Name some acceptable forms of discrimination.

[Darth Wong]

Gee, if I were a Muslim terrorist, I have no idea how I could possibly get around a known anti-Muslim security screening process. It's not like I could simply wear a Cross pendant, declare that I'm a Christian, and then waltz through a system that is now openly focused on self-declared Muslims, right? Oh no, that would be impossible. Instead, I would have to turn around and declare that the Americans have won. Tarnation! My dastardly plans, foiled again!

[Masami von Weizegger]

Sadly, I think what kinnison and others really mean is not that there should be an anti-Muslim security screening process but an anti-dirty brown people security screening process.

[brianeyci]

Footmen on the ground using their instincts to decide who is a threat and who is not isn't the same as an institutional policy to target Muslims. By the way, I like how you ignore the fact that competent terrorists are recruiting light skinned Arabs who can pass as Europeans with fake passports. They dress Euro, they talk Euro, they look Euro and they pass as Euro.

Suicide bombing attacks on airliners have been overwhelmingly carried out by Arab Muslim males between the ages of 15 and 45. That is sufficient evidence to warrant extra security focus on them.

Nice dodge. I asked you for proof that a significant number of traveling Muslims are terrorists. Just like you requested I changed my question to add in the "traveling" nitpick and I was expecting an answer, but turns out no matter what question I ask there is no answer eh?

Why do you conflate a security guard's instincts with a company's policy to specifically target Muslims? The two are not the same. Your arguments all apply to the former while the latter is what we're talking about, widespread discrimination of Muslims and not an individual case where a guard "feels bad" about a guy (which may or may not be justified but I'm not about to tie security's hands behind their back.)

[andrewgpaul]

Off-topic, but Soldier, what's the difference between muslim and moslem? Is one offensive or something?

[Masami von Weizegger]

Off-topic, but Soldier, what's the difference between muslim and moslem? Is one offensive or something?

Moslem and it's counterparts Musselman and Mohammedan are now usually considered offensive. As such, they have been sometimes used by more extreme right wingers for no real reason except the fact that they are not generally accepted.

[andrewgpaul]

The latter two I can see, but I've never heard 'moslem' as being a prejorative term. I always figured it was just an anglicisation that fell into disuse.

[Master of Ossus]

Footmen on the ground using their instincts to decide who is a threat and who is not isn't the same as an institutional policy to target Muslims. By the way, I like how you ignore the fact that competent terrorists are recruiting light skinned Arabs who can pass as Europeans with fake passports. They dress Euro, they talk Euro, they look Euro and they pass as Euro.

Good. At least make them go through the additional effort of having to recruit such people, who are well outside of their normal recruitment schemes. And, btw, all these people are still Muslims. Is this merely a coincidence?

Nice dodge. I asked you for proof that a significant number of traveling Muslims are terrorists. Just like you requested I changed my question to add in the "traveling" nitpick and I was expecting an answer, but turns out no matter what question I ask there is no answer eh?

But your question is bullshit. By the logic it implies, we shouldn't bother to inspect ANY travelers because the fraction of ALL TRAVELERS who are terrorists is even smaller than the fraction of Muslims who are terrorists. But go on, continue to ignore this and dismiss it as a "nitpick."

Why do you conflate a security guard's instincts with a company's policy to specifically target Muslims? The two are not the same. Your arguments all apply to the former while the latter is what we're talking about, widespread discrimination of Muslims and not an individual case where a guard "feels bad" about a guy (which may or may not be justified but I'm not about to tie security's hands behind their back.)

First of all, I have no idea why you believe that a security guard's instincts are less discriminatory than an official policy to target resources where they will be most effective. Moreover, YES. I do think we should preferentially target resources at Muslims. This is not discrimination in any meaningful sense of the word, since all travelers will be searched a certain fraction of the time. It will simply be higher if you are a Muslim and meet additional qualifying features.

[Masami von Weizegger]

I find myself wondering, what part of a passport or any other identification document routinely checked by airport security and officials, identifies a passenger by their religious affiliation.

If none, then are we merely tacitly substituting "Muslim" in when we in fact mean "Arab-looking people or people with Arab-sounding names"?

[General Zod]

Good. At least make them go through the additional effort of having to recruit such people, who are well outside of their normal recruitment schemes. And, btw, all these people are still Muslims. Is this merely a coincidence?

Normal recruitment schemes?

The dossier also estimates that 10,000 have attended extremist conferences. The security services believe that the number who are prepared to commit terrorist attacks may run into hundreds.

Most of the Al-Qaeda recruits tend to be loners “attracted to university clubs based on ethnicity or religion” because of “disillusionment with their current existence”. British-based terrorists are made up of different ethnic groups, according to the documents.

“They range from foreign nationals now naturalised and resident in the UK, arriving mainly from north Africa and the Middle East, to second and third generation British citizens whose forebears mainly originate from Pakistan or Kashmir.

“In addition . . . a significant number come from liberal, non-religious Muslim backgrounds or (are) only converted to Islam in adulthood. These converts include white British nationals and those of West Indian extraction.”

[Master of Ossus]

I find myself wondering, what part of a passport or any other identification document routinely checked by airport security and officials, identifies a passenger by their religious affiliation.

If none, then are we merely tacitly substituting "Muslim" in when we in fact mean "Arab-looking people or people with Arab-sounding names"?

Which is what I think we should be looking for. It's not hard to identify who is more likely to be a terrorist on an airliner, and that's where we should target our resources. What is difficult to understand about this concept? Oh, right, it offends peoples' sense of propriety. Too bad that sense of propriety is directly interfering with the safety and security of airliners.

[Master of Ossus]

Good. At least make them go through the additional effort of having to recruit such people, who are well outside of their normal recruitment schemes. And, btw, all these people are still Muslims. Is this merely a coincidence?

Normal recruitment schemes?

The dossier also estimates that 10,000 have attended extremist conferences. The security services believe that the number who are prepared to commit terrorist attacks may run into hundreds.

Most of the Al-Qaeda recruits tend to be loners “attracted to university clubs based on ethnicity or religion” because of “disillusionment with their current existence”. British-based terrorists are made up of different ethnic groups, according to the documents.

“They range from foreign nationals now naturalised and resident in the UK, arriving mainly from north Africa and the Middle East, to second and third generation British citizens whose forebears mainly originate from Pakistan or Kashmir.

“In addition . . . a significant number come from liberal, non-religious Muslim backgrounds or (are) only converted to Islam in adulthood. These converts include white British nationals and those of West Indian extraction.”

Ah. My mistake. I had thought it merely a coincidence that so many suicide bombers on airliners have been Arab Muslims. And quantify "a significant number" given that we're talking about a mere "hundreds" of individuals. Six? It's still smaller than the fraction of Arabs in that sample, and the fraction of "British nationals and those of West Indian extraction" on airliners is much greater, anyway.

[brianeyci]

No, I say you should continue to inspect all travelers. You're trying to argue for additional focus on Muslims. I say inspect all travelers with the same official standards, with unwritten rules based on a security guard's instinct and gut and depending on the situation. You know, how it's normally supposed to happen. But go ahead, pretend there's only two choices, inspect all Muslims with additional scrutiny or inspect nobody.

A security guard's instincts may or may not be less discriminatory. There are often intangibles involved such as body language, speech, clothing and so on. If you see no difference between a security guard's individual approach and black and white in company policy you're being a dick.

When it comes down to it you haven't proven a shit MoO when you think you have. How do you counter Mike's rebuttal that terrorists would know about an institutional policy and state themselves as Christian? If the nation's security rests on assumptions like yours I would be afraid for the safety of the country. What about the European looking Arabs?

This would be akin to a written police policy to target black people more than others because black people commit more crimes. This kind of thing is extremely situational and doesn't need an official edict which takes away discretion from the officer on the ground. But go ahead, pretend that race or religion are the issue, when it's really not a necessary condition of suicide bombing or terrorism.

[Masami von Weizegger]

Which is what I think we should be looking for. It's not hard to identify who is more likely to be a terrorist on an airliner, and that's where we should target our resources. What is difficult to understand about this concept? Oh, right, it offends peoples' sense of propriety. Too bad that sense of propriety is directly interfering with the safety and security of airliners.

Indeed? Despite being twice posited that terrorist strategies have now shifted towards recruiting those who would not normally fall under your plans (admittedly, the second post came seconds before your own here).

Your response to the first was merely that it would slightly inconvenience terrorist organisations. A sure fire victory for you, of course, whether or not this means that light-skinned or even white radical Muslim terrorists operating under American or European names (whether fake or not) enter the United States freely.

What will your response be? That they're still Muslims, so the plan still works? Even though we've just confirmed we're only using the word Muslim as a cheap substitution for people who look and sound vaguely Arabian even though evidence has now been presented that terrorists know and are now actively working around this?

[Zablorg]

It's not like I could simply wear a Cross pendant, declare that I'm a Christian, and then waltz through a system that is now openly focused on self-declared Muslims, right? Oh no, that would be impossible. Instead, I would have to turn around and declare that the Americans have won. Tarnation! My dastardly plans, foiled again!

I think they wouldn't be able to let themselves carry out such an act of blasphemy. Declaring themselves a filthy Christian? Allah would be ashamed!

[Master of Ossus]

Indeed? Despite being twice posited that terrorist strategies have now shifted towards recruiting those who would not normally fall under your plans (admittedly, the second post came seconds before your own here).

Again, why do you think they've done that? Because they think it's easier to recruit such people? The whole purpose of including race or religion in profiling it to force terrorist groups to use higher-cost options for recruitment, and their shift in policy is a necessitated response to such measures already in place.

Your response to the first was merely that it would slightly inconvenience terrorist organisations. A sure fire victory for you, of course, whether or not this means that light-skinned or even white radical Muslim terrorists operating under American or European names (whether fake or not) enter the United States freely.

Yes, it would be. It would mean that we've forced them to expend additional resources and better safeguarded lives. What part of this is difficult for you to understand? Terrorist groups also have limited resources, and if their goal is to blow up airliners we may not be able to totally, 100% prevent them from doing that, but all of our security measures are designed to make them less likely to succeed when they do try and to make it harder for them to mount serious threats.

What will your response be? That they're still Muslims, so the plan still works? Even though we've just confirmed we're only using the word Muslim as a cheap substitution for people who look and sound vaguely Arabian even though evidence has now been presented that terrorists know and are now actively working around this?

My response would be that, as the fraction of suicide bombers who are Arab drops, you dynamically shift towards other groups who are replacing them and thus force the terrorists to continuously change their recruitment methods.

Edit: But if such a trend were actually observable, then you can pat yourself on the back a little bit because you've taken away what was, previously, their lowest-cost option for attacking aircraft and you've forced them to expend more of their limited resources on recruiting people who are harder sells.

[andrewgpaul]

Actually, one of the books of Islamic law specifically allows a Muslim to hide his faith if it might lead to persecution. Since being arrested as a terrorist and sent to Guantanamo presumably counts as (justified) persecution, they could feel justified in pretending to not be muslim.

[Master of Ossus]

No, I say you should continue to inspect all travelers. You're trying to argue for additional focus on Muslims. I say inspect all travelers with the same official standards, with unwritten rules based on a security guard's instinct and gut and depending on the situation. You know, how it's normally supposed to happen. But go ahead, pretend there's only two choices, inspect all Muslims with additional scrutiny or inspect nobody.

Bullshit. I think we should search everyone SOMETIMES, but that we should search Arab males between 15 and 55 more often than others. Also, leaving it up to the security guards runs the risk of putting them in a situation where they are personally liable for what happens, instead of the organization they respond to.

A security guard's instincts may or may not be less discriminatory. There are often intangibles involved such as body language, speech, clothing and so on. If you see no difference between a security guard's individual approach and black and white in company policy you're being a dick.

I do see a difference, but I don't see why the policy should be completely unofficial, as you propose. I think that there is room for "hunches" in real life, but if you're trying to claim that you're treating everyone the same way when in fact "unwritten policies" you've instituted are specifically targeted then you're just wussing out and dodging the original question, which is whether such policies (official or unofficial) are reasonable.

When it comes down to it you haven't proven a shit MoO when you think you have. How do you counter Mike's rebuttal that terrorists would know about an institutional policy and state themselves as Christian?

Kinda hard to fake one's race. Moreover, it's not as if Muslims are impossible to identify in airports unless they tell you who they are.

If the nation's security rests on assumptions like yours I would be afraid for the safety of the country. What about the European looking Arabs?

I agree that such people would be more difficult to identify. How does this change the fact that specifically recruiting these people is also more costly for the terrorists?

This would be akin to a written police policy to target black people more than others because black people commit more crimes. This kind of thing is extremely situational and doesn't need an official edict which takes away discretion from the officer on the ground. But go ahead, pretend that race or religion are the issue, when it's really not a necessary condition of suicide bombing or terrorism.

When did I say that being an Arab or a Muslim was a necessary condition for terrorists? I said that of the population of suicide bombers, a disproportionate fraction of them are Arab Muslim males between 15 and 55. Since we're already spending millions of dollars trying to identify such people, why shouldn't we use a dynamic system of profiling to target our resources most accurately and make it as difficult as possible to find terrorists?

As to the distinction between official and unofficial that you keep drawing, I really view that as a dodge. In my understanding, the issue isn't whether the policy should be official or unofficial, but whether or not there should be such a policy in the first place. I don't especially care if you want to make it entirely unofficial, but the idea that we really should search young moms traveling with their families at the same rate at which we search single Arab, 30 year old men is IMO dangerous and unreasonable. "Treat everyone equally" works great if everyone has the same probability of being dangerous, but it's really problematic when certain easily-differentiable groups have widely different characteristics.

Edit: The issue with an unofficial policy that I have is that it pussyfoots around the situation. "Hey, I'm not responsible for what the people I trained and supervise did. They were instituting completely unofficial policies at the time, by their own prerogative." It's kind of irresponsible when the safety of others is at stake, and that's why clear guidelines can be helpful.

[General Zod]

Kinda hard to fake one's race. Moreover, it's not as if Muslims are impossible to identify in airports unless they tell you who they are.

There's plenty of Muslims of African descent. Should we include Africans as well as Arabs? Why not make it everyone with funny accents just to be safe?

When did I say that being an Arab or a Muslim was a necessary condition for terrorists? I said that of the population of suicide bombers, a disproportionate fraction of them are Arab Muslim males between 15 and 55. Since we're already spending millions of dollars trying to identify such people, why shouldn't we use a dynamic system of profiling to target our resources most accurately and make it as difficult as possible to find terrorists?

I'm sure it would prove to be about as effective as the national no-fly list. . . .oh wait, that wasn't very effectivel, was it?

[Master of Ossus]

There's plenty of Muslims of African descent. Should we include Africans as well as Arabs? Why not make it everyone with funny accents just to be safe?

No, because those people aren't blowing themselves up yet on airliners.

I'm sure it would prove to be about as effective as the national no-fly list. . . .oh wait, that wasn't very effectivel, was it?

Great example! Something that was targeted to particular individuals and that had no way of handling people who weren't known to the system, a priori wasn't effective, so something that's designed to quickly profile and pare down large groups of people with limited information about them must be similarly ineffective. Where did you get this line of reasoning?

Moreover, this actually supports my argument because it's an example of a needless waste of resources that were misallocated because our profiling wasn't accurate enough. If it were up to me, I would spend less money on securing airports (but target it as accurately as possible). In the situation we're in, though, we're committed to spending a metric ton of money on airport security, and we may as well spend it as best we can.

[General Zod]

No, because those people aren't blowing themselves up yet on airliners.

Neither are white British Muslims. It's not as if the Al Qaeda is picky about what skin color you are when you go blow yourself up in their name.

Great example! Something that was targeted to particular individuals and that had no way of handling people who weren't known to the system, a priori wasn't effective, so something that's designed to quickly profile and pare down large groups of people with limited information about them must be similarly ineffective. Where did you get this line of reasoning?

Particular individuals? They just grabbed a few thousand names and went with it, a lot of the times singling out people because their name looked Muslim regardless of any other criteria.

Moreover, this actually supports my argument because it's an example of a needless waste of resources that were misallocated because our profiling wasn't accurate enough. If it were up to me, I would spend less money on securing airports (but target it as accurately as possible). In the situation we're in, though, we're committed to spending a metric ton of money on airport security, and we may as well spend it as best we can.

And scrutinizing people based on their race isn't a needless waste of resources? Instead of more useful criteria like say, which countries they've recently visited?

[Master of Ossus]

Neither are white British Muslims. It's not as if the Al Qaeda is picky about what skin color you are when you go blow yourself up in their name.

Right, which is an advantage for us because skin color correlates with who volunteers to blow themselves up.

Particular individuals? They just grabbed a few thousand names and went with it, a lot of the times singling out people because their name looked Muslim regardless of any other criteria.

That's not my understanding of how the no-fly list was created, but in any case it was not designed to defeat people who had not been identified before they walked into the airport. The point of the profile is that it lets you handle such unknowns more easily.

And scrutinizing people based on their race isn't a needless waste of resources? Instead of more useful criteria like say, which countries they've recently visited?

The whole "airport security" thing is a needless waste of resources, but determining skin color is easy and, like the recent visitation list, also helps focus searches. Recently visited countries should also be accounted for on the profile and the odds of search should be affected by them.

[brianeyci]

I think we should search everyone SOMETIMES, but that we should search Arab males between 15 and 55 more often than others.

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?

How does this change the fact that specifically recruiting these people is also more costly for the terrorists?

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.

As to the distinction between official and unofficial that you keep drawing, I really view that as a dodge.

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.

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. 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.

[Master of Ossus]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Pelranius]

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

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.

[Darth Wong]

I'm saying that they WILL respond, dumbass. It just takes THEM resources to respond.

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.