Profiling

[Guest Plainsman]

This is all about increasing your post count isn't it!

[Guest Drewsett]

McVeigh, the Unabomber, and the other examples of white conservative terrorists that you gave were not trying to board a plane, which means that bringing them up as an example against profiling airplane passengers is ridiculous.

I'm "pro-profiling" I guess, but it is only one tool in a toolbox of things we should be doing.

The real danger now is bombs...after Flight 93, no terrorist will be able to hijack and plane and use it as a weapon again.

[Daniel]

McVeigh, the Unabomber, and the other examples of white conservative terrorists that you gave were not trying to board a plane, which means that bringing them up as an example against profiling airplane passengers is ridiculous.

I'm "pro-profiling" I guess, but it is only one tool in a toolbox of things we should be doing.

The real danger now is bombs...after Flight 93, no terrorist will be able to hijack and plane and use it as a weapon again.

They didn't attack an airplane no. The problem is that they could have if we only took special precautions against a specific subset of people we identified through profiling. The original thread this one was started to address had people saying that white people are not the ones flying planes into buildings or blowing them up and as such shouldnt have to go through as much security. That we should profile people that look like terrorists instead.

My argument is that we all look like terrorists.

The IRA were white. In the 70s we had Native American groups that were militant. We have had Black Panther militants. Indonesia is full of pacific islander muslims. South America has tons of FARC rebels who are terrorists. you cant just profile a couple of subsets of the population. Any race is subject to radicalization.

As a side note, I would not use absolutes in my statements.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Daniel,

When you profile, I thought you used race as a tool for identification, if it is known. I'm not

talking about this politically correct BS. I am talking about known information. Quite honestly

racial profiling can't be avoided, since it is just something human beings do. It is being

demonized by ACLU types saying it discriminates. Why? Because that is what it is intended

to do. Discriminate, the word, is not bad unless you use the PC dictionary. If you like blondes

better than redheads you have bias. Bias is discrimination. People who say discrimination is

bad are trying to become victims and gain something in the process, through political means.

I was probably the one you were referring to when you said some are eerily similar to the

McVeigh types. You could do well to understand what was said before you make statements

like that. I remember saying I feared we were heading towards a civil war, once again, with

the political turmoil this country is having right now. If that is "eerily similiar" just go ahead and

label me a terrorist, too. You are sadly mistaken.

When someone figures out a real world way to predict crime, like in "Minority Report", it will

probably end up the same way as in the movie. Americans like their freedoms and don't like

to be run like herds through x-rays and scanners and especially being patted down. You may

be comfortable with it, but I'll bet you the majority of Americans don't and won't stand for it

much longer. Some of this will have to change.

I'm like a lot of others that think we shouldn't be giving away our liberties to have a police

state try to tell us we are safe and secure, knowing full well that's impossible.

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

[Smith]

Maybe Daniel's just smarter than me, but how exactly is citing the 4 individuals in US history that carried out terrorist attacks over vast periods of time a good statistically proof. This compared to the 226 attacks killing over 1028 people in 2010 alone by Muslims! Guess what? They were all carried out by Muslim terrorist, mainly men between the ages of 18-40. In all the world in 2010, ONE was carried out by some one other than a Muslim man that resulted in one death. Or how bout this, since 9/11 Muslims (mainly men between the ages of 18-40) have carried out more than 16406 terrorist attacks resulting in at least one death. Pattern anyone? EVERY recent attack on the US could have been stopped by properly using simple profiling of above. Why is that such a bad thing? Somebody is going to feel uncomfortable. Why is it that the people least likely to commit the crime are the ones put through the most inconvenience? How is that logical?

Scorecard:

2010 - Muslim men between the ages of 18-40 - 16406 seperate deadly attacks

2010 White American men ages 18-60 - 0

All time in America - 3 (Rudolph, McVeigh, Kazinsky)

Go ahead and stand by your figures Daniel.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Smith

[daddyo]

nothing like a little censorship

How is it censorship when you are in someone else's house?

[Glenn]

This has been quoted many times but I think it applies perfectly here.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety". Ben Franklin

Glenn

[Mike.357]

How is it censorship when you are in someone else's house?

LOL okay

Definition of CENSOR

1 : a person who supervises conduct and morals: as

a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter

b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful

Censor - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

where it takes place does not change what it is

[Guest drv2fst]

Many good points made here on this thread. Too bad the poll portion is closed as it would not be nearly as close with 20+ voters as it is with only 5 voters.

Daniel makes a valid point but draws the incorrect conclusion. Profiling is not perfect. Some will slip through on pure profiling alone. However, Smith's numbers show what most of us are concerned about. Profiling, while not perfect, is a very useful tool that should not be taken from our security personnel. The fact is that no one can guarantee security. So therefore it becomes essential to do the best job we can with the resources that we have. Profiling is a tool that can help focus resources more appropriately most of the time.

Actually, it's ridiculous to discuss whether or not profiling is going to be used. It is going to be used, it's human nature. It's why we nod to each other and make eye contact and waive and shake hands. We know that we are constantly profiling others and are being profiled by others. The only question is, are we going to be honest about it or waste valuable security resources pretending we are not profiling.

[Guest drv2fst]

Oops, I forgot to say what was good about Daniels post. He is correct in pointing out that some of our views expressed here on this forum can be dangerous when taken to extremes. That is true of almost any collection of views. Daniel makes the true statement that not ALL terrorists fit a profile. He is correct, of course. Any group of people will have a couple of nuts out on the fringe. We all need to make sure we don't sound like those guys when sharing our views with others. We must remember that we need to bring people over to our side not alienate them from our side. We don't need a revolution or violence to correct this country. All we need is rational people getting active and helping to steer the country in a better direction. A direction that most of us have not lived long enough to see in person. We can only read about it in history books. This country got off course with FDR. It won't come back on track quickly or easily, but it can get back on track eventually if we consistently put freedom first.

[daddyo]

LOL okay

Definition of CENSOR

1 : a person who supervises conduct and morals: as

a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter

b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful

Censor - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

where it takes place does not change what it is

OK, I'll concede that point. But if I'm in someone's else's house, and they forbid discussion of certain topics, they do have that right. If I don't like it, I can leave.

[leroy]

I feel I have a stake in this conversation because of my participation in the “Three Year Old with the Teddybear†thread; and I am, in fact, in favor of profiling. Those who believe in “no profiling†for the most part would have you believe that no people groups are exempt from the “terrorist†label. The current system in use in by the TSA is built on the proposition that “all are equally suspect.†I simply don’t believe that and neither should you. This proposition flies in the face of the American proposition of “innocent until proven guilty†and willfully ignores the facts of the current situation. The facts are, as others have pointed out, that middle eastern men of known nationalities between the ages of about 18 and 40 carried out the attacks on the Twin Towers. They were muslim extremists. I will grant that you cannot tell if folks are “extremists†by looking at them; but you can (….and the Israelis do…) get some idea of what they are up to by interviewing them before they board their flights. I firmly believe that we should quit playing this grotesque game in which we purport to have the high moral ground because we “don’t profile†and adopt some variation of the Israeli system.

Now to the question of “Christian†terrorists. Daniel would have you believe that there are, in fact, “Christian terroristsâ€; and, because of this, all are suspect. I will grant that over the years there have been groups who purported to be Christian that engaged in “terrorist acts†(…if you extend the definition of “terrorist acts†passed the definition needed for the TSA; specifically airborne terrorist acts….). The acronym “TSA†stands for “Transportation Security Administrationâ€. That means that the TSA is tasked with “airborne†safety. I will also grant that not all muslims are potential terrorists. I don’t remember anyone saying they were.

The problem with this whole TSA “screening†issue is that it gets worse and worse, and it takes on all the political facets that are present in our society. The “anti-racists†would have you believe that you are a “racist†if you look to race as a “profiling elementâ€. The “nationalists’ would have you believe that if you look to “nationality†that that is “non inclusive†and “elitistsâ€. The fact is that these very two “profiling elements†would have stopped the Twin Towers tragedy. The problem, at least in my mind, seems to be that we seem to be completely willing to ignore these two factors because we are afraid of being called “racists†and “non-inclusivistsâ€. We somehow believe that we have the “moral high ground†because we “don’t profileâ€. The fact is that we lost the “moral high ground†a long time ago.

The fact is that we are at war with muslim extremism. Muslim extremism is being carried out by a specific demographic of the people of the earth; and to believe otherwise is foolish.

I believe that it is obscene and grotesque to allow the things that we are seeing in this country with regard to “purported airline safety†and not be agitated to the point of wanting something done about it. I do not believe that we ought to spend our time patting down white three year olds with teddybears, eighty year old white women, cancer survivors, and nuns. The fact is that it is much easier to pat this demographic down to demonstrate that “we don’t profile and we are therefore doing our job†than it is to do the right thing and deal with the inevitable howl that will come from those who feel they have been singled out because of their specific demographic. This has already happened with several “Muslim Clericsâ€; we just seem to have forgotten it in this discussion.

The firestorm that is brewing now in regard to the TSA is exactly what needs to happen. It is high time that people got tired of a bunch of politically correct bureaucrats and chumps subjecting a sector of the population of this country to the idiotic procedures that are in use now. The fact is that things need to change and I believe they will. Another fact to ponder is that as long as we live in a relatively free society, there is the danger that a bunch of thugs may kill themselves and you to prove a point. Folks that fly are keenly aware of this and have chosen to take the risk in order to get where they want to go in a relatively short time.

I’ll close with this and stir up a separate hornet’s nest. It is my firm belief that a “moderator†should be just that; a “moderatorâ€. That says to me that when you actively take up the conversation in a thread, you move from being a “moderator†to being a “member†and, as such, other “moderators†should become the custodians of propriety and objectivism; and therefore, become the “new moderator†of that specific thread. I believe that when you use both the latitude to post and lock threads you are in effect becoming a “super opiner†with absolute power to say what you want to say without danger of any rebuttal (…responsible or irresponsible…). I think you and others ought to think about that a bit.

I fully understand that there is “no guarantee of freedom of speech hereâ€. All posters are to abide by the rules and are subject to discipline and censure. Ideas (…both good and bad…) generally don’t need censure. Personal attacks do. Remember this, the original posters didn’t make the “Teddy Bear†thread a hornet’s nest; cl did by calling out everyone who didn’t agree with him.

That’s how I see things.

Leroy

[mav]

I feel I have a stake in this conversation because of my participation in the “Three Year Old with the Teddybear” thread; and I am, in fact, in favor of profiling. Those who believe in “no profiling” for the most part would have you believe that no people groups are exempt from the “terrorist” label. The current system in use in by the TSA is built on the proposition that “all are equally suspect.” I simply don’t believe that and neither should you. This proposition flies in the face of the American proposition of “innocent until proven guilty” and willfully ignores the facts of the current situation. The facts are, as others have pointed out, that middle eastern men of known nationalities between the ages of about 18 and 40 carried out the attacks on the Twin Towers. They were muslim extremists. I will grant that you cannot tell if folks are “extremists” by looking at them; but you can (….and the Israelis do…) get some idea of what they are up to by interviewing them before they board their flights. I firmly believe that we should quit playing this grotesque game in which we purport to have the high moral ground because we “don’t profile” and adopt some variation of the Israeli system.

Now to the question of “Christian” terrorists. Daniel would have you believe that there are, in fact, “Christian terrorists”; and, because of this, all are suspect. I will grant that over the years there have been groups who purported to be Christian that engaged in “terrorist acts” (…if you extend the definition of “terrorist acts” passed the definition needed for the TSA; specifically airborne terrorist acts….). The acronym “TSA” stands for “Transportation Security Administration”. That means that the TSA is tasked with “airborne” safety. I will also grant that not all muslims are potential terrorists. I don’t remember anyone saying they were.

The problem with this whole TSA “screening” issue is that it gets worse and worse, and it takes on all the political facets that are present in our society. The “anti-racists” would have you believe that you are a “racist” if you look to race as a “profiling element”. The “nationalists’ would have you believe that if you look to “nationality” that that is “non inclusive” and “elitists”. The fact is that these very two “profiling elements” would have stopped the Twin Towers tragedy. The problem, at least in my mind, seems to be that we seem to be completely willing to ignore these two factors because we are afraid of being called “racists” and “non-inclusivists”. We somehow believe that we have the “moral high ground” because we “don’t profile”. The fact is that we lost the “moral high ground” a long time ago.

The fact is that we are at war with muslim extremism. Muslim extremism is being carried out by a specific demographic of the people of the earth; and to believe otherwise is foolish.

I believe that it is obscene and grotesque to allow the things that we are seeing in this country with regard to “purported airline safety” and not be agitated to the point of wanting something done about it. I do not believe that we ought to spend our time patting down white three year olds with teddybears, eighty year old white women, cancer survivors, and nuns. The fact is that it is much easier to pat this demographic down to demonstrate that “we don’t profile and we are therefore doing our job” than it is to do the right thing and deal with the inevitable howl that will come from those who feel they have been singled out because of their specific demographic. This has already happened with several “Muslim Clerics”; we just seem to have forgotten it in this discussion.

The firestorm that is brewing now in regard to the TSA is exactly what needs to happen. It is high time that people got tired of a bunch of politically correct bureaucrats and chumps subjecting a sector of the population of this country to the idiotic procedures that are in use now. The fact is that things need to change and I believe they will. Another fact to ponder is that as long as we live in a relatively free society, there is the danger that a bunch of thugs may kill themselves and you to prove a point. Folks that fly are keenly aware of this and have chosen to take the risk in order to get where they want to go in a relatively short time.

I’ll close with this and stir up a separate hornet’s nest. It is my firm belief that a “moderator” should be just that; a “moderator”. That says to me that when you actively take up the conversation in a thread, you move from being a “moderator” to being a “member” and, as such, other “moderators” should become the custodians of propriety and objectivism; and therefore, become the “new moderator” of that specific thread. I believe that when you use both the latitude to post and lock threads you are in effect becoming a “super opiner” with absolute power to say what you want to say without danger of any rebuttal (…responsible or irresponsible…). I think you and others ought to think about that a bit.

I fully understand that there is “no guarantee of freedom of speech here”. All posters are to abide by the rules and are subject to discipline and censure. Ideas (…both good and bad…) generally don’t need censure. Personal attacks do. Remember this, the original posters didn’t make the “Teddy Bear” thread a hornet’s nest; cl did by calling out everyone who didn’t agree with him.

That’s how I see things.

Leroy

Well said.

[TGO David]

I had a problem with Daniel's thread titled "Profiling". I viewed it as a classless hit and run attack on some members of this community. What say you, fellow TGOers? Was Daniel's thread accusing members of the forum of being potential terrorists out of line?

First of all, you need to read the rules. Two wrongs don't make a right, but what you did was incite mob reaction against another member of the forum. It doesn't matter that Daniel is a moderator; he is still one of your fellow TGO members. I've clearly stated that anarchy will NOT be tolerated.

TGO is not a democracy, the same way that the Marine Corps is not a democracy. If you feel that a superior officer is in the wrong in the Corps, it would be completely insubordinate to start a poll among your peers asking if they think the guy is wrong and what should be done about it. There is a chain of command that must be followed in order to ensure that some sense of decorum is kept. Am I right?

As for everyone else...

Frankly the components of the way this discussion has unfolded are a little difficult to make a blanket ruling on. It would be nice if all of you could be adults and play nicely with each other even when you disagree. So do I think that a secondary discussion should have been started and then locked so that no one else could reply? Not really. But do I see why it was done? Yes.

I guess the problem here is that some of you feel that there was an imbalance of power since none of you can start a thread, state your opinion and then lock the thread so that no one can argue against it. It's sad that anyone feels they have to do that in order to get their point across without someone else [not naming names but you know who you are] coming in behind them and mucking it all up.

So I see a lot of things wrong here. For the sake of being fair, I'm electing to not do anything about any of it. The entire thing is a bit of a cluster-fk so you guys can sort it all out, shake hands and be men about the whole thing. It might help some if you all would try to see where each other is coming from on some of these issues and stop being so purely reactive to what's being said and focus on what was intended.

But... this is the Internet and that never happens. Monkeys will likely fly out of my ass before people stop arguing on forums.

Enjoy.

[USMCJG]

First of all, you need to read the rules. Two wrongs don't make a right, but what you did was incite mob reaction against another member of the forum. It doesn't matter that Daniel is a moderator; he is still one of your fellow TGO members. I've clearly stated that anarchy will NOT be tolerated.

TGO is not a democracy, the same way that the Marine Corps is not a democracy. If you feel that a superior officer is in the wrong in the Corps, it would be completely insubordinate to start a poll among your peers asking if they think the guy is wrong and what should be done about it. There is a chain of command that must be followed in order to ensure that some sense of decorum is kept. Am I right?

Perhaps you are right. Maybe I didn't handle it in the right way. And I understand how a chain of command works, but I have never considered any moderator here to be my "superior officer".

Honestly, now that everything has shaken out, I think I did Daniel a favor. As it was written, I felt that Daniel's post was incendiary(he has admitted as much himself). My post gave him the opportunity to go into his point about profiling in more detail. I think that the poll thread was constructive and, at least for the most part, very civil. Now I think everyone understands each other much better, whether they agree or not.

It might help some if you all would try to see where each other is coming from on some of these issues and stop being so purely reactive to what's being said and focus on what was intended.

If I had known what he actually intended, I would have never started the other thread. Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to know what someone intends when they don't adequately communicate it.

If my thread has caused anyone any grief, I apologize.

[TGO David]

No grief here. I'm having my morning coffee... life is good.

[Guest Drewsett]

As a side note, I would not use absolutes in my statements.

Now you're just nitpicking

Yes it is theoretically possible that a terrorist will be able to take control of a major airliner. I think it extremely unlikely, not just because of reinforced cockpit doors and the response of passengers on Flight 93 (the two things that have done the most for our nation's air security...far more than TSA or Napolitano or Chertoff), but because using a plane as a weapon is the sort of thing that you really can only do once. It's not like people missed 9/11 and are unaware of the potential an airliner has as a weapon. Also, the terrorists probably know what happened on Flight 93, so instead of wasting time, money and other resources, they will funnel their efforts into new avenues of attack. They have accomplished most of their goals anyways when we are groping nuns and three-year-olds in full view of the public (or sterilizing a major portion of our population with accumulated radiation).

TGO David, kudos to you for your response (or lack of one). I'm glad to see the conversation allowed to continue and really feel that sometimes this site can be a little quick with the banhammer and locking of threads...so thanks for making me wrong in this case.

^^^^^

No sarcasm intended, btw. I understand you have to back up your people and that there is a line. I'm just glad everyone saw that the line WASN'T really crossed in this case.

[Guest Jamie]

The problem with generalities... and profiling... is that they generally are true/work. If they didn't every "alphabet" L.E. agency in the U.S. wouldn't use professional profilers.

Are there exceptions? Of course. But it doesn't change the fact that if you want to catch people doing particular things, you look for a given set of characteristics.

Where most people make a mistake, however, is not going into enough depth with their profiling... they don't use a large enough number of points or characteristics, and work strictly off of the obvious, surface ones... like Timothy McVeigh being a clean-cut, ex-military, Christian white boy putting him in a particular category. Dig a little deeper into his thought processes though, and you begin to see that he fits into another profile as well... right along with Ted Kaczynski and Eric Rudolph. So profiling does work if it's used properly. Generally.

As for terrorism... I think we all know that the U.S. government is going to label anyone who attacks it - for any reason - as a terrorist. Even the founding fathers would be called such, these days. So in the end, at least to me, the term doesn't mean much, and is pretty much just another tool for the news media to use for hype and sensationalism.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Jamie

[Daniel]

Maybe Daniel's just smarter than me, but how exactly is citing the 4 individuals in US history that carried out terrorist attacks over vast periods of time a good statistically proof. This compared to the 226 attacks killing over 1028 people in 2010 alone by Muslims! Guess what? They were all carried out by Muslim terrorist, mainly men between the ages of 18-40. In all the world in 2010, ONE was carried out by some one other than a Muslim man that resulted in one death. Or how bout this, since 9/11 Muslims (mainly men between the ages of 18-40) have carried out more than 16406 terrorist attacks resulting in at least one death. Pattern anyone? EVERY recent attack on the US could have been stopped by properly using simple profiling of above. Why is that such a bad thing? Somebody is going to feel uncomfortable. Why is it that the people least likely to commit the crime are the ones put through the most inconvenience? How is that logical?

Scorecard:

2010 - Muslim men between the ages of 18-40 - 16406 seperate deadly attacks

2010 White American men ages 18-60 - 0

All time in America - 3 (Rudolph, McVeigh, Kazinsky)

Go ahead and stand by your figures Daniel.

You are basing off what has happened. I am basing my opinion on what will happen. When the OPFOR observes our TTPs they alter the way they do business. If they see that we are only searching one or two types of people they will change who they are using to carry out attacks. If we don't search children they will use children. I have seen it with my own eyes in Iraq.

You are being reactionary while I am being proactive in my opinion.

I will reply to Leroy when I am on a computer. But I want to note I am not saying Christians are terrorists. I was saying that people assume a certain profile of a person isn't a Terrorist. That non Muslims aren't.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Daniel

[Guest Jamie]

You are basing off what has happened. I am basing my opinion on what will happen. When the OPFOR observes our TTPs they alter the way they do business. If they see that we are only searching one or two types of people they will change who they are using to carry out attacks. If we don't search children they will use children. I have seen it with my own eyes in Iraq.

You are being reactionary while I am being proactive in my opinion.

No, you're making a prediction based on what you have seen happen ( has happened ) elsewhere. So in that regard you're both on even ground.

The fact is, none of us can say for certain what will happen until after the fact. And trying to predict who will do what - profiling - is also a way of being proactive.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Jamie

[Raoul]

You are basing off what has happened. I am basing my opinion on what will happen. When the OPFOR observes our TTPs they alter the way they do business. If they see that we are only searching one or two types of people they will change who they are using to carry out attacks. If we don't search children they will use children. I have seen it with my own eyes in Iraq.

You are being reactionary while I am being proactive in my opinion.

I've tried to ignore this thread mostly, but you're talking about being proactive...profiling is a proactive response is it not? And, since you were in Iraq, you of all people should know that nothing short of a kick the door down police state is going to deter a homegrown terrorist. And even that apparently is insufficient.

[Smith]

You are basing off what has happened. I am basing my opinion on what will happen. When the OPFOR observes our TTPs they alter the way they do business. If they see that we are only searching one or two types of people they will change who they are using to carry out attacks. If we don't search children they will use children. I have seen it with my own eyes in Iraq.

You are being reactionary while I am being proactive in my opinion.

No, you are answering a test that has been proven false. There is no fool proof way to do this, but you can't throw a 95% effective method out the window to use a 100% ineffective, inefficient method that has no statistical evidence to back it up. What we know: profiling would have prevented every attack, even if no other security measures were taken. Profiling is also a much more fluid and cost effective method because it can change instantly to respond to current intel. Machines and search methods have to go through a very slow process to adapt to new intel. The current system has allowed several failed attempts to pass with chance being the only prevention.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Smith

[gregintenn]

Daniel sure spends an inordinate amount of time and bandwidth stirring up sh1t and then trying to defend himself. Not a good quality for a moderator to have, in my opinion. I think a bit more maturity would help a lot.

[Daniel]

Daniel sure spends an inordinate amount of time and bandwidth stirring up sh1t and then trying to defend himself. Not a good quality for a moderator to have, in my opinion. I think a bit more maturity would help a lot.

I am stating my opinion. If that stirs up ****..... oh well.

We allow mods to have opinions here. They don't have to be popular.

I do not see the maturity aspect of your argument. Are you saying it is immature to have a differing opinion?