# Muslims Allege Racial Profiling for 2010 Olympic Security Positions



## krustyrl (19 Jan 2010)

Here we go, curious to see what sort of thoughts and opinions are out there.  I think that if forever they failed any screening process they should in fact be denied this postion. 
Especially in this day and age and also the fact that it is a Global Event and all the worlds eyes will be on Vancouver during this time.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/01/18/bc-olympic-security-profiling-allegations.html#socialcomments


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jan 2010)

The 2010 Olympics *will be* a target for some terrorist group or another, probably for several. Security matters. I sincerely hope that the RCMP's Integrated Security Unit is doing whatever is necessary to ensure that people in 'security' positions are trustworthy.

Being found 'not trustworthy for this position' is *not* the same as being declared an enemy - it is likely that many recent immigrants cannot, quickly, be cleared for sensitive jobs. A 1% _rejection_ rate seems 'mild' to me; it suggests that 99% of the people who applied for jobs at the Olympics - many low paid and, therefore, attractive to newcomers - are 'trustworthy;' I think that number (99%) might be high.


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Jan 2010)

"Both men immigrants"

Welcome to Canada. How quickly they learn how things work here.


----------



## krustyrl (19 Jan 2010)

It's just that it irritates me to no end when the "trump-card" gets pulled in order to try and get what some want. 
Moreso in this case.!


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Jan 2010)

Here's my take. This may take a while, so bear with me.
A couple of weeks ago, my wife and I went to the USA. Security procedures are stringent in Vancouver Airport when boarding a flight for the the US. Your belt comes off, all pockets emptied and EVERYONE is patted down, no exceptions.
My wife is 56, she is a grandmother and she got patted down like a terrorist. There were people much older than I being patted down as well. That offends me. :rage:
What ticks me off is that in the race to be "politically correct" or "inclusive" COMMON SENSE has been EXCLUDED! As for this person being denied employment at the Olympic Games, too freakin bad. 
I think its high time we racially profiled. 56 year old grannies and 75 year old greatgrandads do not pose a threat.

My two cents. 

I note that one of the whiners is from Somalia and spent time in Yemen as a child. The last guy who tried to blow up a plane spent time in Yemen


----------



## Dean22 (19 Jan 2010)

Big Silverback said:
			
		

> Here's my take. This may take a while, so bear with me.
> A couple of weeks ago, my wife and I went to the USA. Security procedures are stringent in Vancouver Airport when boarding a flight for the the US. Your belt comes off, all pockets emptied and EVERYONE is patted down, no exceptions.
> My wife is 56, she is a grandmother and she got patted down like a terrorist. There were people much older than I being patted down as well. That offends me. :rage:
> What ticks me off is that in the race to be "politically correct" or "inclusive" COMMON SENSE has been EXCLUDED! As for this person being denied employment at the Olympic Games, too freakin bad.
> ...




Are you serious? Religous/Racial/Age profiling is shooting yourself in the foot. Especially as a country with security concerns.

What about the U.S. terrorist attack by white muslims?
What about the rising white terrorists in the U.K.?

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/AlQaeda39s-white-army-of-terror.3667425.jp

"HUNDREDS of British non-Muslims have been recruited by al-Qaeda to wage war against the West, senior security sources warned last night.
As many as 1,500 white Britons are believed to have converted to Islam for the purpose of funding, planning and carrying out surprise terror attacks inside the UK, according to one MI5 source."


Sure, let the 80 year old woman go pass she's old and a woman. There's no way she'll blow herself up.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-160805247/female-suicide-bombers-global.html


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Jan 2010)

I'm sick and tired of these whiners, that's all. Common sense has taken a back seat to "political correctness". That's why the 80 year old grandparents get searched along with the twentysomethings. Its ridiculous. It serves no purpose other than the airlines and those who are responsible for the security to say "we are doing something".


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jan 2010)

Big Silverback said:
			
		

> Here's my take. This may take a while, so bear with me.
> A couple of weeks ago, my wife and I went to the USA. Security procedures are stringent in Vancouver Airport when boarding a flight for the the US. Your belt comes off, all pockets emptied and EVERYONE is patted down, no exceptions.
> My wife is 56, she is a grandmother and she got patted down like a terrorist. There were people much older than I being patted down as well. That offends me. :rage:
> What ticks me off is that in the race to be "politically correct" or "inclusive" COMMON SENSE has been EXCLUDED! As for this person being denied employment at the Olympic Games, too freakin bad.
> ...



I have to disagree Big Silverback. Like you, I recently traveled to the USA; I was patted down and my (one, small) carry on bag was searched - thoroughly in both cases and I was gratified with the attention.

I am pushing 70 years of age but I do not doubt, for a second, that there are some neat, tidy, well dressed, Caucasian senior citizens out there who are *enemies* of the American led West and who are inclined to and, if we relax our *total* watch, will undertake the task of bombing an aircraft. I expect our security people to screen all of us, carefully and thoroughly and then go an extra mile with those who, by virtue of their _profile_, might be a tiny bit more suspicious.  The 'trick,' I think, is to be thorough and complete in every case and then be a bit more thorough with a few folks.


----------



## mariomike (19 Jan 2010)

Big Silverback said:
			
		

> My wife is 56, she is a grandmother and she got patted down like a terrorist. There were people much older than I being patted down as well. That offends me. :rage:



A Silver Cross Mother should be flying Air Canada for free in First Class. Same goes for Via Rail.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Jan 2010)

mariomike said:
			
		

> A Silver Cross Mother should be flying Air Canada for free in First Class. Same goes for Via Rail.



Thank you.


----------



## VIChris (19 Jan 2010)

From the article: 





> If the two men want to know why they were rejected, they must send a letter to the RCMP's access to information co-ordinator in Ottawa, Cote said.



So the real reason is available, but rather than wait for it, the two guys jump to conclusions and make a stink in the press. Seems like the kind of level headed judgement we'd want in security screeners...

And who the hell would write an article without all the facts? I know, dumb question, my bad.


----------



## Snakedoc (19 Jan 2010)

mariomike said:
			
		

> A Silver Cross Mother should be flying Air Canada for free in First Class. Same goes for Via Rail.



I definitely wouldn't be opposed to this, however...



			
				Big Silverback said:
			
		

> I think its high time we racially profiled.



Where's the common-sense in this?  Unless profiling is done with solid evidence, this is a slippery slope and exactly what the enemy wants from us.  They've disrupted travel and trade (through the sometimes ridiculous but increasingly necessary security measures we put up), and if we continue with things like racial profiling, thats an attack on our core values and the very make-up our country is built on.  The more of ourselves that we lose the more we become like them.... Unless I missed the tone of sarcasm in your comment, this is an area we need to tread very carefully in...


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Jan 2010)

Definition of Politically Correct 
The following is the 2007 winning entry from an annual contest at Texas A&M University calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term. 

The 2007 term was ‘Political Correctness”.

The winner wrote:

"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Jan 2010)

Big Silverback, I also totally disagree with you. Next time I get on a plane they can strip me and everyone else butt naked for all I care.
You do one, you do all.

I just wanna land.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Jan 2010)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Big Silverback, I also totally disagree with you. Next time I get on a plane they can strip me and everyone else butt naked for all I care.
> You do one, you do all.
> 
> I just wanna land.


I hear you Bruce, but resepctfully disagree. I want to land as well, but what is the purpose of the "no fly lists"? Apparently none as the Nigerian chap was on  it, but was allowed to board anyways.
I think the whole situation is absurd.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Jan 2010)

I think you made my point about "do one, do all", as 'no fly lists' are certainly a joke.

Gee, I wanna risk my life on that none of those nasty folk know how to make fake ID......


----------



## Nauticus (20 Jan 2010)

Big Silverback said:
			
		

> Here's my take. This may take a while, so bear with me.
> A couple of weeks ago, my wife and I went to the USA. Security procedures are stringent in Vancouver Airport when boarding a flight for the the US. Your belt comes off, all pockets emptied and EVERYONE is patted down, no exceptions.
> My wife is 56, she is a grandmother and she got patted down like a terrorist. There were people much older than I being patted down as well. That offends me. :rage:
> What ticks me off is that in the race to be "politically correct" or "inclusive" COMMON SENSE has been EXCLUDED! As for this person being denied employment at the Olympic Games, too freakin bad.
> ...



I disagree. Just because a former terrorist was from Yemen, doesn't mean you can start discriminating against all people from Yemen. 

To be honest, I'm all for patting down everybody. Regardless of age, gender, race, etc, checking EVERYONE should in theory be more safe and more accurate than checking only randomly selected people. And if there's one thing we've learned, it's that you cannot be too safe when it comes to air travel.


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Jan 2010)

Big Silverback said:
			
		

> I think its high time we racially profiled.



I agree, enough of being PC, we know how how Israel's airline operates. EDITed to say, I too flew out of the USA on 4 Jan (just 9 or 10 days after the underwear bomber) from Logan in Boston. I was patted down and searched in detail, which I fully supported. All must be searched, but those racially proflied should have particular attention payed to them. A person's body language goes a long way.

I will conclude by saying, we are only as strong as our weakest link, whether its at an airport, or the Olympics. Many people in Canada feel Canada is loved worldwide by everyone, and no one would ever think of hurting us. We know this is wrong, but in the upcoming weeks, should an attempt of an attack take place or worse one be carried out, perhaps then will Canada as a whole come to terms with the reality of this war, and stop worrying about offending a minority. In my view the only ones concerned, are the ones with something to hide.

For the first time ever in my life, I was concerned for my flying safety.

OWDU


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Jan 2010)

Everyone should be searched (hopefully by someone getting paid more than minimum wage).

People need to realize that if 9 out of 10 of the last airplane terrorist bombers were white males that surprise white males are bound to get the most attention.  Sure that 1 out of 10 might be a female asian but when you do the math bets are on the white males.

As respectful as I am to a 75 year old flying it's not acceptable to give them a free pass through security- They need to fall under the same security umbrella as everyone else.  At the same time people who's background falls in that 9 out of 10 merit extra attention.

"But that's racial profiling!"   It probably is but how offended would you be if that extra attention saved you your family and a few hundred others from getting blown out of the air?

If someone from the 9 out of 10 group doesn't like it they need to turn around and make more of an effort to sort out the bad apples and improve the name for themselves.


----------



## FastEddy (21 Jan 2010)

First of all, for our Home Grown Terrorist, any person regardless of Age, Race, Sex or Appearance is capable of Terrorist Acts, and for you unacquainted or involved with detection, may I point out that the Bomber is useally the most nondescript, Innocent looking person in the crowd, until he/she screams out "DEATH TO AMERICA.

You B***h and Complain if Security was not carried out or enforced.
You B***h and Complain if it is.

For those concerned about Racial or Religious Profiling just remember.

Not All Muslims are Terrorists.

But all Terrorists are Muslim.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jan 2010)

Are you trying to tell me that the IRA, Red Army Faction, and all those guys in the FLQ were muslims?


----------



## gcclarke (21 Jan 2010)

Good point. Let's be sure to get all Catholics, all people who speak french, and all germans. 

Oh wait, we forgot about Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski. Better be sure to get all white english speaking guys too. 

And who can forgot Aum Shinrikyo. Better add the Japanese to the list.

And the Tamil Tigers. Well, there goes everyone who looks like they could be from Sri Lanka. 

Oh, and Kach and Kahane Chai. Better add the Jewish folk to the list.

...

Who are we missing?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Jan 2010)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> First of all, for our Home Grown Terrorist, any person regardless of Age, Race, Sex or Appearance is capable of Terrorist Acts, and for you unacquainted or involved with detection, may I point out that the Bomber is useally the most nondescript, Innocent looking person in the crowd, until he/she screams out "DEATH TO AMERICA.
> 
> You B***h and Complain if Security was not carried out or enforced.
> You B***h and Complain if it is.
> ...



That should go into "The Stupidist Thing I've Heard Today." :


----------



## owa (21 Jan 2010)

I guess I'm a bleeding heart, but the way I see it is that it's people who are terrorists and it should be people who are searched.  What I mean is that if you're a living and breathing human you should be searched.  I try not to think in race, sex, religion, etc.  I just like to see people as people.  You know, all of humankind.


----------



## Gunnar (21 Jan 2010)

> What I mean is that if you're a living and breathing human you should be searched.



Who's paying for this?  You?  Anyone who buys a plane ticket?  And what are we paying for?  Bargain basement, $8 an hour "agents" who will make certain to strip search every woman with a bouncy chest?  Or intensely professional security/intel people who will become intensely bored by the 8000 businessmen, housewives and kids they have to search every day and end up doing something stupid?

How about we racial profile by constantly changing profiles adapted to circumstances?  Shortly after Timmy McVeigh, it would make sense to pay closer attention to people from his neck of the woods, especially if there had been a cult link or some such.  Today, background screening should be sufficient for most white guys from that area.

People are inventive.  If I want to kill a large number of people, I can probably figure out a way to do it.  All the searches in the world will not make air line travel 100% safe....(I'm thinking of an ironic situation where everyone is 100% screened, and SAFE....then the plane takes a nosedive into a mountain due to bad electronics).

Or, do what they do in Israel--search your bags while someone talks to you.  Any idiot who packs something obvious in his bag will get caught---but the it is the guy who talks to you who decides whether or not MORE searching and questioning is required...because the real issue is not if you are carrying a sharpened ballpoint pen, but whether or not you are a whack job.

Perhaps for frequent flyers, you might consider white listing some of them to offset the problems theyundoubted had by being on the profile du jour....


----------



## Sub_Guy (21 Jan 2010)

Wrong.

Profiling is a good thing, if done correctly it is the most effective way to eliminate problems.  If we ran airline security in the same manner as our Israeli friends then we wouldn't have issues with C4 underpants. 

Treating a 80 year old woman the same as some guy from Yemen is just wrong and a complete waste of time.  

We will never get a solid grip on security by being a bunch of bleeding hearts.   If you were sitting on a plane and you watched a group of middle eastern men board the plane I would be willing to bet that you would start to wonder if they were up to no good.  

Profiling is human nature, if you saw a group of white men walking down the road with shaved heads, one might think they are white supremacists.  If you witnessed a fella walking into the bank with a ski mask on you would tend to think that he is going to rob the place, but what if he is just cold?  Or covering up some bad acne?

Embrace it.


----------



## FastEddy (21 Jan 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That should go into "The Stupidist Thing I've Heard Today." :



Maybe your right, but it just might have a ring of truth in Afghanistan, Iraq or maybe London.

Actually its quite a common expression, but I can't blame you or George if you haven't heard of it.

Oh! by the way, I think its spelled Stupidest.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Jan 2010)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Maybe your right, but it just might have a ring of truth in Afghanistan, Iraq or maybe London.
> 
> Actually its quite a common expression, but I can't blame you or George if you haven't heard of it.
> 
> Oh! by the way, I think its spelled Stupidest.



Actually, I've heard the paraphrasing used for other subjects, just not your own particular, racist spin. There is no truth to it in any of the places you mention. Common? Perhaps at a KKK meeting or some such. Go ahead, quote a couple of reputable sources, and perhaps you can also enlighten us on why George or myself haven't heard it. Nice try at the strawman though.

As to my spelling, you didn't have to think. I noticed you had to use the spellcheck to catch it


----------



## VIChris (21 Jan 2010)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Maybe your right, but it just might have a ring of truth in Afghanistan, Iraq or maybe London.
> 
> Actually its quite a common expression, but I can't blame you or George if you haven't heard of it.
> 
> Oh! by the way, I think its spelled Stupidest.



recceguy summed up my thoughts on your sentiments regarding terrorists quite well.

If you're going to call someone out on their spelling, you should keep your grammar in check too. It's one of those pot and kettle situations.


----------



## mariomike (21 Jan 2010)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> For the first time ever in my life, I was concerned for my flying safety.
> OWDU



I wonder if in-flight consumption of over priced airline mini-bottles has increased in recent years? To help steady the nerves.


----------



## Journeyman (21 Jan 2010)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Oh! by the way, I think its spelled Stupidest.


Oh! *B*y the way, I think *it's* spelled *"*stupidest.*"*

Perhaps this link is relevant.

No, don't thank me.


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Jan 2010)

We (white grandparants) flew from San Antonio to Oklahoma City, return 23/28 Dec 09. No noticeable difference on 28 Dec 09. My wife has 2 pounds of titanium steel in each knee , so she was put into the additional screening booth in the middle of the TSA area. That took a few extra minutes. I think everyone should be screened. A sensitive grandmother could be blackmailed/threatened with harm to whoever and thus forced to smuggle a package on an aircraft.

I am glad this did not happen to my wife:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZfbTlYpKYo


----------



## armyvern (21 Jan 2010)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Maybe you're right, but it just might have a ring of truth in Afghanistan, Iraq or maybe London.
> 
> Actually it's quite a common expression, but I can't blame you or George if you haven't heard of it.
> 
> Oh! by the way, I think its spelled Stupidest. <--- already corrected by JMan.



I'm also thinking some Londoners just may disagree with you on that 'saying'. Them having actually experienced that already-mentionned IRA activity in their big old town. See below



> Over 20 years, the IRA strategy shifted away from causing as many casualties as possible to trying to cause economic damage to London's financial centre.
> 
> The major incidents were:
> 
> ...



 :-\


----------



## FastEddy (22 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'm also thinking some Londoners just may disagree with you on that 'saying'. Them having actually experienced that already-mentionned IRA activity in their big old town. See below
> 
> :-\



Thank you for your chronological list of IRA activities.

The point in fact is that if you and your Friends persist on insisting that the use of the word "ALL' in the expression (ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIM) means, Every and all Acts of Terrorism Worldwide, that's your privilege, but this confusion will  continue.


----------



## dangerboy (22 Jan 2010)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> The point in fact is that if you and your Friends persist on insisting that the use of the word "ALL' in the expression (ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIM) means, Every and all Acts of Terrorism Worldwide, that's your privilege, but this confusion will  continue.



How else do you interpet the word "All".  From the Oxford Dictionary "All: the whole amount, number, or extent of"


----------



## Nauticus (22 Jan 2010)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Wrong.
> 
> Profiling is a good thing, if done correctly it is the most effective way to eliminate problems.  If we ran airline security in the same manner as our Israeli friends then we wouldn't have issues with C4 underpants.
> 
> ...



Wrong.

Profiling can be good, yes, but *racial* profiling can not. If you see a bunch of Middle Eastern men on an airplane and suddenly question their intent, you are a racist. Pre-judging people is a terrible idea, and to this extent, it is not natural.

That said, I'm all for searching everyone. The people who conduct these searches ARE actually well-paid, well trained agents. I know, I used to be one several years ago.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Jan 2010)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> Wrong.
> 
> Profiling can be good, yes, but *racial* profiling can not. If you see a bunch of Middle Eastern men on an airplane and suddenly question their intent, you are a racist.



What flavour of profiling is ok in your books then?  I am not a racist but if I am on a plane with a bunch of people from a country or ethnic background or whatever who have been known to blow shit up in the air, and I am more worried than them than I am about Hillbilly Bob and some other folks from the north mountain in the Annapolis valley, that doesn't make me racist ffs.  I believe in things like *history* and *probability* and other similiar concepts.  I don't remember very many Valley types being part of 9/11, as an example.  I would really like to kick people like you ( who chuck out the *racist* label at every possible chance ) in the junk.  Hard.  More than once.  Thats just me.  



> That said, I'm all for searching everyone. The people who conduct these searches ARE actually well-paid, well trained agents. I know, I used to be one several years ago.



Uh huh.  I am sure the flying public feels safer now.


----------



## Dean22 (22 Jan 2010)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What flavour of profiling is ok in your books then?  I am not a racist but if I am on a plane with a bunch of people from a country or ethnic background or whatever who have been known to blow crap up in the air, and I am more worried than them than I am about Hillbilly Bob and some other folks from the north mountain in the Annapolis valley, *that doesn't make me racist ffs.*



So on a daily basis when you see a Middle Eastern person you pray they don't blow up, when you see an african american person you assume they can play basketball, when you see a redneck you assume they have a shot gun and when you see an asian person you assume they can tell you what 11.267 billion times 5892 is?

If what you said isn't racist then I don't know what is.


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Jan 2010)

Then I guess you don't know what is.


----------



## Sub_Guy (22 Jan 2010)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> Profiling can be good, yes, but *racial* profiling can not. If you see a bunch of Middle Eastern men on an airplane and suddenly question their intent, you are a racist. Pre-judging people is a terrible idea, and to this extent, it is not natural.



Profiling is good.  Lets say you see a car sitting in a high class neighborhood at 3am, inside this car are clearly 5 minority males dressed in what some might consider thug wear.   Would you think they are just sitting in there having a discussion on world politics?  Or would you consider checking the car out (if you were a police officer)?.  They are doing nothing wrong, but one could assume by profiling (behavioral) that they could be up to no good.  This would warrant a little investigating (IMHO) within a few minutes of talking to them you would know what they are up to.   If they were indeed doing nothing wrong then there's no harm done. 

It is all about behavior and this exactly what the Israelis have down to a science.  Searching everyone is fine, treating everyone exactly the same is not.  By paying attention to their actions airport security could easily pick out who deserves a little more attention.


----------



## Dean22 (22 Jan 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Then I guess you don't know what is.



Says the guy who thinks he's going to be blown up every time he sees a Middle Eastern person.


----------



## TheHead (22 Jan 2010)

I actually have never felt "Un-Safe" flying planes. Even after the Dick Bomber incident when I took a vacation in Mexico.   The chance of getting hurt/killed  is one in ten million.  I apologize in advance if that picture comes out to big or if you were being sarcastic


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Jan 2010)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> Says the guy who thinks he's going to be blown up every time he sees a Middle Eastern person.



That will do nicely now, run along home, grownups are talking.  Either find anywhere in this entire forum where I've said anything of the sort, or kindly go fuck yourself, you impertinent little twat.  I'll take that warning now, if it please the mods.


----------



## 1feral1 (22 Jan 2010)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> Says the guy who thinks he's going to be blown up every time he sees a Middle Eastern person.



Whats with all the anger issues with you??

I wonder if you would say that to his face??

If you are trying to win friends on here, your milpoints are telling another story.

Kind regards,


Wes


----------



## mariomike (22 Jan 2010)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> I wonder if you would say that to his face??
> Kind regards,
> Wes



Something tells me........NO!


----------



## Loachman (22 Jan 2010)

Dean, you really do need to learn when to STFU.

Some people get more breaks than others here for various reasons, and you probably fall well into that category.

I've been debating whether or not to take any action this time, but have decided to let you go on with your public display and let others form their own opinions (as if they haven't already).

If you want to derive the benefit that you can from this place, watch yourself.

Last freebie from me...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Jan 2010)

Good call my friend.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jan 2010)

I weighed the benefits of telling our young friend (Dean) off, however discretion I think is here required. Loachman said it for me and I can't top what he said, despite me being a knuckledragger....or knucklehead as some people might think!! ;D


----------



## Infanteer (22 Jan 2010)

Another knee-jerk reaction to show "we're doing something about this!".

I've went through the whole philisophical arguement of profiling many times.  Unfair - probably.  Necessary - I'd argue yes; as a way of focusing security assets where they need be.

I guarantee you, even if there is no official policy of profiling, security officials do it.  I wouldn't call it profiling, I'd call it "forming a hypothesis based off of previous events".  What do the following pictures have in common?  Somehow, I don't see the 60-year old memorial cross mother fitting in - if we have reoccuring incidents of attacks coming from groups of grandmothers from the Prairies, then by all means, shift the security efforts....


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Jan 2010)

Infanteer, you are lucky my wife doesn't read these posts. She's 56 and a Memorial Cross mother.....!!


How you doing?


----------



## mariomike (23 Jan 2010)

Thsi movie is about the lighter side of racial profiling!: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_NOc6yH5JY


----------



## rormson (23 Jan 2010)

Religious groups, the media, left wing NGOs or whoever can call it "racial profiling" but at the end of the day security officials are doing exactly what they should be doing -- rooting out potential suspects. The fact of the matter is that recent history shows (including the Toronto 18 trial) that Muslim fundamentalists (but certainly not Muslims in general) pose a risk to Canadian domestic security. Until there is a way to separate/screen the fundamentalists from the peaceful majority we will get more of this. We'll all have to suck it up.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Jan 2010)

The Muslim fundamentalists are the problem, but the Mulsim community has to denounce the terrorists. It seems to me they have an issue with doing that.


----------



## gcclarke (23 Jan 2010)

Big Silverback said:
			
		

> The Muslim fundamentalists are the problem, but the Mulsim community has to denounce the terrorists. It seems to me they have an issue with doing that.



Islamic Supreme Council of Canada affiliated Imams Issue Important Fatwa: Attack on Canada and the United States is Attack on Muslims Too


> FATWA (religious edict)
> 
> In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful
> 
> ...


----------



## brandon_ (23 Jan 2010)

mariomike said:
			
		

> A Silver Cross Mother should be flying Air Canada for free in First Class. Same goes for Via Rail.


I fully agree.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Jan 2010)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Islamic Supreme Council of Canada affiliated Imams Issue Important Fatwa: Attack on Canada and the United States is Attack on Muslims Too



IMO this is just lip service. The Islamic Supreme Council of Canada needs to do more than shake their finger and make a public statement. They need to see our "friends" in the Islamic community taking an active role in identifying and stopping the fundamentalists.


----------



## rormson (23 Jan 2010)

You lads raise some good points. Would be nice to see the media report "Imams help RCMP identify suspects for potential security risks". Maybe as a nation we need to collectively revisit the issue of allegiance? Citizens who reside here, enjoy free health care, peaceful society, good government, etc. are here to preseve and build it - not attack it. Same reason generations of settlers from other nations wanted to be "Canadian" not some hyphenated version where their country is mentioned before Canada.


----------



## krustyrl (23 Jan 2010)

You raise a good point yourself RGO.!!  Well said.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Jan 2010)

Well said RGO.


----------



## aesop081 (24 Jan 2010)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> well trained agents.



 :rofl:

The award for the most disillusional post of the week goes to.......


----------



## zipperhead_cop (25 Jan 2010)

My  :2c:

The whole concept of profiling has gotten a bad rap.  Clearly, profiling based on obvious things (such as race) is bad and short sighted.  For every measure we take, the bad guys are working on countermeasures.  And since we are such a myopic, politically correct and reactive little society, guess who is going to get the drop every time?  

One poster started to put up a scenario with dudes in a car late at night.  I thought "hey, here's a good point" right up until the minority comment. Then it goes donkey.  However, he was getting closer to the mark.  There are behaviors/demeanor's and indicators that constitute proper profiling.  If I'm driving around and I see a guy give me the holy-shit look and make a sharp turn without signalling down a side street, I'm going to bite.  Profiling is simply a means of focusing your efforts.  However, it is just a tool in the box.  Intelligence, scanners, pat downs, alerts.  They all  have to be in play too.  

North American society is not serious about rooting out and stopping terrorism.  There is lots of lip service and rest assured your various levels of policing are working their asses off to protect you.  But lets face it, the only thing that is going to make any sort of lasting changes is another 9/11 and a big body count.  After that, maybe people will get over concepts of biometric identification cards, revoking citizenships, rejecting undocumented persons at the border, not losing their minds at the concept that an agency like the RCMP or CSIS might need to do some "looking around" and doesn't have a search warrant.  

Now, queue the "police state" boogie man.  And the people who argue most strongly against this will be the people who would have the least to fear.  But the bottom line is that all of the elements that would do us harm know our system *very* well.  There are so many active cells operating in all of your areas that they probably really could cripple this country (at least for a week or two).  But civil liberties and current laws tie the hands of the police and open up a terrorist paradise.  

So fly, travel, go to the mall.  Chug about your daily lives, smug and safe in the knowledge that it couldn't possibly happen to you.  Just like it could never happen in New York.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jan 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> ...
> North American society is not serious about rooting out and stopping terrorism.  There is lots of lip service and rest assured your various levels of policing are working their asses off to protect you.  But lets face it, the only thing that is going to make any sort of lasting changes is another 9/11 and a big body count.  After that, maybe people will get over concepts of biometric identification cards, revoking citizenships, rejecting undocumented persons at the border, not losing their minds at the concept that an agency like the RCMP or CSIS might need to do some "looking around" and doesn't have a search warrant ... but the bottom line is that all of the elements that would do us harm know our system *very* well.  There are so many active cells operating in all of your areas that they probably really could cripple this country (at least for a week or two).  But civil liberties and current laws tie the hands of the police and open up a terrorist paradise.
> 
> So fly, travel, go to the mall.  Chug about your daily lives, smug and safe in the knowledge that it couldn't possibly happen to you.  Just like it could never happen in New York.




I know we aren't allowed to say +1 anymore, but ...

+1


I like to think of myself as a _reasonable_ and *balanced* civil libertarian - as I believe all soldiers are, instinctively, because they understand that the very _essence_ of the country they are sworn to defend  is its civil liberties. But unfettered *liberty* becomes licence and as American historian Will Durant said,  “When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near” (American spelling: _licen*s*e_.) There are reasonable and practical and Constitutional limits on our liberties, limits that "can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" - in part to prevent unfettered liberty from becoming licence. If we can set limits on free speech to prevent hate speech then we can set limits to prevent murder - to deny such _reasonable_ and *balanced* limits is to make oneself an accessory to murder.


----------



## PMedMoe (25 Jan 2010)

ERC, I was also going to give a +1 to zipperhead_cop's comment.  Thank you for doing so.


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Jan 2010)

And "another 9/11 and a big body count" has to happen so it will effect certain people in certain parts of Canada, otherwise the effect will: lucky it did not happen to us.

Same thing for Judges.


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Jan 2010)

Going around on the internet now:

Keep this in mind next time you are going through airport security, especially when the new x-ray machines becomes operational.

A lot of people have become so insulated from reality.  Absolutely No Profiling!  Pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple
choice test.

These events are actual events from history. They really happened!  Do you remember? 
      
     HERE'S THE TEST 

     1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by: 

     a. Superman 
     b. Jay Leno 
     c. Harry Potter 
     d. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40 
     

     2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by : 

     a. Olga Corbett 
     b. Sitting Bull 
     c. Arnold Schwarzenegger 
     d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 

  
     3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by: 

     a. Lost Norwegians 
     b. Elvis 
     c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women 
     d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 

     
     4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by: 

     a. John Dillinger 
     b. The King of Sweden   
     c. The Boy Scouts 
     d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 


     5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by: 

     a. A pizza delivery boy 
     b. Pee Wee Herman 
     c. Geraldo Rivera 
     d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 

     
     6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by: 

     a. The Smurfs 
     b. Davey Jones 
     c. The Little Mermaid 
     d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 


     7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens , and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by: 

     a. Captain Kidd 
     b. Charles Lindberg 
     c. Mother Teresa 
     d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 


     8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by: 

     a. Scooby Doo 
     b. The Tooth Fairy 
     c. The Sundance Kid 
     d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 

     
     9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by: 

     a. Richard Simmons 
     b. Grandma Moses 
     c. Michael Jordan 
     d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 


    10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by: 

     a. Mr. Rogers 
     b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems 
     c. The World Wrestling Federation 
     d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 

     
    11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed
into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. 

     Thousands of people were killed by: 

     a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E.. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd 
     b. The Supreme Court of Florida  
     c. Mr Bean 
     d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 

     
     12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against: 

     a. Enron 
     b. The Lutheran Church   
     c. The NFL 
     d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 

    
     13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by: 

     a. Bonnie and Clyde   
     b. Captain Kangaroo 
     c. Billy Graham 
     d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 


No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?  So, to ensure we  never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people.  

They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification,  but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling.

And recently, Fort Hood Texas ......another Muslim 39 years old killed 13 people and wounded 30 some odd others.  Does this fit the profile!





Political Correctness Rules!


----------



## krustyrl (25 Jan 2010)

Hey Rifleman ...pretty much sums it up for me too. Glad someone put this perspective in laymans terms.!!       

+1


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Jan 2010)

Well said Rifleman!! My point exactly. Is it the Memorial Cross Mothers causing all the trouble? No....guess who it is?

What was Marc Lepine's name prior to his murdering women at a university in Quebec? I've read it was not Marc Lepine. Is this true?


----------



## krustyrl (25 Jan 2010)

WTF.????  Not that I am doubting but is this true.?


----------



## PMedMoe (25 Jan 2010)

krustyrl said:
			
		

> WTF.????  Not that I am doubting but is this true.?


Not that Wiki's the best source but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_L%C3%A9pine


----------



## Redeye (25 Jan 2010)

He had the name Gamil Gharbi at birth, his father was Algerian.  Lepine was his mother's last name, he changed his first name to Marc at 14 because he got a hard time over having an Arabic name.  The original name has been trotted out by some idiots to try to link his crime to Islam... 



			
				Big Silverback said:
			
		

> Well said Rifleman!! My point exactly. Is it the Memorial Cross Mothers causing all the trouble? No....guess who it is?
> 
> What was Marc Lepine's name prior to his murdering women at a university in Quebec? I've read it was not Marc Lepine. Is this true?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jan 2010)

I'm sure glad no Christian's committed atrocities during that time............holystupidseasonBatman.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Jan 2010)

Strawman alert.  Lupine was a psychopath and his rampage had nothing to do with targeted terrorist attacks or militant Islam.  His heritage is a coincidence and was unrelated to the event.


----------



## mariomike (25 Jan 2010)

If interested, they made a movie on the 20th anniversary of the massacre.
http://www.polytechniquelefilm.com/en/
There is a story in MacLean's:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/03/05/excusing-the-men-who-ran-away/


----------



## zipperhead_cop (26 Jan 2010)

Mr. Campbell and Moe, thanks for the accolades  

But enough (rest of you) with the Muslim stuff!  You are missing the point.  Yes, radical Islamics are *currently* the most prolific terrorists on the planet.  It was not always so.  It might not be so in the future.  If people focus in on religious distinctions, they are going to miss the guy wearing the urban bling crap listening to junk music.  Proper profiling transcends any sort of pigeon holing.  It's almost an art form, IMO.  
The other key to this is constant vigilance.  To be certain, airports have gotten more lax over the years (no offence intended to the airport in Los Angeles  ;D) I stopped taking off my shoes two years ago and nobody said anything to me.  This underwear bomber clown probably wouldn't have happened shortly after the shoe bomber.  But AQ isn't letting it go and they are always waiting and watching.  It is not an "if" but a "when".  
That being said, I won't be surprised when some PETA asshat does something like does a suicide bombing at a fur store in a mall.  
Oh, and profiling also picks off regular criminals.  Not everything has to be as sexy as a downed jet.


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Jan 2010)

For R62 and ZHC, you both hit the nail right on the head.

Excellent posts!

Thanks.

OWDU


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Jan 2010)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> So on a daily basis when you see a Middle Eastern person you pray they don't blow up, when you see an african american person you assume they can play basketball, when you see a redneck you assume they have a shot gun and when you see an asian person you assume they can tell you what 11.267 billion times 5892 is?
> 
> If what you said isn't racist then I don't know what is.



hahahahahaahaahhahahahaaaha ok that was funny!

I mean...you know its like...

bahahahahahahahahaahahahhahahahahahaaha

Sorry...I just can't...bahahahahahaahahahhaaha.

Are you the guy who plays Barney on The Simpson?  'Cause I think you had some of that magic pixy dust or something.

Ya.  I am a racist.  Right now, I am wearing a WHITE t-shirt...omg!


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Jan 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> That being said, I won't be surprised when some PETA asshat does something like does a suicide bombing at a fur store in a mall.
> Oh, and profiling also picks off regular criminals.  Not everything has to be as sexy as a downed jet.




Let it be Ingrid Newkirk, let it be Ingrid Newkirk...hopefully the protein deficiency will finally rot what's left of her brain to the point where she decides that would be a good idea.


----------



## Dean22 (26 Jan 2010)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'm sure glad no Christian's committed atrocities during that time............holystupidseasonBatman.



+1

Seriously, Rifleman62 there are hundreds of incidents since the 1900's of terrorism and you pick a few.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1970
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1971
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1972
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1973
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1974
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1975
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1976
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1977
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1978
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1979
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1980
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1981
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1982
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1983
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1984
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1985
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1986
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1987
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1988
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1989
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1990
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1991
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1992
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1993
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1994
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1995
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1996
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1997
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1998
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1999
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2009


Taking a look at every single one of those links will show that 80% of Terrorism acts in the last 110 years have been carried out by non-Muslim terrorists. However, the muslim terrorists have had the most successful terrorist act in terms of casualties.

Ignorance is the saddest crime in this era especially when people have access to a massive amount of information and live in a Western country.

Shame on you Rifleman62.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Jan 2010)

Dean22,

Stick to presenting facts for discussion and keep your admonitions and lectures to yourself. You are in no position to be reproaching anyone here.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Rifleman62 (26 Jan 2010)

I didn't pick a few. As stated in the post, I posted what was going around the internet. I didn't even add all the airliners that were highjacked in the 70's by the same demographic. Nor did I correct a couple of the items in that list. 

The list was not inclusive. I am glad you had the time to update it. 

May you always feel satisfied and safe with your fellow travellers.


----------



## 1feral1 (27 Jan 2010)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> Shame on you Rifleman62.



No, its shame on you Dean22. I, like others have pretty much had enough.

Its obvious you just want to achieve some 'shock value' and are just seeking an audience and attention. We've seen this behaviour before, and those individuals that continued to present themselves in such a manner are/were usually on borrowed time here.

IMHO and which is valid. After viewing pretty much all your posts, they all send the same message which pretty much goes no where fast.

You still do not take the advice of moderators and members in good standing on here. If you don't, how ever will you last (and I mean hours not days or weeks for that matter) in any modern Defence Force. 

I got to hand it to you though, as each time you post you achieve a new high in low, and again your MPs speak for themselves. 

Kind regards from a tropical summer's day,

OWDU


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Jan 2010)

Well said OWDU. 
Dean, stay in your arcs of fire. You know nothing of what you speak.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 Jan 2010)

So, pushing past another Dean Distraction... :

The guys pissing and moaning in the original article don't even have a reason to be playing the race/religion card!  They failed the background check and can look into why if they so chose.  But instead, they just spiral off on assuming that it had anything to do with their background.  I would be very interested to see what the background check form looked like and would be quite shocked to see if it requested information about the applicants personal religious choices.  

In all likelihood, they have been associated to criminal/terrorist parties in local/national data bases.  There is quite a bit more to a police clearance than simply having criminal convictions or not.


----------

