Profiling at the airport (humor)

[Merlin]

Profiling


To ensure we Americans never offend anyone -- particularly fanatics intent on killing us, U.S. Airport Screeners will not be allowed to "profile" certain people. They will continue random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, Secret Service agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning former Governors.

But, let's pause a moment and take the following quiz ...

In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and
massacred by:
(a) Olga Corbutt
(b) Sitting Bull
(c) Arnold Schwartzeneger
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:
(a) Lost Norwegians
(b) Elvis
(c) A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in
Lebanon by:
(a) John Dillinger
(b) The King of Sweden
(c) The Boy Scouts
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
(a) A pizza delivery boy
(b) Pee Wee Herman
(c) Geraldo Rivera making up for a slow news day
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked, and a 70
year old
American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard by:
(a) The Smurfs
(b) Davy Jones
(c) The Little Mermaid
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy
diver was
murdered by:
(a) Captain Kid
(b) Charles Lindberg
(c) Mother Teresa
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
(a) Scooby Doo
(b) The Tooth Fairy
(c) Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid.
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
(a) Richard Simmons
(b) Grandma Moses
(c) Michael Jordan
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed
by:
(a) Mr. Rogers
(b) Hillary, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women
problems
(c) The World Wrestling Federation to promote to promote Summer
Slam
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

On 9-11-2001, four airliners were hijacked, smashed into the
World Trade
Center and the Pentagon, and thousands of people were killed by:
(a) Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck, and Elmer Fudd
(b) The Supreme Court of Florida
(c) Mr. Bean
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
(a) Enron
(b) The Lutheran Church
(c) The NFL
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
(a) Bonny and Clyde
(b) Captain Kangaroo
(c) Billy Graham
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

Hmmm... Nope, no patterns anywhere here to justify profiling

[Burzhui]

yea i don't see any either, i guess racial profiling doesn't work

[molecularfire]

In general, people don't have a problem with racial profiling until they're pulled over for no apparent reason.

[Merlin]

Originally posted by molecularfire
In general, people don't have a problem with racial profiling until they're pulled over for no apparent reason.

"Does that come standard?"
"It came wit a black dude but he kept gettin pulled over."

The new hotness

[sbp]

It would be nice to not have profiling but reality dictates otherwise. Too bad some folks still don't get it.

[jase71]

I understand that racial profiling could be efffective, especially in situations like catching terrorists at the borders... and it makes perfect logical sense.

I'm just not so sure I like where that leads us with respect to civil liberties.

Do I want to live in a country where terrorists get almost a free pass in, and aren't stopped at the borders?

Or do I want to live in a country where intrusive searches, questioning, and surveillance are justified only by your skin color, rather than on your actions?

Seems to be no good choice there...

[Burzhui]

Originally posted by jase71
I understand that racial profiling could be efffective, especially in situations like catching terrorists at the borders... and it makes perfect logical sense.

I'm just not so sure I like where that leads us with respect to civil liberties.

Do I want to live in a country where terrorists get almost a free pass in, and aren't stopped at the borders?

Or do I want to live in a country where intrusive searches, questioning, and surveillance are justified only by your skin color, rather than on your actions?

Seems to be no good choice there...

i'll go with the second over the first any day

[molecularfire]

I pick the third option. Live in a world where I am the supreme ruler, and what I say goes. :D

[sbp]

Originally posted by jase71
I understand that racial profiling could be efffective, especially in situations like catching terrorists at the borders... and it makes perfect logical sense.

I'm just not so sure I like where that leads us with respect to civil liberties.

Do I want to live in a country where terrorists get almost a free pass in, and aren't stopped at the borders?

Or do I want to live in a country where intrusive searches, questioning, and surveillance are justified only by your skin color, rather than on your actions?

Seems to be no good choice there... Doesn't have to be a choice at all. People should be screened at the borders and suspicious activity should be investigated in the country.

[leemaj]

Originally posted by molecularfire
In general, people don't have a problem with racial profiling until they're pulled over for no apparent reason.

well you could get a DWB (driving while black) or a FWA (flying while arab)

[mojo]

so let me get this straight...you can tell if someone is a muslim extremist just by looking at them? :confused:

the rest of the joke continues with obvious examples like elvis, kids, 80 yr old women, etc...this implies that it should be more obvious. i just dunno :disa:

[jase71]

Originally posted by sbp
Doesn't have to be a choice at all. People should be screened at the borders and suspicious activity should be investigated in the country.

Does that include American citizens who are Muslim and returning to the US (from a business trip, maybe?)? Or if they just look like someone from the Middle East?

And is it your religion that makes you a potential terrorist? Or your race? Do we screen Muslims? Or people with swarthy features?

What if the next terrorist attack is done by a white person? Abortion clinic bombings? Oklahoma City ring a bell? It can happen again too. How many people who support racial profiling when it's used against people with dark skin, would still support it if they were pulled out of line and strip searched because they were white?


Originally posted by Burzhui

i'll go with the second over the first any day

I don't know.

With the first one, it's terrorists and our "enemies" doing it to me.. With the second, it's my own government doing it to me.

I think I'd rather be threated by extremists from over seas than by my own government.

Ben Franklin's quote comes to mind. "Those would trade freedom for a little temporary security deserve neither freedom nor security."

If we clamp down, and change our society in reaction to the terrorists, then they've won. They've succeeded in forcing us to change. They've taken a chip out of the freedoms that make our country great. Maybe not a big chip, but a chip. A few more chips, and our foundation is weakened.

They'll never destroy us militarily. But they CAN make us destroy ourselves from within. Fear, paranoia, hate... those are the tools of terrorists. Those are the seeds that they sow.

If we start separating people out for scrutiny based on race, ideology, or religion... then we've come one step closer to them. We'll hate those that are different than us, just like they do. They'll have won. We'll have become just like them. Intolerant, full of hate, and willing to kill those who don't follow our ways.

I'd rather see this country die nobly, holding true to it's values, than to see it live on a mockery of itself, paranoid, vicious, and suspicious of it's own citizens.

[sbp]

Originally posted by mojo
so let me get this straight...you can tell if someone is a muslim extremist just by looking at them?Terrorists are not going to hold up a sign saying they are terrorists. That is why screening must take place.


Originally posted by jase71
Does that include American citizens who are Muslim and returning to the US (from a business trip, maybe?)? Or if they just look like someone from the Middle East?

And is it your religion that makes you a potential terrorist? Or your race? Do we screen Muslims? Or people with swarthy features?

What if the next terrorist attack is done by a white person? Abortion clinic bombings? Oklahoma City ring a bell? It can happen again too. How many people who support racial profiling when it's used against people with dark skin, would still support it if they were pulled out of line and strip searched because they were white?Whatever is in the profile is done.

So no screening should be done? :eek: Exactly how will terrorists be ferreted out? Why limit the options to uncover terrorists?

When people of a group X start murdering people on a consistent basis and pledge to do more, than yes by all means screening out when necessary needs to be done.


I don't know.

With the first one, it's terrorists and our "enemies" doing it to me.. With the second, it's my own government doing it to me.

I think I'd rather be threated by extremists from over seas than by my own government.

Ben Franklin's quote comes to mind. "Those would trade freedom for a little temporary security deserve neither freedom nor security."

If we clamp down, and change our society in reaction to the terrorists, then they've won. They've succeeded in forcing us to change. They've taken a chip out of the freedoms that make our country great. Maybe not a big chip, but a chip. A few more chips, and our foundation is weakened.

They'll never destroy us militarily. But they CAN make us destroy ourselves from within. Fear, paranoia, hate... those are the tools of terrorists. Those are the seeds that they sow.

If we start separating people out for scrutiny based on race, ideology, or religion... then we've come one step closer to them. We'll hate those that are different than us, just like they do. They'll have won. We'll have become just like them. Intolerant, full of hate, and willing to kill those who don't follow our ways.

I'd rather see this country die nobly, holding true to it's values, than to see it live on a mockery of itself, paranoid, vicious, and suspicious of it's own citizens. Terrorists hope not to be discovered and prey on goodwill so its easier to carry out their diabolical plans.

God forbid when this country starts getting homicide bombers like Israel gets. We are going to be in a heap of trouble.

More needs to be done to stop terrorism. Otherwise we will end up with a much higher body count.

Common sense would dictate if the profile of a terrorist is known than the profile should be used and tools utilized to stop terrorism. Terrorism can be prevented and made harder to do. Screening and profiling are invaluable ways to prevent terrorism.

And if the terrorists get their way we won't have to worry about anything.

[Merlin]

Originally posted by sbp
Terrorists are not going to hold up a sign saying they are terrorists. That is why screening must take place.

Whatever is in the profile is done.

So no screening should be done? :eek: Exactly how will terrorists be ferreted out? Why limit the options to uncover terrorists?

When people of a group X start murdering people on a consistent basis and pledge to do more, than yes by all means screening out when necessary needs to be done.

Terrorists hope not to be discovered and prey on goodwill so its easier to carry out their diabolical plans.

God forbid when this country starts getting homicide bombers like Israel gets. We are going to be in a heap of trouble.

More needs to be done to stop terrorism. Otherwise we will end up with a much higher body count.

Common sense would dictate if the profile of a terrorist is known than the profile should be used and tools utilized to stop terrorism. Terrorism can be prevented and made harder to do. Screening and profiling are invaluable ways to prevent terrorism.

And if the terrorists get their way we won't have to worry about anything.


Good idea. Lets start by outlawing all guns and explosives - terrorists love using them. Then conducting door to door searches of peoples homes - afterall, you never know where they could be hiding and we want them found for safety sake. If you are of Middle Eastern heritage we can set up neat places for you to live - camps of some sort - it worked really well during WWII. It could be even safer if we made people get state permission to fly - that could be really cool, you get a travel certificate to carry with you and present everytime a gestap er security officer says "ver ahr yur papers!?" Man, there are all sorts of ways security could be enhanced. Hope you'll enjoy it because by then I'll be living in Australia or New Zeland somewhere else.

[jase71]

Originally posted by sbp

More needs to be done to stop terrorism. Otherwise we will end up with a much higher body count.

But at what cost?

We exchange a lower body count for what, a loss of civil liberties if we're something other than white?

Sure, we can ensure that no terrorist comes into the country through an airport. But how restrictive will we have to be to do that? How many rights will we have to give up to make that happen? What else could we do that would be even MORE effective? Forbid all travel of anyone of Middle Eastern appearance? Deport anyone with a visa from a Middle Eastern country? How about we round them all up, and put them in camps until the "war" is over? Once you start profiling... where do you stop?

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't do more to stop terrorism. Obviously we need to. In fact, why we're wasting billions of dollars on a missle defense boondoggle when we could be spending that money to stop the real threat, terrorists, is beyond me.

But there are certain lines we shouldn't cross... not if we want to retain what's valuable about America.



Common sense would dictate if the profile of a terrorist is known than the profile should be used and tools utilized to stop terrorism. Terrorism can be prevented and made harder to do. Screening and profiling are invaluable ways to prevent terrorism.

And if the terrorists get their way we won't have to worry about anything.

The terrorists get their way just as easily if they force us into becoming oppressive, restrictive, and draconian. Just like their own government. They still win.

At it's core, Profiling is the same argument as Gun Control. It's the fight to limit certain rights and civil liberties in exchange for saving lives.

We don't accept that argument with gun control. We hold the right to bear arms to be more important than the number of lives that could potentially be saved, because that's the price of freedom. Freedom does not come without a cost.

Why does this not still hold true with respect to profiling? Why are the lives now MORE important than civil liberties? What's changed? The fact that we lose 3000 lives all at once in one large tragedy, rather than individually in the more than 15,000 separate tragedies like we do with guns?

Frankly, I'll take suicide bombers in the street before I'd take draconian measures to stop terrorists. At least with terrorists, there's a chance I may never be affected. But a draconian government is guaranteed to affect me every day, for the rest of my life.

Death doesn't really scare me... but living miserably, under a government I fear, does....

[sbp]

Better to do nothing and let the terrorists kill as many as they want. Just wave :wavey2: every suspicious guy wearing an overcoat on through to board the plane. After all we don't want to be seen as oppressive, restrictive, and draconian. :rolleyes:

There is a lot of criticism and no solutions being offered. If you gentlemen got better ideas to stop the terrorists in this country lets hear it!

Depending on luck to stop terrorist plots doesn't work because luck can't hold out forever as shown by 9/11. The FBI knew there were those from that organization doing stuff but did nothing for fear of offending some people. Fighting a politically correct war is not the way to go!

Will you gentlemen feel the same way if (God forbid) terrorists kill someone you love and profiling and screening could have stopped it? :hmm:

Its very easy for demagogues who have nothing to campaign on seeking to score political points with all knowing hindsight to talk. But once the suicide bombers are in the street and innocent folks are being blown up with children made parentless what will they do other than run their big mouths?

Finally this is about life-life for you and your loved ones. What the terrorists will do in the future will make WTC and the deaths there look like nothing.

[sbp]

Originally posted by jase71
everything saidFrankly, I'll take neither suicide bombers in the street nor draconian measures to stop terrorists. Reasonable measures to prevent terrorism are well... reasonable.

[jase71]

Originally posted by sbp
Better to do nothing and let the terrorists kill as many as they want. Just wave :wavey2: every suspicious guy wearing an overcoat on through to board the plane. After all we don't want to be seen as oppressive, restrictive, and draconian. :rolleyes:

Who said anything about doing nothing? That's the logical conclusion you draw from my suggestion that profiling is wrong? That I think we should do NOTHING instead?

A suspicious guy wearing an overcoat boarding a plane? Why would you need profiling based on race or religion to stop him? Suspicious behavior is a reasonable
excuse for closer examination. Merely being Muslim, or of Middle Eastern descent is not.




There is a lot of criticism and no solutions being offered. If you gentlemen got better ideas to stop the terrorists in this country lets hear it!

Depending on luck to stop terrorist plots doesn't work because luck can't hold out forever as shown by 9/11. The FBI knew there were those from that organization doing stuff but did nothing for fear of offending some people. Fighting a politically correct war is not the way to go!

Now we're calling preserving our basic civil liberties and rights "politically correct", are we?

You don't want to depend on luck to keep terrorists out? What do you think profiling is? You're depending on the luck that your next terrorist will match the profile. Tim McVeigh didn't. John Walker wouldn't have, had he been one of the 15. Reid didn't.

And what happens when terrorists realize they can't fly in because we're restrictive at airports? They'll drive in between border checkpoints in North Dakota. Or they'll come in by boat. Getting in to this country is easy if you have the resources and backing of a person like bin Laden. They flew in because it was easiest. If that becomes too difficult, there are a hundred other ways in that aren't much harder. And then we'll have NO record of them being in the country at ALL.

You want solutions? How about, rather than depending on the luck of catching the guy at an airport, and hoping he matches the profile, instead, we deal with the ROOT of the problem? The reason they come over in the first place?

Why do they hate us? Because the US has played them off as tools for the last several decades. We supported Iraq as a counter to Iran. We supported the Mujahideen against the Soviets. We paid them, and let them die, and watched when their countries fell apart. And then, when the fight was over, we abandoned them when they wanted to rebuild. And now, we openly support Isreal with billions of dollars, their enemies.

There ARE no quick and easy fixes. Not all problems have a nice easy solution you can legislate. It's time we started taking a long-view look at our foriegn policy, rather than what will benefit us this year, or next. We're reaping what we sowed in the 80's for supporting those regimes.




Will you gentlemen feel the same way if (God forbid) terrorists kill someone you love and profiling and screening could have stopped it? :hmm:

Probably not. I'd probably want blood. I'd want every possible measure taken that could keep me and my children safe, with no concern for my future, or my children's future, beyond our immediate safety.

But then, having lost my family, I wouldn't be in the best state of mind to make objective, informed decisions about what's best for my country, would I? Emotionally charged solutions are seldom the right ones.
Would I, having lost my family, be equipped to make decisions that would rationally be what's best for my country in 20 year? 50 years? 200 years? I doubt it.

Basing legislation and policy on emotional decisions instead of logic is what conservatives always accuse liberals of... but now it seems the situation is reversed.



Its very easy for demagogues who have nothing to campaign on seeking to score political points with all knowing hindsight to talk. But once the suicide bombers are in the street and innocent folks are being blown up with children made parentless what will they do other than run their big mouths?

If you want to play demagogue, and claim these measures are for the children...

Then what do we say to the families of our veterans who died fighting to preserve the freedoms we live with every day? What would you tell those who died when you meet them in heaven?

Thank you for fighting to preserve our freedom? Sorry we threw it away because we were scared of some terrorists with bombs strapped to their chests? We gave up on our ideals, the reason you gave your life, because our children were threatened?




Finally this is about life-life for you and your loved ones. What the terrorists will do in the future will make WTC and the deaths there look like nothing.

They'll have to work hard to pass firearm deaths. Tobacco deaths. Traffic deaths. Deaths due to polluted air.

If you truly believe this is solely about life, then I'd expect you to support gun control, outlawing tobacco, and creating much stricter environmental laws. And probably socialized medicine as well. Those problems kill far more people every year than terrorists do... and they're even more easily preventable.

It's not just about life. It's about the country we leave for our children. It's about whether we stick to our values and ideals, even in the face of danger. Even when those ideals aren't convenient.

Sometimes doing what's right isn't pleasant. Sometimes it can be terrifying. But the measure of a person is whether they stick to it, even when it would be more expedient to put aside what's right, even for a short time.

[Grimm]

The only victory the terrorists ever had in this country was when we reacted by reducing civil liberties.

The "Racial Profiling" card has been played enough. It's a bull**** phrase. We are not racial profiling by carefully checking persons of arabic decent when they enter our country. We are entitled to refuse entry into our country to any person that we choose. If a person has features similar to the majority of a group intending to do harm to our nation, allowing them the opportunity to still enter by undergoing additional security measures is a tribute to our generosity.

You can't racialy profile citizens of the US. Once customs determines that a person is a US citizen, they must be treated as every other citizen. Untill we know someone is not our enemy, they don't rate any special treatment. Like not getting searched.

How come we are doing everything ass backwards?

[sbp]

Originally posted by jase71
Who said anything about doing nothing? That's the logical conclusion you draw from my suggestion that profiling is wrong? That I think we should do NOTHING instead?That was in response to hyperbole scare mongering that being pragmatic to tighten up security means everything is being draconian.


Now we're calling preserving our basic civil liberties and rights "politically correct", are we?Not following up on leads and investigating for fear of offending is being politically correct. No doubt about it. When terrorists from known terrorist organizations were not picked up you know its wrong.


You don't want to depend on luck to keep terrorists out? What do you think profiling is? You're depending on the luck that your next terrorist will match the profile. Tim McVeigh didn't. John Walker wouldn't have, had he been one of the 15. Reid didn't.If profiling is so useless why do the FBI and other agencies use it? Its because profiling is useful and is a tool to be used. Cops use profiling to catch criminals. And yes profiling was used to catch McVeigh. They knew the description of the men who committed the bombing and got them.


And what happens when terrorists realize they can't fly in because we're restrictive at airports? They'll drive in between border checkpoints in North Dakota. Or they'll come in by boat. Getting in to this country is easy if you have the resources and backing of a person like bin Laden. They flew in because it was easiest. If that becomes too difficult, there are a hundred other ways in that aren't much harder. And then we'll have NO record of them being in the country at ALL.Putting it like that nothing can be done so why even bother trying. Everyone better prepare to meet thy maker.


You want solutions? How about, rather than depending on the luck of catching the guy at an airport, and hoping he matches the profile, instead, we deal with the ROOT of the problem? The reason they come over in the first place?

Why do they hate us? Because the US has played them off as tools for the last several decades. We supported Iraq as a counter to Iran. We supported the Mujahideen against the Soviets. We paid them, and let them die, and watched when their countries fell apart. And then, when the fight was over, we abandoned them when they wanted to rebuild. And now, we openly support Isreal with billions of dollars, their enemies.

There ARE no quick and easy fixes. Not all problems have a nice easy solution you can legislate. It's time we started taking a long-view look at our foriegn policy, rather than what will benefit us this year, or next. We're reaping what we sowed in the 80's for supporting those regimes.So power hungry warlords squabble and we're at fault for that? :pfft: Its always the US fault for everything no matter what! If the US is involved, its the US's fault. If the US is not involved, its the US's fault. :rolleyes:

How about the US getting credit for helping the muslims of Kosovo and Bosnia from getting their asses kicked? How about recognition about helping starving Somalians from greedy bastards hoarding the food? How about assistance offered during natural disasters?

The fact of the matter is this is nothing more scapegoating America. These terrorists hate America and all it stands for. Haters use any excuse to hate and always find a way blame all problems on others. There will always be another reason to hate America.

Now how about some real solutions instead of this blame the US attitude. :dodgy:


Basing legislation and policy on emotional decisions instead of logic is what conservatives always accuse liberals of... but now it seems the situation is reversed.It makes sense to consider and then take reasonable, logical steps about problems. Sitting there screaming while fear mongering accomplishes nothing. Its very easy to complain instead of offering ideas that actually accomplish goals.


If you want to play demagogue, and claim these measures are for the children...Yes some democrats are acting like children. Hillary asked: "What did George know?" How about what did Bill know? Of course she shut up after that came up.

These vague warnings have been coming for years and yet nothing was done for years. Why the hell don't these know-it-all's tell us where, how and when terrorists will they strike? Why the hell don't they do something about it instead of sitting on their frigging hands.


Then what do we say to the families of our veterans who died fighting to preserve the freedoms we live with every day? What would you tell those who died when you meet them in heaven?

Thank you for fighting to preserve our freedom? Sorry we threw it away because we were scared of some terrorists with bombs strapped to their chests? We gave up on our ideals, the reason you gave your life, because our children were threatened?Bet you big money the veterans wouldn't want people to act like sitting ducks. And they sure as hell wouldn't allow the terrorists to destroy America and all it stands for.

The veterans would ask: "Why you here since it wasn't your time? Its unbelievable some folks didn't want to do anything and allow ruthless scum to slaughter."
Just like these dips who didn't want to get the terrorists in Afghanistan. The terrorists would have put more wicked plans into action instead of having their evil operations interrupted.


They'll have to work hard to pass firearm deaths. Tobacco deaths. Traffic deaths. Deaths due to polluted air.

If you truly believe this is solely about life, then I'd expect you to support gun control, outlawing tobacco, and creating much stricter environmental laws. And probably socialized medicine as well. Those problems kill far more people every year than terrorists do... and they're even more easily preventable.

It's not just about life. It's about the country we leave for our children. It's about whether we stick to our values and ideals, even in the face of danger. Even when those ideals aren't convenient.This situation is just like stopping crime. Thugs are not allowed to do hurt people whenever thugs want to. Police stop lost of life and prevent bodily harm every day. Yet terrorists will be allowed unhindered to do whatever evil they want. :disa:

Its about being able to work in a building without having an airplane smash into it. Its about being free without fear of having the head cut off like Daniel Pearl. Its about sleeping well at night knowing the country is safe. Its being able to raise kids instead of having bombs made of nuclear material let off.

These terrorists are trying to murdered our values and ideals. That can't be allowed to happen. Ignoring reality and saying very little can be done to prevent this is not right. Even now we are still playing nice guy and trying to fight with one arm behind the back. Nice guys finish last and dead. :dead:


Sometimes doing what's right isn't pleasant. Sometimes it can be terrifying. But the measure of a person is whether they stick to it, even when it would be more expedient to put aside what's right, even for a short time.Yes, indeed even for standup people doing the right thing is sometimes scary. But they don't refuse to do what must be done even when it means taking the hit.

[jase71]

Oh sure, sbp... lull me into a false sense of security, thinking you won't respond, and then give me a response longer than most of mine! :P


Originally posted by sbp

Not following up on leads and investigating for fear of offending is being politically correct. No doubt about it. When terrorists from known terrorist organizations were not picked up you know its wrong.

Except that profiling isn't following up on leads. Profiling is shaking down people in the attempt to generate leads. That's wrong when a cop pulls over a black man just because he's black, and it's wrong when a traveler is shaken down just because he's Arabic.

When you pick someone because of behavior, or material they're carrying, or something they've said, that's following a lead.

When you pick someone out because of skin color or their religion, that's a different story.

Perhaps we should have traffic stops to stop and check for Christians, so we can find the abortion clinic bomber.... Being Christian will mean your car will be thoroughly searched, and you'll be given some hard questioning.

Why do I suspect that doing that would draw a little more protest?



If profiling is so useless why do the FBI and other agencies use it? Its because profiling is useful and is a tool to be used. Cops use profiling to catch criminals.

I've never denied it could be effective. It could be very effective. But being effective, and being constitutional and ethical are entirely different things.

Lest we forget, the Nazis had very many highly effective tactics... which we would have no desire to see implemented today.



And yes profiling was used to catch McVeigh. They knew the description of the men who committed the bombing and got them.


As I recall, McVeigh was pulled over for a traffic citation, no plates on his car. He was held in jail for several hours, and within minutes of being released before someone started to put things together.

They weren't looking for a white guy. They weren't profiling. They were doing a routine traffic stop. They caught him by luck, not profiling. If he'd have had plates on his car, we might never have found out who did it.

Most of the initial speculation was that the terrorists were Middle Eastern.



Putting it like that nothing can be done so why even bother trying. Everyone better prepare to meet thy maker.

Not quite. Just illustrating the point that profiling isn't the magic bullet that's going to prevent terrorism. But in some sense, what you say is true.

If they're already on the way over here, mad enough to die to attack us, we can't hope to stop all of them. It's like wearing a bullet proof vest. It won't guarantee you'll live, it just improves the odds.

The way to stop them is to prevent them from wanting to come here in the first place. Prevent them from hating us so severly. That's the only way to ensure that our children are safe. If they're already on the way here, the real battle is lost, and all you're doing is damage control. You're certainly not winning.



So power hungry warlords squabble and we're at fault for that? :pfft: Its always the US fault for everything no matter what! If the US is involved, its the US's fault. If the US is not involved, its the US's fault. :rolleyes:

It's at least partly our fault when we put them in power in the first place, gave them weapons they fought with, and told them to do what they wished against our enemies. And then ignored them when they needed help afterward, when their country was a disaster, and they were decimated by war.

Our support, or our lack of support, or even a combination of the two, can have dramatic effects on some of these regions. It would be one thing if we stayed away entirely. Or another if we had followed through on our promises. Instead, we used them to accomplish our needs, and then cut them loose. They felt betrayed. Is it any wonder they hate us?




How about the US getting credit for helping the muslims of Kosovo and Bosnia from getting their asses kicked? How about recognition about helping starving Somalians from greedy bastards hoarding the food? How about assistance offered during natural disasters?

America does some fine, responsible and upstanding things, too. It's not Bosnian Muslims attacking us.

But those in the Middle East don't care about that. They care what happens in their own back yard.

Would your perception of China improve if you knew they were giving rice to starving Mongolian nomads? Probably not. You wouldn't care, because it doesn't affect you, and doesn't change what China has done to the US. That's the same attitude the Middle East has to the US. It doesn't matter to them what we've done elsewhere. What matters is what we've done to THEM.



The fact of the matter is this is nothing more scapegoating America. These terrorists hate America and all it stands for. Haters use any excuse to hate and always find a way blame all problems on others. There will always be another reason to hate America.


Scapegoating? No... just expecting us to behave responsibly, and consider the long term repercussions of our actions. America has done many, many good things for the world. And we've also done a fair number of questionable ones. Sometimes we wear the white hats. Sometimes we don't.

You're right, they'll hate us for a long time to come. And their leaders will make political hay by taking advantage of that hate, and using it to bring themselves to power.

But if we want to stop the tide of terrorists coming over here, we need to break that cycle. Just claiming they'll always hate us is useless. Then we might as well seal the borders, and give up. Fortress America. Hi, Pat Buchanan!

Instead, we need to stop giving them reasons to hate us. That will take many, many years before it begins to work. But it can be done. And it's a better long term solution than continuing to provoke them, and hoping to catch the terrorists at the border. Because we won't always be so lucky.



Now how about some real solutions instead of this blame the US attitude. :dodgy:

How about some real solutions from yourself? You've suggested we catch more terrorists at the border by profiling. But that doesn't really solve the problem either, does it? They're still coming. And SOME of them are going to get through. Is catching 9 or 10 terrorists good enough if 1 still gets through?

How about some REAL solutions for the terrorist problem?



Yes some democrats are acting like children. Hillary asked: "What did George know?" How about what did Bill know? Of course she shut up after that came up.

For what it's worth, all this finger pointing makes me sick. Without specific information, which usually comes from an inside informant, all the vague warnings and general threats are useless.

Unless someone gave Bush and the FBI a specific date, or a specific airport, or the names of individuals, then they didn't have enough info to realistically stop it.

But then we heard all the same finger pointing after the African Embassy bombings about Clinton. They were just as inappropriate then as they are now.

The opposition will always try and score points off the party in power.



Bet you big money the veterans wouldn't want people to act like sitting ducks. And they sure as hell wouldn't allow the terrorists to destroy America and all it stands for.

The veterans would ask: "Why you here since it wasn't your time? Its unbelievable some folks didn't want to do anything and allow ruthless scum to slaughter."

The "Didn't want to do anything" line again, huh? Disliking profiling is the same as "doing nothing" again?

The terrorists have only one way to destroy America. They don't have the people, the weapons, or the power to do it themselves.
They can hurt us, but they can't destroy us. Not even close.

The only way they can destroy America is to get the American citizes to do it for them, from within. To get us to give up our freedoms because we fear them. To get us to give up our ideals. To give up what makes America great.

Every right we restrict is a victory for them. Every new security measure is a battle won for them. They FORCED us to change. WE'RE reacting to THEM. That puts them in control, and in power. They can sit in their caves and count their victories by watching CNN report on travel restrictions, longer airport lines, and stories of Medal of Honor winners being searched.

Every change we make in response to them is
a concession to their power.



Just like these dips who didn't want to get the terrorists in Afghanistan. The terrorists would have put more wicked plans into action instead of having their evil operations interrupted.

Agreed. I have no problem with the mission in Afghanistan. I have a few question about how it was done, but then, I'm not privy to all the information, so there might be very good answers to my questions.

It won't solve the problem long term. But it'll buy us some time short term so we can figure out how to fix the problem.

And, it's a better way to stop terrorism than checking for dark skin and a bushy mustache on incoming passengers.



These terrorists are trying to murdered our values and ideals. That can't be allowed to happen. Ignoring reality and saying very little can be done to prevent this is not right. Even now we are still playing nice guy and trying to fight with one arm behind the back. Nice guys finish last and dead. :dead:

I have no problems with taking the gloves off to combat terrorists.

I have serious problems with putting the gloves ON American citizens to combat terrorists. The terrorists are the guilty party. Why are we stepping on the civil liberties of American citizens as a response?

Nice guys may finish last and dead. But which is more important? Holding true to your ideals, even in the face of death? Or abandoning them so you can live in safety? Which decision did our founding fathers make? Once again, Ben Franklin's quote comes to mind...

[sbp]

Originally posted by jase71
Oh sure, sbp... lull me into a false sense of security, thinking you won't respond, and then give me a response longer than most of mine! :P:blush:


Except that profiling isn't following up on leads. Profiling is shaking down people in the attempt to generate leads. That's wrong when a cop pulls over a black man just because he's black, and it's wrong when a traveler is shaken down just because he's Arabic.Profiling is seeing why the criminal commits the crime. Think of it as an overall sketch {mental, physical etc} of the type of person who commit the crimes or in this case terrorism. By doing this, the criminal can be caught sooner or stopped entirely before carrying out their plan.

Its not just about waiting until the crime is committed to take action. Its about preventing crime before it takes place.


When you pick someone out because of skin color or their religion, that's a different story.Does this also apply to not getting hired for a job on account of race and religion? If so you'll enjoy the thread I've been saving to post. :D


Perhaps we should have traffic stops to stop and check for Christians, so we can find the abortion clinic bomber.... Being Christian will mean your car will be thoroughly searched, and you'll be given some hard questioning.How about two Arabic guys photographing a nuclear power plant? Would you check them out or not? See its quite easy to come with situations to support your position.


I've never denied it could be effective. It could be very effective. But being effective, and being constitutional and ethical are entirely different things.

Lest we forget, the Nazis had very many highly effective tactics... which we would have no desire to see implemented today.So taking a few precautionary steps means being more Nazi-like. :confused:

Since Hitler was brought up, we didn't play around with the sob Hitler and feel guilty about him hating our guts. We shouldn't do the same for a twisted psycho like bin Laden.


As I recall, McVeigh was pulled over for a traffic citation, no plates on his car. He was held in jail for several hours, and within minutes of being released before someone started to put things together.

They weren't looking for a white guy. They weren't profiling. They were doing a routine traffic stop. They caught him by luck, not profiling. If he'd have had plates on his car, we might never have found out who did it.For years America has been thinking terrorism won't come here. The 1993 WTC bombing should have been a wake up call and then that was followed by other terrorists acts. We can't sit there and depend on luck to catch people and foil plans. Furthermore, McVeigh is now dead. Can the same be said of Middle Eastern terrorists?


Most of the initial speculation was that the terrorists were Middle Eastern.Very understandable-for it has been Middle Easterners committing most of the terrorists acts against this country.


Not quite. Just illustrating the point that profiling isn't the magic bullet that's going to prevent terrorism. But in some sense, what you say is true.

If they're already on the way over here, mad enough to die to attack us, we can't hope to stop all of them. It's like wearing a bullet proof vest. It won't guarantee you'll live, it just improves the odds.Of course its not a magic bullet. Its another tool to be used to make terrorism harder to commit.


The way to stop them is to prevent them from wanting to come here in the first place. Prevent them from hating us so severly. That's the only way to ensure that our children are safe. If they're already on the way here, the real battle is lost, and all you're doing is damage control. You're certainly not winning.They will never, ever stop hating. Instead of using that energy for positive change in the Middle East, what they want is to grab power for themselves and making life miserable for any under their control. Why should they be accommodated when all they want to do back in time and repress everyone? What they wanted to do is establish more Taliban style governments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and elsewhere.


It's at least partly our fault when we put them in power in the first place, gave them weapons they fought with, and told them to do what they wished against our enemies. And then ignored them when they needed help afterward, when their country was a disaster, and they were decimated by war.

Our support, or our lack of support, or even a combination of the two, can have dramatic effects on some of these regions. It would be one thing if we stayed away entirely. Or another if we had followed through on our promises. Instead, we used them to accomplish our needs, and then cut them loose. They felt betrayed. Is it any wonder they hate us?We funded the Mujaheddin so they could bleed the Soviet Bear in Afghanistan. That effort and others around the world were successful and the Soviet Union died. With the end of the Cold War our business in Afghanistan was done. Seems to me we should get gratitude for helping Afghanis resist the Soviet invader.

After the Soviets withdrew there was a civil war between the Soviet backed government and the various Mujaheddin leaders. The Soviet backed government fell and the power hungry warlords took to warring against each other. These were corrupt governments who stole and wasted any aid gave by the world.

During this time, if the US stayed involved in Afghanistan with the limited leverage available, no doubt there would be resentment for doing so. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

If the Afghanis wanted to rebuild their country they should have done so, not take to fighting against each other and causing even more destruction. Why is it America that has to do everything?

Please note are the Taliban which ruled Afghanistan were not the same as the Mujaheddin. It was Pakistan's intelligence service and Saudi money who created that monster. Some were the same, but other Mujaheddin were fighting the Taliban with the Northern Alliance. Former Mujaheddin like the leader of the Northern Alliance, General Ahmad Shah Masood, the proclaimed "Lion of Panjshir", who bin Laden had killed.
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/11/wmass11.xml


America does some fine, responsible and upstanding things, too. It's not Bosnian Muslims attacking us.What?!? I thought these b@stards were oh so concerned with their fellow Muslims around the world.


But those in the Middle East don't care about that. They care what happens in their own back yard.

Would your perception of China improve if you knew they were giving rice to starving Mongolian nomads? Probably not. You wouldn't care, because it doesn't affect you, and doesn't change what China has done to the US. That's the same attitude the Middle East has to the US. It doesn't matter to them what we've done elsewhere. What matters is what we've done to THEM.They are the ones so short sighted, yet we, the ones with the global view, are the ones who are supposed to change. :dodgy:


Scapegoating? No... just expecting us to behave responsibly, and consider the long term repercussions of our actions. America has done many, many good things for the world. And we've also done a fair number of questionable ones. Sometimes we wear the white hats. Sometimes we don't.Saddam Hussein invaded 2 fellow Arab countries and threatened to invade another. Yet Saddam is embraced by them and we are despised? We freed Afghanistan from the wacky Taliban government yet we are the ones hated and considered evil. Screwed up they are.

The Russians, British every major power you can think of has done both good and bad. Yet these other countries are not targeted as America is. So yeah this is definitely scapegoating America.

The facts are we represent what they are not. We have and they don't have. They resent our power for we are the ones who can stop their evil plans.


You're right, they'll hate us for a long time to come. And their leaders will make political hay by taking advantage of that hate, and using it to bring themselves to power.So we choose their leaders for them thus causing more resentment.

The US is expected to deliver the impossible.

Don't we have a say in what we want to do?

You know what happens when trying to please everyone? No one ends up pleased.


But if we want to stop the tide of terrorists coming over here, we need to break that cycle. Just claiming they'll always hate us is useless. Then we might as well seal the borders, and give up. Fortress America. Hi, Pat Buchanan!

Instead, we need to stop giving them reasons to hate us. That will take many, many years before it begins to work. But it can be done. And it's a better long term solution than continuing to provoke them, and hoping to catch the terrorists at the border. Because we won't always be so lucky.We need to stop feeling guilty because we are Americans and pinning partial blame on ourselves.

They need to stop the cycle of hate. Stop the messages of hate being preached in mosques over there. They need to stop news broadcasts delivering hate for the US. They need to stop victimization and do more for themselves.

They want the US to do everything they want and deliver miracles. The faster they learn they can't always get what they want, the better.


How about some real solutions from yourself? You've suggested we catch more terrorists at the border by profiling. But that doesn't really solve the problem either, does it? They're still coming. And SOME of them are going to get through. Is catching 9 or 10 terrorists good enough if 1 still gets through?Its better than letting 10 out of 10 terrorists go through. And since it disrupts evil plans so much the better.


How about some REAL solutions for the terrorist problem?Obviously the first thing to do is check people out thoroughly as they enter the country i.e. have better secured borders. Once in the country there is the swift deportation of illegal aliens. Also infiltrate groups. Other violence prone organizations that are about to commit crimes are investigated.


The "Didn't want to do anything" line again, huh? Disliking profiling is the same as "doing nothing" again?I aim to please. Well sure haven't heard much solutions coming from you. http://sbp777.homestead.com/files/wink2.gif


The terrorists have only one way to destroy America. They don't have the people, the weapons, or the power to do it themselves.
They can hurt us, but they can't destroy us. Not even close.Given the opportunity they will a kill a hell of a lot of people. I sure don't want to see that.


The only way they can destroy America is to get the American citizes to do it for them, from within. To get us to give up our freedoms because we fear them. To get us to give up our ideals. To give up what makes America great.I have faith in the American people in these troubled times. No one is saying and suggesting ideals and freedom should be given up.


Every right we restrict is a victory for them. Every new security measure is a battle won for them. They FORCED us to change. WE'RE reacting to THEM. That puts them in control, and in power. They can sit in their caves and count their victories by watching CNN report on travel restrictions, longer airport lines, and stories of Medal of Honor winners being searched.

Every change we make in response to them is
a concession to their power.They count their victories when they count up the number of Americans killed in terrorists attacks.


I have no problems with taking the gloves off to combat terrorists.

I have serious problems with putting the gloves ON American citizens to combat terrorists. The terrorists are the guilty party. Why are we stepping on the civil liberties of American citizens as a response?

Nice guys may finish last and dead. But which is more important? Holding true to your ideals, even in the face of death? Or abandoning them so you can live in safety? Which decision did our founding fathers make? Once again, Ben Franklin's quote comes to mind... Why can't we do both-have increased safety and hold onto our ideals which the terrorists want to destroy?

Is not being able to bring box cutters onto planes a violation of rights? Metal detectors may be considered repressive-they should be gotten rid of.

Patton said: "I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country..."
We didn't start this war but we are sure going to end it. The best way to do that is kill the sob terrorists dead. Sitting there playing nice hoping we don't get murdered don't work.

[sbp]

Special thanks to GAM for increasing message length from 10,500 characters to 15,000 characters. Now jase71 won't have to worry about running out of space {we hope :eek2:} when posting a reply and is totally free to express himself fully!

[jase71]

Originally posted by sbp
Special thanks to GAM for increasing message length from 10,500 characters to 15,000 characters. Now jase71 won't have to worry about running out of space {we hope :eek2:} when posting a reply and is totally free to express himself fully!

:heh:

[jase71]

Originally posted by sbp

Its not just about waiting until the crime is committed to take action. Its about preventing crime before it takes place.

There's an interesting movie coming out that I'm anxious to see... Minority Report... take a look at it.

Are you going to stop people based on their likelihood that they'll commit a crime? Should we jail you today, sbp, because our computer model says you fit the profile of a certain type of criminal, and are likely to commit a crime?

Profiling to determine the type of person who committed an already occured crime is one thing. A valuable tool.

Profiling based on race or religion to determine people likely to commit a crime that hasn't yet occured is pretty scary, and very Orwellian. No thanks.



How about two Arabic guys photographing a nuclear power plant? Would you check them out or not? See its quite easy to come with situations to support your position.

But what's the problem with two Arabic guys photographing a nuclear plant? Is it the act of photographing the plant? Or the fact that they're Arabic? Frankly, I'd be pretty suspicious of two white guys photographing a nuclear plant too. Or two Chinese guys. The act of photographing the plant is suspicious more than their race.

Two cars sit in front of an Oklahoma federal building. One contains two Arabic guys taking pictures of the building. One contains two white guys taking pictures of the building. Which one is more suspicious? Would your profile have worked?



So taking a few precautionary steps means being more Nazi-like. :confused:

Since Hitler was brought up, we didn't play around with the sob Hitler and feel guilty about him hating our guts. We shouldn't do the same for a twisted psycho like bin Laden.

But take a look at Hitler... he was voted into power. He's a very good example. He played the people like violins. He blamed their problems on other races. He removed the undesirables for the security and improvement of Germany, supposedly. And the people fell for it. They voted him into power, and then they watched their rights erode, and said nothing. Because it was for a good cause, winning the war. And because they sat back, they allowed one of the greatest tragedies in history.

Got your papers? We're already discussing a National ID program. High on Ashcroft's to-do list...



For years America has been thinking terrorism won't come here. The 1993 WTC bombing should have been a wake up call and then that was followed by other terrorists acts. We can't sit there and depend on luck to catch people and foil plans. Furthermore, McVeigh is now dead. Can the same be said of Middle Eastern terrorists?

Where did we catch and kill the Middle Eastern terrorists who are now dead? Here, at our border? Or over there, where they train and live?

Which has been more effective? Waiting for them to come to us to catch them? Or going over there, and getting them?

McVeigh is the perfect example of the flaws of profiling. It can trap you into a line of thinking that may have no bearing on what actually occured. Profiling didn't catch McVeigh. And it wouldn't have. Profiling would have led us down the wrong path for a long time, possibly long enough for the real criminals to escape, if not for the luck of a random traffic stop.

We profiled during World War II. We stuck the Japanese in internment camps, based not on guilt or activity, but on a racial profile. What good did it do us?



Very understandable-for it has been Middle Easterners committing most of the terrorists acts against this country.

Understandable, but wrong. Just because the incorrect profiling of Middle Easterners was understandable doesn't change the fact that the profile was wrong, and counterproductive. I'd rather focus on being right than on making understandable mistakes.




They will never, ever stop hating. Instead of using that energy for positive change in the Middle East, what they want is to grab power for themselves and making life miserable for any under their control. Why should they be accommodated when all they want to do back in time and repress everyone? What they wanted to do is establish more Taliban style governments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and elsewhere.

Not too long ago, you could have made almost the same speech about the Russians. They would never stop hating us. We had nukes pointed at each other. Now they're almost an ally.

We took this country from the British. The hate was strong enough to shed a lot of blood. That hate lasted a long time. Do we hate the British now?

We fought a war with Mexico. Remember the Alamo? Do we still hate them the same way today?

A war with Spain? San Juan hill? Teddy Roosevelt? Do we still bear resentment towards Spain?

How about Japan? World War II? Or Germany, for that matter?

If what you say is true, and people can never, ever stop hating, then the entire world would be out to get us, and would still hate us.

The fact is, people CAN stop hating. It's not impossible. History shows us just how possible it really is. It's not easy, but it's very, very possible.



... Please note are the Taliban which ruled Afghanistan were not the same as the Mujaheddin.

Thank you for the history lesson. Yes, I'm well aware that the Mujahideen and the Taliban are not the same. But the second rose out of the vaccuum created by the first.

We supported the Mujahideen against the Soviets. And when the Soviets were removed, there was a vaccuum of power. The Mujahideen went from having an enemy, to having none. Nothing to fight against. They turned their attentions inward, and began to plunder, and pillage. Without a common goal, and without leadership, things degenerated into chaos.

At this point, rather than seriously help Afghanistan rebuild in the wake of the Soviets, the US pulled out, and abandoned their support. We were done with the Mujahideen, we had no more use for them. So we left Afghanistan with no proper government or infrastructure in place.

The Taliban rose to fill that void, gaining support as a protest against the actions of the Mujahideen who had begun to squabble and loot. The Taliban portrayed the Mujahideen as pawns of the US, and themselves as restoring order and morality to the country. And for the first few years, as the Taliban gained power, the US did nothing.
Heck, we liked them at first because they cracked down on drug production.

Had we stayed out entirely, or had we finished what we began, we might have been just fine. Instead, we half-assed it. We used them until we were done with them, and then we cut them loose. We helped create the vaccuum for the Taliban to fill, and did nothing to prevent them filling it.




They are the ones so short sighted, yet we, the ones with the global view, are the ones who are supposed to change. :dodgy:

We both need to change. Who says the change has to be one-sided?




Saddam Hussein invaded 2 fellow Arab countries and threatened to invade another. Yet Saddam is embraced by them and we are despised? We freed Afghanistan from the wacky Taliban government yet we are the ones hated and considered evil. Screwed up they are.

He was, in their eyes, someone who stood up to us. He got spanked. But that's not what his propaganda told them. They honestly believe he won. Because he told them he did.

Again, we half-assed it. We left him in power to trumpet his "victories" over the US.

We did what we set out to do... we returned him to within his borders. And we didn't have to occupy Iraq and set up a new government like we would have if we had marched to Bagdhad. But the consequence of doing that is that he stayed in power. We left him as a mouthpiece in the Middle East. So he's still in power, and we left. How hard is it for his propaganda machine to spin that as a victory for him?

Meaning well, and doing things for the right reason, doesn't necessarily mean you'll always get the outcome you wish... or even that you'll get a happy ending.



So we choose their leaders for them thus causing more resentment.

We already have been. We promoted the Mujahideen. And then, when Russia pulled out, rather than giving the Mujahideen the tools to operate a proper government, we pulled out too. The Taliban rose because we left a void. We could have prevented the Taliban, had we finished what we began.

But we didn't really care about Afghanistan, as long as it wasnt' in Soviet hands. We didn't support the Mujahideen to help Afghanistan. We did it to hurt the Soviets. So when the Soviets left, so did we.

That situation gave rise to the current one...




They need to stop the cycle of hate. Stop the messages of hate being preached in mosques over there. They need to stop news broadcasts delivering hate for the US. They need to stop victimization and do more for themselves.

Yes, they do. No arguments there. It will take some impressive leadership to change the tide in Afghanistan.

And we need to stop fanning the flames as well. The problem is, we've settled into a cycle of reacting to events there. And it'll be tough to do. Because each time we react, we stoke the fire, which is another reason for them to hate us. A very difficult situation to change.



Obviously the first thing to do is check people out thoroughly as they enter the country i.e. have better secured borders. Once in the country there is the swift deportation of illegal aliens. Also infiltrate groups. Other violence prone organizations that are about to commit crimes are investigated.

I aim to please. Well sure haven't heard much solutions coming from you. http://sbp777.homestead.com/files/wink2.gif

Not so different than the second half of yours. Secured borders aren't a solution. They're just a reaction to the problem. They won't fix it any more than increased border patrols have stopped illegal immigrants crossing from Mexico.

Ah, but the infiltration of groups... that's one key. I'd propose taking the bulk of the funding away from the boondoggle missle defense program, and using it to beef up intelligence. The money will do more good there, by far. Infiltrate these groups. They've done it to us, turnabout is fair play. Get them to distrust each other, to be suspicious of each other. Let fear work in our favor for once. Not only can we then take them down, but we can perhaps get advance warning of attacks that are coming. Far better to stop them over there than to hope to catch them in the airport here. That'd be a good medium-range beginning.

Secondly, for the long term, on a go-forward basis, we need to finish what we start. If we support a group to take out a faction we don't like, then we'd better be prepared to finish the job. Give them the tools and the funding to set up a stable government afterwards. Don't leave a power vaccuum, like we did in Afghanistan. 9 times out of 10 we won't like who fills it. If we start, then our job isn't done until a stable government is in place. If we're not prepared to carry it out that far, then we have no business being there in the first place. That's what will stop terrorism in the long run. Leave 'em alone, or leave some stability where you do get involved.




I have faith in the American people in these troubled times. No one is saying and suggesting ideals and freedom should be given up.

I have great faith in the American people. I have very little faith in our politicians.

No one is suggesting freedoms should be given up? Have you read the contents of the PATRIOT act? Heard about a possible National ID card?
Read about the increased usage of Carnivore?

Seems to me quite a few people are suggesting we should give up some freedoms, and that we should do it in the name of safety and security.




Why can't we do both-have increased safety and hold onto our ideals which the terrorists want to destroy?

We can. But we need to be careful how we do it.



Is not being able to bring box cutters onto planes a violation of rights? Metal detectors may be considered repressive-they should be gotten rid of.

Metal detectors are impartial.

Metal detectors don't discriminate, and they don't selectively scan only people of a certain ethnic background or religious persuasion.

Profiling does.

How about a better flight pattern database that traces passengers from their original point of departure, despite diversions to other airports? That will let you select for closer examination all people flying out of hot spots like Afghanistan, or the Sudan. No need to sort by race or religion. If they sorted by origin, they could select John Walker for closer investigation, had he come back to the US. Profiling wouldn't pick him out. Point of origin would.

How about better security on the airplanes? If you can't get in to the cockpit your options are pretty limited...

How about better paid and better trained security personnel at airports? Right now they make next to jack, and get very little training. Teach them what to look for.

How about requiring US Citizenship to get flight training or a pilot's license, or to rent a plane?

How about methods that would catch ALL terrorists making such an attempt... not just ones that fit a racial or religious profile?



Sitting there playing nice hoping we don't get murdered don't work.

And in making things perfectly safe, are we going to preserve a country in which we'll still want to live?

Last word can be yours, sbp... If I type out any more of these, I'm gonna get carpal tunnel. ;) We're going to start arguing in circles soon anyway, I'd guess.

Fire away! It's been an interesting debate...