Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on August 08, 2005, 09:09:40 am
-
HA! PWNED: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050808/ap_on_go_su_co/aba_civics_1
fixed
One in five incorrectly said that the three branches were Republican, Democrat and independent *twitch*
-
Sorry, the page you requested was not found.
-
For chrissake MP, when will you learn? :p
It's yahoo news. Clicking a link to yahoo news tends to add symbols to the address, and to get the page, you have to delete them:
%20
< b r % 2 0 / > (no spaces. This one won't show up unless I put spaces)
Heres the article
CHICAGO - Retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is taking on a new challenge: overseeing a national civics lesson.
ADVERTISEMENT
Many adults struggle to identify the branches of government — legislative, executive and judicial — and explain the concept of separation of powers, according to a new American Bar Association poll.
Michael Greco, a Boston lawyer who takes over as ABA president this week, asked O'Connor and former presidential candidate and Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., to help educate people on the subject. They will be honorary co-chairs of a civic education commission.
The ABA poll, being released Monday, shows that just over half of adults can correctly identify the branches.
One in five incorrectly said that the three branches were Republican, Democrat and independent, and 16 percent thought the three were local, state and federal.
While eight in 10 people said that separation of powers is important, less than half, when given four choices, correctly picked that "Congress, the president and the federal courts each have different responsibilities." Nearly a third said it meant different federal departments have different powers.
"There are some significant gaps in people's knowledge," Greco said.
O'Connor, 75, served as an Arizona state senator and judge before President Reagan named her to the Supreme Court in 1981.
Her retirement, announced last month, provides its own civics lesson. Under the Constitution, Supreme Court justices (judicial branch) are named by the president (executive) but must be confirmed first by the Senate (legislative).
The poll of 1,002 adults was conducted July 22-27 by Harris Interactive. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
___
-
farking phpbb needs to allow me to use inline php to de**** things like that
-
More like yahoo is using law breakingly unfriendly urls.
-
Anywho, as per the topic:
Yes. Yes, we are.
Note: When I say we, I don't include myself in that, and hence, actually mean "They." ;)
-
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
Note: When I say we, I don't include myself in that, and hence, actually mean "They." ;)
:D ;7
-
Should those people be allowed to vote in elections?
-
in terms of having rights yes
practically no
and peolpe wonder why we have such a tard in office
-
*Isn't surprised at all*
Humanity = stupid.
Americans = part of humanity (albeit a even dumber part)
Hence, Americans = stupid.
although with this logical deduction you could "prove" that every natipon is stupid.. And the horrific thing it - it would be correct!
-
The sad thing is there are third world countries that know more about their own governments on average than us.
-
Duhh.h..me not understand.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
The sad thing is there are third world countries that know more about their own governments on average than us.
Well, yeah, their governments bug them.
-
I'm not American and even I have to know the basics of your government branches.
:wtf:
-
Originally posted by Kazan
The sad thing is there are third world countries that know more about their own governments on average than us.
That's probably because most third-world governments are conveniently designed to be easy to understand; do what the man in the uniform says and you won't be arrested. Here in America, we're working on that streamlining process, but we still have a lot of work to do.
-
ford prefect heh indeed
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
That's probably because most third-world governments are conveniently designed to be easy to understand; do what the man in the uniform says and you won't be arrested. Here in America, we're working on that streamlining process, but we still have a lot of work to do.
"do what the man in uniform says or you'll be blown up"
Of course, we have Darth Blunkett over here, so we're not exactly better off..........
-
Entertaining. My wife has to know this stuff better than the average american to get her citizenship (we go for the interview, exam and maybe oath next week)
-
Originally posted by BlackDove
I'm not American and even I have to know the basics of your government branches.
:wtf:
yeah. it really is more simple here. the king rules, and the nobles do too.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
The sad thing is there are third world countries that know more about their own governments on average than us.
That because in most of the rest of the world, politics matters in a much more concrete way. Who is elected could very well mean the difference between eating and not eating, getting a job or not getting and job and so on.
What the US and much of Europe have is high living stanards and a stable democracy, which has led to complacency on the part of the population. In the US, regardless of who wins the election, jack-booted stormtroopers aren't going to bust down your door at 3am and haul you off, so people think (justifiably) that they don't really have to bother. That's one part. The other is that the current system (the two parties, as well as rule by special interests and widespread corruption) are seen as too entrenched, so people don't bother to knock their heads against wheat they percieve to be a brick wall.
-
Who is elected could very well mean the difference between eating and not eating, getting a job or not getting and job and so on.
it means that here too in a very real way depsite the claims of some people.
-
Not for the majority, however.
Not yet, anyway.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Not yet, anyway.
(http://brillig.com/debt_clock/debtiv.gif)
-
Yeah, but the (rapidly shrinking) middle class hasn't started starving yet, right? Until that happens, why would they care? That's the problem with middle class: we've got complacency raised to a fine art form.
Well that's not entirely true. We're all loud and vocal and noisy, until it matters (like actually getting off our asses and voting) and then we're all about Olympic gold-medal, record-setting levels of complacency (or outright laziness).
-
yeah we also have a penchant for selfishness, authoritarianism, legislating religion and generally being a bunch of asshats while simultaneously trying to claim to be the most free country in the world
-
Originally posted by Rictor
so people don't bother to knock their heads against wheat they percieve to be a brick wall.
Which further proves how stupid people are since the number of people who don't vote at all are always higher than the number who do vote.
-
[python]
Come see the hypocrisy inherent in the system!
[/python]
-
(http://home.att.net/~clay.h/votenixon.png)
-
nice ZB
-
voting with ballots is retarded
my voting equipment:
(http://members.aol.com/WW2JeepMBGPW/Photos/MB50cal.jpg)
(not me in the pic)
ok guys its time to post your favorite pictures of guns/airplanes/tanks/warships/fuzzy animals.
-
//no
(aka "no comment")
-
(http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b319/Mistah_Kurtz/MoreCowbell.jpg)
-
:sigh:
-
I Agree with Corsair
-
Hooray for pancakes!
(http://www.sportalicious.com/Images/pancakes.jpg)
More on-topic: Hooray for the public school system. :doubt:
-
(http://www.politicsforum.org/images/humour/t3_spam_boy.jpg)
-
*Makes foolish attempt to save thread*
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
Yes. Yes, we are.
Note: When I say we, I don't include myself in that, and hence, actually mean "They." ;)
Originally posted by Kazan
and peolpe wonder why we have such a tard in office
Originally posted by Rictor
What the US and much of Europe have is high living stanards and a stable democracy, which has led to complacency on the part of the population. In the US, regardless of who wins the election, jack-booted stormtroopers aren't going to bust down your door at 3am and haul you off, so people think (justifiably) that they don't really have to bother. That's one part. The other is that the current system (the two parties, as well as rule by special interests and widespread corruption) are seen as too entrenched, so people don't bother to knock their heads against wheat they percieve to be a brick wall.
Don't forget, the people in office only care about what the people 40 and over think.Originally posted by karajorma
Which further proves how stupid people are since the number of people who don't vote at all are always higher than the number who do vote.
And the majority of those that do vote are 40 or over.
Mmmmmm...syrupy pancakey goodness. Goob, those pancakes look really good. Please stop that. You're making me hungry. You won't like me when I'm hungry.
-
Actually, a short term answer could very well be to funnel several hundred million dollars to the US Communist and Fascist parties, give people a real scare. Remember when La Pen was almost voted in, how freaked out people became?
Of course, that doesn't address the long term problem, but that's a social problem and has to be address in more fundamental and far-reaching ways.
-
rictor that would completely backfire and just make things worse in the worst possible manner.
-
That's Le Pen, and you got that right. I pesonally wasn't in France at this exact moment (was at some research lab in England for the endterm). Got the habit of checking the french newspapers on the web. The other intenrs were kinda freaked ou by the healthy 'WTF ?!?' I let out seeing this.
-
In the US, regardless of who wins the election, jack-booted stormtroopers aren't going to bust down your door at 3am and haul you off,
They do if you are Arab. ;)
But seriously the CIA does kidnap people, ship them off to places like Egypt to be tortured, and then return them.
-
*cough*proofplease*cough*
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4619377.stm
I take it that you have never heard about that big contraversy in Italy over that.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
They do if you are Arab.
But seriously the CIA does kidnap people, ship them off to places like Egypt to be tortured, and then return them.
Yeah, but that's a handful out of 300 million. And don't give me the "if you're an Arab" line. Statistically, the number of Arab people who ran into real trouble with the government is utterly tiny, to the point of being almost negligible, compared to the whole Arab population living in the US. It's not like they're rounding up people left and right.
Not that I'm saying the government isn't prone to have their way, laws be damned, I'm just saying it's not widespread.
-
Originally posted by General Freak
*cough*proofplease*cough*
*cough*they****ingadmittedittothepress*cough*extraordinaryrendition (http://www.google.com/search?q=extraordinary+rendition)*cough*
-
Rictor: just because the % incidence is low doesn't mean it's acceptable
-
Yeah, but that's a handful out of 300 million.
So I guess it's perfectly ok to racially profile and persecute a "small minority" according to that statement.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
So I guess it's perfectly ok to racially profile and persecute a "small minority" according to that statement.
rictor=pwnd
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Rictor: just because the % incidence is low doesn't mean it's acceptable
I don't think that Rictor is saying that it is. Just that your average american won't get off of his fat arse and do something about it just because of such a low percentage of incidents.
-
rictor needs to learn not to make ambigious statements then - he does it all the time and it makes him often look like a racist or a moron.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
So I guess it's perfectly ok to racially profile and persecute a "small minority" according to that statement.
It's not acceptable, but it's not Stalin reborn. And yes, racial minorities (or rather, minorities in general) have always been persecuted, and continue to be so in most of the world. That's because people like their own better than those damn no good so-and-so's, and will generally want to discourage the so-and-so's from getting too comfortable.
What I am arguing is that the number of people affected is not irrelevant to the equation. If one person is being persecuted, it's different than if 1000 people are, is different than if 100,000 people are.
-
Originally posted by General Freak
*cough*proofplease*cough*
There is pretty strong evidence to support what the CIA terms 'extraordinary rendition' involves moving suspects to ally countries where torture is practiced.
Well, the (former) British ambassador to Uzbekistan lodged a public complaint over MI5 using information obtained by torturing prisoners (via the CIA). I believe Uzbekistan is an location where suspects are sent for interrogation, along with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and US bases in Afghanistan and Iraq (not sure about the latter, they might not have room....). The US formerly sent suspects to Syria, but stopped due to the somewhat unfriendly relationship with said state (and likely ****storm if some journalist properly picked up on that).
The Irish government also refused refuelling access to CIA aircraft after public protests over torture. This has also been question in the UK; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4414491.stm
Further accusations are that same Gulfstream and 737 jets are used to 'extradite' suspects who are bound, gagged and forcibly sedated, having been taken by force; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1357699,00.html
An Italian court has issued a warrant for the arrest of CIA agents over the kidnap of an Islamic cleric, who was subsequently flown to Egypt for interrogation (nee torture); http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4637509.stm
A man named Khalid Al-Masri has accused the CIA of abducting him from holiday in Macedonia before flying him to Afghanistan; this is supported by known flightplans - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999272/site/newsweek/
An Israeli newspaper (Haaretz) has claimed senior al-Queda figures are being held in Jordan, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3739858.stm
The FBI advised their agents to stay out of interrogations in several non-US locations as they were 'too brutal' to be legally used in court; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3709793.stm
There have also been accusations of torture on non-mainland Us territory such as Diego Garcia; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2607629.stm
-
Actually, I've heard that some of the worst interrogation centers aren't even on land, but on US warships.
-
It's not acceptable,
Then why are you downplaying it by turning it into a numbers game? They ARE people too.
What I am arguing is that the number of people affected is not irrelevant to the equation
Care to reword that? I'm having a hard time making sense of it.
-
Well, where would you look for terrorists if all the previos terrorist were of arab origin? Among the arab population of course. That makes sense. And if it makes sense then it isn't rasistic.
Torture is a terrible thing, but sadly, sometimes it might be the only way to actually extract information out of someone. I don't feel sad at all if some would-be terrorists get's caught and tortured, but when an inocent get's caught - oh boy.
It makes me sick, but in war, no side really follows any rules. That's exactly the ture meaning and the most horrific thing about real war - no conventions or treaties are gonna save your ass if the other side thinks you know something.
-
I think Rictor is simply pointing out that the vast majority of Americans - arab or otherwise - will never have their door kicked down by the CIA or FBI, and thus it's less likely that they will be mobilized by that happening to the minority. Until the majority are anticipating some from of oppression or abuse in that manner, it's highly unlikely they'll care about those few people it does happen to.
-
Well, where would you look for terrorists if all the previos terrorist were of arab origin?
Timothy McVeigh was not arab, or even a muslim. Yet he was a terrorist and he blew up the Oklahoma City federal building.
Torture is a terrible thing, but sadly, sometimes it might be the only way to actually extract information out of someone.
People who are being tortured often times just tell the torturers what they want to hear to make them stop. So if a "suspected" terrorist was tortured, he would "confess" to being a terrorist even if he/she wasn't actually a terrorist.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Well, where would you look for terrorists if all the previos terrorist were of arab origin? Among the arab population of course. That makes sense. And if it makes sense then it isn't rasistic.
Problem is that they weren't; take Richard Reid or John Walker Lindh for example. There's also a case of a would-be-terrorist convincing his white, pregnant, Irish girlfriend to carry a bomb onto a plane. Anyone can be radicalised; just look at the militiamen in the US.
There's also an issue of basic human rights here; it's not right to take away those rights because of another persons crime - how can it be fair to make person X pay for the act of person Y, when both - despite having the same ethnicity and religion - probably grew up hundreds of miles away, went to different schools, never even came close to meetings, and lived completely different lives. Placing a section of the population under that constraint is simply creating the conditions for extremism - oppression and unfair treatment leading to paranoia and eventually hate from that population group.
EDIT; it's (racial profiling/targeting) need not be racist in principle, but is self-defeating. Focusing on a set demographic simply means any active terrorist will switch tactics to take advantage of the demographics you're not looking in.
Originally posted by TrashMan
Torture is a terrible thing, but sadly, sometimes it might be the only way to actually extract information out of someone. I don't feel sad at all if some would-be terrorists get's caught and tortured, but when an inocent get's caught - oh boy.
It makes me sick, but in war, no side really follows any rules. That's exactly the ture meaning and the most horrific thing about real war - no conventions or treaties are gonna save your ass if the other side thinks you know something.
Torture is inherently unreliable; it's well known that it's more likely to produce false information than actual intelligence - how many people burnt as witches after confessing do you think were actually witches?
The only point where you can justify torture is where you know the suspect is a terrorist, and when you know for sure that they know of an attack. If you have the definitive proof of those 2, it's likely you already have the information you need, so torture is then simply unecessary (and even is still unreliable).
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Well, where would you look for terrorists if all the previos terrorist were of arab origin? Among the arab population of course. That makes sense. And if it makes sense then it isn't rasistic.
Not all the terrorists were arabs. In fact half of those involved in the London bombings were black. You want to start profiling all black people as terrorists and claim that isn't racist?
Not to mention that the strongest kind of fundementalist is the convert. And they can be any colour.
To assume that terrorists are all arabs is idiotic AND racist.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Actually, I've heard that some of the worst interrogation centers aren't even on land, but on US warships.
:wtf:
Where and what moron said that? Okay, the army has some issues, they get more contact with the results of what these folks do. But a USN captain allowing that to take place on his ship? People have been thrown in prison for allowing ****ing hazing to take place aboard their ship, and that's when it didn't cause injury. The USN as a whole has taken a very dim view of land-based forces' interrogation tactics. Go read an issue of Proceedings.
-
How many USN captains would disobey a direct order to allow interrogation onboard?
EDIT; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4632087.stm
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Not all the terrorists were arabs. In fact half of those involved in the London bombings were black. You want to start profiling all black people as terrorists and claim that isn't racist?
Not to mention that the strongest kind of fundementalist is the convert. And they can be any colour.
To assume that terrorists are all arabs is idiotic AND racist.
Allright, MOST terrorists attacking the US are of Arab origin. And as far as I recall nearly all were muslim.
If 905 of potential terrorists come from a specific race/religion then it stands to reasn that by focusing most of your search on that specific group you will have higher chanced of finding them then if you focus equalyl on all.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Allright, MOST terrorists attacking the US are of Arab origin. And as far as I recall nearly all were muslim.
If 905 of potential terrorists come from a specific race/religion then it stands to reasn that by focusing most of your search on that specific group you will have higher chanced of finding them then if you focus equalyl on all.
And the London bombers were clean on the intelligence services radar, even including the one who had been previously examined by MI5. So even if you focus on, say, Muslims (as MI5 would have been in examining this guy), it doesn't mean you'll find a terrorist if one exists. The known bombers were not known radicals, some had families, one was a special needs teacher IIRC. Even given their ethnicity (in the case of those of Arab descent), there is no demographic differenc between them and Joe Ordinary.
More likely you'll blind yourself to alternatives. I mean, how the hell are you defining 'potential terrorists' if not by racial/religious stereotyping? Anyone is a potential terrorist; is this a 'war on terror' or a 'war on Muslims'? Because there's a strong implication that comes from how you handle it.
How would it work, anyways, to stop Mr X (assuming he is Arab, which is a big assumption in itself) planting a car bomb? Would you subject every Arab (origin) person to surveillance to see if they bought a car or fertiliser? Would the purchases of arab-sounding names be singled out for collection by the FBI?
-
MOST terrorists attacking the US
you have to narrow or focus the search by SOME criteria in order to increase your chances of finding the wanted person
-
No... Most terrorists attacking the US are white, and from america.
-
Racial profiling is the dumbest **** ever. It takes the focus off serious indicators and onto superficialism and racism.
The most reliable [accuracy and effectiveness/manpower] method is behavioral profiling. I think sandwich should know a thing or two about this since the Israelies have been using this method for over 30 years with ZERO incidents of airplane hijacking.
Busses are just ****ing impossible to secure.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Allright, MOST terrorists attacking the US are of Arab origin.
"Goodfact"
Originally posted by Raa
No... Most terrorists attacking the US are white, and from america.
"Realfact"
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Allright, MOST terrorists attacking the US are of Arab origin. And as far as I recall nearly all were muslim.
And if you start racially profiling arabs the terrorists will simply use black muslims and sneak by without detection.
If you start racially profiling blacks and arabs then they'll simply use
white converts and sneak by without detection.
Racial profiling is idiotic plain and simple. On top of everything else it annoys exactly the demographic you're attempting to pursuade not to bomb you.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
MOST terrorists attacking the US
you have to narrow or focus the search by SOME criteria in order to increase your chances of finding the wanted person
No, you don't. You have to observe the current intelligence and evidence and draw the conclusions from that, not who the last terrorist may have been.
Again you're assuming the 'wanted' person is an Arab muslim, when we don't even know if there is a person to be 'wanted', let alone if they are an Arab muslim.
-
A terrorist attacking hte Us may or many not be arab or black or white.
but in 99% of cases they were muslims. I'm not talking about racial profiling, I'm talking about religious profiling.
Acutally, profling made by examining all the previous terrorists and if I recall corretnly they were shown to be men from 20-40 years, muslim. If they come from the country then they were usually from well off families or something like that.
Regardless, I don't give a damn either way. My country isn't going to get bombed anytime soon.
-
most of the current terrorists we are currently worried about are arab, all of the terrorists we are currently worried about are muslem (we don't particularly care about domestic political terrorists at the moment) a racal profile would probly get results untill AlQueda figured out what we were doing (likely after the first time it worked) and would then proceed to get a team from Indonesia or Somolia, wich would probly become one of there best atacks, because we wouldn't be screwteniseing them.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I'm not talking about racial profiling, I'm talking about religious profiling.
Originally posted by TrashMan
Well, where would you look for terrorists if all the previos terrorist were of arab origin? Among the arab population of course. That makes sense. And if it makes sense then it isn't rasistic.
Either you were talking about racial profiling or you're the kind of idiot who believes all muslims are arabs.
But let's be generous and assume you've been hit with the clue stick and realised that racial profiling is idiotic and now you believe in this **** you're spouting about religious profiling.
I have only one question. How the f**k do you religiously profile someone anyway? The Madrid bombers for instance included people who drunk alcohol, sold drugs and acted in a whole raft of un-muslim manners in order to stay undercover. Racial profiling idiotic as it is at least has something you can profile. It's pretty bloody simple to pretend to be a sikh or buddist or christian though.
Originally posted by Bobboau
most of the current terrorists we are currently worried about are arab
Not in Britain. And if the US is only concentrating on arabs even after the London bombings you can be certain that they'll be dealing with another bombing pretty soon.
-
did you even ****ing read the rest of my post after that?
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Entertaining. My wife has to know this stuff better than the average american to get her citizenship (we go for the interview, exam and maybe oath next week)
Erm... prolly way OT... but if you and her are moving back to Australia in a few months, why is she going for US Citizenship?
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
A terrorist attacking hte Us may or many not be arab or black or white.
but in 99% of cases they were muslims. I'm not talking about racial profiling, I'm talking about religious profiling.
Acutally, profling made by examining all the previous terrorists and if I recall corretnly they were shown to be men from 20-40 years, muslim. If they come from the country then they were usually from well off families or something like that.
Regardless, I don't give a damn either way. My country isn't going to get bombed anytime soon.
Name those cases. AFAIK there have been precisely 2 terrorist attacks on US soil involving arabs (9/11 and the previous WTC bombings). AFAIK in both cases all or most were foreign nationals and thus outside the reach of domestic racial or religious profiling.
Again you've not defined how profiling would be implemented; what difference would it make? Who would you 'profile' and how would that be supported?
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Erm... prolly way OT... but if you and her are moving back to Australia in a few months, why is she going for US Citizenship?
Maybe in case they want to move back to the US in future or something?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
did you even ****ing read the rest of my post after that?
Yep I did. I wasn't having a go at you. In fact I was mostly agreeing with you. You said racial profiling would only stop the first attempt. I was simply saying that I doubted that it would even do that well.
If the americans are stupid enough to only be targetting arabs after knowing that two of the July 21 bombers were black then I doubt they'd even stop the next plot at all.
-
How on earth did we start debating religious profiling from a topic about Political ignorance?
-
I don't know, but this thread could sure use some more asterisks! **** this and **** that and **** everyone that mentions an idea or opinion that you don't agree with or find to be of lower intelligence than you're used to. **** them and **** their families instead of politely explaining the loophole or error in their thought(s), **** them because they're so ****ing idiotic and don't deserve to breathe let alone post their thoughts here on this public forum. **** Americans too since ****ing them will solve every ****ing problem we have with them. :rolleyes:
-
It seems to me like every thread regarding America turns into an anti-American rant. :blah:
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
It seems to me like every thread regarding America turns into an anti-American rant. :blah:
No. Every thread regarding America turns into a over patriotic defence of America's flaws by people too blind to see that it has any and who then complain about anti-americanism the second anyone attempts to correct their blinkered thinking.
You'll notice that any time someone complains about the flaws in Britains government almost all the Brits agree that there is a problem. That's why you don't here complaints about anti-United Kingdomism even though the UK is pretty much just as guilty of civil rights abuses and idiotic foreign policy.
Seriously EtherShock what on this thread was anti-american? Most of the comments about America's flaws were from Americans! Is it anti-American now to complain about your own countries policies? Have you let your nation sink so low as to claim that any refusal to toe the party line in unpatriotic?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I think Rictor is simply pointing out that the vast majority of Americans - arab or otherwise - will never have their door kicked down by the CIA or FBI, and thus it's less likely that they will be mobilized by that happening to the minority. Until the majority are anticipating some from of oppression or abuse in that manner, it's highly unlikely they'll care about those few people it does happen to.
Yeah.
Originally posted by Kosh
Then why are you downplaying it by turning it into a numbers game? They ARE people too.
Really? They are? Are you really quite sure? Well, that changes everything. If only I had somehow known they were people.
Look. **** happens. I'm not going to sit here and act out fake concern. There are six and a half billion people on Earth, and many of them are a lot worse off that those in Gitmo. The thing is, I do look at it by numbers. It's not downplaying anything, and it's not exaggerating anything, it is assigning proportional value - exactly as it should be.
If they arrest one person illegaly, that's bad. But hell, it's one guy. I'm sure someone will hold a rally or start a petition, but that someone isn't me. If they arrest a hundred people illegally, it would seem that there is a problem, but all things considered it doesn't amount to widespread oppression. If they arrest a hundred thousand people, send them off to labour camps and starve them , that's a real ****ing problem, and then it can be legitimately claimed that the government is tyrannical.
No offence to you personally, because this isn't directed at you, but it seems to me that alot of people having this fake innocence lost routine. I have resigned myself to the fact that the world is far from perfect, and that justice is not always done. That's not news. So, yes, the situation at Gitmo isn't right, and I dare you to say I'm defending it, but compared to the world standard for such things, it's not too bad either. It's not the gulags all over again. There are many other grievances that can be held against the United States government, and of a much grander nature, so the fate of a handful of individuals, most of who are as far as I know captured fighters, isn't really #1 on my list of things that stir up my sense of moral outrage.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
No. Every thread regarding America turns into a over patriotic defence of America's flaws by people too blind to see that it has any and who then complain about anti-americanism the second anyone attempts to correct their blinkered thinking.
You'll notice that any time someone complains about the flaws in Britains government almost all the Brits agree that there is a problem. That's why you don't here complaints about anti-United Kingdomism even though the UK is pretty much just as guilty of civil rights abuses and idiotic foreign policy.
Seriously EtherShock what on this thread was anti-american? Most of the comments about America's flaws were from Americans! Is it anti-American now to complain about your own countries policies? Have you let your nation sink so low as to claim that any refusal to toe the party line in unpatriotic?
No Kara, simply no. I believe people have the right to speak out about things that they don't like. I am not a red, white, and blue, flag waving patriot. Now settle down.
I haven't been here long enough to know exactly who is an American and who is not, so it appeared to me that it wasn't mostly Americans *****ing about this particular topic. If you have participated in the political discussions I have, then you have an idea of my stances regarding America, and that is there is a problem, always.
I agree that racial profiling is not a good idea. It's only opening up the door for abuse, not to mention it would bite us in the ass when a non-muslim/non-Arab tries their hand at terrorism, ala Timothy McVeigh. It's leaving the back door open.
-
And if you start racially profiling arabs the terrorists will simply use black muslims and sneak by without detection.
Nah, they would just be racially profiled for something else. ;7
@Rictor: Aldo cleared up what you were trying to say. Sorry if I misunderstood, but you were not very clear. Please try and be a little more clear about what you're trying to say next time, ok? :)
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
How on earth did we start debating religious profiling from a topic about Political ignorance?
becuase they're the same thing :D
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
It seems to me like every thread regarding America turns into an anti-American rant. :blah:
if you think americans telling other american's that they're being stupid is anti-americanism then you have issues
-
OK, so maybe I was a little hasty in that response. I thought I cleared up this misunderstanding in my last post.
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
No Kara, simply no. I believe people have the right to speak out about things that they don't like. I am not a red, white, and blue, flag waving patriot. Now settle down.
I haven't been here long enough to know exactly who is an American and who is not, so it appeared to me that it wasn't mostly Americans *****ing about this particular topic. If you have participated in the political discussions I have, then you have an idea of my stances regarding America, and that is there is a problem, always.
Firslty, IMO it's worth nothing criticising America is not anti-American. It's just criticism; it's human nature to examine what is wrong and try to (suggest ways to) fix it.
There are 2 reasons - IMHO - why it's mostly America, or more correctly the USA, that's criticised. Firstly it's because the US is the worlds sole superpower and has more influence over nations than any other (note that most people will resent any nation having a sway over their nation - such as in terms of foreign policy- in this way); One result being that perceived mistakes of the US will often have a rebound effect on other nations. Iraq being the easiest example. Another result being that people are more sensitive to the US' faults through national pride - defining our nations good points whilst comparing the US' (as the dominant nation on Earth) bad points.
The other reason is the US leadership postures the country as being a bastion and indeed bringer of 'freedom and liberty', labelling other nations as evil. In doing so, it opens up the policies of the US to the highest level of scrutiny, as it's a nation that purports to be the epitome of freedom.
I think most people are - to a degree - blinded to their own nations faults through a combination of pride and the simple fact they live there. I know I'm guilty of it sometimes myself; I support the NHS and hold it highly (they did a brilliant job when my dad was ill), but at the same time I'm aware it does need a lot of reform and is being ****ed up be the government.
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
No Kara, simply no. I believe people have the right to speak out about things that they don't like. I am not a red, white, and blue, flag waving patriot. Now settle down.
Then why label people speaking out as anti-americanism? That term should leave a nasty taste in your mouth as it's typically used in an attempt to silence any opposition to George Bush and his policies. If you pay attention you'll notice that most people who get complained at for being anti-american are actually trying to get America to shape up and act the way it should.
Originally posted by EtherShock
I haven't been here long enough to know exactly who is an American and who is not, so it appeared to me that it wasn't mostly Americans *****ing about this particular topic. If you have participated in the political discussions I have, then you have an idea of my stances regarding America, and that is there is a problem, always.
Then why assume that it's anti-americanism when you had no idea of the nationalities of those involved? It's pretty obvious that Kazan is American. The use of the word "we" instead of "you" should have told you that much but to be frank the nationality of the speaker shouldn't matter one jot as to whether the speaker is right or wrong.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
If the americans are stupid enough to only be targetting arabs after knowing that two of the July 21 bombers were black then I doubt they'd even stop the next plot at all.
The fact most Americans believed some of the 9/11 terrorists to be of Iraqi Citizenship without Bush having even to specifically say it is all you need to know about how Americans are informed.
Maybe if the 200 FBI Agents invstigating the Clinton impeachment had instead been returning those calls from Flight Schools about guys who wanted to fly but didn't care about landing, things may be very different right now.
And Karajorma, regarding your post about Americans being too lazy to vote, I don't think people are too lazy or uninterested, they just have a decent choice. I mean, loopy right wing Republicans, Democrats who are running scared of said Republiacans, or some indipendant they've never heard of, who would you choose ?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Either you were talking about racial profiling or you're the kind of idiot who believes all muslims are arabs.
If you're so blind that you can't even understand that I wasn't talking about only one thing, they you don't even deserve a response.
@Aldo - I see you have some better ideas on how to locate terrorists? Why focus on anytihng we we can just thow are net wide and let the buggers slip trough the holes? Oh, that's right, I forgot - the US prolyl doesn't have the resources for a general, all out search?
-
Originally posted by Ulala I don't know, but this thread could sure use some more asterisks! **** this and **** that and **** everyone that mentions an idea or opinion that you don't agree with or find to be of lower intelligence than you're used to. **** them and **** their families instead of politely explaining the loophole or error in their thought(s), **** them because they're so ****ing idiotic and don't deserve to breathe let alone post their thoughts here on this public forum.
**** Americans too since ****ing them will solve every ****ing problem we have with them. :rolleyes:
Well said! >) I totally and completely agree. :D
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Firslty, IMO it's worth nothing criticising America is not anti-American. It's just criticism; it's human nature to examine what is wrong and try to (suggest ways to) fix it.
There are 2 reasons - IMHO - why it's mostly America, or more correctly the USA, that's criticised. Firstly it's because the US is the worlds sole superpower and has more influence over nations than any other (note that most people will resent any nation having a sway over their nation - such as in terms of foreign policy- in this way); One result being that perceived mistakes of the US will often have a rebound effect on other nations. Iraq being the easiest example. Another result being that people are more sensitive to the US' faults through national pride - defining our nations good points whilst comparing the US' (as the dominant nation on Earth) bad points.
The other reason is the US leadership postures the country as being a bastion and indeed bringer of 'freedom and liberty', labelling other nations as evil. In doing so, it opens up the policies of the US to the highest level of scrutiny, as it's a nation that purports to be the epitome of freedom.
I think most people are - to a degree - blinded to their own nations faults through a combination of pride and the simple fact they live there. I know I'm guilty of it sometimes myself; I support the NHS and hold it highly (they did a brilliant job when my dad was ill), but at the same time I'm aware it does need a lot of reform and is being ****ed up be the government.
good points there.
My country is going down the drain. Eh politicians sold half the country and stole the cash. We don't even own a SINGLE BANK in our country! not to mention they kiss the asses of some local superpowers and are runing it into ruin.
Even our war of liberation is being turned into a evil endavour and our greatest generals set to Haag to answer for crimes they didn't commit! Even our former (now dead) president has been accused of genocide (with no small help from our current president who hated the mans guts and is sleeping in 10 beds at the same time..if you get my meaning)
Tragic...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
If you're so blind that you can't even understand that I wasn't talking about only one thing, they you don't even deserve a response.
Originally posted by TrashMan
Well, where would you look for terrorists if all the previos terrorist were of arab origin? Among the arab population of course.
Originally posted by TrashMan
Allright, MOST terrorists attacking the US are of Arab origin. And as far as I recall nearly all were muslim.
If 905 of potential terrorists come from a specific race/religion then it stands to reasn that by focusing most of your search on that specific group you will have higher chanced of finding them then if you focus equalyl on all.
Originally posted by TrashMan
but in 99% of cases they were muslims. I'm not talking about racial profiling, I'm talking about religious profiling.
:rolleyes:
As soon as Kara pointed out that the London bombers were not just Arab but black as well, you changed to and from 'Arab' and 'Muslim' and yet continued to equate both.
I'm not sure what the hell you're on about, but Kara seems to be spot on. The usual response to being outwitted is usually along the lines of 'I won't bother with a response', though, so I understand.
Originally posted by TrashMan
@Aldo - I see you have some better ideas on how to locate terrorists? Why focus on anytihng we we can just thow are net wide and let the buggers slip trough the holes? Oh, that's right, I forgot - the US prolyl doesn't have the resources for a general, all out search?
AFAIK you haven't suggested a way in which racial profiling would be used to find terrorists, yourself, so I suggest you find an improvement over the current methods first.
What you've suggested is pretty nonsensical; you've not distinguished between profiling Arabs or Muslims. In the former case it's only a tiny percentage of Arabs who even pose a risk, about the same as, say, white supremacists or militiamen. In the latter it's impossible to profile religion.
Both cases have been comprehensively disproven by the London bombings; in that case the terrorists were neither visibly extremist Muslims, nor were they solely Arab. In the case of the Madrid train bombings, the 4 suspects who killed themselves (excluding a 5th unidentified man, as there's no info on his origin) were (3) Moroccan - i.e. North African - and 1 Tunisian (North African/Arab). A further 4 suspects were Indian or Spanish of Indian origin. So of these 8, only 1 would have been covered under racial profiling (and religious profiling is simply impossible as it's easy to hide religion) - and most were regarded as westernised, again distancing themselves from detection by profiling.
So how do you catch terrorists? Same as any other criminal - follow the evidence. You have 2 agencies; the intelligence agency monitor all communications, extremist groups, etc - anyone who may pose a threat, and work at interpreting the hidden signals to plan an attack or inflitration of actual groups. And the police track suspicious purchases or activity reported by witnesses.
None of these require any form of 'profiling' to do; in fact profiling just removes attention from one segment of this intelligence. It's the case of taking a big net as mentioned, and replacing it with a smaller one that has big gaps at the edges. The difference being, of course, that a big net has accidental holes that can emerge - a small net has known and obvious holes that can be exploited.
-
Originally posted by Roanoke
And Karajorma, regarding your post about Americans being too lazy to vote, I don't think people are too lazy or uninterested, they just have a decent choice. I mean, loopy right wing Republicans, Democrats who are running scared of said Republiacans, or some indipendant they've never heard of, who would you choose ?
I'd read up on what the independant stood for. It's exactly the fact that most voters (and I'm singling out Americans here) are too lazy to do that which I'm complaining about. Instead they whine about the fact that they have no choice which is the biggest load of bull**** I've ever heard. The choice is there. It's just that they can't be bothered to look beyond the first couple of options.
I've said it before. Go in and spoil your ballots. If the election turns up 100 million spoiled ballots from people who usually don't vote that would show the independants that there is a huge number of voters out there who hate both parties.
Staying at home and not voting "because they're all the same" is no different from not voting because you can't be bothered. If the indies can't tell how many are in each camp then it's not worth sticking their neck out.
Originally posted by TrashMan
If you're so blind that you can't even understand that I wasn't talking about only one thing, they you don't even deserve a response.
Aldo's bang on the money here. You've been caught out and you're trying to say I'm being stupid to deflect attention.
Well fine. Assume I'm stupid. Explain to me how that wasn't a comment in favour of racial profiling of Arabs.
And you still haven't explained to me what the f**k religious profiling even is or how it could possibly work.
-
I mean, loopy right wing Republicans, Democrats who are running scared of said Republiacans, or some indipendant they've never heard of, who would you choose ?
None. I am (technically) an american and I didn't vote precisely because there was no real choice (that and the electoral votes in my state were going to go to Kerry anyway, so there still is no reason for me to vote).
-
I voted Badnarik.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Then why label people speaking out as anti-americanism? That term should leave a nasty taste in your mouth as it's typically used in an attempt to silence any opposition to George Bush and his policies. If you pay attention you'll notice that most people who get complained at for being anti-american are actually trying to get America to shape up and act the way it should.
Then why assume that it's anti-americanism when you had no idea of the nationalities of those involved? It's pretty obvious that Kazan is American. The use of the word "we" instead of "you" should have told you that much but to be frank the nationality of the speaker shouldn't matter one jot as to whether the speaker is right or wrong.
I really have nothing more to say. I know where I stand. I am a liberal and my message has been misinterpreted. I tried to clarify things. I screwed up, and if I'm going to be crucified for it, then go ahead and do so. I don't have to prove anything about where my political stances lie. I'm not going to continue with this drivel.
Now then...
I agree with aldo. The best way to approach terrorism is in the same manner you would any other crime.
People are so set here in the two party system that they don't know they have any other options. This has been going on since the founding of the nation. When Teddy Roosevelt ran for re-election under his Bull Moose party, he lost, probably because it was an independent party. It's possible that people didn't like him. I won't discount that. If Kane and Kodos ran under the two main parties, one of them would get elected.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
None. I am (technically) an american and I didn't vote precisely because there was no real choice (that and the electoral votes in my state were going to go to Kerry anyway, so there still is no reason for me to vote).
And how is that determined? Oh yeah. By voting. Vote for your Senators, your Representatives, your local authorities. So you don't vote for the president directly. Fix the part of the system you can.
Jesus, its like no one bothered to take year nine Civics.
Oh yeah. That's what this thread is about. :D
-
Jesus, its like no one bothered to take year nine Civics.
We have Government in year 10, but I aced it pretty easily. I also took AP Government in year 12 and I aced that pretty easily too (lots of people didn't though).
Vote for your Senators, your Representatives
But what if I don't like either of the two candidates running for the senate or the house? Then what's the point? It still revolves around the problem of the two party system.
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
I really have nothing more to say. I know where I stand. I am a liberal and my message has been misinterpreted. I tried to clarify things. I screwed up, and if I'm going to be crucified for it, then go ahead and do so. I don't have to prove anything about where my political stances lie.
I'm not out to crucify you. I'm simply pointing out why the term anti-amercanism has to be used with care. If you misused it I've got no further issue with the matter.
Originally posted by EtherShock
People are so set here in the two party system that they don't know they have any other options. This has been going on since the founding of the nation. When Teddy Roosevelt ran for re-election under his Bull Moose party, he lost, probably because it was an independent party. It's possible that people didn't like him. I won't discount that. If Kane and Kodos ran under the two main parties, one of them would get elected.
While that may be true, what can you ascribe this to apart from polictical ignorance and laziness?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
As soon as Kara pointed out that the London bombers were not just Arab but black as well, you changed to and from 'Arab' and 'Muslim' and yet continued to equate both.
I'm not sure what the hell you're on about, but Kara seems to be spot on. The usual response to being outwitted is usually along the lines of 'I won't bother with a response', though, so I understand.
Well, tha's coause I forgot to put muslims in my first posts. Allmost all terrorists were muslims. And many were arab. now I don't know the exact count, but I got the impression there was a lot of them. Sadly, I kinda don't try to remember that data.
The whole point I was trying to make wasn't about should the profiiling be done according to race or religion - but that the profiling should be done arrording to whatever would bring the best resullts.
if the pterrorists before were 99% black - search among blacks
if they weerr white/yellow/pink - search there.
if they were rich/poor/educated - search tehre!
So yes, I did make a mistake about asuming most were arab, but that was not the point of my reply anyway.
It's not about searching just there and ignoring others, it's about focusing your efforts in a given direction. Other directions are still being checked (alltoguh not that rigolously)
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Well, tha's coause I forgot to put muslims in my first posts. Allmost all terrorists were muslims. And many were arab. now I don't know the exact count, but I got the impression there was a lot of them. Sadly, I kinda don't try to remember that data.
Well, that's almost certainly complete bollocks. Define 'all terrorists'?
And explain how exactly you'd profile these 'muslim' terrorists when in both the Madrid and London bombings the bombers were described as being 'westernised' and not particularly (or appearing to be) religious?
Originally posted by TrashMan
The whole point I was trying to make wasn't about should the profiiling be done according to race or religion - but that the profiling should be done arrording to whatever would bring the best resullts.
if the pterrorists before were 99% black - search among blacks
if they weerr white/yellow/pink - search there.
if they were rich/poor/educated - search tehre!
Search what? Search how?
Originally posted by TrashMan
So yes, I did make a mistake about asuming most were arab, but that was not the point of my reply anyway.
It's not about searching just there and ignoring others, it's about focusing your efforts in a given direction. Other directions are still being checked (alltoguh not that rigolously)
So slacken off investigations on other areas? i.e. create nice big gaps for other terrorists, whether they're connected to Islamic fundamentalism or not? Nice big holes for sleeper cells to exploit?
How do you think police and intelligence services currently investigate potential terrorists? I'll tell you one way - they focus on the people identified by evidence. What a strange concept, eh?
In case you hadn't noticed, one of the points of police & intelligence counter-terrorism is to catch the next terrorist, not assume they'll be same as the last.
-
trashman completely missed my post about why racial profiling = dumb and behavioral profiling > racial profiling and behavioral profiling > random searches
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
if the pterrorists before were 99% black - search among blacks
if they weerr white/yellow/pink - search there.
if they were rich/poor/educated - search tehre!
And yet again you've failed to explain how to do this search. There are 2 million muslims in the UK. Explain to me how you're going to do this religious profiling you keep advocating.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
While that may be true, what can you ascribe this to apart from polictical ignorance and laziness?
Entrenched standards, groupthink, social conditioning, and all of the above. People will vote for the "lesser of two evils" if they don't like either candidate, when actually, the lesser most likely is an independent. Our education system has taught us to be good little sheep. Minnesota had an independent governor once, so there's still hope that people think outside the box.
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
Entrenched standards, groupthink, social conditioning, and all of the above. People will vote for the "lesser of two evils" if they don't like either candidate, when actually, the lesser most likely is an independent. Our education system has taught us to be good little sheep.
And the difference between all that and political ignorance is....? :p
-
Originally posted by BlackDove
I'm not American and even I have to know the basics of your government branches.
:wtf:
Don't complain. I begin learning American Studies at University, so I will have to know almost everything about American history and politics as well as I must switch my British-style English to American one.
Anyway, on topic, I don't really understand why they say Americans are 'dumb' in comparison with other nations. What I have seen from American members of this community belies it. This means these statistics are either false or HLPers are white-collars. :D
Once I read that seventy-some percent of Americans do not know where the Pacific Ocean is, which I highly doubt.
-
Remember that most of the regulars on HLP are not indicative of the average public.
We're dealing with people who are fans of a 7 year old reasonably unpopular, science fiction based computer game who like to talk about it on the internet. I doubt we're a normal demographic.
To be honest I'm quite proud of that cause I reckon that the average person on HLP has already shown higher than average intelligence simply from liking FS2 :D
-
Originally posted by karajorma
And the difference between all that and political ignorance is....? :p
There isn't any. I basically said I agree, but with more words.
-
Once I read that seventy-some percent of Americans do not know where the Pacific Ocean is, which I highly doubt.
That was the national geographic society survey. You would be surprised how poor most Americans' geography skills really are.
-
What do you expect from a bunch of people that would re-elect Bush and this guy
-
Listen, knowing geography and knowing politics are two vastly different things.
-
Both equate to the general level of ones knowledge of their own country. Plus the location of the Pacific ocean isn't really geography so much as a very basic, primary school fact.
-
So, if the survey I once read is true, it means that only 30 percent of U.S citizens knows a very basic, primary school fact.
I don't think that.
-
Originally posted by TopAce
Don't complain. I begin learning American Studies at University, so I will have to know almost everything about American history and politics as well as I must switch my British-style English to American one.
Anyway, on topic, I don't really understand why they say Americans are 'dumb' in comparison with other nations. What I have seen from American members of this community belies it. This means these statistics are either false or HLPers are white-collars. :D
Bear in mind most Americans couldn't point to Iraq on a map.
-
There was a website where you could take a basic geography test. Let me see if I can find it...
Ah, here (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/geosurvey/highlights.html) it is.
You can also skip (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/geosurvey/templates/question_1.html) the intro and get right to the survey.
I got a perfect score. ^_^
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Well, that's almost certainly complete bollocks. Define 'all terrorists'?
And explain how exactly you'd profile these 'muslim' terrorists when in both the Madrid and London bombings the bombers were described as being 'westernised' and not particularly (or appearing to be) religious?
//I was talking about US terrorists only... check my previous posts dammit!
Search what? Search how?
/// Do I look Like Sherlock Holmes to you? If I had all the answers and knowledge to find terrorists I would be working in the CIA by now.
trashman completely missed my post about why racial profiling = dumb and behavioral profiling > racial profiling and behavioral profiling > random searches
And yo ucompletely missed mine. It's not the question of what kind of profling it is, but that profiling should be then. Behaviour, race, religions, marital status, financial situation, previous crimial records, etc - everything goes into the equation!
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I was talking about US terrorists only... check my previous posts dammit!
And the terrorists in America aren't going to do the same thing?
Originally posted by TrashMan
Do I look Like Sherlock Holmes to you? If I had all the answers and knowledge to find terrorists I would be working in the CIA by now.
You're the one who claimed to have the answer of using religious profiling in the first place. Now you claim ignorance as a defence. If you know nothing about the subject maybe you shouldn't have opened your mouth to tell us we were all wrong in the first place :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Roanoke
Bear in mind most Americans couldn't point to Iraq on a map.
...of Iraq... :(
-
Originally posted by Kosh
But what if I don't like either of the two candidates running for the senate or the house? Then what's the point? It still revolves around the problem of the two party system.
Its like... a brick wall.
Get involved in your local political systems. Get the candidates you like put up there for election. This isn't rocket science. Political change, rebuilding party and candidtate platforms and the like don't happen when you vote for the President. They happen when you vote for your mayor, your county/parrish commisioners, and your party's regional committee.
The only thing that is absolutely certain is that you can't change anything, you can't fix anything, you can't get a candidate you like if you don't get involved and do something.
-
Vote for a third-party candidate. If enough people do that, the two major parties are bound to notice. Best case scenario, your third-party candidate wins. If not, the hope is that the third-party candidate will induce enough competition to motivate the major parties to do the things the third-party candidate promises to do.
-
if nothing else, you have gone to the trouble of saying that "I hate both major cadidates but I still care enough in general to go to the trouble of getting up off my ass and voteing"
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
if nothing else, you have gone to the trouble of saying that "I hate both major cadidates but I still care enough in general to go to the trouble of getting up off my ass and voteing"
:nod: That's pretty much what I've been saying since the start of this thread.
If you don't vote you have no right to complain about how voting doesn't change anything.
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
There was a website where you could take a basic geography test. Let me see if I can find it...
Ah, here (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/geosurvey/highlights.html) it is.
You can also skip (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/geosurvey/templates/question_1.html) the intro and get right to the survey.
I got a perfect score. ^_^
18 ou of 20. I can only blame myself for not knowing the population of the U.S, I estimated it to be between 500 and 750 million, to my mistake. The other mistake was also a fault of mine, I got the 'westernmost city' question fooled me, I read 'G' as 'B'. I should have taken this survey after a coffee or some kind of breakfast.
Anyway, I can now see that Mexican and US citizens got the lowest score in general. It is surprising that only 25% Americans knew the answer for the first question.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
//I was talking about US terrorists only... check my previous posts dammit!
Only because the rest of the worlds' experience proves your little profiling criteria to be complete bollocks. So what, there are no black or white Muslims (on the issue of race/religious) in the US who'd be profiled?
Or are you seriously suggesting domestic anti-terrorism should ignore lessons learnt in other western countries facing the same type of threat?
Originally posted by TrashMan
/// Do I look Like Sherlock Holmes to you? If I had all the answers and knowledge to find terrorists I would be working in the CIA by now.
You're the one assuming profiling would be in some way better; don't you have any factual evidence to support that?
You've suggested targeting a specific ethnic/religious group without any actual inclining of what you'd do with that targeting - put surveillance on every house? Track credit card receipts ending in 'al-Something'?
Profiling simply puts on the blinkers of intelligence services.
Oh, and behavioural profiling != racial (or otherwise) profiling. The most obvious thing being that behavioural profiling is performed upon specific targeting individuals (i.e. requires evidence to justify and then perform it - including the basis of the initial profile and the basis for building the suspects profile), whereas racial, religious, etc profiling is generalized and does not require any form of supporting evidence beyond presupposition.
-
Originally posted by TopAce
18 ou of 20. I can only blame myself for not knowing the population of the U.S, I estimated it to be between 500 and 750 million, to my mistake. The other mistake was also a fault of mine, I got the 'westernmost city' question fooled me, I read 'G' as 'B'. I should have taken this survey after a coffee or some kind of breakfast.
Anyway, I can now see that Mexican and US citizens got the lowest score in general. It is surprising that only 25% Americans knew the answer for the first question.
<40% British know where the Pacific is!! :mad:
I got El Nino wrong tho.
Probably wouldn't have known Argentina if it wasn't for the Falklands.
Seems the Swedes are pretty clued up.
-
The way geography and history are taught in the UK I'm not surprised that the Brits know very little about it.
The fact that every single history lesson I ever had managed to make the subject seem boring is a crime. History should always be an interesting subject. It's bacically wars, murders, political backstabbing and every other plot element you could ever want in a movie. How on Earth you make history boring is beyond me.
-
I got 19 out of 20. I thought Christians fell behind Buddhists.
-
Same here.
I'd actually argue that there are probably more Buddhists and the reason the "official number" is less is because the People's Republic of China still doesn't admit to the Han being religious.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
You're the one who claimed to have the answer of using religious profiling in the first place. Now you claim ignorance as a defence. If you know nothing about the subject maybe you shouldn't have opened your mouth to tell us we were all wrong in the first place :rolleyes:
You want detailed instructions in triplicate?
What? If someone doesn't have all the answers and complete and total knowledge on a subject, he's not allowed to say anything about it. Not even rough ideas?
Well, in that case you should never, EVER open your mouth or touch your keyboard.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
You want detailed instructions in triplicate?
What? If someone doesn't have all the answers and complete and total knowledge on a subject, he's not allowed to say anything about it. Not even rough ideas?
Well, in that case you should never, EVER open your mouth or touch your keyboard.
If someone isn't able to understand the basics of the issue, then they're not likely to be able to make a valuable contribution, are they?
If you're not able to understand the alternative and basis behind your 'rough idea', why the hell are you arguing so vehemently for it?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
If someone isn't able to understand the basics of the issue, then they're not likely to be able to make a valuable contribution, are they?
If you're not able to understand the alternative and basis behind your 'rough idea', why the hell are you arguing so vehemently for it?
Good point.
-
20/20. Didn't even have to guess. ROFLMAO at the westernmost city question; I had to double-check that the compass pointing north actually pointed up. How people can miss some of that stuff is beyond me.
Originally posted by mikhael
I got 19 out of 20. I thought Christians fell behind Buddhists.
Christians outnumber other religions because of the extensive missionary and colonial ties throughout the world. Christians account for almost all of the Americas, Europe, Russia, as well as making up a sizable percentage of nearly every other country on Earth, so of course they are the biggest. Roughly 2 billion Christians in the world the last I checked.
And stop this stupid profiling debate. Kazan is right, using the slightest bit of intelligence (behavorial profiling) trumps both racial and random sampling every time.
-
Hey, Wild Fragaria, I have something to say to you:
Welcome to HLP, newcomer. We, the proud and little FreeSpace community, are glad that there are still people interested in this game. If you do not happen to be particularly interested in this game, you should stop reading the text in italic.
It is a general tradition at HLP that we zap the newest member using a weapon like this:
:welcome:
That said we modified the original GTVA beam cannon which is hazardless for friendly fire. The beam we fired at you was successfully absorbed by your Newbie Protection Shield technology(developed in January, 2002). Use the power you absorbed to contribute to the work of the community. To find you way how to assist the HLP people, go to FRED Academy (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,28122.0.html) and make a foray.
Enjoy your stay and keep your Newbie Protection System active all the time until you are officially promoted to Senior Member. Avoid asking about FreeSpace 3. Do a search and you will know why.
Thank you for reading all this piece of writing, let me wish you good luck and a happy stay!
Comment on thread:
This is going quite out of control, I think.
-
Thanks for your welcome treat, TopAce.
-
It's a tradition. I was the fastest to do this this time..
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
You want detailed instructions in triplicate?
What? If someone doesn't have all the answers and complete and total knowledge on a subject, he's not allowed to say anything about it. Not even rough ideas?
I expect you to have some knowledge of the subject you are pontificating about. You have so far demonstated that you have none.
You're telling us all that religious profiling is the greatest thing since sliced bread and yet you are unable to even tell us the slightest details of what it is. I don't want detailed instructions. I want a broad idea of what religious profiling is. All you can tell me is that religious profiling is great and is the answer to everything but when someone asks you (repeatedly) what religious profiling is you simply repeat the empty rhetoric about how it's great and how it's what the CIA should do.
I'm asking you to explain in one paragraph what religious profiling is. If you can't do that then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you don't even know what it is in the slightest. And if you don't know what it is, the question has to be why should I or anyone else pay the slightest bit of attention to your assertions that it's what the intelligence services should do.
Originally posted by TrashMan
Well, in that case you should never, EVER open your mouth or touch your keyboard.
If I know nothing about a subject you can guarantee that I don't say anything or at least state that I know nothing about the subject. But then I'm willing to consider the fact that I might be wrong about something and I'm willing to educate myself about the matter at hand before I talk about it.
I see no point in acting as though I know everything or as if I'm infallible. I'm neither.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
The way geography and history are taught in the UK I'm not surprised that the Brits know very little about it.
The fact that every single history lesson I ever had managed to make the subject seem boring is a crime. History should always be an interesting subject. It's bacically wars, murders, political backstabbing and every other plot element you could ever want in a movie. How on Earth you make history boring is beyond me.
Well there's also development, innovation, etc. It is boring here as well, no surprise. I had two good history teachers all through my education. I threw a geography bee when I was in 8th grade because I thought it would negatively affect me. It was a preliminary in class before the school one. I didn't need to be picked on any more than I already had been. I still remember the question. A lot of people don't care about academic knowledge and that is the problem. Stigmas agains smarts and reactions like mine back then, also are.
Percetanges are percentages though and can be very deceiving. 3,250 people total is not a large sample given the variables. I wonder how the Swedes teach history? I think it's just simply the education system entirely that results in such dismal scores.
-
Well, I'm crap at geography, but that's not because of the teaching, it's just because I have no sense of direction whatsoever.
As for history, I agree Kara, History only just started to get interesting in around the third year, when we were learning about Sutton Hoo and the lives of the people who lived there, but simply remembering a string of dates, places and people never really connected me to it, which is a pity, since I find it fascinating now :(
-
Originally posted by TopAce
So, if the survey I once read is true, it means that only 30 percent of U.S citizens knows a very basic, primary school fact.
I don't think that.
We took that sample survery in my AP Econ class. Except for me a couple of other people, everyone else has problems with it. Most people only got about half of the questions right.
-
I always liked history, oddly enough. Cause-and-effect seems to appeal to me.
Admittedly it was more the bloody bits of history, though.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
We took that sample survery in my AP Econ class. Except for me a couple of other people, everyone else has problems with it. Most people only got about half of the questions right.
What's an AP Econ class? I guess Econ is economy, but what is AP?
-
applied?
-
AP means "Advanced Placement". AP classes are college-level courses offered in high school (or "university-level" for the non-Americans). The College Board issues a standardized test for each of the courses. I took them in US History, English Literature, and US Government.
-
AP Econ = Advanced Placement Economics
Basically it is a university level class taught in high school.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I expect you to have some knowledge of the subject you are pontificating about. You have so far demonstated that you have none.
//// that's what you think. And you're intilted to your oppinion, regardless how wrong it is :D
You're telling us all that religious profiling is the greatest thing since sliced bread and yet you are unable to even tell us the slightest details of what it is. I don't want detailed instructions. I want a broad idea of what religious profiling is. All you can tell me is that religious profiling is great and is the answer to everything but when someone asks you (repeatedly) what religious profiling is you simply repeat the empty rhetoric about how it's great and how it's what the CIA should do.
Sigh..I never said that.
by trashMan
The whole point I was trying to make wasn't about should the profiiling be done according to race or religion - but that the profiling should be done arrording to whatever would bring the best resullts.
Religion, behavior, race, x, y, z, combination of all said- I don't care..Whatever works. But I do think it's best to take as many factors in as possible.
If someone isn't able to understand the basics of the issue, then they're not likely to be able to make a valuable contribution, are they?
If you're not able to understand the alternative and basis behind your 'rough idea', why the hell are you arguing so vehemently for it?[/quoteg
A lot of IF's (that return FALSE) there, ain't it Aldo? ;7
-
I believe there is an implication of truth in aldo's use of conditionals, if I have a handle on the English language to the extent I think I do.
-
[q]A lot of IF's (that return FALSE) there, ain't it Aldo? [/q]
What, no reply but an attempt to weasel out of answering? Poor form, indeed.
Go on, show us your wide understanding of what you're arguing for - so far you've not defined what it involves or how it's done.
Tell me how you select and apply the criteria for profiling. Tell me what profiling actually involves, particularly what is different about it compared to normal methodology. Rather than try to dodge the issue by saying 'x,y,z, I don't care', why don't you actually explain what you proposed in this very thread?
i.e. show that you have some incling of what you're suggesting rather than vague generalisations. Educate us on what you think you're asking for, because I'm not sure you even know.
Oh, and qualify
[q]
//// that's what you think. And you're intilted to your oppinion, regardless how wrong it is [/q]
that little gem there by doing so.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
that's what you think. And you're intilted to your oppinion, regardless how wrong it is :D
What opinion? You may be the world's greatest authority on the subject but you have demonstrated none of that knowledge here. That is a fact not an opinion.
We have repeatedly asked you to explain in more detail and every time you have evaded the question. When I flat out told you what I expected could be regarded as a demonstration of your knowledge on the subject you simply ignored it and carried on attacking everyone else.
If you want my opinion on the matter (actually you're going to get it whether you want it or not) it is that you actually haven't got the faintest clue what religious profiling is but you are far too stubborn to simply admit that fact.
You are of course welcome to prove that opinion false but you can't prove it's wrong until you actually provide some proof that you do know something about the subject.
-
SIGH!
What is there to explain??
Do I have to draw it to you? Spell it?
Listen carefully, this is the LAST time I'm saying it.
Whe whole point (message) of my posting was that profiling should be made by whatever method/combination of methods gives the best results.
This doesn't need no further explanation.
And why are you so stuck up on religios/racial profiling? I mentioned them only as examples..
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
SIGH!
What is there to explain??
Do I have to draw it to you? Spell it?
Listen carefully, this is the LAST time I'm saying it.
Whe whole point (message) of my posting was that profiling should be made by whatever method/combination of methods gives the best results.
This doesn't need no further explanation.
And why are you so stuck up on religios/racial profiling? I mentioned them only as examples..
Yes, spell it out. Explain it. As you would to a small child who's curious and has asked you, with their big doe-like eyes, 'what's profiling Mr TrashMan?'.
Show you know something beyond repeating the word 'profiling' and explain what you think will be done and how that will be done.
What do you define as the 'best results'? What are the 'methods' you talk of?
And the reason for picking up on religious profiling is because it's inherently unreliable, and because you suggested it without actually qualifying how it could be carried out (which is kind of a prerequisite for trying to justify saying how well it would work). Racial profiling (again) because you suggested it, and it's also as good an example as any of the fallacies of profiling.
I mean, you suggested 'focusing' - whatever that means - on Arabs then Muslims, then both. Explain how this would work.
-
*is looking forward to reading a long and intelligible explanation*
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Whe whole point (message) of my posting was that profiling should be made by whatever method/combination of methods gives the best results.
You mentioned racial profiling as the thing that should be done. Now that you've realised that your position is untentable you're dragging in other forms of profiling and claiming that you were including those all along.
The point that was made in this thread is that the police shouldn't do anything different from the way they stop other criminals who are about to commit a crime. You work on the evidence and follow up leads.
I'll paraphrase my original comment. What the f**k is this combination of methods gives the best results profiling anyway. Describe it to me. You're now claiming that it is the answer rather than solid detective work. What is it? How does it work.
In one paragraph or more if you need it please.
Originally posted by TrashMan
And why are you so stuck up on religios/racial profiling? I mentioned them only as examples..
Do you not even remember your previous comments? Let me jog your memory. Kosh says that racial profiling is bad. your response to this is.
Originally posted by TrashMan
Well, where would you look for terrorists if all the previos terrorist were of arab origin? Among the arab population of course. That makes sense. And if it makes sense then it isn't rasistic.
That is not a comment suggesting holistic profiling (or whatever you're calling this new weird profiling you've invented that is an amalgum of every other kind of profiling). You've plain and simple stated that since the terrorists were arabs the police should look at arabs for new terrorists. That is racial profiling and you were advocating it.
When everyone explained to you that not all muslims are terrorists you came back with this.
Originally posted by TrashMan
If 905 of potential terrorists come from a specific race/religion then it stands to reasn that by focusing most of your search on that specific group you will have higher chanced of finding them then if you focus equalyl on all.
Advocasy of racial/religious profiling, plain and simple. At no point in any of your statements at this point did you mention holistic profiling or any of this stuff you're talking about now.
That's why we're concentrating on racial/religious profiling. You even claimed that the police must have SOME criteria on which to profile. Now you're pushing this holistic profiling crap but quite frankly I can't see any way of doing it that won't end up with millions of people on this big profiling list of yours.
-
Sigh...
I'll try to be short since I have neither the time or will to indulge you:
@Aldo -
you don't know what best result means? Geeze...even childern should know that..
But the best result would be something that provides/is excepted to provide the greatest chance of detecting/finding/stoping a terrortist.
Or wiat - do I have to explain what percentage means too?
AS for an example of profiling:
you take into consideration the age, background, education, race, religion, and know terrorist training and recruiting methods and so forth to try to find where to look for potential threats.
A fast example: (if you're lokign for an Al'Quaida member that stem from your own country)
You're looking for a well educated man 20-40, possibly from a rich family with a vilolent family background. He probaly does a lot of trave and comes often into contact with imigrants from countries labeled as "risky". He allso probably has private religios tutoring and own a gun license. Etc, etc...
Tehre...Now goodby
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Sigh...
I'll try to be short since I have neither the time or will to indulge you:
@Aldo -
you don't know what best result means? Geeze...even childern should know that..
But the best result would be something that provides/is excepted to provide the greatest chance of detecting/finding/stoping a terrortist.
Or wiat - do I have to explain what percentage means too?
AS for an example of profiling:
you take into consideration the age, background, education, race, religion, and know terrorist training and recruiting methods and so forth to try to find where to look for potential threats.
A fast example: (if you're lokign for an Al'Quaida member that stem from your own country)
You're looking for a well educated man 20-40, possibly from a rich family with a vilolent family background. He probaly does a lot of trave and comes often into contact with imigrants from countries labeled as "risky". He allso probably has private religios tutoring and own a gun license. Etc, etc...
Tehre...Now goodby
How do you determine the religious background of an individual?
How do you determine a violent family background? Or a rich family background?
How do you determine contact with immigrants from 'risky' countries?
How do you define a 'risky' country?
How do you determine level of education (if said individual is an immigrant)?
How do you determine whether or not they've have private religious tutoring?
How do you determine the level of travel (particularly with EU nationals)?
How do you detect this information for illegal immigrants or individuals not on any official census list or voting register?
How important are the 'possiblys'; how do you weight them, how do you set the criteria for how a person matches the profile?
How do you build the profile? From a sample of about 20-40 known terrorists? (all of whom have vastly diverging backgrounds from your suggestion of a profile - and indeed from each other)
Most importantly - how do you determine all this information for a group comprising 2 million (UK) or more people?
When you 'find' this person, what do you do? how do you apply this
profiling to 'detect' them as a terrorist?
How does this provide the 'best result' compared to traditional methods (gathering evidence in order to identify individuals)?
EDIT; re. above
What is defined as 'stopping' a terrorist? I'll assume a court conviction or evidence of an attack - how does this increase the likelihood of it compared to normal methods?
EDIT; I forgot to add the simple question. You've defined what a profile is, but you've not defined what profiling is.
i.e. how is that profile applied and what you do with individuals meeting it.
-
trashman: which'd be like 5% of the population...
let's play the definition game; what is a terrorist?
-
Wow..I just figured your tactic. Burry someone with so many questions that he will have to spend hours writing responses to them and will prolyl loose the will to write anything.
If he doesn't respond then it will look like he's avoiding or not knowing the answers..
Very sneaky.
As for your questions - look in the dictionary or wikipedia - that's what they are for.
And just one thing before I leave this thread for good ( arguing with people I don't know over the internet in a endless debate does not appeal to me. I have better things to do with my time )
Normal police method - someone robs a bank/kills someone. Police comes, gathers evidence and try to find the crrok. Works, but not allways.
In the case of a suicide bomber - he guy is dead. If you find out wo he was you can't question him. You can try seraching his hme, investigating his frieds, etc,, etc..
Best case scenario - you might find someone he worked with but the damage has allready been done, many are dead. And you'll probably locate just 1 cell anyway. And since the cells know nothing about eachother, you're stuck.
When doing profiling you're investigating people who are most likely to be involved with (or are) terrorist. Standard police methoids apply here. you check the suspect and if you find nothing you move on to the next one. Slow method and requires a lot of work, but you can get to the terrorist BEFORE the damage is done and you are targeting all cells at the same time.
You can prevent something like 9/11 happening. With normal police methods you can only act after it.
Note that thise doesn't exclude eachtoher, as normal police methoids are still use in profiling. And the government has more than enough resources to hire more personall if needed.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Normal police method - someone robs a bank/kills someone. Police comes, gathers evidence and try to find the crrok. Works, but not allways.
In the case of a suicide bomber - he guy is dead. If you find out wo he was you can't question him. You can try seraching his hme, investigating his frieds, etc,, etc..
Best case scenario - you might find someone he worked with but the damage has allready been done, many are dead. And you'll probably locate just 1 cell anyway. And since the cells know nothing about eachother, you're stuck.
:lol: Are you really so foolish as to believe that policework can never prevent a crime? :lol:
Let me point out that the police in Madrid knew that the several Morroccans were trying to buy explosives as a result of typical police work but failed to follow up on the lead. The failure there was that they didn't follow up a lead (i.e they didn't do the correct police method).
The FBI were similarly aware of known terrorists taking flying lessons before 9/11 and similarly failed to follow up on a lead.
The failure in both cases was due to not following up pertinent leads not that they weren't doing this mumbo-jumbo profiling you're on about.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Wow..I just figured your tactic. Burry someone with so many questions that he will have to spend hours writing responses to them and will prolyl loose the will to write anything.
If he doesn't respond then it will look like he's avoiding or not knowing the answers..
Very sneaky.
Wow... I just figured out your tactic. Attempt to cover your arse by pretending the other person has some kind of heinous agenda when they point out flaws in your plan and then walk away with your head held high thinking "Sure showed them!". If you can't come up with answers to the questions and problems posed, your argument loses what little credibility it had to begin with, doesn't it?
-
A wise one stops arguing at this point. Who is wise?
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Wow..I just figured your tactic. Burry someone with so many questions that he will have to spend hours writing responses to them and will prolyl loose the will to write anything.
If he doesn't respond then it will look like he's avoiding or not knowing the answers..
Very sneaky.
As for your questions - look in the dictionary or wikipedia - that's what they are for.
So you can't answer them or illustrate any way in which they would assist or improve the investigationary process?
[q]
And just one thing before I leave this thread for good ( arguing with people I don't know over the internet in a endless debate does not appeal to me. I have better things to do with my time )
[/q]
If you can't come up with answers, just admit it. We won't laught at you or anything for it, there's no shame acknowledging when you don't know something. It's how we learn.
[q]
Normal police method - someone robs a bank/kills someone. Police comes, gathers evidence and try to find the crrok. Works, but not allways.
In the case of a suicide bomber - he guy is dead. If you find out wo he was you can't question him. You can try seraching his hme, investigating his frieds, etc,, etc..
Best case scenario - you might find someone he worked with but the damage has allready been done, many are dead. And you'll probably locate just 1 cell anyway. And since the cells know nothing about eachother, you're stuck.
[/q]
That's incorrect. Police method involves gathering evidence of the planning of a crime; with regards to terrorism it also involves the services of the intelligence services and the gathering of information from communications or agents within known extremist groups.
In the case of a suicide bomber specifically, we actually have an illustration of why this doesn't work; one of the 7/7 bombers was examined by MI5 and cleared of being a threat prior to blowing himself up. In this case he was identified by association, but there's not really any difference in the investigation process compared to whether he had been identified by profile (had he been identified as such, then there'd be even less evidence supporting the initial investigation).
In fact, all the London bombers (both 7/7 and 21/7) have been described as perfectly normal, westernised individuals by people who knew them (same also for the Madrid bombers IIRC) - there's no evidence that identifying them via profile would have highligthed them. It's highly unlikely, in fact, because any profile big enough to encompass such an ethnically (and demographically) diverse group of individuals would encapsulate such a massive group of people as to make invasive surveillance impossible due to time and power constraints of checking each and evey individual matching the profile. You seem to be making the assumption that it's easy to identify a terrorist by 'looking' (i.e. surface level investigation) at them, but that's simply not true as evidenced by the example in the previous paragraph.
Now, I'll give a real 'best case scenario' for current investigation methods.
(note; this is for an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist; I'll ignore the very obvious examples of other terrorists being stopped by police, such as ETA, IRA or November 17 arrests)
Agent X of MI5 identifies a known extremistpreacher 'A' (MI6 if said person is abroad). This identification is based upon using evidence - reports of extremist recruitment from concerned individuals - and thus the granting of legalising court documents (supplied due to supporting evidence) allowing investigation.
This point is less likely to be reached under profiling due to the time and cost constraints of investigating individuals as previously mentioned; in that case it may be that said individual is placed on a risk assessment pile for later investigation once they've completed going through the whole profile of, say, 500,000 people.
Using intelligence tools, MI5 gain access to the Mosque which A preaches at. Surveilliance devices are planted, or an undercover agent used. This agent observes close contact between A and another individual B.
Now, this in itself represents a bending of the rules in the sense that there's probably a bit of a lack of proof at this point - this is still however more evidence than possible to identify under profiling a large (massive) population
B is thus investigated; now the communications made by both A and B are being intercepted under warrant. M15 is probably co-ordinating with Special Branch at this point. This communication leads them to a group of individuals; say C,D,E and F. These 4 are now part of the surveillance operation.
C,D,E and F are observed buying fertiliser (or some other material useable for a bomb or terrorist device), or perhaps are seen meeting with another suspect. With this evidence, a warrant can be given to raid the premises. Special Branch & SO19 raid the premises, arrest the individuals and uncover evidence of a planned terrorist attack. Furthermore, there is now evidence that can be used to identify suspicious individuals (including illegal immigrants not known to be in the country, or suspicious individuals who entered the country under false ID), and prosecute them.
end result; one cell disrupted and captured, and a clearer idea of their recruitment process plus other suspects identified during the investigation.
you'll notice this outcome is not different from the best case profiling, where magically there are infinite officers to check out 100,000s or millions of suspects in no time atall, and somehow already have obtained the records they need to even match individuals to profiles (which incidentally means getting personal information from every individual in the country)
[q]
When doing profiling you're investigating people who are most likely to be involved with (or are) terrorist. Standard police methoids apply here. you check the suspect and if you find nothing you move on to the next one. Slow method and requires a lot of work, but you can get to the terrorist BEFORE the damage is done and you are targeting all cells at the same time.[/q]
How many hundred thosuand million 'suspects' does your profile create? You've not even explained how you'll take a population of millions and identify terrorists from it, nor what you'll do once you've completed your profile and actually managed to mine enough data to match individuals (using methods that usually require court orders due to their invasiveness - good luck getting 2 million search warrants on the basis of ethnicity or age alone)
I'm sure it's very effective to perform invasive surveillance on millions of people in an orwellian society with infinite resources and no human rights, but not in a real democratic country with what is known as an 'economy'.
Not to mention that sort of thing also tends to breed extremism by the inherent prejudice in the system.
You can prevent something like 9/11 happening. With normal police methods you can only act after it.
Note that thise doesn't exclude eachtoher, as normal police methoids are still use in profiling. And the government has more than enough resources to hire more personall if needed.
That's complete rubbish. Are you implying the police have never prevented the commission of a crime? what exactly do you think, for example, undercover officers do?
your suggestion is to hire thousands of extra officers for the purpose of profiling a population (i.e. investigating the senstivie personal information protected under privacy and civil/human rights law), when basic statistics tells you the vast majority (over 99%) of those suspects will be innocent and thus not worthy of police time.
In gathering this information, you not only breach human rights (because you can't get private information legally without some form of evidence of misdeed), but take all these thousands of officers and put them on a task where you know their time is wasted.
Furthermore, you remove all these excess officers (apparently a government has infinite resources to pay for these... strange, that) from being in a position to investigate suspects outside your profile (and there are - just see the London bombs.. or even white terrorists with a different cause). That is, suspects who might have actual evidence against them (y'know, the kind gathered in normal police work).
-
Originally posted by TopAce
A wise one stops arguing at this point. Who is wise?
Certainly not you for butting in with an unneeded and unwanted opinion :p
Why this point in particular? What's so special about this particular point in the argument that makes it wise for anyone to stop here?
Wisdom lies in stopping arguing when you realise you are wrong surely. Trashman changed his argument on two seperate occassions. Why wouldn't it have been wiser to stop arguing there?
-
I am only trying to calm you all down, this will only become worse.
-
Originally posted by TopAce
I am only trying to calm you all down, this will only become worse.
Worse? Define worse?
All I've done is express an opinion backed up with as much logic and factual evidence as I deem appropriate, and challenged an.other opinion where I feel it is factually or logically lacking.
I don't think that's a particularly bad thing to do within what is, after all, a debate.
-
Originally posted by TopAce
I am only trying to calm you all down, this will only become worse.
You're going about it all the wrong way by saing that anyone who doesn't shut up is stupid then. All that does is make everyone angry at you.
Originally posted by TopAce
A wise one stops arguing at this point. Who is wise?
Implying that anyone who doesn't immediately stop discussion isn't wise. Were you trying to get yourself flamed in order to get the thread closed?
Cause I'm not falling for it. I see no harm in continued rational discussion of the matter at hand.
-
As you wish, but do not be surprised if the 'Post Reply' button turns 'Closed'.
-
As long as everyone stays calm I see no reason why it should. In fact since Trashman has said that he's not coming back the thread is likely to simply fade away as long as you stop spamming it with comments about it being closed.
In fact without Trashman this thread has basically turned into an interesting social experiment to see whether the admins would rather annoy Aldo and I by closing it or you by leaving it open :p
I have of course Heisenberged it up by saying that :D
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I have of course Heisenberged it up by saying that :D
You dastard!
-
I want to open a joint called The Heisenburger. You won't know what condiments you're getting until you bite into the burger and the superposition of states collapses.