Seeking viewpoints on profiling of suicide bombers

[Guest011914-1]

Tonight my step son( he is a marine) and I were talking and he thinks a majority of suicide bombers ( related to bombing in Stockholm yesterday) are Muslim and agrees with using profiling to filter them and track them. I disagree that this taking the stance that profiling actually causes more harm than good. There is way to much profiling of race,sex orientation, people that have been born and raised here and are American citizens but are other nationality's and some of who serve in our military they are the ones caused harm by with profiling.. I don't agree all suicide bombers or even a majority of them are driven by misguided religious believes. any thoughts? So to clarify I am asking your opinion on profiling in general as well as do you believe most suicide bombers are Muslim and driven by their believes?

[ForumPoster]

A great man said "we are not going to have peace until they learn to love their children more than to hate us".

I think it sums it up.

Lina

[discreetgent]

As a point of information: The Tamil Tigers in Somalia were the first to use suicide bombings as a regular and strategic weapon. Empirical evidence seems to indicate that today it is mostly used by terrorist groups of Islamic origin, I have not seen any statistically valid studies of this.

One of the problems is that profiling in itself is not particularly successful. First, there are just too many people to screen - for whatever purpose - based just on race or ethnicity or pick a criteria. A second problem is that it can be abused. To work it needs intelligence work and then trained people doing the screening.

[Waitt]

Profile like the Israelies do not by race but by appearance and indicators such as nervousness, abnormal behavior, and other things. Yes muslims are responsible for most all of the terrorist activity. Yes we should profile them but it's not politically correct. My solution. Bring all the troops home, secure the borders, deport all illegals, deport 50,000 randomly picked persons of the same race/religion as the terrorist that acts next and double that amount each time. Then we will get some cooperation from them. Thank your son for his service.

[pjorourke]

Two words: Registered Travelers

[Laurentius]

There is a big difference between profiling someone based upon a factor over which they have no control (i.e. being born a certain race or sex), and a factor over which they DO have control (i.e. subscribing to a certain belief system).

If you tell me "I am a black woman" or "I am a white man" those statements tell me nothing whatsoever about the single most important factor in what makes you dangerous: what you BELIEVE.

Our behaviors are complex. To some degree, it is arguable in the field of behavioral genetics that there is an element of proclivity. And in the case of psychopaths lacking the genes for empathy, this is pretty clear.

But for the rest of us, we decide upon -- and justify -- our actions based upon our beliefs.

I can't tell anything about you based on the statement of "I am a white female who is 32 years old." But I can tell a LOT about you when you say "I am a member of the Christian Identity religion." (Christian Identity is the official religion of Aryan Nation and the KKK. I used this as an extreme example to illustrate a point and also because this is a very politically correct religion to hate.)

Wouldn't you agree that you can tell a lot about someone if their religion is Christian Identity? Enough, maybe, that there is no way in hell you'd book him/her for an appointment? Enough that our own government lists subscribers to that religion as being inordinately prone to domestic terrorism?

Okay -- so we have established that it is entirely acceptable to profile people and even treat them differently -- and as more of a criminal risk -- solely on the basis of religion. We do it personally, and our government does it with our blessing.

Christian Identity is an easy case, but it IS a religion, and it IS profiled. And most, I think, would agree with doing so. Even though, incidentally, despite their beliefs, the overwhelming majority of subscribers to that religion never hurt anyone. But the BELIEF is so nasty that a reasonable person can reasonably surmise a higher likelihood of violence than from a Buddhist.

So once we have established that profiling on the basis of religion is acceptable; we are now only debating which religions can or should be profiled.

I think a reasonable case can be made for profiling certain sects of Islamic belief. Just as with Christian Identity, most Muslims -- the overwhelming preponderance -- no matter what their sect -- do not engage in violence. However, certain sects of Islam hold to some pretty nasty beliefs, and those beliefs are far more likely to catalyze violence than the beliefs of a Wiccan.

Yet, even though such a case can be made; I am not convinced that it is particularly strong. Furthermore, in this country we have a strong tradition of judging each person as an individual based upon individual merits and behaviors.

Overall, I believe that judging people as members of a voluntarily adopted belief system; while certainly more valid than judging on the basis of something like race or sex; is very problematic and could ultimately lead to de-facto establishment of religion through prohibition of free exercise of others.

But I am open to discussing the matter.

[Mokoa]

Because of the nature of the enemy, profiling is a necessary tool. We need to use all available means to stop these people who have no respect for innocent life.

[gnadfly]

Three words: Registered Suicide Bombers

[TexTushHog]

1. It causes immense harm and ends up recruiting more radicals to the cause of extremism.

2. I doubt it is at all effective. There are hundreds of thousands, in not millions of peaceful Muslims for every radical one who is inclined to blow him (or her) self up.

3. It is not consistent with our values even if it worked, which surely it doesn't.

[catnipdipper]

I think the Tamil Tigers are from Sri Lanka?

As long as the potential bombers live a life with "no hope" then they will always be easy recruits. Refugee camps, no education, no hope for betterment or quality of life means what the hell do I have to lose?

Is it an argument that Jesus might have been the first willing person to die for a cause?

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by Laurentius

Overall, I believe that judging people as members of a voluntarily adopted belief system; while certainly more valid than judging on the basis of something like race or sex; is very problematic and could ultimately lead to de-facto establishment of religion through prohibition of free exercise of others.

But I am open to discussing the matter.

You are normally so reasonable, I'm surprised you take this position. I think profiling a belief system is abhorrent and more problematic than most kinds of profiling. There are so many variants in any belief system, it is impossible to make generalizations about any one of them. Especially such a large religion as Islam. And I don't think that muslim terrorists reflect the norm of the muslim religion, which preaches peace. Just as in the US with the KKK, and the Tim McVeighs, there is a minority that has perverted the religion and turned it to hate and violence. It is that minority that we need to be concerned about. Can profiling find them? I doubt it. Most of them would hide as Christians when boarding a plane to avoid detection. Besides, these terrorists are not true muslims, but rather criminals using religion as an excuse.

In the final analysis, the only "profiling" I think is appropriate is that in which a description of a criminal already exists. For instance if someone committed an armed robbery, and he was described as a white male, approx. 35 yo, approx 5/7, approx 180 lbs, blk hair. IMO the cops could use that to stop white males in their late twenties to early forties, even regardless of height and weight. But to stop Black women because of this description is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Mokoa

Because of the nature of the enemy, profiling is a necessary tool. We need to use all available means to stop these people who have no respect for innocent life.

Some overseas would think the US soldier is an example of someone who has no respect for innocent life. You're being US-centric. The rules have to be uniform for all people. And although you don't say so, I am assuming you consider all muslims to be "the enemy." Unfortunately, that is untrue. The enemy in this instance is terrorists, and terrorists exist in every belief system.

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

1. It causes immense harm and ends up recruiting more radicals to the cause of extremism.

2. I doubt it is at all effective. There are hundreds of thousands, in not millions of peaceful Muslims for every radical one who is inclined to blow him (or her) self up.

3. It is not consistent with our values even if it worked, which surely it doesn't.

+1

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

3. It is not consistent with our values even if it worked, which surely it doesn't.

You just think profiling doesn't work. Unreasonable searches of everyone at the airport are also not consistent with our values and we know they don't work. TSA has NEVER caught a terrorist.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

You just think profiling doesn't work. Unreasonable searches of everyone at the airport are also not consistent with our values and we know they don't work. TSA has NEVER caught a terrorist.

pj, your problem is that you start from the assumption that TSA is competent.

[Laurentius]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

pj, your problem is that you start from the assumption that TSA is competent.

Good point!

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

pj, your problem is that you start from the assumption that TSA is competent.

Hell no! They are a government agency. They are pretty much by definition incompetent.

Face it, there are only two ways that terrorists have been stopped:
1) interventions by other passengers (the shoe & underwear guys)
2) tips or information gleaned by surveillance

Morons rummaging through your pants at the airport don't do one fucking thing for collective security and are an affront to everything this country stands for. TTH just likes it because they do it to everyone. Everyone that is except the ruling class and people like him that travel by private plane. God I love fucking limousine liberals. Not!!!