Official 9-11 Thread

I just want to say one thing about the excuse: "No, we can't profile, because Timothy McVeigh was white!"

This is absolutely absurd. There is a difference, and that is this: McVeigh was one man, who had virtually no supporters, followers, allies, or partners in crime. He was just one man, doing what he wanted to do - he was alone. Osoma bin Laden, however, has the support of millions of people and several entire countries, all of whom have pledged their undying allegiance and loyalty to bin Laden and his ideals and beliefs, as well as with the means he uses (i.e. terrorism)! Therefore, he and his followers, who are mostly of middle-eastern decent (Afghans, Saudis, etc.) pose much more of a threat to us than any rogues like McVeigh! How can anyone deny this?

[face_utterly_baffled]

 

People who are clearly completely helpless are the ones who definitely should not be exempt.
!!Speculation!!
If I was a terrorist I would use the most anonymous and most innocent looking person as my next agent of attack. They would be the ones that would naturally not be looked for. Who would guess a sickly decrepit old man would cause an act of violence? Very few, so why don't we use one next?

And what about someone who clearly is not physically capable, at all, of commiting an act of violence?

 

If you believe Tim McVeigh acted alone, you probably think Oswald acted alone when John Kennedy was killed. Not a conspiracy theory, by the way.

 

"This is absolutely absurd. There is a difference, and that is this: McVeigh was one man, who had virtually no supporters, followers, allies, or partners in crime. He was just one man, doing what he wanted to do - he was alone. Osoma bin Laden, however, has the support of millions of people and several entire countries, all of whom have pledged their undying allegiance and loyalty to bin Laden and his ideals and beliefs, as well as with the means he uses (i.e. terrorism)! Therefore, he and his followers, who are mostly of middle-eastern decent (Afghans, Saudis, etc.) pose much more of a threat to us than any rogues like McVeigh! How can anyone deny this?"


It doesn't matter if McVeigh doesn't cause as much of a threat as terrorists to, its the fact that he STILL CAUSES a threat. Who cares how big it is. If your still harming people by blowing a building and killing hundreds like he did, its just as bad as harming thousands of people like the terrorist did. You shouldn't isolate a single group of people when one man or a different race can kill others as well. If you wanted to break down what your saying, this is how it SOUNDS.................That we should racial profile a group of people that killed thousands, but not even look at people such as Timothy McVeigh because he didn't kill as many. That what it sound slike your saying.

Why even give people the oppertunity to kill others in such a huge quantity like that. Instead of looking at one group or race, look at everyone. Because the moment you do racial profile a middle eastern people, a chinese man, or russian or someone else will do somthing just as bad, all because we didn't bother to check because we wasn't of middle eastern desent.

Behavioral profiling may be good to an extent, but then everyone would be more paranoid then they already are, trying to figure out who's good and who's bad and it'll be a nightmare. I'm a 19 year old African-American/Hispanic with a mustache that when people look at me, think I'm mean. Someone could look at me and say............he looks suspicious. But what if someone with the happiest or most casual expression is a terrorist and is hiding it. Would you let him pass because he doesn't show any signs of a threat???? or what if people do behavioral profiling yet only stick with how one race of people are acting????

"Better To Be Safe Then Sorry". Someone asked me earlier if I would be comfortable on a plane with 4 or 5 middle aged eastern men. My answer to that is simple.............I'm never comfortable on a plane, I hate flying period. If 4 or 5 middle easterns are on the plane thats fine with me, them being on there doesn't affect me at all because I'm sitting there reading my magazines, My Bible and some music. Peoples race doesn't affect me or bother me, what would make me uncomfortable is if a guy a couple rows from me had a heart attack or something. So no I wouldn't be uncomfortable.

 

I brought up Timothy McVeigh to show that terrorism should not be fought by racial profiling. I believe that behaviorial profiling might work, and that may even have helped to prevent McVeigh's actions. I don't claim to be a psychology expert, but I bet the young men who fall under the sway of leaders of extremist groups of any types have similar behavioral profiles.

 

DustChick I hope you weren't offended by what I said. I understand you brought up the issue about Timothy McVeigh, but it was a comment that was made by The_Emperors_Foot that made me comment, as you can see I have what he said on my post to argue against it.

I too feel behavioral profiling might work, but to an extent. I feel racial profiling i something that shouldn't even be considered. So I understand what your saying an you make a good point.

 

BTW, the officials who run the airport security are presently trying to build and impliment a system that does indeed examine and record the "behaviors" of passengers based on information such as how they paid (cash may be suspicious), whether or not their ticket is one-way or round-trip, their flight history, ect...

Obi-HaCoR:
"If you wanted to break down what you're saying, this is how it SOUNDS.... That we should racial profile a group of people that killed thousands, but not even look at people such as Timothy McVeigh because he didn't kill as many. That what it sounds like you're saying."

I said nothing of the like. I never even made a mention as to how many people were killed, but to how many people support McVeigh vs. how many support and pledge allegiance to bin Laden.

"Behavioral profiling may be good to an extent, but then everyone would be more paranoid then they already are, trying to figure out who's good and who's bad and it'll be a nightmare."

... I would suggest a mixture of the two: utilizing both behavioral and racial profiling. Then, niether behavior nor race become the deciding factor when it comes to who to search.

And don't confuse what I'm saying - I never said that we should just use race when determining who to search. I agree, that would be rather careless.

But also, be realistic and face FACTS- Who collapsed the WTC? Nine-teen middle-eastern men, 15 of whom were Saudis. Who rammed an boat rigged with explosives in the side of the U.S.S. Cole, a year or two back? Middle-eastern men, with ties to Al-Qadue. What about the U.S. embassy in Africa? Again, it was middle-eastern men, linked to OBL. Now, go back to 1993, and the bombing of the WTC. Who was it? You guessed it! - Middle-eastern men! Back in, I believe, 1986, with the bombing of the United States troops barracks, and you'll again find that it was the work of middle-eastern men. Where, right now, is there the most anti-American sentiment in the world? Yup- in the middle-east... Now, amongst all of those past incidences, you'll find ONE that was done by a white guy, and that was McVeigh.

 

Right now, we live in the midst of a threat of violence being perpetrated by people of middle eastern descent. I don't argue that. I argue that racial profiling is never a course of action that I will support.

I lived in Los Angeles during the riots. One of UCLA's coaches, an African-American, was pulled over in his expensive car on the way to his home. Why? You fill in the blanks.

Protect the civil rights of others, and you protect your own as well.

BTW, it's really hard to offend me.

 

It's ridiculous how they're searching older people who are obviously sickly and can't even walk. How cruel

Maybe it is, but you can't favor people and it also isn't hard to pretend being disabled or old for that matter.

 

It is cruel in a way, but they have to be safe. Just because they are old, or disabled, doesn't mean they couldn't be caring a bomb or working for Terrorists. If we did not check them, then I am sure Osama or any other terrorist group out there would take advantage of the abscense of us not checking them, and would be sure to use them as targets.

Cheers,
Shinjo

 

dustchick:
Right now, we live in the midst of a threat of violence being perpetrated by people of middle eastern descent. I don't argue that. I argue that racial profiling is never a course of action that I will support.

No offense intended, but I think you are missing a point here.

It used to be that taking into account the descriptions of people who had committed crimes was considered to be a vital part of catching perps or even preventing crimes.

Why is it that we are singling out elderly women and men when we know that the likely perps are of a completely different description?

To me, "racial profiling" is somewhat overblown as an issue. There is a track record that we can use to infer the likely folks who would perpetrate terrorist attacks in the U.S.

This is based on the perps who stormed our embassy in Tehran in 1979, who attacked our embassy and Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, who hijacked an airliner in 1985 and killed a Navy diver, who hijacked a cruise ship and killed a wheelchair-bound American citizen, who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, who attacked the Khobar Towers in 1996, who attacked embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, who attacked the USS Cole in 2000, and who hijacked four airliners, three of which were flown into buildings on 9/11/2001.

All of these attacks were carried out by males who were 18-45 years of age, who practice an extreme form of Islam, and most of whom are of Middle Eastern origins (Padilla and John Walker Lindh show that is not necessarily the case).

Given that common denominator in all of those attacks, isn't it logical to keep such a thing in mind?

Yes, check on the other people, and don't ignore the fact that someone could use a disguise to pretend they are old and/or disabled, but I don't think we can or should ignore the patterns and trends that have been seen in 11 attacks over a 22-year period of time.

I, for one, am not painting ALL people of Middle Eastern descent or Moslems with that brush. At the same time, if I were running the Transportation Safety Administration, I'd be close to derelict in my duties if I did NOT take the past trends into consideration and act accordingly.

 

Racial Profiling is not always a bad thing. I think there is a distict difference between police stopping blacks for no reason and airport security checking all middle eastern men instead of randomly checking everyone. When was the last time an old grandma hijacked a plane? When was the last time a middle eastern man hijacked a plane?
As of now, there is no reason for a terrorist to disguise his appearance to look like a old nun because he may not be checked anyway.

It is a thing called common sense people. Get some.

 

Re: Jedi Smuggler's comments

You correctly identified a trend in behavior over a period of years and how it connects to a group of people likely to perpetrate such activities. I'm fine with that. Some people in this thread have remarked that some people (elderly, handicapped) should not be subject to airport security checks - I say check everyone or none at all.

The law of this land is such that many decisions are made by precedent. I am uncomfortable with ever establishing a precedent for racial profiling. We are in a situation right now where we are finding it easy to justify abrogating our civil rights, and that makes me wary.

I would have been content that, in the weight of the evidence that Jedi Smuggler listed, our justice system would have been on the lookout for signs of possible terrorist activity and listened to FBI agents when that remarked on suspect behavior at flight schools across the land. I would have one more colleague alive today. But if the security guards are going to check the young middle eastern man ahead of me, they should check me, too.

 

Considering that I don't usually look too much at other passengers (other than my seat mates), I'd have no problem. But then, considering that I have been known to dislike flying (in some cases), I wouldn't use the word comfortably.

Thats very good not to be biased against people, but I think I would get off the plane, I'm sure once the plane reached its destination fine without a problem I'd feel like a paranoid arse. Although taking that risk, is just too much with children. I also realize I have more of a chance dieing in a freak crash than I do Hijacker's taking over but, I just don't know I'd pull my family off that plane so fast.

 

dustchick:

We can't pat down every airline passenger. The logistics on that would be horrendous.

No, the key to preventing 9/11 is to rebuild a strong and vibrant intelligence community, and this is the elephant in the room that a number of people do not want to talk about.

What I will say next could get controversial, but this is an opinion that is shared by a number of others, but I believe that 9/11 was a result of the Church Committee hearings that resulted in the gutting of the CIA's Directorate of Operations. The situation was made worse in 1995, when further restrictions were placed on CIA's HUMINT activities after a member of the House Intelligence Committee leaked some classified information about one of CIA's agents who was a somewhat unsavory character.

The damage was pretty severe. First of all, the Church Committee pretty much wiped out the Directorate of Operations, this is the group that sends people out to find things out. This is apparently what Johnny Spann was doing in Afghanistan when he was killed.

Second, the 1995 leak caused damage on two fronts. First sources clammed up, and would no longer talk to us, because they feared a Congressman or Senator would reveal them for whatever reason. Second, there were more reforms instituted after the 1995 leak that pretty much limited WHO CIA could use as sources.

The second point sounds good in theory, but you do not find out what terrorists are planning to do by talking with Mother Teresa.

You'll have to talk with folks who are not the nicest of people. Read the book Killing Pablo, about how we took down Pablo Escobar, the worst of the drug lords in Colombia. Some of those we dealt with were not exactly angels. But they had the information that helped the Colombians (possibly with the assistance of Delta Force) take Escobar out.

Articles:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001164 - Tom Clancy's Wall Street Journal commentary on 9/11.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/17/162056.shtml - article about the 1995 leak.

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2001/9/12/224713 - this discusses the reforms that occured because of the leak

Our opposition operates in foreign countries. And that means we need to rebuild the capabilities CIA once had to the point where they can operate. And CIA may have to do some things that are not exactly nice. But the alternative is likely to be much worse if we do NOT rebuild our intelligence community.

EDIT - Explanations of the articles are provided.

 

Would you comfortably get on an airplane with 5 or 6 young middle eastern men?

I have to say I would get off the plane. The fact is, I'm flying in less than a month. I'm already a nervous flier. I don't think I'd be able to get through the flight in a situation like that without freaking out. I'd be so scared.

And even those terrorists in the past that have not been middle eastern, haven't they still be mostly younger males?

 

Rebecca191:

I earlier posted some data on the likely perpetrators of nearly a dozen attacks.

Most were of Middle Eastern descent, but ALL of them were Islamic extremists.

 

To those people who think we should not search old, sick men, imagine this scenario.

I'm a terrorist. I'm planning to hijack a plane and fly it into the White House. I'm an 18 year old white male, but I support Bin Laden. I know that I will be thouroughly searched, but I want to bring a weapon onto the plane. I have a sick old grandfather who also supports Bin Laden. I give the weapon to him, he takes it through security, and then gives it back to me. I take over the plane, and it's bye bye President.

The same could work with young children. After all, they're entering suicide bomber training school earlier and earlier over in Palestine.

 

Thank you Admiral_Thrawn60, that is exactly what I am thinking

Cheers,
Shinjo

 

The truth is that racial profiling would save alot of time and in actuality it is more fair to those who are not of Arab decent.

Simply put, VERY few Caucasians support Bin Laden...while the odds are that Arabs are more likely to support him.

 

Retirement doesn't agree with you, Wylding?

 

Remember it's a gentle fade, not a complete break StarFire.

 

The truth is that racial profiling would save alot of time and in actuality it is more fair to those who are not of Arab decent.

The concern should not be about fairness to some, but fairness to all.

 

LOL!

WAR was declared on the US on 9-11.

War by definition is NOT fair, not nice, not PC.

I'm curious, do you think that those murderers who hijacked those plans cared about what was fair for all?

 

And I don't think it's fair to search someone who is very much weakened by a condition.