Conquer Club

silvanricky wrote:Yeah, Israel has a better security method and limited profiling might work a little better. My thought though is how can the United States, which has a much larger & diverse population along with multiple international airports, be able to implement it. Israel sort of has the advantage of using the profiling method at least when it comes to screening at airports.

Really? You ever notice how similar Jewish Israelis and Arabs can be?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

silvanricky wrote:Yeah, Israel has a better security method and limited profiling might work a little better. My thought though is how can the United States, which has a much larger & diverse population along with multiple international airports, be able to implement it. Israel sort of has the advantage of using the profiling method at least when it comes to screening at airports.

Really? You ever notice how similar Jewish Israelis and Arabs can be?

Apparently you missed the part where it said that race is not used as a screening factor.

silvanricky wrote:Yeah, Israel has a better security method and limited profiling might work a little better. My thought though is how can the United States, which has a much larger & diverse population along with multiple international airports, be able to implement it. Israel sort of has the advantage of using the profiling method at least when it comes to screening at airports.

This is a point I have heard security experts discuss. In truth, we cannot use the exact method they do, but that doesn't mean our current system is good. What we need is more emphasiss on intelligence before folks get to the airport (the "no fly" and "pay more attention to these folks" lists, combined with attention to behaviors (not race, religion, etc.) at the airport. The exact process won't be identical to that in Israel, but it won't be a pretend-security pat down, either.

Player is a troll. Nearly every other post in this thread is made by her. In fact, FOUR OF THE LAST FIVE posts here are hers. Isn't that trolling, or being intentionally annoying? I have her foed, so I only have to read what she writes when you fine people quote her. So... don't do that, m'kay?

And yes, whatever you do, DON'T PROFILE PEOPLE. Profiling is why I got stopped at the Detroit/Windsor border, the last time I took the tunnel across the river coming back from Canada. I have a thick dark beard, was by myself, in Windsor for a few hours, visited the casino (which I never do, according to my own words)... I set off all the right flags, and got detained and had my car searched.

But you know what? Didn't bother me at all. I knew I was clean, but the next guy might not be. They're doing their job by stopping me.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Ray Rider wrote:And Israeli officials profile. They don't profile racially, but they profile. Israeli Arabs breeze through rather quickly, but thanks to the dozens of dubious-looking stamps in my passport -- almost half are from Lebanon and Iraq -- I get pulled off to the side for more questioning every time. And I'm a white, nominally Christian American. [coloration added for emphasis]

If they pull you aside, you had better tell them the truth. They'll ask you so many wildly unpredictable questions so quickly, you couldn't possibly invent a fake story and keep it all straight. Don't even try. They're highly trained and experienced, and they catch everyone who tries to pull something over on them.

Like I said earlier, behavioral analysis, in this case, travel patterns, NOT race, country of origin OR religion.

If visiting countries like Lebanon and Iraq is a red flag, you're only fooling yourself if you think being from Lebanon or Iraq isn't a consideration..

Wishful thinking

GabonX wrote:If visiting countries like Lebanon and Iraq is a red flag, you're only fooling yourself if you think being from Lebanon or Iraq isn't a consideration..

Wishful thinking

I am not saying it isn't taken into consideration, but It, alone is not necssarily a flag. Why? Because people don't get to choose where they are born. However, the reasons for someone from the US to travel to those countries is far fewer. Iraq is a bit of a special case, as might Lebanon, simply because of the political situation in those countries. That is, when your government is openly hostile to another, then the tourist trade and employment seeking from those countries tend to diminish a bit.

Now, I am not going to get into specifics more, because I don't think its a good idea. However, most of the factors picked out as "examples" here are from people who really have no idea of security.

Like I said earlier, you are debating me as if these were my ideas. They are not.

ViperOverLord wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:NIce try. Too bad the real experts, you know, the guys who spend thier lives and security looking into what really works and doesn't, disagree.

Profiling, yes, but not based on race or national orgin as you wish to insist. THAT kind of profiling is a pure waste of energy and time.. makes us more dangerous, not less.

I said let's not profile. I agree with your 'experts.' Profiling based on race or national origin is a waste of time when we all know that anybody and their dog could be a terrorist. When you think about it like that, playing the percentages is just wasteful and worse insensitive!

Not everyone is a likely terrorist, but race, general religion and even country of origin are extremely poor predictors. Sadly, though, enough people like you screaming and yelling otherwise will force politicians to put more money on things that really don't matter.

But then, that's what happens when people are taught to ignore science and to feel that all "experts" are just idiots with degrees who don't know as much as "average folk".

Even when I agree with you, I'm "screaming" lol. BTW - What are some extremely great predictors of terrorism. Please educate us.

Well you have to catch them red handed. You know holding a box cutter, hijacking a plane, or avoiding the TSA body scanners. It doesn't make sense to profile (even though law enforcement uses it to catch serial killers) but it does make sense to assume EVERYONE is a terrorist EXCEPT those who "fit the profile" because we might inadvertently hurt someone's feelings. Yes, it's the dawn of of new age. You have to love liberalism. If not for it's blatant lack of common sense, then for its sheer fairness to all the terrorists out there who are never pulled aside because they "look Arab" and therefore are given a pass out of the politically correct, unbelievably stupid US security measures.

That is all....

I would have thought you'd favour profiling politicians rather than arabs...

Jay said


Why was the rubble from the towers immediately shipped overseas before they could examine it?

Why did they "pull" building 7?

Why was the collapse of building 7 reported in England BEFORE it actually collapsed?

How did a terrorist passport survive the attack?

Why did the FBI confiscate all the surveillance video of the pentagon, that could "put to bed" the doubts that a plane flew into the building?

How could these inexperienced terrorist pilots have flown the plane into the Pentagon in such a way that even the most experienced pilots in the world would have a hard time doing?

Why did the towers fall at free fall speed when coming into contact with undamaged lower floors- defying physics?

Why did Bush lie about seeing the first plane hit while watching tv outside of the classroom?

Why did Cheney give the orders to "stand down"?

Why did Bush and Cheney have to testify together, not under oath?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

silvanricky wrote:Yeah, Israel has a better security method and limited profiling might work a little better. My thought though is how can the United States, which has a much larger & diverse population along with multiple international airports, be able to implement it. Israel sort of has the advantage of using the profiling method at least when it comes to screening at airports.

Really? You ever notice how similar Jewish Israelis and Arabs can be?

Apparently you missed the part where it said that race is not used as a screening factor.

What I'm hinting at is that at times it can be difficult to distinguish Israeli Jews from Arabs, so profiling along "race" can be difficult to implement for them.

However, for the US, that isn't the case--not nearly as much, even though there are Arab Americans, they don't number that many.

jonesthecurl wrote:I would have thought you'd favour profiling politicians rather than arabs...

Well lets think about this....


911 occurs and they blame it on Arabs

Security measures are implemented but are used to find terrorists who ARE NOT ARAB

Make sense?

Of all the terrorist plotters captured since 911 how many of them WERE Arab? How many were Caucasian? How many were oriental? How many were black?

Do you see the insanity yet?

To put it in perspective: I fear falling off the Earth more than I fear terrorism from ARABS. The terrorism for which there are NO security measures in place is Governmental terrorism that points the finger at other groups of people. To get us all scared and get us to except the new "security measures".

If a pack of pit bulls attack the mailman everyday on his route, you don't go round up and question the guy who owns a bunch of poodles. It's common sense.

But you just said this...

You have to love liberalism. If not for it's blatant lack of common sense, then for its sheer fairness to all the terrorists out there who are never pulled aside because they "look Arab" and therefore are given a pass out of the politically correct, unbelievably stupid US security measures

...does that make you a liberal?

jonesthecurl wrote:But you just said this...

You have to love liberalism. If not for it's blatant lack of common sense, then for its sheer fairness to all the terrorists out there who are never pulled aside because they "look Arab" and therefore are given a pass out of the politically correct, unbelievably stupid US security measures

...does that make you a liberal?

You have to separate reality from perceived reality......

If those that attacked us on 911 were actually Arab, common sense says PROFILE to make sure more Arabs don't attack us. (and whip dee doo if we hurt anyone's feelings)

If, as I believe, that Arabs were "fingered" as the ones responsible (to give the US a reason to get our military over into the middle east {to eventually invade Iraq} ) then terrorism security is a moot point because those responsible for it are never going to be captured nor stopped.

Tomorrow a bomb could explode at any airport in the USA and all they have to do is come up with a perpetrator (ex. Ammed Sadat) pin it on him and the government gets what they want. A scared public willing to give up even more freedoms in exchange for security.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

silvanricky wrote:Yeah, Israel has a better security method and limited profiling might work a little better. My thought though is how can the United States, which has a much larger & diverse population along with multiple international airports, be able to implement it. Israel sort of has the advantage of using the profiling method at least when it comes to screening at airports.

Really? You ever notice how similar Jewish Israelis and Arabs can be?

Apparently you missed the part where it said that race is not used as a screening factor.

What I'm hinting at is that at times it can be difficult to distinguish Israeli Jews from Arabs, so profiling along "race" can be difficult to implement for them.

However, for the US, that isn't the case--not nearly as much, even though there are Arab Americans, they don't number that many.

More than you might think. Even so, the point is that there really is no more of a link between being an Arab and committing terrorism, or a Muslim, etc than being an American or Brit or German.

Now, the Iranian and Lebanese examples might be a tad different because not many people travel from those countries freely.

I agree that the exact Israeli system won't work here, but targeting Arabs or any other such large group is not valid. We see this in US shoplifting, etc, etc. It causes people to think they are making good decisions, think they are focusing on something important, when, in truth they are not.

jay_a2j wrote: If those that attacked us on 911 were actually Arab, common sense says PROFILE to make sure more Arabs don't attack us. (and whip dee doo if we hurt anyone's feelings)

Charles Manson was a white American male, so I guess that means we need to consider every white, American male a potential serial killer, and should search/investigate them as such immediately?

jay_a2j wrote: It doesn't make sense to profile (even though law enforcement uses it to catch serial killers)

This is where you err. Profiling is not wrong, is, in fact very helpful. Its profilng based on race, religion and other very broad categories that is wasteful. The profiling that needs to happen is based on "behaviors", to some extent associations and such. Focusing on behaviors gives a better chance of catching not just the last terrorist (that is, the people who match the ones we already got), but gives us a chance to catch the next terrorist, from whatever direction that person comes.

jay_a2j wrote:. but it does make sense to assume EVERYONE is a terrorist EXCEPT those who "fit the profile" because we might inadvertently hurt someone's feelings. Yes, it's the dawn of of new age. You have to love liberalism. If not for it's blatant lack of common sense, then for its sheer fairness to all the terrorists out there who are never pulled aside because they "look Arab" and therefore are given a pass out of the politically correct, unbelievably stupid US security measures.

This is definitely not about liberals. This is about sense versus politics. Politicians like simple answers, so they can step up and claim they DID SOMETHING. If it fails, they just say "oops, well, I did try.." This issue is too important to play that game. We need real and true intelligence on the bad guys, profiling that looks at things that really matter, which whether you are in the US or Israel doesn't mean race or broad ethnicity.

We need money spent on intelligence in advance, not pretend that even full body scanners will somehow catch the bad guys.

The best comment I heard, but I cannot remember who said it, was that "we" [the TSA/US anti-terrorism efforts] are constantly fighting the last battle. Some guys use boxcutters, so tweezers are out. Someone makes a liquid bomb, so shampoo is outlawed. A shoe bomber comes, so we take off our shoes. An underwear bomber means we now have full body scans.

We need a more pro-active approach. We need to fight the next problem, not just repeats of the last one.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote: If those that attacked us on 911 were actually Arab, common sense says PROFILE to make sure more Arabs don't attack us. (and whip dee doo if we hurt anyone's feelings)

Charles Manson was a white American male, so I guess that means we need to consider every white, American male a potential serial killer, and should search/investigate them as such immediately?

YES! If they find EVIDENCE that a white guy is eating people in Milwaukee you don't investigate BLACK guys! Ta Da! Profiling BASED on RACE! I know, hard concept to grasp. Keep at it, I know you can do it!

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

silvanricky wrote:Yeah, Israel has a better security method and limited profiling might work a little better. My thought though is how can the United States, which has a much larger & diverse population along with multiple international airports, be able to implement it. Israel sort of has the advantage of using the profiling method at least when it comes to screening at airports.

Really? You ever notice how similar Jewish Israelis and Arabs can be?

Apparently you missed the part where it said that race is not used as a screening factor.

What I'm hinting at is that at times it can be difficult to distinguish Israeli Jews from Arabs, so profiling along "race" can be difficult to implement for them.

However, for the US, that isn't the case--not nearly as much, even though there are Arab Americans, they don't number that many.

More than you might think. Even so, the point is that there really is no more of a link between being an Arab and committing terrorism, or a Muslim, etc than being an American or Brit or German.

Now, the Iranian and Lebanese examples might be a tad different because not many people travel from those countries freely.

I agree that the exact Israeli system won't work here, but targeting Arabs or any other such large group is not valid. We see this in US shoplifting, etc, etc. It causes people to think they are making good decisions, think they are focusing on something important, when, in truth they are not.

Mutual understanding achieved. Mission accomplished.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

silvanricky wrote:Yeah, Israel has a better security method and limited profiling might work a little better. My thought though is how can the United States, which has a much larger & diverse population along with multiple international airports, be able to implement it. Israel sort of has the advantage of using the profiling method at least when it comes to screening at airports.

Really? You ever notice how similar Jewish Israelis and Arabs can be?

Check out the Jew that was easily recognizable to the Roman Soldier that ordered him to help Jesus carry the cross in the movie The Passion of the Christ

Great movie, that. Better than UFC pay-per-view.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Charles Manson was a white American male, so I guess that means we need to consider every white, American male a potential serial killer, and should search/investigate them as such immediately?

This is a great analysis. Jay is just trying to suppress the fact that Charles Manson is a white American male. Player is correct.

silvanricky wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Charles Manson was a white American male, so I guess that means we need to consider every white, American male a potential serial killer, and should search/investigate them as such immediately?

This is a great analysis. Jay is just trying to suppress the fact that Charles Manson is a white American male. Player is correct.

Manson was a piss poor example as he didn't kill anyone. So I used a Dahmer example instead. If they have evidence, eye witnesses, hair samples etc. that point to a certain race, they LOOK for a person OF THAT RACE! You don't look for a Mexican when 4 people saw a white guy! Come on, good thing you guys aren't homicide detectives!

jay_a2j wrote:

silvanricky wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Charles Manson was a white American male, so I guess that means we need to consider every white, American male a potential serial killer, and should search/investigate them as such immediately?

This is a great analysis. Jay is just trying to suppress the fact that Charles Manson is a white American male. Player is correct.

Manson was a piss poor example as he didn't kill anyone. So I used a Dahmer example instead. If they have evidence, eye witnesses, hair samples etc. that point to a certain race, they LOOK for a person OF THAT RACE! You don't look for a Mexican when 4 people saw a white guy! Come on, good thing you guys aren't homicide detectives!

So by this logic, let's say there's a murder in my district and on camera a black guy shot and killed someone. Therefore, I should stop every black guy and question them strictly going by profiling.

You're ignoring what player mentioned about a person's behavior, suspicious looking passport history, etc. Profiling itself isn't really a solution; it can be inefficient and unnecessarily wasteful (like spending all that time stopping every black guy to find that one murderer).

Let's say we only profile Arabs. Then we'd overlook guys like the Nigerian underwear bomber because he isn't Arab.

Are you starting to see the inefficiencies in profiling, jay?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

silvanricky wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Charles Manson was a white American male, so I guess that means we need to consider every white, American male a potential serial killer, and should search/investigate them as such immediately?

This is a great analysis. Jay is just trying to suppress the fact that Charles Manson is a white American male. Player is correct.

Manson was a piss poor example as he didn't kill anyone. So I used a Dahmer example instead. If they have evidence, eye witnesses, hair samples etc. that point to a certain race, they LOOK for a person OF THAT RACE! You don't look for a Mexican when 4 people saw a white guy! Come on, good thing you guys aren't homicide detectives!

So by this logic, let's say there's a murder in my district and on camera a black guy shot and killed someone. Therefore, I should stop every black guy and question them strictly going by profiling.

You're ignoring what player mentioned about a person's behavior, suspicious looking passport history, etc. Profiling itself isn't really a solution; it can be inefficient and unnecessarily wasteful (like spending all that time stopping every black guy to find that one murderer).

Unless you think they should be investigating people of other races when they have a black man on camera, this case is actually a perfect example of when and how profiling should be used .

A profile is not dependent on one characteristic. Rather, a profile is the composite of several characteristics.

GabonX wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

silvanricky wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Charles Manson was a white American male, so I guess that means we need to consider every white, American male a potential serial killer, and should search/investigate them as such immediately?

This is a great analysis. Jay is just trying to suppress the fact that Charles Manson is a white American male. Player is correct.

Manson was a piss poor example as he didn't kill anyone. So I used a Dahmer example instead. If they have evidence, eye witnesses, hair samples etc. that point to a certain race, they LOOK for a person OF THAT RACE! You don't look for a Mexican when 4 people saw a white guy! Come on, good thing you guys aren't homicide detectives!

So by this logic, let's say there's a murder in my district and on camera a black guy shot and killed someone. Therefore, I should stop every black guy and question them strictly going by profiling.

You're ignoring what player mentioned about a person's behavior, suspicious looking passport history, etc. Profiling itself isn't really a solution; it can be inefficient and unnecessarily wasteful (like spending all that time stopping every black guy to find that one murderer).

Unless you think they should be investigating people of other races when they have a black man on camera, this case is actually a perfect example of when and how profiling should be used .

A profile is not dependent on one characteristic. Rather, a profile is the composite of several characteristics.

When you word profiling that way, I agree with you, but jay's been using profiling along the lines of race, ethnicity, etc.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

silvanricky wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Charles Manson was a white American male, so I guess that means we need to consider every white, American male a potential serial killer, and should search/investigate them as such immediately?

This is a great analysis. Jay is just trying to suppress the fact that Charles Manson is a white American male. Player is correct.

Manson was a piss poor example as he didn't kill anyone. So I used a Dahmer example instead. If they have evidence, eye witnesses, hair samples etc. that point to a certain race, they LOOK for a person OF THAT RACE! You don't look for a Mexican when 4 people saw a white guy! Come on, good thing you guys aren't homicide detectives!

So by this logic, let's say there's a murder in my district and on camera a black guy shot and killed someone. Therefore, I should stop every black guy and question them strictly going by profiling.

You're ignoring what player mentioned about a person's behavior, suspicious looking passport history, etc. Profiling itself isn't really a solution; it can be inefficient and unnecessarily wasteful (like spending all that time stopping every black guy to find that one murderer).

Let's say we only profile Arabs. Then we'd overlook guys like the Nigerian underwear bomber because he isn't Arab.

Are you starting to see the inefficiencies in profiling, jay?

This is why we use profiling. You have a black man on camera, so you can eliminate non-blacks. Not bring whites etc. in for questioning!!!! So the TSA body scanners are for everyone EXCEPT Muslim women! Are you kidding me????? YET if a Muslim man is pulled aside to be "pat frisked" he sues because they are discriminating!!!!!!! So, in essence, the body scanners are for everyone BUT the target group!!!!!


Are you seeing the inefficiencies of TSA scanning, pat frisks etc. if it is only being used on PEOPLE WHO DO NOT FIT THE PROFILE of the 911 terrorists??????

No Jay

Left is right and up is down and if you disagree you're racist.