Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 109
  1. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #21  
    "Timothy McVeigh would get through, and so would Nezar Hindawi's pregnant Irish girlfriend, if we profiled just for the terrorist flavor of the month."

    - chillig35


    lets break this down into an argument for those with highest probability of attacking us, shall we? Who is waging jihad against us? is it a multitude of people like timothy mcveigh? is it a horde of people like nezar hindawi`s pregnant irish girlfriend?

    sure there are dysfunctionals in EVERY society in every culture. there`s no getting past that. but who are the people who are at war with the entire civilized world? think. who is bombing Spain? radical arabs. who is flying planes into U.S. buildings? radical arabs. who is bombing London? radical arabs. Who is threatening Italy with attacks nearing their election? radical arabs. Who just recently released a video on aljazeera (sp) threatening more attacks on American interests abroad, the US, and London AGAIN?! RADICAL ARABS. again - THINK!!!! whats the problem here? this is as about as blatantly obvious as it can possibly get!!!

    come on, do the math. who is committing the terrorist bombings in the name of jihad in greatest percentages? pregnant irish girlfriends? please.

    lets get serious here. regarding some poor fooll taking the fake about delivering some package for a wad of cash, sure thats a theoretical possibility, but think about it. how many people, knowing the dangerous state of affairs today, are going to accept a package from an arab to put onto a BUS or a PLANE or any other mode of transportation without a little voice telling them something doesnt feel right about this, or that there is something about these folks and are probably up to NO GOOD?

    honestly. of course we have to watch EVERYONE with great care these days. but lets defend our country like we MEAN IT, damn it. lets search the likes of those who have been found time and time again to be responsible for the deaths of scores and scores of innocent people. how many horrific lessons do we have to learn before a light bulb goes off and we finally do what is necessary?

    see, in my view, that is simply defending our country in a time of war - preventing horrible tragedies that DONT have to happen, that CAN be prevented if approached intellligently. its a shame that some might be offended by that, but well, hell, this is a matter of life and death now, so after careful consideration, i still find myself supporting the profiling method.

    its not that we are going to deliberately go out to offend and mistreat everyone who fits the description, but its just checking them extra carefully before having them board the plane, bus, train, whatever. this is simply the price people pay for security after we are bombed time and time again by radical arabs - it is simply a logical countermove. its a price i think most would be willing to pay.

    its quite interesting to hear what is on the minds of Londoners now after the attacks have happened. i was listening to a British radio news host this morning who was communicating some of the attitudes of people there and the British response to the tragedies. He was emphasizing that Londoners love multiculturalism and the great many ways in which people can learn from each other by living freely.. but if all people, of all races, cant come together as a whole there with the collective attitude of living harmoniously with everyone else and their differences, then multiculturalism may unfortunately have to go by the wayside someday - for the sake of survival.

    i am quoting here: "... if you cant live peacefully within our country, in its ideals and the way we live, then we dont want your sword here."
    Last edited by vw2002; 08/05/2005 at 12:09 AM.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    i would feel much better about boarding a flight if i knew EACH and EVERY person was searched, particularly those who fit the descriptions of the types who flew planes into our buildings and bombed london. If I was searched EVERY single time, i would be perfectly at ease with that.. why? because then i would know security is serious about the job.

    I dont mind if i am to be searched every time, as long as i see that security is being intelligent about who else they are focusing attention on as well.

    its the price you pay for national security after an incident like 9/11.
    vw...would you be offended if I asked you what your ethnicity was (if you choose not to, I take no offense)? The reason why I bring it up is because some different ethnic groups, who have been profiled or singled out before, would probably (Im only speculating because I am a caucasian male and can't speak from personal experience) object to being searched because of their past experiences at being profiled or discriminated against.

    That is why I would be in favor of searches if everyone was searched (not just certain groups.) It is quite easy for a white male to say "I wouldnt mind being singled out and searched every single time I get on a plane" because 'we' as a group, have not really felt racial discrimination nor have we really (as a group) been profiled before.

    As to the other part you said (and Insertion/Da brought this up before) once its revealed (directly or indirectly) which groups are being profiled, different groups will be recruited to carry out these types of terrorist plans. These other recruits might not be suicide bombers, but for the right amount of cash, you could recruit people to pick up a backpack and drop it at another location for remote detonation (or based on time). You could also target certain types of travellers (business) who travel the same routes all the time and switch baggage on them, etc. Finally, during the later part of the summer with enough Southern California tan, I could look like someone who was from the middle east region My point is that you can't always tell what race or nationality a person is just on looks.

    I think we can all agree on a couple of issues.... 1) we are against terrorism 2) we want to live in a safer society. I am just not convinced that the liberties that we are giving up in our efforts to fight terrorism are going to make us that much safer (based on a cost/benefit analysis).
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Besides can 20 something arabs really convincingly pull of pretending to be an 80 year old woman?
    Can 20 something Arabs, armed only with box cutters, kill 3000+ people?

    (I apologize for using the completely inhumane deaths of these people in something as trivial as a board post.)
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    There seems to be talk that the London explosions may have been set off by cell phone. If so, Terrorists can dupe some poor fooll into taking a backpack of explosives onto a train and detonate it from a remote location.

    "Look, we've got $100,000 worth of Meth in this backpack. Take the train to Union Station, your contact will be awaiting. Once the transaction is complete, you will receive $10,000 for your work..."

    Fooll thinks he's off to make a quick buck, and ends up splattered all over a tunnel.

    Profiling wouldn't do much good in this case.
    Good example I had not thought of Insertion.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    Profiling is a must, otherwise you are reduced to random searches. Race, appearance etc should be one of the factors in selecting the search targets. Others could be tips, behavior, a gut feeling that cannot be described etc etc.

    My tolerance to getting profiled depends on the consequence. If it means 5 minutes spent going through my bags at the airport or subway, I'd go along as a part of adjusting to terrorism in an open society.

    If it means arrest and imprisonment for 3 years while they get to my case (like it happened with hundreds of folks from selected countries who were rounded up after 911, and turned out to be totally unrelated to any terrorism whatsoever), then profiling on race and appearance alone would be bad.

    A knee in the back and a gun jammed into my kidneys world be unacceptable too :-)

    I'm not arguing against profiling, it just has to be a little more in depth than, "Oh, that's an old lady. Let her go."
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    Not missing that at all. What I am saying is that you need to start with the known and also keep an eye out for the unknown. Random searches alone make "could happen" and "have happened" equal. "Have happened" is the best place to start looking while understanding that "could happen" is always out there.
    No. Your example included excluding certain groups before randomizing. Your example also deals with units that are unable to observe, adapt, and change (do remember people. that's wahy we even are able to type on these little boxes).

    As soon as you remove the "little old lady", "baby stroller", etc from the random search, you just left a seam in your security.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I am always concerned when we treat one group of individuals differently than another. I am more in favor of xray'ing every single person before they board a plane.

    I know I have read some posters who don't care if they get searched because its necessary or because they havent done anything wrong...but the problem I see with that approach is that if it was YOU being searched every single time when others werent, then you might not feel the same.

    Just my .02
    Well Said!
  8. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    vw...would you be offended if I asked you what your ethnicity was (if you choose not to, I take no offense)? The reason why I bring it up is because some different ethnic groups, who have been profiled or singled out before, would probably (Im only speculating because I am a caucasian male and can't speak from personal experience) object to being searched because of their past experiences at being profiled or discriminated against.

    That is why I would be in favor of searches if everyone was searched (not just certain groups.) It is quite easy for a white male to say "I wouldnt mind being singled out and searched every single time I get on a plane" because 'we' as a group, have not really felt racial discrimination nor have we really (as a group) been profiled before."


    As to the other part you said (and Insertion/Da brought this up before) once its revealed (directly or indirectly) which groups are being profiled, different groups will be recruited to carry out these types of terrorist plans. These other recruits might not be suicide bombers, but for the right amount of cash, you could recruit people to pick up a backpack and drop it at another location for remote detonation (or based on time). You could also target certain types of travellers (business) who travel the same routes all the time and switch baggage on them, etc. Finally, during the later part of the summer with enough Southern California tan, I could look like someone who was from the middle east region My point is that you can't always tell what race or nationality a person is just on looks.


    I think we can all agree on a couple of issues.... 1) we are against terrorism 2) we want to live in a safer society. I am just not convinced that the liberties that we are giving up in our efforts to fight terrorism are going to make us that much safer (based on a cost/benefit analysis).


    i am a caucasian male, and my wife and i have been singled out for "random searches" EVERY time we have flown. i am not exaggerating. thats the truth. does that bother me? hell no. what was the race of those who searched us? they were african-american. could they have subjected US to racial discrimination if they so desired? sure. would i care? hell no. as long as they were searching all others who fit the descriptions of those who are terrorists at the same time. for the best interests of security, to me, its a necessary procedure. id rather be discriminated against, than detonated against, ok? thats a pretty straightforward situation to me - am im sticking to it.



    and sure, you could recruit others for the right amount of cash, but was this the method of attack used by those who carried out 9/11? the bombing of spain? london? no. these attacks were ALL carried out by, ahem, radicals, exclusively. these are possible theoreticals, but not consistent with alqaeda`s current practices. part of their "charm" is delivering their goods personally - thereby simultaneously transforming themselves into martyrs who are welcomed into heaven by 21 virgins! i think this is the whole idea behind jihad and alqaeda`s intent when attacking us.

    what you are talking about here though is really not so much airport or bus or subway security, but more along the lines of package checks within carriers themselves prior to arrival at transportation terminals, if that is what you mean.

    we already have warnings within airports saying never take baggage or packages from strangers onto aircraft - maybe we should apply that rule to the manner of business you are mentioning. emphasize the law that any package to be delivered anywhere by anyone under any circumstances must undergo some form of check by authorities at point A before it is to be deposited at any predetermined destination (point B or C ). We have to adapt to that possibility.
    increase the means and methods by which we carry out security checks. you present a problem, great, lets design a preventative method in dealing with that possibility.

    just the same, though, how else then do you propose we prevent such events from happening then? if we cant single out the most likely suspects, how else might we go about national security? searching everyone? ive already stated this is what we must do. but i stress that we devote extra attention to those whose profile is consistent with terrorists. if i get a tan which makes me look arab and i am pulled aside, will i have a problem with that? absolutely not. listen, if there is a better method of ensuring our protection in this country, then brother, believe me, i am ALL ears.


    i look at it this way. profiling might not be the 100% perfect solution to prevent ALL disasters from happening, but id say its probably,.... no, DEFINITELY a stronger, more effective practice than that which was used prior to 9/11, or the london attacks, or the bombing of spain, or.. well, i could go on and on. would you not agree? if they had profiled that day, those bombings might very well have been prevented!!!!

    hey, if there is a better way, like i said, i am ALL EARS, my friends. i am just not convinced that NOT doing these profiling checks are going to make us safer ( based on cost/analysis ) either.

    sure it would cost a lot of money to carry all this security out, but what costs more? the deaths of thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people? or the funds necessary to combat a very clear and present danger?
    to me, an obvious choice
    Last edited by vw2002; 08/05/2005 at 01:18 AM.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    lets break this down into an argument for those with highest probability of attacking us, shall we? Who is waging jihad against us? is it a multitude of people like timothy mcveigh? is it a horde of people like nezar hindawi`s pregnant irish girlfriend?
    I like the approach in this part of your argument vw but what was the probability that we would see 747's being flown like missles?

    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    come on, do the math. who is committing the terrorist bombings in the name of jihad in greatest percentages? pregnant irish girlfriends? please.
    Quite true...you make a good case for profiling, I just don't see us as having to do that instead of spending some real money and checking everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    lets get serious here. regarding some poor fooll taking the fake about delivering some package for a wad of cash, sure thats a theoretical possibility, but think about it. how many people, knowing the dangerous state of affairs today, are going to accept a package from an arab to put onto a BUS or a PLANE or any other mode of transportation without a little voice telling them something doesnt feel right about this, or that there is something about these folks and are probably up to NO GOOD?
    You assume no middle man (i.e. someone non-arab). You also assume that everyone has common sense. I agree that the chances are slim but the 'radicals' (I won't say arab) are desperate so we shouldnt rule out too much.

    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    honestly. of course we have to watch EVERYONE with great care these days. but lets defend our country like we MEAN IT, damn it. lets search the likes of those who have been found time and time again to be responsible for the deaths of scores and scores of innocent people. how many horrific lessons do we have to learn before a light bulb goes off and we finally do what is necessary?
    Good point but 'what is necessary' appears to be a subjective test. That leads to the question 'are we there yet'. Are we at the point where we need to start profiling and violating search and seizure protections afforded to us in the constitution? Im not sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    see, in my view, that is simply defending our country in a time of war - preventing horrible tragedies that DONT have to happen, that CAN be prevented if approached intellligently. its a shame that some might be offended by that, but well, hell, this is a matter of life and death now, so after careful consideration, i still find myself supporting the profiling method.
    Its interesting that you bring up the fact that we are in a war. We still don't know how long we will be in this war on terrorism (maybe forever if the goal is to root out all terrorism). Are you still ready to profile people indiscriminatarily for possibly 5-10 or more years? If we did, I can only see our country turning into a police state where people are searched based on looks alone all over the place.

    The other thing we need to remember with profiling...it is VERY easy to cross the line into harrassment. Police are people too with their own biases. By the government supporting the discrimination of one group of people based on how they look, it could carry on into other non-security related issues (employment, goods and services, etc.)

    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    its not that we are going to deliberately go out to offend and mistreat everyone who fits the description, but its just checking them extra carefully before having them board the plane, bus, train, whatever. this is simply the price people pay for security after we are bombed time and time again by radical arabs - it is simply a logical countermove. its a price i think most would be willing to pay.
    Although I think it would start out this way, I don't know if it would remain this way. Plus, if you polled everyone, I am not sure if its a price that MOST would be willing to pay?

    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    its quite interesting to hear what is on the minds of Londoners now after the attacks have happened. i was listening to a British radio news host this morning who was communicating some of the attitudes of people there and the British response to the tragedies. He was emphasizing that Londoners love multiculturalism and the great many ways in which people can learn from each other by living freely.. but if all people, of all races, cant come together as a whole there with the collective attitude of living harmoniously with everyone else and their differences, then multiculturalism may unfortunately have to go by the wayside someday - for the sake of survival.
    I hope not...especially when people who really arent part of the harmonious environment can infiltrate it and destroy it for everyone else. Doesnt seem to be very equitable.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    i am a caucasian male, and my wife and i have been singled out for "random searches" EVERY time we have flown. i am not exaggerating. thats the truth. does that bother me? hell no.
    I only brought that up because as to the fact that we are white, we might not be sensitive to being profiled or discriminated against whereas a person of color arguably could be. I would expect that a white person would not be offended.

    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    and sure, you could recruit others for the right amount of cash, but was this the method of attack used by those who carried out 9/11? the bombing of spain? london? no. these attacks were ALL carried out by arabs, exclusively. these are possible theoreticals, but not consistent with alqaeda`s current practices.
    I don't think we can count on AQ to remain constant if in fact that they want to continue to cause us harm. (but I understand you point).

    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    what you are talking about here though is really not so much airport or bus or subway security, but more along the lines of package checks within carriers themselves prior to arrival at transportation terminals, if that is what you mean.
    I would actually want us to physically be xrayed/scanned/sniffed before getting on any flight.

    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    searching everyone? ive already stated this is what we must do.
    Yes that is what I want. Now I have been focusing on planes. You seem to advocate the profiling on any type of public transportation?

    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    i look at it this way. profiling might not be the 100% perfect solution to prevent ALL disasters from happening, but id say its probably,.... no, DEFINITELY a stronger, more effective practice than that which was used prior to 9/11,
    There is no denying this.

    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    sure it would cost a lot of money to carry all this security out, but what costs more? the deaths of thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people? or the funds necessary to combat a very clear and present danger? to me, an obvious choice
    The other thing you havent considered is that business may not support/nor stand by and allow the profiling. Why? Because just as the airlines petition Congress to ease up on some regulations because it was hurting the bottom line, buses, traines and such will also have to worry about the added security and how it will effect business.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  11. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #31  
    "The other thing you havent considered is that business may not support/nor stand by and allow the profiling. Why? Because just as the airlines petition Congress to ease up on some regulations because it was hurting the bottom line, buses, traines and such will also have to worry about the added security and how it will effect business"

    -t2gungho


    very good point. however, i dont see any other way of preventing terrorism without establishing these regulations and expending measurable amounts of money. thats just the nature of this beast, i think. if we want to prevent tragedies, and simultaneously carry on our daily lives, we simply MUST have strict regulations.

    sure they might affect business a bit, but we all have to fly, take the train, the bus, etc. so though profiling might be an uncomfortable necessity, we would all go ahead with it. and, incidentally, wouldnt a repeat of 9/11 be an even greater knockout blow to their bottom line than any regulation congress could possibly bestow upon them?
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    very good point. however, i dont see any other way of preventing terrorism without establishing these regulations and expending measurable amounts of money. thats just the nature of this beast, i think. if we want to prevent tragedies, and simultaneously carry on our daily lives, we simply MUST have strict regulations.

    sure they might affect business a bit, but we all have to fly, take the train, the bus, etc. so though profiling might be an uncomfortable necessity, we would all go ahead with it. and, incidentally, wouldnt a repeat of 9/11 be an even greater knockout blow to their bottom line than any regulation congress could possibly bestow upon them?
    I think we both agree that we need to step up security...you seem to think we need to openly profile now, I tend to think we haven't gotten to that point. Its arguable to where we are at based on a national security standpoint simply because we (at least I) don't sit in on the NSA meetings with Pres. Bush. Good points overall though.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  13. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #33  
    "Yes that is what I want. Now I have been focusing on planes. You seem to advocate the profiling on any type of public transportation? "


    - t2gungho


    well, unfortunately looking at what happened in spain and now london, i have to respond with a resounding yes.
  14. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I think we both agree that we need to step up security...you seem to think we need to openly profile now, I tend to think we haven't gotten to that point. Its arguable to where we are at based on a national security standpoint simply because we (at least I) don't sit in on the NSA meetings with Pres. Bush. Good points overall though.

    i agree wholeheartedly, t2gungho. im not sure we are at the point where we HAVE to profile right now, but looking around the world at the nature of these attacks and their increasing frequency, we are moving closer to that becoming a possibility one day.
    profile right now? well, if we fail again, and we lose another 50, 100 or 1000 people again to these radicals who slipped under the radar again, then yes, i believe it is time.
    if we are able to prevent them with the current system of security and checks, then profiling isnt necessary. but we have to recognize when we have reached the point where enough is enough, and we are not going to tolerate anymore loss of life.

    no one wants to live in a police state, but if we are to have invisible radicals lurking among us every day and we are failing to stop them in the manner by which we would prefer, than we have to do what we have to do.
  15. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #35  
    .deleted. duplicate post
  16. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #36  
    deleted... duplicate post
  17. #37  
    We can eventually prevail over terrorists by making them unpopular, infiltrating them and getting informants amongst them. Takes a long time, but can be done. Most of the European and Japanese anarchist groups (some even in US), the Mafia, were dealt with this way.

    Meanwhile, any open society is vulnerable to isolated incidents by nutcases, like McVeigh or that pair that went about shooting people in the DC area from the trunk of a car.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  18. #38  
    A year ago, when I was travelling with a team from my company, all four of us men were patted down as we went through security. We got singled out of the line each time. Honestly, I preferred that. Anybody my size who looks like they could cause a problem on an aircraft should be looked at twice.

    One of my team is of Indian descent. He made it very clear to us that he gets upset when he is NOT singled out for additional security looks. He wants anyone who looks like him to receive more scrutiny.

    Getting on airplanes today, everyone goes through some form of search. It is no problem if some of US (me included) are given additional searches. I see it as giving additional peace of mind to my fellow travellers. I'm happy to do that.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    No. Your example included excluding certain groups before randomizing. Your example also deals with units that are unable to observe, adapt, and change (do remember people. that's wahy we even are able to type on these little boxes).

    As soon as you remove the "little old lady", "baby stroller", etc from the random search, you just left a seam in your security.
    OK. I'm saying AND and you're hearing BUT. I have to admit that it's very difficult to discuss something with someone who insists that you're not listening or thinking.

    I'll stop now.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  20. #40  
    John Walker Lind...

    Yep, there's an Arab looking character if ever I saw one. Profiling for Arab and Arab-Americans would sure find someone like him...

    (don't read this as I'm against profiling...just pointing out the flaws)
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions