Did I over-react or under-react?

[De Selby]

AZ,

The problem with this profile:

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.

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)??

[De Selby]

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:

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.

[Paddy]

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. 

[De Selby]

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i've had the cops called on me.  more than once. those times when i wasn't involved in crime no harm done.the other time   well don't do the crime if you can't do the time

[wmenorr67]

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.

[De Selby]

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.

[Paddy]

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?

[wmenorr67]

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?

[De Selby]

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.

[De Selby]

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.

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.

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.

[CAnnoneer]

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.

[Sergeant Bob]

I think you handled it just the way you should have. You didn't over react at all (unlike some of the people reacting to your post).

[Manedwolf]

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.

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.

[wooderson]

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)

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?

[Brad Johnson]

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

[wooderson]

'Racial profiling' (ie let's check everyone who has been in a mosque in the last year) is not a subset of 'profiling.'  Completely different concepts.

[De Selby]

racial profiling to catch a specific subject makes great sense.

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.

[Strings]

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?

 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...

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[De Selby]

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.

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.

[Paddy]

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?

[De Selby]

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.)

[Tallpine]

Simplest thing is just to follow the suspicious backpack guy around for a while.  If he's a suicide bomber, you'll find out soon enough 

[Strings]

>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. <

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...