Profile or die

Now, now, Set...

<pat, pat>

0 Replies

That's an excellent point OE, but there is a problem of diminishing returns. Israel is about the area and population of one of the U.S.'s more densely populated counties and has two? airports. It is a relatively simple matter to concentrate all security on that one central point. And, according to what I have read and heard, they do give extra scrutiny to people most likely to be terrorists; i.e. they do racial profiling. Result: flights out of Israel are pretty darn secure. The trade off is that they can't sufficiently patrol their cities, busses, and markets to prevent all the terrorist attacks targeted there.

Counter that with the U.S.' 52 states, most of which have at least one major airport--several have several major airports--plus hundreds and hundreds of municipal and county airports receiving commercial traffic, two huge coastlines and land borders exceeding all but the largest nations of the world. We simply do not have the financial resources or manpower to thoroughly check everything and everybody. It only makes sense that everybody can expect to be subject to spot checks, but most of the focus should be on those most likely to be terrorists.

0 Replies

No need for the pat, pat, OE, i have more than a sufficient number of self-sastisfied people at this site willing to patronize me. Fox needs to be constantly reminded why she attracts so much criticism--she routinely and casually slanders those with whom she disagrees, and the gets self-righteous about personal remarks. She deserves every one she gets.

0 Replies

For those who consider this a "knowledge site," i would like to point out that there are only 50 states in the Union, not 52.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

For those who consider this a "knowledge site," i would like to point out that there are only 50 states in the Union, not 52.

Whew...thought I missed an annexation or a revision of history for a moment there.

0 Replies

Okay, trying to be serious again.

Foxy, actually El-Al does the same checks at all airport where flights into the country depart as well. Wouldn't make much sense otherwise, would it?

And you're right, Isreal only has a population of about 6 million people, but I don't understand how this would affect numbers percentagewise???? If you would put this into relation to the US, the States could have the same security measures at 46 airports, including all international airports around the world where flights into these 46 would depart. Wouldn't that make you feel more secure than some random spot checks?

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
For those who consider this a "knowledge site," i would like to point out that there are only 50 states in the Union, not 52.

Whew...thought I missed an annexation or a revision of history for a moment there.

Well.... there's Afghanistan, and then there's Iraq...

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

No need for the pat, pat, OE, i have more than a sufficient number of self-sastisfied people at this site willing to patronize me.

Sorry. It's your avatar that triggered that reflex!

Very Happy

0 Replies

Cute little doggies, ain't they . . .

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

candidone1 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
For those who consider this a "knowledge site," i would like to point out that there are only 50 states in the Union, not 52.

Whew...thought I missed an annexation or a revision of history for a moment there.

Well.... there's Afghanistan, and then there's Iraq...

Good point, what could i have been thinking . . .

0 Replies

Acknowledging the typo and yes, there are only 52 states. It's all a matter of priorities, OE. I imagine Israel doesn't accept flights from just anywhere if they have security on the ground at the point of departure. I don't have any data on that of course. But again, providing security for two airports requires far less in resources and manpower than does security for hundreds of airports. There are also probably many thousands of private airstrips in the U.S. at which it would be possible to land an aircraft large enough to do serious damage.

I will think about it some more, but I think even percentagewise, the U.S. logistically has much more of a challenge than does Israel.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

On Monday, NPR broadcast an interview with University of Toledo law professor David Harris who contends that racial profiling actually diminishes the effectiveness of finding terrorists.

He holds that behavior is a better indicator of terrorist activities than racial profiling. He cites the example of Israel in which racial profiling became counter productive in thwarting terrorist bombings. Once the Israeli authorities started racially profiling young, arab-looking men, the terrorists turned to using women for their bombings. After the Israelis started profiling arab-looking women, the terrorists began using Hasidic Jewish-looking perpetrators for their bombings.

Racial Profiling: A Cost-Benefit Analysis

Let's put aside some controversial aspects of profiling and go on to the main point of the NPR interview:

Quote:

Professor holds that behavior is a better indicator of terrorist activities than racial profiling

The implication here is that the two are mutually exclusive of each other.....this is not only an incorrect premise but it would be counterproductive. Show me where anyone here suggested that behavior(such as nervous and furtive actions) should not be factored into the profiling equation

The objective of this thread is not only to enhance our understanding of measures designed to prevent another successful attack by Muslim extremists but to possibly identify something useful that has been overlooked. Partisan bickering over minutia and personality conflicts is small minded and counterproductive.

Everyone is reminded that profiling racial features is only one aspect of profiling.

0 Replies

Rayban wrote:

Partisan bickering over minutia and personality conflicts is small minded and counterproductive.

Let's hope that Fox reads this, and makes no more remarks such as: "I just think you sometimes hold the terrorists in higher esteem than those attempting to deal with them."

As for minutia, when someone so habitually wraps themselves in the flag, and makes scurrilous comments about those with whom she disagrees impugning their patriotism and good sense, not only is such a basic error (and certainly not a typo, the "0" and the "2" being at opposite ends of the row of keys) laughably absurd, it makes her look even more ridiculous in portraying herself as a proud and patriotic American.

0 Replies

Uh, oh.... looks like someone doesn't use the number pad! You know what a number pad is, right Set?

It amazing how ridiculous Setanta looks when he has his haughty cloak on.

0 Replies

Give that such a "cloak" seems to be the only article of your wardrobe, one should consider you expert on the subject.

0 Replies

Good one Set. That was a real zinger.

0 Replies

As getting in "zingers" seems to be the only reason you show up in a thread, once again, you are preëminently qualified to comment.

0 Replies

Can I help it if you have no idea what a number pad is? No. All I can do is point out that on a number pad, the "2" is right above the "0" and that with little effort, one could very easily mistype.

You seem oblivious to this fact and used your typical haughtiness to demonstrate that fact.

0 Replies

Quite apart from the number-pad debate--fascinating though it be--is the issue of proofreading one's posts. I'm sure we can squabble over that for a few pages...

0 Replies

Well, if you count Puerto Rico and Mexifornia, 50+2=52.

0 Replies

Profile or die

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know