UK terror search fiasco

Islam is NOT a race. Profiling Muslims isnt racial profiling. Since Muslims have been behind all these attacks and failed attacks in the UK, who should they profile? Mormons? Buddists?

"The policy has led to accusations that police bosses are more worried about upsetting minority groups than protecting the country. "

...it is not an accusation...it is a fact....

It is such a shame that we just can't find any physical characteristics of these terrorists that could distinguish them from non-terrorists. Such a shame with all the cameras in Britain that they can't pinpoint a possible distinguishing feature that could be clue. If only we could get all the best law-enforcement folks in a room and have them brainstorm and see if they can come up with something that might help us in identifying possible terrorist.

The moslems are depending on this attitude and effeminate response to deadly attacks.

This is what will give them success. Give them immunity and cripple our law enforcement with law suits.

There are so many in office who desperately need to be removed in order for western civilization to survive.

Next it will be do not target people who look like people!

I rather enjoyed this comment from the link:

"05.07.07, 11:45pm
Okay, let me get this right... over a period of years a group of wild animals, lets say Tigers, roam the countryside periodically attacking and terrorising the people that live there. A townhall meeting is held, with serious discussions about what should be done. It is decided that these are wild animals, cannot be reasoned with and unfortunately, they have to be captured and or killed.

"The mayor directs the local constables that they are to round up and find each of these wild animals, with one caveat: You must randomly check and identify every animal. Under no circumstances will you look for animals with black and yellow STRIPES, that would be uncivilized and archaic. If we followed that type of logic, humans would have become extinct as a species thousands of years ago...don't you think??
• Posted by: TheCrankyYank • Report Comment"

Watling,

David Cameron has said a Conservative Government would

- launch an inquiry into the state of the Police
- Repeal the Human Rights Act thus making it easier to deport those involved in terrorism. i.e. put the duty to protect the public ahead of the rights of the terrorist
- Ban the organisation Hizb ut Tahrir

(See www.melaniephillips.com

July 5, 2007
Peace in our time deferred)

It may not be much but it’s a start.

I have it on good authority, people I have spoken to in the Conservative Party, that there is disquiet, even at MP level, over the performance of Sir Ian Blair.

David Cameron has said a Conservative Government would

- launch an inquiry into the state of the Police
- Repeal the Human Rights Act thus making it easier to deport those involved in terrorism. i.e. put the duty to protect the public ahead of the rights of the terrorist
- Ban the organisation Hizb ut Tahrir

(See www.melaniephillips.com

July 5, 2007
Peace in our time deferred)

It may not be much but it’s a start.

I have it on good authority, people I have spoken to in the Conservative Party, that there is disquiet, even at MP level, over the performance of Sir Ian Blair.

Caroline - I always enjoy your posts and this one is a keeper. Very nice analogy.

In fact they are so worried about offending muslims they even give prior warning of raids to some mosques, I mean how stupid can you get. Political correctness is destroying this countries' ability to defend itself from internal threats.

In Canada I have already heard people in the Media questions the recent terrorism in the UK, seems that these self-appointed experts in canada feel that the Police should have rounded up these men before they even got to the SJS ( sudden Jihad symdrome) stage.

So, basically if the Police act too soon we hear the cries of "Islamophobia" and "Racism"
from Muslims and yet if they don't act soon enough we heard the Conspiracy wingnuts claim that the Government planned this to spread fear and get people ready for a Global Government run by the Free-Masons and Zionists.

In 1985 there were 240 Canadian civilians murdered by Sikh terrorism and today the PC media avoid the "S" word and has the nerve to blame the RCMP for not arresting the Terrorists in B.C. when phone taps revealed a possible plot to put a bomb on a 747 , in 2001 25 Canadian civilians were murdered by 19 Muslims and today the media avoid the "M" word and only calls it a Tragic Event while again blaming the FBI and Bush for not acting soon enough.

BUT, last June of 2006 the RCMP rounded up 19 Jihadists in Toronto that plotted to slaughter thousands of civilians with 6600lbs of Amonium Nitrate in truck-bombs and raid our Parliament building to behead Politicians it was the Muslim leaders that cried Islamophobia and Racial profiling for acting too soon on flimsy evidence of a "Alleged" plot by misguided Muslim youths.

This is all part of the Psychological Terrorism to make Police fear acting early on an arrest because of a lawsuit or being fired from their job after a Human Rights complaint.

BTW
When the "Squamish-5" eco-terrorist used a truck bomb and killed a Security Guard and injureid several immigrant maintainence workers
in Toronto back in about 1981 the media had no quams at reporting the terrorism for what it was, and that's because they were Canadian born white punks that didn't have the luxury of using the Race-card or make it a religious issue.

Islam is NOT a race. Profiling Muslims isnt racial profiling. Since Muslims have been behind all these attacks and failed attacks in the UK, who should they profile? Mormons? Buddists?
Posted by: Elric66

Exactly. Islam is not a race. But profiling terrorists as "Asian" is racist.

What we see here are the absurd depths that authorities will go to, not to name the enemy. They are now prepared to be racist, rather acknowledge the truth of Islam. This is truly frightening, the depth of denial here.

If being a bigot, or a racist, or an islamophobe is what it will take to rid the world of the plague that is Islam then so be it. I am sick and tired of being told that we can't "profile" anybody because that would be bad. We (the West) MUST decide wether we are going to survive the next 50 years or go down in history alongside the carrier pidgeon and the Dodo bird. I am afraid, very afraid about the future. If the terrorists happened to be from eastern europe (like me) I would be the first on my block to demand the questioning and rounding up(if needed) of those who looked a lot like me in order to stop any future attacks. If I have to deal with the questioning looks, random questioning, profiling and extra security checks at airports, etc I would welcome it, as I would know that I, for one am part of the solution and not the problem. Few, if any Muslims want to be part of the solution, they seem to care only about how "we" treat them, not how "they" can change. If Muslims want to play the victim, thats great. Lets give 'em something to be a victim about, then. Anybody up for a game of "send them to paradise"?
"Islamophobes of the world, Unite!"
"Ban Muslim immigration now!"

Justamomof4- thank you for the kind words but just to be clear, the analogy wasn't mine - it was from a commenter at the Daily Express. But that comment by “ThecrankyYank” actually got me thinking about the analogy itself, as good as it was!

Obviously the opponent of profiling is going to come back and say - but “the tiger can't change his stripes”, while the jihadi obviously can!
In other words, the opponent of profiling will say, jihadis can always change their identity, making ANY attempts at profiling completely and utterly useless.

I think we should confront that common claim head-on.

To start with, anyone seriously addressing the issue of profiling will dismiss concerns that this unfairly targets Muslims. Right. So sorry. But it is indeed precisely Muslims that rational people wish to target in profiling in order to prevent future terrorist attacks.

Muslims of goodwill will need to, as we crass Americans like to say, “Get over it”. And as to Muslims of ill-will –well – so sorry but we don’t actually care about your opinions or feelings anyway.

But before any Muslims go feeling sorry for themselves here, let me note that when the Federal Authorities profiling people on behalf of Jessica’s Law are looking for a 40+ strawberry blond of petite frame driving a little silver colored car who has kidnapped someone’s child – and they pull me over – I’m not going to complain about it. In fact, I will be more than happy to comply in order to reduce the field of potential suspects.

So, having got that out of the way, how do we actually go about profiling Muslims?

Well - I reckon we start with the obvious – Muslim names and Muslim dress.

If the guy’s name is Muhammad or any other of numerous names that can be easily looked up in a taxonomy of Muslim names- choose him.

If the man’s dress or beard comports with Sharia law – choose him.

If the man himself is clean-shaven and dressed in a western suit but his wife is wearing a burkha – choose him (and her).

If the man’s wife is merely wearing a head scarf and otherwise dressed in western clothes – choose him.

If the woman is all alone and wearing either a headscarf or a burka – choose her.

Right. Now we’ve eliminated most of the obvious signs of being a Muslim but that doesn’t deal with the potential recruitment of others not bearing any of these obvious signs. Although there is now the neat side-effect of this policy that anyone wishing to escape the obvious targeting will now no longer have an Islamic name and his wife will no longer wear a burkha or a headscarf.

Good! I happen to like that little side effect!

But then there is the claim that Muslims will hand the mantle off to others that we wouldn’t suspect. Who would those others be?

“Minorities” apparently. Obviously, the biggest innocent targets of profiling are likely to be non-Muslim Hindus, Arabs, Sikhs and blacks.

But what innocent non-Muslim Hindus, Sikhs, Arabs and blacks have going in their defense is 1) their names and 2) the lack of any evidence on them or their wives that they have anything whatsoever to do with Islam, let alone terrorism.

So all I can say to these innocent victims of profiling is – hang in there! Of course it’s not fair! But what is your solution here? The alternative to any systematic approach to profiling Muslims, in order to prevent any future terrorist attacks, is some insane explosion of violence in the streets where people aren't gong to make any distinctions at all and Hindus, Sikhs and Christian Arabs are going to be the victims of some sort of insane backlash!!

But according to the non-profiling advocates – it isn't even minorities we need to worry about because the jihadists are apparently clever enough to eventually find enough recruits in the ranks of white 70 year old Jewish retirees from Florida, that it apparently makes the entire idea of profiling utterly ridiculous. According to this school of thought, it is as likely for a 70 year old Jewish woman hailing from Miami to be recruited to the global jihad as it is for a 23 year old Muslim male from Egypt named Mohammed!

But who knows? Anything is possible! And apparently because anything is possible – including aliens landing here in spaceships – we are forced to consider the possibility that 70 yo Ethel Rosenstein, from Miami, is as likely to have been recruited to the global jihad (mind you – they were looking to fool us here by finding willing suicide bombers among our ordinary citizens) – as Muhammad, age 23, from Egypt!

No – so sorry – But I’m not buying this whole argument here.

Just because jihadists can “change their stripes” to some extent, doesn’t mean they have the capacity to turn into literally every other animal on the planet. Which means that you start with the obvious suspects first. And when you run out of those, then you start with the next most obvious suspects and when you run out of those, then you start with the next most obvious suspects after that and so on until you exhaust most of the obvious suspects!

The point is – there is NOT a literally unending supply of Islamic terrorists on the planet, including the possibility that 70 yo Ethel Rosenstein from Florida is a terrorist, unless we want to start considering the equal likelihood that aliens have landed on planet earth!

Of course, anything is possible – but are we actually willing to devote resources to any insane possibility or do we actually want to go back to square one and start there and from there proceed to likely square 2 and from there proceed to likely square 3 and so on from there until we have actually exhausted most of the rational, logical possibilities?

OR, do we want to start from the assumption that it actually COULD be the case that aliens are already walking around amongst us and since there’s absolutely no way in hell to EVER identify them, why bother at all?

I’m quite sure that many Muslims would prefer that we approached things from the latter perspective. But then, I also happen to think they’re just a little bit biased on the issue.

“All the suspects in the latest failed attacks are young adults of Asian or Middle Eastern descent. But officers carrying out spot checks at key sites have been told not to target people based on their ethnicity or age.”

Missing the point again. It’s not that they are of “Asian or Middle Eastern descent”, or a matter of ethnicity. It’s a matter of religio-political ideology. So even the Daily Express is getting mealy-mouthed about the M-word. Creeping dhimmitude.

Superb post on profiling, Caroline!

We could of course start profiling the Chinese and the Japanese followed by the Eskimo and work our way up the river Amazon and check out the tribes, especially those who like to keep a low profile, (very suspicious behaviour that!)
Here in Britain I'd suggest a good look at red haired bearded Scotsmen( with or without freckles) and move on to those suspicious Highland grannies wearing Harris tweed skirts, mind you Skye school teachers are a dodgy bunch too.

Perhaps it would be better to stick to the obvious though and save a lot of trouble....considering the potential outcome if we don't do this, more Islamic terror attempts followed by horrendous backlash upon those who just happen to 'look' Islamic and that unfortunately brings in a lot of probable error on the part of ignorant angry people, you know the type who cannot tell the difference between a pedophile and a paediatrician.

Hey if there's going to be a 'profiling' backlash surely that's preferable to the 'violent' backlash? Just a thought.

Anyhoo...there are options to be considered

1: Leave

2: Leave faster

3: Leave, farting sparks!

I would not be so ruthless as to demand 'conversion' though. If someone wants to be a square peg in a round hole, that's their choice of course but I'm not really inclined to re-bore the hole for their convenience, far better to whittle away at the offending edges of the peg.

Re. profiling.

I agree with Caroline.

I say this as the descendant (on my mother's side) of German immigrant ancestors. During both world war one and world war two my German great-grandmother and her siblings and her parents and their children came under a lot of pressure. They lived in small country towns. They went to Lutheran churches. They had German names. They were 'profiled', undoubtedly, by their neighbours who were of Anglo-Irish origin.

Especially in WWII, since the Nazis were so much more horrible even than the 'Huns' had been in WWI. But...there really was nothing else for it. Every person with a German name - especially those who, like my great-grandmother's family, still corresponded with their cousins in Germany - HAD to be regarded as a potential fifth-columnist. Those who, like my great-grandmother, were undoubtedly quite innocent, simply had to put up with the inconvenience of being associated with a larger group that had made some abysmally stupid and indeed evil choices. Because, among the innocent, there were also the not-so-innocent, and such people needed to be spotted, and hindered.

Back then, a German name did have to be regarded with some suspicion, and my German-origin ancestors had to put up with that. It wasn't fun, but it was necessary.

Nowadays, an obviously Muslim name, and Muslim behaviours and cultural markers, shoud provide just as much cause for official and neighbourly suspicion. as a German or Japanese name and behaviours did, during WWII. That is just practical politics. So I say, yes, profile the Muslims. ( It would help a lot, of course, if the police and the general public put more effort into learning how to tell apart, say, Hindu Indians and Muslim Indians!)