Is the call-to-action of muslims a case for profiling?
11-01-2004 | 12:31 PM
#31
VIP Member
iTrader: (9)
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,709
From: Walnut Creek, CA
Car Info: CRZ EX-Navi/6MT & Vue Redline
Originally Posted by SilverScoober02
I see your point but I was talking about US based, etc, etc....I should have said in this WOT or Our society. White people do not get profiled in the US by law enforcement for the most part.
Profiling is never justified IMHO, thats just me though....
Profiling is never justified IMHO, thats just me though....
I wasn't trying to give you a hard time, I was just showing that profiling can go very wrong (as it did with the Jews.) Whites can be profiled more than you'd think though, usually on the basis of 'ageism.' But, it's obviously far and away more common for races other than caucasian.
-Chris
11-01-2004 | 12:33 PM
#32
VIP Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,064
From: Detroit, Where the weak are killed and eaten...
Car Info: 02 Impreza WRX Sedan & 2008 GMC Sierra 4x4
Originally Posted by sloppyjoe
I know racial profiling exists, but not in EVERY SITUATION. Do you guys not agree with this? So if you can use the color of a vehicle, or of hair, or eyes, or clothing, or even someones gender, then why not the color of their skin?
Originally Posted by sloppyjoe
What if I told you I was half black-- then what?
Profiling works in many instances but that doesn't make it right.
11-01-2004 | 12:37 PM
#33
VIP Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,064
From: Detroit, Where the weak are killed and eaten...
Car Info: 02 Impreza WRX Sedan & 2008 GMC Sierra 4x4
Originally Posted by bassplayrr
I wasn't trying to give you a hard time, I was just showing that profiling can go very wrong (as it did with the Jews.) Whites can be profiled more than you'd think though, usually on the basis of 'ageism.' But, it's obviously far and away more common for races other than caucasian.
-Chris
-Chris
11-01-2004 | 12:53 PM
#34
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by Unregistered
This is not just a "religious" war like your making it out to be. **** this isn't even a a war. Bin Laden isn't going around saying kill those christians!...He uses religion as a part of his recruitment...
And you say "this isn't even a war."
Man, I thought I've said some silly things in this forum.
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Second its not only about Israel. Your wrong about this, its about us messing with their way of life and leaders, etc. We have a lot of involment with the middle east not just Israel. And that is what they hate.
Now please explain what we have done to the Muslim World that warrants all they have done against us?
11-01-2004 | 12:55 PM
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by SilverScoober02
I agree that it is not only racial profiling but the majority of profiling is done racially. Can we agree on that?
Originally Posted by SilverScoober02
I wouldn't beleive you! LOL
) LOL
Originally Posted by SilverScoober02
Profiling works in many instances but that doesn't make it right.
What if instead of the word profile we use target. If you are looking for a bank robber with an orange shirt.(LOL under cover color) Would it not be OK to target people with orange shirts while looking for the suspect?
Then what if in addition to the color of his shirt you knew it was a male. Still OK to search and single people out based on that criteria.
Then what if in addition to the orange shirt and gender we discover that it is a black suspect. Is it suddenly not OK to search, stop, profile people based on that criteria.
I agree with the fact that racial profiling exists. Do you not agree that the above statement is an example where it does not?
11-01-2004 | 01:25 PM
#38
Legal situation: A convenience store is robbed by a 5' 10" black man with a shaved head. One block away a police officer pulls over a black man fitting the description.
Racial profiling: Giving "Arab-looking" people body cavity searches at airports because Arabs are the predominant race of Muslims, who is the predominant religion of terrorists.
The difference is these Arabs are not actually accused of a specific crime. That is against the law. Its called illegal search and seizure. It was put in place by our founding fathers because the English were searching people who were suspected of being rebels (which is important to remember that our entire history in this country is based on rebelling).
Racial profiling: Giving "Arab-looking" people body cavity searches at airports because Arabs are the predominant race of Muslims, who is the predominant religion of terrorists.
The difference is these Arabs are not actually accused of a specific crime. That is against the law. Its called illegal search and seizure. It was put in place by our founding fathers because the English were searching people who were suspected of being rebels (which is important to remember that our entire history in this country is based on rebelling).
11-01-2004 | 01:36 PM
#39
VIP Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,064
From: Detroit, Where the weak are killed and eaten...
Car Info: 02 Impreza WRX Sedan & 2008 GMC Sierra 4x4
Originally Posted by sloppyjoe
And for good reason! LOL (even though my genitalia screams otherwise) LOL
) LOL
Originally Posted by sloppyjoe
How does it make it wrong?
What if instead of the word profile we use target. If you are looking for a bank robber with an orange shirt.(LOL under cover color) Would it not be OK to target people with orange shirts while looking for the suspect?
Then what if in addition to the color of his shirt you knew it was a male. Still OK to search and single people out based on that criteria.
Then what if in addition to the orange shirt and gender we discover that it is a black suspect. Is it suddenly not OK to search, stop, profile people based on that criteria.
I agree with the fact that racial profiling exists. Do you not agree that the above statement is an example where it does not?
What if instead of the word profile we use target. If you are looking for a bank robber with an orange shirt.(LOL under cover color) Would it not be OK to target people with orange shirts while looking for the suspect?
Then what if in addition to the color of his shirt you knew it was a male. Still OK to search and single people out based on that criteria.
Then what if in addition to the orange shirt and gender we discover that it is a black suspect. Is it suddenly not OK to search, stop, profile people based on that criteria.
I agree with the fact that racial profiling exists. Do you not agree that the above statement is an example where it does not?
Originally Posted by njc200
Legal situation: A convenience store is robbed by a 5' 10" black man with a shaved head. One block away a police officer pulls over a black man fitting the description.
Racial profiling: Giving "Arab-looking" people body cavity searches at airports because Arabs are the predominant race of Muslims, who is the predominant religion of terrorists.
The difference is these Arabs are not actually accused of a specific crime. That is against the law. Its called illegal search and seizure. It was put in place by our founding fathers because the English were searching people who were suspected of being rebels (which is important to remember that our entire history in this country is based on rebelling).
Racial profiling: Giving "Arab-looking" people body cavity searches at airports because Arabs are the predominant race of Muslims, who is the predominant religion of terrorists.
The difference is these Arabs are not actually accused of a specific crime. That is against the law. Its called illegal search and seizure. It was put in place by our founding fathers because the English were searching people who were suspected of being rebels (which is important to remember that our entire history in this country is based on rebelling).
11-01-2004 | 02:11 PM
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by njc200
Legal situation: A convenience store is robbed by a 5' 10" black man with a shaved head. One block away a police officer pulls over a black man fitting the description.
Racial profiling: Giving "Arab-looking" people body cavity searches at airports because Arabs are the predominant race of Muslims, who is the predominant religion of terrorists.
Racial profiling: Giving "Arab-looking" people body cavity searches at airports because Arabs are the predominant race of Muslims, who is the predominant religion of terrorists.
Originally Posted by njc200
The difference is these Arabs are not actually accused of a specific crime. That is against the law. Its called illegal search and seizure. It was put in place by our founding fathers because the English were searching people who were suspected of being rebels (which is important to remember that our entire history in this country is based on rebelling).
I simply think that we should focus on an aspect be it race, gender, height, or whatever if we know that it is a defining characteristic of the person(s) we are searching for. And in this case(war on terror) it is.
And again I don't want them pulled aside searched etc., just don't overlook them. We know the majority of muslims are of a specific descent(especially radical extremests) so why not use this to our advantage. I think it would be silly to not pay more attention to what these particular people are doing rather than divide your focus equally amongst everyone. It lessons your chance of success, and increases the chance of them being successful.
90%=Middle easterners
10%=everyone else >probable suspects
Why not divide the focus in this manner?
Last edited by sloppyjoe; 11-01-2004 at 03:58 PM.
11-01-2004 | 02:28 PM
#41
I know I was being a little extreme. But I haven't seen a real-world scenario for what you'd like to see happen. Can you give me one?
... And let's just stay away from the words "racial profiling," as we all know thats wrong, as "racial profiling" is using one's race as the main description for suspecting somebody of a crime.
... And let's just stay away from the words "racial profiling," as we all know thats wrong, as "racial profiling" is using one's race as the main description for suspecting somebody of a crime.
11-01-2004 | 02:44 PM
#42
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by njc200
Legal situation: A convenience store is robbed by a 5' 10" black man with a shaved head. One block away a police officer pulls over a black man fitting the description.
Racial profiling: Giving "Arab-looking" people body cavity searches at airports because Arabs are the predominant race of Muslims, who is the predominant religion of terrorists.
The difference is these Arabs are not actually accused of a specific crime. That is against the law. Its called illegal search and seizure. It was put in place by our founding fathers because the English were searching people who were suspected of being rebels (which is important to remember that our entire history in this country is based on rebelling).
Racial profiling: Giving "Arab-looking" people body cavity searches at airports because Arabs are the predominant race of Muslims, who is the predominant religion of terrorists.
The difference is these Arabs are not actually accused of a specific crime. That is against the law. Its called illegal search and seizure. It was put in place by our founding fathers because the English were searching people who were suspected of being rebels (which is important to remember that our entire history in this country is based on rebelling).
Second inaccuracy: Arabs are not the predominant race of muslims. Arabs are a minority of muslims worldwide. The world's most populous Muslim country is Indonesia.
I'll repeat this, since no one apparently caught it the first time: Most muslims, the majority in the world, are not Arab. Not at all. Absolutely no workable theory based on race applies to Islam.
11-01-2004 | 03:20 PM
#43
Originally Posted by subaruguru
The world's most populous Muslim country is Indonesia.
Plus, there were no "inaccuracies" in my post. I was stating hypothetical situations.
The statement about racial profiling being "unconstitutional," which I never actually said, could be corroborated by the current (hopefully not much longer) Attorney General John Ashcroft on March 2, 2001 when he called racial profiling:
Originally Posted by Attorney General John Ashcroft
[A]n unconstitutional deprivation of equal protection under our Constitution.
11-01-2004 | 03:30 PM
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by njc200
I know I was being a little extreme. But I haven't seen a real-world scenario for what you'd like to see happen. Can you give me one?.
Originally Posted by njc200
... And let's just stay away from the words "racial profiling," as we all know thats wrong, as "racial profiling" is using one's race as the main description for suspecting somebody of a crime.
Last edited by sloppyjoe; 11-01-2004 at 03:47 PM.
11-01-2004 | 03:32 PM
#45
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by njc200
Is that good enough for you?
Second: Dear lord please tell me you're not taking John Ashcroft's word for what is or isn't constitutional. Aschcroft is a partisan in the court system. His job is to do what the president wants him to do. Thankfully, that job doesn't include deciding what is and isn't constitutional.
As for the majority of muslims not being arab...not too hard to figure reasonably: All the arab states are desert territories. Deserts don't support big populations. Compare that to Pakistan, India, Indonesia, and Turkey, and you've got a pretty obvious common sense case for believing that Arabs are not even close to a majority of muslims worldwide.
But since common sense is rarely enough, here're a couple websites with the statistics:
http://www.aneki.com/muslim.html
http://islam.about.com/library/weekly/aa120298.htm
Although Islam is often associated with the Arab world and the Middle East, fewer than 15% of Muslims are Arab.