who would support the searching of ONLY middle easterners???

that would be very stupied they see ALL. Not only we will make more enemies, it goes aginist everything that america stands for. People who think like you are no better than the terrorist.


[edit on 24-7-2005 by ulshadow]

It's so sad - and yes, pathetic - that there's still the grossly misinformed belief that people of Arabic descent are all the same "colour".

And the irony is, if the terrorists had been caucasian, there would be an all-inclusive caucasian temper tantrum like the world has never seen if someone else suggested "we need to be profiling white people in general!".

Originally posted by they see ALL
when i say "white terrorists" i mean: a white person who is going to blow themselves up

err...richard reid ring a bell ??

I can not say that I support the search and seizure of anyone base upon national origin. OR perceived national origin, as we have recently seen, has led to the death of a South American man.

Others have already posted pictures of "White Terrorist" . I suppose semantics now plays a part, and what was originally meant, was white people who blow themselves up. Well then...does Chechnya ring a bell?

Originally posted by worldwatcher
I'm a sad and shocked to see this post from you theyseeall, whatever happened to Deny Ignorance???

Please tell me how exactly do you tell who is a Middle Easterner and who isn't? Don't you dare tell me it is by skin color.

Let me deny some ignorance right now. Middle Easterners can come in any shade of skin color and have any type of hair color and eye color too. There are chinese, blacks, indians, caucasians, mulattos, all who live, come from and can claim middle eastern heritage. Racial profiling doesn't help in the war in terrorism, because terrorists are not exclusive to one race. Line up a 100 muslims and you will have every race represented. Ignorant this line of thinking is, absolutely ignorant.

I'm really getting annoyed with all the ignorance on the boards these days, sorry to pick on you Theyseeall, it's been building up for me and i chose to let it out on you.

Really well said Worldwatcher.

Where I live the media doesn't help with its sometimes biased reporting, it makes people who don't consider themselves racially prejudiced fear anyone who is not white and is carrying a bag! The sooner that people realise that racial profiling promotes nothing except segregation and alienation the better. We should all understand that these crimes are done by PEOPLE and not a COLOUR.

Centurion 1211, honestly. Do cars get upset when blue ones are picked on? Do the white cars point and call them bankrobbers? I'm not sure your comparison made any sense at all.

Originally posted by infinite
IRA bomber blow himself up once.

I live in the UK and have been bag searched plenty of times when im near Canterbury Catherdral and in the grounds..... and im white.

Plus ive had random searches in Canterbury City.

Yeah, but that IRA bomber didn't mean to blow himself up. His bomb went off at the wrong time. Plus in every case I've ever read about, the IRA always called the authorities to notify them of the bomb location and the time it was set to go off. That's why so many IRA bombings didn't take 30-50 people out each time. (They screwed up a couple times, and did kill quite a few poeple with a couple bombs, but that wasn't their normal way of doing things.)

According to Malcolm Sutton's "Index to Troubles related deaths" (Beyond the Pale, Belfast, 1994 -a reliable source of figures), the Provisional IRA has been responsible for the deaths of 1758 people in the period between January 1 1969 and December 31 1993. Of those, 345 (19.6% of total IRA killings)were uninvolved Protestant civilians (uninvolved meaning they were not active loyalists or working for the security forces etc.), a third (106 of them) killed in 1975-1976 alone. And among those 345 deaths, 133 were the result of deliberate sectarian killings. It also should be noted that 85 of these sectarian killings took place in the 1975-1976 period. The majority of IRA victims (around 1000 that is more than 50%) were members of the British security forces (British Army, RUC, UDR, ...). From these figures, it is clear that the IRA campaign was directed against the British state rather than the protestant community. It was not sectarian in nature, although some individual sectarian attacks and murders unfortunately did take place (like the Kingsmill massacre in 1976). But sectarian murders committed by the IRA were more the exception than the rule (as they represent 133 killings on a total of 1758), especially given the fact that the vast majority of them (85) were committed in a short period of time (1975-1976). Relative to loyalist killings, the non-sectarian nature of the IRA campaign becomes even more evident. In the 1969-1993 period, loyalist paramilitaries have been responsible for the killing of 911 people. Of those, 612 were uninvolved innocent catholic civilians (67.2%), and a substantial number of the rest were Protestants killed because they were married to or mistaken for a Catholic. The loyalists explicitely target civilian members of the Roman Catholic community. Such a campaign is clearly sectarian in nature. ref

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the IRA were/are a bunch of saints. But their brand of terrorism was quite different than what we see coming out of the middle east. The IRA wanted to get British rule (and especially the military) out of their country, they didn't go around killing people just because they believed it was God's instruction that they do so. I don't think it's the same thing (comparing IRA to fundamentalist terrorists), one places no value in human life. The IRA targeted the state, the terrorists target your grandmothers and your grandsons.

CatHerder
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the IRA were/are a bunch of saints. But their brand of terrorism was quite different than what we see coming out of the middle east. The IRA wanted to get British rule (and especially the military) out of their country

What, and Middle Eastern Terrorists don't want to get foriegn rule and Militaries out of their respective Countries or Regions??



[edit on 033131p://22073 by MERC]

I would support racial profiling.

It is insane that when I get on my flight to LA, an 80 year old woman and 12 year old kid gets searched, but 2 guys speaking arabic to each other with turbans (spl?) on their head AND LITERALLY a copy of the Koran in ones hand get to walk right on the plane no questions asked.

It sucks for Arabs, but the cold hard reality is that ARAB MUSLIM TERRORISTS are our main threat.

Last Month I saw my 86 year old Grandma being searched at LAX and it made me sick.....it got worse as the Arab looking guy several passengers behind her got the exact same shakedown and it dawned on me how political correctness and Liberalism has put us all at risk.

The fact that a white 86 year old lady gets the same security treatment as a 20-something year old Arab male shows me just how screwed up our system is.

Of course it makes good common-sense for young Arab males to be pulled outta line and treated differently than other passengers, because young Arab males happen to be committing the most acts of terror across the world! In fact anyone with an Arab name should be questioned and searched...especially Arab converts (Black/Latino and White).

Interesting that all of the "progressive" members that posted on this topic will show MORE outrage at the racial profiling of Arab Males, than the act of terror itself. In their minds its better to have dozens of people being blown apart, rather than risk someone being "offended" during a search.


Maximu§









[edit on 053131p://000 by LA_Maximus]

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
Ive noticed reading some of the responses here, is that 100% of the "progressive/diverse" members that posted on this topic will show MORE outrage at the racial profiling of Arab Males, than the act of terror itself. In their minds its better to have dozens of people being blown apart, rather than risk someone being "offended" during a search.

Oh please.

I doubt anyone here is viewing it in such a narrow, blinkered, black & white manner.

Everyone (and yes, I do think I can speak for everyone to whom you're referring) here condemns terrorist attacks.

It IS possible to decry both actions, you know; acts of terror and racial profiling.

Originally posted by MERC

CatHerder
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the IRA were/are a bunch of saints. But their brand of terrorism was quite different than what we see coming out of the middle east. The IRA wanted to get British rule (and especially the military) out of their country

What, and Middle Eastern Terrorists don't want to get foriegn rule and Militaries out of their respective Countries or Regions??
[edit on 033131p://22073 by MERC]

I think you need to include the whole quote...

...they didn't go around killing people just because they believed it was God's instruction that they do so. I don't think it's the same thing (comparing IRA to fundamentalist terrorists), one places no value in human life. The IRA targeted the state, the terrorists target your grandmothers and your grandsons.

What nation is forcing their rule, and their laws, and has a military occupation doing so in Saudi Arabia? (The nation that funds most terrorist groups). What nation (previous to 9/11 and after the exit of the USSR) was forcing their rule and their laws and had a military occupation of Afghanistan? What nation was forcing their rule, and their laws and had a military occupation of Iran? (historically a training center and funder of islamic terror cells).

What national (European or North American) military targets have been hit by these middle eastern groups in the past 3 & 1/2 years? The vast majority of their attacks are on shopping malls, hotels, transit stations, etc.

What, no David Duke quotes?

Using current events to allow racism does not make it right.
Instead of using racial profiling for searches why not just ban certain people from using transit at all .

Terrorism is wrong, so is racism just because one stands up against racism doesn't mean they support terrorists. Allowing racism to prevail will not solve the problem of terrorism.

The Wrong Axis

Race/ethnicity is not an accurate predictor for who will be a terrorist. Historically, they come in all shapes, sizes, colors and ethnicities.

They tend to be overwhelmingly male, so would it be sensible to single out males for special scrutiny? Would that help anything? And, having announced this supposedly enlightened policy, wouldn't that just encourage terrorist groups to use women to carry out attacks?

Focusing on "Middle Easterners" narrows down the list of possible suspects to hundreds of millions. Some help.

A more fruitful policy would be to profile people based on a wider range of factors, such as behavior, clothing, itinerary and baggage characteristics.

Focusing on ethnicity alone is the sort of tunnel vision that leaves a gaping hole for terrorist groups to exploit.

Searching "everybody" may seem unnecessary or onerous, but letting some people waltz through security checkpoints while others get strip-searched for "looking Middle Eastern" would do nothing more than open vulnerabilities that any terrorist with half a brain would cheerfully exploit.

As far as I'm concerned, the best thing to do is make sure nobody is carrying a bomb.

It doesn't get any safer than that.

Originally posted by SunChaser
Centurion 1211, honestly. Do cars get upset when blue ones are picked on? Do the white cars point and call them bankrobbers? I'm not sure your comparison made any sense at all.

Don't make yourself look bad by posting before thinking.

I was obviously talking about the people in the cars. The color of the cars was just a metaphor for the race of the people in the cars. The comparison makes absolute sense when you look at it correctly.

so...

citizens living in britain (i am picking you because of recent times) would not support the search of ONLY middle easterners (or any "brown" / "dark" / whatever but not "white" people)???

i mean, has there ever been a "white" terrorist attacking britain in the past ten years???

i am not sure about your history so sorry...

please note:

i am not a racist, i just saw this idea on a news show and i wanted to make a thread about it...

why are you calling me ignorant???

this idea is obviously not the best and it is hated, but yes it would work!!!

Originally posted by Majic
Race/ethnicity is not an accurate predictor for who will be a terrorist. Historically, they come in all shapes, sizes, colors and ethnicities.

Historically, what you said above is quite true.

However, currently the terrorist activities are 99.9% confined to one race/ethnicity/religion.

We need to deal with the current situation now, not the historical one.

[edit on 7/24/2005 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by Bikereddie
I think i did..

sorry...

i didn't see that post...

Originally posted by centurion1211
Historically, what you said above is quite true.

However, currently the terrorist activities are 99.9% confined to one race/ethnicity.

We need to deal with the current situation now, not the historical one.

amen amen i say to you!!!

good job...

Originally posted by Bikereddie
It is logically simple

it is very simple...

and yes, it does have negative effects...

but, if it works in the long run, we should use it...

Situational Awareness

Originally posted by centurion1211
We need to deal with the current situation now, not the historical one.

My point is that in the current situation, no one, regardless of who they are, should be given a free pass to smuggle bombs.

If an area needs to be secured, searching only Middle Easterners ain't going to cut it.

Five pounds of Semtex, a vial of anthrax or an ampule of nerve gas, whether carried by an Arab, a six-year-old Norwegian or an 80-year-old Caucasian grandmother, is still as deadly, and a person doesn't have to intend to carry a bomb to be carrying one.

Ostracizing ethnic groups will not make anyone safer. Focusing on keeping deadly weapons out of critical areas will.