Well, if Airman desperately needed that $500 because Bill actively supported policy keeping Airman in the dirt, how could it NOT be partly Bill’s fault?
In light of Capt. Amazing’s point about the majority of the extremists coming from non-impoverished backgrounds, I’d be interested in knowing which Arab and/or Muslim nations have received any aid from the US? Of those, which ones are breeding grounds of anti-US hatred? Surely we’re not giving the Saudis any aid. Unless you consider out oil patronage “aid.”
Looking only at Arab countries, at the 2004 estimate, in thousands:
Development assistance:
Lebanon: 400
Morocco: 5,400
Economic Support Fund:
Egypt: 571,608
Jordan: 348,525
Lebanon: 34,794
Yemen: 11,432
West Bank/Gaza: 74,558
Middle East Partnership Initiative: 89,469
ME Regional Cooperation: 5,467
NED Muslim Democracy Programs: 3,479
Contributions for International Peacekeeping Operations:
UN Disengagement Observer Force on the Golan Heights: 11,289
UN Interim Force in Lebanon: 25,395
UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara: 11,718
Then of course, we contribute to various UN agencies, which also operate in the MENA region, and our assistance to Iraq isn’t listed there.
To answer your other question, there are anti-US and Salafist groups (the two aren’t synonomous) in all of the countries I listed, but remember that in most cases, these are oppositionist groups…they don’t control their respective governments and, in many cases, the movements are illegal.
Where’s the hate mongering? What you view as such others (I) view as data, information. Turniing a blind eye to it because it makes one uncomfortable is irresponsible. While you might rationally object to acting on information in a particular manner, how can you possibly have a problem with amassing information and its analysis?
So, if I understand you, EVEN IF it was shown to you that profiliing was, in fact, effective, meaning that it would stop specific terrorist acts and save lives, you would STILL be agaiinst it. Is that a correct assessment of your position?
Also, do you understand that those who are in favor of having profiing on the table do NOT hold that whatever profile used today would necessarily be effective tomorrow, and that the profile might (probably) need to change as the data dictate? (Not to mention, be one factor of possibly many.) Just because a particular profile might cease making sense and we stop it in favor of broadening the pool of likley suspects to include “ALL” tomorrow, why does that mean that it is an invalid or ineffective tool today?
Well, I was thinking about places like Afghanistan and Kuwait.
Captain Amazing seems to have covered the foreign aid aspect of it. But 9/11 happened mostly because US soldiers set foot in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, which was waged on behalf of the Arab nation of Kuwait. And bin Laden benefitted from US military aid in driving out the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan. And then when the Taliban formed later and took over Afghanistan, they gave aid and comfort to bin Laden. This despite the aid we gave Afghanistan earlier and Kuwait later. Which looks a lot to me like taking our $500 and then trying to kill us for our pains.
I don’t really have a definitive position that I’m happy with on profiling as a whole, but your logic is flawed.
I don’t have the time or knowledge to give a comprehensive analysis of the situation here, but let’s say that we have one billion dollars to spend on airport security this year, and we need to inspect 100 million travellers, 10 thousand of whom are arab-looking men aged 17 to 40. If we use no profiling at all, then we will give each traveller $10 worth of inspection. If we took profiling to a ridiculous extent, we would give each of the 10 thousand profiled guys $100,000 worth of inspection. Now, I think you’re probably right that this latter approach would, overall, be less effective, as we’re now giving each non-profiled guy $0 worth of security, and all they need to do is find even a single white guy who is willing to blow himself up, and presto, successful terrorism. However, what if we were to allocate our resources such that all of the nonprofiled passengers received $9 worth of inspection, but the profiled passengers received $10,000 worth of inspection? Now, it would be MUCH harder for generic Mr. terrorist to sneak onto the plane himself, and while it might be a tad easier for a white recruit of his to sneak on, if every one of his plans has to involve recruiting martyrdom-ready white guys, with the additional risk that he’s recruiting undercover cops instead, well, the net result could well be an overall improvement in actual security.
Let me just add, to the foreign aid list, and similar to Shodan’s comments, is that the fact we give these governments foreign aid is one of the reasons the extremist groups in those countries hate us.
So, for example, we give Egypt all sorts of funding. The extremist groups in Egypt, whose goal is to overthrow the Egyptian government, see this, and dislike us for it, because, in their view, we’re propping up a corrupt and evil regime.
Alright Captain, take your 3-dimensional arguments over to GD. You’re making this way too complicated.
It’s hot outside and almost 2:00 in the afternoon where I am, so that means my point is now: “racial profiling as an element of security is an inflamatory compromise in an activity that should see NO compromise if it is to ensure the safety of the people protected.” If it’s really all that important to us, why allow the possibility of failure? Spend the dough and do the techno to identify and sieze the dangerous ordnance before it gets on the plane. Screen EVERYBODY so some properly identified & propositioned disenfranchised punk can’t plant his bomb after being persuaded to participate in the next level of terrorist cleverness. I’m confident it could be done well if everyone accepts the surrender of a little privacy is part of the cost of safety–hell, nobody even has to accept ANYTHING, it could just be mandated as part of Homeland Security.
Greathouse now it comes to it, I do remember that Egypt gets all kinds of equipment goodies from US…and if I recall correctly, we give slightly better stuff to Israel.
Well, I had always thought that they were upset with us because we weren’t helping enough. That we were basically living the good life over here in the states and they didn’t have it as nice, and also because the US supports Isreal.
So, you’re telling me that they are upset because we financially aid their countries? I honestly, seriously thought that it was pretty much the opposite of that.
Yeah. You know that thing we do sometimes? When we install someone like the Shah or Saddam (and didn’t we do this once or twice in South America too?) because they seem like they’ll be good little bitches and make our foreign policies a little easier? And then those guys get all despotic and tyrranical and bossy and start abusing absolute power at the expense of their constituency? Really pisses some people off.
Because we aid their country’s governments. For example, here’s a copy of Bin Laden’s 1996 fatwa, where he talks about conditions in Saudi Arabia and how they’re being influenced by the “Crusader-Zionist alliance”:
Because the only way we get the data that invalidates the profile is from successful attacks. In other words, we need to wait for the weaknesses we deliberately institute to be exploited before we act to rectify them. In the mean time, we are giving an increased chance of success to any person who cares to exploit it. In effect, we indefinitely cement the terrorists in a position one step ahead of us.
Oh, and the reason the email is shit, and not “data” as you would have it, is because it is selective in the extreme. If, for my PhD, I perform 1000 experiments, and select for publication only the 10 that fit my hypothesis, I would expect to be out on my arse before I could dismantle my bunsen; I have not collected “data”, I have quite thoroughly falsified my results. This email does exactly the same thing.
I don’t know about Inigo, but it’s certainly a correct assessment of mine. Soviet Russia, Red China, Castro and Saddam may agree with you, but freedom-loving Americans shouldn’t.
That’s true. We certainly have done that in the past, both in the Middle East and Latin America. However, it’s important to remember that the main opposition to these regimes aren’t democratic liberals. Bin Laden’s group wants to overthow the Saudi regime (which isn’t democratic or free) and replace it with a theocracy (which also won’t be democratic or free).
Given how popular the piece of trash mentioned in the OP is, perhaps the best thing to do is to write a counter-quiz and send it out whenever it pops its head:
*1. In 2003 the United States started an unprovoked war with falsified intelligence by:
a. Groucho Marx
b. Ann Landers
c. Lassie
d. a rich white Republican male
In 1972, five men tried to bug the offices of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate hotel and office complex under the orders of
a. Shaquille O’Neil
b. Farrah Fawcet
c. Beanie and Cecil
d. a rich white Republican male*
I wonder who most of the victims of 911 would agree with. Or their families.
I guess the basic difference is that you think you can have liberty without life. I don’t. I also believe that the government is duty bound to try to protect us from being blown up, not from having our feelings hurt.
Hey, here’s an idea. How about if there were two mass transportation systems, one that uses profiing–and may use race or ethnicity as one of those factors–and another that doesn’t. They both take similar other security steps. And let’s, for this hypothetical, say that the one that profiles has a better safety record. Now, which one are you going to take your six-year-old daughter on.
I guess you already answered that by volunteering that you agree with this:
“So, if I understand you, EVEN IF it was shown to you that profiliing was, in fact, effective, meaning that it would stop specific terrorist acts and save lives, you would STILL be agaiinst it. Is that a correct assessment of your position?”
