That is, if the cops fail to focus on young Middle Eastern and/or Muslim men with backpacks. I have a hunch the bombers will be young Middle Eastern and/or Muslim men with backpacks, but then again, I could be wrong. Right?
Update (5:44 p.m.): Maybe the “and/or” routine is confusing, but come on people. I really don’t want to beat a blown-up horse, but correct me if I’m wrong (which I’m not): Homicidal, Allah-worshipping, murdering bombers tend to be young Muslim men of Middle Eastern extraction. That’s more a statement than a question. Now stop playing semantical games.
Update II (8:35 p.m.): From This is London:
Security sources have reportedly told The Times newspaper that a third group, believed to be made up of British-born Muslims, was on the verge of staging an attack on the Tube system last week.The men are thought to be of Pakistani origin, and have links with the Leeds-based terrorist cell which carried out the July 7 bombings which killed more than 50 people….BTP Chief Constable Ian Johnston said that his officers would not “waste time searching old white ladies”. (Emphasis addded)
{ 32 comments }
but then again, I could be wrong. Right?
And I could be the Pope some day, but it ain’t likely.
Isn’t it passing strange that our anti-terrorism forces are so PC when they are in the defensive mode of checking passengers and so much in the pure “profile” mode when they are offensively rooting out the cells and chasing down the perps they missed during the “defensive” checks.
I guess they are going to stay PC in the defensive mode until everyone has his own personal anti-terrorism shadow.
I cannot fathom why you would think such a thing, La Shawn. Middle Eastern young men with backpacks pose a threat to London? Whoever could imagine it?
/sarcasm off
Brits say to muslims: “Wanna play terrorism? OK old chap, let do this!”
The London police (actually the “Flying Squads”) are teaching the world a lesson. If only the left-wing politicians had cut them loose years ago.
The US police are of course afraid of the law and cannot be as aggressive. Too bad. It is going to tak another disaster before these idiots do NOW what their British brethren are doing brilliantly.
Creating terrors themselves and taking muslims down and taking them down hard!
Bush appoints Bolton!
First sign of vertebrae in that man in a while.
Virtually none (if any) of the folks wearing backpack bombers in London have been Middle Eastern men. In fact, they have been Asian (Pakistani origin) and black men (Jamaican, Ethiopian, and Somali origin). So only focusing on Middle Eastern men is just not pragmatic in this situation. Do that, and it puts Londoners at increased risk.
OK, perhaps “Middle Eastern” is the wrong term. Although people know very well what I meant: young Muslim men. If I were in charge of something other than this blog, I would make sure “Middle Eastern” remained in the profiling description, however.
Did i miss something? This is not about ME men. It is about suspicious men and muslim men where the starting point is middle eastern looks and brown skin.
We call it “criminal profiling” in this case only. NOT “racial” profiling.
What if the Muslim terrorist happens to look like the American John Walker Lindh?
nice how some folks like to bring up exceptions and try to make them the rule. where do the preponderance of terrorists hail from??? could it be north africa, middle east, arabian penisnula, southwest asia and the stans (old USSR). so since the terrorists generally come from that area, profiling men from that area is a pretty good idea of where you will find most of the terrorists.
can anyone use some common sense around here?
Profiling is a big advantage to terrorists. From who gets stopped, they’ll quickly have a good idea of what “profile” the authorities are working on. They can even carry out “experiments” (How about a middle-eastern man in a suit? How about an older-looking guy with white hair? How about a suitcase or briefcase instead of a back pack?). Once the profile is known, they can simply make their operatives look different and carry out whatever action they choose, secure in the knowledge that most police manpower is tied up with useless profile-based screening.
The terrorist’s nightmare is random screening. If 60-year old grandmothers with grocery bags are being searched, there is absolutely nothing that you can do to insure that your operatives will be safe. Moreover, random screening adds “noise” that can obscure a lower level of profile-based screening. (Was our guy stopped because he fit a profile? Or was it just a random stop?). So even if some profiling is being done, it ideally be done in such a way that it appears random.
La Shawn, here the NYPD tells us to look out for suspicious bahavior on trains, such as clenched fists on luggage, excessive use of cologne (to mask the odor of explosives),and perspiring profusely, avoiding eye contact, mumbling or chanting, or wearing clothes that are unsuitable for the time of year. I’ve never spent a day on the NY subway when I didn’t witness all of the above! We must narrow the search!
How, exactly, does one identify a person’s religion by their appearance?
From what I have read, most terrorists are foreign born young men who have become ostracized from their host culture. Profiling not only provides a false sense of security (as tgibbs described) but it further alienates the demographic most likely to become a terrorist. That same demographic, by the way, is also our most valuable HUMINT asset in catching them.
One of the best ways to fight terrorism is to step it up a level from what we are doing at GITMO, instead we make people totally disappear. Not necessarily kill them, but take them out of society completely. We return them only when they have learned to behave and we know the location of all their beloved family members so that we can reach out and tocuh him/them again when necessary.
Profiling does sound tempting, but if we implement it, the terrorists really have won.
I’m still a little confused as to why they shot a young Brazilian man without a backpack then.
It was pure racism chancelucky… The police weren’t trying to protect anyone. They just saw someone and decided to shoot them. /end sarcasm
“One of the best ways to fight terrorism is to step it up a level from what we are doing at GITMO, instead we make people totally disappear. Not necessarily kill them, but take them out of society completely. We return them only when they have learned to behave and we know the location of all their beloved family members so that we can reach out and tocuh him/them again when necessary.” –Raymond
What is it with the wimps of today? My generation grew up in the shadow of global holocaust. We thought that we all might die any day, and we still had the balls to hang on to our fundamental rights and freedoms.
Are we really now grown so craven? A couple of buildings get knocked down and a couple of trains blown up, and we are ready to set up secret police to disappear people?
You think those were aberrations? That Muslims don’t have WORSE in mind? We’re not angry enough about what’s happened. – Admin
Do you think Sean Penn would get through the checkpoint?
I’m not sure where this sits in the UK, but it’s illegal in the US (per the Constitution).
I did, however, see a nice piece on the IRS stopping random audits and ‘profiling’ white Americans who live in the suburbs, since most tax cheats…
“semantical games”? Well which is it? Middle Eastern, Muslim, or both Middle Eastern and Muslim. There is a difference between those three categories. And since Muslim is not a physical trait, I imagine the difference to be quite important for profiling.
-Spade
So if I understand you, it’s okay for me to shoot you in the head as long as I think I’m protecting someone?
iirc the orignal post was about the possible need for profiling. I was just pointing out that the guy they shot didn’t match the profile suggested in the original post. He was Brazilian, Catholic, wasn’t carrying a backjpack. I am aware that he ran from the police, but that suggests the police now have the right to shoot everyone who runs simply because that person may have a bomb.
Nope. Nobody was saying it was “okay”. It simply isn’t an actionable item against any one of the police officers who were “charged” with protecting and serving the citizens of Britian. And when a person does not listen to the commands of an officer, is wearing a coat in summer, running away from the police, moving towards an area that would endanger others, short of having ESP what do you think is the remedy?
I personally am not the type as it seems you are to go bashing the police (especially in this situation – days after 7/7 and 7/21).
Nobody is saying the police have a “right” to go shoot everyone simply because that person may have a bomb. There was more than just that one factor, there was many factors.
It was a regrettable situation that what? You want to score points off of? Muslims are Asian, Middle Eastern, African, Caucasian (as in parts of Russia and Yugoslavia).
There are common traits. There are common characteristics. There is smart searching and there is play dumb (random) searching. The left (and I think you) are asking us to play dumb (random) searching. Not so smart is it?
#16. “Confused” How come that doesn’t surprise anyone when it comes to liberals dealing with terrorism?
Wow! Thank you for saying that. Confirmed. The reason why liberals should never be allowed to roam the halls of Us leadership.
I wasn’t bashing the police. I was just asking how the shooting fit with an argument about “profiling” that started with Lashawn’s very explicit mention of a profile that consisted of backpacks and being from the Middle East or Moslem. (you might want to read the post that this discussion attaches to)
If I understand your answer, it’s that the man who was shot fit yet another profile (someone running from police who was inappropriately dressed who was headed into a sort of place that had been a bombing target) It’s obviously very hard to make a judgment call like this in the heat of the moment. I’m just bringing it up because your very brief post appeared to suggest that “protecting” people was justification enough for deadly force.
I’m also asking a couple serious questiions here that I don’t think are right or left.
1) What would a “smart” profile consist of?
Eric Rudolph is a white guy who opposed abortion? Should the US put all those who match that description under surveillance maybe refuse to let them carry weapons. Right wing terrorist incidents in the US far outnumber Islamic extremist killings. btw AM I the only one who finds it odd that women don’t bomb abortion clinics?
You acknowledge that Moslem is not a physical or ethnic description. What do we use then in “crowd” situations? that would amount to a “smart description” and once that smart description is known, how hard is it to outwit it?
2. When is deadly force appropriate in a suspected terrorist situation? Do the British police have protocols of some kind? OR is it make your best guess as it unfolds?
And what’s our protection from that kind of discretion being grossly abused?
I don’t pretend to have easy answers, but profiling is an awfully easy answer that may be not nearly as simple as we think.
As an American, I’ve been in the position of trusting a Republican administration to combat terrorism.
1) it’s been 1300 plus days since Osama was identified as the mastermind of 9/11. I’ve heard nothing about his capture.
2) Acts of terrorism are spreading and increasing in frequency.
3) There is little to no evidence that any major chemical plants, nuclear plants, ports, or mass transit facilities in the US are any safer than they were 4 years ago nor is it easy to show that any significant steps have been taken in the US to make them more secure. If I understand, National Guard and reserves who might help with this task are otherwise occupied.
4)2 of the countries in the “axis of evil” seem to be moving forward with their nuclear programs.
So honestly, yeah, I am confused by a lot of what’s gone on in the last four years and I can’t say that we’re winning the “war” or is it a “struggle” with the current tactics. IIRC Al Gore was the only candidate to mention improving airport security during the 2000 election and even Republicans seemed to believe that the biggest threat to US security was Bill Clinton’s infidelity.
1) What would a “smart†profile consist of?
Not looking for women when the rapist was a man. Not having an 84 year old Swedish grandma be searched (probably wasting time – we have limited resources. Not doing COMPLETE random searches.
Identify what criteria (not my job) is smart to look for and follow through without worrying about being politically correct or cowering to the liberals shouting. Criteria would be created by the people in the field making notes daily. Not me. FBI could help. CIA could help.
And if the London Telegraph reported that 6% of Christian’s completely agreed with Eric Rudolph (they don’t) and 33% sympathize with Eric Rudolph (they don’t), yeah it would be a serious problem even though Eric Rudolph wasn’t a Christian and has denounced God as La Shawn pointed these facts out on a previous post (I know your sourced didn’t inform you huh
)
2. When is deadly force appropriate in a suspected terrorist situation?
Not for me to answer. But I’m not going to question the police’s actions when I see very clearly how the accident happened. It’s up to the professional organizations to train and create criteria on how to act given certain situations.
1) it’s been 1300 plus days since Osama was identified as the mastermind of 9/11. I’ve heard nothing about his capture.
Catching Osama won’t solve the worldwide problem with Islamofacism. It’s a nice Democrat talking point and shows your colors but it doesn’t state that anyone on our side failed. The Iraq war didn’t reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan despite the myth. In fact the # of troops increased during the Iraq war beginning.
3) 3) There is little to no evidence….
There is little evidence that Democrat leaders would’ve done any better during the last 4 years. All they’ve done is undermine our efforts, attack the administration during a time of war with non-facts (propoganda) and aid and comfort the enemy. The enemy have been emboldened with the Democrat talking points ever since the start of the Iraq war. They have been acting DISGRACEFULLY.
4)2 of the countries in the “axis of evil†seem to be moving forward with their nuclear programs.
… and have been during the Clinton years. This is not a new Bush problem or American problem that cropped up. In fact the North Koreans were enabled with technology that we sold them and deals we made with Albright during the Clinton adminsitration. WHAT’S YOUR POINT. YOu are like COBRA. Republicans bad Democrats good?
There is not one poster here that thinks Republicans always act good and Bush does 100% of things correctly. THere is plenty to criticize Bush about. There is all kinds of facts that I see you aren’t considering. It’s a Democrat talking points list and isn’t helpful to the debate because most of us posters have addresses all of some of these issues with liberals like yourself before.
After 9/11, some of us out here were wondering if one day some terrorists are going to pay a drugged-out/drunk homeless guy big bucks to strap a bomb to himself and walk into a public place–like a mall.
Don’t you have anything better to do? Good grief, people. – Admin
mj, #27
Okaaaaaay, what would be the purpose of paying him then?
You’ve uncovered my secret. It’s a whitewash! – Admin
Turning in people who harrass me from their work computers (Dumb!) is a growing hobby of mine. Keep it up, genius. – Admin
LBC’s COMMENT POLICY. Read it, and let it sink in, especially the part about the First Amendment:
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/07/policy/
Comments on this entry are closed.