Racial Profiling

[wolveraptor]

Wouldn't blatant profiling in the US quickly be picked up by terrorist organizations overseas? The first thing they'd do is start recruiting non-Arabs, dressing to look Western, and lying about their religious affiliation.

Of course, if we wanted to be barbaric about it, we could have mandatory pork samples for all passengers. Eeeeeevil

[unigolyn]

Well, I suppose you're right. If pressed, I would have to admit that what really bothers me is that the majority of people affected by an invasion like that are ordinary, hard-working people, and that that fact tends to be lost alongside the black-and-white, 'good-vs-evil' portrayal of the whole affair.

As if the ordinary, hard-working people were having the time of their lives under Taliban rule. You know, like being summarily executed because you're guilty of thoughtcrime or beaten because you're a woman outside your house without your male owner. Other than North Korea, it's damned hard to find a more repulsive state of affairs in recent history than Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

I hope you're not one of those people who likes to argue that wars are just only if they serve an altruistic purpose (no war ever has or will), or that there was somehow a diplomatic way to get rid of that craphole theocracy.

As for racial profiling, it's a slight misnomer, but the argument that 'all muslims aren't Arabs' is specious, as the overwhelming majority of Arabs are muslim.

Mike Wong points out that if you look at historical records of extremism, you'll find that all males of all creeds are equally liable. That's not the point of the OP, though. In the past 40 years, international terrorism has been almost entirely the MO of radical Islam. Yes, there's the odd loon like McVeigh, or domestic strife like the IRA, but there are no massive international organizations of survivalist nutjobs or Ulster catholics firebombing nightclubs in Bali.

[Hillary]

Now, I can tell you firsthand that the current system is fucking retarded. At McCarain Airport in Vegas we had to wait in a rat maze of "special security screening" passengers, yet Mohammed in his turban went right through with only the "basic" package.

If he had a truban on, he'd be a Sikh, not a Muslim. He'd also be unlikely to be called Mohammed.

The ill informed hysteria of the general populace on these issues actually makes further terrorist acts more likely rather than less.

Living in London as I do, there seems to me to be a strong correlation between those who are now scared of Muslims with backpacks and those who have always had dubious (at best) views of people from other races/religions.

[The Guid]

Of course, if we wanted to be barbaric about it, we could have mandatory pork samples for all passengers. Eeeeeevil

I know you weren't really serious but I just like to point out that not all people who refuse to eat pork are terrorists. There is such a thing as a Jew and a moderate Muslim.

[unigolyn]

The ill informed hysteria of the general populace on these issues actually makes further terrorist acts more likely rather than less.

How? Being stereotyped as terrorists because they share a religion makes the unjustly stereotyped likely to live up to the stereotype and blow people up? Wonderfully circular, that logic.

Living in London as I do, there seems to me to be a strong correlation between those who are now scared of Muslims with backpacks and those who have always had dubious (at best) views of people from other races/religions.

This being SD.net, I think the majority have dubious views of people from any religion.

Seriously, explain why people shouldn't be afraid of bombers after the recent events. If you agree that it's natural to be afraid, explain why that fear should be subject to politically correct censorship by pretending anyone but muslims will be suicide bombing public transportation.

Whining that the vast majority of muslim men are innocent is hardly reason to insinuate that anyone afraid of muslims sporting backpacks on buses is an ignorant racist. Like the vast majority of men, I'm not a rapist - yet I don't blame a woman who is scared of me if I happen to be walking behind her late at night - I usually pick another route because I know her fear is natural.

[unigolyn]

I know you weren't really serious but I just like to point out that not all people who refuse to eat pork are terrorists. There is such a thing as a Jew and a moderate Muslim.

Not to mention vegans and assorted PETA members. Bring on the pork screening!

[Darth Wong]

Muslims aren't just Arabs. There are many millions of black Muslims in Africa. Are we going to start racially profiling blacks? Are we going to put special screening on guys who look like this?



If you make a publicly known racial profiling rule, then the enemy will know about it (duh). And if they want to get around this rule, they will know what to do.

Alternatively, one could use religious profiling, but it's pretty easy to lie about your religion.

[unigolyn]

Muslims aren't just Arabs. There are many millions of black Muslims in Africa. Are we going to start racially profiling blacks? Are we going to put special screening on guys who look like this?
(snip Malvo)

You'd obviously have to have varying levels of scrutiny - Middle easterners being top shelf picks, black, white, south-east asian men elevated screening, others and all but middle eastern women mostly ignored unless there's additional cause for suspicion.

And of course there are other factors that can and must be used - age, country or residence, appearance, previous travel history. But Middle Easterners should, for good reason, be scrutinized more than other racial/ethnic groups.

I've been "racially" profiled myself - in the nineties, young Estonian males were often stopped on the Finnish border and strip searched because a very small minority of us actually did try to smuggle drugs in there. I was stopped and strip searched because of my ethnicity. It was embarassing, but doing it helps catch drug smugglers. Norwegian grannies (who at this particular geographical location aren't quite as proverbial as elsewhere) don't smuggle drugs and therefore should be, and are ignored.

[Hillary]

The ill informed hysteria of the general populace on these issues actually makes further terrorist acts more likely rather than less.

How? Being stereotyped as terrorists because they share a religion makes the unjustly stereotyped likely to live up to the stereotype and blow people up? Wonderfully circular, that logic.

No. Because treating all Asian/Arab men with beards as if they are terrorists simply adds credence to the extreme Imams' proclaimations that the 'West' are anti-Muslim. It won't turn a moderate Muslim into a bomber, but it it certainly helps to recruit the young and disillusioned young Muslims into this path. Not only that, it makes building bridges with the Muslim community (which is absolutely key to stopping these bombers) far more difficult.

Living in London as I do, there seems to me to be a strong correlation between those who are now scared of Muslims with backpacks and those who have always had dubious (at best) views of people from other races/religions.

This being SD.net, I think the majority have dubious views of people from any religion.[/quote]

Seriously, explain why people shouldn't be afraid of bombers after the recent events. If you agree that it's natural to be afraid, explain why that fear should be subject to politically correct censorship by pretending anyone but muslims will be suicide bombing public transportation.

Afraid of bombers, yes. Afraid of Muslims, no. I travel on the tube every day and it doesn't worry me in the slightest. It's funny how Arabs don't appear to be frightened by Muslims wearing rucksacks, only non-Arabs.

Whining that the vast majority of muslim men are innocent is hardly reason to insinuate that anyone afraid of muslims sporting backpacks on buses is an ignorant racist. Like the vast majority of men, I'm not a rapist - yet I don't blame a woman who is scared of me if I happen to be walking behind her late at night - I usually pick another route because I know her fear is natural.

Fair enough - it was mainly an observation based on people in my office and my social circle. It may simply be that each side was taking a stance (scared/not scared) to coincide with their own political leaning.

I retract the insinuation which I accept is unfair.[/quote]

[unigolyn]

Also, living in Finland for two months in 1996 was quite educational - whenever speaking my own language, it was a near-certainty that I'd get dirty looks from people, and on several occasions was yelled at for being a 'fucking Russkie' in Finnish.

(to which I replied in perfect Finnish, my grandfather being a Finnish army soldier stuck in the USSR after WW2, that Finn quislings should keep their mouths shut after 50 years of sucking up to the Kremlin and handing refugees over to the KGB. I would have also loved to kick their asses, but attacking people isn't wise when you're not in your own country.)

[unigolyn]

How? Being stereotyped as terrorists because they share a religion makes the unjustly stereotyped likely to live up to the stereotype and blow people up? Wonderfully circular, that logic.

No. Because treating all Asian/Arab men with beards as if they are terrorists simply adds credence to the extreme Imams' proclaimations that the 'West' are anti-Muslim. It won't turn a moderate Muslim into a bomber, but it it certainly helps to recruit the young and disillusioned young Muslims into this path. Not only that, it makes building bridges with the Muslim community (which is absolutely key to stopping these bombers) far more difficult.

Emphasis mine. You're saying exactly what I thought you were saying. Young Muslims are 'disillusioned' because people are scared of them, and therefore fall pray to Muslim preachers who tell them to blow the scared peolpe up. Uh-huh. I'm sorry, but that's a completely racist rationalization - as if Muslims are somehow inherently incapable of self-control.

Back to the previous analogy - should women stop being scared of men in dark alleyways, lest they encourage young, disillusioned men into becoming serial rapists?

There are no 'bridges' to be built with the muslim community. Before muslims started blowing people up, they were exactly like any other immigrant group - Jamaicans or East Asians or Indians - subject to the same opportunities and the same prejudice as everyone else. Muslims are the only ones blowing shit up. The problem is that of Islam, not of British (or Western) society, and they need to deal with it, not us. Is the wholesale murder of innocents not a grave enough matter for the Muslim community without 'bridge building' by other ethnic groups in society?

[The Guid]

How? Being stereotyped as terrorists because they share a religion makes the unjustly stereotyped likely to live up to the stereotype and blow people up? Wonderfully circular, that logic.

No. Because treating all Asian/Arab men with beards as if they are terrorists simply adds credence to the extreme Imams' proclaimations that the 'West' are anti-Muslim. It won't turn a moderate Muslim into a bomber, but it it certainly helps to recruit the young and disillusioned young Muslims into this path. Not only that, it makes building bridges with the Muslim community (which is absolutely key to stopping these bombers) far more difficult.

Emphasis mine. You're saying exactly what I thought you were saying. Young Muslims are 'disillusioned' because people are scared of them, and therefore fall pray to Muslim preachers who tell them to blow the scared peolpe up. Uh-huh. I'm sorry, but that's a completely racist rationalization - as if Muslims are somehow inherently incapable of self-control.

Where was that stated? All he is saying is that if society becomes suspicous and fearful of an Islamic stereotype with particular emphasis on those of an arabic descent then it is likely that when radical Imams say: "They're afraid of you and hate you." he'll have evidence to point at in the young arabs and potentially other muslim's lives. He didn't insinuate that this was unique to an arab. The same kind of techniques are used by Nationalist parties.

[Hillary]

How? Being stereotyped as terrorists because they share a religion makes the unjustly stereotyped likely to live up to the stereotype and blow people up? Wonderfully circular, that logic.

No. Because treating all Asian/Arab men with beards as if they are terrorists simply adds credence to the extreme Imams' proclaimations that the 'West' are anti-Muslim. It won't turn a moderate Muslim into a bomber, but it it certainly helps to recruit the young and disillusioned young Muslims into this path. Not only that, it makes building bridges with the Muslim community (which is absolutely key to stopping these bombers) far more difficult.

Emphasis mine. You're saying exactly what I thought you were saying. Young Muslims are 'disillusioned' because people are scared of them, and therefore fall pray to Muslim preachers who tell them to blow the scared peolpe up. Uh-huh. I'm sorry, but that's a completely racist rationalization - as if Muslims are somehow inherently incapable of self-control.

No, it is being honest. We have extreme clerics in this country who preach that the West fears and hates Muslims and it is a Muslim's duty to fight against the oppressors. By projecting fear and hate towards Muslims on the tube system, we are simply giving them more ammo and credibility. I did not say that non-Muslims weren't also open to brainwashing as this thread is only about Islam.

In any case, Muslims come in all races - our very own shoe bomber was white.

Back to the previous analogy - should women stop being scared of men in dark alleyways, lest they encourage young, disillusioned men into becoming serial rapists?

The anology simply doesn't work.

There are no 'bridges' to be built with the muslim community. Before muslims started blowing people up, they were exactly like any other immigrant group - Jamaicans or East Asians or Indians - subject to the same opportunities and the same prejudice as everyone else. Muslims are the only ones blowing shit up. The problem is that of Islam, not of British (or Western) society, and they need to deal with it, not us. Is the wholesale murder of innocents not a grave enough matter for the Muslim community without 'bridge building' by other ethnic groups in society?

But simply saying "it's your problem, go deal with it" is not going to make things any better. Most Muslims in this country were appalled at what had been done in the name of their religion. Surely the opportunity is there to seize on that horror and maybe, just maybe, try to bridge the obvious gap there is. Unfortunately, the press and some politicians are determined that we will concentrate on the "mad mullahs", "they could strike again at any time", "the bombers look just like anyone else [well any Muslim anyway]" and "stop and search all Muslims".

All this does is galvanise the extremists and leaves the vast majority of Muslims feeling even more outsiders than they already felt.[/quote]

[unigolyn]

Where was that stated? All he is saying is that if society becomes suspicous and fearful of an Islamic stereotype with particular emphasis on those of an arabic descent then it is likely that when radical Imams say: "They're afraid of you and hate you." he'll have evidence to point at in the young arabs and potentially other muslim's lives. He didn't insinuate that this was unique to an arab. The same kind of techniques are used by Nationalist parties.

That's a bit of a strawman, sorry. The Imams don't justify terrorism by saying 'they're afraid of you and hate you', they justify terrorism by painting non-muslims as decadent, godless mammon worshippers who corrupt the ideals of a devout muslim.

My point was that it's disingenuous to say that Muslims are driven to murder because of the xenophobia of others (no human being is) - they're driven to murder because of the xenophobia of their own culture. It's not up to us to change, it's up to them to change. Do you seriously believe that if no one looked funny at Arabs and no one used the word 'towelhead', 9/11, the Bali bombing, the Madrid bombing, and 7/7 wouldn't have happened?

[unigolyn]

No, it is being honest. We have extreme clerics in this country who preach that the West fears and hates Muslims and it is a Muslim's duty to fight against the oppressors. By projecting fear and hate towards Muslims on the tube system, we are simply giving them more ammo and credibility. I did not say that non-Muslims weren't also open to brainwashing as this thread is only about Islam.

Like I said in my previous post, that's bullcrap. They don't justify their jihad by saying 'we're afraid of them'. If you think looking at people funny and subjecting them to heightened scrutiny is the cause of radicalization, then you're naive. Kids aren't radicalized by calling their names - they're radicalized by being embedded in a culture of extreme xenophobia - their own.

In any case, Muslims come in all races - our very own shoe bomber was white.

Were we talking about looking funny at Arabs, and what it 'drives' them to do or weren't we?

Back to the previous analogy - should women stop being scared of men in dark alleyways, lest they encourage young, disillusioned men into becoming serial rapists?

The anology simply doesn't work.

Yes, it does, as it points out how ridiculous it is to write off violent behavior as some sort of 'reaction' to being stereotyped.

But simply saying "it's your problem, go deal with it" is not going to make things any better. Most Muslims in this country were appalled at what had been done in the name of their religion. Surely the opportunity is there to seize on that horror and maybe, just maybe, try to bridge the obvious gap there is. Unfortunately, the press and some politicians are determined that we will concentrate on the "mad mullahs", "they could strike again at any time", "the bombers look just like anyone else [well any Muslim anyway]" and "stop and search all Muslims".

All this does is galvanise the extremists and leaves the vast majority of Muslims feeling even more outsiders than they already felt.

What gap? There is no 'gap' that wasn't put there by the fact that these people are rabidly religious and their religion dictates that all life on earth must submit to Allah. How are you going to bridge the gap? By not offending muslims by looking at them funny? For crying out loud, can't you see the double standard you've created for muslims?

[Hillary]

Like I said in my previous post, that's bullcrap. They don't justify their jihad by saying 'we're afraid of them'. If you think looking at people funny and subjecting them to heightened scrutiny is the cause of radicalization, then you're naive. Kids aren't radicalized by calling their names - they're radicalized by being embedded in a culture of extreme xenophobia - their own.

Wrong - that's exactly what the Imams say. It's not always enough to say "Allah tells you to do this", you also need to demonise your enemy. "Allah says that these are your enemies and they fear and hate you. Look how they treat Muslims in other countries. Look how they treat them in this country. Stop and search is just a way of criminalising you. What more proof do you need". You're the one being naive if you think that these things have no impact.

In any case, Muslims come in all races - our very own shoe bomber was white.

Were we talking about looking funny at Arabs, and what it 'drives' them to do or weren't we?

Yes, but you described me as being racist when I was talking about Muslims.

Yes, it does, as it points out how ridiculous it is to write off violent behavior as some sort of 'reaction' to being stereotyped.

It doesn't work because there is no base premise that men should rape women according to some mythical being. There also isn't anyone saying women fear and hate you because they are the enemy. The anology isn't valid.

What gap? There is no 'gap' that wasn't put there by the fact that these people are rabidly religious and their religion dictates that all life on earth must submit to Allah. How are you going to bridge the gap? By not offending muslims by looking at them funny? For crying out loud, can't you see the double standard you've created for muslims?

Looking from the other side -

There is no 'gap' that wasn't put there by the fact that these people are rabidly religious and their religion dictates that all life on earth must submit to Jesus Christ.

Most Muslims aren't rabidly religious by the way, before you tell me that most Christians aren't.

This is not about "not offending Muslims", it is about treating them as if they are human beings, rather than some sub-human species. The opposite needs to happen as well. And extend that to Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Rastas and everyone else.

This is something that should already have been happening.

[unigolyn]

Wrong - that's exactly what the Imams say. It's not always enough to say "Allah tells you to do this", you also need to demonise your enemy. "Allah says that these are your enemies and they fear and hate you. Look how they treat Muslims in other countries. Look how they treat them in this country. Stop and search is just a way of criminalising you. What more proof do you need". You're the one being naive if you think that these things have no impact.

They also say our women are immodest whores. They have a lot of justifications, and even if we stop treating moderate muslims with suspicion, we will still fear and hate the radical hatemongers whom you describe. Your claim that xenophobia is a major contributor to radicalization of ONLY Islamic youth is a baseless claim.

Were we talking about looking funny at Arabs, and what it 'drives' them to do or weren't we?

Yes, but you described me as being racist when I was talking about Muslims.

No, I said that what you say has racist implications - that a certain group of people need to be treated differently because when they are treated badly, they are driven to indiscriminate murder.

Yes, it does, as it points out how ridiculous it is to write off violent behavior as some sort of 'reaction' to being stereotyped.

It doesn't work because there is no base premise that men should rape women according to some mythical being. There also isn't anyone saying women fear and hate you because they are the enemy. The anology isn't valid.

It's an analogy, not an example of an identical situation. What it boils down to is that you're implying that we are responsible for some xenophobe who likes to whip himself into a religious fervor and kill civilians, and the analogy is used to point out how ridiculous that is. And they don't attack us because we're some mythical 'enemy'. They attack as because we're infidels whose amorality threatens their pious way of life. They don't give a rat's ass whether we 'hate and fear' them. The hate and fear bother moderate muslims, and you're postulating that moderate muslims (or young, disillusioned ones) turn into killing machines because of it. I say it's bullshit.

Looking from the other side -

There is no 'gap' that wasn't put there by the fact that these people are rabidly religious and their religion dictates that all life on earth must submit to Jesus Christ.

Most Muslims aren't rabidly religious by the way, before you tell me that most Christians aren't.

Specious, specious, specious. There is no Christendom anymore. Europe is secularized to the point of religion being a hokey tradition. The Ummah is alive and well, and the 'moderates' (in the sense of secularized people who don't really eat Halal and don't pray towards Mecca five times a day) are a minority.

This is not about "not offending Muslims", it is about treating them as if they are human beings, rather than some sub-human species. The opposite needs to happen as well. And extend that to Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Rastas and everyone else.

No one is treating them as some sub-human species (aside from the usual vocal minority of idiots). We're afraid of them. Because people who look like them, talk like them, believe in the same God as them, and profess to be their brethren target innocent civilians, and ululate while claiming victory for the Ummah. We don't fear Hindus, Jews and Rastas (Sikhs look 'muslim' to some), because they don't fit that criteria.

[unigolyn]

Anyway, this is getting pointless - if you don't get what I mean by now, let's agree to disagree. I gotta get back to work.

[Hillary]

They also say our women are immodest whores. They have a lot of justifications, and even if we stop treating moderate muslims with suspicion, we will still fear and hate the radical hatemongers whom you describe. Your claim that xenophobia is a major contributor to radicalization of ONLY Islamic youth is a baseless claim.

Will you PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth. I have never said ONLY Islamic youths. The far right recruit their converts in much the same way. The BNP leader is up on charges of saying exactly these sorts of things in order to radicalise white disillusioned youths.

No, I said that what you say has racist implications - that a certain group of people need to be treated differently because when they are treated badly, they are driven to indiscriminate murder.

I have not said that they need to be treated differently - more that they needed to be treated the same.

It's an analogy, not an example of an identical situation. What it boils down to is that you're implying that we are responsible for some xenophobe who likes to whip himself into a religious fervor and kill civilians, and the analogy is used to point out how ridiculous that is. And they don't attack us because we're some mythical 'enemy'. They attack as because we're infidels whose amorality threatens their pious way of life. They don't give a rat's ass whether we 'hate and fear' them. The hate and fear bother moderate muslims, and you're postulating that moderate muslims (or young, disillusioned ones) turn into killing machines because of it. I say it's bullshit.

Not responsible, but exacerbating the problem.

Specious, specious, specious. There is no Christendom anymore. Europe is secularized to the point of religion being a hokey tradition. The Ummah is alive and well, and the 'moderates' (in the sense of secularized people who don't really eat Halal and don't pray towards Mecca five times a day) are a minority.

So all Jews who eat Kosha are rabidly religious nutcases then. You are distorting the situation beyond belief, which exactly the problem I highlighted in the first place. Halal is as much a cultural thing as a religious thing and most Muslims certainly don't pray towards Mecca 5 times a day - not in Britain in any case. Where do you get this information from?

As for Chistianity not being widespread in Europe, that certainly isn't true for Britain. Religious schools are on the rise, evangelical churches are growing at a massive rate and the media still portrays Christians as being good and moral people, a cut above non-Christians.

No one is treating them as some sub-human species (aside from the usual vocal minority of idiots). We're afraid of them. Because people who look like them, talk like them, believe in the same God as them, and profess to be their brethren target innocent civilians, and ululate while claiming victory for the Ummah. We don't fear Hindus, Jews and Rastas (Sikhs look 'muslim' to some), because they don't fit that criteria.

Sorry, but because 1 Muslim in every 100,000 is a potential bomber, I'm not going to fear the other 99,999. The fact that most people seem to find it acceptable to do so will unfortunately make thing worse rather than better.

[Hillary]

Anyway, this is getting pointless - if you don't get what I mean by now, let's agree to disagree. I gotta get back to work.

OK. So have I

[unigolyn]

Will you PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth. I have never said ONLY Islamic youths. The far right recruit their converts in much the same way. The BNP leader is up on charges of saying exactly these sorts of things in order to radicalise white disillusioned youths.

I know you brought up the 'all extremists use this technique to recruit' thing before, but there's a huge difference between being recruited for a political cause (anything from nationalist loon to a Che shirt activist) by preaching fear and loathing, and organized slaughter of the innocent. Now, if you were saying that prejudice causes minority youth to be marginalized and drives them to crime and drugs, I'd agree with you. That it drives them to murder, I don't.

You're comparing the British Nationalist Party (whatever that is) to Jihadists who target civilians? Don't you understand that you don't need to come right out and SAY 'only Islamic youths', if your reasoning is that something every minority is subjected to (xenophobia and prejudice) drives this particular minority to kill people.

[Master of Ossus]

Wouldn't blatant profiling in the US quickly be picked up by terrorist organizations overseas? The first thing they'd do is start recruiting non-Arabs, dressing to look Western, and lying about their religious affiliation.

That's why it's important to maintain SOME level of scrutiny of non-Arabs. Nonetheless, recruiting outside of the Arab base is expensive and difficult for many terrorist organizations that are centered around their Islamo-fascism, and would further increase the difficulties they have in launching attacks. That seems like the whole point of security.

[Master of Ossus]

Muslims aren't just Arabs. There are many millions of black Muslims in Africa. Are we going to start racially profiling blacks? Are we going to put special screening on guys who look like this?

If there was an incredibly high correlation between people who looked like that and people who launched attacks on airliners and civilians then we should put special screening on them while maintaining some level of scrutiny for others.

If you make a publicly known racial profiling rule, then the enemy will know about it (duh). And if they want to get around this rule, they will know what to do.

Right, but that in and of itself makes it more difficult for them to launch attacks against civilian targets... which is the whole point of profiling and security in the first place. No amount of security would realistically make people safe at all times, but it is better to try to improve safety whenever it is realistically possible by forcing people who would launch attacks on civilians to adopt new and unproven methods in order to attempt their attacks.

Alternatively, one could use religious profiling, but it's pretty easy to lie about your religion.

The Israeli airline actually does use questions like that, but they seem pretty ineffective to me.

[RedImperator]

If you make a publicly known racial profiling rule, then the enemy will know about it (duh). And if they want to get around this rule, they will know what to do.

If I were a cynic, I might say all this hoopty-do about not profiling is just a dog and pony show to distract from the fact that we really are profiling.

Not that I'd ever believe something like that.