[aldo_14]

I always liked history, oddly enough.  Cause-and-effect seems to appeal to me.

Admittedly it was more the bloody bits of history, though.

[TopAce]

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?

[Bobboau]

applied?

[Ford Prefect]

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.

[Kosh]

AP Econ = Advanced Placement Economics


Basically it is a university level class taught in high school.

[TrashMan]

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

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?

[Ford Prefect]

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.

[aldo_14]

[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.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by TrashMan
that's what you think. And you're intilted to your oppinion, regardless how wrong it is

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.

[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..

[aldo_14]

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.

[TopAce]

*is looking forward to reading a long and intelligible explanation*

[karajorma]

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.

[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

[aldo_14]

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.

[kode]

trashman: which'd be like 5% of the population...

let's play the definition game; what is a terrorist?

[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.

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.

[karajorma]

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.

Are you really so foolish as to believe that policework can never prevent a crime?

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.

[Black Wolf]

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?

[TopAce]

A wise one stops arguing at this point. Who is wise?