In the wake of yet another Muslim terrorist plot, we can no longer ignore the religious/ethnic profiling option. Or at least that’s what this Muslim patriot believes. You want to live in a multi-ethnic society? Well, don’t you? Then religious and racial profiling COMES WITH THE TERRITORY. Or at least it should in a sane society not warped by the mental illness we call PC. It’s the price I myself am willing to pay as a young hispanic male living close to the border. It’s the price I have paid –on several occassions– to live in a multi-ethnic society that is ORDERLY AND SAFE. That’s because I don’t carry a racial chip on my shoulder, and I am a patriot. So get over it, lily white Libturds. Your hyper-sensitivity is pathetic, and I don’t need your lily white selves to protect me from the screaming racists in your head.
Airport Security: Let’s Profile Muslims
As an American Muslim, I’ve come to recognize, sadly, that there is one common denominator defining those who’ve got their eyes trained on U.S. targets: MANY of them are Muslim—like the Somali-born teenager arrested Friday night for a reported plot to detonate a car bomb at a packed Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in downtown Portland, Oregon.
We have to talk about the taboo topic of profiling because terrorism experts are increasingly recognizing that religious ideology makes terrorist organizations and terrorists more likely to commit heinous crimes against civilians, such as blowing an airliner out of the sky. Certainly, it’s not an easy or comfortable conversation but it’s one, I believe, we must have.
I realize that in recent years, profiling has become a dirty word, synonymous with prejudice, racism, and bigotry. But while I believe our risk assessment should not end with religion, race and ethnicity, I believe that it should include these important elements, as part of a “triage” strategy that my debate partner, former CIA case officer Robert Baer, says airports and airliners already do.
This past week, as part of a debate series sponsored by the New York-based group Intelligence Squared, I argued that U.S. airports should use racial and religious profiling. (Taking the opposite stand was a “debating team” that included the former director of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff; Columbia University scholar of Pakistan, Hassan Abbas; and Debra Burlingame, a former flight attendant whose brother was a pilot of one of the planes hijacked on 9/11.)
And more Americans, it seems, are willing to choose racial and religious profiling as one part of keeping our skies safe. At the beginning of the debate, 37 percent of the audience was for religious and racial profiling, while 33 percent were against and 30 percent were undecided. By the end of the debate, 49 percent of the audience was for religious and racial profiling, 40 percent were against and the rest were undecided, meaning that that the motion carried. Of course, this “victory” in a scholarly debate doesn’t mean that the motion would necessarily win any broader popularity contests.
Read the rest.