Name some acceptable forms of discrimination.

[Master of Ossus]

Master of Ossus: Wouldn't it be just more convenient to screen everyone?

I'm sure it's "more convenient," but we're dealing with accuracy, here and we have to worry about human lives. It's much better to actually target resources and make terrorists change their current methods of doing things by removing their lowest-cost option.

It's not as if we can just automatically determine who's a Muslim just by looking at them. Bin Laden can just get any non brown skinned Arab, a non Muslim Arab or a European Muslim convert with Semtex clothes onto a flight.

How many of you idiots have to resort to this ridiculous argument? Does it strike you as mere coincidence that the terrorists they've used to attack aircraft in the past have, by and large, been Arabs (who make up a very small fraction of the population of the US traveling population)?

Racial profiling is frankly a bunch of nonsense that provides only false security to people too stupid to see it as a way for Al Qaeda to take advantage of such complacency and blow up a few hundred Westerners for free.

Ugh. It provides genuine security even if the security scheme was so simplistic that NO other people were searched (which is a ridiculous oversimplification of the process I'm advocating) because it would force terror groups to spend their resources on options other than their current lowest-cost one. What part of this is difficult for all of you morons to grasp? It's fine if you want to argue that you think that the principle of equal treatment across races is SO important as to override concerns about human life in travel--we can have a genuine dispute about that--but the idea that racial profiling wouldn't help reduce terror attacks is retarded and insulting.

[Master of Ossus]

Precisely how manpower-intensive do you believe a typical airline hijacking or bombing operation to be? You make it sound like they're going to have to deplete their pool of people who can pass for Jews or Greeks if you implement this policy, and that this will somehow cripple their operations.

It takes them a pretty long time to set these things up--several months in planning, typically. Moreover, finding recruits is going to be a lot harder if you force these terror groups to go into areas and cultures they're less familiar with. It's not, exactly, an easy thing to find non-Arabs who are willing to blow themselves up (which is the whole fucking point)--and they haven't done it in the past--they've overwhelmingly used Arab males even though such individuals make up a relatively small fraction of the world population. It is self-evident, frankly, that suicide bombers on aircraft draw disproportionately from the Arab male pool, and even if you just forced terror groups to go to other demographics you're making it harder on them, which is a good thing, and it helps more than the "trust no one" policy advocated by others, here, in which everyone has an equal chance of being a terrorist.

[Darth Wong]

Precisely how manpower-intensive do you believe a typical airline hijacking or bombing operation to be? You make it sound like they're going to have to deplete their pool of people who can pass for Jews or Greeks if you implement this policy, and that this will somehow cripple their operations.

It takes them a pretty long time to set these things up--several months in planning, typically. Moreover, finding recruits is going to be a lot harder if you force these terror groups to go into areas and cultures they're less familiar with. It's not, exactly, an easy thing to find non-Arabs who are willing to blow themselves up (which is the whole fucking point)--and they haven't done it in the past--they've overwhelmingly used Arab males even though such individuals make up a relatively small fraction of the world population. It is self-evident, frankly, that suicide bombers on aircraft draw disproportionately from the Arab male pool, and even if you just forced terror groups to go to other demographics you're making it harder on them, which is a good thing, and it helps more than the "trust no one" policy advocated by others, here, in which everyone has an equal chance of being a terrorist.

And if the increased resentment fuels a much larger homegrown Arab resentment against your government, it does not occur to you that they can cause harm by going for the countless targets of opportunity around the country which are much easier than commercial aircraft? You honestly see no downside whatsoever to an official policy of institutionalized racism? What happens if you end up with a large, thriving homegrown Arab Muslim extremist movement, which is something America has avoided so far?

[Master of Ossus]

And if the increased resentment fuels a much larger homegrown Arab resentment against your government, it does not occur to you that they can cause harm by going for the countless targets of opportunity around the country which are much easier than commercial aircraft? You honestly see no downside whatsoever to an official policy of institutionalized racism? What happens if you end up with a large, thriving homegrown Arab Muslim extremist movement, which is something America has avoided so far?

Do you seriously think that resentment caused by being searched in an airport slightly more than other groups will create terrorism? I'd think that terrorists could find better things to be annoyed about than getting searched at airports. Frankly, I think it absurd to argue that someone wasn't going to be a suicide bomber, but then they got searched in an airport when they weren't doing anything and that sent them over the edge. And that's one person--you're talking about "a large, thriving homegrown Arab Muslim extremist movement."

[Pelranius]

Master of Ossus: Wouldn't it be just more convenient to screen everyone?

I'm sure it's "more convenient," but we're dealing with accuracy, here and we have to worry about human lives. It's much better to actually target resources and make terrorists change their current methods of doing things by removing their lowest-cost option.

It's not as if we can just automatically determine who's a Muslim just by looking at them. Bin Laden can just get any non brown skinned Arab, a non Muslim Arab or a European Muslim convert with Semtex clothes onto a flight.

How many of you idiots have to resort to this ridiculous argument? Does it strike you as mere coincidence that the terrorists they've used to attack aircraft in the past have, by and large, been Arabs (who make up a very small fraction of the population of the US traveling population)?

Racial profiling is frankly a bunch of nonsense that provides only false security to people too stupid to see it as a way for Al Qaeda to take advantage of such complacency and blow up a few hundred Westerners for free.

Ugh. It provides genuine security even if the security scheme was so simplistic that NO other people were searched (which is a ridiculous oversimplification of the process I'm advocating) because it would force terror groups to spend their resources on options other than their current lowest-cost one. What part of this is difficult for all of you morons to grasp? It's fine if you want to argue that you think that the principle of equal treatment across races is SO important as to override concerns about human life in travel--we can have a genuine dispute about that--but the idea that racial profiling wouldn't help reduce terror attacks is retarded and insulting.

So why exactly would the lowest cost and default option for Al Qaeda and company be Arabs? (And racial profiling of Arabs wouldn't stop people like JI in Indonesia, for starters). Better just to have entire structure set to search everyone in the beginning, rather than just some half assed measures targeted at Al Qaeda (which is hardly the only terrorist outfit), which may very well already and most probably be training new recruits of non Arab origin, and Arabs who don't exactly look a like stereotypical Saudi (and why exactly would it be harder and more expensive for Al Qaeda to find and train non Arab Muslims? It's not as if Indonesians and European converts are automatically more expensive to teach suicide bombing.

[Pelranius]

Precisely how manpower-intensive do you believe a typical airline hijacking or bombing operation to be? You make it sound like they're going to have to deplete their pool of people who can pass for Jews or Greeks if you implement this policy, and that this will somehow cripple their operations.

It takes them a pretty long time to set these things up--several months in planning, typically. Moreover, finding recruits is going to be a lot harder if you force these terror groups to go into areas and cultures they're less familiar with. It's not, exactly, an easy thing to find non-Arabs who are willing to blow themselves up (which is the whole fucking point)--and they haven't done it in the past--they've overwhelmingly used Arab males even though such individuals make up a relatively small fraction of the world population. It is self-evident, frankly, that suicide bombers on aircraft draw disproportionately from the Arab male pool, and even if you just forced terror groups to go to other demographics you're making it harder on them, which is a good thing, and it helps more than the "trust no one" policy advocated by others, here, in which everyone has an equal chance of being a terrorist.

I'm afraid I misread this post earlier, so I'll deal with it now (post above is pretty much irrelevant, so please ignore it).

Suicide bombing is not a strictly Arab Muslim phenomena. The Tamil Tigers were doing so long before Al Qaeda came into existence, and disgruntled workers in China do the same thing. And there are other terrorist outfits which are not Arabic in nature (and how the heck will racially profiling stop people like Jemiaah Islamiah?)

And it should be important to remember that the training camps of Al Qaeda in pre 9/11 Afghanistan had quite an international character (let's see, there's Uyghurs, assorted Africans, Pakistanis, Indians and so forth). Hardly a monolithic entity of Arab orthodoxy.

It is statistically probable that say, Caucasians will be less likely to be suicide bombers. But counter terrorism isn't based on just simply rigidly assuming that terrorists (especially with regards to religiously motivated terrorism) come from a single social background. A single contrary example to the accepted stereotype could carry out a successful attack, which would be a failure of counterterrorism efforts (whose nature is to prevent all terrorist attacks from getting through with drastic measures, and such drastic measures will naturally include screening everyone, especially is the ideology is ethnically transcendental).

Again, sorry for the hasty previous post.

[Master of Ossus]

So why exactly would the lowest cost and default option for Al Qaeda and company be Arabs?

I don't know. This is not a prediction, though, this is an empirical observation. There doesn't need to be a reason for it, it's just true.

(And racial profiling of Arabs wouldn't stop people like JI in Indonesia, for starters). Better just to have entire structure set to search everyone in the beginning, rather than just some half assed measures targeted at Al Qaeda (which is hardly the only terrorist outfit), which may very well already and most probably be training new recruits of non Arab origin, and Arabs who don't exactly look a like stereotypical Saudi (and why exactly would it be harder and more expensive for Al Qaeda to find and train non Arab Muslims? It's not as if Indonesians and European converts are automatically more expensive to teach suicide bombing.

Brilliant! Al Qaeda and other predominantly ARAB terrorist groups are the ones blowing up airplanes, but MAYBE in the future things will change for a reason which you can't explain (you can't even explain the empirical observation that a disproportionate fraction of suicide bombers are Arabs--how can you predict a change?), so the "solution" you propose is to search everyone equally!

Again, this is not how things work. If you continue to post your bullshit about how things COULD change in the future (for no reason--I'm the one who's trying to do something to force a change in their tactics), and if you continue to totally miss the point by arguing that there are other terrorist groups (as if Al Qaeda and other Arab groups aren't the dangerous ones that most of our security is aimed at stopping), then I will just start pointing you to my prior posts. I have explained in sufficient detail the rationale for using such profiling methods to better secure airports. In contrast, you are able to offer NO REASONING to support your "search everyone equally" idiocy because in the future terrorists might look different. Of course, that ignores:

1. The fact that things are unlikely to change dramatically unless there is some change in conditions--something like (I dunno) using profiles to determine who is more likely to be a terrorist and decreasing their likelihood of success through targeted security.
2. The "search everyone equally" bullshit doesn't make any sense from an efficiency standpoint. Women traveling with their kids, for example, are less likely to be terrorists, yet your method would have us expend the same resources on such people as on people who DO fit terror profiles.

[Master of Ossus]

I'm afraid I misread this post earlier, so I'll deal with it now (post above is pretty much irrelevant, so please ignore it).

Suicide bombing is not a strictly Arab Muslim phenomena. The Tamil Tigers were doing so long before Al Qaeda came into existence, and disgruntled workers in China do the same thing. And there are other terrorist outfits which are not Arabic in nature (and how the heck will racially profiling stop people like Jemiaah Islamiah?)

Oh, yes. How can we forget those things? Oh, yeah, THEY'RE NOT HAPPENING IN THE USA--YOU KNOW, THAT PLACE WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT THROUGH USE OF PROFILING. Jesus Christ you're an idiot.

And it should be important to remember that the training camps of Al Qaeda in pre 9/11 Afghanistan had quite an international character (let's see, there's Uyghurs, assorted Africans, Pakistanis, Indians and so forth). Hardly a monolithic entity of Arab orthodoxy.

Yet a disproportionate fraction of suicide bombers in the US have historically been Arab. My argument is not dependent on exclusive Arab terrorism, fucktard. It's based on DISPROPORTIONATE Arab terrorism and specifically in the context of airports. What part of this is so fucking hard for you to get through your incredibly incompetent skull?

It is statistically probable that say, Caucasians will be less likely to be suicide bombers.

Thank you. Concession accepted.

But counter terrorism isn't based on just simply rigidly assuming that terrorists (especially with regards to religiously motivated terrorism) come from a single social background. A single contrary example to the accepted stereotype could carry out a successful attack, which would be a failure of counterterrorism efforts (whose nature is to prevent all terrorist attacks from getting through with drastic measures, and such drastic measures will naturally include screening everyone, especially is the ideology is ethnically transcendental).

Nice strawman. Nowhere have I advocated ignoring other people entirely. I have advocated SHIFTING RESOURCES DYNAMICALLY to defeat threat profiles, which every counter terrorism group on the planet already does--I've just advocated using information that's too much of a sacred cow for morons like you, who would prefer to just let people die.

And, BTW, your nonsense about how a single attack represents a failure of counterterrorism is more damning of YOUR planned search method than mine, because your method will allow for more successful attacks because of misallocated resources. What part of this is hard for you to understand? I've already admitted that no method will be 100% foolproof, but if we're already spending the fucking money we might as well use it in a way that will provide the best security.

Again, sorry for the hasty previous post.

No worries.

[General Zod]

If profiling is as effective as being claimed, then perhaps MOO can point out the Arab in this picture just by looking. Perhaps it's just me but I don't trust screeners to be competent enough to actually distinguish between ME races sufficiently even if there weren't enough issues with profiling.

[Master of Ossus]

If profiling is as effective as being claimed, then perhaps MOO can point out the Arab in this picture just by looking. Perhaps it's just me but I don't trust screeners to be competent enough to actually distinguish between ME races sufficiently even if there weren't enough issues with profiling.

Holy shit! A criminal predictor that isn't 100% accurate. Better not implement that, then. After all, the alternative is to SEARCH EVERYONE EQUALLY! Seriously, it's a pretty shitty predictive factor that can't improve on that.

And aren't you the moron who was in favor of just letting screeners sort of... use their... guts... to figure out who to check, or was that someone else?

[Darth Wong]

And if the increased resentment fuels a much larger homegrown Arab resentment against your government, it does not occur to you that they can cause harm by going for the countless targets of opportunity around the country which are much easier than commercial aircraft? You honestly see no downside whatsoever to an official policy of institutionalized racism? What happens if you end up with a large, thriving homegrown Arab Muslim extremist movement, which is something America has avoided so far?

Do you seriously think that resentment caused by being searched in an airport slightly more than other groups will create terrorism?

Do you seriously think it takes a lot?

I'd think that terrorists could find better things to be annoyed about than getting searched at airports. Frankly, I think it absurd to argue that someone wasn't going to be a suicide bomber, but then they got searched in an airport when they weren't doing anything and that sent them over the edge. And that's one person--you're talking about "a large, thriving homegrown Arab Muslim extremist movement."

Ah, of course. It strikes you as subjectively absurd, therefore it can't happen. If someone came to you 15 years ago and said that the presence of two American bases in Saudi Arabia, with full permission from the House of Saud, would so enrage Muslims that they would commit an unprecedented act of terrorism in the United States which killed thousands, would you have also called that "absurd"? Every time America has done something to piss off Muslims, there have been fucking people saying "Oh no, this won't create more terrorists". And yet, there has been a steady increase in anti-American sentiment all over the world, hasn't there? Oops!

[General Zod]

Holy shit! A criminal predictor that isn't 100% accurate but is still plenty good. Aren't you the moron who was in favor of just letting screeners sort of... use their... guts... to figure out who to check?

I suppose it's too much to ask you to keep who posted what straight before you completely dismiss someone's point?

[Master of Ossus]

And if the increased resentment fuels a much larger homegrown Arab resentment against your government, it does not occur to you that they can cause harm by going for the countless targets of opportunity around the country which are much easier than commercial aircraft? You honestly see no downside whatsoever to an official policy of institutionalized racism? What happens if you end up with a large, thriving homegrown Arab Muslim extremist movement, which is something America has avoided so far?

Do you seriously think that resentment caused by being searched in an airport slightly more than other groups will create terrorism?

Do you seriously think it takes a lot?

I'd think that terrorists could find better things to be annoyed about than getting searched at airports. Frankly, I think it absurd to argue that someone wasn't going to be a suicide bomber, but then they got searched in an airport when they weren't doing anything and that sent them over the edge. And that's one person--you're talking about "a large, thriving homegrown Arab Muslim extremist movement."

Ah, of course. It strikes you as subjectively absurd, therefore it can't happen. If someone came to you 15 years ago and said that the presence of two American bases in Saudi Arabia, with full permission from the House of Saud, would so enrage Muslims that they would commit an unprecedented act of terrorism in the United States which killed thousands, would you have also called that "absurd"? Every time America has done something to piss off Muslims, there have been fucking people saying "Oh no, this won't create more terrorists". And yet, there has been a steady increase in anti-American sentiment all over the world, hasn't there? Oops!

Okay, and you think that if we avoid this particular form of discrimination it'll actually help things? Muslims go nuts over frickin' cartoons that weren't even published in the manner that was reported. We can't just kow-tow to Islamic extremists' every demand, and I daresay that someone who becomes a terrorist because of an airport security inspection is already too far gone for us to worry about. For Islamic extremists, the marginal impact of a single "slight" is minimal, they're just ALREADY NUTS. It's just like Christian fundamentalists, here. They'll find something to be pissed off about, and I daresay that an airport checking procedure is about ten millionth on the list of important things that they've got to use as motivation.

[Master of Ossus]

Holy shit! A criminal predictor that isn't 100% accurate but is still plenty good. Aren't you the moron who was in favor of just letting screeners sort of... use their... guts... to figure out who to check?

I suppose it's too much to ask you to keep who posted what straight before you completely dismiss someone's point?

I fucking answered your point, anyway (that bit about it not being one-hundred percent accurate), and there are about eight of you morons who are more-or-less copy-pasting each others' arguments, here. Sue me for not remembering which moron you are.

When the competing standard is "look at everyone equally," you don't need a very good predictor in order to improve things.

PS. I'm sorry I treated all of you morons the same way. I thought that's the vision of equal society that you wanted me to abide by.

[General Zod]

I fucking answered your point, anyway (that bit about it not being one-hundred percent accurate), and there are about eight of you morons who are more-or-less copy-pasting each others' arguments, here. Sue me for not remembering which moron you are.

That wasn't my point actually. My point is that race is an idiotic factor to screen people by when it's so easy to confuse one for another, and someone who speaks good English could just, I dunno, lie about their race perhaps? It would work better to screen them based on where they've traveled to in the last X timeframe than the color of their skin, though that might actually require putting in something resembling work.

When the competing standard is "look at everyone equally," you don't need a very good predictor in order to improve things.

Who the fuck is saying look at everyone equally again, as opposed to just "racial profiling is stupid"? Oh yeah, just you.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

For the record, I need to interject into this thread that Moslem is a perfectly valid spelling. As is Muslim. For that matter, the name Muhammad can be spelled Muhammed, Mahmud, Mohammed, Mohammad, and Mehmet.

There is no "right" spelling of these names in English (nor many others in such languages), because no perfect translation between Arabic and an Indo-European language is possible, let alone transliteration like this. Getting angry at someone and trying to correct them because they use one version rather than another is quite silly.

[Master of Ossus]

That wasn't my point actually. My point is that race is an idiotic factor to screen people by when it's so easy to confuse one for another, and someone who speaks good English could just, I dunno, lie about their race perhaps? It would work better to screen them based on where they've traveled to in the last X timeframe than the color of their skin, though that might actually require putting in something resembling work.

False dilemma fallacy. Nothing about racial profiling prevents you from also looking at their travel history--a point I have made several times in this thread.

Who the fuck is saying look at everyone equally again, as opposed to just "racial profiling is stupid"? Oh yeah, just you.

Pelranius? And, btw, what is stupid about using a method that would inexpensively help focus searches better? Even if you had to search everyone who looked like they might be an Arab, that's still a lower fraction of the population than the entire thing, and it could be useful.

[General Zod]

Pelranius? And, btw, what is stupid about using a method that would inexpensively help focus searches better? Even if you had to search everyone who looked like they might be an Arab, that's still a lower fraction of the population than the entire thing, and it could be useful.

My picture above was an example of why it's stupid. If you can't tell which one of them is Arab just by looking, then it's a pretty shitty system that leads to a lot of false positives and wasting time as a result. If a genuine terrorist was trying to get in, why would they be truthful about their country of origin or their race if they're aware of the profiling going on?

[Lord Poe]

If profiling is as effective as being claimed, then perhaps MOO can point out the Arab in this picture just by looking. Perhaps it's just me but I don't trust screeners to be competent enough to actually distinguish between ME races sufficiently even if there weren't enough issues with profiling.

Gee, who below is more likely to be a terrorist? (wrings hands) Who who who?

[brianeyci]

And your proof that this would lower number of terrorist attacks is? Because you think the terrorists will not adapt to an official policy and your so-called "focus" wouldn't be a colossal waste of resources?

I'm saying that they WILL respond, dumbass. It just takes THEM resources to respond. And how does this strategy entail "a colossal waste of resources" when the whole point is to target the resources we're already spending?

An insignificant amount of resources, because as already pointed out they have thousands of recruits who are non-Muslim.

It's not as if Bin Laden isn't a millionaire and the cost isn't trivial . I buy a cell phone that's worth a hundred bucks or I buy a cell phone that's worth a hundred and ten dollars, it doesn't hit my wallet. Hitting the wallet in this case would mean lowering number of terrorist attacks, which you have yet to show. You just assume that any increase > 0 is lowering the number of terrorist attacks.

I'm saying that increasing the cost of terrorist attacks can only be a good thing, and resources are not solely described monetarily, especially for a terrorist organization. They also incur use of resources like time, recruiters, etc. and all the while they'll be forced to work in territory they're unfamiliar with to get recruits that are outside of their normal range.

What makes you think that any of this increase is significant at all? What makes you think that any of this increase matters a shit in the long run and the organization won't adapt? Meanwhile I know exactly how to decrease total terrorist attacks: hire more security guards for more screenings. You would rather focus on one aspect, and create glaring loopholes only a moron would fall for.

Do you even know what the word policy means? Does the fact that you're overmanaging and micromanaging security officials on the ground have any meaning to you? It is not treat everybody equally because there are thousands of intangible factors. Let me spell it out for you: You are the one saying focus on one factor, Muslim, over all other factors.

I'm not saying that you should focus on it above all factors, you fuckwit. Are you even trying to read my posts, or are you too stupid to comprehend that you're arguing against strawmen? It should be ONE of the factors that's looked at, you stupid ass.

GRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAT you want to focus on Muslim, just like clothing, appearance, suspiciousness, and a thousand other intangible factors that security guards use to assess whether a person is dangerous or not. Guess what dickweed: security guards already do that. If you are fucking honest you'll admit that you believe Muslim to be a primary factor in terrorist bombings and you want focus on that one factor greater than others, rather than pussying around. There's only two possibilities. Either you're stating the no shit sherlock obvious, that security guards must take all factors into consideration, at which point your argument means absolutely nothing in terms of discrimination, or you're stating that Muslim should be an important factor above many or all other factors in screening terrorists. You say the latter, and when I call bullshit you claim the former.

Your so-called "policy" accomplishes nothing. If security officials already use their instincts and gut feeling, then having a superfluous policy is pointless and opens the door to unneeded discrimination.

Yes, because statistical techniques cannot possibly help to inform personnel, and instead we should rely entirely on the "gut feelings" of those people so as to avoid "unneeded discrimination." You are an idiot.

What part of the terrorists will adapt can't you accept ass? How ironic coming from someone who doesn't accept that statistics say the vast majority of Muslim travelers are law abiding citizens.

Let me put it another way: you wish to inconvenience and possibly harass and deny mobility rights to thousands, tens of thousands, millions of traveling Muslims to stop terrorist attacks (before you say where the fuck did I pull deny mobility rights from, what the fuck do you think an airline will do? They've got two choices, let them on the plane or don't). What numbers justify this? One terrorist Muslim? Two terrorist Muslims? Nine terrorist Muslims? One hundred? I asked you for fucking numbers and you decided never to give them. In case you don't understand, perhaps slightly increased terrorist attacks are simply the price to be paid to allow Muslims to travel, at least in the short term. This is the dirty consequence that you and the Muslim bashing crowd don't want to face. Suck it up, and don't punish the third largest religion in the world for the actions of a few. But of course you won't accept it because your feeling safe at night from terrorists is oh so much more important than the mobility rights of dirty ragheads.

It's like saying there needs to be a written standard for behaviour in the ten commandments. Even if they weren't flawed, the ten commandments are extraneous. Unwritten policy already exists and security guards don't need "clarity" aka bureaucracy which takes away their discretion. Maybe you should let airport security do its job.

Ah, I see. Therefore we should give them precisely NO guidance as to what sorts of factors to look for. Brilliant strategy for spending hundreds of millions of dollars of government resources.

The guidance should come in the form of training to identify suspicious behaviour, one of it which should be identifying increased risk factors such as being Muslim. Congratulations, you've proven that what police use right now to profile criminals is justified discrimination. But you're a fucking dishonest prick if you're saying you believe general acting suspicious is on the same level as being Muslim, because you've claimed otherwise in this thread. For your argument to be of any significance at all, if all other things were equal between two people and one was a Muslim you would stop the Muslim. That is bullshit, because identifying terrorists is not a binary and not even a spectrum.

[brianeyci]

MoO's approach reminds me of "tough on crime" approaches. Change the policy, change the organization, change the focus, change the law, change the bureaucracy and you can decrease terrorist attacks, yes sir. Discriminate against the Muslims for sure. The police doesn't need armchair generals telling them how to assess risk factors or take risk factors into account.

Meanwhile the only real way to decrease number of terrorist attacks is to hire more security guards and investigators and buy more equipment. You know, things that cost more money and therefore more taxes. That's the dirty secret that law and order types don't want to face: there's a cost to increased security and "policy" or "focus" changes won't matter a shit against a competent enemy.

[[R_H]]

Going back to what kinnison said about Muslims and airport screeners, what's preventing a terrorist originisation from paying or blackmailing some for necessary information or help? Regarding what Master of Ossus is saying about using "gut feeling" and all that...remember that these are fucking minimum wage renta-cops. They're not experienced police men or detectives.

[Master of Ossus]

MoO's approach reminds me of "tough on crime" approaches. Change the policy, change the organization, change the focus, change the law, change the bureaucracy and you can decrease terrorist attacks, yes sir. Discriminate against the Muslims for sure. The police doesn't need armchair generals telling them how to assess risk factors or take risk factors into account.

Meanwhile the only real way to decrease number of terrorist attacks is to hire more security guards and investigators and buy more equipment. You know, things that cost more money and therefore more taxes. That's the dirty secret that law and order types don't want to face: there's a cost to increased security and "policy" or "focus" changes won't matter a shit against a competent enemy.

And your evidence for this assertion is....? And, as I have repeatedly pointed out, we're already spending the money. This is just an issue of what we focus it on.

[Master of Ossus]

An insignificant amount of resources, because as already pointed out they have thousands of recruits who are non-Muslim.

But they're not using these for suicide bombing attacks! What part of this is hard for you to comprehend? And they have thousands of recruits who are non-Muslim? Where you getting this bullshit?

Do you really think it's just as easy for Al Qaeda to recruit East Asian grandparents traveling with their grandchildren as it is for them to get Arab males to go on suicide bombing missions by themselves? Do you really think that the difference is insignificant to them?

What makes you think that any of this increase is significant at all? What makes you think that any of this increase matters a shit in the long run and the organization won't adapt? Meanwhile I know exactly how to decrease total terrorist attacks: hire more security guards for more screenings. You would rather focus on one aspect, and create glaring loopholes only a moron would fall for.

Because it's obviously costly to run these terror attacks or there would be more of them going on. Your method just requires more resources. The whole fucking point of my method is that you're using the resources you already have in a more focused and more effective way. We don't have the resources to check everyone, so we MUST pick people to search.

And forcing the terrorists to adapt is a GOOD THING because it means that your previous policy took away their lowest-cost option. What fucking part of this is too hard for you to understand?

GRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAT you want to focus on Muslim, just like clothing, appearance, suspiciousness, and a thousand other intangible factors that security guards use to assess whether a person is dangerous or not.

No, I want to use an objective method to select some people and then allow security personnel some discretion to go along with this.

Guess what dickweed: security guards already do that. If you are fucking honest you'll admit that you believe Muslim to be a primary factor in terrorist bombings and you want focus on that one factor greater than others, rather than pussying around.

Yes, I do. Atheists would not blow themselves up in airplanes. Neither have Christians, historically. If you're fucking honest, you're going to acknowledge that atheist grandmothers traveling with their grandchildren are less likely to be terrorists as single Muslim men traveling alone. If you admit that, then you have to concede that there is sense in not devoting the same level of security resources towards screening them as towards screening single Arab men.

There's only two possibilities. Either you're stating the no shit sherlock obvious, that security guards must take all factors into consideration, at which point your argument means absolutely nothing in terms of discrimination, or you're stating that Muslim should be an important factor above many or all other factors in screening terrorists. You say the latter, and when I call bullshit you claim the former.

Except that I think they SHOULD take all of these factors into discrimination and the "Search everyone! They're all the same!" nonsense crowd is arguing AGAINST use of religious and racial profiles. You've just adopted precisely my position. Religion and race should not be sacred cows that can't be taken into consideration, and we can use statistical methods to determine HOW MUCH weight they should be given when allocating resources.

What part of the terrorists will adapt can't you accept ass? How ironic coming from someone who doesn't accept that statistics say the vast majority of Muslim travelers are law abiding citizens.

LIAR! I have acknowledged this point many times, you've just totally ignored my counterargument that it's GOOD TO FORCE THEM TO ADAPT. At least you make them change tactics and use things that they've not historically used.

Let me put it another way: you wish to inconvenience and possibly harass and deny mobility rights to thousands, tens of thousands, millions of traveling Muslims to stop terrorist attacks (before you say where the fuck did I pull deny mobility rights from, what the fuck do you think an airline will do? They've got two choices, let them on the plane or don't). What numbers justify this? One terrorist Muslim? Two terrorist Muslims? Nine terrorist Muslims? One hundred? I asked you for fucking numbers and you decided never to give them.

A DISPROPORTIONATE FRACTION of Arab suicide bombers justifies the searches, moron. You are simply retreading ground that has already been covered. It's not a matter of some arbitrary number, but one of proportion.

In case you don't understand, perhaps slightly increased terrorist attacks are simply the price to be paid to allow Muslims to travel, at least in the short term. This is the dirty consequence that you and the Muslim bashing crowd don't want to face.

I fully acknowledge that, douchebag. In fact, this is the precise chain of factual reasoning that led me to the conclusion I've been advocating throughout this entire thread. I just don't think that increased terror attacks are a reasonable concession for the SLIGHT change in convenience for single Arab Muslims males who travel alone. As I stated several posts ago, you can disagree with this on principle (eg., "Equality is even more important than human life and financial resources,") but it's really not good enough to just claim that there isn't a degree of sacrifice, here. There is risk associated with the "treat people the same" policy. Reasonable minds can differ on whether or not the equality angle is worth human life--I don't think it is because the degree of inequality we're dealing with is slight, and frankly I don't really give a shit about trampling "religious rights" to begin with if it means protecting human life.

Suck it up, and don't punish the third largest religion in the world for the actions of a few.

I'm not, you stupid moron. I'm using a dynamic search profile to better target resources. You've already acknowledged that Muslims are more likely to be suicide bombers than the average traveler. You must, therefore, acknowledge that there is some reason to differentiate between the screening policies of Muslims and non-Muslims when they can be identified, unless you have a strong policy argument otherwise.

But of course you won't accept it because your feeling safe at night from terrorists is oh so much more important than the mobility rights of dirty ragheads.

First of all, I find your concession that you're willing to sacrifice human lives in the name of MOBILITY "RIGHTS" to be shockingly callous. The right to live is more fundamental than the right to travel in airports. Furthermore, I'm not seeking to prevent Muslims from flying in airplanes, but regulate the manner in which passengers are screened. Even I agree that SOME sacrifices of human life are necessary in the name of ACTUAL "mobility rights"--which is why we don't ban air-travel outright--but since we as a society have already decided to pump money into airport screening, it makes sense to use that where it has the best chance of saving lives.

Further, at least you've acknowledged the overall basis for the distinction that I've been trying to draw. I really don't care that you disagree with the policy decision that I advocate (eg., human life trumps slight inconvenience to some people)--you can disagree with that in terms of morality. What I object to is the idea that we can't take race, religion, age, etc. into account when we're determining who to search, even though those are correlated with the lowest-cost option for terrorist suicide bombers.

The guidance should come in the form of training to identify suspicious behaviour, one of it which should be identifying increased risk factors such as being Muslim. Congratulations, you've proven that what police use right now to profile criminals is justified discrimination.

Thank you! Concession accepted. THAT WAS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF THIS THREAD, ASSWIPE.

See the thread title, there, and the OP when you were finding this discussion? Here it is: "Name some acceptable forms of discrimination."

Great. You've now agreed that I have named one. I can die happy, now.

But you're a fucking dishonest prick if you're saying you believe general acting suspicious is on the same level as being Muslim, because you've claimed otherwise in this thread.

Quote me, then, you lying asswipe. Where did I make such a claim?

For your argument to be of any significance at all, if all other things were equal between two people and one was a Muslim you would stop the Muslim. That is bullshit, because identifying terrorists is not a binary and not even a spectrum.

Yes. IF ALL OTHER FACTORS ARE EQUAL, YOU SEARCH THE MUSLIM. What part of this is difficult for you to grasp? And, yes, identifying terrorists is a binary: either you find them or you do not. Perhaps you were referring to the spectrum of people who allegedly become suicide bombers. It's true that not ALL suicide bombers will fit the profile that I've presented of Arab males between the ages of 15 and 55, but compared with the air-traveling population, suicide bombers skew heavily towards that group. Therefore, when all other factors are equal, it is necessary for the purposes of safeguarding human life that we acknowledge this distinction. You might not be able to stop every suicide bomber, but you'll stop more of them that way, and that's the whole point of airport screening in the first place.

Again, I can see two ways to disagree with this:

1. Mike's method of saying, "No, actually your method would increase suicide bombing attacks." I disagree with Mike's assessment of the risks involved because I do not view Muslims in the United States as a ravening horde that is looking for the smallest inconvenience as an excuse to start "a large, thriving homegrown Arab Muslim extremist movement." Mike's argument, at least, is reasonable since it provides a countervailing concern that, at least theoretically, could prevent any gains from being made.
2. The argument which you MAY be adopting that says, "Sure, if we don't use this we're going to be sacrificing innocent lives, but equality in even the slightest inconveniences is more important than human life." I disagree with this, too, but at least there's some basis for such an argument--I think reasonable minds can disagree about the value of equality in treatment as compared to the value of human life.

On the other hand, the idea that profiling will have NO effect on stopping terrorism or making it harder on the terrorists makes no sense to me. You seem to be adopting position 2, outlined above, in which case more power to you. People like you have, in reality, had their way with airport security in the US, so far.

[Lord Poe]

I love how the fuckwits in this thread are painting MoO as a radical racist shitbag, while completely ignoring what he is actually saying. Everybody is just SO conerned with the feelgood 'let's be fair to everyone!' nursery rhyme, that they've completely ignored the OP in general, and MoO specifically.

Here's one for the OP: If you find a bloody maxi pad in the middle of a coed school corridor, which dorm do you investigate for littering first? The boys, to see if there's some off chance it was a boy prank, or one of the boys is a hermaphrodite, or ritually cuts himself and uses maxi-pads?

Or, are you a sexist piece of shit who investigates the girl's dorm first? Oh no! Better call Gloria Allred!