Another raspberry for the advocates of racial profiling

[Malik Shabazz]

Raised as Catholic in Belgium, She Died as a Muslim Bomber

MONCEAU-SUR-SAMBRE, Belgium, Dec. 5 - Muriel Degauque, believed to be the first European Muslim woman to stage a suicide attack, started out life as a good Roman Catholic girl in this coal mining corner of Belgium known as the black country. She ended it in a grisly blast deep inside Iraq last month.

Ms. Degauque, 38, detonated her explosive vest amid an American military patrol in the town of Baquba on Nov. 9, wounding one American soldier, according to an account received from the State Department and given to the Federal Police in Belgium.

Her unlikely journey into militant Islam stunned Europe and for many people was an incomprehensible aberration, a lost soul led astray. But her story supports fears among many law enforcement officials and academics that converts to Europe's fastest-growing religion could bring with them a disturbing new aspect in the war on terror: Caucasian women committed to one of the world's deadliest causes.http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/international/europe/06brussels.html

Several months ago, people called me crazy when I wrote that suicide bombers come in all colors. Guess what: even Muslim suicide bombers come in all colors.

[Happy Professional]

a counterexample...

[Riscalculator]

Exceptions to the rule do not invalidate the general rule.

Racial profiling attempts to identify the most likely potential criminals / miscreants. It does not identify the only potential criminals. It would obviously also identify many innocent people. But the idea is to discover or discourage those who have been involved most frequently in the past. Additional profiling detail would eliminate many innocents who fall in the larger profiles categories.

It is for the good of the majority that such profiling is worthwhile.

[tope]

Racial profiling is only worthwhile if you are not likely to be a victim of it..that is a pattern that I have noticed lately..things change though (and it is not so worthwhile) when the tables turn (at this point we hear about "our rights:)..and as it is with the pictured lady above..we will hear things like "exception to the rule"..so far we have this lady, the American taliban, and the oklahoma bombers..and there are more, because now whilst the racial profilers are looking for Arabic men only..we might be shocked with a Belgian bomber

[Feif]

I don't think we should call it "racial profiling". It's not based on race. We should call it "statistical profiling", as it's based on statistics.

[Happy Professional]

Plus, Belgian isn't a race.

It's a waffle.

This is waffle profiling!!

[tope]

I don't think we should call it "racial profiling". It's not based on race. We should call it "statistical profiling", as it's based on statistics.

B-I-N-G-O

[Malik Shabazz]

I don't think we should call it "racial profiling". It's not based on race. We should call it "statistical profiling", as it's based on statistics.Sorry, Feif. It's called racial profiling because in the US it is, and always has been, based on race.

That's why the New Jersey Turnpike is a notoriously dangerous place to be DWB (driving while Black).

[Y2Mozz]

Is it your contention that blacks aren't more likely than whites to have outstanding warrants or be DWCC (Driving while committing a crime)?

[Malik Shabazz]

Exceptions to the rule do not invalidate the general rule.

Racial profiling attempts to identify the most likely potential criminals / miscreants. It does not identify the only potential criminals. It would obviously also identify many innocent people. But the idea is to discover or discourage those who have been involved most frequently in the past. Additional profiling detail would eliminate many innocents who fall in the larger profiles categories.

It is for the good of the majority that such profiling is worthwhile.Please re-read the highlighted sentence. Does it make any sense? How is somebody "involved most frequently in the past" in a suicide bombing? It's usually a one-shot deal.

Racial profiling is about making assumptions about individuals because of the group to which they belong -- or the group to which others mistakenly believe they belong.

Racial profiling makes as much sense as it would for me to shoot you because somebody who looks like you once shot at me. :shake:

[fallout]

Racial profiling makes as much sense as it would for me to shoot you because somebody who looks like you once shot at me. :shake:

Not exactly, you are usually more honest than this.

Nobody would advocate for racial profiling as a means of justice for past indiscretions, but as a means to prevent future ones. i.e. your example should be "because you look like someone that wants to shoot me now".

[The New Face of 0 and 1]

Why not just put all Muslims into a concentration camp until the war on terror is over? Isn't that just simple common sense?

[fallout]

Why not just put all Muslims into a concentration camp until the war on terror is over? Isn't that just simple common sense?


Common maybe, sense, not so much.

[Malik Shabazz]

Not exactly, you are usually more honest than this.

Nobody would advocate for racial profiling as a means of justice for past indiscretions, but as a means to prevent future ones. i.e. your example should be "because you look like someone that wants to shoot me now".No, fallout, you're wrong. (Not dishonest. Just wrong.)

The mistaken assumption isn't that "you look like you might want to shoot me." It's that "you look like somebody who once shot me" (past tense).

More specifically, it's not: "You look like an aggrieved Texan nationalist who might hijack an airplane and fly it into a skyscraper." It's: "You look like an Arab, and an Arab once hijacked an airplane and flew it into a skyscraper."

[The New Face of 0 and 1]

Common maybe, sense, not so much.

I don't follow. Statistics show our biggest threat is Muslims. Why risk being attacked again?

[Y2Mozz]

We should take special precautions against Muslims and those from certain countries. Throwing them in camps might be a bit much, of course

[cubedbee]

No, fallout, you're wrong. (Not dishonest. Just wrong.)

The mistaken assumption isn't that "you look like you might want to shoot me." It's that "you look like somebody who once shot me" (past tense).

I don't see the difference between these assumptions. All real-life probabilities, not based on some idealistic model, can only be assessed based on past experience. Thus, you assume that "You loook like someone who might want to shoot me" because you know that in the past "People who looked like you did in fact shoot me" and also you know that "People who did not look like you did not shoot me"

[fallout]

No, fallout, you're wrong. (Not dishonest. Just wrong.)

The mistaken assumption isn't that "you look like you might want to shoot me." It's that "you look like somebody who once shot me" (past tense).

More specifically, it's not: "You look like an aggrieved Texan nationalist who might hijack an airplane and fly it into a skyscraper." It's: "You look like an Arab, and an Arab once hijacked an airplane and flew it into a skyscraper."


The difference is not so much in the perception, but moreso in the reason for action.

[whisper]

I don't follow. Statistics show our biggest threat is Muslims. Why risk being attacked again?

The two most recent major terrorist attacks on the U.S. was the WTC, and the Oklahoma bombing. I don't see any reason why an Oklahoma-esque attack has become less likely. Why not the call for profiling white men as well?

[Feif]

The two most recent major terrorist attacks on the U.S. was the WTC, and the Oklahoma bombing. I don't see any reason why an Oklahoma-esque attack has become less likely. Why not the call for profiling white men as well?
You're looking at attacks on the US. But what about threats? What about attacks in the rest of the world?

[whisper]

You're looking at attacks on the US. But what about threats? What about attacks in the rest of the world?

Yeah, I'm looking at attacks on the US. That is the point - to stop attacks on the US. I don't see any reason to believe that the threat of an Oklahoma style bombing has changed in any way. Just because the Islamic "threats" get more news time, doesn't mean that there haven't been any domestic threats.

[Feif]

Yeah, I'm looking at attacks on the US. That is the point - to stop attacks on the US. I don't see any reason to believe that the threat of an Oklahoma style bombing has changed in any way. Just because the Islamic "threats" get more news time, doesn't mean that there haven't been any domestic threats.
But if Muslims attack the rest of the world, and have already shown they are willing to attack us, why shouldn't we think that they'd attack us again? Personally, I think that makes them the biggest threat.

[whisper]

But if Muslims attack the rest of the world, and have already shown they are willing to attack us, why shouldn't we think that they'd attack us again? Personally, I think that makes them the biggest threat.

What is the biggest threat to the other countries? Foreign terrorist? or Domestic Terrorists? Yes, there are a lot of Islamic terrorist attacks - mostly in the Islamic nations.

We also have domestic groups who have shown willingness to attack the U.S. Why should we think that they'd not attack us again?

[Feif]

What is the biggest threat to the other countries? Foreign terrorist? or Domestic Terrorists? Yes, there are a lot of Islamic terrorist attacks - mostly in the Islamic nations.

We also have domestic groups who have shown willingness to attack the U.S. Why should we think that they'd not attack us again?
I guess Israel is an Islamic nation, as they have tons of attacks.
We have had more threats from Islamic terrorists than from domestic groups. Or have you been talking to 2pac lately?

[whisper]

We have had more threats from Islamic terrorists than from domestic groups. Or have you been talking to 2pac lately?

1.) Do you have access to the FBI, and all the terrorists threats? Otherwise, you're getting information that is potentially biased.
2.) What is the ratios of attacks/threats. Sure, there may be more islamic threats. But if most of the threats are just noise, who cares? We're not trying to prevent threats, we're trying to prevent attacks.

[Car'a'carn]

Exceptions to the rule do not invalidate the general rule.

Racial profiling attempts to identify the most likely potential criminals / miscreants. It does not identify the only potential criminals. It would obviously also identify many innocent people. But the idea is to discover or discourage those who have been involved most frequently in the past. Additional profiling detail would eliminate many innocents who fall in the larger profiles categories.

It is for the good of the majority that such profiling is worthwhile.

Unfortunately the terrorist adjust to the racial profiling, which I think was Malik's point, which makes the racilal profiling useless.

Besides it is wrong generally.

[Feif]

1.) Do you have access to the FBI, and all the terrorists threats? Otherwise, you're getting information that is potentially biased.
2.) What is the ratios of attacks/threats. Sure, there may be more islamic threats. But if most of the threats are just noise, who cares? We're not trying to prevent threats, we're trying to prevent attacks.
But based on past Islamic actions, how can you write it off as noise?

[whisper]

But based on past Islamic actions, how can you write it off as noise?

Because most of it is noise. Thats the problem with intelligence - separating the wheat from the chaff. An unspecified target being alluded to by a questionable source isn't the highest quality information. The administration has taken a "better safe than sorry" approach - so the high number of "threats" being reported.

[Y2Mozz]

If 100 million Arabs say they want to kill Israelis, but "only" a few thousand actually take up arms and commit terrorist acts against her, should it all be disregarded because it's mostly noise?

[The New Face of 0 and 1]

My concentration camp idea is a lot like the popular "Monty Hall" let's make a deal problem. If you put most of the potential terrorists (Muslims) in a concentration camp voluntarily, you know the ones that don't go are much more likely to be up to something.

Per Malik's point, I also recommend making it all Muslims, including white ones.

[whisper]

If 100 million Arabs say they want to kill Israelis, but "only" a few thousand actually take up arms and commit terrorist acts against her, should it all be disregarded because it's mostly noise?

What do you mean by "disregarded"?
Should Israel waste time acting on every single "threat" of the 100 M Arabs that want to see it destroyed? Or should they act to prevent actual attacks?

If its about "threats" - then Israel has to waste time on all the 100M threats that are leveled against it.

If its about attacks, then yeah the 100M "threats" can be ignored because its mostly noise.