Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Profiling is absolutely effective. In essence, profiling is risk analysis. It's only called "profiling" when political considerations come into play.
So I again, why don't we just make them wear patches? Why bother profiling? You think you could honestly tell the difference between a Hindu Indian, a Pakistani Muslim, an Israeli Jew, a dark skinned Sicilian, and an Orthodox Albanian? Just make all people in the U.S. or coming into the U.S. for travel purposes wear patches on their arms, and that way they can always be identified when traveling. I don't see why this wouldn't be effective.
So I again, why don't we just make them wear patches? Why bother profiling? You think you could honestly tell the difference between a Hindu Indian, a Pakistani Muslim, an Israeli Jew, a dark skinned Sicilian, and an Orthodox Albanian? Just make all people in the U.S. or coming into the U.S. for travel purposes wear patches on their arms, and that way they can always be identified when traveling. I don't see why this wouldn't be effective.
That's just too Nazi like for me. I have a feeling you think "profiling" means "stop all Muslims and ignore everyone else" in which case you couldn't be more wrong.
Law of averages. Nothing is 100% effective, but if there is a pattern, any pattern that has a higher reliability than a completely random choice, then you go with it. I guarantee that you yourself use risk analysis in your daily life. But when it comes to religion then all of a sudden you think it's evil and bigoted and it's a whole different story - because you're not thinking logically.
Most Indians aren't Muslim, they are Hindu. So will they be checked too because they have brown skin? If I gave you a line up of people from different brown skinned ethnicities including Mexican, Sicilian, Greek, Indian, Phillpino, Thai, Polynesian, Algerian, and Pakistani, you think you could tell me where each person is from just by looking at them?
In India 80.5% are Hindus, followed by Islam, Christianity, Sikhism Buddhists, Jains, Parsis (Zoroastrians), Jews and Ba.
Don't ask me, you are the one that started this thread.
You tell me if Muslim Indians should be checked because of their brown skin. I would like to hear your theory as to how they would disguise themselves to look non-Muslim.
so i again, why don't we just make them wear patches? Why bother profiling? You think you could honestly tell the difference between a hindu indian, a pakistani muslim, an israeli jew, a dark skinned sicilian, and an orthodox albanian? Just make all people in the u.s. Or coming into the u.s. For travel purposes wear patches on their arms, and that way they can always be identified when traveling. I don't see why this wouldn't be effective.
How old are you??? Can't you see that suggesting something like that is wrong on so many levels.
I would like to hear your theory as to how they would disguise themselves to look non-Muslim.
That's an illogical question because there is no Muslim ethnic look. Indonesians look completely different from Indians, Indians look completely different from Syrians, and Syrians look different from Bosnians. Therefore, forming a national security policy based on Muslim looks, is simply ridiculous, and someone stating that Indians and Pakistanis can't hide their "Muslim" look, is idiotic, because there is no unified Muslim look.
You are more concerned with political correctness than national security. According the law of averages, since we can't possibly discern all Muslims by looking at them, we'd be able to search more of them by making them wear patches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamBarrow
I have a feeling you think "profiling" means "stop all Muslims and ignore everyone else" in which case you couldn't be more wrong.
What you don't understand is capacity. TSA is already functioning at full capacity. They have just enough bodies, time and financial resources to perform searches on 5,000 people a day per airport (that's completely made up number, I have no idea how many but you get the point). So if a new policy is formed that states a larger percentage of Muslims should be searched, then that means a smaller percentage of other religions and ethnicities would be searched, which would mean that if a terrorist disguised himself as a follower of another religion or ethnicity other than Muslim or Arab, he'd have a better chance of getting through airport security. Hence, this policy would actually give terrorist a higher probability of getting through security.
Also, under this notion, African-Americans should be searched more often too, because several terrorist attack attempts were attributed to African-Americans in the last few years. So under your concept of averages and percentages, my brother in-law, who is African-American, former military and currently a prosecutor, should be hand searched by TSA nearly every time he flys because of his race, but not his White colleagues.
That's an illogical question because there is no Muslim ethnic look. Indonesians look completely different from Indians, Indians look completely different from Syrians, and Syrians look different from Bosnians. Therefore, forming a national security policy based on Muslim looks, is simply ridiculous, and someone stating that Indians and Pakistanis can't hide their "Muslim" look, is idiotic, because there is no unified Muslim look.
Now you are saying there is no unified/ethnic Muslim look.
Yet you opened this thread saying:
Quote:
Wouldn't this just give terrorist a loop hole to fly more discretely under the TSA's radar, by knowing they are unlikely to get searched if they look non-arab or non-muslim
Saying trying to disguise themselves to look non-muslim is implying that there is a unified/ethnic Muslim look.
How much deeper are you going to dig that hole you are standing in?
You are more concerned with political correctness than national security. According the law of averages, since we can't possibly discern all Muslims by looking at them, we'd be able to search more of them by making them wear patches.
Also, under this notion, African-Americans should be searched more often too, because several terrorist attack attempts were attributed to African-Americans in the last few years. So under your concept of averages and percentages, my brother in-law, who is African-American, former military and currently a prosecutor, should be hand searched by TSA nearly every time he flys because of his race, but not his White colleagues.
So white people should get a pass and not have to wear a patch??
You are unbelievable!!!
I guess you can expect a serious dose of food poisoning.
Quote:
I hope everyone who bashes Obama, supports the continuation of the war in Afghanistan, and demonizes all Muslims, gets food poisoning today. Happy Thanksgiving
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So white people should get a pass and not have to wear a patch??
