, 11:10 AM
We could pull all American citizens back to the states and it would not change anything as far as the Islamist Facist are concerned.

IMO they will not stop until the world is all Fundamental Islamist, they are totally wiped out, Jesus returns, whichever occurs first.

The fear-mongering cry of "They want to convert or kill us all!" is simple minded propaganda that serves only those who revel in death and destruction, or think they can make Jesus hurry up with the whole second coming thing.

For some reason I do not understand, we Americans tend to completely ignore (or remain ignorant of) our .gov's meddlesome behavior, and expect people (i.e. wogs, fuzzy-wuzzies, ragheads, and any other weird people who are different and therefore obviously not proper enlightened "western" actual humans) to put up with manipulation, interference, and extortion of their governments and economies, bombings, coups, US trained death squads (School of the Americas, anyone?) that we would consider outrageous provocations and acts of war, and then we want to claim they "Hate us for our freedoms".

I guess that's why so many people want to do away with those freedoms. Those 40% who support making Muslims carry special IDs, those who support the ironically named PATRIOT Act, or that we "put them through a bit of *****" or any other violation of what remains of American liberty must be subconciously trying to appease the terrorists. After all, if they hate us for our freedoms, maybe if we divest ourselves of those freedoms, they will leave us alone, right?

Marshall
August 16, 2006, 12:09 PM
The fear-mongering cry of "They want to convert or kill us all!"

I believe that came strait from Iran and Al Qaeda. Far be it from us to believe them. But thanks anyway.

longeyes
August 16, 2006, 12:21 PM
For some reason I do not understand, we Americans tend to completely ignore (or remain ignorant of) our .gov's meddlesome behavior, and expect people (i.e. wogs, fuzzy-wuzzies, ragheads, and any other weird people who are different and therefore obviously not proper enlightened "western" actual humans) to put up with manipulation, interference, and extortion of their governments and economies, bombings, coups, US trained death squads (School of the Americas, anyone?) that we would consider outrageous provocations and acts of war, and then we want to claim they "Hate us for our freedoms".

Valid point. But neither we nor "the West" originated oppressive meddling with others. Surely you're not suggesting that there was no "meddling" in old Araby?

.41Dave
August 16, 2006, 06:37 PM
Surely you're not suggesting that there was no "meddling" in old Araby?

No, but that is pretty much irrelevant. Just because we didn't invent "oppressive meddling" does not change the fact that it is a bad idea, and that people dislike it and will tend to react badly to it.

And Marshall, you are mistaken. All these assorted groups have been pretty forthcoming about why they do what they do, and "convert or die" just isn't it. And if it is, how do you explain, for example, the Hezbollah suicide bombers who were communists, socialists (both generally atheistic, even in the ME) and Christians?

Marshall
August 16, 2006, 11:24 PM
My point is not to "convert and kill", it's to just plain old "kill". Actually I don't give a rats patooie what reason they want to kill us. Point is, they do, have said so countless times, and have. We do what we have to do to protect ourselves as best we can. If that means profiling, we profile.

If you tell me you're going to kill my innocent family, my neighbors and I, in cold blood, I'm not worried about discussing why and trying to understand your point of view so I can change my ways. I'm going to protect myself, maybe with offense.

It's a tough ass world.

If another country or group wants to wage war conventionally, I'll go along with diplomatic and traditional means. If you're going to purposely target our innocents, the gloves come off. Some will get offended, tough crap. The minute we try to not offend anyone, we've taken the road to Looserville because, it can't be done.

Logic and reason dictate that we profile, period. You'll always be able to point out exceptions, there are to everything. However, in these cases, you never "do not act" because of the exceptions, if so, everyone looses.

One day people will wake up and understand we are in a war with people that want you dead and quit whining about why. You'll never change their mind, you can't reason with insane, evil people that will kill themselves in order to kill innocent men, women and children. Actually, if I understood their reasons, I would be very worried with myself, there is no understanding of this by sane, moral people. This may be complicated, but not so complicated.

how do you explain, for example, the Hezbollah suicide bombers who were communists, socialists (both generally atheistic, even in the ME) and Christians?

You don't, they're insane, evil people. I know of no sane people that are suicide bombers. I know of no sane people that strap bombs to 10 yr old childred so they can walk into a crowd of innocent people and blow them up. As far as being Christians, no they're not, no matter what they claim. Christian don't become suicide bombes. If they do, they're not Christians or they're insane. I pray you can't explain it either.

johnsonrlp
August 17, 2006, 12:36 AM
You were just driving down the street, minding your own business, when Mr. Law & Order suddenly pulled you over, slammed you against the car and threw you in his back seat - for no reason other than your long hair? The civil rights violations must have been legendary in your town. He probably didn't look Mormon enough.

If the shoe fits!!! Maybe if we profile the muslims and pull them out of the lines in airports etc. and put them through a bit of *****, maybe then they will start to denounce the radical sects of islam and help us win this war. At this point until they start becoming part of the solution, they are part of the problem.. Or perhaps they will become the radical sects of Islam. Hezbollah seems to be recruiting well. Seriously segregateing and disenfranchising millions of people that are already inside our borders is a bad idea.

Profiling is like putting an extra lock on the door. If someone really wants to they will pick the lock go through the window or bulldoze the wall. Or shoot through the window. There's just way to many variables. Personaly I think I should be able to breeze through security with my security clearance.

Robert Hairless
August 17, 2006, 01:02 AM
The point of profiling in this situation isn't to identify all muslims in the world and only them. This isn't a census. It's an attempt to focus available resources on those people who evidently are most likely to engage in undesirable behavior. I don't think that any sane person in authority is suggesting that all muslims--or people who appear to be of middle eastern origin--should be slammed against cars, beaten, shot, or otherwise maltreated.

Of course it will be impossible to identify all potential murderers through profiling. Equally of course, it is foolish not to employ all possible techniques that might prevent unnecessary deaths. You know you've won when you die of natural causes.

Survival is the art of the possible. Adapt, improvise, overcome.

cassandrasdaddy
August 17, 2006, 01:39 AM
same question so far no viable answers how to you determine a muslim by looking?
we had a profiler out here that killed a sikh after 9/11 guess they all look alike. and after oklahoma city we had a few other "profilers" do other things to add to our hall of american shame

carebear
August 17, 2006, 03:29 AM
Again, I don't care what religion they are. I care if they are from, or first generation immigrants from, the few known primary terrorist (from prior arrests) supplying countrys.

If that forces the terrs to start using book-larned locals and 2nd gen immigrants (who would escape the EXTRA screening) who are already within my security cordon and who, therefore, I have a legal and Constitutional right to investigate more fully based on conventional type tips and intel, so much the better.

The whole "do nothing with extra emphasis" or "abuse the rights of citizens" dichotomy is a patently false one.

Robert Hairless
August 17, 2006, 04:32 AM
same question so far no viable answers how to you determine a muslim by looking?
we had a profiler out here that killed a sikh after 9/11 guess they all look alike. and after oklahoma city we had a few other "profilers" do other things to add to our hall of american shame

Same answer: "The point of profiling in this situation isn't to identify all muslims in the world and only them. This isn't a census. It's an attempt to focus available resources on those people who evidently are most likely to engage in undesirable behavior."

I have some difficulty in believing that profilers roam the streets killing Sikhs or doing much of anything except developing and applying profiles. Maybe you're using the word profiler in some way I don't understand, so I'd be grateful if you would define it. I'd also be grateful if you can provide links to a verifiable report of the profiler you said killed a Sikh. The closest I've found are reports of some outrages against Sikhs by stupid, bigoted people--not by profilers. Here's one such report: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/2001/2001_09_26.sikh.html If that's the kind of thing you're talking about, you might be misusing the term profiler to mean something like the word bigot, which is not useful thinking.

Autolycus
August 17, 2006, 05:46 AM
Has anyone here honestly read the entire Koran from front to back? You may have read some other book such as "The Politically INcorrect guide to Islam" or something along those clearly biased lines but by no means are you an expert. Remember that next time you start quoting the Koran or saying that Muslim holy books say that tehy have to destroy others.

roo_ster
August 17, 2006, 07:15 AM
The Koran is freely downloadable in several translations into English.

Oleg Volk
August 17, 2006, 08:21 AM
Speaking of recent immigrants. One of my Persian friends, in the US for almost twenty years, was afraid to admit to wanting to learn to shoot beause of fear that it would be reported as terrorist activity. We harm RKBA and we harm the integration and assimilation into the American culture by casting the net too wide.

crazed_ss
August 17, 2006, 09:21 AM
Here's the problem I see with profiling Arabs and Muslims in this manner.

Everyone uses the argument that says, "If the cops had a report of a 20-25yr old black male dealing drugs on a city street, then what sense would it make to focus on 60yr old white ladies?" Ok.. in that situation where a crime has been committed, it makes sense to focus on black males since there is a basic description of the suspect.

For innocent Arabs and Muslims getting on the plane, no crime has been comitted. Singling them out for extra attention would be like singling out all black males because a number of other black males have been convicted of drug dealing. It's a fishing expedition and it isnt right.

Marshall
August 17, 2006, 09:44 AM
Be it right or be it wrong, it makes sense to do it.

I would happily be checked before every single flight if it helps protect innocent people from being murdered. Saying, "don't pay extra attention to my race or origin" to me, is a little selfish in this instance.

grampster
August 17, 2006, 10:16 AM
If TSA had remained private and trained their people to look for "tells" profiling can be done successfully. Gooberment took it over and now it's lockstep stupid. One looks for behavior. Immigration folks in airports and border checkpoints do that all the time. (That's because they learned how to do that before PC ruled the day) The Israeli's wrote the book on it at airports.

Just_a_dude_with_a_gun
August 17, 2006, 10:28 AM
Keeping it simple is a lost art. Homosexual Lithuanian butchers with hairlips are not attack western nations because of religious beliefs. Muslims, however, are.

When 30 year old white guys in suits, pushing baby stollers begin committing mass murders,
I'll gladly take my turn getting frisked.

Autolycus
August 17, 2006, 05:30 PM
Those white guys are blowing buildings up.

What about Tim McVeigh? He blew up a building for his pro-gun racist beliefs. Should we forget about the white professor sending out little care packages of anthrax? Or the Olympic bomber? He was a white guy.

Marshall
August 17, 2006, 07:44 PM
It's an e-mail that's been around a while.

Do you remember?

1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by?
a. Superman?
B. Jay Leno?
c. Harry Potter?
d. a Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40?

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by?
a. Olga Corbett?
B. Sitting Bull?
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger?
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 ?

3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:?
a. Lost Norwegians?
B. Elvis?
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women?
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40?

4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:?
a. John Dillinger?
B. The King of Sweden?
c. The Boy Scouts?
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40?

5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:?
a. A pizza delivery boy?
B. Pee Wee Herman?
c. Geraldo Rivera?
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40?

6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old
American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:?
a. The Smurfs?
B. Davey Jones?
c. The Little Mermaid?
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40?

7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver
trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:?
a. Captain Kidd?
B. Charles Lindberg?
c. Mother Teresa?
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40?

8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:?
a. Scooby Doo?
B. The Tooth Fairy and The Sundance Kid?
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40?

9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:?
a. Richard Simmons?
B. Grandma Moses?
c. Michael Jordan?
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40?

10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:?
a. Mr. Rogers?
B. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems?
c. The World Wrestling Federation?
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40?

11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles
to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon
and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:?
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd?
B. The Supreme Court of Florida?
c. Mr. Bean?
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40?

12. In 2002 the United States fought
a war in Afghanistan against:?
a. Enron?
B. The Lutheran Church?
c. The NFL?
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40?

13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:?
a. Bonnie and Clyde?
B. Captain Kangaroo?
c. Billy Graham?
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40?

Autolycus
August 17, 2006, 07:48 PM
So Muslims and White people should be checked at the airport, when renting cars, taking flying lessons, or buying fertilizer. I agree. Its fair.

Marshall
August 17, 2006, 07:53 PM
When we're at war with millions of white guys you'll have your wish and I'll be first in line. :rolleyes:

cassandrasdaddy
August 17, 2006, 07:53 PM
the profiler who killed the sikh(the guy with the wife and kids) was in fact an ignorant pos. who profiled this innocent man by looking at him and how he dressed and coming to the conclusion erroneously that he was muslim. and then slaughtering an unarmed amily man.
still waiting for an explanation of how to determine religous affiliation by looking.... and i don't expect any answers soon. profiling folks from certain countries is only slightly more viable and all we gotta do is that national id card and have a block on it for country of origin.
and then of course we set ourselves up for our own rendition of the red armies collaborative attack on the israelis. there are plenty of european whack job groups who would love a shot at us. as well as some asian groups.
hey the profiling worked great in england isn't that how they wasted the innocent guy from brazil? you know they all look alike to some folks

Desertdog
August 17, 2006, 09:28 PM
still waiting for an explanation of how to determine religous affiliation by looking
Alright we can't; most of the time.

Would you normally determine religous affiliation by looking at a Nun, a Catholic Priest, Luthern Priest, or an Amish?

crazed_ss
August 17, 2006, 09:32 PM
Only when their dressed in their religous "uniforms"

I dont think the average TSA employee would be able to tell an Muslim Arab in a business suit from a Catholic Mexican in a business suit. I know I wouldnt be able to. I guess when Arabs check in for their flight, the airline employee could look at their name.. if it's Arabic-sounding, I guess you could then issue the Arabic passenger a decal or something that tells everyone "Hey, this guy might be Muslim!"

cassandrasdaddy
August 17, 2006, 09:33 PM
there are several flavor of priests and i worked at a seminary 5 years and can't always tell them apart.i'm irish and japanese and often mistaken for native american or sometimes latino.my favorite 1/2 joke is the first minuteman in my face wanting my green card gets a dance lesson,(i did get an ins guy wanted mine once on a job site and it wasn't till i called him a certain name that he realized i was a citizen). hey maybe we can use that if you can say a word that starts with mother and ends withsomething else your a local

Robert Hairless
August 17, 2006, 09:59 PM
casandrasdaddy:

a rose by anyother name
-------------------------------------------------

the profiler who killed the sikh(the guy with the wife and kids) was in fact an ignorant pos. who profiled this innocent man by looking at him and how he dressed and coming to the conclusion erroneously that he was muslim. and then slaughtering an unarmed amily man.
still waiting for an explanation of how to determine religous affiliation by looking.... and i don't expect any answers soon. profiling folks from certain countries is only slightly more viable and all we gotta do is that national id card and have a block on it for country of origin.
and then of course we set ourselves up for our own rendition of the red armies collaborative attack on the israelis. there are plenty of european whack job groups who would love a shot at us. as well as some asian groups.
hey the profiling worked great in england isn't that how they wasted the innocent guy from brazil? you know they all look alike to some folks

Still waiting for your definition of the term profiling and a link to any report of any law enforcement profiler who murdered an innocent person. All I find in what you say is garbled thoughts in which you turn bigots who kill people because of the way they look into what you claim are profilers. The way you misuse the term, everyone here who says that the TSA and others can't do one thing or another is profiling: they've observed or thought about or heard about the TSA and drawn conclusions about those people. Not useful.

Art Eatman
August 17, 2006, 10:20 PM
And around and around and around...

Think it all over. Try to figure out an answer or three. Start again...

:), Art

If you enjoyed reading about "UK: Muslims face extra checks in new travel crackdown" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!