I get such e-mails A LOT! Everyone seems to be in great fear of Muslims. These e-mails are designed to fan their fears. Check this one out : Well, I really don't see what's there to fear. The last I checked, Muslims are people too, and like all other normal human beings, they really have better things to do than spend the waking hours of their lives plotting to murder us, non-Muslims. This reminds me of the story about the old Jewish man who was caught by the Germans during World War 2. When examined, he was found to have a booklet about the evil Jews in his possession. When asked why he would keep such a book, he said, "I really liked the book. I never knew that we Jews were so powerful! We own the banks, we control the economy and we are about to take over the world!" Anyway, this was my reply :
Can't really understand why a Spanish writer would write "We killed six million Jews". Spain was one of the havens for Jews during WW2.
By the way, I do think there's a Muslim problem. Not a problem with Muslims or Islam in general, but as you say it's a matter of fanaticism, and it at least looks like there's currently a higher percentage of fanatics in Islam than in other religions. That's not to say that most Muslims aren't reasonable and peaceful people. Still, this text really cheapens the problem and hurts a reasonable discussion of it.
I think that's mostly because of ignorance. You will notice that most terrorists seem to come from poorly developed regions in poor countries (with low educational levels) like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia. Even Muslim fanatics from the US and Europe go there to get indoctrinated and trained. It's unfortunate but quite a number of Muslims do reside in these poorly developed countries. When you do not have a proper education system and leave the work of educating the young to religious schools, you run the risk of developing fanatics, especially when those religious schools are actually indoctrination cum recruitment centers for terrorist organizations. Just imagine if a large majority of US schools were funded and manned by the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Nation. If students are subjected to the same indoctrination by those folks, it wouldn't be surprising if they end up as Christian terrorists, out to wage a new Crusade against the Godless and the Non-Believers. That's just an example, of course, but when you think about it, it's actually pretty much what's happening right now - just with a different religion. I'm not saying that the Americans should not profile visitors. Sometimes, too much political correctness is just plain stupid. We have to call a spade, a spade. However, they have to go beyond superficial profiling based on country of origin, ethnicity or religion. I've experienced this kind of stupidity before, and so have my friends. Right after September 11, my friend who was set to leave for the US for a year-long work project had his visa immediately revoked just because he was a Malaysian (Malaysia's official religion is Islam, and Malaysia was very indirectly involved in the September 11 attacks by serving as one of the meeting places for the terrorists). Never mind that he was a Chinese Buddhist. As far as America was concerned, he was immediately a security threat. It took him over a year to have his visa cleared. However, profiling someone as a terrorist threat (or even ruling him out) just based on his religion or ethnicity would be incredibly stupid. Religion or ethnicity are no reliable barometers of fanaticism or inclination to commit terrorism. Besides, it's not like we all have our religion printed on our foreheads! What everyone needs is better intelligence. Sigint (signal intelligence) is all well and good, but I think what they are lacking now is human intelligence gathering - field operatives who can ferret out details of those who really intend to commit terrorism. Think of it this way. If you are a detective looking to track down a notorious gang of bank robbers, would you : a) send out undercover detectives to infiltrate the gang, and get information from your snitches and informers, or b) set up road blocks at major roads in hope of spotting the robbers before they hit the next bank? I think the logical choice is pretty obvious.
It's option b, of course. It's easier to do and risks people less. That's why the attempt to over compensate for lack of good intelligence is somewhat understandable, though of course not a great course of action. If you stop all residents of Muslim countries from arriving, you've lessened the chance of a terrorist arriving. Huge overkill but an obvious choice for low risk, low intelligence solution. It may be the wrong thing to do, but I'm sure such responses will continue to happen.
See... There are a couple of problems with that. First of all, not everyone in Muslim countries is Muslim. It's the same as the US. Is everyone a Christian in the USA? Similarly, banning folks just because they come from a country that is "officially" a Muslim country is going to cause a ton of problems without actually helping improve security. There is also a huge Muslim population in the US. Inevitably, this would mean that there is a number of radicals living IN the US as citizens as we speak. How will such a policy stop terrorist attacks if the terrorists are Americans? Heck, it could be the nice white guy who lives down the street. After stopping residents from all Muslim countries from coming in, the terrorists will start using American radicals. Then what? Register everyone's religion and start deporting anyone who dares to claim to be a Muslim? What's next? Deport folks who have Muslim-sounding names "just in case they were lying about their religion? Never mind that they are American citizens? Where do we stop? Where should we draw the line? More importantly, will all that actually improve security, or just create more problems? I think the US should pay attention to systems that work. Look at the Israelis. Do they stop everyone from going to Israel? Do they profile folks just based on their ethnicity or religion? No. They rely a lot on human intelligence because they won't have the resources of the US, and well, it has worked out well for them for years before 9/11 and continues to work well for them today.
Of course there are. It's a panic reaction. There are always problems with that. When 11/9 happened everyone panicked. All airports closed. I was in Paris at the time and suddenly people's bag got checked at the entrances to stores. Can Malaysians enter the US now? Hopefully so. I so, then it means that it was just an off-the-cuff reaction, like pretty much everything else that happened immediately following 11/9. I won't read too much into it as a policy. (Of course, if Malaysians still can't enter the US, then there's a serious problem.) It's not a great reaction, but it's a natural first reaction. Humint is hard to do, takes time and is risky. It's good to have but when it's not there or doesn't work you still need to do something, and closing borders is an obvious reaction. I'm glad you think highly of Israelis (because I am one), but Israel isn't perfect, either. When a Palestinian terrorist attack succeeds (as happened quite a few times in the 90's), Israel's first reaction is to close the Palestinian border. While that's far from the same as closing Israel to all Muslims, the concept is similar: humint failed, not everyone on the other side is a terrorist, but you don't know who is, so keeping everyone out makes you feel safer. Also, at some levels there is profiling based on ethnicity, yes. Some of it is pure stupidity. I knew in passing a professor of computer graphics here in Israel who was of Arabic origin, and when flying abroad he was not allowed to pass the gate because he was asked (because he was Arabic) to prove that his laptop isn't some potential bomb by booting Windows. He couldn't, and they wouldn't let him pass. You know why he couldn't? Because he only had Linux on it. Far as I remember his colleagues noticed he wasn't arriving and came back and explained the situation.
Yes, but it's been so many years since 9/11 and they are still in "panic" mode? Seriously... Hehe.. I know. When 9/11 happened, I was in India. Imagine how ridiculous the checks were : 1. They closed up the departure hall so that only passengers could enter. But outside the hall, they set up an x-ray machine with a few tables. 2. They first put all bags, including carry-ons through the x-ray machine. 3. Right after the bags come out of the x-ray machine, they would open up each and every bag and remove practically everything. 4. Then right after you enter the departure hall, the bags that were just checked have to go through ANOTHER x-ray machine and manual inspection! 5. What's absurd about this was the fact that the second x-ray machine was located just inside the departure hall, a mere 2-3m away from the first inspection! Basically, they scanned and manually inspected every piece of luggage twice before the passenger is even allowed near the check-in counter. 6. Before anyone can enter the passenger's lounge, they would put the carry-on bags through another x-ray machine and open them up for yet another manual inspection. 7. Just before boarding the plane, they would insist on opening the same carry-on bags and inspecting everything yet again, even though the passenger's lounge is a secure area. All in all, we had our bags checked FOUR times. That was how insane it was back then. Thankfully, they soon realized it didn't help security all that much. Sure, we can now, but the process isn't pleasant. At the beginning, they would be very hard-assed and make us feel as if we are illegal immigrants trying to sneak into the US everytime we apply for a visa. But once they issue you the visa, they would instantly become super-pleasant and ask us to stay longer in the US.... Nothing good is ever easy. Humint is, unfortunately, a necessity when you are dealing with an enemy that cannot be easily identified or quantified. See, the thing I have with closing the borders is that that concept is a fallacy. Any terrorist who wants to enter the US would have an easier time going through Canada or Mexico, than trying to run the security gauntlet that is part of modern commercial transportation. Despite all the security measures in US airports, the borders are far from closed. Even if the US decides, one fine day, to completely ban all non-citizens from entering the US, you can count on folks who insist on entering nevertheless to make for the Canadian / Mexican borders. And they would make it across. Of course, foreign terrorists are the least likely to apply for a visa, so I don't think they would really care if the borders were open or not. More importantly, there are terrorists WITHIN the USA and many are American citizens. Heck, some are even serving in the US armed forces! Good example - Major Nidal Malik Hasan of Fort Hood. How do you stop these terrorists by closing the borders? Well, I just think there are lessons that the Americans can learn from the Israelis. Sure, you still get attacks on and off, but many potential attacks have been foiled. Without tremendous amount of efforts in humint, I'm sure suicide attacks in Israel would have been far more common than it is right now. I'm not saying that sigint isn't important, but humint is probably what Israelis are best at and what Americans are rather poor in right now. But IMHO, Israel isn't closing the border to "protect" its citizens. It's doing so to punish the Palestinians. If you ask me, that's pretty stupid because it only causes hardship to the ordinary Palestinian who is just trying to make ends meet. It will only encourage more Palestinians to do more than resign wearily to their fate. That's the problem. If you just profile people based on their ethnicity, you are basically assuming that people of a particular ethnicity are very likely to be terrorists. But it also closes your mind to the possibility that folks of other ethnicities (especially your own) might be terrorists as well. For example, if I were Osama, I would send a tag team of an Arab-looking man, and a hot, white chick. The TSA screener would inevitably take the Arab-looking man aside for an anal probe and other pleasantries, but let the hot, white chick go without so much as a look at her bag. Of course, he would find nothing in or on the Arab-looking man and the team would eventually make it onboard the aircraft. Next thing you know, they both take hostages (thanks to weapons concealed in the hot, white chick's bag) and down goes another airliner... After all, you wouldn't expect that hot, white chick to be a Jihadist who wouldn't think twice about cutting your throat with a box cutter, right? Assumption, as they say, makes an ass out of you and me, and it's especially true in this case. If you want true security, you have to consider EVERYONE a security risk in the absence of proper intelligence. It doesn't matter if they are white, black, look Arab, or just plain look foreign. Heck, we shouldn't give special consideration to anyone, no matter what he or she looks like. Even the flight or cabin crew of the airliner should not be exempt from proper screening. Neither should the baggage handlers. They may not be on the plane, but they load 'em up, don't they? Of course, this is what we should do if we truly want REAL security. If we just want to "pretend" to improve security without putting in the effort or cost, well, profiling is the way to go.
Wow, these four security checks sound like they come from a parody. Too stupid to be real, right? Regarding closing the Palestinian border as punishment, I'm sure there's an element of that, but I'm pretty sure there's both an element of security and of intelligence. The plan is often for multiple attacks, so there's a chance that closing the border can help prevent that or help expose people involved. I agree that white people could throw off profiling, but it happens that most terrorists do fit the profile. And fact is, much of the western world (don't know how it is elsewhere) does consider everyone a security risk, which is why they take quite extreme measures in airports for everyone. Sure, they take more extreme measures for some (including Israelis; I got the manual groping quite a few times), but I'm sure they won't allow even the pope to bring scissors on the flight.
LOL! Well, I was the one subjected to such a ridiculous parade of scans and manual inspections, so as stupid as it was, it was real. It was a knee-jerk reaction, of course, right after the 9/11 attacks. But thankfully, they soon realised how stupid it was. My next trip was far more pleasant. Heh... Actually, I don't see how closing the border helps right after an attack. In some cases, they close the border after mortar or rocket attacks from the Palestinian side. What will closing the borders prevent further mortar/rocket attacks? Palestinians are already subjected to stringent checks at the border entry areas so it's quite impossible for them to smuggle bombs and weapons through those checkpoints. If any attacks were to happen on Israeli soil, the weapons would most likely have been smuggled in through another route. Again, closing the border at those checkpoints wouldn't make a difference. I'm sure the folks at Shin Bet would know what the true situation is, as well as the real motives for the decisions they make. I can only call it as I see it. But generally, I feel that their knee jerk reaction to close borders just to "punish" the Palestinian people is stupid. It doesn't hurt terrorist organizations like the Hamas - it just makes them stronger. Well, the problem I have with profiling is that it's just based on superficial aspects like race or religion. So most terrorists are male, Muslim and of Arab origins? What about Timothy McVeigh? Or John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban? How about the Caucasian "Black Widows" of Chechnya? If we target people merely based on what they look like, we would miss a WHOLE BUNCH of terrorists, who are getting away merely because they don't "look like a terrorist". Seriously, I think most of us would "look like terrorists" on a bad hair day and if we didn't catch any sleep on that long plane flight. Well, I don't think the security is as well thought out as it should be. I think they are wasting their time on measures that are really akin to closing the barn after the horses have bolted - e.g. banning fluids, checking belts and shoes, and now banning printer cartridges from being shipped. Seriously, do they expect terrorists to just stick to ONE PLAN???
Now, what did I want to say? Okay, I concede that the Israeli response may be mostly for punishment. I can speculate that it had some more meaning in the past (when Israel had more control over the Palestinian territories) which was lost and only the action remained. That's just idle speculation, though. I still don't understand why the expections mean that you can't use the rule. If Arab looking and Muslim terrorists outnumber non-stereotyped ones 100 to 1, wouldn't profiling help? If no profiling was done, all these stereotyped terrorists would have had an easier time.
Well, the problem with profiling by race or ethnicity alone is that it just doesn't work. First of all, the statistical probability aren't that strong. Sure, it is more likely that a Muslim terrorist will be a young male from countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan or Yemen; than a white male from countries like Sweden or Australia. However, when you look at it from the perspective of the entire populace, the percentage isn't significant enough. In a country like Yemen, with a population of about 23 million, even if there are 50,000 terrorists in Yemen (an absurb number), that would mean the chance of a Yemeni being a terrorist is merely 0.22%. That means we would have to subject at least 460 innocent Yemeni passengers to unnecessarily thorough inspections at airports just to catch one terrorist, and that is assuming that Yemeni terrorists are always trying to get onboard a plane to the US! Sure, catching that one terrorist is important but profiling would result in the TSA (or any inspection authority) wasting time and resources checking all Yemeni passengers, merely because they are a little more likely to be terrorists than the average passenger. That's okay if we have unlimited resources and funds, but realistically, this is a waste of time and money. We have to be more efficient IMHO. Secondly, profiling one merely based on superficialities like nationality and ethnicity blinds us to the fact that terrorists may look nothing like the stereotypical Arab terrorist. Heck, it could be a really sweet, innocent-looking Swedish girl for all you know. Profiling passengers based on nationality, sex and ethnicity will let her slip past easier than if there were no profiling at all, because we would all be looking for an "Arab-looking" man between the ages of 17-45 and especially if he wears a turban and has a beard to boot. Thirdly, the US has a large number of Muslims. About 2.7 million or 1% of the population, from some estimates. That means 1 out of every 100 US citizen is a Muslim. Some of them have been arrested for acts of terrorism. Inevitably, there will be more US Muslim citizens who will commit terrorism and/or get arrested for acts of terrorism. Getting all anxious about "imported" terrorism could blind folks to the very real possibility that acts of terrorism may be committed by US citizens. What I'm trying to point out is not that profiling will not work. I'm sure profiling is required to some extent, but I'm pretty sure they are not just based on superficial points like nationality and race. Any reasonable profiling would have to include other factors like education level, type of education, history of travel, history of association, etc. Of course, all that cannot be readily derived from the passport.
