Do profile as necessary, but better not to have them here.
Reader comment on item: Should airport security procedures include ethnic and religious profiling?
in response to reader comment: TSA

Submitted by G. Woodworth (United States), Nov 19, 2006 at 02:28

I am fully in agreement with the position of Mr. Pipes on this matter.

However, some of the proposals made by a few other posters (all-out war on Iran for example) are rather scary, not to mention foolhardy. (How many wars must we get into around the planet to "make the world safe for democracy"? It seems history has heard that tune played before. Have some forgotten?)

Also, I'm glad Michael pointed that while the terrorists thus far have all been Moslems, not all Arabs are Moslems and those Arabs have not produced terrorists. And yes, Israel, does profile ... but not everyone equally. I understand that there are three categories or levels of suspicion. Some are subjected to to greater suspicion and stronger interrogation than others (as is only sensible). If only we could be even half as sensible!

The religious delineation (Moslem) thus would seem more important an identifier than the ethnic one (Arab). If TSA were to spotlight its suspiscions on Arabs or Middle Easterners, then Islamist recruiters would simply turn to using domestic converts (of which there are many) or the American wives of immigrant Moslems. These would slip by too easily. Also, there are, quite frankly, so many possibilities open to a determined terrorist that if blowing up a plane becomes too difficult, they could simply turn to something else: an office building, a shopping mall, a train, a railway station... ad infinitum. We cannot possibly guard eveything. And do we want to become a police state, with guards, checkpoints, and metal detectors everywhere?

Considering that, it would seem the wisest course to restrict the presence in this country of those who are (or most likely might be) dedicated to our destruction. It seems madness that, in the name of blind "religious freedom" we continue to admit into our country persons who adhere to an expansionist, imperialistic (so-called) "religion" which is openly dedicated to someday dominating the world. Islam, admitting no distinction between church and state, is not a mere "religion" such as we in the western world are accustomed to dealing with, nor what our laws were written for. Islam is more than just a religion; it is also a political/cultural instrument of Arabic imperialism. Viewing it as a political movement, therefore, it would be entirely reasonable to restrict entry of its more fanatical adherents. After all, we would not have been admitting Nazis as immigrants during WW2, nor Soviet Communists during the Cold War. Why are we admitting Islamists with our arms wide open now, in a fatuous belief in tolerance, when their cult has openly declared war upon us?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.