you could be right but in this case it's the Muslim extremists that are time and time again doing the terrorizing.  Something has to be done.  It's not the white Christians or the white conservatives doing the terrorizing. 

Something is radically wrong when my son (white country boy)  gets pulled out of line every single time and these muslims are slipping in unchecked time and time again.  What about the Muslim who opened fire on the soldiers recently at Ft. Hood?  He was covered in red flags but nobody dared call him out for fear of "profiling" him.  Somethings radically wrong when our belief in NOT doing any profiling is being used against us. 

I don't know what the answer is either.  I just know that we have no choice but to look at the Muslims with a wary eye (sorry to say) because of a growing number of bad apples that want to be the big hero in taking our country down. 

Bush didn't get everything right, but he was right on this one issue. This is an act of war, not a crime. Obama calls this terrorist an "alleged extremist." No sir, he is an enemy combatant at war with America. What were watching now is just a rerun of the run-up to 911. We already saw the result of the Obama/Clinton policy. Why are we going back there when it is a proven failure? I cant see why Muslims and peaceful islamic people would object to more scrutiny when they travel. We know whos got it in for us, so why not zero in on the people who fit the profile? It should be done respectfully and with regard to the dignity of the people, but it should be done. The Israeli model for airport security should be used throughout the world before more people get killed.

YOu misspoke.  The current government profiling has nothing to do with race (nor really does the calls by the conservatives as they do not care about race).  It is profiling (Nigerians are black, not Arab after all).

IN the end, the PC will do us in.  It is only a matter of time before we are strip searching a norwegian granny while an Indonesian (or Phillipino, Malaysian, American) Muslim is lighting a bomb that works.

I would rather see everyone checked; unfortunately though, most people want saftey and convenience, - hence if we did search everyone thoroughly, someone would bitch and complain about it. I would bet you my left nut it would turn out that way.

That said, as history has shown us, a that one norweigan granny that we didn't check (out of counter PC), could be the one that does us in. You just never know, and have to be aware.

I would feel safer knowing that everyone was checked, as has been shown - people who were never thought to have connections to terrorism, in fact carried out attacks.

See last answer.

Perhaps

Dude, given his previous assinine comments towards me, my taking these recent discussions too seriously (resulting in  high bp), the stress at home/school - I would agree. I had hoped to find a stress release in the form of my love of debate/discussion.........guess not.

(Where's "cheech and chong up in smoke" when you need a good relaxing movie?)

My point is this (and only this): Take a look at their mindset. They're bound and determined. They are always going to be motivated, whether or not there is a strong or weak president. Everyone that isn't them is weak, even peaceful muslims. I don't really feel there is much correlation between how strong we are and how motivated they are - their life is the destruction of us, that is their creed.

How much further can you go from being extremists? It implies not just mindset, but.., for want of a term, will or motivation.

Do you see what I'm trying to say?

I see what you are saying, but you are wrong. 

If people like Osama or whoever is in charge now see the U.S. ha a weak President, which Obama very much is, they are even more likely to pull off a big attack. 

Obama doesn't even want his own administration calling people "terrorists".  Of course them makes them bolder.

Exactly, it may start off as a good idea but we must often think about how it could be used against WE the people.

Are they Muslim extremists or extremists who happen to be Muslim?  Personally I go with the latter.  Remember a while back when there was a couple stories about these white guys who went to Pakistan to get training?  I could remember enough info off the top about it get a link.  I will agree the current TENDENCY is Black or Arab individuals who claim to be Muslim are the ones running around threatening and blowing stuff up but that doesn't mean it's limited to their race.  Racial profiling in my opinion is similar to the philosophy that gave us sterilization.

Agreed something is radically wrong but profiling isn't the answer to fixing it.  The problem you are referring to in my opinion goes to show you that Affirmative Action has long outlived it's purpose.  They knew but didn't do anything because it could come back to bite them as being racial or religious discrimination.  I've worked in the Gov't to have seen this in action!  For our techies here we had a guy who happened to be half Navajo and half black.  He changed the DNS address on the print server just to see what would happen.  The problem was once the network printers crashed he didn't know how to roll it back or anything.  In Corp world the boy be fired but in gov't they were afraid because he already made threats of using race!!!!  Again its the current system that's the problem KFC and profiling of any kind isn't going to help but rather make things worse. 

I think the answer is simple.  Let the FBI, ICE, CIA, Police, etc do their job.  Quit giving them hurdles and loops holes that they have to constantly jump through.  Stop victimizing the victims.

And why wouldn't he?  That's like going into a boxing match with a professional who says they will tie their leggs together and their right arm behind their back.  The pro boxer who'd kill me if allowed to but with him all tied up it increases my odds of winning significantly! It's that simple!

As I stated earlier, it is not racial, but it is profiling.  I think (right now at least) that it is the religion not the coincidence of individuals.  Like all religions, some will go off in the wrong direction, but there are more than a few imams that are urging this direction.  As such, not all muslims are prone to this, but as long as the heirarchy and idiots (Cat Stevens anyone?) are fomenting  it, the body religious has to be watched.  That does not necessarily mean profiling, but it does mean using intelligence in guarding our airlines and borders.  No profiling was needed here, just intelligence.  Where he had been, and of course the connecting of the dots.  That alone should have singled him out,

Again I have to point out how, for people who have so many feelings, you didn't even say how bad you felt this happened to her son. You do realize the idea of treating everyone as a terrorist just to be sure to cath the one guy or girl who really is again goes against what this country was founded on, innocent till proved guilty. We should not be searching everyone as if everyone is a suspect. What we should be doing is check and double checking those who we have red flags on. Even the slightest detail should be taken into consideration regardless of race or religion.

You already have to be at the airport 2 to 3 hours before your flight, doing searches on every single person head to toe would require people to show up 4 maybe 5 hours before thier flight. Do you really want to be at an airport for that long? Do you think airports can handle having people standing around that many hours? Do you not consider thinking your ideas a bit father than just the basic solution? Come on AJ.

Of course we want convenience, who doesn't? The fact that having to watch for these guys 24 hours a day gives them a win because we can no longer live normal lives for fear they could be that old man sitting next to us, the baby in that ladys hands or the white guy with blonde hair and blue eyes.

Perhaps? Come on, you can do better than that.

Keep in mind your not the only one whos stressed out these days. We could all use rest, relaxation and even a place to blow some steam. I wouldn't mind finding one of the restaurants that let you break plates in a spacial room or maybe one of those places where they have rooms filled with second hand (usually non-working) stuff you can break for a fee.

Coming to JU is entertaining for me but not to relieve stress, at least not for me. I tend to actaully get more upset coming here but at the same time I learn a thing or 2 while I'm at it. All I have to do is get on my computer, kill some zombies and I'm good afterwards.

People who think get stressed.  Those who just recite talking points without critical reasoning dont get stressed - they just get frustrated when not all go along with their bleating.

AD

DG

I believe in this case "racial" has been incorrectly attached to "profiling". Let's face it terrorists can and do come in all shades humanly possible. While it is impossible (in many cases) to determine a persons religion by looking at them, that does not mean there are indicators that cannot be examined, call it profiling if you wish. Country of origin - If the person comes from a nation where there is a high probability of terrorist activity, check them out. Places visited - If the person has traveled to places that have high amounts of terrorist activity, as indicted by their passport, check them out. Suspicious activity - If the person seems nervous, edgy, overtly cautious, check them out. In order to accomplish this, I believe it would take more than just the persons at the counter. Plain-clothes officers, trained to identify suspicious behavior, need to mingle among the travelers in the waiting areas and terminals.

I'm all for privacy and convenience, but unfortunately these are the times we are living in. I would much rather be inconvenienced a little and arrive at my destination safely than zip through the airport only to have my plane explode with me on it. I also believe that a traveler should, at their own option, be able to submit to a background check of sorts that would eliminate some (but never all) suspicions. The check might include credit history, age, religion, criminal record and organization affiliations, again voluntary. Lets face it, a 39 year old, with a family, a good job, regardless of their race, is less likely to be a problem than a 22 year old college drop out, never had a job, no kids, member of the young anarchists (sorry young folks, grow up responsibly and you'll get yours).

I also would not be opposed to a credit-card sized ID, for domestic travel. It would be tied to a passport number if a person had one (and could be if they obtain one later). You need a picture ID to travel by air anyway, this would be convenient for that. The card would have a chip that keeps travel info, and perhaps a biometric finger print encoded and uploads that to a database whenever it is swiped (too big brotherish? If you have something to hide then drive domestically). As a convenience to the traveler, a kiosk could be set up at the airport where they could get a replacement card, for a nominal charge, by using a pin and biometric reading, and view the information in the data base on them. When you go to the ticket counter present your ID and finger print (maybe another form of ID for persons without hands) cleared for travel. Security would be able to see where the traveler has been over the course of their life, not just a 10 year passport. I would only support this for security and only if the information was strictly for that purpose. I know folks like privacy, I do too, and hate the thought of giving up any ground on that front. I do miss the days of running through the airport to catch a flight or waiting at the gate for a loved one, but with people trying to kill hundreds at a go, we need to aid in their capture before they can carry out their actions.

Madcow and MSNBC  ... I see the trolls have shown up to "associate" with people they despise again, but thanks ID for opening up your article to all comers, some would just allow their like minded friends to comment.

BTW the "Shoe Bomber" Richard Reid, didn't have his father contact the state department and tell them he was in Al Quida, planning an attack, in advance. Opps she left that out (surprise). Thanks for the spin, needed a laugh today.

Mumblefratz are you just merely pointing out the hypocrisy of both sides?  I find it interesting how Maddow isn't talking about how the Democrats and how they treated Bush on these similar issues.  Her agenda is more about calling hypocrites rather than recognizing that both sides are that and that they are getting a taste of their own medicine.  Cheers!