It's the old "walks like a duck" thing. Grandma from Spokane isn't going to blow up any one. I'm all for it. It works for the Israelis.
2006-08-14 03:10:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
The best answer, I have heard, weak at best, is that Timothy McVay was not of Arab decent. That's the argument that people who don't want profiling are giving to justify that everyone has to be included. I figure, look at the odds. That's one isolated case as opposed to numerous cases of radical terrorist Muslims. If you or anyone out there would pose a guess as to what race, religion will be involved in the next terrorist attack. Common sense dictates it wont be an American Christian grandmother from Idaho... They should begin to racially profile passengers on planes amongst other things...
2006-08-14 10:14:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by 345Grasshopper 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Passenger Profiling seems perfectly reasonable. Yes it would make a lot of sense to waste time searching those militant Buddhist monks from Thailand plotting to blow up the West we hear so much about.
If the BAA (British Airports Authority) had the guts to do it - it would save time and money, cut down on delays, and make us all safer. But in these politically correct times they are scared of being accused of racism.
Nirpal Dhaliwal says in an Evening Standard article on 16 August 2006 "Search me first - I look like a Terrorist" that as an Asian he has no problem with passenger profiling if it makes us all safer and cuts down on delays. If you are innocent there is nothing to fear.
Superintendent Ali Dizaei objects to passenger profiling saying it would create a new offence: "travelling whilst Asian" and says profiling would "alienate the very communities who are going to help us catch terrorists".
Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) objects even to profiling based on behavioural pattern recognition, i.e. profiling people by their activities and travel records rather than their ethnicity alone.
Dhaliwal says in response: "But when you consider that a third of British Muslims want to live under Sharia Law and that a similar number sympathise with the 7 July murderers, it makes you wonder just how much more alienation could possibly be achieved by a quick search at the airport."
"The bottom line is I don't want to be killed by terrorists. I think most British Muslims want to avoid it, too. The authorities can only protect all of us without bringing the country to a halt when people like Dizaei and Bunglawala stop trading PC platitudes and start being honest about the threat at hand".
Lord Stevens, former London Metropolitan Police chief, makes a rational, reasonable and common sense case for passenger profiling in The News of the World.
Lord Stevens argument is also a response to British Muslim leaders such as Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) who denies there is such a thing as "Islamic Terrorism" as the two words are semantically incompatible. In other words this is a contradiction in terms because Islam means Peace.
Many other people beg to differ with Mr Sacranie, and say that phrases like "Islamic Terrorism" and "Islamic Fundamentalism" far from being a contradiction in terms, are a TAUTOLOGY! Please think about that one.
This glaring denial is also mirrored by Westerners in the Stop The War camp such as the Feminist Movement and CND who now make common cause with Hezbollah and Iran. See Wimmin at War article below.
Rod Liddle points out the hypocrisy of the media when the BBC in trying to be politically correct are scared of using the words "Muslim" and "terror" in association.
Mary Ann Sieghart says "Muslims would prefer to delude themselves that the whole thing is a Western plot. A staggering 45 per cent of British Muslims, according to a poll by Channel 4, believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy between the USA and Israel."
Quote from Iqbal Sacranie letter:
"Some, however, continue to associate Islam with terrorism by using such misleading terms as 'Islamic terrorist'. The words of the Qur'an are clear:"
"He who killed any person, unless it be a person guilty of manslaughter, or of spreading chaos in the land, should be looked upon as though he had slain all mankind, and he who saved one life should be regarded as though he had saved the lives of all mankind.(5:32)"
Quote from Lord Stevens Plan:
"IF YOU'RE A MUSLIM - IT'S YOUR PROBLEM
WHEN will the Muslims of Britain stand up to be counted?
When will they declare, loud and clear, with no qualifications or quibbles about Britain's foreign policy, that Islamic terrorism is WRONG?
Most of all, when will the Muslim community in this country accept an absolute, undeniable, total truth: that Islamic terrorism is THEIR problem? THEY own it. And it is THEIR duty to face it and eradicate it.
To stop the denial, endless fudging and constant wailing that somehow it is everyone else's problem and, if Islamic terrorism exists at all, they are somehow the main victims.
Because until that happens the problem will never be resolved. And there will be more 7/7s and, sometime in the future, another airplane plot will succeed with horrific loss of innocent life.
I'm a white 62-year-old 6ft 4in suit-wearing ex-cop - I fly often, but do I really fit the profile of suicide bomber?
Does the young mum with three tots? The gay couple, the rugby team, the middle-aged businessman?"
2006-08-14 10:10:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by Hebrew Hammer 3
·
1⤊
0⤋