Coney Island Terror Targets

White women didn't topple the WTC and don't generally commit acts of terror in the name of Allah.

I'm not saying that this guy is guilty, but:
1) He's a Pakistani Muslim, 2) he's unemployed but has $80,000 in a bank account, 3) he has two identities, 4) he's in the U.S. illegally, and 5) he's been filming random bank buildings, trains, dams and government offices. And those are just the facts we've heard about.

Sorry if I'm not p.c., but the guy fits a dangerous profile and I'm glad he is at least being investigated.

you're not just un-pc, u, you're racist. when akhtar was arrested, no one knew the facts you listed. he was just a brown man with a camera. nothing more. is that too dangerous of a profile for you?

the bombing of the oklahoma city federal building was the second worst terrorist attack on this country. white boys with crew cuts scare the crap out of me -- especially since a good number of them like to beat up brown people while calling us towelheads. we should bring back the day when when guys with crewcuts were rounded up and jailed for an indeterminate period.

oh wait...that never happened, despite the fact that people with their profile (your profile?) can blow up a federal building and kill some children while they're at it.

the last paragraph of the post piece says,"Agents also raided a Manhattan photo shop where Akhtar had worked off the books. By week's end, the feds had not unearthed anything linking him to terrorism, but continued to hold him in Charlotte on immigration charges, for which he faces deportation. " just so we're straight, despite all the cicumstantial evidence you want to excuse your fear of brown people, there's no evidence linking akhtar to terrorism.

be loud, be proud, be racist, u!

athensastoria, radical Muslims are setting off deadly bombs all over the world on a frequent basis in the name of their religion. Turkey, Israel, Morocco, Iraq, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Phillipines, Uzbekistan, Bali (to name a few) have all been the targets of Islamic terrorists in the last few years.
There are definitely some messed up, dangerous white men out there (the atlanta olympic bombings are another example), but there really is no comparison when it comes to Muslim terrorists.

Brown guy, I never said Akhtar was guilty. Lots of innocent people have been caught up in the "war on terror," and that sucks. However, it was reported that he switched his story several times when asked what he was doing, and his circumstances became more and more suspicious as he was investigated.

I'm not making excuses for this country's racist past (or present), but I do see the reality that Muslim terrorists would like to destroy this country (and Israel, the Jews, and then the rest of the infidels), and I'm glad that the people in charge of keeping us safe realize where the threat is coming from.

U, your point was that you're glad that people in power are keeping you safe. my point is that they're doing it inappropriatly and using racial profiles that aren't successful at stopping terrorism. i'm saying that arrests like this one (and actions similar to it, like the way that brown people have been discriminated against at airports the last 3 years) make white people feel safe and comfortable because some evil brown muslim was placed away. ya-hoo!

after 9-11 a few thousand brown people (or varied backgrounds: hindus, muslims, christians, middle easterners, indians and pakistanis) were jailed for months and placed in detention centers like the one in brooklyn (google "brooklyn detention center" for more info). i'll grant you that many had overstayed their visas, but in the final analysis NONE were terrorists. none. think how much manpower, federal money, and grief that the tracking, jailing, transportation and deportment of these thousands of brown people must have caused. and none of it affected the possibility of a terrorist threat.

you see the "reality that Muslim terrorists would like to destroy this country", and i see the reality that white people in this country are quick to dismiss the negative implications of actions born out of their fears. is it so easy for you to point to a brown person with a camera and scream "he's a terrorist" but to glance over the timothy mcveighs among us? why is that, u? am i less than a human being to you? why is it that after the oklahoma city bombing, a few brown guys were detained? only later were nichols and mcveigh found out.

u, you're complicit in their actions. yeah, you'll try to dismiss it as the work of government employees or the sane way to be in this day and age, but when you play into the fear against brown people, when you see the brown people around you as potential terrorists instead of tourists taking videos their family members in front of famous buildings, you're complicit in actions that our future selves, in more stable times, will dismiss as racist events of the past.

i just want to say that i'm loving this argument. it's relatively civil and very interesting.

sorry for the long post...

my point in the previous post, nola, was that racial profiling (i.e., the case with kamran akhtar) is an inefficient way of approaching terrorism and security. advocating for it is racist. there are many muslims in and out of the US who love this country or who don't really have an opinion about the country but certainly don't wish americans harm. muslims are all over this country, nola. some have blond skin and blue eyes, some are brown and some are black. not everyone who worships allah wants to raze a building, and none of them should be treated like an enemy when filming tourist videos.

profiling is about fear and how fear makes a majority view minorities. so to answer your first point, nola, that's where i get off calling someone a racist. condoning racial profiling when the profile is broad and the majority feels justified in inappropriate acts out of their fear (one of the first murders in the 9-11 backlash was a latino man called a towelhead before he was shot) -- that's just racist.

second point: mcveigh. there is a great disparity in the way brown people were treated after 9-11 and the way militias were treated after oklahoma city. i'm not sure the relevance of "a worldwide terrorist movement". both the saudi al-queda members and the mcveigh/nichols crwod were terrorists. actually, i'm not sure what your point is here. can you please explain?

the terrorist movement that razed the WTC is composed of muslims. i'm not saying that there shouldn't be counter-intelligence. i'm not saying that our government shouldn't actively seek out terrorists groups (be they in boise, idaho or newark, NJ). what i am saying is that certain tactics -- like the ones used in the process of arresting akhtar -- are racist, ineffective, an inefficient use of resources, and a means for a majority to appease its fear at the price of a minority's humanity. it also allows the majority to have an "enemy" to which they can define themselves against.

You say, "my point in the previous post, nola, was that racial profiling (i.e., the case with kamran akhtar) is an inefficient way of approaching terrorism and security. advocating for it is racist."
Advocating for a system that includes some racial profiling is not necessariliy racist. If you blind yourself to the fact that there is a literal army of Muslim men out there who are actively trying to terrorize this country, then they probably will acheive their objectives. Yes, it's "inefficient," but what's more ineffecient is having the government look at everyone equally (Latinos, Buddists, Scandinavians, whatever) and ignore the fact that the terrorists are likely to be Muslim men.

The response to your second question is that the threat from Muslim terrorists and the threat from white militias is totally asymmetrical. (And do you think that the government didn't crack down on white militias after Oklahoma City? You haven't heard from them in a while for a reason.) By your logic, the government should spend an equal amount of time would spend an equal amount of time battling AIDS and Acrodermatitis, because both are "diseases."

quick message to jz: u, nola, etc.. have done a great job of stating _arguments_. jz, if you think we need more profiling, please state why. that's what moves the conversation forward, not your unqualified assertions.

u, there's a difference between profiling and information gathering. i have no problem with FBI agents pursuing leads about specific people associated with terrorists. i have no problem with interviewing recently immigrated saudis associated with al-queda who are enrolled in flight school (a lead the FBI knew but never followed up on). i have no problem with FBI agents confronting someone in the US who has done something terrorist-like.

but i do have problems when a brown guy with a camera is questioned for filming a tourist building. can you see the difference? no one knows if the brown guy is latino, south asian or from the middle east. no one knows if he's christian, sikh, or muslim. all they know is that he's a brown man and infer from that that he's suspicious. there's no intelligence behind it; it's just a raw search, and it's also a costly search (in terms of manpower, time, and other resources). let me restate that: no link to terrorism has been found for akhtar; similarly, no links to terrorism has been found for the thousands detained in the post-9/11 roundup. conclusion: that money and time was a waste of our taxpayer money -- time and money that could have been better spent on intelligence-gathering measures.

we should definitely confront and pursue legitimate threats to this country. we should not do it at the cost of the rights of minorities because it makes a silly bunch of white people feel safe.

u, i don't follow the AIDS and Acrodermatitis argument. Can you explain the analogy?

one of the many ugly stories post-9/11 was of an indian-american professional at a NYC dot-com who wanted to take his pregnant wife to a broadway show for their anniversary (http://www.rediff.com/us/2001/oct/22ny14.htm). when he called ticketmaster and asked for "the producers" he was told it was sold out for that day. so he askd what was another popular show and was told "kiss me, kate". he bought 2 tickets. when he showed up to get the tickets, he was thrown on the ground in front of his wife, handcuffed, and questioned until they realized he was innocent. why did this happen? because he had a strange-sounding last name (like me) and wanted to see a "popular show". they thought he had a bomb and wanted to kill the most people.

this is racism and racial profiling. it divides our society. it's not smart, it's not specific, it comes from the fear of white people, and it alienates the people most likely to be aware of suspicious activities in our minority communities. in the end, it was a waste of time for the officers and may scar that family for life.

Three words: John Walker Lindh. Three more: The American Taliban. It's only a matter of time before Al Qaeda starts recruiting sympathizers who are - shock! - white, non-Semitic looking, or whatever other term you'd like to use. Water finds the weakest path. Remember when we used to think that suicide bombers were all dissaffected young males? Well guess what? Palestinians began recruiting women to blow up bus stops. Also, with the growing support for bin Laden in Indonesia and other countries in Southeast Asia, it won't be long before terrorists start looking like a large number of this earth's inhabitants.

The debate on racial profiling is short-sighted and underscores the larger failures of the war on terror.

brown guy: You make incredible mistakes in your arguments. First, if I support profiling because I genuinely believe it will help prevent terrorism, I am not a racist. Supporting profiling would be racist if my motivation were to see "brown guys" get harassed and arrested for no reason other than the color of their skin. But that is not my desire, and your baseless accusation is as foolish and offensive as someone questioning your patriotism because you don't support any given policy. The tactic of calling someone a racist because they disagree with you is jsut a lazy way of trying to shut down an argument, but it won't work here.

You also believe that profiling is ineffective, and it is your right to do so. But since federal, state and local law enforcement use profiling in one form or another, maybe you can let us know what your qualifications are in this area? I don't claim to have any special expertise. But it seems obvious that if a group of red-headed Scotsmen are determined to blow up our buildings, we should take extra care when we see one of them videotaping a building. Since it isn't Scotsmen but predominantly middle eastern muslim men who pose this threat, then that is who we watch out for. You can disagree, but I'd like to know how you became such an expert. Particularly since you say you are "not sure of the relevance of a 'worldwide terrorist movement'". I think most of us are sure of this relevance.

Your comparison of Oklahoma City and 9/11 is also way off base. McVeigh and Nichols were caught and convicted. I'm sure any possible connections to a larger movement were explored, and no further incidents have taken place that can be attributed to the militias you refer to. So do you know something everyone else doesn't know? Please tell us more about the militia terrorist movement. On the other hand, 9/11 was only the most devastating action by a movement that has been committing such atrocities for years and openly states what its goals are. Further attacks have taken place since 9/11 and it seems very likely that another one will take place on American soil sooner or later. So do you seriously think that law enforcement should ignore these obvious facts?

Undoubtedly the police are going to question and even arrest people who are not connected to terrorism. But waiting for someone to do something "terrorist-like" is about as stupid an idea as I've heard. Like you, I don't want people's feelings hurt, but ultimately saving lives is more important.

u, first the mcveigh-muslim analogy is decontextualized. i don't think seeking out militia members now is effective. you're right, they're not attacking us now. what i am saying is that after the oklahoma city bombing, no such profiling occurred. rather, for the first 24hrs after the attack, only middle easterners were questioned and detained!! only later were the white culprits found. my point is (1) the differences between the treatment of the attackers' respective demographics after their attacks; and (2) the lack of profiling post-oklahoma city.

though the name is misleading, racial profiling isn't just about race. i should, rather, refer to it just as profiling. not all muslims are terrorists. not all muslims want to destroy our buildings. i bring up race because it's easier and more convenient. it's simple. it's simple to look at the brown guy next to you, assume he's muslim, and report that he's talking in a strange language when there's a police officer a few feet away. it's you, someone white, being ruled by your fear and being unable to see another person's humanity. go u! good for you!

the racist label sticks, buddy. sorry that you had to hear it this way, and if you have token friends of color, don't worry, they probably already know it.

i brought up race because many people see using it via profiling as an effective security strategy (and i think it was used in akhtar's case). look, i want terrorists (white, brown) found and detained, but i will not stand for racism masking itself as a security measure. i will not play into your white fear. lots of law-abiding people of color are out there and shouldn't be inconvenienced for a lazy, ineffective tactic. to support it's use at the "inconvenience" of others is just plain racist.

brown guy - First of all, I'm not scared of people like you. You aren't a terrorist. You are probably a frustrated grad student at some second-rate school with very poor job prospects. So quit your incessant harping about frightened white people. Your same pathetic argument could have been made after Pearl Harbor - our war against Japan was a racist enterprise designed to placate the scared whites of America. Such feeble thinking could only thrive in the fever swamps of academia. And it would be especially ironic if you are in school because a weak mind like yours would only get admitted because you help fill out the "brown guy" quota. So stop whining about profiling and give thanks that our schools make room for racist twits like you.

As for profiling, I could bore the readers of this blog by attaching fifty links that no one reads anyway. But the bottom line is that law enforcement would not use profiling if it didn't have some degree of effectiveness. Your straw-man arguments about "law-abiding people of color" and volunteering at soup kitchens have nothing to do with the pros and cons of the issue. Stick to the legitimate points of contention, if you can manage.

(hijiki, i'll try to get us back towards civility.)

nola, funny that you should bring it up, but my same argument actually was made after WWII. are you familiar with the internment of japanese-americans? it's the same thing. why were japanese people loyal to the US imprisoned after the japanese bombings? why were middle-eastern/south asian/muslim people loyal to the US imprisoned after 9-11? we look back on the japanese internment as an ugly and unneccesary part of our history. we look at it as wrong and having been the product of a fearful populace. how long will it take for us to view this era's profiling the same way?

i remember that one of the first events i attended post-911 was an AALDEF (asian american legal defense and education fund) meeting in which survivors from the japanese-internment attended to show solidarity with persecuted south asians and middle easterners. it was a touching moment as the two groups compared similar stories.

so let me get this straight, nola: you first ask me to back up my contentions, and then why i do, you won't even take the time to read them or to offer counterproof of profiling's effectiveness? my credentials, lady, are as an ivy league academic, ok? your intellectual tactics of demand-then-dismiss would only get you laughed at here.

also, you calling anyone else a racist is like the pot calling the kettle black. racism works both ways, pal, and it's just as wrong (and incredibly hypocritical) for you going around pretending to be the defender of "brown people" while you give off such venom towards "white people."

boo-ya

holy fucking shit. are you really stupid enough to believe that the ultimate the goal of muslim terrorists is to "get people who have no right to it, out of their land and left alone"??!!!

can you tell me why muslim terrorists bombed a disco in Bali? Are non-Muslims not allowed in Bali? Why did muslim terrorists kill Westerners in Saudi Arabia after the U.S. removed all its troops from Saudi Arabia? Why bomb a Jewish community center in Argentina? How about bombings in Morocco, Indonesia and Turkey? why did Spanish authorities discover plots to bomb areas in Spain even after Spain pulled its troops out of Iraq? Have you heard of the twisted and deluded goal of Muslims (this is one of Bin Laden's favorite sayings) of reclaiming "Andalusia", what the rest of the world calls Spain, the land that Muslims ruled hundreds of years ago? You really think Al-Quada did 9/11 to get the U.S. out of Saudi Arabia?

What exactly are the "clear demands" of muslim terrorists? Is it to leave every single country in the Middle East? Do you think Islamic terrorism would stop if U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq, or is it more likely that bombings would continue until the elected government is overthrown and hard-core Islamists can come to power? Why is a non-Muslim not allowed to live in Muslim-ruled lands?

You need a reality check.

yes, u, that is their goal. they don't hate you. they probably wouldn't mind if you visited them any more than you would mind their visit. it's our overpowering them that is rubbing the wrong way. they are sick of our economic repression and they are scared of our corporate world invading their home because it has nothing to do with their lifestyle or traditions. they have seen how our deal-making works and where our interests lie. they have no way of stopping us so they've resorted to terrorism because it is the only way to bring attention to their cause. no, it's still not justified.

do you really want to bring up turkey and indonesia? do you have any idea what we do with these countries and how the citizens suffer powerlessly because of our actions there? what turkey does to the kurds with our support? be it US government or western corporations, they simply don't want us around because we don't play nice. and it IS their country.

the main purpose of their attacks has been to tell the west that they will not accept our culture invading their own. yes the attacks would stop if we would just leave them alone and stop meddling in their own affairs. it's not just troops leaving their land. they'd like us to stop dealing with their dictators at the population's exense. if they want to elect an islamic government, don't they have the right to that? isn't that what democracy is? or did you think that bombing their sities and killing them would be a better way of gaining their friendship, or respect... or their oil?

please, u, my opinion is not 'stupid'. it is the result of actively searching for both sides of the story before making huge uninformed generalizations about being morally seperior to another cause. that is my 'reality check'.

The Bali disco was targeted because it was a frequent vacation destination of Australians. And Australia is an ally of the US with troops in Iraq (at least at the time.) The Madrid bombing targeted another country with troops aiding U.S. forces.

Terrorists aren't doing what they are doing because they "hate freedom" or want to destroy Western society. Did Islamic terrorists hate godless Communism enough to blow up buildings in Moscow while Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan in the 80s? No, they just wanted to kick the Soviets out. This isn't terrorism. Terrorism is blowing up a shopping mall just to create havoc. This is war. Even though Al Qaeda is not a nation, they believe they are at war with the U.S. Bin Laden declared war against the U.S. in 96.

Great Satan rhetoric and problems with America's evil morals were familiar in the 80s, with shahs in Iran and the Ayatollah. But look at the targets of Al Qaeda, at least those belonging to Americans and their allies: financial centers (the WTC in NY, banks in Turkey), defense headquarters (the Pentagon), political embassies (Kenya), and more. Not shopping malls, not movie theaters, not Burger Kings or Gaps or Starbucks, but political and strategic targets. (Look at the buildings under the most threats now: CitiBank, the NY Stock Exchange, the IMF building in DC. No Cold Stone Creameries were on Tom Ridge's alert list.)

We can debate the merits of what we are doing in the Middle East, but the fact is that bin Laden hates the U.S. for what it does, not what it believes. He hates the U.S. for invading holy lands, and calling for the removal of regimes like the Taleban and Sadaam while shaking hands with Saudi Arabia and ignoring their corruption all in the name of less expensive oil. He hates us for killing innocent civilians, however unintended those deaths were. He hates us for depriving Iraqis of money and food over the last ten years. Even though we might disagree with his reasoning, his list is long.

Read any of bin Ladens statements and you'll see this. Read "Imperial Hubris" for an excellent analysis of this as well.

You're right on one thing, D. You have to look at the Palestinians for terrorists who blow up non-"political or strategic" targets--restaurants, buses, night clubs, bars, hotels, etc. etc.

What exactly do you think the U.S. (a.k.a. the rest of the world) would have to do in order to not be targeted by Muslim terrorists? And do you think there wouldn't be more demands if the U.S. met the first set of demands?

Why does Al Qaeda still have plans to bomb Spain even after Spain pulled its troops out of Iraq?

nola, i am not angry, nor am i an 'america-hater'. i love america and that is why i care about not plundering the world in america's name. i'd rather be proud of what we do than ashamed by our atrocities and shortness of wisdom. are terrorists coming to our country and telling us to leave as you imply with your native american analogy? no. they want us (meaning govt. and corp.) to stay out of their country. your analogy is actually 180 degrees turned around. do we have any right to force our will on them? to force them to submit their culture to ours?

nola, as i stated before, some police departments are moving away from profiling because they find it ineffective. there are a couple of stories you can google on this.

so why do the others continue it? (1) it's easier to stop brown and black men in "random checks" instead of finding the real culprits through effective investigative work; (2) because it gives scared people like you the feeling that they're enforcing security measures (it appeases the public), (3) because most departments have white chiefs and to them, "inconveniencing" minorites is acceptable procedure; and (4) only recently have police departments started actually recording their own data on the process' efficacy.

thanks again for asking me to do more than you, nola. i'll assume that you tried to find evidence of profiling's effectiveness and came up short. the argument that "because people do it, it must be right" is a mistaken argument. are you able to understand that?

yes, one of the links had to do with amnesty international, one of the most responsible human rights organizations in the world. are you saying that you have a more legitimate voice with regards to effective policing policies than amnesty's staff? if not, then why dismiss them out of hand? there were other sources in the articles i linked to.

your language has devolved in the past few posts to become more personal and bitter. are you bitter, sweetie? i'm really sorry that you're not mentally able to come up with better arguments. the way you argue is through dismissal. it's really sad. instead of coming up with a decent counter-argument, wallah! you just ridicule an argument to distract from the argument's validity. tell me, sweetie, was your degree through one of those mail-in courses? is it too late to get a refund?

and sweetheart, after all your baiting to walk in the dirt with you (since your arguments were the silliest of any i've seen in this thread), all i can say is thanks for mentioning the toilet job, because i feel like i've been cleaning your shit all day.

Hey nola, does "hate-monger" ring a bell?

I agree with racial profiling. I don't trust white folks at all. They are known to make the largest precentage of serial killers, have the highest child molestation and the most spousal abusers.

I feel that since most child molestors are white we should question all suspicious behaviour by white folks around kids.

funny, nola, good way to deflect all of your losses in the argument so far. feel free to address any of the points i've made before in my rebuttals instead of bringing up new topics, OK? feel free to bring in data or analysis, too, as i've taken the time to do. also feel free to address the issues in my post few posts.

it hurts when i call you racist, eh, nola? sorry, lady, but the label sticks. i've asked you to show me in either quantitiave terms or analyses from other groups (both of which i've provided) on the effectiveness of profiling, but instead, like a completely irrational idiot, you've relied on your "belief" in the system. that's not intelligent; it's just silly faith, and in the process of making your faith in these harmful procedures (like profiling) manifest, people i know are being discriminated against. though you're not calling me a racist epithet to my face, your blind support of an ineffective security policy that removes resources from better security measures and that comprehensively labels people of my background as potentially "dangerous" is what makes you a racist and someone more dangerous to this country than the very minorities you fear.