Racial profiling, terrorists attacks, and wingnuts August 12, 2006
Posted by Evil Bender in Terrorism, bigotry, wingnuts.trackback
There’s been some buzz on right-wing blogs recently suggesting that we should start (continue) profiling Muslims in order to fight terrorism. The argument goes that so many terrorists are Muslims that we should single them out for special attention because a muslim is much more likely to be a terrorist. But it’s not much of an argument, and there’s a lot of assumptions behind it that are not merely dangerous, but potentially fatal to a democracy.
Let’s take a look at a particularly enlightening example of this kind of thinking.
I don’t care what kind of religion Islam is “suppossed” to be, and I don’t care what percentage of Middle-Easterners are perfectly innocent hard-working law abiding citizens. And I don’t think our government should be wasting it’s time trying to find out. Middle-Eastern Muslims sure as hell aren’t wasting their time distinguishing between Americans or Brittons or Spainards or Israelis while they’re blowing up our buildings and buses and trains and airplanes.
This is the assumption that drives so much profiling nonsense. It doesn’t matter to those who propose this plan how innocent anyone might be: so long as we can identify them with a group we don’t like, assuming that they are guilty (by virtue of treating them as guilty) is perfectly acceptable.
The same argument is obviously offensive if viewed in reverse. If I suggested that because white Americans have a history of oppression of Native Americans, African Americans, etc. that they should be viewed with suspicion and singled out for extra searches, everyone would rightly point out that I’m avocating judging someone by the color of their skin and their place of origin, rather than by “the content of their character,” as King said.
It’s real simple. You cannot expect to win a game in which you allow your opponent to play by a different set of rules. In my opinion, if you’re a Middle-Eastern Muslim you don’t get to fly on a public airplane in the United States. Period. You don’t like it? Tough shit. Go complain to your fellow jihadists.
See, our poster claims that he’s opposed to terrorism, not to people, but his “solution” is to refuse to let anyone from the “Middle-East”–the borders of which he does not seem to understand–fly. And even though he claims he knows that not every Middle-Easterner is a terrorist, he assumes they must be, because their only recourse is to “complain to their fellow jihadists.”
I am proud to say I am racist against Middle Eastern Muslims. Yep, you heard me. P.R.O.U.D. If you are a Muslim from the Middle East I don’t like you, and I don’t need to know anything else about you but that. In fact, I despise you and your religion and whatever god foresaken sandy shit-hole of a country you slithered out of. As if the litany of terrorist attacks from your people over the last 5 decades I listed above aren’t enough, I can cite a dozen reasons why all Muslims should be vehmently discriminated against throughout the world without even mentioning terrorism.
So he advocates profiling as a means to stop terrorism, but “without mentioning terrorism” he wants to discriminate against Muslims anyway. Why? Because he’s a bigot using the fear of terrorists to further his bigoted cause. He wants to keep Muslims off planes, not protect us from terrorism. I know I’m shocked.
Are there peaceful hard-working innocent Muslims who wish no harm on anyone in the world? Of course. Do these types of Muslims represent the “majority” of Muslims. More than likely, yes. Does this mean all Middle Eastern Muslims should be afforded the luxury of this presumption? Hell no.
The “presumption” he speaks of is the presumption of innocence, that long-obsolete idea that it should be the duty of the state to prove someone is a criminal, not the other way around. You see, if you’re a reasonable person AND a Muslim you should have to demonstrate it, while happy little white boys can go around shouting racist comments at you.
Then he goes on to say that, because he pays large insurance premiumss, he’s being descriminated against too, and therefore this is all okay. Yeah, that’s right: he pays for insurance, so we should assume all Middle-Eastern Muslims are terrorists. That’s fantastic logic.
And in the end it is always the same with those who advocate profiling: they believe that any measures are acceptable to stop terrorists/speeders/car theives/people of color. The rest of us–those who are still sane–know that expedience, even if proved, is not a sufficent justification for racism and bigotry. It is wrong to profile, regardless of whether it is safe, because in judging people despite lack of personal wrong-doing, we give up everything that makes us different from the terrorists in the first place.
Profiling of this type is nothing less than a threat to democracy. Once we forget that society exists to support the individual, that the state has no right to assume we are guilty until it has proved it, we have lost our identities.
The poster is right that we are not fighting by the same rules as the terrorists (though we are coming closer with indefinite detentions, attacks on civilians, cover-ups, wars without accountability, etc.) and it is for precisely that reason that our values are worth fighting for. We believe–or say we believe–in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, in Democracy, in personal freedom. So long as that is true, we must reject profiling and all other forms of bigotry. If we do not, we might stop planes from getting bombed, but we will have lost that which we tried to protect.
“I am proud to say I am racist against Middle Eastern Muslims. Yep, you heard me. P.R.O.U.D. If you are a Muslim from the Middle East I don’t like you, and I don’t need to know anything else about you but that.” ……..
Typical Red Neck comment. It doesn’t solve the situation it only breeds more Hatred. His comments and similiar comments and behaviour towards the muslim are the likely catalyst for the boys to join Terrosim.
When are we going to learn….. Love and Respect each other no matter what color you are and what you are into.
As a Muslim myself, I am one of those “hardworking, innocent” Muslims as the ranter has classified me as. How disgusting is the hate that he preaches? It is sad how we judge people nowadays. I wish the hate would stop on all sides.
What about Middle Eastern people (like myself) who are not Muslims? What about the large population of Christians in Lebanon? The Iranian Jews? Americans of any race/ethnicity who have converted to Islam? I’d really love to know what this “proud” poster thinks of these groups. Or, are we all the same? As a Middle Eastern non-Muslim, I suppose I should assume that all Americans are White Christians with large foreheads and a penchant for bland food. :)
The common trait of the enemy we fight in the “War on Terrorism” is that they are Muslim. Robert Spencer elaborates (see http://josephnadir.wordpress.com/2006/08/13/seattles-muslim-terrorist-attack-triggers-deceptive-and-ignorant-reactions/):
“jihadists themselves routinely invoke it [the Qur’an] as the justification for their acts of violence, and as a means to recruit other Muslims into their movement. Hundreds of photos are available online of jihad terrorists brandishing the Qur’an, often along with rifles or other weapons. And any cursory glance at the statements of jihadists shows them to be filled with Qur’an quotes and appeals to other Muslims that they represent “pure Islam”
Given that the enemy justifies their actions on Islamic grounds it reasonable that the US Government profile the populations from which these terrorists receive their support in higher percentages: the Muslim population.
“Given that the enemy justifies their actions on Islamic grounds it reasonable that the US Government profile the populations from which these terrorists receive their support in higher percentages: the Muslim population.”
No, it isn’t reasonable. It is unjust to punish people for the crimes of others. Those who blow up abortion clinics are usually Christians, but it isn’t right to refuse to let Christians within x radius of a clinic. Again, expediency is not morality, and not by itself sufficent cause. A country that punishes a whole population for the sins of a few is not a free country.
> It is unjust to punish people for the crimes of others.
You are basically saying that *more closely examining* people who fit the enemy’s profile in the War on Terror is a “punishment”. By *your reasoning* you would have police ignore a murder suspect’s race, sex, and other characteristics just because innocent people happen to share those characteristics. Your position is self-evidently absurd.
> Those who blow up abortion clinics are usually Christians, but it isn’t right to refuse to let Christians within x radius of a clinic.
People who murder *in the name of* Christianity do so *illogically*. The same can’t be said about the Muslim terrorists. Therefore, *if* you had a wide problem with people who illogically justify their murders in the name of Christianity then it would be appropriate to more closely examine the people who fit this trait. In the case with abortion clinic bombings, these murderers are not Christians and they are widely condemned by the Christian community so profiling Christians would not be reasonable.
> Again, expediency is not morality
On what *objective* grounds do you judge the morality of anything? I strongly suspect you are a moral relativist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism)
The U.K. is coming to their senses http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012680.php I believe it is only a matter of time before a similar practice is put in place in the united states.
THE Government is discussing with airport operators plans to introduce a screening system that allows security staff to focus on those passengers who pose the greatest risk.
The passenger-profiling technique involves selecting people who are behaving suspiciously, have an unusual travel pattern or, most controversially, have a certain ethnic or religious background.
The system would be much more sophisticated than simply picking out young men of Asian appearance. But it would cause outrage in the Muslim community because its members would be far more likely to be selected for extra checks.
Officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) have discussed the practicalities of introducing such a system with airport operators, including BAA. They believe that it would be more effective at identifying potential terrorists than the existing random searches.
They also say that it would greatly reduce queues at security gates, which caused lengthy delays at London airports yesterday for the fifth day running. Heathrow and Gatwick were worst affected, cancelling 69 and 27 flights respectively. BAA gave warning yesterday that the disruption would continue for the rest of the week.
These extra checks are merely common sense in practice.
“You are basically saying that *more closely examining* people who fit the enemy’s profile in the War on Terror is a “punishment”. By *your reasoning* you would have police ignore a murder suspect’s race, sex, and other characteristics just because innocent people happen to share those characteristics. Your position is self-evidently absurd.”
Wrong. If you’d bother to read my argument closely, you’d see that the article in question was advocating using race and religion as a reason to BAN people from flying, not to investigate murder. If you’d like your position to be taken seriously, you could start by not creating a straw man version of mine.
“People who murder *in the name of* Christianity do so *illogically*. The same can’t be said about the Muslim terrorists. Therefore, *if* you had a wide problem with people who illogically justify their murders in the name of Christianity then it would be appropriate to more closely examine the people who fit this trait. In the case with abortion clinic bombings, these murderers are not Christians and they are widely condemned by the Christian community so profiling Christians would not be reasonable.”
Don’t be foolish. A huge number of Muslims condemn violence in the same way many Christians do. Killing oneself to get to heaven is plenty illogical, just like bombing a clinic, but one shouldn’t assume all Muslims are so illogical any more than you would like me to assume all Christians aprove of murdering doctors. Thanks for making my point for me.
“On what *objective* grounds do you judge the morality of anything? I strongly suspect you are a moral relativist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism)”
I strongly suspect that you are not reading my arguments closer. While I consisently argue that nuance is an imporant when evaluating argument, I have never–nor would I–argue for moral relativism. A quick glance through this blog would tell you that, as would many of the strong moral claims I make on a daily basis.
What you seem to want to say is that I’m a godless leftist who can’t be moral. But it is your racism and committment to the idea that Muslims are all violent terrorists that is blinding you to the fact that the solution you advocate would never be tolerated by white male Christians. Nor should it: it’s immoral, and it reinforces racist stereotypes, and it’s a faux-solution to a real, long-term problem.
I’d suggest actually responding to my argument rather than misrepresenting my position and making baseless assumptions about my beliefs.
Oh, and as for “objective” grounds for morality: you’re the one lacking them, but I’ll take that matter up in a longer post.
Let’s recap since you appear to have forgotten what I said and the response I gave you.
Josephnadir: “Given that the enemy justifies their actions on Islamic grounds it reasonable that the US Government profile the populations from which these terrorists receive their support in higher percentages: the Muslim population.” Your response to this was “No it isn’t reasonable” and then proceeded to equate profiling to punishment.
Then I took your premises and demonstrated the absurd logical consequence of them (i.e. you would have police ignore a murder suspect’s race, sex, and other characteristics just because innocent people happen to share those characteristics).
> Wrong. If you’d bother to read my argument closely
I think you are trying to dodge being pinned by the dilemma that logically follows from your response to me. Are you now claiming that you are against the BAN on people flying but you are in favor of profiling them (i.e., more closely examining them)?
> Don’t be foolish. A huge number of Muslims condemn violence in the same way many Christians do.
Can you back up your assertion with evidence? I provided evidence that the Muslim terrorists logically justify their actions on Islamic grounds .
> Killing oneself to get to heaven is plenty illogical,
It may be illogical based on your worldview, but not based on the Muslim terrorist’s who justify their actions on Islamic grounds.
> But it is your racism
Ah the ad-hominem attack; a sign of weakness in your argumentation given that no matter how much you attack the man it will do nothing to actually advance your position. I have a I bit of advice for you: try to attack my arguments and that way you’ll at least have a chance of advancing your position.
> committment to the idea that Muslims
Straw man. I never said what you claim I have said.
> Oh, and as for “objective” grounds for morality: you’re the one lacking them, but I’ll take that matter up in a longer post.
You never answered my question so I’ll ask it again. On what objective grounds do you judge the morality of anything? Note that I am not asking on what subjective grounds you do so.
[...] Recent Comments josephnadir on Racial profiling, terrorists attacks, and wingnutsluaphacim on Sketchgirl on marriageEvil Bender on Racial profiling, terrorists attacks, and wingnutsjosephnadir on Racial profiling, terrorists attacks, and wingnutsEvil Bender on Sketchgirl on marriage [...]
Another timely article from Robert Spencer – http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012747.php
Oops, I must have used the blockquote tag incorrectly.
Here is the quote:
For however unpleasant or politically inconvenient a fact it may be, young Muslim males are responsible for the overwhelming majority of terrorist violence around the world today. Since 9/11 Islamic jihadists have perpetrated well over five thousand terror attacks; no other group even comes close. Sane and courageous law enforcement officials will therefore subject young Muslim males to greater scrutiny, within the bounds of the law – and political correctness can take the hindmost.
…
Nonetheless, the fact remains that young Middle Eastern males have committed a disproportionate amount of violent terror attacks in recent years. Although Islamic jihad supremacism is an ideology, not a race, more Middle Eastern males hold to it than do members of other groups. Accordingly, it is simply a waste of resources to subject all airline passengers, from grandmothers to toddlers, to equal scrutiny, while refusing to spend more time investigating passengers who come from the group from which most terrorists spring nowadays.
Buy Ultram
Ultram buy Ultram Buy cheap Ultram online order cheap Ultram online. Ultram
i really agree with you aboyut the racial profiling thing. i read a quote earlier on today and it went something like this. not all muslims are terrorists are islamic people are terrorists, but have you ever noticed that all terrorists are islamic. i really agree with this there are many place in the world that have been bomb and destroyed and the majority of them were damaged by the islamic males 17-40, not 80 year old women. if bus loads of old ladies bombed a bunch of buildings,e would be right to racially profile them.
[...] Posted by Evil Bender in constiutional issues, wingnuts, bigotry, News and politics. trackback Earlier today a troll had this to say: i really agree with you aboyut the racial profiling thing. i read a quote earlier on today and it [...]
dont you think its a little fa? protesting is one thing, but violence?
why would someone go to such an extent? can you justify yourself with home made bombs to disrupt a protest against your own believes? there has been a trend in muslim/islamic males 17-40. are statistics enough?
most media moguls are jewish, most nba players are black, and most lynch mob inciters are white protestant males.
statistics are never enough.
progressive and/or enlightened individuals will NEVER change the minds of wingnuts. the reason for this is that wingnuts are cowards. being cowards, wingnuts are afraid of anybody that they perceive as different. they are afraid of any ideas that they don’t understand. and they don’t understand any ideas except those based on ignorance & bigotry & fear.
if they are even to consider any contrary notion, then they have to first admit that their old notion is incomplete and/or wrong. and they are much to insecure admit that their superstition & stupidity & pigheadedness is wrong.
this is not to pretend that wingnuts are harmless. they are very dangerous. as are rabid dogs. as are harmful diseases. and they all should be given similar consideration.
Even though this individual is blatantly racist against Arabic people,and intolerant towards Islam, and uses such disgusting
language toward them, he’s atleast not some pussy-ass liberal
that’s gonna let Islamic Jihad disrespect our pride as Americans,
and our values for life, humanity,secularism,religious and verbal
freedom,along with killing 3,000 more of us,and desecrating the
American Flag,and drilling holes in our cities and monuments. Hitler
was blatantly racist too, and pushed himself, beyond the limit of any
human being’s capability of anti-semitism, I still have respect for him
on a level, due to his opposition toward communism,Communist Russia, and his vision for European men and women to be responsabile,law-abiding,conservative and productive members
of society. However, I am totally opposed to the events of the
Holocaust, and it was a rotten act of barbary,and the most
disgusting kind of behavior you can possibly perpetuate
or condone on humanity.