Nice try, brown guy. Even a liberal web site like this one hasn't offered you much support. Your desparate McVeigh analogy was slapped down by everyone. Your links have been ignored because people come here for spontaneous discussion and debate, not to see some links used as a crutch by someone unable to string together a coherent argument on his own. I could post 100 links to conservative think tanks, but why bother? I'm capable of making an argument without resorting to slanted data. Bottom line: some form of profiling has always been and will always be used. It's effective, and the fact that in enrages you just puts icing on the cake. Your race-baiting certainly hasn't won you much support, and your fantasy that white people are scared of you is pretty comical. A legitimate concern with acts of terror is not the same thing as a fear of unemployable grad students who hang around Union Square.

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.

I appreciate your thoughtful posting, gnome, even if I disagree with your reasoning and conclusions. I doubt I can sway you in this limited forum and won't try with the exception of one issue: You cannot simply categorize anyone who supports some kind of profiling as racist. To be racist requires a malevolent intent. If you support profiling purely because you believe it helps police do their jobs, that is not racist. In fact, I support the use of profiling because I believe it makes all of us safer, not just whites. While middle easterners and south asians may be inconvenienced more frequently than whites, their lives will also be saved if someone is caught before participating in an attack. We can debate whether these tactics work but you cannot simply write someone off as a racist because they take the other side of the issue. Put another way, if you support an admissions policy at a university that favors blacks over whites or asians, does that make you racist? I don't think so. I don't agree with that policy, but I understand why some people support it. The "brown guys of america" who use racist as a label because they are incapable of thoughtful debate don't deserve the respect or sympathy you give them.

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.

thank you for the above discussion, minus, of course, nola's comments regarding brown guy's credentials and brown guy's most recent rebuttal about a refund.

what i've taken from the discussion is that solipsism abounds. brown guy, in part, because he is a brown guy, believes that racial profiling is rascist. i'm assuming that nola and u are not "brown people", and they believe that racial profiling is not rascist.

being an eastern asian-american certainly skews my viewpoint, so i tend to side with brown guy. "racial profiling" rather than not, will affect me more in the future. so i'm against it, unless there is hard evidence that racial profiling works. i take this view from both retro- and prospective minds. as stated above, the japanese internment provides the racial profiling blast from the past that america concluded was illegal and, more importantly, improper. the future looks to contain more racial profiling for asian-americans as islam increases its influence all over the world. i don't look too different from people from indonesia and malaysia, countries with vast muslim populations.

i think the weakness of racial profiling in the post-9/11 war is that racial profiling as we consider it now is not what it was before 9/11. the old racial profiling involved, for example, stopping african-americans on i-95 for guns and drugs. but, today, by using racial profiling, we are trying to prioritize someone's level of dangerousness based on the, possibly mistaken, belief that muslims are more dangerous than others. possibly, in the present and near term, those radical muslims will be of mostly middle-eastern and central asian descent, but given the fact that islam stretches across color lines (and, that is one of its beauties), in the future, and possibly today, racial profiling will be completely ineffective, if it ever was effective to begin with. sudanese muslims, philippine muslims, georgian muslims, pakastani muslims, serbian muslims, american muslims look like everyone and no one.

as this debate shows, the effectiveness of racial profiling today is just that, debatable. it's utility and success in the future is untenable, however. if it may not work now and will not work in the future, why not resort to an alternative scheme immediately? that's what rational people do. especially, when racial profiling hurts those that it affects. it obviously hurts brown guy. it obviously does not hurt nola and u. let's stop the hurt and get on with some old fashioned detective work. don't marginalize the brown guys of america.

just my two cents.

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

btw, for those interested in an interesting analysis of racial profiling post-9/11 (including interviews with police officers on how it's lazy law enforcement, how its a flawed and futile undertaking)you can use the following link:

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=15102&c=207

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.

max, do you have anything specific that you disagree with? i think you've probably misread my comments if you have such a strong reaction.

the current terrorism is a reaction to an inequality. i'm sorry you can't see that because there will be no resolution without listening to the other side. we can't just strong-arm everyone who disagrees with america. a more effective way is to ALSO target the source. you are right to point out that the muslim terrorist mindset 'is a race toward the bottom.' you're right, it is awful and terrifying, but then, so are the forces that brought it on.

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?

Gaaaa

well I was enjoying the banter between U and Brown guy, then this Hijiki pops up and its all out the window. Get a clue- horrifying in every detail. The terrorist muslim mindset is a race towards the bottom fuled by fear, envy, insecurity, etc. They cann't get their lives, religion, or countries together so they look for someone to blame- the US and their so called Jewish Overlords- freakin stupid.

PS- I am for more (intelligent)profiling, more deportations, more Muslims stepping up like BG making good, sensible (and peaceful) arguements, more American Muslims making a public stand against terrorism, more muslims joining the army (ammazed you didnt point out the fact that the highest decorated unit in WW2 was Japanese-American, while their families were in jail they didnt whine- they fought the good fight and died to show they cared for their real country- the USA)and all that. This fight is going to be long and bloody and the only chance we have is that real muslims step up.

Or else, (white) people will get really scared and this story will look like a picnic. I am always amazed that people bring up the one or two "brown" people who were attacked or hurt after 9/11. You have any idea what the scene would be like if the tables were turned? Best way to avoid racism in thought and action- turn the sides/colors around.

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?

brown guy: Since you keep avoiding this question, I'll ask it again: Why do law enforcement agencies at every level use some form of profiling if it is not at all effective? With all due respect to Amnesty International, I don't need Peter Gabriel to tell NYPD how to do their jobs. And the Ivy League schools must be in sad shape if they are giving degrees to people who write like you. Maybe you meant to say you scrub the toilets at Columbia?

hijiki: If an American Indian showed up at your front door an told you to get off the land that his ancestors once owned, would he be justified in killing you if you refused? I think your various justifications for terror would come to an abrupt halt if you had to surrender something of your own. Then again, angry America-haters are usually abysmal failures who don't own a pot to piss in, so it's really a hypothetical question.

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.

there ya go u, personal attacks are a great way to communicate your ideas. clearly you're angry but you don't have to worry, i'm not 'camping' with anyone.

clearly terrorists are not 'good guys'. but the points you make about them apply just as easily to america. holy war? is that less justified than an oil war? you just can't go to a stranger's house, tell them you're in charge, and then expect them to like it.

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'.

i'm sorry. you're just so disgustingly naive. these are not good guys we're talking about. they are people on a holy war.

you're the type of person that almost--but not quite--pushes me away from the Democrats toward the Republicans, just to not be in the same camp as someone like you.

Of course, you probably voted for Nader.

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.

the goal of terrorist networks is not to 'destroy western society'. the goal is to get people who have no right to it, out of their land and left alone. 'they can't stand freedom' is bush's simple-minded propaganda used to dismiss any possibly valid argument they may have as nothing more than hate. he has reduced the argument to good and evil so it's easy to swallow. they have clear demands, america simply ignores them. not that that excuses their disgusting tactics, but in the interest of humanity, their complaints might be worth examining.

i'm not saying this guy's particular detention is right or wrong since i don't have the details, but just to add some perspective, i'd like to point out that the US is by far the largest terrorist organization in the world. our tactics throughout latin america and the middle east make this plain as day. in many instances there truly is no moral superiority in what we've done and continue to do. we gassed the kurds just as much as saddam hussein did but only disapproved when we decided we didn't like him anymore. but that just goes back to defining terrorist, huh? the war on terrorism is anything but black and white.

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