It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Racial Profiling Of Muslims

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dioxholster
if all muslims are dead, there will be everlasting peace. Imagine a world without arabs. I think we should push forward a smart racial profiling scheme and put an extra-line up for muslims only which will search their bags extensively and look into their backgrounds. i think this will ensure safety for a really long time and it will definitly kill off their need to terrorize everyone. And maybe in the future we could ban muslims from earth and ship them to mars. ya #'em. let them play mr. suicide bomber in the red sand. And ya i'm muslim and i wanna get the # outta here.


So let me get this right...you claim to be Muslim and yet you say:

- "if all muslims are dead, there will be everlasting peace."

- "And maybe in the future we could ban muslims from earth and ship them to mars. ya #'em. "

Wow...I pity your life. So you want "everlasting peace" by killing all Muslims? Well mind starting with yourself?

[edit on 16-8-2006 by DJMessiah]




posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I got a better solution . . .

We can move Israel into the US. . .

Then we withdraw from all middle east lands. . .

US will top meddling into the nations of the east affairs and politics. . .

It will stop coercing governments to be friendly to the US. . .

It will stop tagging muslin as terrorist. . .

It will stop using the oil in the middle east. . .

It will stop corporate oil companies from drolling over drilling for the oil in the middle east specially Iraq and Iran.

And guess what !!!!!! it will be no reason for terrorism.


[edit on 16-8-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
BTW, I want to hear all of the people agreeing for this profiling defend the Japanese holding camps in WWII. I see no difference in the behavior.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   
the terrorist are muslims.. most muslims are arabic.. doesn't it make sense to check arabics?

Let's say a black man beat someone with a bat, police are trying to find him.. but they look for white males and asian females instead because they don't want to racially profile. Doesn't make sense does it? If they dont like it, they should inform their brotheran to knock it off.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
the terrorist are muslims.. most muslims are arabic.. doesn't it make sense to check arabics?

Let's say a black man beat someone with a bat, police are trying to find him.. but they look for white males and asian females instead because they don't want to racially profile. Doesn't make sense does it? If they dont like it, they should inform their brotheran to knock it off.


The Klan is white, you're white (I assume) doesn't it make sense to hold you until we prove you're not in the Klan?

Hey, why didn't you warn McVeigh to not bomb the Oklahoma city building? Isn't he your "brotheran" (sic)?

Edit: I'm sorry, butI've gotten tired of explaining the simple fact that an entire race of people can not be held responsible for the actions of a few. I've also gotten tired of explainingthat not all Arabs know each other, and are able to stop their brotheran (sic)

This is the last recourse for the lazy and prejudice. Kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out. Except it's imprison 'em all, let the courts sort 'em out.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Rasobasi420]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I'm going to address your post point by point.


Originally posted by DJMessiah
Great post. I figure many in the US are forgetting the "innocent until proven guilty" motto. For one, merely suspecting someone of a crime isn't evidence enough to find them guilty.


Okay, there is a HUGE difference between what's going on in Gitmo versus closer scrutiny of "Profile A" at a high-risk target location.

What's going on in Guantanamo Bay (the detention of terrorism "suspects" without trial, rights, lawyers, outside contact, or hope of reprieve) makes me nauseous to think about. If you read back to the debates a year or two ago, this was actually the center of the Final Stage, and I think it's amusing that though I lost the debate back then, history has proven my side correct.

THAT is an example of someone who has been found guilty of a crime until proven innocent.

Paying extra scrutiny towards "Profile A" when performing a routine security clearance check, when the vast majority of terrorists fall under the category of "Profile A", is just common sense.

If you're trying to find someone you've never met before, all you can do is search for them based upon the criteria described to you. If I said "Go find John," your first question will be "John Who?" The second question will be "What's he look like?" The third question will be "What's he wearing or carrying?" or possibly "How old is he?"

I'm sorry that security doesn't fall under the same venn diagram as political correctness in this present day and age, it doesn't change the fact that Profiling people to investigate a crime is the single most effective tool in narrowing down to your target out of the 6.x billion people that populate the world.


Originally posted by DJMessiah
People are are stating that "all" terrorists fit into the same mold, and yet I can easily prove any of their "molds" wrong. My challenge to anyone here who believes racial profiling will work, please post a real life image of someone you would stop at an airport, if you were the security.


No, I'm not going to fall into that trap. For one thing, the profiling isn't a static end-all be-all. There's a set of criterion under which the targets more often than not apply. There are exceptions to every rule, but to imply that all Middle Easterner's are potential terrorists is just as ignorant as denying that the vast majority of terrorists recently have been Middle-Easterners.

It's equally ignorant to assume that everyone has the perceptive ability, cultural knowledge, linguistic acumen, and so forth, to correctly identify exactly which person is from what EXACT ethnicity. I consider myself very cosmopolitan for being able to spot the difference between various Asiatic faces, and most of the time can tell the difference between one who is Pakistani or Indian, but only because I've had fairly intimate contact with all of the above for extended periods of time and had close enough bonds to be able to ask when I was confused. And I STILL get it wrong sometimes.

So you can't even say "Iranians are the target profile this week" because unless you are intimately familiar with the headgear of the various tribes and the exact facial characteristics of Iranians, and the dialect, and subtle nuances of culture, you just can't identify an Iranian from an Iraqi. Even then, you have to be someone who is perceptive enough to be able to spot those differences. It would be a happy rainbow world of marshmallows if everyone were THAT educated about every other people on Earth, but they just aren't.

So instead, you get a very vague "stop people of middle eastern descent," and worry about sorting out the apologies later. As time goes on, you get better and better at, for instance, learning that Indians and Pakistanis look and sound quite different from Arabs. With more time you learn that saying "Arabs" is about as accurate a pinpointer as saying "Asians" because there's subtle differences between all the nations, and even the nations have their own tribes.

People whom have learned these differences, however, do not make up the majority of those checking security at the airport. These processes are not only new to us Americans, the very need to even care about the differences is only recently an important matter. The people being put into these jobs are not exactly the creme of the crop. Think about every security guard in America you've ever known. Most are not security guards because they were top of their class at the Academy or University, they're there because they want a job that would command slightly more respect than fry cook at a McDonald's.

As time goes on, and experience and skills at spotting Who's Who gets better, then the FBI or whomever can say "We've got a specific threat by (fill in the blank with specific country and region) terrorists against flights in America today" then people will be able to see "Oh, that turban has a red and green cross-hatch pattern, and they exhibit the facial features of a member of the blahblah region, they are a likely suspect to be detained".

However, the same attitude that causes people to get pissed off about profiling also prevents people from learning those differences because we constantly have it drilled into us to ignore all racial traits. We've just come out of a two-decade long Political Correctness where one was taught to wince even if someone said the word "black" regardless of its context.

"Hey, look at my new black corvette!"

(wince) "Dude, it's African American Corvette...wait...no...okay, it's okay you used that word once in that context, but you had better be more sensative in the future."

You may think that's an extreme case. It's not. Some of you weren't even born yet when Political Correctness first started. I was in High School. It was a nightmare, and I wasn't even a bigot. You couldn't say anything, literally, anything, without someone taking offense, or looking at you askance.

As a result it didn't make people any more sensative to the needs of others, it just made them more blind, more silent, and more resentful of our differences.



Originally posted by DJMessiah
Others also forget that by advocating religious profiling or racial profiling, the Supreme Law of the Land (the Constitution) is broken.


1.) I'm pretty sure it's "Middle Eastern", not "Muslim". If not, then it's a retarded thing to assume, as someone already pointed out, because anyone can be a Muslim.

2.) Profiling (as I described above) is absolutely not against the law of the land, it is a tool used to enforce the law of the land. There was never anything in the constitution that said "Even if the majority of your criminals look like X, you absolutely cannot use that as a guide when trying to prevent a crime." And the Constitution, not your feelings, are The Supreme Law of the Land.


Originally posted by DJMessiah
I see many bring up the "terrorist granny on an airplane" arguement, but you fail to see that terrorism can occur in any age group, any faith and belief, and anyone.


No one I've read has said it was impossible for terrorism to occur in any group. What they've been trying to relay is that, right now, in this day and age, the vast vast majority of the terrorist and terrorist threats are from those of Middle Eastern descent, and thus they will be the ones scrutinized further than a race that hasn't bombed jack in the last decade.



Originally posted by DJMessiah
There are still people in hate groups like the KKK that are in their 60's,70's, and 80's who would still kill blacks if they could.


When was the last time you read about KKK members hijacking a damned plane and slamming into a building in Africa?!?!? I hate the KKK as much as the next guy, but now you're just getting ignorant.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Why do you PC types ignore the obvious?

Who has been commit the most recent terrorist attacks?

Muslims; Young adult male muslims.

Who bombed the Trade Center in 1993?

Muslims; Young adult male muslims.

Who bombed the US embassies in Africa?

Muslims; Young adult male muslims.

Who bombed the USS cole?

Muslims; Young adult male muslims.

Who walks into restraunts full of innocent people and blow themselves up?

Muslims; Young adult male muslims.

Who walks into busy market places and blows up women & children?

Muslims; Young adult male muslims.

Who destroyed the World Trade Center?

Muslims; Young adult male muslims.

Who attempted to blow up 10 airliners last week?

Muslims; Young adult male muslims.

Yes thats right.......we should check out the 80 year old white, black or asian woman instead or the white, black, asian family......because they are the ones killing a bunch of innocent people.

WAKE UP!! Thank GOD you people are not in control!!!



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Okay,
If members of the klan were hijacking planes and flying them into federal buildings, would it be appropriate to profile white males in the same way as we are profiling arabs? Do you think it would be as tolerated?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Who murdered a series of young men then ate their corpses?

A middle aged white man

Who raped and strangled at least a dozen young women in Boston?

A middle aged white man

Who skinned local women and wore thier skin as a suit?

A middle aged white man

Who shot dozens of people and gave notes to the police identifying him as the Zodiac killer

A middle aged white man.

The list goes on and on.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Your question is MOOT....becasue the KKK (or whatever is left of them) is not flying planes into buidings.

You can not answer a hypothetical question like that because inorder for the KKK to be able to do terrorist attacks over and over again in this country law and order system would not be like it is today, inother words the entire make-up, behavior, etc of this country would be different.

Since that is not the case and the KKK is not prevailent anymore your question is moot.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Give the dates to those crimes...............they do not happen on a daily basis, it is 1 individual who is a serial killer in most of those cases.

That was an extremely poor attempt to deny the obvious:

it is young muslim males who are commiting terrorist acts on a daily basis!



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Who murdered a series of young men then ate their corpses?

A middle aged white man

Who raped and strangled at least a dozen young women in Boston?

A middle aged white man

Who skinned local women and wore thier skin as a suit?

A middle aged white man

Who shot dozens of people and gave notes to the police identifying him as the Zodiac killer

A middle aged white man.

The list goes on and on.


And whenever there is a serial killing spree... White middle age men are the "profiled" suspect. Beltway sniper ring a bell? Seems to me if they hadn't been looking for a "middle age white guy" they would have caught the two black guys who were the actual perpetrators sooner. :shk: It cuts both ways.

Could you please provide some information on the bolded crime?

The Identity of the Zodiac Killer is unknown. Also, there are only five known victims, not "dozens."



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
The composite picture of the zodiac killer was a middle aged white man. However, this could have been a pre-judgement based on the profile. And you're right about the death count. I thought there were more.

Ed Gein www.houseofhorrors.com...

skinned women and wore their flesh as as suit.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2


Muslims; Young adult male muslims.

Yes thats right.......we should check out the 80 year old white, black or asian woman instead or the white, black, asian family......because they are the ones killing a bunch of innocent people.

WAKE UP!! Thank GOD you people are not in control!!!


I know it's been said before but, 'Muslim' is a religion, not a race. The '80 year old white, black or asian woman' could very well be of the Muslim religion. You mean Arab and Persian profiling. Semite profiling. People with brown skin. Are you trying to cloud the issue, or do you seriously don't know the difference?

Or are you suggesting that everyone register their religion, so we can screen the registered Muslims?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
You can not compare apples to oranges.

The young muslim men are not serial killers......maybe they would be if they didn't blow themselves up!



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme

Originally posted by ferretman2


Muslims; Young adult male muslims.



I know it's been said before but, 'Muslim' is a religion, not a race. The '80 year old white, black or asian woman' could very well be of the Muslim religion. You mean Arab and Persian profiling. Semite profiling. People with brown skin. Are you trying to cloud the issue, or do you seriously don't know the difference?

Or are you suggesting that everyone register their religion, so we can screen the registered Muslims?


As mentioned a few times. In England the term "Muslim" does not identify the religion but more of the appearance. I believe the Americans use the term "Arabs" to describe the same people ie people with a middle eastern appearance

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 16-8-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
You can not compare apples to oranges.

The young muslim men are not serial killers......maybe they would be if they didn't blow themselves up!


I think the point Rasobasi420 and the others are trying to make is... Should a whole group be treated a certain way because of the actions of some of the people in that group?


Sidetracking isn’t going to work all the time.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Okay,
If members of the klan were hijacking planes and flying them into federal buildings, would it be appropriate to profile white males in the same way as we are profiling arabs? Do you think it would be as tolerated?
Yes and there wouldnt be a single word said about it.

When the UK was dealing with the IRA, Im sure Irish people were profiled and they didnt have to go out and waste manpower on Finns or Swedes just to be PC.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Okay,
If members of the klan were hijacking planes and flying them into federal buildings, would it be appropriate to profile white males in the same way as we are profiling arabs? Do you think it would be as tolerated?


YES!!!!! The lives of my wife and children are more important to me than the inconvenience of white bread getting searched at airports!

I see a couple of things going on here:

1. For whatever reason, radical so called followers of Islam are using the tactics of terrorism for whatever purpose.

2. Peace loving Muslims should instead of screaming racism, organize and take back their religion. (The only Muslim protests against terrorism, that I can find, is after the bombing in Jordan)

3. By not profiling you leave a much larger hole in security than you need to. Force those who wish to blow up my innocent children and your innocent children to work harder. When white bread business men start packing bombs adjust your profile. BTW for an eye opening experience fly El AL, safest flights I've ever been on but security is rough!

4. Flying in America is a crap shoot anyway. Come on, I fly all the time. TSA does just enough not to annoy the piss out of you but still look like they are doing something. US airport security is a JOKE! Just last week flying home on saturday Aug. 12 after going through the added security with a bag search, I sit in my seat on something hard. I'd totaly spaced my Zippo and had it in my back pocket the entire time (yes through the metal detector)!

5. The "racial profiling" is a red herring, you profile certain behavioral patterns as well as physical characteristics. (Yes, Arab looking men with oneway tickets and a martyr chop need extra screening.)

Bottom line is the Airline industry doesn't care one bit about your safty or anyone elses. If I were president of say American Airlines, I'd make a big deal about the safty of my flights. Extra screening for all passengers (not 30 mins worth but get real, every flight I'm on I get through with lighters and other minor bs) and I'd hire the best in airline security and model my program after El Al's (many other changes also). So what I'd "inconvenience" most of the "can't we all get along" crowd but I'd guaranty 100% you and your children will not have a terrorist "incident" not this most of the time BS.

"Those who trade Liberty for Security deserve neither", you figure it out.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
You can not compare apples to oranges.


so im a pottential suicide bomber in your deffintition?
being asain and muslim , around 20 , student im the perfect canidate


there is no colour , gender ,race in islam its a faith (geez some people really need to deny ignorance)



Originally posted by Rockpuck
the terrorist are muslims.. most muslims are arabic.. doesn't it make sense to check arabics?


i dont want to offend in any way.
most muslims arent arabs since they just make a fraction of muslims in the world.

again i say this muslims are from all ethical backgrounds.
using this racial profiling wouldnt do jack all since you can get a white convert to islam who has chosen the radical path and do a terror attack.

use ur brain cells



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join