Post by: AZRedhawk44 on October 11, 2007, 11:09:58 AM
I walked into the store, and it's one of those giant walmarts with a grocery store too. Two middle eastern guys are standing in the lobby, walking slowly, between the registers and the produce area. Both are dressed pretty well in slacks and button-up shirts, and one has a large backpack on, maybe 2500 cubic inches.
The one with the backpack has very negative body language. Arms crossed, eyes moving all over.
I immediately got really far away from them and went to the back of the store. I thought it over a bit, and wasn't sure if I should inform a store employee, call the police, or just leave it be.
I drift around back to the front of the store, but way on the other side from where the middle eastern guys were (I made a big U around the back basically) and they were walking slowly, taking notice of everything around them, same negative body language. I got away from them again.
I picked up my purchases and noticed that these guys had split up now, and the guy with the pack was in the middle of the store in the clothing department. I can't remember exactly, but I think it was the girls' clothing department.
I got in line at a register, and I saw the guy with the backpack leave the store without any purchases. He came back in again with his other buddy (who didn't make any purchases either, evidently) and they went into the produce area again. I took a picture of backpack-man with my cell phone and looked for a manager at the store.
I didn't find a manager, but I did tell the nearest non-Opie-ish employee I could find and pointed the guys out. I left right after that.
But guys... this felt just like either:
1) CAIR screwing around looking for a "racial profiling" lawsuit to latch onto, or
2) a dry run of an attack with a "martyr" and his handler.
What's the appropriate response?
Post by: Manedwolf on October 11, 2007, 11:12:50 AM
An awful lot of civilians in Israel and various ickystans have seen such a thing, right before a loud bang, screams and flying limbs. It's only a matter of time before it happens here.
A backpack that large in a store, plus the negative/nervous body language is suspicious enough, no matter what ethnicity someone appears to be.
Could well have been a dry run, yes. Remember, Thanksgiving is coming up, along with the shopping day right after.
Post by: Paddy on October 11, 2007, 11:13:55 AM
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 11, 2007, 11:16:15 AM
Brad
Post by: jefnvk on October 11, 2007, 11:22:19 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on October 11, 2007, 11:24:13 AM
That's very freaky. I would have been on it earlier, though, and gone directly to a cashier and quietly asked for the manager or security and explained why. Some funky lawsuit would be the last thing on my mind.
I would have looked for a manager, myself. The average Wal-Mart cashier I've run across, well...um...let's just say that "rapid comprehension of unexpected developments" is not a job requirement. Neither is English.
Post by: Jamisjockey on October 11, 2007, 11:28:31 AM
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on October 11, 2007, 11:47:59 AM
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on October 11, 2007, 12:03:13 PM
They're fast with that tip line.
They don't want the pic yet, and they thanked me for the info. Don't know if they will dig further on it or not.
But at least they have a fast phone center.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 11, 2007, 12:09:06 PM
Wow, just got off the phone with the FBI.
They're fast with that tip line.
They don't want the pic yet, and they thanked me for the info. Don't know if they will dig further on it or not.
But at least they have a fast phone center.
They're fast with that tip line.
They don't want the pic yet, and they thanked me for the info. Don't know if they will dig further on it or not.
But at least they have a fast phone center.
That just makes you wonder if they're really going to act on it, or if they just want to make sure they're not being pranked with tips. Dunno.
I've been surprised with the actual on-the-ball reaction of feds lately, though, so dunno. They popped up right away here and questioned people who made threats on web forums after the Browns got taken down...knew who they were, where they were, everything. I was a bit shocked at how efficient they were...and how they actually had been monitoring web boards. Not so 1950's anymore.
Post by: charby on October 11, 2007, 12:12:00 PM
-C
Post by: De Selby on October 11, 2007, 12:13:01 PM
Post by: Balog on October 11, 2007, 12:17:18 PM
Sounds to me like a couple of sticky-fingered bozos on a "procurement run" for their own personal gain. Probability is against it being terrorist related, but high for it being an unpaid self-checkout.
Brad
Brad
Yep.
Quote from: ManedWolf
They popped up right away here and questioned people who made threats on web forums after the Browns got taken down...knew who they were, where they were, everything.
That's a bit scary. Wonder who the Fed's are on this board?
Post by: Manedwolf on October 11, 2007, 12:21:52 PM
Quote from: ManedWolf
They popped up right away here and questioned people who made threats on web forums after the Browns got taken down...knew who they were, where they were, everything.
That's a bit scary. Wonder who the Fed's are on this board?
Heh heh.. Well, these were nutty extreme anarchist/down with government/f the police sorts, so they were probably being watched anyway. It was all over the local news, is how I know of it. I just hope they're watching terrorist groups as well. It was just startling to see they were actually so on the ball with their response.
Post by: De Selby on October 11, 2007, 12:26:41 PM
Heh heh.. Well, these were nutty extreme anarchist/down with government/f the police sorts...
There are a lot of those sorts around alright, but I don't call the FBI when I see a "caucasian male" dressed in a field jacket and cheap combat boots wandering suspiciously around Wal-Mart with a camoflauge pattern backpack.
If there were 1 real terror attack for every 100,000 "suspicious activity by guys that I suspect might be from somewhere between Gibraltar and Burma" incidents, we'd all be dead.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on October 11, 2007, 12:26:59 PM
Quote
How did you know they were middle eastern?
You're kidding, right?
My GF is Sri Lankan and muslim (non-practicing, kinda like a "jack mormon"). I can usually even tell Indian from Bangladeshi from Pakistani.
They sure as heck weren't Irish.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on October 11, 2007, 12:29:08 PM
Quote
There are a lot of those sorts around alright, but I don't call the FBI when I see a "caucasian male" dressed in a field jacket and cheap combat boots wandering suspiciously around Wal-Mart with a camoflauge pattern backpack.
Those guys are at Walmart to buy ammo for a day at the range.
Even the Browns, Weavers and Kuresh's of that group don't blow up walmarts. It's not their MO.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 11, 2007, 12:30:00 PM
Quote
How did you know they were middle eastern?
You're kidding, right?
My GF is Sri Lankan and muslim (non-practicing, kinda like a "jack mormon"). I can usually even tell Indian from Bangladeshi from Pakistani.
They sure as heck weren't Irish.
Now look what you did! You blew shootinstudent's attempt to start a CAIR bleat out of the water.
Post by: De Selby on October 11, 2007, 12:30:48 PM
Quote
How did you know they were middle eastern?
You're kidding, right?
My GF is Sri Lankan and muslim (non-practicing, kinda like a "jack mormon"). I can usually even tell Indian from Bangladeshi from Pakistani.
They sure as heck weren't Irish.
No, I'm not kidding. What tipped you off to them being middle eastern?
How would having familiarity with subcontinent types make you good at spotting Arabs and Persians?
I'm asking the question because you went in the direction of thinking this is maybe CAIR looking for a racial profiling claim, so I'd like to know what role racial features actually played in your view of the situation.
Post by: wooderson on October 11, 2007, 12:33:13 PM
Quote
Even the Browns, Weavers and Kuresh's of that group don't blow up walmarts. It's not their MO.
Given the level of vitriol I've seen from some parties about Wal-Mart "betrayin' Amurrica" and everything, I don't know that I would place a wager on the overall wingnut attitude toward the company.
Post by: De Selby on October 11, 2007, 12:36:26 PM
Quote
Even the Browns, Weavers and Kuresh's of that group don't blow up walmarts. It's not their MO.
Given the level of vitriol I've seen from some parties about Wal-Mart "betrayin' Amurrica" and everything, I don't know that I would place a wager on the overall wingnut attitude toward the company.There's also the fact that retail store terrorist attacks have only been carried out by Americans. There hasn't been a single one undertaken by Muslim terrorist groups.
If this were a scene on the whitehouse lawn, I'd be more inclined to say calling someone was right. But brown skinned guys in walmart looking a little shady? Thinking "terrorism" is taking the vigilance a bit too far.
Post by: Balog on October 11, 2007, 12:37:59 PM
Quote
There's also the fact that retail store terrorist attacks have only been carried out by Americans.
What incident are you referring to here?
Post by: De Selby on October 11, 2007, 12:39:39 PM
Quote
There's also the fact that retail store terrorist attacks have only been carried out by Americans.
What incident are you referring to here?
The Unabomber attacks on some strip malls, and the too numerous to cite shooting ramgpages.
Before we all get too carried away with racial profiling as a good idea, we should remember that "white guy who owns guns" fits the profile for like 99 percent of shooting sprees.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on October 11, 2007, 12:40:02 PM
1) Large backpack in a crowded area.
2) Nervous people not blending in to the routine of other folks nearby
3) Race helped "firm" the deal... it did not initiate the deal.
4) I did absolutely nothing until I noticed them leave the store with no purchases, then re-enter the store again. That was the final straw. I kept my suspicions to myself until that point.
Shootinstudent, sounds like you're looking for an excuse to be offended by my observations.
Post by: De Selby on October 11, 2007, 12:41:07 PM
I'm not offended at all. I simply want to know what racial features identified these people as middle eastern.
Surely, you would not have suspected terrorism if it weren't for their race. So what racial features put you on alert for terrorism?
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on October 11, 2007, 12:48:23 PM
AZredhawk,
I'm not offended at all. I simply want to know what racial features identified these people as middle eastern.
Surely, you would not have suspected terrorism if it weren't for their race. So what racial features put you on alert for terrorism?
I'm not offended at all. I simply want to know what racial features identified these people as middle eastern.
Surely, you would not have suspected terrorism if it weren't for their race. So what racial features put you on alert for terrorism?
You're trying to bait me.
Your statement "you would not have suspected terrorism if it weren't for their race" is a bait.
What do you consider an appropriate response to the same situation?
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 11, 2007, 12:51:54 PM
Quote
Your statement "you would not have suspected terrorism if it weren't for their race" is a bait.
AZRed, I see it as a simple observation. I am curious as well. Would you have suspected terrorism if it weren't for their race? Or would you have seen it as a couple of idiots trying to pocket a couple packs of free underwear?
Brad
Post by: wooderson on October 11, 2007, 12:57:43 PM
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on October 11, 2007, 12:59:57 PM
As noted in the original post, my first action was to only notify a store employee.
After further reflection many hours later, I decided to also notify the FBI. I told them it could have been a dry run, or it could have been some "innocent shoplifting." I wasn't happy with my earlier, more sedate response.
The race element (coupled with additional nervous behaviors) convinced me to contact the feds.
FWIW, if it were a commando boot-wearing, tac-vest toting, knife weilding white guy with a zz-top beard (kinda like Reno flag guy), I would have probably done the same thing (local cops instead of feds, but whatever) and faster.
While not all muslims are terrorists, and not all terrorists are muslim, nowadays most terrorists are muslim.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on October 11, 2007, 01:02:56 PM
Quote
Hard to believe an Arab dude might look a little prickly walking around Wal-Mart
Why didn't he have a cart or basket or some sort of goods in hand?
Why was he in the girls' clothing area?
Why did he only stay in the most populated parts of the store, near the registers?
How do you justify going from "Gardening" to "Groceries" to "Girls Clothing" without a single purchase in your hands?
Post by: Paddy on October 11, 2007, 01:05:20 PM
Quote
There's also the fact that retail store terrorist attacks have only been carried out by Americans. There hasn't been a single one undertaken by Muslim terrorist groups.
You must mean in the United States (and you'd have to go back a ways) because worldwide there have been over 450 terrorist attacks by Muslim groups just in the last 2 months.
Post by: wooderson on October 11, 2007, 01:09:27 PM
But I'm a white dude (until yesterday, a white dude with a helluva hippie beard, but nonetheless), so I'm just going to guess my ambivalence and surliness never got phoned in to the FBI.
Post by: Joe Demko on October 11, 2007, 01:11:21 PM
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on October 11, 2007, 01:14:52 PM
Quote
I don't know where the hell anything is in Wal-Mart except for ammo. I rarely get a cart. I wander all over the place in big box stores, sometimes not buying anything.
But I'm a white dude (until yesterday, a white dude with a helluva hippie beard, but nonetheless), so I'm just going to guess my ambivalence and surliness never got phoned in to the FBI.
But I'm a white dude (until yesterday, a white dude with a helluva hippie beard, but nonetheless), so I'm just going to guess my ambivalence and surliness never got phoned in to the FBI.
And they're not exactly being waterboarded in Gitmo right now, are they?
It's one tip to the Feds. If other similar behavior pops up in Scottsdale or Phoenix, it will be lumped together to be assigned to an agent for further investigation. No abridgement of rights happened here. They weren't forced to leave, and they weren't denied the ability to shop.
Excuse me for being observant. I guess they need to be saying "Dherka Dherka," "Allah uh Ackbar" and running around with wires protruding from their clothing before I'm supposed to do anything.
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 11, 2007, 01:28:38 PM
Quote
Excuse me for being observant. I guess they need to be saying "Dherka Dherka," "Allah uh Ackbar" and running around with wires protruding from their clothing before I'm supposed to do anything.
Lose the attitude, bud. If you don't like people challenging your assumptions you won't last long around here.
We're trying to understand your situation and see it from the outside in. From our vantage point we see a couple of losers acting in a manner consistent with common shoplifters. We're also a curious why the jump to the "terrorist" conclusion instead of a more simple, and much more probable one of "shoplifter." It's not a personal attack, it's a valid question that needs to be asked. Are there a couple of members here that might try to climb on you? Yes. But I guarantee the rest of us will have your back if it starts going down the wrong road.
So, take a deep breath and a chill pill. Present your facts and expect to be challenged on them. Be prepared to respond with a plausible reason, and in a rational, impersonal manner. Also be prepared to be corrected if you're wrong and congratulated if you're right. That's the APS way.
Brad
Post by: roo_ster on October 11, 2007, 01:40:14 PM
Wow, just got off the phone with the FBI.
They're fast with that tip line.
They don't want the pic yet, and they thanked me for the info. Don't know if they will dig further on it or not.
But at least they have a fast phone center.
They're fast with that tip line.
They don't want the pic yet, and they thanked me for the info. Don't know if they will dig further on it or not.
But at least they have a fast phone center.
That just makes you wonder if they're really going to act on it, or if they just want to make sure they're not being pranked with tips. Dunno.
I've been surprised with the actual on-the-ball reaction of feds lately, though, so dunno. They popped up right away here and questioned people who made threats on web forums after the Browns got taken down...knew who they were, where they were, everything. I was a bit shocked at how efficient they were...and how they actually had been monitoring web boards. Not so 1950's anymore.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 11, 2007, 01:50:09 PM
AZredhawk,
I'm not offended at all. I simply want to know what racial features identified these people as middle eastern.
Surely, you would not have suspected terrorism if it weren't for their race. So what racial features put you on alert for terrorism?
I'm not offended at all. I simply want to know what racial features identified these people as middle eastern.
Surely, you would not have suspected terrorism if it weren't for their race. So what racial features put you on alert for terrorism?
You're trying to bait me.
Your statement "you would not have suspected terrorism if it weren't for their race" is a bait.
What do you consider an appropriate response to the same situation?
Don't even bother. Shootinstudent = CAIR.
Post by: roo_ster on October 11, 2007, 01:54:26 PM
Quote
Excuse me for being observant. I guess they need to be saying "Dherka Dherka," "Allah uh Ackbar" and running around with wires protruding from their clothing before I'm supposed to do anything.
Lose the attitude, bud. If you don't like people challenging your assumptions you won't last long around here.
We're trying to understand your situation and see it from the outside in. From our vantage point we see a couple of losers acting in a manner consistent with common shoplifters. We're also a curious why the jump to the "terrorist" conclusion instead of a more simple, and much more probable one of "shoplifter." It's not a personal attack, it's a valid question that needs to be asked. Are there a couple of members here that might try to climb on you? Yes. But I guarantee the rest of us will have your back if it starts going down the wrong road.
So, take a deep breath and a chill pill. Present your facts and expect to be challenged on them. Be prepared to respond with a plausible reason, and in a rational, impersonal manner. Also be prepared to be corrected if you're wrong and congratulated if you're right. That's the APS way.
Brad
Why think "terrorism" and not just "shoplifitng?" One reason might be that your average ME immigrant to the USA is less likely to be caught committing petty crimes, while being more likely to go for the "big bang," if you will.
AZRH44's actions are reasonable and, given the time lag from incident to calling the FBI, not kneejerk.
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 11, 2007, 02:04:49 PM
Quote
One reason might be that your average ME immigrant to the USA is less likely to be caught committing petty crimes,
Not knowing the demographics of AZR44's area, I have to presume that it is a fairly broad slice of Americana. From that I have to presume that there will be a number of swarthy-skinned people who may, or may not, be of middle eastern origin. Dark or olive skin with black hair and exotic facial features covers a lot of territory. I also have to go on sheer statistical probability ... two guys, one with a backpack, nervously walking around a Wal-Mart, then leaving without visibly purchasing anything leads me to one predominantly probable conclusion. Common shoplifters. Also, in many Wal-Marts, the ladies garment section is direction adjacent the jewelry section. Milling around in the garments would be a logical time-waster that let them watch for the jewelry counter personnel to become occupied with other shoppers. That provides them with the opportunity to grab something right out of the counter and skedaddle. Their actions are consistent with shoplifters, their location near the items of highest concentrated value in the store. The pattern fits.
As for the FBI calling back ... since 9/11 that's their MO when faced with a situation like this - people with physical features matching certain ethnicities acting strangely in public. I would have been shocked if they hadn't promptly called.
Brad
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on October 11, 2007, 02:16:48 PM
Quote
I also have to go on sheer statistical probability ... two guys, one with a backpack, nervously walking around a Wal-Mart, then leaving without visibly purchasing anything leads me to one predominantly probable conclusion. Common shoplifters. Also, in many Wal-Marts, the ladies garment section is direction adjacent the jewelry section. Milling around in the garments would be a logical time-waster that let them watch for the jewelry counter personnel to become occupied with other shoppers. That provides them with the opportunity to grab something right out of the counter and skedaddle. Their actions are consistent with shoplifters, their location near the items of highest concentrated value in the store. The pattern fits.
Re-read the original situation. Why would a shoplifter re-enter the store with his stolen goods still in his pack? He left for about 15-30 seconds to meet with his original buddy outside then re-enter again. A "mad dash" to the car to drop off a pile of loot and then re-enter for another round of five-finger-discounts is awfully conspicuous, so I doubt he did it to empty his bag.
Also, this Walmart, the girls' clothing department is about 100-150 feet away from the jewelry counter and you cannot see one from the other with any real reliability.
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 11, 2007, 02:20:25 PM
Quote
Why would a shoplifter re-enter the store with his stolen goods still in his pack? He left for about 15-30 seconds to meet with his original buddy outside then re-enter again.
Shoplifters aren't the brightest bulb in the box to begin with. I managed a Radio Shack way back when. That's where I found that the sheer stupidity shoplifters are capable of is staggering.
In any event, you were observant enough to catch the unusual behavior. That's a far cry from most of the population. It shows you are at least paying attention to your surroundings and maintaining a sense of situational awareness.
Brad
Post by: De Selby on October 11, 2007, 02:43:27 PM
Not to unfairly tie Brad Johnson to my secret CAIR mission, but I think he's asking you the same questions I was asking and in the same light. This:
Quote
From that I have to presume that there will be a number of swarthy-skinned people who may, or may not, be of middle eastern origin. Dark or olive skin with black hair and exotic facial features covers a lot of territory. I also have to go on sheer statistical probability ... two guys, one with a backpack, nervously walking around a Wal-Mart, then leaving without visibly purchasing anything leads me to one predominantly probable conclusion. Common shoplifters.
Is exactly what I was thinking when I read the OP. It doesn't look like a case of terrorism, nor is the walmart a likely scenario for an attack. As I said before, if this were the same story but set on the whitehouse lawn, I'd think you acted appropriately. There's a lot more risk involved there and suspicious behavior of any kind should be taken more seriously than you'd take it at a local walmart.
Another issue is that I question the effectiveness of racial profiling to combat it anyway. And what's why I asked you how you knew the guys were middle eastern.
I repeat the question: How did you know what race they were? And I repeat it because, if you can't come up with reliable indicators as to who is or is not a middle easterner...how can using race to identify terrorists be effective and not become simply suspicion of all people with darker skin and hair?
That's the risk here-letting fears of terrorism drive us to be suspicious of, and possibly report to the FBI, every shady looking person who happens to be a darker shade of tan. In my book, that means fears of terrorism have gone too far, and are doing more harm to civil society than good.
This logic in particular is troubling:
Quote
While not all muslims are terrorists, and not all terrorists are muslim, nowadays most terrorists are muslim.
Imagine the tables turned-"while not all rampage shooters are gun owners, and not all gun owners are rampage shooters, nowadays most rampage shooters are gun owners. So the next time I see a guy loading a rifle into his trunk, I'm going to call the cops and let them know...not saying arrest him, not saying abridge his rights, I just think the cops should look into it because most rampages are carried out by gun owners."
In other words, this kind of profiling is a dangerous road to take, for all of our freedoms.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on October 11, 2007, 03:22:15 PM
I don't have the appropriate vocabulary to describe a face. While I could discuss eyebrows, jaw lines, eye shapes and nose profiles, I don't think I have the skill to "put pen to paper" and defnitively say to the APS board or anyone else that categorically, middle easterners have noses like X, eyes like Y and jawlines like Z.
There are facial traits shared by ethnicities. The best I could say for you is that I recognized these facial traits as mediterranean, with olive skin color and thick eyebrows. The ears were not shaped like someone from India or anywhere further east, with the large lobes. The nose was also smaller than most Indians. The hair was straight, not curly, yet jet black. I'm picking out pieces here, and not drawing the whole picture, because I don't know how to draw the whole picture for you.
While I am sure that you can take my amateurish description and disect components of it to attempt to prove that I do not know what a middle-easterner looks like, and I am sure there are ME's that don't fit a textbook mould, the fact remains that I can usually tell a Korean from a Chinese from a Japanese from a Vietnamese, just like I can usually tell a Persian from an Indian from a Turk. I'm not a professional profiler, but I am right more often than I am wrong... and when I am wrong, it's usually a matter of less than 300 miles (meaning a neighboring state).
If I say middle-eastern, it's because I can't tell a Syrian from a Saudi from a UAE citizen due to inexperience with citizens from these various countries.
Post by: Archie on October 11, 2007, 04:19:04 PM
You observed indicators of something untoward and you notified someone able to act on the information. At your place and time, the improper activity was irrelevant; something improper was happening - or so you had reasonable cause to believe was happening - and you did that which was within your power to do.
Red, you are also correct about recognizing people from various countries and ethnicities. After several years of looking at different faces every day, I developed a similar ability. With a person in front of me, I could note down the features that make this person Philippino, that one Korean and another Persian. The difference between Indian, Pakistani and Iranian are almost screaming in their distinctness.
On the other hand, you didn't shoot anyone or trip the fire alarm or make a big scene.
You did just fine.
Post by: wmenorr67 on October 11, 2007, 04:31:28 PM
That's a bit scary. Wonder who the Fed's are on this board?
Dispatch two agents to Balog's house. Starting to ask too many questions.
Post by: Tallpine on October 11, 2007, 04:34:43 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 11, 2007, 05:17:43 PM
That's a bit scary. Wonder who the Fed's are on this board?
Dispatch two agents to Balog's house. Starting to ask too many questions.
Stupid FBI, always blowing their cover. That's why I troll for the State Department.
Uh-oh.
Post by: wmenorr67 on October 11, 2007, 05:21:01 PM
The FED's is a large organization. Maynot be FBI.
Remember all the super secret organizations that popped up after 9/11?
Post by: Paddy on October 11, 2007, 05:25:14 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on October 11, 2007, 05:38:08 PM
call hurts no one except maybe shootin student
i try never to forget the ira caller after the bomb in the plaster wall missed thatcher "you got lucky today you have to be lucky everyday we only have to be lucky once
Post by: De Selby on October 11, 2007, 06:01:44 PM
The problem with this profile:
Quote
The best I could say for you is that I recognized these facial traits as mediterranean, with olive skin color and thick eyebrows.
Is that it literally fits any country from Gibraltar to Kabul. It doesn't even come close to zeroing in on people from countries that have produced terrorists in the past, it's just a bare bones racial comparison...it would be like profiling for Somalian terrorists by taking a hard look at every black person on the street.
Quote
If I say middle-eastern, it's because I can't tell a Syrian from a Saudi from a UAE citizen due to inexperience with citizens from these various countries.
This is the real clincher to my point: You just admitted you can't identify people from the very countries that spawn all of the terrorists. But you were suspicious anyway, because some people in all of those countries have olive skin and bushy eyebrows (like Spaniards, Italians, Greeks, Cypriots, Turks, Israelis, etc etc)??
Post by: De Selby on October 11, 2007, 06:06:13 PM
shootinstudent, grow up. This country is engaged in a multibillion dollar war with middle easterners, who, btw, are killing Americans as fast as they can. We've been subjected to hate rallies, effigy burnings, videotaped beheadings of Americans, and a continuing barrage of aggression coming from the Muslim world. It they don't want to be 'profiled', get the hell out of the country.
Except that "they" are also Americans. And one of the rights Americans enjoy in theory is that of not being treated differently because of race. If it's wrong when Jesse Jackson does it to white people, it's just as wrong when you and others do it to Arabs.
cassandrasdaddy,
Well, I agree that there's a place for heightened scrutiny (like government buildings, the Sears tower, and so on). But the local walmart? As for this:
Quote
call hurts no one except maybe shootin student
I have to disagree. If you are legally carrying a handgun and someone sees it and calls the cops to report "a middle eastern man with a gun in the mall!", that call put you at risk.
If all of our neighbors were regularly phoning us in on suspicion of having machine guns for cleaning our EBR's in the back yard, I seriously doubt there would be much consensus that phone calls to the police reporting suspicious behavior hurt no one.
Post by: Paddy on October 11, 2007, 06:23:06 PM
Quote
Except that "they" are also Americans. And one of the rights Americans enjoy in theory is that of not being treated differently because of race. If it's wrong when Jesse Jackson does it to white people, it's just as wrong when you and others do it to Arabs.
OK. However when "they" are foreign nationals who are here illegally having violated the terms of their visa, toss 'em out. And we're not at war with Jesse, who, btw, doesn't behead people. Get real.
Post by: De Selby on October 11, 2007, 06:33:06 PM
Quote
Except that "they" are also Americans. And one of the rights Americans enjoy in theory is that of not being treated differently because of race. If it's wrong when Jesse Jackson does it to white people, it's just as wrong when you and others do it to Arabs.
OK. However when "they" are foreign nationals who are here illegally having violated the terms of their visa, toss 'em out. And we're not at war with Jesse, who, btw, doesn't behead people. Get real.
How did we determine that they were foreign nationals? I'm not aware of any possible method of separating Americans from foreign nationals based on quick glances while shopping at retail outlets.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on October 11, 2007, 07:02:01 PM
Post by: wmenorr67 on October 11, 2007, 07:21:38 PM
Quote
Well, I agree that there's a place for heightened scrutiny (like government buildings, the Sears tower, and so on). But the local walmart?
Why not the local Wal-Mart or any other place that people congregate and would feel "secure"?
It is that mind set that will lead to there being another attack somewhere in the US at a location that you think safe.
After 9/11 no place is immune to an attack and it is up to us sheepdogs to make sure at least our loved ones are safe.
Post by: De Selby on October 11, 2007, 07:33:02 PM
Quote
Well, I agree that there's a place for heightened scrutiny (like government buildings, the Sears tower, and so on). But the local walmart?
Why not the local Wal-Mart or any other place that people congregate and would feel "secure"?
It is that mind set that will lead to there being another attack somewhere in the US at a location that you think safe.
After 9/11 no place is immune to an attack and it is up to us sheepdogs to make sure at least our loved ones are safe.
Based on the track record of previous attacks-Al Qaeda attacks both completed and foiled are invariably on infrastructure targets. Ie, major public transport systems, government offices, bridges, tunnels, etc etc.
There's nothing to indicate that Bin Laden and his kooks are going to suddenly switch from hitting targets that fit their "we're just attacking the economic targets that support their government and military" claims, to hitting retail outlets.
9/11 fit the pattern; what was new was the level of destruction and murder. But the targets were in line with Al Qaeda's b.s. claims about their methods of warfare-they hit bigtime infrastructure and military targets.
Schools and shopping centers are at highest risk from lone psychos who load up their guns to go shoot innocent people. That has happened more times than I can count on both hands, and it continues to happen. Though it's not impossible, there's nothing in the history of terrorism against the USA to suggest that these places will become targets for Al Qaeda or the like.
Post by: Paddy on October 11, 2007, 07:44:46 PM
Quote
Schools and shopping centers are at highest risk from lone psychos who load up their guns to go shoot innocent people. That has happened more times than I can count on both hands, and it continues to happen. Though it's not impossible, there's nothing in the history of terrorism against the USA to suggest that these places will become targets for Al Qaeda or the like.
Yet, this is the modus operandi of the al-aksa brigade, hamas, et al., in Israel. At the same time, however, there has been no terrorist strike in the U.S. since 9/11. Why is that? Have there been no opportunities? Is al-queda, et al not here? Is PA I & II effective enough to stop whatever would have happened otherwise? We American citizens have no idea. Yet our government has told us further strikes are inevitable.
At the same time, our enemy knows that any significant strike against American civilians on American soil will be answered with unbelievable devastation to somebody. Is that a deterrent?
Post by: wmenorr67 on October 11, 2007, 08:42:16 PM
Quote
There's nothing to indicate that Bin Laden and his kooks are going to suddenly switch from hitting targets that fit their "we're just attacking the economic targets that support their government and military" claims, to hitting retail outlets.
But until 9/11 did you see anyone using airliners as bombs?
Post by: De Selby on October 11, 2007, 09:22:15 PM
Quote
There's nothing to indicate that Bin Laden and his kooks are going to suddenly switch from hitting targets that fit their "we're just attacking the economic targets that support their government and military" claims, to hitting retail outlets.
But until 9/11 did you see anyone using airliners as bombs?
No, but there were attacks on airliners. That fits the pattern of going after infrastructure targets like public transport. That's why there was justifiably more security on airplanes than for buses; they were a bigger target. And that's why I think government offices and high-rise buildings should get more scrutiny than Wal Marts and Targets.
Being suspicious of terrorists at the walmart, based on the description given, doesn't really add up. It would if it were an airport, though, so I'm saying redhawk's suspicion was out of proportion to the threat based on where it occured.
Post by: De Selby on October 11, 2007, 09:29:12 PM
Yet, this is the modus operandi of the al-aksa brigade, hamas, et al., in Israel.
Totally different situation. If Native Americans still constituted 50 percent of the population of America, and had large militant groups designed to return America to Native rule, then I think we'd have many lessons to learn from Israel, but we're not in that position.
Quote
At the same time, however, there has been no terrorist strike in the U.S. since 9/11. Why is that? Have there been no opportunities? Is al-queda, et al not here? Is PA I & II effective enough to stop whatever would have happened otherwise? We American citizens have no idea. Yet our government has told us further strikes are inevitable.
My view is that Al Qaeda has focused on splitting the coalition of states willing to work with America. 9/11 got the world to sign up to help the US; so instead of doing something that would drive more in the world to sympathize with America and work with it, Al Qaeda used the war in Iraq to drive wedges between the US and the rest of the world. Witness the withering European support for the Iraq war in the wake of Al Qaeda's London and Madrid attacks.
What I'm saying is that they aren't attacking America because they have a more successful strategy going-isolating us from all of our allies so that we end up footing the entire bill for all of these wars, and so that foreign governments end up less and less interesting in helping to capture and hand over terrorists.
Quote
At the same time, our enemy knows that any significant strike against American civilians on American soil will be answered with unbelievable devastation to somebody. Is that a deterrent?
I doubt it-they are attacking American soldiers every day. Their preferred tactic is the suicide attack. So I don't think killing lots of people in the places that terrorists live does much to deter them. Getting their supporters to turn on them and to make no place in the world safe for them to stay long seemed to be working...but it looks like we've reversed that trend, and the sour world opinion of the Iraq war is one of the primary causes.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 12, 2007, 07:20:57 AM
Racial profiling? LE admits it is an effective method. But it might not be fair to some groups? Being blown up isn't fair either.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on October 12, 2007, 07:25:26 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on October 12, 2007, 08:05:23 AM
If something is making you uncomfortable, report it. Better safe than sorry.
Racial profiling? LE admits it is an effective method. But it might not be fair to some groups? Being blown up isn't fair either.
Racial profiling? LE admits it is an effective method. But it might not be fair to some groups? Being blown up isn't fair either.
Basic police work.
Most middle-eastern men and even muslims are not terrorists.
But the people who most want to hurt us are almost entirely young middle eastern muslim men.
Post by: wooderson on October 12, 2007, 08:52:43 AM
Quote
LE admits it is an effective method.
"LE"? Why, I hadn't realized that local, state and federal policing authorities were of one mind on anything. Imagine that.(this isn't true, for the record - 'profiling' is generally considered ineffective policing by authorities - gun board commandos may differ)
Quote
But it might not be fair to some groups? Being blown up isn't fair either.
Just so long as we know which groups can have their rights disregarded at will, right?I suspect you'll not disagree with the Brady Campaign's new "getting shot isn't fair either" approach?
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 12, 2007, 09:11:17 AM
Quote
this isn't true, for the record - 'profiling' is generally considered ineffective policing by authorities
Incorrect. They use it all the time to narrow down the search for a potential suspect. Profiling is establishing a search criteria (inclusion and exclusion) based on statistical probabilities. It doesn't have to be elaborate. Even a single criteria is profiling.
Brad
Post by: wooderson on October 12, 2007, 10:07:42 AM
Post by: De Selby on October 12, 2007, 10:49:08 AM
Profiling to catch an unknown based on the fact that a member of his race is going to commit the crime is like randomly searching every white male in the shopping mall to catch would-be child molestors. Yeah, most child abusers appear to be white males...but that doesn't mean randomly searching the homes all white males is a good method of preventing and punishing child abuse.
Post by: Strings on October 12, 2007, 12:10:30 PM
If you wanted to REALLY cripple America, attacks on places like SprawlMart would be fairly effective: make Joe Sixpack feel unsafe everywhere, and bring the economy to a halt. Would take more than one attack, but could EASILY force the US into some drastic measures...
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 12, 2007, 12:23:12 PM
If you wanted to REALLY cripple America, attacks on places like SprawlMart would be fairly effective: make Joe Sixpack feel unsafe everywhere, and bring the economy to a halt. Would take more than one attack, but could EASILY force the US into some drastic measures...
Very true. We feel pretty safe here in the Midwest, so an attack on Dubuque would be quite effective.
Post by: De Selby on October 12, 2007, 02:12:05 PM
You say that AlQ "doesn't operate that way" yet 9/11 was a massive deviation for the standard MO already: you hijack a plane, take it somewhere else (usually a ME country), and then negotiate release of the passengers. Instead, they used the planes as the ultimate guided missles. So... what's to stop them from changing their tactics again?
I don't think that was a massive deviation at all-what was new was the level of destruction, but they hit all the same targets they've been after for 20 years. Airliners, the WTC, and military bases, embassies, etc. The selected targets fit the pattern to a T on September 11th.
Quote
If you wanted to REALLY cripple America, attacks on places like SprawlMart would be fairly effective: make Joe Sixpack feel unsafe everywhere, and bring the economy to a halt. Would take more than one attack, but could EASILY force the US into some drastic measures...
I really think this is an overestimation. Look at how many shopping center and school massacres there have already been-they did not bring the US to a screeching halt. Neither did the US shut down when the Virginia Tech shooting happened-this before we knew who the shooter was.
Attacks on malls and walmarts are not likely to do anything except convince all but Zhawari and Bin Laden himself that the organization is one of common criminals. That's the reason it hasn't happened already, and why it's not likely to happen in the future.
Post by: Paddy on October 12, 2007, 02:15:58 PM
Quote
Attacks on malls and walmarts are not likely to do anything except convince all but Zhawari and Bin Laden himself that the organization is one of common criminals. That's the reason it hasn't happened already, and why it's not likely to happen in the future.
And yet terrorist bombings of crowded marketplaces in other countries is not all that unusual. Can you explain why there and not here?
Post by: De Selby on October 12, 2007, 02:18:47 PM
Quote
Attacks on malls and walmarts are not likely to do anything except convince all but Zhawari and Bin Laden himself that the organization is one of common criminals. That's the reason it hasn't happened already, and why it's not likely to happen in the future.
And yet terrorist bombings of crowded marketplaces in other countries is not all that unusual. Can you explain why there and not here?
Different wars for different reasons. They usually involve two or more large populations living side by side. When you've got both sides fighting for the very same homes, and both are right to call the place home, the level of animosity and violence skyrockets. (That's my theory anyway-I realize that's not by any means a settled question.)
Post by: Tallpine on October 12, 2007, 02:25:16 PM
Post by: Strings on October 12, 2007, 04:01:51 PM
Oh, I'll grant you, one or two occassionally happen, without major ill-effect for the rest of the country. But what happens if, for example, Sprawlmart was bombed in several different states within the same week (a feat which wouldn't take THAT much coordination). Do you think folks would still go shopping?
I remember flying back in from Thailand, and finding out about the "DC Sniper". And there was a fair amount of hysteria over that lil' crime spree...
Post by: Laurent du Var on October 12, 2007, 10:16:11 PM
In most of Europe you can't go into a shopping area with a backbag,
normally Security people would ask you to but it into a consignement box or at least check the inside, how about Wal mart ?
How about going right up into the face of those negative body language arms crossing eye rolling middle easterners and talk to them : Hi, how are you doing you look a little lost here in the girly departement, can I help you or get one of the employees for you ?
I mean we know now that there was nothing going on, and if it was a try run for a terrorist act then we'll know soon enough. By the way it's your country, if you see people whose behaviour you don't understand just go and find out.
Middle easterners allways have snot brakes, that's how you know !
Post by: S. Williamson on October 14, 2007, 05:04:53 AM
Next time, don't bother with the Feds or Wal-Mart Loss Prevention.
Call shootinstudent over to the store and avoid a 4-page debacle of nothing but two opposing sides urinating on the same electric fence.
To bring up his (shootinstudent's) original post:
Quote
How did you know they were middle eastern?
Prove that they weren't.Quote
I really think this is an overestimation. Look at how many shopping center and school massacres there have already been-they did not bring the US to a screeching halt. Neither did the US shut down when the Virginia Tech shooting happened-this before we knew who the shooter was.
None were ever actually coordinated. Remember the "DC Sniper?" Look what two nuts and a Bushy did to an entire Metropolitan area. Quote
Attacks on malls and walmarts are not likely to do anything except convince all but Zhawari and Bin Laden himself that the organization is one of common criminals. That's the reason it hasn't happened already, and why it's not likely to happen in the future.
And how likely was the possibility of two fully-loaded jetliners taking out the WTC?
Post by: Sergeant Bob on October 14, 2007, 07:03:33 AM
Quote
Next time, don't bother with the Feds or Wal-Mart Loss Prevention.
Call shootinstudent over to the store and avoid a 4-page debacle of nothing but two opposing sides urinating on the same electric fence.
Call shootinstudent over to the store and avoid a 4-page debacle of nothing but two opposing sides urinating on the same electric fence.
Thats great! Mind if I use that?
Post by: De Selby on October 14, 2007, 01:37:16 PM
The point I was making about not recognizing middle eastern from other people is that any attempt to profile middle easterners will ultimately become "I'm suspicious of anyone with year-round tan and bushy eyebrows", so the profile doesn't even fit the target group. I don't know if they were middle easterners or not, but that wasn't relevant to the point I was making about AZredhawk's racial profiling. It was a low-risk situation for terrorism, and the racial profile doesn't even narrow down the suspicion to people from countries that have produced terrorists. It just makes brown people of any nationality with bushy eyebrows more likely to have the Feds called on them because they went to walmart-that's not a good thing, imho.
Quote
None were ever actually coordinated. Remember the "DC Sniper?" Look what two nuts and a Bushy did to an entire Metropolitan area.
Of course I remember it-I was there. Despite what you might have read on the news, DC did not come to a screeching halt, the metro kept running, the stores stayed open, and people were able to buy groceries and get home after work to watch the 24/7 news coverage of the case.
What the sniper attacks did do was get people ready to support whatever search/seizure/gun-ban law that was thrown at them. If DC weren't already under a total gun ban, the sniper case hysteria probably would've earned one. But it wasn't going to get in the way of doing business.
Quote
And how likely was the possibility of two fully-loaded jetliners taking out the WTC?
That unpredictable part of that was the combination of two targets into one big plot-but the two targets themselves (airliners and the WTC) were not only predictable, they'd both been attacked in the past already. Predicting that terrorists would hijack planes, and that they'd attack the WTC, was not difficult at all. It already happened before September 11th.
Post by: Paddy on October 14, 2007, 05:47:04 PM