@BillRM,
Perhaps I do not understand your proposal. Are you proposing to screen flights within the US or originating in the US based on profiling based on religion, race, age or skin color?
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
I don't have a problem with monitoring people who exhibit suspicious behavior (like paying cash, not carrying luggage or buying one way tickets.) The issue I have is with your proposal that we screen all "young Muslim men" preferentially. I asked how you would identify such men; you haven't answered. I've mentioned how "master" terrorists can use the holes you open in the system you set up to catch dumb terrorists; no response. The reality is that you design a system to catch the "master terrorists." The ones that are not "all that bright" catch themselves by doing stupid things. Is it possible that a dumb terrorist will score anyway? Sure, but I'd rather focus my energy on the smart ones.
The idea of screening people because of skin color is
a) not politically correct
b) not legal in the United States
c) not effective
You are focused on (a) when (b) and (c) should make this a non-starter.
I'm not sure about the details of his plan, but isn't it actually true that most of the terrorists caught trying to bomb planes and other public (not government) facilities in the US have been young Muslim men? I mean it hasn't been Iriquois Indians has it?
@Brandon9000,
Yes, but that doesn't mean that they are brown skinned Middle Easterners. The shoe bomber is Caucasian and this latest guy is Nigerian. If you make it clear that you are focused on young brown men, then when someone really wants to get through, they use a woman or a man with a little makeup. You let them pass because they don't fit your profile and boom.
As long as persons like Timothy McVeigh exist, all this Muslim talk is important, but not the whole story.
@engineer,
Lord you do not need to be bright to take part in a successful terrorist attack!
The good Major was doing everything but shouting how dangerous he was and the fool who took part in setting off the world trade center bomb and then try to get a refund for the bomb truck was not catch until after the fact not before.
The shoe bomber and the underwear bomber would have taken down two airliners but for good luck and neither one are master terrorists.
So your theory that only the master terrorists are dangerous is full of holes.
The bright ones are rare and the not so bright ones are common and as a group therefore more of a concern.
When a bomb goes off by you it does not matter the IQ or the skill of the bomber.
@engineer,
Do not care about skin color however age, sex and the likely religion of the passenger should be factor in.
@engineer,
Nigeria is a country with a known Muslim terrorists problem and half the population are Muslims. and for both reasons a young male should be look at somewhat more closely from that country.
The we go to the cash and the one way ticket and the reported lack of a passport and no luggage............
To say nothing of his own father reporting him as a possible problem to the US government.
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
Yes, but that doesn't mean that they are brown skinned Middle Easterners. The shoe bomber is Caucasian and this latest guy is Nigerian. If you make it clear that you are focused on young brown men, then when someone really wants to get through, they use a woman or a man with a little makeup. You let them pass because they don't fit your profile and boom.
I didn't say Middle Eastern, I said Muslim. To use your own examples, both Richard Reid the shoe bomber and this latest guy were Muslims. Furthermore, I never said that other people shouldn't be inspected. It's a question of emphasis. You are asking the authorities to forgo their experience as to who tends to do this and why.
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
As long as persons like Timothy McVeigh exist, all this Muslim talk is important, but not the whole story.
I specified public, non-governmental facilities, which lets McVeigh out. I said that the bombers of these facilities
tend to be Muslim, not that there are no exceptions.
@Brandon9000,
You know our friend go by the handle engineer but he seem not to think as an engineer.
Yes, no system is perfect and no one defend is going to be bullet poof so to deal with that fact you layer your defends and you tune it to deal first with the most common threat model first and that model is far from some rare super terrorist.
Shin Bet: 2009 had lowest terror levels in Israel this decade
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: Shin Bet, Israel news
The past 12 months have seen the lowest number of terror attacks this decade, and the least number of Israeli casualties of terror, according to a report from the Shin Bet security services released Wednesday.
The Shin Bet credits the low number on the ability of Israeli security forces to thwart attacks, as well as efforts by Palestinian security organizations.
According to the report, 15 Israelis were killed in the past year, down from 36 fatalities in 2008. Out of the 15, nine were killed during Operation Cast Lead - Israel's three week offensive in Gaza that began exactly a year ago.
Advertisement
Of the nine people killed during the conflict, five were killed as a result of rocket fire. The other four were Israel Defense Forces soldiers who died as a result of friendly fire. (Another four soldiers were killed in battle during the war.)
After the conflict, a soldier was killed on the Gaza border from an explosion planted by terrorists linked to Al Qaida.
Five Israelis were killed in terror attacks originating from the West Bank, among them Rabbi Meir Hai, who was killed several days ago in a shooting attack near Nablus.
The decrease in the number of deaths from terror attacks is also a result of the decrease in the number of rockets fired into Israel. Between the start of the year and December 24, 566 rockets were fired into Israel, compared to the 2,048 that were fired in 2008.
The report also noted that Hamas was reigning in activities of the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization in Gaza.
PROMOTION: Mamilla Hotel
@Brandon9000,
Then back to the question I asked Bill earlier: How do you determine who is a Muslim? Are you going to ask everyone their religion before allowing them to board flights? Doubtful since even if you were willing to do this, people could just lie. You are going to have to define some characteristics of Muslims. What do you think that is going to look like?
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Lord you do not need to be bright to take part in a successful terrorist attack!
The good Major was doing everything but shouting how dangerous he was and the fool who took part in setting off the world trade center bomb and then try to get a refund for the bomb truck was not catch until after the fact not before.
The shoe bomber and the underwear bomber would have taken down two airliners but for good luck and neither one are master terrorists.
So your theory that only the master terrorists are dangerous is full of holes.
My theory is not that only "master terrorists" are dangerous. It is that you design a system to catch the masterminds and their pawns will be caught also. This is pretty simple.
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Do not care about skin color however age, sex and the likely religion of the passenger should be factor in.
And (again) how to you get "likely religion" of someone flying in the US?
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Nigeria is a country with a known Muslim terrorists problem and half the population are Muslims. and for both reasons a young male should be look at somewhat more closely from that country.
The we go to the cash and the one way ticket and the reported lack of a passport and no luggage............
To say nothing of his own father reporting him as a possible problem to the US government.
I completely agree that the underwear bomber should have been flagged for the ticket, the passport, the luggage, the father's concern and even the country of origin. Our existing systems to that already and I'm sure we will hear more about why those systems failed. This is not an argument for why you think screening for religion will provide a safer air experience or how you plan to determine who is a Muslim in the US where a great many people of Middle Eastern decent are Christians or atheists.
@Brandon9000,
You are not the only person I was addressing.
Is it reasonable to require a terrorist to set his balls on fire BEFORE he gets on the plane?
Is that required by the Koran ?
My own view is not all so panicky re right now but that security measures are reasonable over the years given the propensity of various groups to have grudges that aren't dealt with in a political fashion but a "terrorist" fashion, they not having the infrastructure of national armies. Even if al quaeda, or offshoots, should have a change of heart, there is always the next situation.
I think rethinking and in some cases beefing up the obviously out to lunch - even bizarre - security in place in the US and many other places is important, though I'd not like the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater re human rights.
My natural solution is for violent antagonism to be diffused by talk to understanding but I figure that's a never, at least as a generality.
This seems so simple to me but is rarely discussed - when you interfere in other people's territories, in war or out of it, resentment and hatred are a biproduct for at least some of the people there.
We in the US interfere all the time and are paying a price for it.
I'm not always against our intervention, definitely not, but I often shake my head.
@OmSigDAVID,
If it isn't a requirement, than it certainly should be.
