[Dark Helmet]

http://www.freespeechwar.com/smf/index.php?topic=3314.0

But it isn't as easy to screen white people

[spacefreak]

Yup, him and the dozen or so middle-eastern men who were seen by multiple witnesses moving barrells of diesel fuel at a nearby hotel in the days before the blast.

Curious.. what plane did McVeigh try to board during his plot?

[voodoo]

Meh.. This is what the other 99% look like:





V

[Big Mac]

The terrorists that have done the greatest harm to this and other free countries are members of the Islamic faith. The only ones who are even on the same scale are McVeigh and Nichols, as demonstrated by the fact that McVeigh is the only counter example Islamists ever give when this topic comes up.

[goMac]

I think we should profile against anyone who is Japanese. Those Japanese can hardly contain themselves from bombing Pearl Harbor.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by voodoo

... 99% ...

Can you back that up?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac

I think we should profile against anyone who is Japanese. Those Japanese can hardly contain themselves from bombing Pearl Harbor.

100% Silly.

But you knew that.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The terrorists that have done the greatest harm to this and other free countries are members of the Islamic faith.

"Logic" wont like you saying that. He will DEMAND proof while offering non that says otherwise.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The terrorists that have done the greatest harm to this and other free countries are members of the Islamic faith. The only ones who are even on the same scale are McVeigh and Nichols, as demonstrated by the fact that McVeigh is the only counter example Islamists ever give when this topic comes up.

Would you say India is a free country?

[Millennium]

The problem is that McVeigh was, and remains, a freak exception. Over the last 20-odd years, he is the only person outside of a very narrow band of ethnicities and religious backgrounds to successfully attack the US in that way. Certainly there are other terrorist groups in the US with other demographics, but they use other methods and have very different targets. And certainly the sorts of terrorists who really do use these methods would like to include people of other races -though perhaps not of other religious backgrounds- but they seem to have a lot of trouble recruiting anyone else.

And this is the problem. Racial and religious profiling is a line that we Must Not Cross for Any Reason. It is too easy to descend into witch-hunt methods and mentalities when one starts doing that: so easy, in fact, that the potential dangers far outweigh any potential benefits. But I can understand why people would be tempted to cross the line: from a standpoint of ruthless pragmatism, it really would work better than the current situation, probably by leaps and bounds. The only reason not to do it is because it is evil, and there is no room for a gray area here.

And thus, we come to the question of exactly how committed people are to doing good. This is a direct confrontation between what is right and what is easy.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Troll

Can you back that up?

Can you back up that racial profiling isn't effective?

V

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Can you back up that racial profiling isn't effective?

V

Some charities have been fraudulent. Therefore, charities must be frauds.

Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. Vegetarianism must be evil.

Some Christians have been terrorists. Therefore, all Christians must be terrorists.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Millennium

And thus, we come to the question of exactly how committed people are to doing good. This is a direct confrontation between what is right and what is easy.

Choosing racial profiling is not easy. Easiest would be to close your eyes and pretend people from any race and any religion with any background is a potential terrorist.

That's what the PC have been doing so far. It's the easy way.

What is right is to face the very non-PC fact that racial profiling works in this case because terrorists come primarily from one certain area in the world, are of one certain religion..

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Some charities have been fraudulent. Therefore, charities must be frauds.

Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. Vegetarianism must be evil.

Some Christians have been terrorists. Therefore, all Christians must be terrorists.

Most terrorists are Islamic, therefore terrorists are likely to be found among Islamics.

Most terrorists are arabs. Therefore, most terrorists will be found among arabs.

V

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Most terrorists are Islamic, therefore terrorists are likely to be found among Islamics.

Most terrorists are arabs. Therefore, most terrorists will be found among arabs.

V

Really? Most terrorists are Islamic? Care to back that up or are you going to join Kev et al in spreading that propaganda line?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Most terrorists are Islamic, therefore terrorists are likely to be found among Islamics.

Most terrorists are arabs. Therefore, most terrorists will be found among arabs.

No, most terrorists are actually Hindu. The group who is responsible for most suicide attacks around the globe are the Tamil Tigers, a non-religious Marxist group.

You posting a pic of Osama Bin Laden is also not really helpful, but just perpetuates stereotypes. None of the attackers of 9/11, Britain or Germany looked like this. Terrorists blend in with the rest of the people, so stereotypes won't help.

Because then, people won't distinguish between Sikh and Muslims either (they both wear turbans, don't they? ). Nor will searching Muslim families be very effective. Racial profiling doesn't work, behavioral profiling does. But only if the average security guard knows who to search and who not to search. Everything is a waste of resources.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

http://www.freespeechwar.com/smf/index.php?topic=3314.0

But it isn't as easy to screen white people

Yeah, nor as effective;

McVeigh & Nichols; 168
Kaczynski; 3
Eric Rudolph; 0
Edgar Ray Killen; 3
Clayton Lee Wagner; 0
Rollen Stewart; uh... "stink bomber"; 0
George Metesky; 0
David Lane; 3
James Koff; 1
Lucas John Helder; 0
Byron Beckwith; 1
Weather Underground; 2
Dylan Harris/Klebold; 12

and last, but not least...
The Boston Tea Party; 5

Total death toll in the past 233 years due to "white terrorists"; 197

Hmm, when it comes to securing a nation, I say use profiling and get the low-hanging fruit lest you forget what the total death toll is to Muslim terrorism say... the past 6 years.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Can you back up that racial profiling isn't effective?

V

No, but I can back up the fact that it is...

El Al.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian.

Except for the sausages, of course.

(Not just a German sausage joke. Hitler's cook is actually on record as saying he liked his sausages a couple of times a week.)

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Can you back up that racial profiling isn't effective?

V

Is "effective" the only measure by which we decide our policies? Have we no care for what is good in and of itself, for what is right?

We could stop all Islamic terrorism by nuking about a billion people. That'd pretty effectively end our problems with so-called "Islamo-fascism."

We could end all crime by implanting radio transmitters into everyone's skulls and monitoring all their actions, 24/7.

Go ahead, worrying about being effective. Me, I'm worrying about doing the right thing.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Yeah, nor as effective;

McVeigh & Nichols; 168
Kaczynski; 3
Eric Rudolph; 0
Edgar Ray Killen; 3
Clayton Lee Wagner; 0
Rollen Stewart; uh... "stink bomber"; 0
George Metesky; 0
David Lane; 3
James Koff; 1
Lucas John Helder; 0
Byron Beckwith; 1
Weather Underground; 2
Dylan Harris/Klebold; 12

and last, but not least...
The Boston Tea Party; 5

Total death toll in the past 233 years due to "white terrorists"; 197

Hmm, when it comes to securing a nation, I say use profiling and get the low-hanging fruit lest you forget what the total death toll is to Muslim terrorism say... the past 6 years.

Forgot about KKK or just don't consider that terrorism?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Except for the sausages, of course.

(Not just a German sausage joke. Hitler's cook is actually on record as saying he liked his sausages a couple of times a week.)

So you don't consider him a vegetarian?


Thanks for the info though.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Forgot about KKK or just don't consider that terrorism?

I absolutely considered them terrorists just like most did several decades ago. Some of their leaders were included in my count. Because of our vigilant actions against these thugs, they've now been rendered quacks with silly conical hats who burn crosses on farmland in the middle of the night. I know of no one the least bit concerned of KKK "terrorism" today. I believe as of last count, there are approximately 7,000 members in the US? Hmm, not very fearsome.

I hope modern society renders Islamic fascists petty thugs who wear funny hats and burn crosses in the middle of the night and soon.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I absolutely considered them terrorists just like most did several decades ago. Some of their leaders were included in my count. Because of our vigilant actions against these thugs, they've now been rendered quacks with silly conical hats who burn crosses on farmland in the middle of the night. I know of no one the least bit concerned of KKK "terrorism" today.

I hope modern society renders Islamic fascists petty thugs who wear funny hats and burn crosses in the middle of the night and soon.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

...image of duck...

If I had known this was going to be how you "ducked" out of the conversation, I would've included "bye Sayf-Allah".

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

If I had known this was going to be how you "ducked" out of the conversation, I would've included "bye Sayf-Allah".

In the original post you said this:

McVeigh & Nichols; 168
Kaczynski; 3
Eric Rudolph; 0
Edgar Ray Killen; 3
Clayton Lee Wagner; 0
Rollen Stewart; uh... "stink bomber"; 0
George Metesky; 0
David Lane; 3
James Koff; 1
Lucas John Helder; 0
Byron Beckwith; 1
Weather Underground; 2
Dylan Harris/Klebold; 12

and last, but not least...
The Boston Tea Party; 5

Total death toll in the past 233 years due to "white terrorists"; 197

I asked you about the numbers for KKK.

You never added them to that list. So are you going to keep your list as dishonest as it is now or are you going to edit it?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Choosing racial profiling is not easy.

Sure it is.

Easiest would be to close your eyes and pretend people from any race and any religion with any background is a potential terrorist.

The fact is that from a strictly logical viewpoint, it's true that anyone from any race or religion (or claimed religion, at any rate) could be a terrorist. This is why it's important to find methods of hunting terrorists that do not depend on the race of the suspects. It has other advantages as well. Everyone here admit that terrorists of other races and religions exist, even if they use different methods. Techniques to hunt terrorists that don't depend on race or religion could be used to hunt these other terrorists. Race-specific techniques, on the other hand, are just that: race-specific. New techniques have to be devised for every new group, at enormous expense in terms of money and time. Better to spend it once and have a general solution, rather than spending it many times for many specialized solutions.

That's what the PC have been doing so far. It's the easy way.

The PC folks are often overly paranoid, terminally-insecure folks. They see discrimination (or intent to discriminate) where, in truth, it is extraordinarily rare nowadays. It's not unlike post-traumatic stress disorder, only applied to cultures rather than individuals.

But just because the PC folks are wrong most of the time does not mean they are wrong all of the time. They often tilt at windmills, but racial profiling is the real thing. And yes, sometimes it can work, which is why it's so tempting. I understand that. But just because it is effective does not mean it is right. Warrantless wiretaps and searches are also effective, yet more people understand why it would be wrong to implement them.

It is much harder to find terrorists using methods which do not depend on the race of the suspects. That is what I say that racial profiling is the easy choice, as opposed to the right choice.

What is right is to face the very non-PC fact that racial profiling works in this case because terrorists come primarily from one certain area in the world, are of one certain religion..

Just because we acknowledge that fact does not mean that racial profiling is the answer.

[Sayf-Allah]

A question for those supporting racial profiling.

Should racial profiling against African Americans be used in the US? Because it is known that African Americans are more likely to commit crimes (or at least A-A get sentenced for crimes a lot more than other races in the US). And if so, what kind of racial profiling are we talking about?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

In the original post you said this:


I asked you about the numbers for KKK.

That was a tough one to find, but managed to find an estimated; 4,742 for the period 1882-1968, or about 500 per year (source: Tuskegee Institute)

Islamic fascism took the toll of 2,752 lives in one day, 2001.

You never added them to that list. So are you going to keep your list as dishonest as it is now or are you going to edit it?

Some of these are yesterday's problems, some are today's. I think you know who they are. Your auto-sig is a pretty good indication of the type of intolerance that fosters today's terrorism.

By the way; I used the very examples given in the link provided by the OP. Are you being disingenuously stupid or is this genuine stupidity?

[vmarks]

I support behavior profiling.

I'm supportive of efforts that look for people acting suspiciously and then determine whether or not those suspicious behaviors are indicative of a greater threat.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

That was a tough one to find, but managed to find an estimated; 4,742 for the period 1882-1968, or about 500 per year (source: Tuskegee Institute)

Islamic fascism took the toll of 2,752 lives in one day, 2001.

So white/Christian terrorism has killed more Americans than Islamic terrorism in the US. Well, now that's clear perhaps we should put some kind of racial profiling on white/Christian people as well don't you think?

But seriously. I love to see how the goalposts shift everytime you need to revise your classification of terrorism or numbers. But that's what needed when you base your talking points on propaganda instead of facts.

Some of these are yesterday's problems, some are today's. I think you know who they are.

Really? Mosques are still being set on fire in the US. Would that be classified as terrorism?

By the way; I used the very examples given in the link provided by the OP. Are you being disingenuously stupid or is this genuine stupidity?

Really? Because that link quite clearly mentions KKK. You must have missed that though.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

So white/Christian terrorism has killed more Americans than Islamic terrorism in the US. Well, now that's clear perhaps we should put some kind of racial profiling on white/Christian people as well don't you think?

No, because that terrorist organization has been decreased to less than 10,000 members and is no longer an active terrorist organization. Like I said, they've been rendered the quacks of yesterday. The new psychos of today are now in the spotlight and they're chanting the name of your god.

But seriously. I love to see how the goalposts shift everytime you need to revise your classification of terrorism or numbers. But that's what needed when you base your talking points on propaganda instead of facts.

I love how we're siting problems almost 40 years old of an era past to justify this era's present reality. I suppose you're going to bring up the Inquisitions now?

Really? Mosques are still being set on fire in the US. Would that be classified as terrorism?

Absolutely, how many have you got? Links please?

Really? Because that link quite clearly mentions KKK. You must have missed that though.

The post that the OP linked to sited several notable white men that committed terrorist acts. Some of them were leaders of the KKK which I mentioned earlier. You must've missed that. Link to where it mentions the KKK organization as a whole please?

Oh, and thanx for answering my question on whether or not you were genuinely stupid.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Can you back up that racial profiling isn't effective?

V

I didn't say it wasn't and I asked first. So I take your response as a no?

[subego]

Activities ranging from obvious necessity to deplorable prejudice are all described by the single term "racial profiling".

Am I the only one who thinks this will get nowhere until this semantic issue is solved?

[Troll]

How 'bout this guy. Think racial profiling would have got him?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Troll

How 'bout this guy. Think racial profiling would have got him?

That's the other problem with racial profiling. If we're primarily checking for one sort of person, terrorists will just start using people who don't fit that description. I don't think it would be hard for Al Queda to find 20 white guys to get into the US.

[subego]

Originally Posted by goMac

That's the other problem with racial profiling. If we're primarily checking for one sort of person, terrorists will just start using people who don't fit that description. I don't think it would be hard for Al Queda to find 20 white guys to get into the US.

I think the idea is that finding 20 white guys would be harder.

100% efficacy is not required for a technique to have utility.

If a technique is not 100% effective (or close), by necessity, other techniques will be employed.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

No, because that terrorist organization has been decreased to less than 10,000 members and is no longer an active terrorist organization. Like I said, they've been rendered the quacks of yesterday.

So if an organisation has less than 10,000 members it isn't relevant? And when is the cut-off point in your opinion on "no longer being an active terrorist organization"?

The new psychos of today are now in the spotlight and they're chanting the name of your god.

One set of the psychos of today are yes. But it's no more my God than yours. There's only One. Or do you believe something else?

I love how we're siting problems almost 40 years old of an era past to justify this era's present reality. I suppose you're going to bring up the Inquisitions now?

No, why should I? And 40 years? I guess Michael Donald might disagree with that number. Again I ask, what's the cut-off point for being "an active terrorist organization"?

Absolutely, how many have you got? Links please?

I'll try to post some links when I get home.

But here's at least one link.

Minnesota Monitor

The post that the OP linked to sited several notable white men that committed terrorist acts. Some of them were leaders of the KKK which I mentioned earlier. You must've missed that. Link to where it mentions the KKK organization as a whole please?

Check link in OP. Line 8, second "these ones".

Oh, and thanx for answering my question on whether or not you were genuinely stupid.

Oh, a "hidden" personal attack. How surprising.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by subego

I think the idea is that finding 20 white guys would be harder.

100% efficacy is not required for a technique to have utility.

If a technique is not 100% effective (or close), by necessity, other techniques will be employed.

But if we're profiling, rather than just doing blanket checks over all ethnic groups, the terrorists will know how to stack the deck to give them better chances of getting through.

[subego]

Originally Posted by goMac

But if we're profiling, rather than just doing blanket checks over all ethnic groups, the terrorists will know how to stack the deck to give them better chances of getting through.

I wasn't defending profiling, I was taking issue with the way you constructed your argument.

Your argument implied (and continues to imply here) that one must either profile or blanket. As I said in my last post:

Originally Posted by subego

If a technique is not 100% effective (or close), by necessity, other techniques will be employed.

Edit: maybe I should have been more clear that I meant other techniques will be employed in addition. Sorry.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

One set of the psychos of today are yes. But it's no more my God than yours. There's only One. Or do you believe something else?

If there's only One, why are you offending "People of the Book" with your signature which states

Quote Sayf-Allah

**** your crucifix
your religion and it's uselessness

End Quote

And why did you call yourself Sayf-Allah (Sword of Allah) - when you know well that this term has a huge amount of historical association with violence against non-Muslims?

[Chuckit]

That post suggest that the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism. Where does that come from?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

So you don't consider him a vegetarian?

Of course not. Vegetarians usually tend to avoid eating meat.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Of course not. Vegetarians usually tend to avoid eating meat.

Want to guess where I'm going with this?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Want to guess where I'm going with this?

No, not really... I've been up for 36 hours straight so at this point I wouldn't even care if you posted a video of Mo's foreskin doing circus tricks.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No, not really... I've been up for 36 hours straight so at this point I wouldn't even care if you posted a video of Mo's foreskin doing circus tricks.

OK, I'm gonna allow you to get some sleep and then read our little exchange again. Let me know when you've read it again and tell me if you still don't get it.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by vmarks

If there's only One, why are you offending "People of the Book" with your signature which states

because he's a pathetic excuse for a Muslim?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

because he's a pathetic excuse for a Muslim?

Still as grumpy as before I see.

I'll add you to my prayers tonight and pray you'll find some happiness again.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Still as grumpy as before I see.

I'll add you to my prayers tonight and pray you'll find some happiness again.

It's just a fact. Why would a Muslim say such hateful things, such as what's in your sig? It's sad to see that you're drifting even further away.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

your religion and it's uselessness

Bad grammar always gives hateful messages a certain je ne sais quoi.