Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

At the risk of being unpolitcally correct.Follow

#52 Aug 14 2006 at 1:49 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
That's what I'm driving at-that your method would actually be LESS effective, both trapping people who are not even your target, and letting others slide base on the fact that their looks don't fit your profile
ok now you have lost me.....


..... At the moment you are trapping everyone. 200,000 people out of 200,000

If you where to only stop those who are of Arabic/Indian/Pakistani decent. (lets say 1%)

all of a sudden you are now only trapping 2000 with 198,000 people of other nationalities go through without the same stringent checks (just the normal ones as before) that removes 99% of the extra workload and cost correct?

Now can we argee that if there is going to be a fundamentalist islamic bomber the chances are extremely high that it's going to be a male of Arabic/Indian/Pakistani decent?

If the police are monitoring people who are frequenting places that are the hotbeds of said Fundermentalist views the small number of non Arabic/Indian?pakistani background are going to be alot easier to monitor as they would stand out and thier change in behaviour far easier to spot.

These people could be added to the Interpol records and would be subjected to the same level of extra scruteny as the 1%.

How can that be less effective?
#53 Aug 14 2006 at 1:52 PM Rating: Good
tarv of the Seven Seas wrote:
How can that be less effective?


Because it further marginalizes and makes martyrs out of a population that you would obviously think is succeptable to getting pissy and blowing you up?
#54 Aug 14 2006 at 1:53 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
tarv of the Seven Seas wrote:
How can that be less effective?
Wider net, more fish.
#55 Aug 14 2006 at 1:58 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
Because it further marginalizes and makes martyrs out of a population that you would obviously think is succeptable to getting pissy and blowing you up?
What spending 5 minutes extra in a que is going to marginalise people to the point where they are happy to blow people up now?

I'm not talking about draconian strip searches i'm talking about more detailed bag checks.

I don't think we will ever return to the point where we will be able to take our own liquids on airlines again.

Quote:
Wider net, more fish.
Bigger net, more holes, less stringent checks.
#56 Aug 14 2006 at 2:00 PM Rating: Good
tarv of the Seven Seas wrote:
What spending 5 minutes extra in a que is going to marginalise people to the point where they are happy to blow people up now?


It's enough that you've been offended to the point where you've taken this issue to the ultimate authority on counter-terrorism, so I assume it would make them capable of anything!
#57 Aug 14 2006 at 2:06 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
tarv of the Seven Seas wrote:
I'm not talking about draconian strip searches i'm talking about more detailed bag checks......
Quote:
Wider net, more fish.
Bigger net, more holes, less stringent checks.

So let me make sure I'm reading you right: You think that changing the status quo down to combing over Muslims with a wire fleabrush to see if any "terror" falls out is better than the system currently in place? Who decides who is Muslim? Do you tattoo them all with a symbol? Do you issue them identification badges? Have you thought this through?
#58 Aug 14 2006 at 2:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
If this were implemented, and I were involved in any way in recruiting for a terrorist organization, I'd recruit me some of those European-looking Lebanese chicks. Quick name change, new passport, and Sandy Smith is ready to blow up Flight XXX.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#60 Aug 14 2006 at 2:10 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
So let me make sure I'm reading you right: You think that changing the status quo down to combing over Muslims with a wire fleabrush to see if any "terror" falls out is better than the system currently in place? Who decides who is Muslim? Do you tattoo them all with a symbol? Do you issue them identification badges? Have you thought this through?
Please quote me saying Muslims.

Arabic/Indian/Pakistani, not muslim.
#61 Aug 14 2006 at 2:13 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Samira wrote:
If this were implemented, and I were involved in any way in recruiting for a terrorist organization, I'd recruit me some of those European-looking Lebanese chicks. Quick name change, new passport, and Sandy Smith is ready to blow up Flight XXX.
Or some Persian chicks! After the obligatory rhinoplasty and dye job (which they were getting anyways, so no extra expense), they look French! We'd totally let the French in, because we all know they're poosays.
#62 Aug 14 2006 at 2:14 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
tarv of the Seven Seas wrote:
Quote:
So let me make sure I'm reading you right: You think that changing the status quo down to combing over Muslims with a wire fleabrush to see if any "terror" falls out is better than the system currently in place? Who decides who is Muslim? Do you tattoo them all with a symbol? Do you issue them identification badges? Have you thought this through?
Please quote me saying Muslims.

Arabic/Indian/Pakistani, not muslim.


tarv wrote:
Hundreds of thousands of ordinary people forced to bow to the islamic terrorist again, the financial cost in the millions.

Ah, I get it. People you SUSPECT of being an Islamist radical, but somehow Episcopalian. Smiley: rolleyes

Make up your mind. Are you profiling or not?

Edited, Aug 14th 2006 at 3:15pm EDT by Atomicflea
#63 Aug 14 2006 at 2:16 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
Tarv, from your proposal you are saying that equality should not be a government policy. Or, to put it in kinder words, you believe that some things take precedence over it. Like how long you have to wait in a que.
If you come to Britain from certain parts of the world you are asked to undertake certain health checks i believe, there comes a point when you have to balance the amount of money it costs with the risks that are inherant.

You do realise i am asking for nothing different to the extra security checks that where and are still taken on people coming from northern and southern Ireland into Britain.

#64 Aug 14 2006 at 2:17 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
Ah, I get it. People you SUSPECT of being an Islamist radical, but somehow Episcopalian.

Make up your mind. Are you profiling or not?
are or are not the vast majority of Islamic terrorists from the Middle east/pakistan?

or did i miss something.
#65 Aug 14 2006 at 2:20 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
tarv of the Seven Seas wrote:
Quote:
Ah, I get it. People you SUSPECT of being an Islamist radical, but somehow Episcopalian.

Make up your mind. Are you profiling or not?
are or are not the vast majority of Islamic terrorists from the Middle east/pakistan?

or did i miss something.
Yes. The fact that you are profiling Muslims. Glad you see it.
#66 Aug 14 2006 at 2:22 PM Rating: Good
FUck yeah, profile them and leave me the hell alone. I guarantee there will be one group to protest the towelheads being stopped at the gates, the towelheads themselves.
#67 Aug 14 2006 at 2:23 PM Rating: Decent
Do you guys know the country with the highest number of Muslims in the world is India?

Just saying.

Also Somalis/Yemenis are quite hardcore Muslims, so black people should fit into that targetting. And Asians, cos the Indonesans are quite nasty too (Bali anyone?). And white people cos of Chechnya.

I agree with Flea, its just not feasible.


Granny, put that handbag down.

Edited, Aug 14th 2006 at 3:23pm EDT by RedPhoenixxxxxx
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#68 Aug 14 2006 at 2:23 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
I know i'm profiling thats the whole f*cking point.

profiling means you can direct resources to most effectively reduce the threat with the least amount of impact on the rest of the 200,000 people using Heathrow every day.

Or do you think it's a good idea to stop 198,000 people you know full well are never going to be the people you are looking for.
#69 Aug 14 2006 at 2:25 PM Rating: Good
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:
Do you guys know the country with the highest number of Muslims in the world is India?

Just saying.

Also Somalis/Yemenis are quite hardcore Muslims, so black people should fit into that targetting. And Asians, cos the Indonesans are quite nasty too (Bali anyone?). And white people cos of Chechnya.




Well there is your list.
#70 Aug 14 2006 at 2:30 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Soracloud, King of Bards wrote:
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:
Do you guys know the country with the highest number of Muslims in the world is India?

Just saying.

Also Somalis/Yemenis are quite hardcore Muslims, so black people should fit into that targetting. And Asians, cos the Indonesans are quite nasty too (Bali anyone?). And white people cos of Chechnya.




Well there is your list.


Whites, blacks, and asians?

I'm not sure where country of birth comes into security checks. Plus there's 2nd and 3rd generation folk from those countries who still keep the Muslim faith.

Edited, Aug 14th 2006 at 3:32pm EDT by Eske
#72 Aug 14 2006 at 2:37 PM Rating: Good
Eske wrote:
Soracloud, King of Bards wrote:
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:
Do you guys know the country with the highest number of Muslims in the world is India?

Just saying.

Also Somalis/Yemenis are quite hardcore Muslims, so black people should fit into that targetting. And Asians, cos the Indonesans are quite nasty too (Bali anyone?). And white people cos of Chechnya.




Well there is your list.


Whites, blacks, and asians?

I'm not sure where country of birth comes into security checks. Plus there's 2nd and 3rd generation folk from those countries who still keep the Muslim faith.

Edited, Aug 14th 2006 at 3:32pm EDT by Eske


Well Chechnians yes but leave the rest of us alone.

Only half serious, I would love to see every SpinTop turned away at the gates but not in this day and age. We have pussified ourselves into a corner and a constant stae of fear.
#73 Aug 14 2006 at 2:38 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
youshutup wrote:
It would never occur to you that such a move would firstly alienate innocent muslims by showing them that the government makes no disctinction between them and terrorists, which is precisely what you are doing, and then the Sun headline and the inference of all the other bigoted idiots out there who will see it as another excuse to further.. alienate these people.


Just a minor point, and I'm just playing devil's advocate, but something like what Tarv suggests doesn't exactly "show them that the government makes no distinction between them and terrorists". I think I know what you're trying to say, but you need to phrase it better.

That comparison would be accurate if we were knowingly allowing terrorists to enter airline facilities, but requiring that all terrorists go through stricter security checks before they board a flight. If we were making no distinction between them and terrorists, then we would be arresting them on sight.

Edited, Aug 14th 2006 at 3:38pm EDT by Eske
#74 Aug 14 2006 at 2:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Code Monkey
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
So let me make sure I'm reading you right: You think that changing the status quo down to combing over Muslims with a wire fleabrush to see if any "terror" falls out is better than the system currently in place? Who decides who is Muslim? Do you tattoo them all with a symbol? Do you issue them identification badges? Have you thought this through?


That was my original point =P
____________________________
Do what now?
#75 Aug 14 2006 at 2:41 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
It was all my own silly inference! I thought you were proposing harassment, implication of guilt, and restrictions of the movements of an entire people.. a totally seperate security system for those of a certain ethnicity.
please explain to me how increased security checks is implication of guilt ot restriction of movement any more than there is an implication of guilt and restrction of movement of 200,000 people per day at the moment.

Argue harassment if you want, the point is there is a problem in the british muslim community or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The alienation of the radicals is a red herring, they are already radicalised or again we wouldn't we having this discussion.

Britain is the most racially tolerant nation in the world period and yet we still find ourselves subject to attack.

I was totally anti Iraq II but the fundamentalist muslim would be more than happy to kill me without a second thought.

Quote:
I'm beginning to think most people who talk like this honestly don't really care, they're just afraid and arrogant and want to see someone suffer. They want to see strife and conflict. They want an enemy to see beaten. If they can't find one they'll create one.
you just discribed an islamic terrorist to a tee, and unlike the IRA they won't warn you they are going to kill you.
#76 Aug 14 2006 at 2:42 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
tarv of the Seven Seas wrote:
Quote:
Indians aren't Islamic, they're Hindu.
where exactly do you think Pakistan came from Deb? Wales?

Yes, I know. That was the joke.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 254 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (254)