[TrashMan]

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)

[aldo_14]

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.

[Kazan]

trashman completely missed my post about why racial profiling = dumb and behavioral profiling > racial profiling and behavioral profiling > random searches

[karajorma]

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.

[EtherShock]

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.

[karajorma]

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....?

[TopAce]

Originally posted by BlackDove
I'm not American and even I have to know the basics of your government branches.

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.

Once I read that seventy-some percent of Americans do not know where the Pacific Ocean is, which I highly doubt.

[karajorma]

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

[EtherShock]

Originally posted by karajorma


And the difference between all that and political ignorance is....?

There isn't any. I basically said I agree, but with more words.

[Kosh]

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.

[redmenace]

What do you expect from a bunch of people that would re-elect Bush and this guy

[TopAce]

Listen, knowing geography and knowing politics are two vastly different things.

[aldo_14]

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.

[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.

[Roanoke]

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.

Bear in mind most Americans couldn't point to Iraq on a map.

[EtherShock]

There was a website where you could take a basic geography test. Let me see if I can find it...

Ah, here it is.

You can also skip the intro and get right to the survey.

I got a perfect score. ^_^

[TrashMan]

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!

[karajorma]

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

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Roanoke


Bear in mind most Americans couldn't point to Iraq on a map.

...of Iraq...

[mikhael]

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.