In the featured article at FrontPage this morning I explain why profiling is necessary, albeit imperfect (news links in the original):
To profile or not to profile? Some recent suspicious incidents involving mass purchase of cell phones by Middle Eastern men have given this debate a new urgency.On Tuesday, terrorism charges were dropped against two Muslims from Dearborn, Michigan, who had been arrested in Ohio. Ali Houssaiky and Osama Sabhi Abulhassan had been stopped for a traffic violation a week before; in their car, sheriff’s deputies found $11,000 in cash, airline passenger lists, material about airport security procedures, and twelve cell phones. It turned out that they had bought 600 cell phones recently.
Cell phones can be used as detonators. They’re also a ready means of non-traceable communication, as well as an easy source of ready cash, as they can be resold to people who don’t want their calls traceable. There have been several other strange incidents involving mass purchase of such phones recently: three Palestinians were recently arrested in Texas with 1,000 cell phones in their van, and there was another incident involving “Middle Eastern men” buying cell phones in large quantities in Tucson, Arizona.These incidents, especially all coming around the same time, are extremely suspicious, but even before prosecutors dropped the terror charges against Houssaiky and Abulhassan, charges of racial profiling began surfacing in the mainstream media. A public defender handling Abulhassan’s case, Ray Smith, said of his client at a hearing: “If his name was Joe Smith, we wouldn’t be here. His origin and appearance and name condition us to (think), ‘Oh my gosh, he’s a terrorist.’” The dropping of the charges will only reinforce this impression, despite the fact that many questions remain about the case and Washington County, Ohio Prosecutor James Schneider said that he still might press terrorism-related charges against the pair. According to AP, “Relatives of the men said they were just trying to make money by reselling the phones and were targeted because of their Arab backgrounds.”
It is unclear, however, what those who are charging that racial profiling was a factor in the arrest of Houssaiky and Abulhassan would have preferred to have happened. The facts of the case remain that they had lists of airline passengers, information on airport security, a large amount of cash, and instruments capable of being used as detonators. I hope that in such circumstances – given the fact that jihad terrorists have abundantly established their taste for targeting airplanes -- investigators would have looked into the possibility of terrorism even if Houssaiky and Abulhassan had been two Norwegian grandmothers.
But the fact that they are two young Muslim men makes this not an option, but a necessity. For however unpleasant or politically inconvenient a fact it may be, young Muslim males are responsible for the overwhelming majority of terrorist violence around the world today. Since 9/11 Islamic jihadists have perpetrated well over five thousand terror attacks; no other group even comes close. Sane and courageous law enforcement officials will therefore subject young Muslim males to greater scrutiny, within the bounds of the law – and political correctness can take the hindmost.
Profiling, of course, is an imperfect tool, however useful it may be. Islam is not a race, and neither is the jihad. Adherents of the jihad ideology can be found among all races: as John Walker Lindh, Jose Padilla, Richard Reid, Ismail Royer, and Hasan Akbar can attest. All those men have in common is that they are converts to Islam – a phenomenon that doesn’t necessarily have any outward signs. In fact, a recently discovered Al-Qaeda manual directs jihadists to adopt a Western secular appearance, and to eschew any outward manifestation of Islamic faith, precisely in order to divert suspicion: “Have a general appearance that does not indicate Islamic orientation (beard, toothpick, book, [long] shirt, small Koran)....Be careful not to mention the brothers’ common expressions or show their behaviors (special praying appearance, ‘may Allah reward you’, ‘peace be on you’ while arriving and departing, etc.)...Avoid visiting famous Islamic places (mosques, libraries, Islamic fairs, etc.).” Likewise, the recent terror arrests in Britain, which included a pregnant woman, demonstrate that not all jihad terrorists are men, either.
Nonetheless, the fact remains that young Middle Eastern males have committed a disproportionate amount of violent terror attacks in recent years. Although Islamic jihad supremacism is an ideology, not a race, more Middle Eastern males hold to it than do members of other groups. Accordingly, it is simply a waste of resources to subject all airline passengers, from grandmothers to toddlers, to equal scrutiny, while refusing to spend more time investigating passengers who come from the group from which most terrorists spring nowadays.
This is not a question of civil liberties. No one is arguing for the rounding-up of people who are just going about their business. If, however, the police see anything suspicious, as they did in the car of Houssaiky and Abulhassan, they have a right and a duty to check it out, and should be able to do so freely, without worrying about hurting feelings or incurring internal affairs investigations for politically incorrect practices. And it is still true that in a free society, people who are not breaking the law will have nothing to worry about.
After the uncovering of the recent jihadist airplane plot in Britain, British officials have begun moving toward this. However, politically this is an explosive issue: a British source said that the British Department for Transport “is ultra-sensitive about this and won’t say anything publicly because of political concerns about being accused of racial stereotyping.” And predictably, once a report was printed about this in the Times of London, Metropolitan Police Chief Superintendent Ali Desai declared: “What you are suggesting is that we should have a new offence in this country called ‘traveling whilst Asian.’ What we don’t want to do is actually alienate the very communities who are going to help us catch terrorists.” And of course, we don’t want to do that. But those communities themselves have to take responsibility for the fact that jihadists have lived and recruited and plotted in their midst, generally with no fear that their coreligionists would turn them in. While Muslim tipsters helped expose the latest airplane hijacking plot, and that is highly commendable, all too often the wrath of the Muslim communities in America and Britain has been focused on anti-terror efforts and the foreign policy of their governments – when what is needed instead is an understanding of and tolerance for the need for profiling. But Muhammad Abdul Bari of the Muslim Council of Britain doesn’t think profiling is worth doing anyway: “If the profiling is done on the basis of race and religion, it will be wrong, it is not going to work.”
Why not? All the September 11 hijackers were Muslims. So were the July 7 London bombers. And the Madrid train bombers of March 2004. And on and on. All the plotters in the recent international airplane hijacking attempt are Muslims. All were working on the basis of Islamic theology. Why must officials continue not to notice this? To ignore this is to give up voluntarily the one thing that may make it possible to spot the perpetrators of a terror attack before it happens, and head it off. In other words, it is suicidal.
Ban them from flying.
How to tell if they are really muslim...? Say something derisive about allhaha. Have a reaction index pre-defined. Based upon reaction there is reason to suspect them as muslim, hence unfit for flying privileges. or boating, or crossing national borders.. in short stop them dead in their tracks from travelling. Mobility seems to be a large component of Islamic-style cowardice initiatives.
That's right PRIVILEGES. There is no law that says they have the right to fly. These are private airlines, and they should act appropriately to protect their assets.
“If his name was Joe Smith, we wouldn’t be here. "
How many "Joe Smiths" have your read about carrying suicide belts, blowing up airplanes, buildings or cars?
Ali and Osama,,,hmmmmm, how many Ali's or Osama"S could you find in recent history related to terror and death?
It is better to prevent the hostile act than to investigate the hostile act after the fact.
Profile now and do it openly.
Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you.
As for those who are slain in the cause of Allah, He will not allow their works to perish. He will vouchsafe them guidance and ennoble their state; He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them. - 10:4-15
Rational people who end up being searched will recognize that, they too, are being protected. Those who protest should be watched.
That this article even had to be written fills one with foreboding. Those whose duty it is to protect and instruct us have failed all over the Western world. Why couldn't the common sense expressed by the article be the common sense expressed by former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, who instead of demanding such ideological profiling, threatened to resign if such a sensible step were to be taken? Why couldn't someone in Congress -- preferably a Democrat known as a liberal -- utter the same views, and even, if he wished, attack the Administration for its pusillanimity? Why shouldn't columnists, pundits and pandits, on talking-head shows, insist that such ideological profiling makes perfect sense, is completely justified by the facts, and that the very idea that this kind of profiling, that has a direct effect on our collective security, on the saving of lives, should be forbidden, or engaged in furtively, shamefacedly, is ridiculous.
There is a limit to how much nonsense from those who presume to guide us we will all take. There they sit and from on high, in the editorial boards of such newspapers as The Bandar Beacon and The New Duranty Times, or in columns, presume to tell us what we must do, and what we under no conditions must not do, in order to make our own lives and civilizational legacy more secure. They live in a world of abstraction. They refuse to see what is so different about the promptings, the scope, the full menace of Jihad. They refuse to see what has happened all over the world, wherever Muslims in large numbers have arrived to settle in the Lands of the Infidels, deep behind what Muslms themselves are taught to regard as enemy lines. They refuse to recognize that terrorism, used as one instrument among many to further the goals of Jihad, is transforming our lives and that this transformation is but one aspect of this unprecedented situation, in which one civliization allows into its midst those who bear not merely an alien ideology, but an alien and hostile ideology, an ideology undeclared in the mental baggage as that new arrival passes through customs.
The large-scale Muslim presence, within Infidel countries, has already made the lives of the Infidels in those countries (including non-Muslim immigrants who may have arrived in order to escape a Muslim threat to them in whatever country they left) far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous than they woudl otherwise be. To ignore this, to ignore the well-financed campaigns of Da'wa targetted at the captive audiences (in prisons) or the naive (in colleges), or the economically or socially marginal to be found everywhere, to ignore the uses to which part of that ten trillion dollars received by Arab and Muslim members of OPEC since 1973 has been put, or the likely effect of the nearly one trillion dollars those states will receive this year, and then next year, and then for many years to come, as they buy up large blocs of shares in media companies, or expand their mosque-and-madrasa building, or fund such groups Hizb-e-Tahrir and Jamaat Tablighi, to spread Islam all over the world, to acquire still more and more recruits to the army of Islam, and of course to increase as well that other army, the army of Western hirelings -- former diplomats, former intelligence agents, journalists, public relations advisers, businessmen eager to do whatever it takes to please those who might then give, or renew, a fat contract, academics with their Arab-funded "Centers" for Thisandthat, throttling whenever they can the uninhibited and truthful study of Islam and the Middle East, in the way that Western scholars were once permitted to study those subjects in the golden age, between 1880 and 1960, before MESA Nostra, its ranks filled with Muslim defenders of the faith and their non-Muslim collaborators, effectively took over, in this country, the teaching and much of the scholarship about Islam.
Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the famous Sunni popular preacher (television shows, books, the works) provides a famous handbook for Muslims as to what is Halal and what is Haram. In the same way, the elites -- the ruling classes in the Western world -- whether in their own government bureaucracies, or rising high at the E.U. or the U.N. or in the press, or on radio or television, presumes to tell us, the non-Muslims trying to rescue our own societies and ourselves, what is politically halal and what haram. They command us to do some things: win hearts, win minds, accept as an article of faith the unexamined notion of the "moderate Muslim" and of the "moderate Muslim majority," engage in "dialogues" so as to "avoid a clash of civilizations," and forbid us to other things: to question the usefulness of the ill-defined concept of the "moderate Muslim"; to question the sincerity of Muslims in their presentation of what they claim are the tenets of their faith; to investigate the history of Jihad-conquest; to investigate the treatment of non-Muslims under Muslm rule, over 1350 years; to wonder if Muslims, who are themselves taught to offer their loyalty only to fellow members of the umma al-islamiyya, wherever those fellow Muslims might be, can possibly be loyal members of an Infidel nation-state, the principles of which, express as in the American Constitution, or as implied by the manners and customs of the Infidels in that nation-state (we encourage free and skeptical inquiry, we encourage and protect the autonomy of the individual), are flatly contradicted by the principles and worldview emobodied in the Shari'a, the Holy Law of Islam.
So there we are, forced to make our own study, forced against the little al-qaradawis all about us, ensonced in the government and its bureaucracies, and in the broadcasting industry, and in in departments of Middle Eastern studies, and in assorted think tanks, and of course sitting smuglly on the editorial boards of The New Duranty Times and The Bandar Beacon, telling us, all of us, you and me and everyone we know, what is Halal and what Haram, when it comes to discussing, or even to thinking about, Islam.
How about we take samples from two populations such as muslims and non-muslims comparing the proportion of each that was arrested for terrorism.
Lets assume as our null hypothesis that the arrests for both sames for terrorism is the same, in otherwords:
Ho: u1 = u2
u1 is the sample proportion of muslims arrested for terrorism; u2 is the sample proportion of non-muslims arrested for terrorism.
That means that our alternative hypothesis would be:
Ha : u1 > u2 and adapt a confidence level of 99% making our rejection region 1%
Lets get the data of say, 1000 arrests for each sample from both populations (make the samples simple random samples) and lets see what we can scientifically come up with!
We have all heard it before, what about my human rights? You can't do this..you can't do that!
It's about time the Muslim community stands up and admits they have a problem and take on the responsibilities and help CORRECT this cancer that is consuming our society. If not, kick the jihadists and their supporters out of the country they live in!
As regard to the profiling..Perhaps every other person should pack a pork chop as carry on luggage in a see through plastic bag. That way when the jihadists board, they will think twice about blowing themselves up.
Hugh,
Your comments remind me of the value and power of doing needed internet websearch when it comes to finding out the real truth about what we are facing.
I can't believe the charges were dropped. 600 cell phones AND airline passenger lists AND $10,000 cash AND material on airport security... ???? It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure this one out. Bizarre.
Profiling on the basis of religion is hard since most security people won't be able to tell the person's religion. Bear in mind that 70% of the Arabs living in the U.S. are Christian (for instance). Not to mention the inability of security personnel to distinguish between an Indian and an Arab..
On a lighter note:
http://thefalafeldiaries.blogspot.com/2006/08/open-letter-to-airport-security.html
I appologize for the multiple postings :(
My browser screwed up..
"Why shouldn't columnists, pundits and pandits, on talking-head shows, insist that such ideological profiling makes perfect sense,
"
O'rielly on fox said just that thing this morning - I am watching it from Europe and it was like a breath of freash air to hear it said on the box - no chance of any of the cowards here in Europe saying it though - I am seriously thinking of moving to the US - most of my extended familly are there already and most of my ancestors descendents too - I thinked Europe is F****ed
Has anyone heard a 'reasonable' explanation or ANY explanation for that matter on WHY and HOW these MUSLIMS had airline passenger lists? GEESH! Just TRY finding out who is on a flight. Just call an airline and TRY! You can hardly find out if YOU are on a list! So how in the hell did they get the passenger lists?
So they were just trying to make a profit on the cell phones then? What C.R.A.P.
And the airline passenger lists?????????????
The Goobs; Share your frustration. Why doesn't the IRS get on these guys for taxes on their 'profits'?
I can tell you stories about being a week late making a payment to employment security.
I've heard (but don't know) that laws were enacted to go after the Aryan Brotherhood in Idaho. What are these laws, and can they be used against all supremecy groups?
I have read scores of reports about our
newest enterpreneurs, the cell phone kings, and
have not seen one in which the reporter deemed
it necessary to mention their immigration status.
Are we talking green cards here? student visas?
or up the Arab highway into Arizona?
Just curious..........
Robert-
I agree that profiling by ethnicity makes sense and we should cease being hypocritical about who is likely to be a jihadist. If we are looking for a Mafia Don, we don't profile for a Swedish guy with a Swedish accent or focus our attention on a troop of yodelers from the Swiss Alps.
Part of the reason why there is such an outcry against profiling (from CAIR propagandists, e.g.)is that it causes Infidels to the name the enemy. The jihadists and their enablers know that we empower the Islamic-fascist-Rumplestiltskin by not calling him by name.
However, that being said, we must be cautious on the matter. For example, in the early years of his career, the Mafia Don John Gotti often used Irish hit-men from the "Westies" Gang when he killed his enemies-and for awhile that worked-until other Mafia families realized that a Gotti hit-man might have a brogue and look more like JFK than look like Clemenza ("Leave the gun. Take the cannoli") from the Godfather movie.
Profiling makes sense, but it also makes sense to be doubly cautious re those who do not fit the profile when looking for Islamic fascists.
The Goobs:
WXYZ reported: "According to Ali’s brother, Mohamad Houssaiky, the car the two men were in belongs to Ali’s mother who works for Aircraft Service International Group at Metro Airport and the paper work reportedly belonged to her. She was training so she had to do a training list with the bookings and checkings for passengers, he said." (From http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005701.htm )
Benjamin:
With what do you charge someone when they have a lot of money on them, and buy a lot of merchandise? The police can tail people for a bit in the hopes they break a traffic law but not much more.
I have not found additional info yet but I heard on the news that the two are being brought up on money laundering charges. If the threats Debbie Schlussel recieved from one of their relatives is any indicator, this could actually lead somewhere useful.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/08/bassem_abulhass.html
-XRDC
"For however unpleasant or politically inconvenient a fact it may be, young Muslim males are responsible for the overwhelming majority of terrorist violence around the world today."-Robert.
Absolutely. We must name and identify Rumplestiltskin, as we exercise caution re Rumplestiltskin's somtimes different appearance and sometimes friendly attitude to his intended victim.
Profiling would work best of all if there is widespread belief that it is not being used. I hope the DoT's protestations are a cover... but I doubt it.
YankinGermany-
Re: "Has anyone heard a 'reasonable' explanation or ANY explanation for that matter on WHY and HOW these MUSLIMS had airline passenger lists?"
I did not know that. It means there has to be a fox in charge at the henhouse.
My guess: they were going to wire the phones to explode, and had the passenger lists to target buyers. But I don't know that a phone can be an explosive device rather than just a detonator, so I could be wrong.
Speaking of profiling, why didn't the police pick up this John Mark Karr earlier in the slaying of Jon Bonet Ramsey? All they had to do was profile someone with a Mohammed complex
In America, there has been a real stigma associated with profiling, due to the history of cops hassling blacks in what appeared to be disproportionate numbers. This was overt in the South prior to the civil rights movement. And as late as the 1990's, there were the notorious "driving while black" incidents in New Jersey in which more black drivers than the general population were being pulled over by state troopers on drug suspicions. The head of the state police admitted that he thought that blacks were more likely to be drug dealers than whites and therefore more deserving of arrests. (For that attitude, then Governor Christie Whitman fired him.)
Personally, I doubt that the black community in the U.S. will ever accept any form of profiling in America again, given that it's been used against them so often. Instead, they would join forces with the Muslim community to stop it. We already have one ominous coalition of Muslims and Leftists. We don't need to create another ominous coalition of Muslims and blacks. So the right place to start is to try to get the black community on board. But if they say no, then it's no.
Right now, there are perhaps only one million American Muslims of Arab descent, and so they don't have anywhere near as much political power as do the Muslims of Western Europe. But a coalition of American Muslims, Leftists (including many liberals), and American blacks would be very powerful and very hard to turn around. Let's not force those three groups together.
It interesting that 2 weeks ago no one would have guessed that we would be having a serious conversation about profiling. Things can change as they say “In a New York Minute”.
Profile now.
Robert-
The real issue here with CAIR propagandists, jihadist enablers, and jihadists is the fear that Rumpelstiltskin will be called by his name. They know that general caution re Islamic fascists will increase along with any naming and attention given to those more likely to be an Islamic fascists.
Profiling is not really the issue. It's using any specific name that is the issue. Islamic fascists like "terrorist" because it empowers Islamic fascists. They do not want Rumpelstiltskin named-they desperately need to keep his name an open secret.
The issue is about using a specific name-not really about the profile...the open secret..
http://videodetective.com/player.asp?PublishedId=6399&List=575124|127479|96214|605581|880139|468977|632711|968289|157675|280880|851232|449819|714978|725384|279441|414436|878151|572883|770199|118564|159157|794750|561947|235531|702847|757058|10486|782371|170632|297181|337565|599357|416454|561947|757058|338661|314308|539913|554689|322351|493710|880596|301878|856744|367408|366936|575124|386292|329006|720959|856364|876858|615978|869455|211738|536336|82623|88497|418726|522315&Customerid=97135
Interesting article in FrontPageMag today, regarding profiling. It is my thesis -- the "Disappear Doctrine" as it is called on the Dream Theater political/religious forums -- that "targeted profiling is 100% ineffective because targeted profiling is not 100% effective."
They have to be right once. We have to be right 100% of the time.
It all comes down to the 100% failure of pinning down a Muslim extremist by race, which is what Mr. Spencer is proposing (more specifically, he is talking about West and South Asian men).
It cannot be done. Muslim extremists come in all colours. Non-Muslim extremists hate America too -- look at Tim McVeigh.
I invite Mr. Spencer and his readers to check out the discussion on the "Disappear Doctrine" at the Dream Theater political/religious forums (you may be required to sign up and login to join our discussion). Good luck proving us wrong!
http://www.dreamtheater.net/bb/showthread.php?t=116799
-Baghwan aka "Disappear"
(author of the Disappear Doctrine, a robust declamation against targeted profiling)
It's getting hard to post without seeing all the dopelganger posts.
Although all the terrorists are muslim they also have other similarities that could be profiled.
In the UK they should profile anyone boarding a plane that is living on government assistance.
Here in the US we should profile anyone with a student visa.
In the end I believe profiling is a descision that should be made by the people living in the country,not by thier governments.We have a right to protect ourselves.
And in the case of "How would you like it?",as a white christian American I couldn't care less if I was profiled going to another country.
JLP
Is a vaccination against a deadly disease 100% effective? No. Do we still vaccinate ourselves? Yes. Is any safety measure we use 100% Effective? No. It is not about race. Profile all muslims, especially new converts.
John Lee Pedimore,
Yes they can profile me as well, they already give me the once over 3 times.
>>As regard to the profiling..Perhaps every other person should pack a pork chop as carry on luggage in a see through plastic bag. That way when the jihadists board, they will think twice about blowing themselves up.
Posted by: SandMonkey
>>>>
Dear SandMonkey,,
Don't carry a "low tech" pork chop,, get yourself a HIGH TECH,,,,
Infidel's Revenge Pen!!!
check this out,, GRIN!!!
http://www.susbloodlabs.com/
Northeast Intelligence Network,, has endorsed the "exploding pig pen" on their website.
I'm gettin' me a case or two,, BEG!!!!!
It is all about race, in the end -- if you are talking about targeted profiling. Granted, I have a less than optimistic worldview on all major religions and find them dangerous and deadly, but -- hyperbole aside -- it is impossible to determine if someone is a terrorist by looking at them.
Steven L.-
Many Arabs are quite racist re blacks. Once, one my Arab customers was talking to one of his black tenants (very nicely) and then when the black fellow was away from him, the Arab Muslim said to me in sneering way "They are all like children. They are not intelligent." I have been shocked (and offended)-and it's not easy to shock me-by the racism and hypocrisy of some Arab Muslims to black Americans. I think some blacks may sense the supremacist attitude.
I feel angry at such remarks. The black folks may be poor-but they are Americans. I expressed my anger to one Arab on one occasion. Many Arabs have no respect for American black people.
How they must laugh at us. And you know I don't blame them for laughing. It is insanity to act like we don't know who is doing all the acts of terror.
If I were Queen Carolyn II, muslims would be on a slow boat back to the sandbox tomorrow, no more contact at all. Not one nail, piece of paper, parts for satellite dishes, nada....nothing from the infidel world would reach them. I pray that we will get fed up with this game of "pretend the bad guys aren't the bad guys" and it may be the blue-haired lady in the Lark® It is insane.
You can include us Indians in that group, Frank. We are highly racist towards African Americans. Regrettably, it's not just Whites who are racist. It's everyone. I hope you are not singling out Arabs as hypocrites, because as far as I have witnessed, there are racists and hypocrites in all races -- brown, white, black, yellow, etc.
Arabs' penchant for racism should not mean they have less say when it comes to racial profiling. I could make some accusations against modern day Jews as it relates to the Blitzkrieg that you'd probably not like to hear.
Anyways. Hypocrisy is, by large measure, irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Baghwan,
Yes we whites are so racist that we have allowed migration to this country from every country in the world. I never have a problem with any person of color unless they are hostile to whites or anyone else for that matter. People of color walk freely among a majority of whites just about everywhere in the USA. Quit trying to smear us whites by twisting the argument around. You know nothing about the white thought process.
Regarding your accusations against modern day Jews as it relates to the Blitzkrieg, please elaborate.
Allah hu akbar.
Who said I was only calling Caucasians racist?
Let's not get off the topic, please.
Baghwan-
Agree, but I think the issue is not the issue with this supposed objection to "profiling". I think some of the Jihadist enablers want the generic and vague term "terrorist" for that reason. Any profiling will make it clear we are looking at Muslims influenced by the Koran (Bin Laden and others tell us that is the reason).
As per racism, the term is often used in a meaningless way. For example, there really is no such thing as a "white race", there are simply Caucasians with darker (Persians, Arabs, Indian e.g.)or lighter skin (west Europe). The charges of racism often reach the point of absurdity. For example, most Jews and Arabs are not only from the same race, they are both ethnically Semitic. But they are worlds apart in culture and religion. I think a lot of the clashes between groups are essentially cultural. However, no group is immune from ethnocentrism.
There is a big difference between being ethnocentric (favoring my fellow Mc's e.g.-LOL)-favoring one's own group (Indian, Irish, Arab, whatever)-and believing that other groups are "Apes", "Pigs" or subhuman-believing that they are not human. That's over the top. That justifies genocide. That justifies Darfur-or doing Darfur in Israel. I think we would agree on that.
Baghwan-
I've seen some really good looking Indian women who straighten out my toes, and I'm sure you must see some blondes that do the same thing for you. I don't we see them as inferior-LOL...
Baghwan-
I've seen some really good looking Indian women who straighten out my toes, and I'm sure you must see some blondes that do the same thing for you. I don't we see them as inferior-LOL...
I agree with Robert we must profile....here in the UK
special branch and related services are masters of profiling.....its done quietly and efficiently.
Go on two demonstrations of any sort here and you Photograph is logged,turn up on several more and they have a file on you ...if they are politically sensitive rallies then you'd better believe you will be profiled.
However its time they were obviouse about profilling openly at airports etc ....recently while travelling to a major scottish city several cars were being searched on the motorway on ramps ...not one of them were white occuppants. It goes on.. its just not publicised.
Final word: the racism crap re profiling is such nonsense. Without the headdress, a guy like Nasrall looks like a lot of Jewish guys in Brooklyn. But he's an Arab and an Islamic fascist. Types like him don't want us to call him what what he is and look for him based on what he is: a genocidal Arab Islamist fascist who wants to kill Jews and other Infidels.
Mike Savage says a lot of these guys (Nasralla, e.g.)look like Jewish dentists from Queens.-LOL That's funny-and there is some truth in what Mike says.
http://www.milligazette.com/image2003/2004/99_Hizbullah-Hasan-Nasralla.jpg
http://www.14march.org/Admin/images/news_images/nasralla.jpg
Final word: the racism crap re profiling is such nonsense. Without the headdress, a guy like Nasrall looks like a lot of Jewish guys in Brooklyn. But he's an Arab and an Islamic fascist. Types like him don't want us to call him what what he is and look for him based on what he is: a genocidal Arab Islamist fascist who wants to kill Jews and other Infidels.
Mike Savage says a lot of these guys (Nasralla, e.g.)look like Jewish dentists from Queens.-LOL That's funny-and there is some truth in what Mike says.
http://www.milligazette.com/image2003/2004/99_Hizbullah-Hasan-Nasralla.jpg
http://www.14march.org/Admin/images/news_images/nasralla.jpg
My daughter recently returned to Australia. At the airport she was approached by a security man who asked her if she would agree to be subjected to a security search. She said he was very polite and even somewhat uncomfortable.
One can easily understand why she would look like a security threat. She is an Australian citizen, born in Australia, fair skin and blond, Anglo-Saxon name. In short – your typical terrorist.
While searching the luggage, the man apologetically told her in a quite voice that he has to search a western looking woman out of every 10 persons he searches. He knew he was doing a stupid thing, but that was something he was instructed to do by his PC superiors.
There was no other reason for his action as to make Mahmuds, Fatimas and Muhamads not to feel “discriminated” against them.
Where is our dignity? It is not only the people, who ordered him to do what he is doing. It is not only he, who follows orders. IT IS US, who by subjecting to that stupidity must share all the blame, we address to politicians, journalists, “professors” and so on. BBC and CNN are getting away with muslims propaganda because we keep the ratings. The same with the newspapers. I would like to know what each of us has done to fight jihad on personal level.
Robert Spencer tries to take the high road on "racism".
Spencer has repeatedly made comments on Jihad Watch (shared by most of the participants in the Comments sections there) to the effect that, because "Islam is not a race, it is an ideology" (true enough by itself), one must therefore apparently conclude that race should not be a factor in our self-defensive tactics and strategies (most notably profiling) against Islamic Jihadists.
While the premise is correct, the conclusion is flawed.
Consider this statement by Spencer in this article today:
"I hope that in such circumstances [the two possible suspects having suspicious items in their possession] ...investigators would have looked into the possibility of terrorism even if Houssaiky and Abulhassan had been two Norwegian grandmothers."
Spencer's comment here reveals a rather large blind spot in his rationale: frequently law enforcement don't have the luxury of knowing what is in the possession of a possible suspect. The whole point of profiling is that it is sometimes necessary to employ in the absence of knowing what is in that suitcase, what is in that car, what is in that thermos, etc.
I.e., what profiling means in our present dangerous situation is that our law enforcement personnel should have the freedom and right to -- for example -- stop and search cars driven by young males who look like they could be Muslims, and more or less avoid cars driven by people who look like the Golden Girls or Robert Redford or Carrot Top -- and this cannot avoid integrating racial factors. Of course, it will have certain unavoidable flaws -- many non-Muslims who are Middle Eastern, or from southern Italy or Spain, or even Hispanics, will be inconvenienced. But it will have fewer flaws than a methodology that tries valiantly to be race-blind.
A later quote from Spencer reveals the same blind spot:
"If, however, the police see anything suspicious, as they did in the car of Houssaiky and Abulhassan, they have a right and a duty to check it out..."
Spencer's "if" here would limit police from possibly preventing innumerable terrorist attacks, since Spencer would not allow police to do anything unless they "see anything suspicious" about this or that Muslim.
Spencer is pussyfooting around the exigency of the issue. The mere fact of looking like a Muslim should be suspicious enough, and offer probable cause for search and then, pending more incriminating evidence, further actions.
Spencer's oft-repeated fact that there have been a handful of terrorists who are white and Western is patently misleading: his use of this fact -- to take the high road again -- ignores the corollary fact that profiling is a rational process that is all about degrees. Therefore, if, say, out of 100 terrorists, 10 were white Westerners and the remaining 90 were Arabs and other non-white ethnic subgroups of the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia, it would only make rational sense in our profiling methodology to allocate 90% of our resources and attention to non-white non-Westerners (in the absence, of course, of knowing whether they are Muslim), and 10% to white Westerners. But Spencer, apparently, would want to equalize that ratio, and that is simply irrational because it ignores preponderant degrees in the field of data which profiling must base itself upon.
See my 2-part essay on my blog, The Hesperado, where I analyze this entire issue at length:
Racial Profiling and the Problem of Islam, Part One
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2006/07/racial-profiling-and-problem-of-islam.html
Racial Profiling and the Problem of Islam, Part Two
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2006/07/racial-profilingpart-two.html
P.S.: Ann Coulter, as usual, is refreshingly blunt and spot-on about this issue: in her article today in frontpage, she writes:
"This terrorist plot [the UK one] -– like all other terrorist plots -– was stopped by ethnic profiling."
How refreshing!
Although profiling is an excellent idea, the most significant thing that the developed nations can do to protect themselves from Islamic terrorism is to outlaw Islam itself. Islam's doctrines are the wellspring of all Islamic acts of terrorism. Until we rid ourselves of this offending ideology, the western democracies and their like are basically putting a bandaid on cancer by applying profiling and other supposedly safeguarding public policies.
With no Muslims to ban from flying and search everywhere for explosives and assorted weapons, the likelihood of terrorist acts occurring in the western democracies will drop as dramatically as it has risen over the last generation.
Islam is violence. Let us rid ourselves of it!
In a National Post editorial the other day a wise comment was made re. airport security profiling: "It's not the job of airport security personnel to make people feel good about themselves; it's their job to ensure that they get to their desitinations safely." Perhaps this comment should be posted at every airport security check as a reminder to whinging passengers who complain about hurt feelings. It reminds me, unpleasantly, of all the crybabies following the October Crisis in Canada in 1970. (I was actually only 7 at the time but I've been force-fed the bleeding-heart left-liberal version of the event for the subsequent three decades): "I had to view the unpleasant sight of armed soldiers on the street!" "I was suspected of being a terrorist!" "I was arrested and held in a police station for two whole days! Oh, the humiliation, the pain!" Shut up.
Baghwan writes:
Now that issue is a a total red herring. We're not here to discuss the isolated nutcase like the Unabomber or Timothy McVeigh or serial killers. We're trying to find a way to stop Islamic jihadists. If that method is ineffective against stopping the isolated nutcases, we'll find other methods against them.
But right now, the danger from Islamic jihadists dwarfs the combined body count from all these non-jihadist terrorists combined. And that's the threat we need to worry about.
So let's not discuss whether profiling will stop non-jihadist terrorists. Let's just discuss whether it can stop jihadist terrorists.
There are over one million Black Muslims in America--remember Mohammed Ali and Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam?
Even if we could find some magic way to profile all Muslims, that means were are necessarily going to be subjecting all these Black Muslims to special treatment. I'm willing to bet you that's going to be a non-starter with nearly every black leader in this country.
Last night, on The O'Reilly Factor, a Hispanic guest said profiling won't go over too well with the Latino community either.
So I come back to my previous point: No profiling scheme will be politically acceptable (let alone effective) unless it has at least the tacit consent of the Black and Hispanic communities. That's especially important for a Republican Administration that wasn't elected with their support anyway. To ram such a policy through over the objections of these minority groups would cause it to fail--it would take all of about a week for these groups to challenge it in the courts.
Aren't quite a lot of Muslims 100 percent caucasion-looking? Light skin, hair, and eyes? Do we think their whiteness makes them any less likely to be murderous fanatics? If the root cause is the religion, not the race, then yes, there is a slight problem there with racial/ethnic profiling. I don't claim to know what the percentage is of Muslims who could be considered white or caucasion, but I've seen many pictures of people in Afghanistan whose colouring and facial features are as typically "European" as any European's. Such a person, if he or she became a terrorist, could blend in very easily. And let's not forget those Westerners (usually women) who marry fanatical Muslim men and covert to their fanatical ways. One of the faithful wives of the 17 men recently charged in Canada with planning terrorist attacks is from an Irish-Scottish Canadian community in the Atlantic provinces. I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that she could be convinced to don the clothes of a Western whore, slap on a little makeup, step into some high heels, and carry a bomb on a plane. And then finally, there are the John Walker Lindhs. I'm not saying there isn't some sense to the idea of racial/ethnic profiling, but we also need to keep in mind the variables.
"the most significant thing that the developed nations can do to protect themselves from Islamic terrorism is to outlaw Islam itself"
If implementing profiling will be an extremely difficult uphill battle because of dominant PC Multiculturalism, then trying to outlaw Islam itself will be virtually impossible.
alert-up-usa writes:
FALSE. Right now there are both laws and a body of court case law that says it's illegal to discriminate against providing such services because of one's race, religion or creed. For example, if you own a restaurant, you can't ban Muslim customers from it on general policy. If you own an apartment building, you cannot refuse to rent an apartment to a Muslim. All that happened long ago, when "whites-only" public facilities in the South were banned.
"Aren't quite a lot of Muslims 100 percent caucasion-looking? Light skin, hair, and eyes?"
Any rational profiling methodology works with degrees and percentages.
Therefore, whatever the percentages breakddown of white (and Western) Muslims is, our profiling should reflect that particular statistical degree -- but no more.
So, if say 10% of the world's Muslims are (and/or look) white, then our profiling methodology should devote 10% of its resources and attention to the white Muslim factor -- but no more than 10%.
Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Television:
Apparently, you missed this paragraph of my article:
Cordially
Robert Spencer
tgusa-
Baghwan is making the very valid observation that racism is not confined to "whites". He is absolutely right.
I define "racism" as the belief that another race (Negro, Oriental, etc.) or ethnic group is inferior to another. On that basis, I don't think most people (especially in the US) are racist. I think a lot of people tend to be ethnocentric and feel more comfortable with people from their own ethnic group-culture-religion, but that's not racism (and for first generation immigrants it's not unusual in America). In America, where the pressure to assimilate is powerful, it's even hard not to be ethnocentric.
At one time Little Italy (1950-lower East side in NY) was a 20 X 20 block area of Italians (mostly from Italy). It was so densely populated that it had its own congressman (Marc Antonio). Today "Little Italy" is a few blocks of restaurants. All the descendants of the Italians who lived there are all over America. Ethnic enclaves don't last long in America. The pressure to assimilate-to learn English, get education, and be part of the whole picture is very powerful in America.
In any case B is right that no group are angels. I think that in one way or other we (humans) all stink. I think that's the real problem.
p.s.
tgusa-
I once worked for a manager who used to say to me "Frank, RTFQ" or "Frank, RTFA"-It meant Read the F***ing question, or read the answer. It was good advice. We have look carefully at what's being asked or answered.
tgusa-
Baghwan is making the very valid observation that racism is not confined to "whites". He is absolutely right.
I define "racism" as the belief that another race (Negro, Oriental, etc.) or ethnic group is inferior to another. On that basis, I don't think most people (especially in the US) are racist. I think a lot of people tend to be ethnocentric and feel more comfortable with people from their own ethnic group-culture-religion, but that's not racism (and for first generation immigrants it's not unusual in America). In America, where the pressure to assimilate is powerful, it's even hard not to be ethnocentric.
At one time Little Italy (1950-lower East side in NY) was a 20 X 20 block area of Italians (mostly from Italy). It was so densely populated that it had its own congressman (Marc Antonio). Today "Little Italy" is a few blocks of restaurants. All the descendants of the Italians who lived there are all over America. Ethnic enclaves don't last long in America. The pressure to assimilate-to learn English, get education, and be part of the whole picture is very powerful in America.
In any case B is right that no group are angels. I think that in one way or other we (humans) all stink. I think that's the real problem.
p.s.
tgusa-
I once worked for a manager who used to say to me "Frank, RTFQ" or "Frank, RTFA"-It meant Read the F***ing question, or read the answer. It was good advice. We have look carefully at what's being asked or answered.
Spencer's corrective quote has its merits, although the delimitation of "Middle Eastern" would exclude two other groups who are far more common in Islam than the still minuscule proportion of whites: Southeast Asians and Africans. "Middle Eastern" (as long as that include Pakistan) is the most dominant, so, according to a rational profiling methodology, it should be accorded the highest quantitative priority; however, the next highest priority should be SE Asians, closely followed by Africans (North and Central). At the very bottom of our priorities should be white converts and Central Asiatics who look like Theodore Bikel or Yul Brynner or -- on a good day -- Mandy Patinkin with a heavy beard.
I think this airline plot was wonderful in that it is forcing PC England to think the unthinkable - namely that muslims are a unique problem.
What is happening now is two immovable forces colliding. One is the PC axiom that muslims are not a problem. The other is the air transport system, now bogged down because of said muslims.
The air transport system is just as sacrosanct as our PC beliefs. Our society can not function without an efficient air transport system and the muslims are slowing it down to a crawl in their threat to bring it down altogether.
The only way to save the air transport sytem is to start profiling passengers for race and religion, and even that of course will prove to be not enough. Eventually, when the next plot to destroy 10 planes is successful, muslims will find it hard to pass through security at all.
So wonderful. The world becomes clearer every day. as the antics of these people force even the most dim witted PC elite in our western socities to wake up - if for no higher reason that simply keeping the air transport system functioning, and, by extension, our modern society.
Frank,
Your post,
Many Arabs are quite racist re blacks. Once, one my Arab customers was talking to one of his black tenants (very nicely) and then when the black fellow was away from him, the Arab Muslim said to me in sneering way "They are all like children. They are not intelligent." I have been shocked (and offended)-and it's not easy to shock me-by the racism and hypocrisy of some Arab Muslims to black Americans. I think some blacks may sense the supremacist attitude.
Posted by: Frank at August 17, 2006 12:06 PM
And his response,
You can include us Indians in that group, Frank. We are highly racist towards African Americans. Regrettably, it's not just Whites who are racist. It's everyone. I hope you are not singling out Arabs as hypocrites, because as far as I have witnessed, there are racists and hypocrites in all races -- brown, white, black, yellow, etc.
Posted by: Baghwan at August 17, 2006 12:26 PM
I don’t comment on the racism of Indians, maybe I would if I were an Indian. I don’t appreciate a post that was about muslim on Black racism turned into, “Regrettably, it's not just Whites who are racist”. You may not care but I do. He may be “highly racist” but I and most of my friends don’t consider ourselves to be anything like that. I never did get an answer to my question…
Regarding your accusations against modern day Jews as it relates to the Blitzkrieg,please elaborate.
It cannot be done. Muslim extremists come in all colours. Non-Muslim extremists hate America too -- look at Tim McVeigh.
Posted by Baghwan
Good grief, give the pathetic McVeigh argument a rest! He is a singular, isolated case of a homegrown, non-muslim "terrorist."
Where is the equivalency in one isolated, albeit horrific, incident compared to the THOUSANDS of terrorist attacks committed by rabid muslim savages?!!!
Sure, plenty of people hate America and that's just too effing bad, but it is rare for extremists of any variety, except muslims, to actuate that hatred through violence. Nasty lies, propaganda peddling, and the exchange of ridiculous conspiracy theories are usually sufficient. Muslims collectively suffer from various forms of psychosis induced by islam, and are unable to function in civilized societies. Notorious for their lack of self-control, especially their sexual urges; delusions of superiority; and lured by promises of eternal sex orgies in paradise, muslims are the obvious terrorist culprits and they should be banned from boarding planes. That will take care of any profiling issues.
Robert,
Glad that you are doing this good thing i mean JW as ppl here popularly call this site.
I am from India.
I am reading JW for the past year.I was tired of just reading and signed in to post some myself now as i am equipped with firsthad terror as im in india.Let me tell you that it has completely cleared the doubts that islam sucks and should be annihilated if humanity is ti exist.
also glad to know that u r a catholic
.
I am a born again catholic. (just a digress)
Also glad an indian (arujun.sevak) is making posts here. looks like indians are picking up to confront this global threat.
look forward to posting on this site.
From Neal Boortz, who give us this gem:
LETTING THE FOX INTO THE HENHOUSE
This is so outrageous it's almost not believable. Back in June, the Department of Homeland Security took CAIR...the Council on American-Islamic Relations. No, your eyes do not deceive you. That's exactly what they did.
So what did the CAIR folks get to see on their tour? It was a terrorist's dream. They got to see screening procedures, interview rooms and a rundown on the passenger lookout system. The people conducting the tour, always desperate for the politically correct approval of the enemy, assured CAIR that Muslims weren't singled out for special screening. We're sure our friends at Al-Qaeda headquarters are pleased.
So who is CAIR and why should we be concerned? CAIR is an offshoot of the Islamic Association for Palestine, a front group for Hamas. A number of people in CAIR management have been convicted on terrorism charges. That explains why CAIR gives no more than lip service to any condemnation of terrorism. But hey.....they sure are happy that airport screeners at O'Hare undergo Muslim sensitivity training.
All of this further supports the assertion that airport security is a joke and we're sitting ducks for another attack. We know who the enemy is, yet we refuse to do anything about it, for fear of offending anyone. And that's why 3,000 people died on 9/11. We will let it happen again? It sure seems like it.
Please read the article from the link below, It seems I am living within an hours drive of a terrorists training camp. I find it very disturbing. The authorities will not investigate, probally for fear of being accused of profiling or some other crime against political correctness.
The second link is to the acutal web page of the camp called Islamberg. They paint such a peaceful picture of their lovely little encampment.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48868
http://islamberg.org/index.html
So that was the news item I overheard some mush-headed liberal ranting about yesterday while I was waiting for my sandwich. "It's profiling! It's just WRONG! Everyone should be treated the same!" "It's as bad as when Japanese-Canadians were interned during the war!" While the authorities hadn't even confirmed yet
whether the woman was carrying a potential explosive device. Didn't matter that dogs had sniffed out something suspicious in her bags, didn't matter that the silly b***h should have known damn well she wasn't allowed to carry a bottle of water on the plane. No,all that mattered was that she was a Muslim in a
headscarf, and therefore the fact that she was
detained - that the security staff DID THEIR JOB, in other words - constituted an unacceptable act of racism.
Pity I didn't have more background at the time, or I would have challenged her on a few things, always an enjoyable pasttime when one is waiting for one's lunch.
Eg. re. profiling: "Lady, profiling should have
started in 1968 or thereabouts, when Islamic
terrorists first started using civilian aircraft to achieve their political goas. Maybe then we wouldn't be swimming in the s**t that we're in now."
Re. "It's wrong": "Detaining people and delaying
flights is annoying and inconvenient. Blowing up
hundreds of innocent people is wrong."
Re. "Everyone should be treated the same" : "Everyone isn't a terrorist, in case you hadn't noticed."
Re. the equation with the Japanese-Canadian internment - that REALLY raised my hackles. I should have said something about that regardless, like, "A, those people (who did NOT go about inciting hatred against Canada, openly supporting the actions of the Japanese military, and aggressively refusing to adapt to Canadian ways and integrate into mainstream society, unlike certain immigrant groups we could mention
now)were forcably re-located, were denied basic rights as citizens, deprived of healthcare and education, and lost their homes, jobs, and property. I think that hardly compares to being held up at an airport. Hurt feelings and annoyance are not comparable with ruined lives. And B, it's very easy for us to take the moral high ground and trash the decisions made by a previous generation who are no longer around to defend or explain themselves. It makes us feel very smug and superior to those racist barbarians, while we conveniently forget the fact that they were fighting a defensive war and had been put into a position of making life or death decisions - not just their own lives, but the lives of millions - something we spoiled brats of the post-war generations know nothing about. Yes, some of those decisions turned out to be wrong, but how do we know we wouldn't have done the same thing, in their situation?"
But then, smugness and moral superiority are a common affliction in my affluent, sheltered community of short-sighted nitwits. How easy it is to be tolerant, and to bask in the virtuous feeling that goes with it, when nobody around you ever does anything really intolerable. It's a different story out there in the real world, people.