test
 |
|

08-12-2006, 09:53 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SW Oklahoma
Posts: 15,463
|
|
Racial Profiling by TSA
I am wondering why the US and TSA doesn't use profiling when deciding who to search when people are trying to board a plane. I guess we are trying to be politaly correct, but lets face it a blue gray hair woman isn't likely to trying to blow up a plane. 
|

08-12-2006, 10:15 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cowtown, Texas
Posts: 7,417
|
|
The problem is you have people that are sympathetic to the Terrorist cause. I would rather them screen everyone and be sure then to just screen one group and get blown up.
|

08-12-2006, 10:49 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 4,770
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Areyouforreal
The problem is you have people that are sympathetic to the Terrorist cause. I would rather them screen everyone and be sure then to just screen one group and get blown up.
|
I wouldn’t generalize those that feel their rights are infringed upon as ones who are sympathetic to the Terrorists.
__________________
"If you don't know where you are going, you will probably wind up somewhere else."
- Laurence J. Peter
|

08-12-2006, 11:03 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cowtown, Texas
Posts: 7,417
|
|
I am not saying that at all. What I was saying is that it is not only MUslims that may be sympathetic to the terrorist cause. Those that feel their rights are being infringed upon are a different group.
Lets say they start profiling Muslims and just letting everyone else just board. Two thinks could happen
1 Muslim Americans would start protesting that their rights were being infringed upon.
2 A non-Muslim terrorist could then be free to act.
Tell me just what rights are being infringed on?
Freedon of speech? press?
Right to bear arms?
Freedom of Religion?
Which ones?
Saying no liquids allowed in carry on is not violating anyones right.
Carring liquids/drinks on a plane is a convenience not a right. It seems a lot of people are mixing up conveniences with rights.
|

08-12-2006, 11:22 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 4,770
|
|
What rights is irrelevant, point is if one feels for some reason their rights are violated and files a lawsuit, it doesn't mean they are sympathetic to terrorists.
With that said, I believe it's naive not to profile young Middle East men for extra scrutiny.
Not all Muslims are terrorists, but in the case of attacks from international terrorists, they have all been Muslim.
__________________
"If you don't know where you are going, you will probably wind up somewhere else."
- Laurence J. Peter
|

08-12-2006, 11:35 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cowtown, Texas
Posts: 7,417
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by graybeard
What rights is irrelevant, point is if one feels for some reason their rights are violated and files a lawsuit, it doesn't mean they are sympathetic to terrorists.
With that said, I believe it's naive not to profile young Middle East men for extra scrutiny.
Not all Muslims are terrorists, but in the case of attacks from international terrorists, they have all been Muslim.
|
Where did I say that those people are sympathetic to terrorist?
I said that there are people that are sympathetic to their cause. Never did I identify anyone.
Wouldn't profiling be violating rights as well. Either you are for rights are you are against them. You can not have it both ways.
Your are right that so far all international terrorist attack have been Muslim but have you notice that since these securities measures have been put in place we have had no more Timothy Mcvays.
|

08-12-2006, 11:53 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 4,770
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Areyouforreal
Where did I say that those people are sympathetic to terrorist?
I said that there are people that are sympathetic to their cause. Never did I identify anyone.
Wouldn't profiling be violating rights as well. Either you are for rights are you are against them. You can not have it both ways.
Your are right that so far all international terrorist attack have been Muslim but have you notice that since these securities measures have been put in place we have had no more Timothy Mcvays.
|
Let me explain. Rob had asked why we weren’t profiling, and you said
“The problem is you have people that are sympathetic to the Terrorist cause.”
The implications are that the reason we are not profiling is people that are sympathetic to a terrorist cause are preventing us from doing so.
That’s how I read it.
__________________
"If you don't know where you are going, you will probably wind up somewhere else."
- Laurence J. Peter
|

08-12-2006, 11:56 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cowtown, Texas
Posts: 7,417
|
|
Sorry I misspoke then.
Have I made my stance more clear though?
In case not
If you profile then you violate a persons rights and you make way for the a non-profiled terrorist to do something.
That is why we screen everyone and do not profile.
|

08-12-2006, 11:59 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 4,770
|
|
Yes you have,
I say we screen everyone and profile for extra scrutiny.
__________________
"If you don't know where you are going, you will probably wind up somewhere else."
- Laurence J. Peter
|

08-12-2006, 12:01 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cowtown, Texas
Posts: 7,417
|
|
That would work.
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|