Originally posted by jthursby:
Your right sigma, we are all wrong, go about it your way. sounds like typical liberal drivel, no matter what anyone says its wrong. You win we all give up.


Jim T.



Yes, a person that likes profiling but doesn't agree with you that it will do something in this case must be a Liberal.

I thought you were just ignorant which I could blame you for but apparently you're just a [censored] moron, and that's not your fault, it's just the way God made you. Let me know when you want to actually have an intelligent discussion presuming that's something that you're at least capable of doing. I long for something outside of your poorly-composed "anyone that disagrees with me must be a Liberal" responses.

Originally posted by muntus:
Originally posted by sigma:
Man, you keep it up and eventually you'll have us all included in your profiling criteria. And there lies the rub.



Better than including nobody because someone might get offended.



One more time for those that are slow -- not liking profiling in this case ain't got a damn thing to do about "offending" people. I challenge you to go back and find anywhere in this thread where I mentioned offending someone as a reason not to profile. I will PayPal you $100 right now if you can find one.

I don't give a flying [censored] about "offending" people. I do care about a system that works, not one that gives the illusion of something that works while weakening the overall security because, all else being equal, if you focus more time and energy on one thing you lose focus on everything else. If you know what you're looking for, profiling works fine. Problem is -- we don't.

Let me know when you can figure out how profiling could have stopped any of the 19 9/11 hijackers. Or how it could have stopped Richard Reid. Or stop any of the 23 recently arrested presumed terrorists in Britain. Because the world's leading security experts would love to hear it.

Without the benefit of hindsight none of them would have aroused any undue suspicion.
No one would have thought anything of a guy carrying a boxcutter at the time of 9/11, most of them had relatively clean records, had been here for some time, were not known for their relgious or poltiical activism at all, were well-educated men trained to act perfectly normal under questioning, and at the time were not known to have travelled to terrorist camps. They would have gotten through security no matter what.
No one would have thought to check inside the soles of Richard Reids shoes.
No one would have thought to check the sport drinks that these recent British guys had on them, they were mostly British born, all British-educated, and largely perfectly "normal" people with no major criminal records and no known connection with terrorist organizations. They would have boarded and blown up their planes as planned. The best chance in that case is that perhaps their relative young age might have made them crack if sufficient pressure was applied by interrogation/interviewing a la El-Al. But there's no way we'd apply the kind of pressure that El-Al does to passengers with their Mossad interrogation techniques. It would never fly in the US, neither on a selective scale nor on a total population scale.

2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX Webpage 2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX