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.

 

With TSA Under Fire, Is Racial Profiling on the Table?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Dr. Strange
 


Apology accepted, my own lapse...however the argument still holds does it not? Define the Middle East for me...

Seriously, 10 "middle easterners" fly a couple of jets into the World Trade Center...we shall now hold a couple hundred million people eternally accountable and harass the hell out of them and make their lives a living hell, because you are afraid? Quick buddy check your bedroom closet is closed before nitey night time and definitely look under your bed...dont want any creepy ol Middle Easterners to getcha!

Do you have any idea how difficult it would be for an American to travel, if people from other countries or regions held all American tourists to your standards?

You show the signs of a person starving for a little bit more time living with others of different cultures. Id take a sit down falafel dinner with a middle easterner any ol day, before eating a burger with some of my supposed American brothers and sisters who cant see it to pull their consciousness out from under a rock.

Sigh, it wasnt my intent to be so crass, but sheesh...come on man




posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Then there are us "third campers" who would rather not sacrifice anyones liberty, but rather just use common sense risk management strategies.

Two black men walk into an interview with me. 1 wearing a polo and some dockers, the other in baggy jeans and a scarface shirt. Guess which one i will profile into not offering a job?


Depends, is the job roadie for a heavy metal band?


Risk of me being dead in 40 years? Probably 100%
Risk of people being subjected to random house searches in 40 years? The way things are going, the odds on that are looking pretty good, too.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadowfoot
 


I am not trying to lump all Muslims or Middle Easterners as terrorists. That was not my intention. I am just trying to say that if the terrorists such as AL Queda are of middle eastern origin, then doesn't it make sense to pay special attention to the people fitting that profile?

Obviously not all middle eastern people are terrorists, and I'm sure there are operatives of Al Queda that are white, and black and all the others, but the ones we know of happen to be from Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. Why shouldn't we single them out?



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Then there are us "third campers" who would rather not sacrifice anyones liberty, but rather just use common sense risk management strategies.

Two black men walk into an interview with me. 1 wearing a polo and some dockers, the other in baggy jeans and a scarface shirt. Guess which one i will profile into not offering a job?


Depends, is the job roadie for a heavy metal band?


Risk of me being dead in 40 years? Probably 100%
Risk of people being subjected to random house searches in 40 years? The way things are going, the odds on that are looking pretty good, too.


i will drink to that (and i don't drink....allergic to alchohol).

We would be better to abolish all laws enacted post 1800, and kind of just start over. Too many laws, too many non criminal activities criminalized. too many reasons to fear the police, armed with 600,000 laws with which to victimize the populace (usually in a municipal scam for additional monies outside of taxes via fines, most often applied to the lowest earning bracket).

You are an "it" getter.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
[
i will drink to that (and i don't drink....allergic to alchohol).

We would be better to abolish all laws enacted post 1800, and kind of just start over. Too many laws, too many non criminal activities criminalized. too many reasons to fear the police, armed with 600,000 laws with which to victimize the populace (usually in a municipal scam for additional monies outside of taxes via fines, most often applied to the lowest earning bracket).

You are an "it" getter.


I do enjoy my tequilla. Can we keep the laws that ended Prohibition?



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Dr. Strange
 


You sir, are what is wrong with people in this country.

Quoting Benjamin Franklin here:

“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I mean, common sense still needs to rule the day despite how politically incorrect it might seem.

For starters, when the majority of these terrorists are from the Middle East, doesn't it stand to reason that the next bomber would be Middle Eastern? I don't care much for political correctness so this doesn't bother me too much I guess. I just see basic logic and idiots who don't follow it just to be political correct.

If a dog bites you as a kid, and dogs continue to bite you, aren't you going to then start worrying about each dog you come across?



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Dr. Strange
 


You sir, are what is wrong with people in this country.


Sorry for the double post but I just have to say this: Ever think You "The Sword" is what's wrong with people in this country? Common sense should rule the day around here, but it's like you throw it out the window if it "hurts" someones feelings.

M.E. men are prime suspects for terrorism. Hence, like when looking for a serial killer, you go after who and what fits the description. Political correctness be damned, are we going to ignore the basics to protect the feelings of a few?

And whats up with your Benjamin Franklin quote? I don't see how this applies to anything here, Dr. Strange was just asserting that instead of all these ridiculous scanners and whatnot for everyone, why not go after the people who actually *might* do some harm?

Geeze people, c'mon!



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:23 AM
link   
"Would you support racial profiling?"
For almost everyone, answering this question, with a startlingly high consistency rate, always comes down to "it depends on which race we're profiling here." (I'll grant that there is a small percentage of truly and admirably "color blind" people out there who can can answer "NO" to that question in all cases and mean it, but those folks are few & far between in my experiences.)

It is natural human instinct to seek defining characteristics and traits when assessing threats or situations. If a white male robs a bank, you do not read in the police report "police searching for human being who robbed bank." No, they describe the individual, including his presumed race and, leading forward, if the police know they are searching for a caucasian male, they don't stop Indian females and peg them as potential suspects.

I'm not so much in favor of the TSA starting racial profiling (hell, to get technical here, I'm pretty much against the TSA in it's entirety, so we're taking quite a leap using 'TSA' and "in favor" in the same sentence regardless.) I am, however, smart enough to see that what they are currently doing is largely reverse racial profiling done purely so they can make a huge public spectacle showing they're not racially profiling. Little old ladies, toddlers, and attractive women didn't kill Americans on 9/11... Doesn't mean that sometime in the future this may or may not change, but only a damn fool wastes resources, time, and money on slight possibilities of change within an event which is already among the longest of shots imaginable (terror attacks on planes? Thanks, but I'd rather bet on something more likely... like Powerball) .

So yeah, you don't need so much racial profiling as criminal suspect profiling. We know what to look for, unfortunately, political correctness combined with the opportunity to debase Americans of their rights has placed blinders onto the TSA to prevent them from actually doing their job for the American people (as opposed to against the American people...)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Racial profiling, like any other thing, is good or bad depending upon how it's used. When used in this situation, we could use common sense and understand that 90+% of airplane terrorists so far have been Middle Eastern males and that putting children and the elderly through things like this is stupid. Racial profiling would be good in serial killer and pedophile cases considering that most serial killers and pedophiles are white males.

In any of these cases, we're not saying that people are guilty. We're just saying that they share certain similarities with the vast majority of these criminals and because of that warrant closer observation than a black senior citizen or a white toddler.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 



I am, however, smart enough to see that what they are currently doing is largely reverse racial profiling done purely so they can make a huge public spectacle showing they're not racially profiling. Little old ladies, toddlers, and attractive women didn't kill Americans on 9/11... Doesn't mean that sometime in the future this may or may not change, but only a damn fool wastes resources, time, and money on slight possibilities of change within an event which is already among the longest of shots imaginable (terror attacks on planes? Thanks, but I'd rather bet on something more likely... like Powerball) .


I rarely do this, but this must be quoted for truth. It is the crux of my entire argument.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have in our midst another "it" getter.

I discussed this with my wife this morning, in talking about a coworker of hers that would get offended too easily. She would look for some perceived backbite in anything someone does, and then complain about how they were out to get her, or treating someone else wrong. Even to the point of laughing at a comic strip.

I explained that I believe it what drives the idea of rampant political correctness, where people are primed to be so afraid of being perceived as a certain way that they behave crazily and drastically counter to anything that is perceived as touchy.

Maybe it all started with the "you people" comment by Ross Perot. That undid his bid for presidency in a hurry. Every now and then you get a small glimmer of hope from folks like Dave Chappell...but The People tend to be exceedingly stupid as a collective.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Such a move would fail to achieve anything other than making a particular section of the population feel even more discriminated against than usual, exacerbating the problem and creating others. If you announce that “we’re going to be looking for X, Y, Z” then the bad guys will make sure that their operatives do not fit X, Y, Z.

If racial profiling is introduced, it won’t be long until they are telling us that it is the whiteys that we should be leering at because they are very unlikely to be terrorists and therefore far more likely to be terrorists.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soshh
Such a move would fail to achieve anything other than making a particular section of the population feel even more discriminated against than usual, exacerbating the problem and creating others. If you announce that “we’re going to be looking for X, Y, Z” then the bad guys will make sure that their operatives do not fit X, Y, Z.

If racial profiling is introduced, it won’t be long until they are telling us that it is the whiteys that we should be leering at because they are very unlikely to be terrorists and therefore far more likely to be terrorists.



You can still enact policies that you don't then go announcing to the world, you know?



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Those people who voted "Yes, I support racial and all other types of profiling if they make air travel safer. " are so ignorant for voting so. Are all terrorist Arab/brown toned? Timothy McVeigh was white. Theodore Kaczynski was white.

Point? The average American should be more afraid of a Caucasian person committing terrorist acts then an Arab committing terrorist acts. Only because it would be 110% easier for a caucasian toned person to commit such an act. Racism at this point, twords the Arab community, will not sit well at all. Racism and racial profiling will just lead to a race war. Just look what is going on in France.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr. Strange
reply to post by Shadowfoot
 


I am not trying to lump all Muslims or Middle Easterners as terrorists. That was not my intention. I am just trying to say that if the terrorists such as AL Queda are of middle eastern origin, then doesn't it make sense to pay special attention to the people fitting that profile?


Are you implying that ALL terrorist come out of the Middle East?

I was unaware that china, Russia, Bosnia, Serbia, croatia, Greece, Ireland, Brazil, Mexico, colombia, Venezuala had no domestic terrorists, and that all terrorists did indeed come from the Middle East. /sarcasm




Originally posted by Dr. Strange
How quickly Americans forget that after Pearl Harbor, all Japanese people were rounded up and sent to detainment camps. Was that the right thing to do? That's not my place to say, but it did prevent any other attacks on American soil at that time.


So the imprisonment of innocent Japanese families that were born and raised in the United States LONG PRIOR to Pearl Harbor, is ok? If a terrorist of your skin tone/nationality were to blow up the Empire State Bld, and you were rounded up to go to a FEMA camp (just like the Japanese in America post-Pearl Harbor), what would you then have to say then?
edit on 24-11-2010 by BiGGz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
You can still enact policies that you don't then go announcing to the world, you know?


You wouldn't need to announce it.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Dr. Strange
 


edit on 24-11-2010 by Shadowfoot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Frontkjemper
 


No Man, common sense does not say that...holy crap how old or rather if not just babes in the woods are some of you, what the hell is wrong with America...bunch of people who claim to be christian, yet dont follow a single axiom of their savior...Judge not sound familiar you hypocrites...seriously?



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
The latest i have heard they are planing on exempting from the screening people with secret and top secret clearances, military, law enforcement. government employees with federal background checks. members of congress there aids and other people that work for the congress.

This will cut the numbers of people that have to be searched by about 14+ million people.

This also cuts the most likely people to complain.



new topics




 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join