A nice Photo Op

[Gamblor]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040207/481/xem10102071449

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040207/capt.xem10102071449.mideast_israel_palestinians_xe m101.jpg

While it's possible that this woman began weeping before she encountered the photographers, her position - alone, alongside English graffiti - suggests the scene was staged for maximum emotional impact to a Western audience. It seems these photographers are not merely "capturing the scene", but rather creating it - either actively (by asking her to pose) or passively (allowing themselves to be manipulated by her, posing for their cameras).

The next time you hear about their "desperation", think about this image of an Arab woman crying on demand for the gathered paparazzi. We and all our neighbors are being manipulated by photo editors, journalists and reporters in the field.

[bigpooch]

Obviously staged!

[MattHatter]

This is not unique behavior. And it is completely non constructive approach to the issue. (from both sides)

Why can't we get some peacekeepers in there?


Matt

[Gamblor]

This is not for the peaceniks, this is for the people that take the press at face value and thusly campaign for divestiture from Israel, for sanctions against Israel, and UN peacekeepers.

The Palestinian Arabs have the backing of virtually every single oil-rich Arab state (22 in total), the Israelis have the backing of one powerful state's government but due to media like this, not the powerful state's people.

The Jews don't have the option of going anywhere else, as history has shown us. There is no widespread systematic persecution against Arabs in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, or Egypt. The Jews, however...

[MMMMMM]

UN peacekeepers are notoriously ineffective, and the chances that they can keep the suicide bombers out better than the Iraelis can are nil.

[MattHatter]

With international backing.. a multinational peacekeeping force could be very effective. It couldn't do much worse.

At least with some impartial troops there with the intent to resolve things might not stir up so much animosity. When foreign troops look for weapons in a refugee camp it might be more effective and better recived by the palestinians that when the israeli army does it? That's what I would figure.

Then The UN could enforce the geneva conventions there as well. I'll bet this would help calm things down as well. I mean it couldn't hurt? I would agree they (suicide bombers)are not likely to be stopped though. But I would suggest that the Isreali method has been proven not to work, it just feeds the cycle.

It seems to me that no matter the justifications, if it was the the chicken or the egg that came fist, it is a cycle, and someone needs to step in to stop it. Both sides invoved have repeatedly proven themselves incapable.

There have been many proposals for direct international involvement brought before the UN. Almost exclusively Israel, the US, Mashall Islands, stand alone globally against at least even TRYING this sort of thing. I can get the UN vote references.


Matt

[MMMMMM]

Before you get the UN vote references, how about a list of places where UN peacekeepers were ever much more than just show dogs. In other words, they're next to useless--as history has shown.

[MattHatter]

[ QUOTE ]
how about a list of places where UN peacekeepers were ever much more than just show dogs. In other words, they're next to useless--as history has shown. - mmmmmm

[/ QUOTE ]


Rather than take the cynics approach, lets try it with the glass half full.

Can you give me example of where the poeple would have been better off without any help at all no matter what pittance the UN was able to provide?

Here is an example of where the UN was completely ineffective: Rwanda - Romeo Dallaire (http://www.canadians.ca/more/profiles/d/d_romeo_dallaire.htm)

" General Romeo Dallaire did everything he could, pleading for 2000 more peacekeepers to be added to his insufficiently equipped 3000 man force. If they had answered Gen. Dallaire's pleas, the U.N. could have stopped the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Rwandans. instead, following the deaths of 10 Belgian Peacekeepers assigned to protect the President, his forces were cut down from 3000 to a mere 500 men, who had to watch as one of the most horrible genocides in human history took place before their very eyes.

Now the problem here is that he couldn't get anyone to listen.. no one cared (at the security council, etc..).
With support from the security council (international community) things could have been different.


Essentially, because they have failed due to no support in the past, you are suggesting that even with international support we just shouldn't bother?

Can you offer no better solution? What value is there in criticizing the UN? What does this add to this debate?

Like I mentioned esentially all other nations on the planet are interested in at least giving it a try, and with the current global state of affairs (ie terrorism) I can't see why the us, israel, the marshall islands would stand essentially alone against even trying.


Matt

PS: Mr Dallaire is a canadian /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cyrus]

Yeah, everything that the Palestinians say is a lie. It is, actually, quite obvious.

The pictures showing Palestinians in various states of misery or desperation are all staged. They have al been staged. The accounts of Israeli atrocities are all fake. The photos and the videos are computer-generated. The witnesses are mentally deranged. The Palestinians themselves are the greatest actors the world has ever seen.

We are being denied the truth - and the truth is that the Palestinians are inferior human beings, full of crazy ideas and inflamed by hatred, hellbent on murder and rampage. They are in every sense an inferior species. They should all be exterminated like cockroaches.

...Go, Ariel!

[Gamblor]

Hyperbole, rhetoric, and accusations of genocide all within 2 hrs!

You should run for Chairman of the PA.

Of course, even declaring your candidacy is grounds for murder nowadays. Remember the mayor of a Palestinian village, Zuhir Hamdan, who publicly stated that his villagers preferred to live, not under Arafat, but Israel?

He was gunned down by Force 17 members. Yep, Arafat's personal security team.

[MattHatter]

Not constructive.

For the sake of the threads integrity, I'll ask you guys to not go down that road. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

But suit yourself.


Matt

[MMMMMM]

"Can you give me example of where the poeple would have been better off without any help at all no matter what pittance the UN was able to provide?"

Yes, Rwanda. Kofi Annan and the UN troops actually ended up facilitating the slaughter of the Hutus or Tutsis the way things played out. Search the web for more info., I believe Kofi has recently apologized for it.

"What value is there in criticizing the UN? What does this add to this debate?"

The value in criticizing the UN is in taking the UN off its pedestal and recognizing that it is a toothless, ineffective organization. Generally speaking any involvement with the UN only serves to delay any type of meaningful real-world solution.

Also, I think it is it is unfortunate that you refer to this as a debate, because that implies you are primarily trying to score points for your side. I am here to participate in discussions and to explore ideas, rather than to debate.

"Can you offer no better solution?"

Yes, the Fence has done a great overall job in keeping out suicide bombers in the areas where it is installed. The suicide bombings in areas where the Fence is contiguous are almost nonexistent compared to other areas. Finish the Fence.

[MattHatter]

"The value in criticizing the UN is in taking the UN off its pedestal and recognizing that it is a toothless, ineffective organization. Generally speaking any involvement with the UN only serves to delay any type of meaningful real-world solution. "

I still don't see how this is relevant or helpful or valuable. This situation has been going on for a long time. Occupation, 50 years or so. Suicide bombings.. 25 years or so? (I may be slightly off).

So to imply that involving the UN peacekeepers in this issue would somehow delay they resolution of a 50 year old problem is kind of silly.

They have been ineffective on this issue in a large part due to the facts I stated in my prior post. Generally the US, Israel and a couple (1 or 2) others stand ALONE in opposing at least trying this solution. And with the US veto....

The UN is as effective or ineffective as the main power brokers are determined to make it. (Look at Iraq War 1).

And to repeat again.. the US stands esentially alone in opposition on this one.

"Yes, Rwanda. Kofi Annan and the UN troops actually ended up facilitating the slaughter of the Hutus or Tutsis the way things played out."

In what way specifically did the Mr Dallaire and the UN facilitate the slaughter? Other than the fact thier support was cut out from under them just as the slaughter was about to occur. I can see responsibility for facilitation other than that that is shared amongst all UN members (particularly those in a position to do something about it) that ignored his pleas for help, and bailed when they were needed most.

"Also, I think it is it is unfortunate that you refer to this as a debate, because that implies you are primarily trying to score points for your side. I am here to participate in discussions and to explore ideas, rather than to debate."

I refer to this as a debate to try to keep people in line. I noticed that these discussion can easily stray away from facts into a patriotic haze of personal attacks against me.
I don't wanna get into defining debate.

Finish the Fence.

It's a tragedy that you consider this the best available, best possible solution. I would suggest that building walls between people will never solve the worlds problems.



Matt

[MMMMMM]

I think you're reading too much into what I write.

"So to imply that involving the UN peacekeepers in this issue would somehow delay they resolution of a 50 year old problem is kind of silly."

The main point vis-a-vis the Palestinian problem is not so much that the UN would delay solution, but that it would be ineffective. Actually nobody in the would could be more effective than the Israelis at the type of security they have had to become expert in. Due to numbers, some attacks still get through.

"And to repeat again.. the US stands esentially alone in opposition on this one"

Most of the rest of the world is anti-Semitic, that's why. The Arabs vote in a bloc too.

"In what way specifically did the Mr Dallaire and the UN facilitate the slaughter? Other than the fact thier support was cut out from under them just as the slaughter was about to occur."

As I understand it, the UN peacekeepers helped turn the tide and/or provided assurances, then left when the tide had turned. That tide was pure slaughter. And Kofi later apologized for something very srrious related to this. I'm not up on the details of the entire matter, though.

Finish the Fence.

"It's a tragedy that you consider this the best available, best possible solution. I would suggest that building walls between people will never solve the worlds problems."

I don't consider it the best possible long-term solution but it is by far the best way to cut way down on suicide attacks for the near-term.

[Utah]

So you cant believe that the Palestinians try and manipulate the media?

{i]inflamed by hatred, hellbent on murder and rampage[/i]

I'm sorry, did I miss something or was there some change? Is this no longer true?

[hetron]

So you are saying the Palestinians should go elsewhere because they are similar to other Arabs? That's like kicking the Peruvians out of Peru and telling them they should go elsewhere because they are similar to other latin americans.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
inflamed by hatred, hellbent on murder and rampage

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to distinguish between the terrorist minority and the honest majority trying to make a life in that troubled part of the world? This statement is more than a little insulting to me, and I'm not even close to being middle eastern.

[Gamblor]

NO NO NO NO NO

But if the refusal of Arabs to accept Jewish nationhood in the Middle East makes the existence of Arabs and the existence of Jews in Israel mutually exclusive, morality dictates that a small chunk of land be reserved for the one people without any other.

[Gamblor]

Care to distinguish between the terrorist minority and the honest majority trying to make a life in that troubled part of the world?

The problem is that the terrorist minority controls the newspapers, the television stations, the education system, and pretty much any piece of information going into Palestinian Arab homes.

I have no doubt that in a Western-style democracy the Arabs would function the same as any other Western-style democracy.

But as it stands, the people just don't get any information outside what propaganda they are spoon fed. And that is a serious powder keg.

[hetron]

If you think that the people in the Occupied Territories aren't suffering, you are nuts. I don't need pictures to tell me what is going on. Just look at their standard of living. It's among the worst in the world, bar none.

You seem to think the Palestinians aren't worthy of anyones sympathy. And while I don't condone suicide attacks, I definitely think that there a lot of Palestinians worthy of human sympathy. Many were kicked out of their homes and are living in refugee camps.

It seems you are trying to inflame people against the palestinians just as much as "the media" is. Or else, why not include pictures like this:
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20040207/capt.sge.iev26.070204162633.photo00.default-384x262.jpg

since, after all these pictures were part of the yahoo story too, since it occurred at the same protest.

[MMMMMM]

"Care to distinguish between the terrorist minority and the honest majority trying to make a life in that troubled part of the world?"

The problem is that that "terrorist minority" is helluva a large slice of the population. If it were a tiny minority, well, not nearly so big a deal, but it's a BIG BIG minority hellbent on death and destruction.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that that "terrorist minority" is helluva a large slice of the population.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sources? What do you qualify as a "helluva large slice"? I would say 10% is a helluva large slice, but still not even close to being close enought to make general derogatory statements about the entire population. I highly doubt much more than 10% has had much to do with terrorist actions in Isreal. By the way, Isreal itself hasn't exactly been a peach throughout these troubled times. I sympathise with Isreal in many ways, but I also sympathise with the Palestinians (On both sides with those who haven't participated in terrorist acts). If you give me a few legitimate sources telling me that a "BIG BIG minority" is "hellbent on death and destruction" then maybe I'll change my tune slightly, but it still would not make it right to belittle a nation for the sins of a minority, large or not. Frankly I doubt you or I (or Utah, or nearly anyone) are qualified to draw any real conclusions about the situation in the Middle East

[Cyrus]

It's on the basis of insane arguments such as Gamblor's that the slaughtering in the Middle East is conducted. Watch:

"If the refusal of Arabs to accept Jewish nationhood in the Middle East makes the existence of Arabs and the existence of Jews in Israel mutually exclusive, morality dictates that a small chunk of land be reserved for the one people without any other."

Did you get that clearly, Hetron? (If you did, be kind enough to explain it to me, as well...)

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[jokerswild]

You sound like a British General describing the colonies.

[Cyrus]

That picture you posted is obviously a fake. The two flags don't align properly (remember Oswald with the rifle? yep!) and the two young people are a collage from different time frames. The man is obviously from the 80s and the woman from the 90s (check the do's, man!).

Oh, and the location is not occupied territories, it's clearly a Hollywood backlot. Or Sean Penn's backyard.

So it's a fake! (Ask Gamblor if you don't believe me.)

[Gamblor]

The Arabs in that picture are above and beyond the bullshit their government.

You're right.

Let's see more of those.

Even Ovadia Yosef, who Cyrus has held as the most racist, Arab-hating yada yada announced that peace with the Arabs must be achieved on the principle of Pikuach Nefesh (preservation of human life/souls), both Arab and Jewish.

[Gamblor]

Bridges For Peace (http://www.bridgesforpeace.com/publications/dispatch/peacewatch/Article-32.html)

That's a helluva minority.

[MMMMMM]

"You sound like a British General describing the colonies."

Well one of my ancestors did come over on the Mayflower, and I have heard he was a Tory.

[MMMMMM]

As Gamblor's link shows, 66% of Palestinians support suicide bombings. This squares roughly with figures I have read before.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus you are reaching again. The first picture is OBVIOUSLY a fake. Don't you have anything better to do than heckle? ;-)

[Gamblor]

You seem to think the Palestinians aren't worthy of anyones sympathy.

They are absolutely worthy of sympathy, but no less sympathy than any Israelis, including a government forced to put between the safety of its own people and the freedoms of enemy citizens in the middle of decisions on belligerent military enemies.

[Taxman]

Fair enough, though it may or may not be especially accurate. The responses may have been different if the question was "do you support suicide bombings against busses filled with school children?" I wonder how many people in Isreal support the oppressive and violent measures they take agains the Palestinians. There is plenty of blame to go around on this one. I still think most people on both sides would prefer to just live their lives in peace. Also, "supporting" something and taking an active role in it are pretty different. Besides, none of this changes the fact that it's irresponsible to describe an entire nation of people as murderous lunatics just because they are at war with a neighboring state. Many of those lunatics might say the same about the US. Just because I think we have things down (a little) better here at home doesn't mean that they aren't incorrect. Judge not, lest ye be judged.

[Gamblor]

Also, "supporting" something and taking an active role in it are pretty different.

Aren't "Good Samaritan" laws premised upon the exact opposite principle?

Besides, none of this changes the fact that it's irresponsible to describe an entire nation of people as murderous lunatics just because they are at war with a neighboring state.

Agreed. But the indoctrination of the people by the leadership with anti-Israel propaganda makes it impossible to say otherwise. If you hear for 50 years how Jews are monkeys and pigs, and you've never met one, what else would you think? To them, it's the same as having the police put down some stray dog who snapped at you.

As long as we recognize that this is war and not "Israeli oppression" or "imperialist colonization".

Many of those lunatics might say the same about the US.

Agreed. However, the lunatics do not have the resources to be sending people to the US on an hourly basis. Rest assured that if they did, riding the New York subway would be an extreme sport (more so than now). Imagine what the US armed forces would be doing if this were the case. One single event, and the American government had to institute the Patriot Act. Imagine what it will be like after a hundred more 9/11s.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
As long as we recognize that this is war and not "Israeli oppression" or "imperialist colonization".

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said otherwise. The whole situation stinks to be sure and both sides really have a lot to answer for, though I doubt this will happen. There are people on both sides who very dearly want peace and have campaigned heavily for it. A minor example that appeals to me as a tennis fan is the doubles team of an Israeli and a Palestinian currently on the ATP tour. I forget the names, but I find the symbolism of the union to be inspiring. I mean, "why can't we all just get along?" It always amazes me how complex and difficult the answer turns out to be.

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed. However, the lunatics do not have the resources to be sending people to the US on an hourly basis. Rest assured that if they did, riding the New York subway would be an extreme sport (more so than now). Imagine what the US armed forces would be doing if this were the case. One single event, and the American government had to institute the Patriot Act. Imagine what it will be like after a hundred more 9/11s.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is the US instituting such acts in Palestine? I think you misinterpreted when I said "Many of those lunatics might say the same about the US." I meant that many of them might call us the murderous lunatics. Nothing more.

In general, the point of my original post was to object to the deragoatory tone taken by Utah. I'm no great champion for political correctness, but there's a line that people should try not to cross. If a language of hate is allowed to become common and accepted, then the answer to my question above becomes even more convoluted.

[MMMMMM]

"If a language of hate is allowed to become common and accepted,..."

The greater danger IMO is that rational discussion be censored due to being termed "hate speech." This phenomenon is already taking place legally in Europe and Canada, where in some locales jail sentences may be meted out for "hate speech".

A few kilometers further down this road is George Orwell, watching from the grave.

[Taxman]

What an ignorant argument. I don't intend to offend, but do you really think I'm censoring a rational discussion? There is no call to use language like "murderous lunatics" to describe an entire people. Such language does not help further the cause of rational discussion. Look up the deffinition of ad hominem. Feel free to say you believe that the Palestinians are much more in the wrong in this whole conflict and give factual and logical evidence (along with opposing arguments and why they're wrong) to back it up, but don't go insulting an entire people. Would it be right for me to say that all black people are ignorant criminals? (I DO NOT believe this). Such a thing is allowed under free speech of course, but it is not in the interest of rational and civil discussion. It is clearly an example of hate speech. Most of the poor people in (many parts of) the middle east probably don't know what to believe. With oppressive religious leaders shoving doctrine down their throats and the Israelis launching attacks against them (not that they aren't all unwarranted), it would be difficult for anyone. The whole situation is an unhappy one, but lets do what we can to not make it worse. Insults are never a valid form of argument.

[MMMMMM]

First of all I never said or implied YOU were censoring anything: I just pointed out what I feel are the dangers of PC regulations and laws against "hate speech". No ad hominem at all: I wasn't attacking you.

Secondly I'll go back and see if the poster used "murderous lunatics" to describe an entire population or merely to refer to significant and dangerous elements in that population. By the way if there are enough "murderous lunatics" in any polulation, the population as a whole must be regarded as dangerous from a physical security standpoint even though it is clear that some in that population are not at all dangerous or lunatic. In other words the context means a great deal in this case.

[Gamblor]

1) How would the safety of Jews in Israel and cities within walking distance to the Green Line be preserved?

2) Arafat has claimed that a Palestinian State is a stepping stone to the elimination of Jewish sovereignty in the Middle East - Palestinian Goal is Destruction of Israel in Stages (http://www.freeman.org/m_online/sep02/marcus.htm)

3) Even without Arafat, who has enough popular support that they can lead this state in peace? Arafat has the highest approval rating of any of the major factions, and he's roughly at 35%. Second place? Hamas.

4) Would Jews be permitted to live in this state in peace and security, or will they be expelled the instant the state is declared?

[MMMMMM]

I think that link is worthy in itself of a separate thread.

As for your last question: expelled, killed, relegated to dhimmi status are the likely answers.

[hetron]

This statement is confusing as anything. I suspect it's also wrong on a couple of counts: 1. Israel is not exclusively Jewish to begin with, as it does have a significant Arab population and 2. Nobody is debating the right of Israel to exist, we are arguing about whether or not the Palestinians should have their own nation in the occupied territories.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
No ad hominem at all: I wasn't attacking you

[/ QUOTE ]

Never said you had. Ad Hominem means an argument based on appealing to emotion rather than logic. An example of this would be saying Palestine is full of lunatics "inflamed by hatred, hellbent on murder and rampage" (the actual words used by Utah). And I do not think that a population as a whole should be considered a security threat. Racial profiling is a bad thing. Besides, Palestine is not sending suicide bombers over here. Theirs is a holy war with Israel. In Palestine, every Israeli probably is considered dangerous. Yes our support of Isreal probably has earned resentment in Palestine, but we can't simply go around with accusatory glares for all Middle Eastern people. Most came here to get away froma bad situation.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to think the Palestinians aren't worthy of anyones sympathy.

They are absolutely worthy of sympathy, but no less sympathy than any Israelis, including a government forced to put between the safety of its own people and the freedoms of enemy citizens in the middle of decisions on belligerent military enemies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I couldnt make sense out of your last statement.
As for your first statement, I do feel sorry for all the people in the region for living in constant fear of violence. However, the average Israeli lives in a first world country with a decent standard of living. He or she has access to quality health care a good education, and basic needs (clean water, etc). The average Palestinian living in the West Bank or Gaza Strip lives in relative squalor, with poor access to health care, education or even clean drinking water in some cases.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
1) How would the safety of Jews in Israel and cities within walking distance to the Green Line be preserved?


[/ QUOTE ]

1) How would the safety of [Palestinians] in Israel and cities within walking distance to the Green Line be preserved?

[ QUOTE ]
2) Arafat has claimed that a Palestinian State is a stepping stone to the elimination of Jewish sovereignty in the Middle East - Palestinian Goal is Destruction of Israel in Stages

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't draw that kind of unilateral conclusion from this evidence. Also, I sympathise with Israel, but I don't doubt either side's use of propaganda either. I tend to believe this claim more or less, but I still am not convinced that all or even most palestinians want to kill all of the Jews. Evict them maybe, but not kill.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Even without Arafat, who has enough popular support that they can lead this state in peace? Arafat has the highest approval rating of any of the major factions, and he's roughly at 35%. Second place? Hamas.


[/ QUOTE ]

Approval ratings are not indicative of anything really and I highly distrust this kind of data.

[ QUOTE ]
4) Would Jews be permitted to live in this state in peace and security, or will they be expelled the instant the state is declared?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno. I would hope so but this is probably not the case at this point. Would things have been different if the Jews had not been given control over all the land in Israel, but still had migrated there en mass? We'll never know...

[Gamblor]

Actually, all of the universities in the West Bank and Gaza were funded and built by Israel, in hopes education would bring peace. But those universities have turned into breeding grounds of terrorist organization.

Hospitals they had access to until the Palestinian Red Crescent Ambulance service began to smuggle bombs underneat stretchers in the ambulances.

A checkpoint guard found that, in case anyone doubts their usefulness.

[Gamblor]

But what if the second nation demands the destruction of the original nation, to be replaced with an Arab Islamic nation?

[MMMMMM]

Saying Palestine is full of murderous lunatics is different than saying there are a helluva lot of murderous lunatics in Palestine.

Also, racial (or any other) profiling is not a bad thing in itself; it is only bad when it is misused. There is nothing wrong with assessing general threat levels based on statistical data about populations. Statistics aren't bigoted; they're factual. Profiling should be used more widely both in police work and in defending against terrorist threats, IMO. Why? Because it works, and it works very well. However guidelines should be in place to ensure that it is not used to violate a citizen's basic civil rights. As for visiting aliens there is no reason they shouldn't be profiled very extensively. After all they are guests not citizens and we are under attack by aliens(;-)).

[Gamblor]

MMMMMM's statement undermines the premise of the United States Constitution, which holds that the social unit is the individual and individuals are not to be discriminated upon by race/creed/yada yada yada.

Each man is an individual. Supporting a man who commits crimes against humanity is the exact same as actively committing those crimes. But being of the same ethnicity is not grounds for accusation.

[MMMMMM]

"MMMMMM's statement undermines the premise of the United States Constitution, which holds that the social unit is the individual and individuals are not to be discriminated upon by race/creed/yada yada yada."

No, profiling is not discrimination, although misused it could lead to discrimination.

"Each man is an individual. Supporting a man who commits crimes against humanity is the exact same as actively committing those crimes. But being of the same ethnicity is not grounds for accusation."

I never suggested it was grounds for accusation. However being a part of a high-risk group merits closer attention--as you should well know, for the Israeli security services are experts in profiling...right? How do they interrogate in the airports? With questions designed to provoke emotional reactions which they can then gauge, and combine with data, including ethno-religious data, about the person wishing to board the airplane. They are pretty damn good at this aren't they? Which is it, one or zero hijackings of El Al in its entire history?

Profiling works but it shouldn't be misused. Profiling has helped solve many crimes and the FBI profilers are a very valuable part of the crime-solving capability of that organization.

The USA didn't get attacked on 9/11 by blue-eyed Swedes. Obviously young to middle-aged males from Arab and Muslim countries are higher risk than the typical other visitor to the USA. Nobody except the jihadis are calling for war against the USA, Israel and the West. To NOT profile in these circumstances would be indeed foolish. And since visitors are not citizens, they aren't entitled to every single Constitutional protection a US citizen has. Hey they're the ones who chose to visit in the first place.

[Gamblor]

[Taxman]

Now this is more in the spirit of a good discussion. But first from your earlier post:

[ QUOTE ]
Saying Palestine is full of murderous lunatics is different than saying there are a helluva lot of murderous lunatics in Palestine.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, but the original quote indicated all, not just a lot. This is something to which I objected. Also, while the statements are different, it's still not really in the spirit of logical debate to use language like that. Regardless, had he distinguished by saying that there are many murderous lunatics in Palestine as opposed to characterizing them all, I would probably not have commented, or at least been less critical.

[ QUOTE ]
No, profiling is not discrimination, although misused it could lead to discrimination.


[/ QUOTE ]

A fine line at times, but you are correct here and as a rule profiling can be an effective and even necessary method. Also, note the difference between "profiling" and "racial profiling." The problem starts when Middle Eastern people are arrested for "looking suspicious" on the street, something with which many Blacks and Latinos are already familiar. In this matter your argument is the same as mine, we just have a different perspective on which side on the issue of profiling is more important, something that is of course fairly subjective.