It sucks that we all, at some point, have to go through that feeling. Now, what you described was done by people, not the Mexican government, and I think this is what agitates Arabs/Muslims most. The US government is causing this feeling. Is it a good idea for the US to profile as described? Yeah, it probably is (Richard Reid was not Arab, and did not look "Muslim", though). Can the government do things to convey a feeling of fairness? Yes. Absolutely. Search random other people, too. Search respectfully (not the stories that have come out about being called derogatory terms, being held for hours and missing flights and then being released with no compensation, strip searches with opposite sex present, etc.). Once a person is through the system, they shouldn't be checked repeatedly over and over again (you're not leaving the airport or even the gate area, right?). The response should be "F- the terrorists", not "F- Muslims" or "F- Arabs". That's the annoying part. That's not our country, and it shouldn't be.
Does the FBI profile white 20 year olds with military haircuts walking around federal buildings? Do people turn their heads and get nervous when they see an NRA sticker on the back of a flatbed pickup truck? Do you remember what happened in Oklahoma City? Why not?
Do you get suspicious when you see a Muslim driving a van? If not, why? These scary terrorists are much more likely to drive some explosives into a building than to hijack a plane. Isn't that right? Maybe if some more of our buildings would get blown up by car bombs driven by Muslims, we would stop letting them drive, too. Or we would require extensive background checks before being allowed to get a license or purchase a car. If you really want to alienate them, why not go all out? It's because the government and the media overplayed things. "You could die on an airplane at any time, and it is your job as responsible American citizens to suspiciously watch anyone who you (in your limited experience) might think is a terrorist." I may be young, but I still know about 50's Paranoia. "There's a communist around every corner. There's some in your neighborhood. One of your friends is probably a communist. Watch everyone, and report 'suspicious' activity to the proper authorities immediately. It is your duty to protect your country in this manner." I'd rather not have the terrorist paranoia continue too much longer. I didn't claim that the few extra security checks made their lives ridiculously difficult. The alienation, constant suspicion, and abuse made their lives difficult. I may be a young man, as you seem so intent on labeling me, but in addition to September 11th, I also remember the days following September 11th, in which random, innocent "Muslims" were beaten and harassed. Do you remember this? It was even extended to Hindus, just because, like I said, Americans (for the most part) are close-minded and stupid enough to not even bother realizing the difference between Hinduism and Islam. Also, as synergy pointed out, the terrorists behind the Oklahoma City bombings were 100% white. No gray area here. White boys blew up a building. Where is the suspicion for white people? White kids in Columbine shot up a school, but unless you're watching a Chris Rock comedy special, there isn't a whole lot of serious fear that a white person will become psychotic in the next few minutes and massacre you and everyone else in the immediate vicinity. We've been to out-and-out WAR with England, France, Japan, Germany, Spain, Mexico, and a million other places. Why don't we hate the governments of the preceding countries? They certainly had a lot more to do with our fighting than the Muslim faith had to do with the attacks on us. But the fear and paranoia is reserved for Muslims. Why? Because it's a way to check us. It's a way to keep us under control. A way to pass the PATRIOT Act, and trample every American's right to privacy. A way to get Bush reelected. Or at least it could have been, if he had played his cards right, instead of screwing up monumentally. I don't just blame Americans. I blame the people who fed Americans this attitude: the media, the government, and country music. That means you, Toby Keith.
People aren't suspicious of Muslims, they are suspicious of Arabs, who they presume are also Muslims (though they may not be, of course) Nobody worries when the Malaysian gets on the plane. If you lived in Northern Ireland and were English, you would probably be suspicious of Irishmen that you presumed where Catholics. If you were in Israel, you would be suspicious of Palestinians who you presume are Muslim (though there are plenty of Christian Palestinians). This is because Tim McVeigh was not part of a major organization waging a war aginst America, he was a nutjob. The IRA, Al Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. are terrorist organizations, and their memberships are remarkably homogenous. Ideally, you would have extensive security checks on everyone. Since that is deemed infeasible, you then need to prioritize. On aircraft in the United States, the number one suspect group is Al Queda, and the membership of Al Queda is almost entirely Arab Muslims.
Could it be that in one instance there has been a jihad announced and in the other only a random act of violence?
And you would have ended up in jail, of bigtexx sized proportions. You may have also incurred a ban from flying that particular airline, and since the men didn't attempt to hi-jack anything, you wouldn't have prevented a thing, or helped anyone. It would have been you that was causing a disturbance in the sky and endangering the passengers of the plane. Paranoia leads to that kind thing. As I said before, profiling is proven to be an ineffective way to stop things such as this. I'm talking about anyone feeling victimized or discriminated against. I'm talking what has been proven to be ineffective.
Racial Profiling. I don't like it. But the fact of the matter is we have arabic men blending into american society, disguising themselves as americans, who are trying to purposely kill innocent american, women, children, and men. It's a whole new fact and reality that we have to live with. The goverment and police cannot stop these guys from doing this again without our vigilance. If racial profiling is the term you want to give to Americans who become suspicious of arabic middle eastern men who board flights then so be it. the cowards who boarded those flights on 911 were racial profiling when they decided to kill as many Americans as possible because they were Americans, and not muslim like themselves. That's racial profiling right there, in its most barbaric form. I mean we don't want to kill you because you are not American, we just want to keep you from killing us and the people next to us just because we are Americans. We may be racial profiling, but these dogs are in the business of nationality slaughtering. which is worse? The type of person who looks middle eastern and who is boarding a plane, should stir a common awareness between other passengers, pilots, and flight attendants. That is the kind of vigilance that will keep 9/11 from happening again. If your a middle eastern man who is a good man, and who feels the suspicion and goes through that sort of thing, you will deal with it like a man, and understand why it is there. If you don't and feel cheated and mistreated, then you are a selfish fool.
Again I ask the question: Which mistake is worse: 1) Falsely assuming an Arab *acting suspiciously* on a plane is up to no good and he turns out to be a musician? 2) Falsely assuming an Arab *acting suspiciously* on a plane is not trying to kill you and he turns out to be a hijacker/bomber. Liberals, please answer.
This logic is the same logic that led to the most catastrophic setback in intelligence gathering in American history -- Abu Ghraib. The liberals' talking point was that rough interrogation didn't work. Of course they provided zero documentation for that assertion. When the military decides it does work, that's good enough for me. When they are out in the field implementing techniques everyday and learning from it, then they have a stronger position to decide what to do. Lawmakers do not. The same thing is happening here. The latest liberal talking point is to say that profiling doesn't work. They have zero support for this assertion, outside of a handful of random experiences. I don't buy it. It's common sense and it saves lives. If Arabs/Muslims aren't willing to make sacrifices for our safety, then they are the ones that are wrong. They should understand the threat and deal with it. Life's not fair and we shouldn't bend over backwards to make it fair -- especially when it endangers us all.
I'm glad that you still support the torture at Abu Ghraib. I've been meaning to ask you, recently Seymour Hersh and others have claimed that there are tapes of American soldiers raping boys at Abu Ghraib. Is this the kind of rough interrogation that you support? A simple yes or no will suffice. http://www.boingboing.net/2004/07/15/hersh_children_raped.html
SamFisher, please don't derail the thread. I will briefly comment on the greatest setback in intelligence gathering and then it's back to Terror in the Skies. I support rough interrogation whenever the military decides it is necessary. The military needs that option at their disposal. I do not support crimes that are not a part of interrogations. That answers your question.
So that's a yes? You do support government sponsored child sodomy? Glad to see we know where you stand.
Profiling is a must in the war on terror. An absolute must!... Does this mean we absolutely excuse the 82 year old senile white woman? No....Does this mean we don't eye suspicious actions by a 23 year old Mexican-American with possibilities of terror? What about a 40 year old black man acting out of whack? What about that neon colored orange haired Irishman drinking beer while exhibiting suspicious actions?...The point is we don't discount the ethnicities and background of people in general when targeting potential terrorists...I have no problem of being on a plane with 51 middle-eastern looking people...But I do have a problem if they started ACTING with suspicious behavior... The thing is when 99.256% of modern, actual terrorists as we know it which is pronounced as a threat against us, are of middle-eastern decent...It is fundamentally sound to profile potential terrorists based in large part on ethnicity when a terroristic war is embedded upon us... It is a major part, but does not exclude in any shape or form other characteristics, most notably suspicious actions regardless of ethnic background... The average, law-abiding citizens of this great country is a different story. No matter the statistical deference, profiling on any background is at best wrong, and at worst inconsequential as it relates to crime or business commerce (that's why I'm against lower car insurance for women )
If you were teleported and, unbeknownst to you, plunked down in the midst of an Al-Quada encampment, would you profile then?
Personally, I don't think we have gone far enough in our security measures for airplanes. I believe the screeners should be placed under the purvey of the Secret Service and that people should be able to get pre-screened if they are willing to allow a minor background check. The vast majority of frequent fliers along with law abiding citizens who want to speed through security can have their pre-screen done before they get to the airport and, assuming the check didn't raise any flags, they could go through a priority security line. People who don't get pre-screened will have to undergo more rigorous security checks. While I don't think profiling based on race is necessarily the best way to go, I absolutely do not think that there should be a limit as to the number of people of middle eastern descent we can search. If there are 100 Arab-Americans on a plane with 100 assorted other people, there should be just as high a chance of the AAs getting searched as there is for the other people.
