Hmmmmmmmmm?
 

Attorney General Eric Holder says he is receiving complains from advocacy groups that Muslims are being singled out by law enforcement in using sting operations to thwart terrorist attacks.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...ng-operations/

Oh well..............

And TH, umm, shouldn't this be in political?

Why? What's political about it? There is absolutely no mention of political parties in this post.

Well, if you say so.

I see nothing wrong with anyone doing anything to protect us U.S. citizens.:o

"Well, if you say so," indicates to me that you disagree with me.

Please explain to me (the uninformed) how you consider this to be political. This is a post about national security, posted in the "non Villages" discussion forum.

If you convince me that this is political, I'll move it to political.

Finally..........a glimmer of common sense!!

??? :shrug:

Sorry, I meant the profiling.

The only way you can consider this to be a political issue is that there are people in the United States that think that to do any kind of "profiling" of an individual, no matter how much common sense it is to do so, is "POLITICALLY incorrect".

That's as close as I can come. Some people, if they feel a bit offended by a post, may feel it should be "censored", or in the case of this blog, moved to the political page.

(I don't mean this as any slight to Gracie, who is one of the sweetest people to post on this blog)

Well here's Wikipedia's definition of politics:

Politics (from Greek πολιτικος, [politikós]: «citizen», «civilian»), is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in other group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions. It consists of "social relations involving authority or power"and refers to the regulation of public affairs within a political unit, and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.

No mention of "political parties" in that definition. But since this thread is a discusion about our government's policy/methods of dealing with terrorists, I agree with GG that it should be in the political forum.

Thanks TH for not posting this in political - It is interesting to hear that the govt may be profiling terrorists and if this was in political I wouldn't have seen it because I stay away from those discussions.



.

Wikopedia is not an official information source. It is a compilation of thoughts from private individuals. Anybody can change anything in Wikopedia. I could go in there and change this definition to one that suits me better.

In any event, while a discussion of terrorism is not political, it is being made so by some of the responses. Putting in it the political forum will not make the issue go away.

Profiling Muslims in sting operations seems to make more sense than patting down grannies and school kids at airports. If most serious crimes are committed by a certain group, it seems logical to single out members of that group for sting operations.

I try very, very hard to be "politically correct." Not because it's the in thing, but because I learned the hard way how hurtful it is to be labeled for nothing other than the color of my skin or the place of my birth. However, I'm not convinced that looking at those who behave strangely or when someone tips off the government that they may be planning a terrorist act is labeling. It is acting prudently.

Now, if you tell me someone was stopped by a police officer because they "looked" Middle Eastern and no other reason, then I have issues. If you tell me every Somalian in the U.S. is being checked out, again I have issues. I do believe the FBI, et al., do a good job of checking out suspects. I also don't believe they go after everyone of a certain descent or skin color or religious belief.

You do a blog that labels you a Muslim extremist, I want you checked out and I don't care if you're black, brown, red, white or bright green. You walk down the street with a white forehead and a swarthy complexion, overdressed for the weather, mumbling to yourself, I'm not only following you, I'm calling the police.

Being cautious and sensible has nothing to do with profiling. It has to do with looking for the people who are likely to do harm.

(BTW, I agree that this really is political. It is, however, informative and I'm happy to join this discourse. And I refuse to go into political -- too ugly for this little liberal.)

Why is this political?

If somebody can present a convincing reason that this is, indeed" political, I'm going to move it.

JLK

I agree with you that a discussion about terrorism is not political, but this thread is a discussion about our government’s policies in dealing with potential terrorist acts and that makes it political. Get it? Politics-Policies?

But for the record, regarding this profiling policy, I agree with Barefoot and Redwitch.

No, I'm sorry, "I don't get it." Policies that deal with national security are not necessarily political. What I do get is that there are those who attempt to push everything into a political sphere. That way they can either embrace it or hate it.

Is the thread in this forum about Elizabeth Edwards death a political discussion? After all her husband is a politician. That's the only way we know about her.

I agree with them too and with TH for talking about it. It is HIS forum and he can put it whereever he wants.

I am sick and tired of not being able to make some kind of judgement on repeated terrifying behavior for fear of someone saying...No Fair...you are not politically correct.

Here is what I am saying...All Muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists seem to be Muslims.

I try to abide by the rules too. I don't put threads where I want them if they violate our policies (OOOPS POLICIES.....That means POLITICS). If this is proven to be political, that's where it will go.

I know, in spite of my attempts to educate you on the subject.

And your Red Herring regarding the Elizabeth Edwards thread is not relevant because it is about a hate group attempting to disrupt the funeral of a prominent person in order to get free national attention. But if the thread was a discussion about the merits of their cause, it would be political.

And as for “pushing everything into a political sphere”, remember, you were the one that made the political forum in the first place, not me.

It's the news source
 

I thought from the start of this that it's the link, containing the news channel source often accused of "reporting only lies", that puts some in a "political" frenzy.

I, however, think this article is factual, and it's good to hear the administration is getting tougher on those who make it so clear they want all of us "infidels" wiped off the planet. This is one threat ALL of us should be together on.

Just curious. Practicing the Islam religion is a religous conviction. How does a TSA person know if I am a practicing member of any religious group? I am Catholic but there is nothing on my driver's license or passport that indicates that conviction. I think the issue here is profiling based on national origin or race. I am not taking a position on whether it is appropriate in the effort for national security, just that we may be dealing with a misnomer here. I know of US citizens, both white and African Americans, who practice the Islam religion and I do not think they would be part of the TSA effort.

Please remember, now and always, you are not my educator.

I personally have no use for the concept of political correctness.
 

It is a concept that allows deviating from right and wrong to avoid offending someone or a group.
I prefer to continue to teach my kids, my grand children and great grand children...doing what is right is never, EVER a problem. It only becomes a problem when one tries to water down or wander from doing what is right to please a few.

I also agree this thread is not a political issue. It is one that could affect your daily life like running red lights or stop signs.
The Elizabeth Edwards example is an excellent one.

btk

Sorry, Gracie, but I strongly disagree with this statement. Terrorists come in many forms -- White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis, gangs, the IRA offshoots, and so on. It was not Muslims that tried to bomb Oklahoma City federal building or the first attack of the World Trade Cenger. Right now, Muslim extremists are the most prevalent, but certainly not the only. Bader-Meinhoff still exists. There is still a terrorist group in Japan and so on. Hate comes in many forms. Some are just more visible and vocal about that hate.

That doesn't mean we should ignore that our biggest terrorist threat today is the Muslim extremist. It does mean that we need to be vigilant against many, not just some.

From Wikipedia (MAY OR MAY NOT BE FACTUAL):

"The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993, when a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,500 lb (680 kg) urea nitrate–hydrogen gas enhanced device[1] was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into the South Tower (Tower Two), bringing both towers down and killing thousands of people.[2][3] It failed to do so, but did kill six people and injured 1,042.

The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal A. Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh. "

Those don't sound like Irish, German or Japanese names to me.


.

Canary Wharf bombing of 1996 by the Provisional Irish Republican Army. Killed two and injured many more. Pure terrorism. Only 14 years ago. Terrorists were white, Irish, and Catholic. Terrorists come in all makes and sizes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Docklands_bombing

Red...that is kinda what I was sayin'.

Well, it can't be "proven" to be political. That's a judgment call. Of course, it is your judgment call-- so you get to decide.

I agree with you that a Wikipedia definition is not definitive and not necessarily accurate. However, I think this particular Wikipedia explanation of the term seems well reasoned to me. What's your definition of the term, TH? I know you have moved things to political that didn't start there. I can remember if in all cases when you've done this a political party was named. But surely, if I named a political party right now, you wouldn't have to move this to political. I don't think it would have been inappropriate to have posted this in political. In fact, I too am surprised you didn't post it there.

All that said, hmmmmmmmmm. Our government sets up a sting due to Muslims behaving suspiciously? Thank goodness for that!

Too bad!!!!! I see this stuff all the time where I work. !We have got to do something different at our airports!

Profiling
 

Why don't we adopt the Israel TSA method of getting "the bad guys or girls"...Do they profile? To some extent, I'm sure they do!

JE, the Israelis totally profile, but not by race or religion. They profile by being from certain countries; by appearance; by behavior. We should do the same thing but we don't. Instead, we panic when we find someone has found a new way to smuggle something in and target that method. Gee, don't you think the next smuggler will figure out another way and another and another? Being a day behind isn't the way to go. The Israelis have a plan that has worked for more years than some of us have been alive and they don't change it every time someone tries something different nor do they go overboard and perform illegal searches and seizures. Shame the rest of us can't learn to adapt it.

Some try to say the El-Al way doesn't scale up, but I think they're wrong. Putting several officers in the terminal cruising the line, talking to the people waiting to go through, looking for inconsistent answers or certain nervous behaviors CAN scale up. Quite frankly I think they should get the TSA out of the airports and put the National Guard back in. I felt a lot safer flying in January 2002 when they were there. I want trained killers with lethal weapons at the ready when and if an agent discovers a terrorist. I want the terrorists afraid to even show up at the airport.

There is another very capable resource...the American
 

and other threatened countries public.
Raise the public awareness. How many of the average citizen would go so far as actually report a suspicious person? How many are alert enough to report a suspicious package? Piece of unattended luggage?

Like all other things particapatory by human beings....over 80% will not report....less than 20% would. Therein is the problem to many, many of the problems we face every day. Lack of involvement. Too much not me. Way too much not wanting to get involved. Just like the paltry few of us who do in fact take the time to vote.

I am happy and proud to be in the less than 20% that can consistently counted upon to take action in the face of suspicion or actual wrong doing!!

btk

I wonder also why it can't be scaled and the right people well trained for behavior profiling. If that ended up creating more jobs, that would be a problem because...?

BTK, here's a case in point. About a year or so ago, I arrived at my gate at the ATL airport and did see a suitcase that appeared to be unattended. About five minutes after I after I arrived, no one had come to claim it, but a ticketing agent came to the gate. I mentioned it to him and he rolled his eyes and ignored me.

Shortly thereafter, a woman did come and sit next to the suitcase. It appeared to be hers. She had gotten up to get a something to eat and apparently left it there rather than lugging it around. But how was I to know that before she returned?

You listen to a recorded message specifically asking you to report unattended luggage. So I do and get treated like a pesky child. I'd do it again though.

Pturner, you did the right thing. The gate person did the wrong.
 

What should have transpired is the luggage taken away by the agent and have the owner then have to seek it out and be reprimanded for breach of security.

It is this aloof approach to enforcement the terrorist look forward to and are not disappointed by some lazy Americans.

btk

It is not that the FBI is profiling Muslims for sting operations, it's just that Muslims seem to be the only ones who want to get stung these days.

Fly El-Al

Yoda

And terrorists know if they do something wrong or adverse
 

in or around an El Al airport/airplane, they will shoot you. As opposed to the USA where they would have to check with somebody to see if it is OK to shoot the perp and wind up with no answer and or too late to do any good. The terrorists know the easy mark American permissive way of doing nothing to avoid being criticized or wrong.

In Europe, you know where the El Al gates are...they are the ones with a guard and a machine gun on each side of the door and one at the entrance to the plane.

btk

Two terrorists bombings in Sweden yesterday.

Same sounding names take credit.