Yvonne Ridley (left): Muslim or white?
"Secret report brands Muslim police corrupt," from The Guardian, with thanks to LGF:
A secret high-level Metropolitan police report has concluded that Muslim officers are more likely to become corrupt than white officers because of their cultural and family backgrounds.
The opposition between "Muslim" and "white" is false to begin with, and perpetuates the misleading and damaging media assumption that this is a racial problem, rather than an ideological one (as does the witless PC use of "Asian" below as a euphemism for "Muslim"). Into which category, "Muslim" or "white," would the Guardian or British officials place Yvonne Ridley?
The document, which has been seen by the Guardian, has caused outrage among ethnic minorities within the force, who have labelled it racist and proof that there is a gulf in understanding between the police force and the wider Muslim community. The document was written as an attempt to investigate why complaints of misconduct and corruption against Asian officers are 10 times higher than against their white colleagues.The main conclusions of the study, commissioned by the Directorate of Professional Standards and written by an Asian detective chief inspector, stated: "Asian officers and in particular Pakistani Muslim officers are under greater pressure from the family, the extended family ... and their community against that of their white colleagues to engage in activity that might lead to misconduct or criminality."
No doubt there is a strong cultural element to this. But the problem is still not with "Asian" officers per se. For we have seen again and again white converts to Islam taking on the same loyalties: cf. John Walker Lindh, Richard Reid, Jose Padilla, Jihad Jack Thomas, and even people not involved in active jihad work, such as Charles Vincent.
It recommended that Asian officers needed special anti-corruption training and is now being considered by a working party of senior staff....One Muslim officer with the Met said: "It is like saying black officers are more likely to be muggers. Today it is Muslim officers who are treated as the Uncle Toms. How can they say to the Muslim community 'trust us', when they don't even trust their own Muslim officers."
No, it isn't like saying black officers are more likely to be muggers. Islam is not a race. Islam teaches that a Muslim's first loyalty must be to his fellow Muslims. Why is it not legitimate for British authorities to consider the implications of that for the police force?
And why must British officials appeal to the Muslim community for trust? Why doesn't the Muslim community feel any need to demonstrate its trustworthiness?
Oh Dear!!! What a shock!!!
Anyone whould think that Muslims place religion before patriotism and profession before culture and that the rule of nonsharia law has value.
Looks like some ignorant deleteds have not bothered to read the Koran.
Would you put a fox in charge of the hen coop?
Would you trust a wolf in sheepskins?
Muslims = jihadists + potential jihadists.
Only Islamic apostates can truly be trusted by a nonMuslim.
Tribalism sure is a major bitch.
Brits dare to have "secret reports?"
Wow!!
Political correctness demands that this be a secret report. If non-Muslims were found to be more susceptible to corruption, then in most probablities it will be just a report and not a secret report. This pervasive "O this is so sensitive" dhimmi attitude has been reinforced by the reactions to the Danish cartoons, Salman Rushdie's "Satanic verses" etc since Mohammed had his critics assassinated - Abu Afak, an old man and Asma Bint Marwan, a poetess for speaking against him. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asma_bint_Marwan
Brits dare to have "secret reports?"
Don't know why they bother. The label seems to mean "publish this worldwide as fast as possible." But then their English is not always our English so perhaps they have a different definition of the word Secret. :)
Apparently police in the UK aren't PC enough. This highlights a problem they need to deal with; Muslims will always fall back to the Quran as their first rule, regardless how much they have been "civilized" by the countries they are living in. IF a policeman or someone in the military will not put duty, honor and country above personal beliefs, they should not be allowed to serve, for they will never give their full measure of devotion.
"I need you, said the police commissioner, speaking at the Minhaj-ul-Quran Mosque in Forest Gate, east London." - Ian Blair's response to 7/7.
Like a hole in the head. Like the US needs Moslem-controlled ports. Like we needed Gestapo Home Guard during the Blitz.
This report should've been done long before 7/7. It's amazing that it wasn't commissioned in the days immediately after. And how does giving Moslem officers "anti-corruption training" help? Surely this will only help them evade detection and increase corruption... Who'll be running this "training" - the MCB, or some other Blair-appointed Moslem focus group? If denialism turns out to have a genetic component, maybe the Blairs of this world really are one extended family.
One example of what the Met are worried about (Saudi intelligence, which our boy in blue was working for, are quite likely to be infiltrated by al quaeda):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3713816.stm
It's not just the police. Local authority planning departments in areas with a Muslim population and which thus employ a large proportion of Muslims can present problems.
By and large our public services are not corrupt (if they were I would be able to run a much better car and holiday abroad on the backhanders) but where I have heard of corruption the majority of it has involved Muslims. The east London street markets are another area. To quote one stallholder I knew "When you paid the Krays protection money you actually got protection, but this lot just keep on coming." I had never heard of jizya then. I know better now.
Since when are Richard Reid or Jose Padilla white?
I don't know about Richard Reid, but Jose Padilla is definitely white. Hispanic, white. Just because he has a slightly darker complexion doesn't make him anything but white. Hispanic is a cultural, not racial, category.
"Secret report brands Muslim police corrupt"
And anyone with eyes in his head reports multicultural stands for multimoral.
While Spencer's argument that the perniciousness and danger emanating from Islam is ideological, not racial, is on one level impeccably cogent, nevertheless, Spencer's argument irrationally ignores one important reason for the prevalent traction which the racialist framework continues to have when talking about Islam:
would Spencer dispute that over 90% of the world's Muslims are non-white?
would Spencer dispute that of the known Muslim terrorists, the overwhelming majority are non-white?
Spencer seems here (and previously) to utterly ignore the good reason for this aforementioned traction.
Spencer's logic, if applied to, for example, racial profiling at public places (airports, etc.), would be forced to ignore the predominantly non-white composition of world Muslims and pretend that the potential danger must be screened using a color-blind methodology.
I have a simple, direct question (+ follow-up questions) for Robert Spencer: Would Spencer advocate profiling Muslims at public places using a color-blind methodology? If not, why not? If so, why?
P.S.: Among the "white converts" to Islam which Spencer lists are Richard Reid and Jose Padilla -- both of whom would be able to check off non-white boxes on government forms without any problems.
Truthful people will use Muslim instead of Asian, Islamic terrorist instead of militant, and non-Muslim instead of white. Some one in the MSM in the US, Canada, GB, Australia, and other English speaking countries must answer for their penchant for hiding the truth with euphemisms. Is it deliberate or due to a lack of active brain cells?
Robert S. is correct, race has not one damned thing to do with it.
Could some Muslims possibly believe that Islam is a race??? Could some of them believe that caucasian whites or African blacks who have converted to Islam have changed their RACE???? If there was anything to such a laughably demented notion (there's not, I am speaking suppositionally in this case) my reaction would be something akin to "isn't that gross???"
The stupidity found in the Kuran seems to be spreading in the western democracies where educated folks once knew better---like a virus! (Should we label it the the 'stupidity virus'?) I suspect the corruption cited in this British study is a symptom of this stupidity virus. We need to find a cure--FAST!
>> This highlights a problem they need to deal with; Muslims will always fall back to the Quran as their first rule, regardless how much they have been "civilized" by the countries they are living in.
Cut 'em a little slack.
They DID use the word 'Muslim'.
Now: How to get them to stop referring to the issue as one of race rather than religion.
Yvonne Ridley is but one example of how the British authorities have misgrouped Muslims along racial lines.
Do they make the same claims about their non-Muslim black officers? Or those from Hong Kong?
Surely someone at the top must have recognized, by now, the sillines of such an erroneous classification.
Surely.
Pythagoras asks:
"Could some Muslims possibly believe that Islam is a race??? Could some of them believe that caucasian whites or African blacks who have converted to Islam have changed their RACE???? If there was anything to such a laughably demented notion (there's not, I am speaking suppositionally in this case) my reaction would be something akin to "isn't that gross???""
I rather doubt it, but I really don't know if there's some bizarre doctrine whereby they all magically become Arabs or not. Islam might be a universalist creed, but there is certainly an element of Arab surpemacism mixed in - which has caused tensions and outright warfare in places (Darfur, for example). There are likewise plenty of examples of Muslims of a particular nationality revolting against domination by those of another. The Kurds, for example, in addition to fighting domination of the Arabs in Iraq, also fight against the Turks - even all are Sunni Muslims.
Perhaps Mssrs. Spencer and Fitzgerald could enlighten us more about this aspect of the Umma in the future.
Carolus -- You may want to search for "Posted by: Hugh" combined with terms like "Arab supremacism", "Arab triumphalism" (quotation marks helps to limit the search.)
You will find many posts discussing your excellent observation. This is a topic well worth learning more about and discussing further.
This is eternally true.......
Something to recollect from the Indian past ...
During the run up to the partition of India during the time of Independence,Punjab province police force was dominated by Muslims.
This has resulted in the non prevention of atrocities commited by the muslim League and often the muslims goons were assited by the police with whatever materlia to drive out the Hindu population from Punjab and other parts of Pakisthan where a Million have been dead and another million displaced...
Who will forget the Muslim gift of loading an entire train with corposes of Hindus and sending it to India which ultimately started the Hindu and Sikh backlash on the Muslims...
Muslims are worthless in any post and they are not desirebale at all in those posts with power, they will always oblige Allah and Mohamamd
Varma I have some questions for you:
Is there a widespread Hindu memory of the historical atrocities Muslims inflicted when they invaded India? If so, can you tell us any of the stories which are still remembered and told?
Is there a notion among Hindus of the death toll which Muslims inflicted on Hindus during their colonization over India? If so, what are the numbers of dead the Hindus discuss?
TV
On this occasion, I agree more with Robert than with you. 90%+ of the worlds Muslims may indeed be non-white, but that's peripheral to the discussion at hand. White Muslims (or Wuslims, as Naseem calls them) aren't any less dangerous than non-White Muslims, and I don't really see much of a difference between Muslims of different hue and stripes.
Despite being non-White, I don't have a problem with racial profiling, but that cannot be the only factor on which profiling is done. Granted that by targeting non-Whites, 90% of the targets may be covered, but keep in mind that Muslims are by no means a majority of the non-White population: they may indeed be a bigger minority of the non-White population than they are in the White population. However, the fact remains that racial profiling, although justified, would, if employed alone, capture in its net Arab Christians, Black Animists, Armenians, Israelis, Indians, Thai (who may be mistaken for Malay or Indonesian Muslims), and a number of other Infidel groups.
In the meantime, White Muslims, like Chechens, Kazakhs, Tatars, Albanians, Bosnians, as well as other converts to Islam like Richard Reid, David Hicks, Johnny bin Walker Lindh, would simply walk. All of them, particularly the criminally minded amongst them, can check off the box "White", and easily pass off as White as well. Now, one could argue that they'd avoid checking off anything that identifies themselves as Muslim, but the point remains is that any evidence of "Islamicity" should be checked in order to determine whether a particular person is a societal risk, and that race isn't necessarily an effective filter in determining whether or not one is a threat.
Jsla
Muslims issue fatwa against "Vande Mataram"(National Song of India).. I mentioned it some days back and I now got the news link
http://www.ibnlive.com/news/fatwa-against-vande-mataram/12644-3.html
About Your present Question
I have grown up in the coastal city of Vijayawada in Andhra Pradesh..
I came to know the number of Hindus Killed by muslims in India only at the age of 22 by the grace of internet without which I would be as ignorant as anyother Indian some 80 million over the course.....
Second is Mughal King Akbar is equated with Ashoka as the greatest Kings of India...but I never beleived it in my school...
Any instance of Hindus and sikhs being killed in India is only mentioned during the times of Partition in our text books. Another disgusting thing is thye dont say who started and how it started and why(this one they state ambigously) it started.
The murder and maheym that muslims wrecked in India is never mentoned in our text books at the same scale that they were committed more terrible is that the text books in most instances say that for example Ghori defeated Prithviraj and plundered and killed people..that's it....No insight any further..
But the important thing is that many of the Indians have this dislike(not dislike but to be away from them) of Muslims in their subconcious, but the present muslim behaviour is bringing that frustration to the fore..
Even I was ignorant of what religions actually meant till my 11th standard. I made a muslim friend in my 11th class and one day he started to question, no in a disgracing manner accusing me of worshipping a stone..I was dumb founded because I dont know what religion is and hindus doesnt get any sort of religious education in their childhood that they can respond to such questions..Even before I started to answer that question he started to laugh loudly and making fun..and from the opther side another muslim freind declared with pride that " You know we muslims need not bath ourselves" That provided me a weapon with to argue back that desert culture knows no better..
Just imagine for a kid of 16 years to accuse other religion( how much he might have been brain washed right from the young age) that too of his freinds can anyone trust such people however good freind he might be..
That was the turning point and after the grace of internet I now came to know the atrocities commited by the muslims, the life of their so called prophet Mohammad who cannot even fare better than even a murderer let alone a good man..
After knowing about Islam from the internet and the behaviour of my friend(has by the side of him his beleif of Quran as GODS WORD) I started to
distance myself and meet just once or 2 in a year even after being in the same city..
I had an arguement with him after I armed myself with the knowledge of Islam I will post it in my next
Now its me armed with the power of knowledge thatI corner my friend..and you know when I talked about the danish cartoon row and asked "why man why is this fuss why do you bring upon urself bad reputation" he said yes the cartoonist should be killed..I never expected such a reply but it all goes to suggests the muslim mentality
And when I was taught about the Aryan invasion theory I copuld'nt comprehend, because their teaching is never followed by facts...
Once I got so frustrated in my bachelors degree that I thought of countering the Lecturer of Indian civilisation as she is teaching the same old story of tribes decending upon India and subjugating, but I could'nt because I felt that the lecturer might be offended but as a side note she mentioned that recently the Theory is being questioned by the intellectulas.
and where r u from jsla
jsla,
The toll of Hindus killed in the 1000 year muslim aggression on India is only a rough estimate that varies from 200 million to 600 million. I go with the latter.
There are millions of stories. Every Hindu has a story of a forefather killed. Of cities destroyed. Of bloodshed in conquered cities that survivors through the centuries described as "rivers of blood". Of the creation of 3 islamic states from Hindu India. This link is a broad overview.
www.voi.org/books/negaind/ch2.htm
If you have the patience, go through the postings of entire May, where this subject came up on several postings.
To every one
Once I was reading the the history and fall of The great Vijayanagar empire of India ...Its richness and everything ...
My eyes started to becoem wet reading how it has been ravaged to utter destruction that the entire city has been abonded..
When i see the ruins of the city, they still can beat any muslim building in the World by its sheer architecture
Can any one beleiv it that the muuslims has plundered it for 5 months....
Thye French and the Britishers were far better than these Muslims and portugese colonisers who laid waste most of the splendid temples and carved masterpeices of Art....
But I would have hoped that the Bristishers never arrived in India becoz when they started to arrive, most of the Hindus captured back The Indian Territory and the muslims of India would have been assimilated into their ancestral religion, and their would not have been a probem of Pak and bangladesh today..the existence of Muslims in the India continent threaten Humaniy as a whole becoz India is in the verge of developing Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and the Hindus are taking least care to control the growth of Muslim Population which will ultimately result in Overhelming of India with Islam and Imagine from north Africa to Indonesia an entire stretch of Muslims coutries...Real threat to the World...
When India become Islamic, Islam will have the real power to declare aan Open War.....
jsla asks:
"Is there a widespread Hindu memory of the historical atrocities Muslims inflicted when they invaded India? If so, can you tell us any of the stories which are still remembered and told?
Is there a notion among Hindus of the death toll which Muslims inflicted on Hindus during their colonization over India? If so, what are the numbers of dead the Hindus discuss?"
Well, sadly, No. There is little memory amongst the general Hindu masses of the muslim atrocities of the past, or the present in Bangladesh or Pakistan, and even in Malaysia recently. What you are getting to see in Europe of bootlicking muslim masters, started off in India... and the politicians here have systematically erased any mention of muslim aggression from the public domain lest they hurt and lose a chunk of the *150 million* votes.
As your deathtoll question was previously answered, let me give you some links that paint the true picture of the Hindu Muslim conflict of a thousand years.
On the slave system:
http://voi.org/books/mssmi/
On the genocide at the time of creation of pakistan:
http://voi.org/books/mla/
The denial of atrocities:
http://voi.org/books/negaind/
The struggle of muslims to take over India (they never did): http://voi.org/books/hhrmi/
jsla, Thanks for the advice. Mr. Fitzgerald's articles have been spectacurlarly informative. The one from March of this year is particularly apt in this regard. I suspect that the Arab supremacist issue is one that has been sadly overlooked from the standpoint of formulating a strategy against the enemy we face. The same dictum applies to the split between the the Sunni and the Shia. If we face a formidable foe, should we not study and exploit his weaknesses? Rest assured he is exploiting ours to the max.
Infidel Pride,
"90%+ of the worlds Muslims may indeed be non-white, but that's peripheral to the discussion at hand."
You, and Robert, are mixing apples and oranges. With respect to the "apples", you are correct: race is peripheral or even irrelevant. With respect to the "oranges", however, it is not peripheral but important.
The "apples" is the fact that the problem & threat is ideological, not racial, and that people of any race can become inspired by this ideology of Islam to become a threat to us. The "oranges" is the fact that, statistically, far more non-whites are among those who threaten us now and who will be threatening us in the foreseeable future (perhaps at some time in the relatively distant future, white Muslims may begin to approximate the numbers of non-white Muslims in the composition of Islam -- but we shouldn't base the nitty-gritty of our defensive measures now on what may or may not develop in the unimmediate future).
When I say "far more", I don't just mean 60% (which is already high), but at least 90% (and I'm being generous with that latter statistic; it's probably more like 99%). Rational profiling of a threat requires a ruthless attention to statistics. If we had infinite money and infinite resources, we wouldn't need to use profiling. We don't have infinite money and infinite resources; therefore, we must profile, which means we must pick and choose, and selectively target, based on statistics. When over 90% of the enemy is non-white, it would be foolish and reckless to ignore this in our defensive measures.
I know what's going on here: the JW leadership and the JW readers here all want to make sure non-JWers don't think we are racist. Well, there are better ways to do this than to make foolish and reckless arguments based on elementary misapplications of logic. If a person is dumb enough to think that a defensive measure that takes the statistical fact of the overwhelming non-white complexion (pun intended) of Islam into account is racist, then there is little point in engaging in intelligent dialogue with such a person -- and it is unbecoming of us to anxiously pose and preen before such dumb people in order to allay their silly suspicions that we are crypto-racists.
TV
Like I said above, I don't disagree with racial profiling, but you didn't address the point I raised - Chechens, Bosians and other white Muslims thereby going through the net, while non-Muslim-non-Whites get screened. I wouldn't mind being stopped at an airport and surveyed for terror connections. However, I would be bothered if religious profiling was not being applied, and a Bangladeshi national just whizzed through, while I was gathering my stuff together. Similarly, if a Chechen, or an Albanian (Jihadi groups by now do know to recruit them, instead of Arabs or Pakistanis for certain operations where the latter are more likely to be intercepted) were to whiz through on the assumption that they are Whites.
Doing the statistical analysis, what % of non-Whites who come to the US are Muslim? I'd peg it at the most at 30% - particularly after 9/11. Muslims don't constitute a significant portion of even the minority population, although they are bigger a percentage in the non-White groups than they are in the White groups. So you won't be saving resources if you went on and profiled the 70% of non-White Infidels, who would be far far greater in number than White Muslims.
I agree that we don't have infinite resources to profile everyone. That's why, we ought to eliminate people from profiling based on certain criteria. My #1 would be religion, as ascertained by a backgound check into whether a person is really who and what (s)he claims to be. Like if a Chechen person by the name of Aslan Islamev were to try and board under the name Nikolai Krupnik, the authorities in question should ascertain that before simply assuming that he is a White Infidel and therefore not a security risk. However, if it is found that the person is in fact an Ukrainian by that name, he goes through and is profiled no further. Once that's done, then eliminate old ladies, little children, and various other groups so that one is left with yutes who fit the profiles of mass killers.
As far as the oranges go, you are correct, but those oranges could quickly become apples before one realizes it. The reason you have Pakistanis plotting in Canada, Mahgrebis rioting in France, etc is that those governments have done little to combat terror. In the US, if you recall, after 9/11, a number of investigations were opened into Muslims overstaying their visas, and 500 of them were arrested, thereby sending them a signal that there was a crackdown on the way, and following that, some thousands of Muslims left. Therefore, Jihadist plotters, when they are targetting the US, now tend to look for Whites who'd do for them what their own people would do in various other parts of the Western world.
Like I said above, as a non-White (it's unfortuante that that should be a factor, but usually, it is), I don't worry about being perceived as a racist, and had there been no cases like Jose Padilla and Richard Reid, I'd have been perfectly okay with only non-Whites being profiled. However, given all the other cases, not to mention potential, I'd want religious profiling to be the #1 criteria, and ideology (West hating Leftists) to be #2; once that's done, I'd be perfectly happy with any other criteria that's chosen.
TV
To take the original example, would you classify Yvonne Ridley as white or Muslim? She seems to be both. And should she escape profiling due to the fact that she is one, despite the fact that she's also the other?
Infidel Pride,
"you didn't address the point I raised - Chechens, Bosians and other white Muslims thereby going through the net, while non-Muslim-non-Whites get screened."
I've run into this reflex response every time I raise the legitimacy of racial profiling (it doesn't seem to matter that you apparently support racial profiling). Your statement is apparently based on an expectation that a profiling net has to be perfect or else it won't work. The best, most rational profiling net will, of necessity, be imperfect. Its imperfection will be manifested in two ways:
1) it will unavoidably screen in a certain number of innocent people;
2) it will unavoidably fail to detect a certain number of guilty people.
The optimal profiling net will of course try to minimize these two failings. However, just because a tiny minority of Muslims happen to be white Chechens and Bosnians plus a smattering of other white-appearing Mediterranean folks (also throwing in the truly teensy minority, North American and North European converts), this should have no bearing on the rationale of the optimal profiling net -- to skew proportionately towards whatever majority complexion pertains in the present.
What will the meager data of white Chechen and Bosnian Muslims do to your profiling net? If you were in charge of creating a profiling net, would that data compel you to avoid profiling non-whites to any degree greater than the degree by which you would profile whites? (Remember, you don't have an infinite budget of manpower, resources or money -- you most likely would have a rather insufficient budget.)
P.S.: There's a reason why Islam has a mostly non-white population world-wide: its military imperialism, led by non-white Arab agents, spread mostly over lands populated by non-whites, from Morocco on the Atlantic all the way to the Philippines in the Pacific, most of whose survivors opted eventually to convert rather than live under the onus of dhimmitude or near-slavery. (More recently, it to some degree attracts non-whites who nurse hatred of the white West.)
P.P.S.: I'm not sure why I'm spending time reminding you and Robert of facts which you already know yet which you are leaving not only undigested, but sitting inertly on the kitchen table.
Thanks arjun.sevak, varma, kafir_central, and others for your responses and all the information. I knew some of it, but clearly we've touched only the tip of the iceburg.
The video about fatwas banning India's national song seems to indicate that some Muslims are stiffening their attitudes in India -- is that a widespread perception? The reporter said "Yet another fatwa", and the teachers and administrators seemed surprised and yet fatigued, as if more and more shocking things are coming from the Muslim community.
WIth the tech-boom in India, one hopes that experts ae interested in creating sites similar to this one for the Indian audience, both for current developments, as well as historical atrocities. There are millions of persons who could be reached.
I am increasingly convinced that we must take measures to completely harden our citizens against Muslims and all of their tricks. Muslims worldwide are becoming more triumphalist every day -- we see it in every region on earth, and the sooner sites like this are replicated in India, Russia, China, Philippines, Africa, and Latin America, the better. We too can build momentum against this horrific foe.
kafir_central -- as soon as I have time I will be following your links and learning more. Again, thanks all!
No, as far as degree of profiling goes, I agree with you - I would definitely profile non-Whites greater than Whites. And you are right in that the Bosnians or Chechens being tracked aren't going to skew the percentages in a way that requires Whites to be profiled anywhere near that of non-Whites.
However, I'd want to try and granularize it somewhat more, so that officers can separate Thai from Malay, Vietnamese from Indonesians, and if possible, Arab Christians from Arab Muslims, Indians from Pakistanis/Bangladeshis. On your above point about the imperfection of such an approach, I agree that any profiling model will necessarily at times net innocent people: that aspect bothers me less than the probility of guilty people going free, which is likely to happen if a racial profile doesn't target Chechens and other White Muslims. Should a terrorist incident be commited by an Albanian, a limited budget would be the last thing that the public would tolerate when going through the explanation of how a Phong Hoang was carefully screened, while an Enver Meksi who pulls off an attack because he wasn't screened under that model.
Statistically, you do have the numbers on your side. But if you look at it another way, what is the probability that the Chechen or Albanian Muslims won't be a terror threat given their depth of their faith - which cannot be definitely known in advance. I am assuming that in any model that you put together, any Muslim would fall into the net - be (s)he Arab, Farsi, Pak, Turk, Chechen, Uzbeg, et al. If one does that, it would be more likely to eliminate the probability of a guilty person walking, although the risk of innocent people being netted would still remain. Since it wouldn't be difficult for, say, Pak terrorists to pretent to be Indians (and US law enforcement seems to have a tough time telling the two apart), I won't advocate that the all remaining non-Whites be shooed in - just that the profiling model factors in White Muslims.
Your other point - "we shouldn't base the nitty-gritty of our defensive measures now on what may or may not develop in the unimmediate future" - isn't something I readily agree with either. Terrorists are known to adapt, and if a policy of screening terrorists by race is developed, you can bet that they'll be recruiting whatever White Muslims they can get their hands on. If we are to be a step ahead of them, we need to factor that into any model that we put in place.
Well I think it's time that he non muslims finally learned from history, and saw these modern phenomena as confirming the untrustworthyness of the "muslims" (people of peace???). They hate what Allah hates, and he thinks that the denyers of 'islam' are perverse. We're all "perverts", fit for hatred.
Islam is meant to be a perfect system but hasn't the tools for fighting corruption. The muslims have the hardware (brains) but not the software (beliefs).
Thanks to the owner of this site for letting me post.
Infidel Pride,
"No, as far as degree of profiling goes, I agree with you - I would definitely profile non-Whites greater than Whites."
Then we agree qualitatively, and may only disagree quantitatively (though perhaps not even at that level). However, would you not agree that Robert's (and his JW supporters') consistent refrain that "Islam is not a race" and his habit of consistently ignoring the fact of Islam's predominantly non-white complexion is disingenuous? While I agree that rhetorically speaking, in the War of Ideas battlefield, one must hammer home the fact that Islam is not a race but an ideology that can inspire people of any race to supremacist jihad, I don't agree that this fact should eclipse necessary recognition of the predominantly non-white sociological complexion of Islam. My reasoning is not just academic: the stubbornly monolithic emphasis of Robert's (and his JW supporters') style on this particular point would, to the degree it has effect in the War of Ideas, tend to work against rational profiling methodologies. Surely, we should not feel forced to debase ourselves to a childish level of argumentation in the War of Ideas, where important nuances are not allowed or are studiously avoided out of concern that, oh dear, we may be misunderstood and be branded as crypto-racists.
"However, I'd want to try and granularize it somewhat more, so that officers can separate Thai from Malay, Vietnamese from Indonesians, and if possible, Arab Christians from Arab Muslims, Indians from Pakistanis/Bangladeshis."
I like your apparent coinage "granularize". The desire you express is perfectly reasonable and good: the overarching problem with it is, again, the fact that we would never have sufficient money to pay for as much granularization as we need. We should of course attempt as much granularization as possible; however, one special danger here in the pursuit of this perfectly reasonable and good methodology is that its conception and then concretization can become detached from the limitations and imperfections of reality, and might well tend toward making concrete choices that, by favoring granularization over a racial generalization, will not actually achieve effective granularization and will simultaneousnly cripple the effectiveness of racial generalization.
"that aspect bothers me less than the probility of guilty people going free, which is likely to happen if a racial profile doesn't target Chechens and other White Muslims."
Again, they would only go free because of limited money devoted to screening (I'm assuming, when I say "only", of course that otherwise rational people are designing the screening).
"Should a terrorist incident be commited by an Albanian, a limited budget would be the last thing that the public would tolerate"
That kind of eventuality is unavoidable, and, given the limitations of life (which includes limitation of money, manpower, resources), tragic slippings through screening nets will only be perfectly and always avoided through sheer luck. You are confusing the ideal result with the cold hard facts of limitations: only theoretical tweaking in the mind will work out the ideal result of all attacks being aborted by fantastically screening out every possible permutation of Muslim out there. In the real world, where we cannot screen all the races of Mankind (all of which could contain Muslims) all the time, we may well be unable to avoid future attacks.
"But if you look at it another way, what is the probability that the Chechen or Albanian Muslims won't be a terror threat given their depth of their faith"
There are sub-racial nuances that can be factored in, but which would tend to meet irrational resistance due to political correctness: example, Chechens and Albanians, although technically white, nevertheless do not look like Robert Redford, Woody Allen, David Letterman, Angela Lansbury, Peter O'Toole, Lindsay Lohan, Conan O'Brien, Kelly Ripa, etc. -- therefore, were one to try to implement an inclusion of a "white Muslim" screen, it would not be irrational to do a little "granularization" in this area as well; and even this degree of refined granularization would not be perfect.
"Since it wouldn't be difficult for, say, Pak terrorists to pretent to be Indians (and US law enforcement seems to have a tough time telling the two apart), I won't advocate that the all remaining non-Whites be shooed in"
Why not? We must shake ourselves of the prejudicial conviction that we cannot, must not, ensnare multitudes of non-Muslim non-whites (including not only Indians and Thais and Filipinos, but also Hispanics and many Mediterranean Europeans -- there are people from Spain, Italy, Greece, even southern France who with a thick beard (or even without it) could easily pass for a Muslim) in our profiling nets. We will at some point have to do that, and while we must always try to minimize to the utmost the collateral "damage" (discomfort, disrespect, possible incarceration or worse at times) that may well occur, we should not erect an abstract template that would tie our hands from implementing the rational measures that might well lead to such collateral damage.
"we shouldn't base the nitty-gritty of our defensive measures now on what may or may not develop in the unimmediate future" - isn't something I readily agree with either. Terrorists are known to adapt, and if a policy of screening terrorists by race is developed, you can bet that they'll be recruiting whatever White Muslims they can get their hands on."
Of course. This is an obvious point. But our guarding against such possibilities is necessarily limited by the limitations imposed upon us by the real world of limited money and resources. We ought not, in the name of every possible permutation of the Muslim threat, proceed to implement everything that would fend of that multi-headed Hydra -- not because it wouldn't be grand to be able to fend off that Hydra, but because it's unrealistic and fantastic to think we can. We should of course try -- but we should not try to the extent that our attempts generate methodologies and templates of action that cripple those that try to balance focus with generality.
Finally, I'd suggest that we (the West) institute an ongoing think tank devoted to creatively figuring out ways to profile the ideology of Islamic Jihad of Muslims -- though, again, I wouldn't advocate this think tank get in the way of the exigencies of actual profiling, unless they hit upon a stroke of genius nobody has thought of yet.
While Robert and others can speak for themselves, I don't think that their assertion is necessarily disingenuous. By harping on the fact that Islam is not a race, but a geopolitical supremacist cult, they are blunting the arguments of those who use the tag "racist" to tar those of us here, despite the fact that people of a variety of races, not just white, post here and express very stridently their loathing of Islam. If JWers were to use the above argument to explicitly oppose racial profiling, you'd be right in stating that they are being disingenuous. But I don't see that happening. Yesterday, Robert was a guest on a local station here (KSFO), where he talked to Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan about White guilt being behind the reason that the anti-Jihad campaign is on the back foot. I doubt that if it came to that, you'd see an aggressive opposition to racial profiling here, unless somone as prominent as Ayaan Hirsi Ali got deported.
You misread me. By "not shooed in", I meant that just because one is a non-White-Infidel doesn't mean that one simply walks through - there'd still have to be a level of scrutiny in order to ensure the points you make above. The reason I didn't have problems with innocent people being netted above is that in the US, we typically do what you suggest about "trying to minimize to the utmost the collateral "damage" (discomfort, disrespect, possible incarceration or worse at times)".On your final idea about a think tank to profile the prevailence of Jihadist ideology among Muslims, I like that idea. I agree that it should be a enhancement to current profiling tools, but not something that curtails them.