The profiling kerfuffle
Bookworm on Aug 19 2006 at 11:07 am | Filed under: Political correctness
There’s panic on the Left again at the thought of placing young Islamic males under extra scrutiny when they approach sensitive spots such as airplanes, trains, and nuclear missile silos. At the Patriot Post, we get a little reminder about why this is a good idea. I won’t run the whole thing, but this will certainly give you an idea about the post’s point:
To ensure we Americans never offend anyone — particularly fanatics intent on killing us — law enforcement and security screeners are not allowed to “profile” people in public places or security checkpoints. However, they will continue to perform random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, Secret Service agents who are members of the President’s security detail, 85-year-old congressmen with metal hips and even Medal of Honor recipients. But targeting male Islamists between the ages 17 and 40 constitutes “ethnic profiling.”
Let’s pause a moment and review….
In 1972, 11 Israeli athletes were killed at the Munich Olympics by: (a) Your grandmother (b) A Midwest auto-parts dealer (c) A mom and her 6-year-old son visiting from Indiana (d) Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by: (a) A bluegrass band (b) Dallas Cowboy fans (c) A tour group of 80-year-old women (d) Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
During the 1980′s numerous Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by: (a) A family on their way to Disney World (b) Jesse Ventura (c) A Boy Scout Troop (d) Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by: (a) A pizza delivery boy (b) The UPS guy (c) Geraldo Rivera making up for a slow news day (d) Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked, and a 70-year-old disabled American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard by: (a) A girls’ choir (b) A hardware store owner (c) A secretary (d) Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver was murdered by: (a) A Marine officer with two weeks leave (b) A plumber going to visit his mom (c) A Catholic nun (d) Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by: (a) A college-bound freshman (b) A cardiac surgeon on his way to Houston (c) A waitress (d) Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
There are, sadly, endless more examples of Islamist male activity, and you can read them all here.
By the way, I’m certainly not advocating jettisoning security systems that are already in place in favor of focusing on these Islamist males. We know that, like any parasite, this group reacts to changing circumstances. If we focus on Islamic males, they’ll be sending out bouncing, blonde German women, complete with bombs. I’d like to see a system that randomly checks everyone, to make all demographics to hot for the terrorists to rely on, and that profiles young Islamic males.
Hat tip: Notes From A Retired Preacher
Email This Post To A Friend
8 Responses to “The profiling kerfuffle”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
That’s the latest iteration. Ann Coulter wrote the same column several years ago – though many of her (a), (b), and (c) options were funnier.
[...] [Read more and discuss…] Social Networking:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
Book,
Thanks for the link to my post on profiling.
It is high time we ignored CAIR and go whole-hog, so to speak, and employ logical profiling — not the politically correct.
You linked to my main page — while the article you referenced is :
https://expreacherman.wordpress.com/2006/08/12/islam-of-peace-just-a-reminder/
ExP (Jack)
[...] BookWorm on profiling. [...]
It doesn’t matter. Middle eastern men, and women, are profiled, whether it’s official or not. It’s human nature. To think that it’s not happening, or that it needs to be officially condoned, is just stupid.
I heard the counter-argument that we should not listen to conservatives about profiling because they aren’t profiling for McVeighs, whites basically.
So they don’t want to profile Muslims because if we do profile Muslims, they’ll also profile NRA members and what not, right?
Which means when the Democrats do get in office, not only will they profile Muslims but everyone who owns a gun, (and bottle of water) right?
It isn’t that the Democrats want more guarantees of civil liberties, they just want some justification to do it so they don’t get blamed for letting whitey off the hook.
J — Profiling is both sensible and, as you point out, human nature. Why would it be “stupid” to condone it?
So long as it is getting done and J doesn’t need to “sanction it” with blood on his hands, then I think J prefers the status quo.