4 readers online now  |  69 million page views

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 and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submitting....

Submit a comment on this item

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (45) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
Those "reliable" Muslim employees at the STA, their objectives? [127 words]MariaJun 27, 2011 22:52186856
Why so mean [69 words]SethApr 1, 2010 08:12170846
Profiling [91 words]RichardDec 30, 2009 11:18166554
1ABSOLUTELY [46 words]John H. ArmfieldMay 23, 2008 18:32129738
German terrorists [30 words]JackSep 21, 2007 08:25109362
Looks like this survey was taken in a mosque or in Dearborn [50 words]Warren RaymondDec 25, 2006 19:1270521
muslim states [53 words]Steve SmithJan 26, 2007 10:5670521
This is ridiculous! [204 words]MonaNov 28, 2006 14:4967576
Reply to this is ridiculous [190 words]JudeoChristDec 3, 2006 02:5167576
Profiling [118 words]Steve SmithJan 26, 2007 10:3967576
muslims and airports [104 words]Steve SmithJan 26, 2007 10:5267576
reply to mona [156 words]morousMar 2, 2007 15:0367576
IS PROFILING AGAINST MUSLIMS THE ANSWER OR PREVENTION OF TERORIST ATTACKS IN THE US MAINLAND? [367 words]GERARDO LARREA FRENCHJul 10, 2007 01:3667576
FYI--Costco survey [17 words]GLNov 22, 2006 22:3767030
Institutionalized ignorance and stupidity. [77 words]marianaNov 22, 2006 16:2666996
This poll is highly suspect [161 words]G. WoodworthNov 21, 2006 12:5666835
This one's for Amnesty International [58 words]Judeo-ChristNov 19, 2006 09:4666592
Costco Poll is worthless if it is a self-selecting poll [183 words]EFGNov 19, 2006 03:4466575
There Is Profiling [148 words]Steve39Nov 18, 2006 22:0666556
The right way to go [183 words]Judeo-ChristNov 18, 2006 14:1066513
muslim terrorists [8 words]tabingins911May 13, 2007 00:2166513
Everything that enhances my security on flight is accepted happily [9 words]Meir Monselise M.D.Nov 18, 2006 04:2466480
Costco [27 words]Sondra RossNov 16, 2006 21:4566373
TSA [118 words]LDCNov 16, 2006 09:5066310
Do profile as necessary, but better not to have them here. [437 words]G. WoodworthNov 19, 2006 02:2866310
The Nature of the Enemy [401 words]Prof. Paul EidelbergNov 16, 2006 09:1166304
Great idea, only... [49 words]OpherNov 16, 2006 03:2566288
of course [130 words]dfwhite19438Jan 15, 2007 23:1766288
What we are fighting [92 words]David W. LincolnNov 15, 2006 23:5566277
Move along, no terrorists here. [117 words]MichaelNov 15, 2006 22:2066269
Interesting thoughts some of these... [449 words]D WilliamsNov 15, 2006 22:0766268
Call it "InSecurity" [47 words]jerome krasnowNov 15, 2006 21:0866263
What ...? [137 words]dfwhiteNov 15, 2006 20:5866261
Unbelievable [228 words]GCNNov 15, 2006 20:0866256
YES, profile! Absolutely!! [181 words]Lily MissNov 15, 2006 19:1266254
Amen! [52 words]Martin HendersonNov 15, 2006 17:5266240
Why reinvent the wheel? [59 words]JoaquimNov 15, 2006 16:5866226
If the world would apply this: Any terror act make their political demands MOOT. [31 words]DavidNov 15, 2006 17:2466226
Yes [4 words]Octavio JohansonNov 15, 2006 19:0266226
Doubling Unlikely [52 words]LDCNov 16, 2006 09:5366226
Constructive Approach is Needed [113 words]Phyllis StraussNov 15, 2006 16:5766225
Profiling is simply common sense and makes it harder for them to sneak among us [28 words]DavidNov 15, 2006 16:3866220
Common Sense? [18 words]LDCNov 16, 2006 09:5566220
Airport Security is a trivial response to a war of agression [136 words]Ralph C Whaley MDNov 15, 2006 16:2166214
Dream on, Doc [18 words]LDCNov 16, 2006 09:5766214

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Do profile as necessary, but better not to have them here. by G. Woodworth

Email me if someone replies to my comment

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 and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

ADVERTISEMENTS

eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2019 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)