How do you feel about it? I just read an article about a Muslim pilot (originally from Pakistan, naturalized in 1980) that was put on a terrorist watch list, and subsequently banned from flying. He sued and was reinstated

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080902/ap_on_re_us/pilot_watch_list

On the one hand, I think it's a shame that innocent citizens may be caught up in a natural security net. On the other hand, if Muslim terrorists were responsible for the most devestating terrorist attack, executed via commercial airplanes, it would be utterly idiotic to not consider a Muslim pilot from Pakistan a potential threat (not to say that the individual is inclined to be a terrorist, but logically, given that Muslims (radicals, but Muslims, nonetheless) are targetting us, you're more likely to find the enemy among Muslims). If black Americans were reponsible for such an attack, I would expect such profiling against black Americans. If evangelical Christians were responsible for it, I'd expect such profiling against them.

So, I think profiling is 100% acceptable and necessary, but where should the line be drawn when there's no solid criminal evidence against a suspect?

On the other hand, if Muslim terrorists were responsible for the most devestating terrorist attack, executed via commercial airplanes, it would be utterly idiotic to not consider a Muslim pilot from Pakistan a potential threat

if.....and remember if

if.....and remember if

...They were.

...They were.

SWF is retarded.... And remember that.

SWF is retarded.... And remember that.

no I'm not...

no I'm not...

Sorry.

SWF is autistic.... And remember that.

So, I think profiling is 100% acceptable and necessary, but where should the line be drawn when there's no solid criminal evidence against a suspect?

No. Profiling doesn't make any sense and is objectively wrong. And I'm not placing any moral values or anything into it, it just logically doesn't make sense. Racial profiling is logically anti-democratic, if you support it, you can't possible support freedom and democracy...Here be why...

Why do we profile? Because we know certain groups (generally of one ethnicity) seek to attack us.

What do they hope to gain from attacking us? To destroy America/Americans and Democracy.

So what do we do to prevent that? Racial profiling. However, racial profiling violates all that Democracy stands for (i.e. Personal liberty, has anyone heard of it?). By using racial profiling we are effectively destroying democracy to protect Democracy.

Democracy means treating everyone with equal respect, not signaling out those due to racial stereotypes (Muslims are more likely terrorists). If you truly believe in Democracy and not fascism, you won't support profiling.

And just on a side note, anyone who is afraid of terrorism is a complete fucking idiot and should be executed.

No. Profiling doesn't make any sense and is objectively wrong. And I'm not placing any moral values or anything into it, it just logically doesn't make sense. Racial profiling is logically anti-democratic, if you support it, you can't possible support freedom and democracy...Here be why...

Why do we profile? Because we know certain groups (generally of one ethnicity) seek to attack us.

What do they hope to gain from attacking us? To destroy America/Americans and Democracy.

So what do we do to prevent that? Racial profiling. However, racial profiling violates all that Democracy stands for (i.e. Personal liberty, has anyone heard of it?). By using racial profiling we are effectively destroying democracy to protect Democracy.

Democracy means treating everyone with equal respect, not signaling out those due to racial stereotypes (Muslims are more likely terrorists). If you truly believe in Democracy and not fascism, you won't support profiling.

And just on a side note, anyone who is afraid of terrorism is a complete fucking idiot and should be executed.

You're wrong on all counts.

1) "'Democracy' is a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system." Profiling is only "anti-democratic" if the majority doesn't support it.

2) It does make sense. You said yourself that "we know certain groups seek to attack us". Statistically, that means you're more likely to find terrorists within that specific group. If someone gives you a carton of red and blue colored eggs, and says that there are more rotten red eggs than blue ones, then you would "profile" the red ones.

3) Terrorism is a very real and very dangerous thing. Go tell the Israelis that have to worry about getting blown up on buses that they're "complete fucking idiots and should be executed". Obviously, things are much more severe there (and in other places) than in America, but you're the "fucking idiot" if you think terrorism isn't real, serious issue.

No. Profiling doesn't make any sense and is objectively wrong. And I'm not placing any moral values or anything into it, it just logically doesn't make sense. Racial profiling is logically anti-democratic, if you support it, you can't possible support freedom and democracy...Here be why...

Why do we profile? Because we know certain groups (generally of one ethnicity) seek to attack us.

What do they hope to gain from attacking us? To destroy America/Americans and Democracy.

So what do we do to prevent that? Racial profiling. However, racial profiling violates all that Democracy stands for (i.e. Personal liberty, has anyone heard of it?). By using racial profiling we are effectively destroying democracy to protect Democracy.

Democracy means treating everyone with equal respect, not signaling out those due to racial stereotypes (Muslims are more likely terrorists). If you truly believe in Democracy and not fascism, you won't support profiling.

And just on a side note, anyone who is afraid of terrorism is a complete fucking idiot and should be executed.

I'd accept having 'oh so important democracy' damaged, it's pretty fucked anyway, a bit of common sense won't flush it down the toilet any more than all of the bullshit that's been tacked onto it in the last 100 years or so.

By your standards it seems you would prefer EVERYONE to be searched and gone over, that's just not something that's possible with the available resources and would be much more unhealthy for freedom than checking people you're suspicious of.

I don't know about you, but if I've got a real enemy I won't pretend to not notice out of fear of being labelled a racist/fascist/whatever.

Profiling is great because it lets people like Kaczynski and McVeigh bypass the net and show how ridiculous it is.

Profiling is correct more times than it is not.

It is not perfect, someone might get their feelings hurt, but it does work.

The reason profiling is a joke is because the people that would be profiled know about the profiling so they recruit agents that are contrary to the profile.

You're wrong on all counts.

1) "'Democracy' is a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system." Profiling is only "anti-democratic" if the majority doesn't support it.

Personal liberty is part of Democracy...The country and the Constitution agree...So my definition works equally well in the context of American Democracy which is what I assume we're talking about...Explain to me how you protect democracy by taking away democratic values? Makes no sense...Liberty is a Democratic value.

2) It does make sense. You said yourself that "we know certain groups seek to attack us". Statistically, that means you're more likely to find terrorists within that specific group. If someone gives you a carton of red and blue colored eggs, and says that there are more rotten red eggs than blue ones, then you would "profile" the red ones.

So you take away the freedoms of millions due to the actions of what? 40 people in 15 years? Benjamin Franklin said those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for a little safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. You can disagree on this because its my opinion but I think my opinion makes more sense. I would rather uphold freedom than live in constant harassment by the state.

Obviously, things are much more severe there (and in other places) than in America, but you're the "fucking idiot" if you think terrorism isn't real, serious issue.

1.) Terrorism in the United States is not a real threat. Drunk driving kills hundreds of thousands of people a year, second hand smoke kills 50,000 alone. Terrorism has claimed how many lives in the past 20 years? Under 10,000....WOW, WHAT A THREAT!! Not to mention all but 1% of those people lived in exclusive areas (i.e. Cities, nowhere else).

2.)According to the FBI, however, between the years of 1980 and 2000, 250 of the 335 incidents confirmed as or suspected to be terrorist acts in the United States were carried out by American citizens....There goes your whole "terrorists belong to a certain ethnic group" argument...

3.) Our OWN actions as a result of terrorism are worse than terrorism itself. Which is worse in terms of collateral damage and cost, 9/11 or "Operation Iraqi Freedom"?....Yeah, thats what I thought.

Terrorism-3,000 killed

Response to terrorism- 60,000 dead (over 4,000 Americans)



Please, stop polluting the Earth with your paranoid racism.

Personal liberty is part of Democracy...The country and the Constitution agree...

technically there is such a thing as 'illiberal democracy' see Singapore for an example...what a fucked up place..

Personal liberty is part of Democracy...The country and the Constitution agree...So my definition works equally well in the context of American Democracy which is what I assume we're talking about...Explain to me how you protect democracy by taking away democratic values? Makes no sense...Liberty is a Democratic value.


Stop talking about "democratic values". All a democracy is is a place where the citizens rule by majority. If you want to talk about "American values" or the Constitution, say that. And please, show me where the Constitution says that the government shouldn't investigate people on unsubstantiated suspicion of criminal activity?


So you take away the freedoms of millions due to the actions of what? 40 people in 15 years? Benjamin Franklin said those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for a little safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. You can disagree on this because its my opinion but I think my opinion makes more sense. I would rather uphold freedom than live in constant harassment by the state.


1.) Terrorism in the United States is not a real threat. Drunk driving kills hundreds of thousands of people a year, second hand smoke kills 50,000 alone. Terrorism has claimed how many lives in the past 20 years? Under 10,000....WOW, WHAT A THREAT!! Not to mention all but 1% of those people lived in exclusive areas (i.e. Cities, nowhere else).

2.)According to the FBI, however, between the years of 1980 and 2000, 250 of the 335 incidents confirmed as or suspected to be terrorist acts in the United States were carried out by American citizens....There goes your whole "terrorists belong to a certain ethnic group" argument...

3.) Our OWN actions as a result of terrorism are worse than terrorism itself. Which is worse in terms of collateral damage and cost, 9/11 or "Operation Iraqi Freedom"?....Yeah, thats what I thought.

Terrorism-3,000 killed

Response to terrorism- 60,000 dead (over 4,000 Americans)



Please, stop polluting the Earth with your paranoid racism.

1) Stop playing with the time frame like an accordion. First you say the past 15 years, then 20, then you go back 30 years.

2) The relevant time frame is 2000 to 2008. We're talking about the present, not the past. In the present day we have had a serious terrorist attack by Muslims, and there's a clear rise in Muslim radicalism around the world. Not to mention the kidnappings/beheadings of Westerners and direct, perpetual threats against the US.

War, drunk driving, and cigarette smoke are completely unrelated issues. Something should be done about those things, sure, but that doesn't make terrorism any less relevant.

3) In regard to Benjamin Franklin:
i) Benjamin Franklin is not omniscent or infallible.
ii) America in Benjamin Franklin's era wasn't dealing with terrorism.
iii) His views have no bearing on whether profiling is effective and logical.
iv) Some freedom is always and has always been sacrificed for the safety of the public. That's why we have laws and law enforcers. The quote is only applicable when taken toward the extreme.

You keep putting up strawmen, and completely missing/ignoring the point. The alternative to profiling is to either investigate everyone (unfeasible, and leads to a bigger loss of freedom, as someone mentioned earlier), or to do nothing (not an option). Until you address this, you've lost the argument.

Oh, and nothing I've said is racist. For instance, I'm okay with people in thug attire (usually black or hispanic) being profiled for criminal activity too. Of course, such practices have lots of room for power abuse and injustice, which is why I think reasonable regulations should be devised for any profiling practices. I also am not suggesting that only one group should be targeted, but rather more resources should be devoted to them.

Profiling is great because it lets people like Kaczynski and McVeigh bypass the net and show how ridiculous it is.

Profiling shouldn't be the only tool, but it sure can be a good thing to keep in your toolbox.

Stop talking about "democratic values". All a democracy is is a place where the citizens rule by majority. If you want to talk about "American values" or the Constitution, say that. And please, show me where the Constitution says that the government shouldn't investigate people on unsubstantiated suspicion of criminal activity?

Here, I copied and pasted this. I think this is a widely accepted definition of Democracy and I think you will agree with it.

"In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[3] there are two principles that any definition of democracy include. The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties"

Freedom is associated with democracy just like how you would associate oppression with totalitarianism. Do you agree with all this??


1) Stop playing with the time frame like an accordion. First you say the past 15 years, then 20, then you go back 30 years.

Fair enough, I was just showing that terrorism has never been a major threat in American society.

2) The relevant time frame is 2000 to 2008. We're talking about the present, not the past. In the present day we have had a serious terrorist attack by Muslims, and there's a clear rise in Muslim radicalism around the world. Not to mention the kidnappings/be headings of Westerners and direct, perpetual threats against the US.

In the past 8 years there has been one major attack, an attack which our own government said themselves they had prior knowledge of and could have prevented. However, they didn't take the threat seriously and we know what happened. Now that we take all possible threats seriously the likely hood of a terrorist attack has dropped significantly (In terms of it being successful). Not to mention that racial profiling has never prevented anything.

The point is, if some sort of 9/11-esque event is going to happen counter terrorism is going to prevent it, not some half-wit high school drop out who selects random people who fit an arbitrary model.

War, drunk driving, and cigarette smoke are completely unrelated issues. Something should be done about those things, sure, but that doesn't make terrorism any less relevant.

True, I was just saying that those things are a much greater threat to the lives of Americans.

3) In regard to Benjamin Franklin:
i) Benjamin Franklin is not omniscient or infallible.
ii) America in Benjamin Franklin's era wasn't dealing with terrorism.
iii) His views have no bearing on whether profiling is effective and logical.
iv) Some freedom is always and has always been sacrificed for the safety of the public. That's why we have laws and law enforcers. The quote is only applicable when taken toward the extreme.

I would rather have personal liberty than an illusion of security, that was just my opinion on the subject. And racial profiling is rather extreme and has tons of potential to be abused

You keep putting up straw man, and completely missing/ignoring the point. The alternative to profiling is to either investigate everyone (unfeasible, and leads to a bigger loss of freedom, as someone mentioned earlier), or to do nothing (not an option). Until you address this, you've lost the argument.

But there is already screening for everyone! Every bag is X-rayed, every person gives information and has identification proving where they're going, who they are and where they're from. Not to mention everyone goes through metal detectors, is under constant surveillance when they enter the airport and if anything suspicious from any bag is detected, it's investigated...

So can we agree that investigating everyone does exist? You just don't think it's adequate correct??



I also am not suggesting that only one group should be targeted, but rather more resources should be devoted to them.

You just told me that one group (Muslims) needs to be targeted (i.e. the whole blue/red egg thing)...And when you say more resources should be devoted to them, what does that mean? Like have special lines for Muslims to go through? That sounds like segregation...

Oh, and nothing I've said is racist. For instance, I'm okay with people in thug attire (usually black or Hispanic) being profiled for criminal activity too.

I'm assuming that you believe that because people in street gangs dress like that, that is a fact and makes sense.

However, what about white collar crime? Should we start profiling every white male who wears a suit? After all which is worse, the man who steals a wallet or the man who steals millions of dollars? Enron is by far more of threat to America as a whole than a street gang, which is only limited to certain areas...

Reduction Ad Absurdum. That argument doesn't really make sense because you can apply a type of criminal activity to any clothing style, ethnicity or appearance. That why we have accept this idea of "equal treatment", of course we don't practice it, but thats a different story.

You also didn't address the fact that between the years of 1980 and 2000, 250 of the 335 incidents confirmed as or suspected to be terrorist acts in the United States were carried out by American citizens........

I mean don't you remember those Al-qaeda Muslims sending anthrax? It turned out it was some white guy in Maryland.......Perhaps Muslims aren't the greatest threat? Know your enemey.


I understand why you think profiling is a good idea. I mean I agree it looks great at first. Whose attacking us? Muslims. So target muslims! I thought the same thing and then it came up in my poly-science class and I realized I was wrong after discussing it and decided it really makes no sense. So you can still disagree if you want but when you look at it objectively it's really not a good idea and isn't very effective.